Malheur Resource Area July 2017 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918

The Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project FINAL Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-V040-2015-001-EA

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 1.1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND ...... 11 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 12 1.3 CONFORMANCE WITH SOUTHEASTERN OREGON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES ...... 14 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE ...... 18 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...... 18 1.6 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES ...... 19 1.7 TOPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS EA ...... 20 2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 20 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ...... 20 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ...... 20 2.2.1 Treatment Descriptions ...... 21 2.2.2 Activity Descriptions ...... 25 2.2.3 Thinning and Cutting Activity Descriptions ...... 33 2.2.4 Summary of the Proposed Actions ...... 34 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: THE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA) / WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNIT (WIU) NON-IMPAIRMENT ALTERNATIVE ...... 36 2.4 REQUIRED PROJECT DESIGN ELEMENTS ...... 36 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS ...... 43 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 45 3.1 ASSUMPTIONS ...... 45 3.2 SUBJECTS EXCLUDED FROM THE ANALYSIS ...... 45 3.3 VEGETATION ...... 45 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 45 3.3.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 52 3.3.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 53 3.3.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 57 3.4 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT ...... 59 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 59 3.4.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 65 3.4.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 65

3.4.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 71 3.5 NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ...... 71 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 71 3.5.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 74 3.5.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 75 3.5.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 76 3.6 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS (Vascular and Nonvascular) ...... 77 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 77 3.6.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 80 3.6.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 80 3.6.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 81 3.7 WILDLIFE HABITAT, SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE ...... 81 3.7.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 87 3.7.2 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 89 3.7.3 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 93 3.8 WATER RESOURCES/WATER QUALITY ...... 94 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 94 3.8.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 98 3.8.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 99 3.8.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 101 3.9 SPECIAL STATUS AQUATIC SPECIES ...... 101 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 101 3.9.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 108 3.9.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 109 3.9.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 110 3.10 SOILS ...... 111 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 111 3.10.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 113 3.10.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 114 3.10.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 115 3.11 RECREATION...... 115 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 115 3.11.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 116 3.11.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 116

3.11.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 117 3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES ...... 117 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 117 3.12.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 118 3.12.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 118 3.12.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 119 3.13 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS ...... 120 3.13.1 Affected Environment ...... 120 3.13.2 Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 Impacts (No Action within WSA)...... 121 3.13.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 121 3.14 WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNITS ...... 127 3.14.1 Affected Environment ...... 127 3.14.2 Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 Impacts (No Action) ...... 128 3.14.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 129 3.15 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ...... 129 3.15.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 130 3.15.2 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 130 3.15.3 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 130 3.16 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECs)...... 130 3.16.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 132 3.16.2 Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 Impacts ...... 132 3.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 133 3.17.1 Affected Environment ...... 133 3.17.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 138 3.17.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 138 3.17.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment is WSA or WIU) ...... 140 3.18 AIR QUALITY ...... 140 3.18.1 Affected Environment ...... 140 3.18.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 140 3.18.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 141 3.18.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 142 3.19 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ...... 142 3.19.1 Affected Environment ...... 142 3.19.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 144

iii

3.19.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 145 3.19.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 146 3.20 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ...... 146 3.20.1 Affected Environment ...... 146 3.20.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 147 3.20.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) ...... 147 3.20.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 150 3.21 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 150 3.21.1 Affected Environment ...... 150 3.21.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 151 3.21.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 ...... 151 4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 151 4.1 PAST AND PRESENT ACTIVITIES ...... 152 4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 153 4.2.1 Fuels Reduction and Forestry ...... 153 4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 153 4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 154 4.2.2 Conifer Control and Sagebrush Communities ...... 154 4.2.2.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 154 4.2.2.2 Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 155 4.2.3 Invasive Annual Grass Control ...... 155 4.2.3.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 155 4.2.3.2 Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 156 4.2.4 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Enhancement ...... 156 4.2.4.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) ...... 156 4.2.4.2 Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) ...... 157 4.2.5 Other Resources ...... 158 5.0 PROJECT MONITORING PLANS ...... 158 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 158 5.2 COORDINATION ...... 159 5.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 159 5.4 RESULTS AND DOCUMENTATION ...... 160 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 165 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 166

APPENDIX A: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES, MITIGATION MEASURES, CONSERVATION MEASURES, PREVENTION MEASURES, AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 172 APPENDIX B: MAPS ...... 193 APPENDIX C: VISUAL CONTRAST RATING WORKSHEET ...... 212

TABLES, FIGURES AND PHOTOS Figure 1.1 Location of Project Area ...... 10 Figure 3.1 Juniper and Pine Expansion...... 47 Figure 3.2 Aerial Detection Maps of Pine Beetle Spots (Ott, 2015) ...... 50 Figure 3.3 Graphs of Fire Behavior Comparison between a Mowed Fuelbed and an Untreated Fuelbed ...... 69 Figure 3.4 Fire Characteristics Chart: Mowed (Fuelbreak) versus Untreated Fuelbeds ...... 70 Figure 3.5 The number bull trout redds observed in the North Fork Malheur River watershed from 1992-2013 (Hurn, 2013)...... 103 Figure 3.6 The number bull trout redds per mile of stream observed in the North Fork Malheur River watershed from 1992-2013 (Hurn, 2013)...... 103 Figure 3.7 Aerial Detection Maps of Pine Beetle Spots ...... 124 Figure 3.8 Juniper and Pine Expansion – same as Figure 3.1 ...... 126 Figure 3.9 The Northern Shoshone-Bannock (Great Basin) Seasonal Round...... 136 Figure 3.10 The Plateau Seasonal Round...... 137

Table 2.1 Miles of Proposed Fuels Breaks by Road Maintenance Level ...... 26 Table 2.2 Summary Table of All Project Treatments and Activities ...... 35 Table 3.1 Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) (Hann & Bunnell, 2001) ...... 60 Table 3.2 Project Area Fire History ...... 64 Table 3.3 FCCS Model Predictions under Current Conditions ...... 66 Table 3.4 FCCS Model Predictions after Prescribed Treatments ...... 66 Table 3.8 Noxious Weed Classifications ...... 73 Table 3.9 Invasive Species Common and Scientific Names...... 74 Table 3.10 Special Status Plant Species that have potential to occur within the Project Area. .... 78 Table 3.11 Special Status Terrestrial Species with potential to occur within the Project Area. ... 82 Table 3.12 Summary of Streams Assessed For PFC within Project Area ...... 98 Table 3.13 Special status aquatic animal species that have the potential to occur within the Project Area based on the final state director’s Special-Status Species List (Instruction Memorandum No. IM OR-2015-028Attachment) ...... 106 Table 3.14 Soils Classification Units within the Project Area (described in Oregon Water Resources Board, 1969) ...... 112 Table 3.15 Summary of Wilderness Characteristics Lands and Risks ...... 121 Table 3.16 Summary of Wilderness Characteristics Lands and Unacceptable Risks...... 123 Table 3.17 Alternative 2 Treatments by Vegetation Type in WSA ...... 127 Table 3.18 Alternative 2 Treatments by Vegetation Type in WIU...... 129 Table 3.19 Difference in Acres Proposed by Alternatives...... 132 Table 3.20 Grazing Allotments ...... 146

Table 3.21 Treatment Activities Vegetation Categories ...... 149 Table 4.1 Acres of Ownership ...... 152 Table 4.2 Existing Vegetation Categories ...... 152 Table 5.1 Project Monitoring Plan ...... 161

Photo 3.1 A dry pine stand with Douglas-fir encroachment. Note large pine in background, dead mountain mahogany at foreground and back right...... 124 Photo 3.2 Ladder fuels in an overly-dense Douglas-fir stand. Note the complete lack of ground vegetation and thick woody ground fuels ...... 125 Photo 3.3 Juniper encroachment into mountain mahogany stands. Note the dead/dying mahogany in foreground and large amounts of young juniper in the understory...... 125

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern AFP Available Fuel Potential AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act AMP Allotment Management Plan AMSL Above Mean Sea Level AQ/RA Aquatic Species/Riparian Areas ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act BCLAMP Bully Creek Landscape Management Plan BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices CEAA Cumulative Effects Assessment Area CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFP Crown Fire Potential CR Cultural Resources DBH Diameter-at-breast Height EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESI Ecological Site Inventory EVT Existing Vegetation Type FCCS Fuel Characteristic Classification System FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FIAT Fire and Invasive Assessment Tool FRCC Fire Regime Condition Classification FS Forest Stands GEOBOB Geographic Biotic Observations GHMA General Habitat Management Area GLO Government Land Office GMA Geographic Management areas GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse GS Grass-Shrub IDT Interdisciplinary Team IMPLWR Interim Management Policy for Land under Wilderness Review KOPs Key Observation Points LG Livestock Grazing MDs Management Decisions ML Maintenance Level MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NISMIS Nation Invasive Species Information Management System NRCS USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service NRIS Natural Resource Information System NW Noxious Weeds

vii

NWSR National Wild and Scenic Rivers ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture OECDD Oregon Economic and Community Development Department ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands OHV Off Highway Vehicle ORVs Outstanding Remarkable Values OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board PAC Priority Area of Conservation PB Prescribed Burning PDEs Project Design Elements PEIS Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement PFC Proper Functioning Condition PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area RDFs Required Design Features ROD Record of Decision SEORMP/ROP Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision SGH Sage-Grouse Habitat SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SSS Special Status Species SSW Special Status Wildlife ST Skid Trails, Landing and Roads TL Timber Litter TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI U.S. Department of Interior USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Service UTV Utility Task Vehicle VG Vegetation VRM Visual Resource Management WIU Wilderness Inventory Unit WSA Wilderness Study Area WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers WSRO Wilderness Study Report, Oregon

viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Vale District of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in eastern Oregon proposes to implement fuels management and ecosystem restoration treatments within the Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project Area of the Malheur Resource Area. The primary goal is to maintain and restore habitat for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and other sagebrush obligate species. An additional goal is to reduce fuel loads and risk of high-severity fires. Reducing hazardous fuels and improving vegetation health of interspersed forested areas within the larger sagebrush-steppe landscape helps restore fire- dependent sagebrush habitat, improves the vigor of fire-dependent forest within the larger landscape, and would enhance suppression efforts of any future large wildfires that would threaten sage-grouse habitat. Western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis var. occidentalis) reduction, herbicide application for annual grass control, silvicultural thinning activities, planting sagebrush seedlings, and prescribed fire would be used to accomplish these goals. The Project Area is in the northwestern portion of Malheur County in Oregon. Areas considered for treatment are north of Highway 20, west of Pole Creek Road, and south of Highway 26 (see Figure 1). A detailed map of Figure 1 below also can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 1.1 Location of Project Area

1.1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND The Vale District BLM proposes to implement a multi-year, phased fuels management and habitat restoration project on the Malheur Resource Area in northwestern Malheur County. The Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project Area encompasses 258,556 acres, of which 144,671 acres are BLM-administered lands; 3,563 acres are Bureau of Reclamation-administered lands; 110,091 acres are private lands and a small amount are state- owned and national forest (see Map 2 in Appendix B). The Project Area is within the Vale BLM’s North Fork Malheur and Bully Creek Geographic Management Areas (GMAs). The Project Area also contains a portion of the Willow Creek GMA; however, there are no BLM- administered lands within that portion. More than 90 percent of the Project Area is considered either Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) or General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) for greater sage-grouse (see Map 3 in Appendix B). Rangeland plant communities represented in the Project Area are dominated by species such as mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) in the upper elevations, Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) in the lower elevations, low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), stiff or scabland sagebrush (Artemisia rigida), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) with understories composed of Thurbers’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa sandbergii), and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata). Invasive annual grasses, medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), a listed noxious weed species, ventenata (Ventenata dubia) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are present in some areas burned by wildfire, especially in lower elevations (below 4,700 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)). The Project Area also supports numerous plant species that are considered culturally important to the people of the Northern Paiute tribes and other indigenous groups from the Columbia Plateau (Stewart 1939) Root crop species, such as bitterroot (Lewisa redidiva) and biscuitroot (Lomatium canbyi), occur on thin and rocky ridgetops and species such as quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), willow (Salix spp.), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) are found within the Pole Creek, Bendire Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Squaw Creek, North Fork of the Malheur River and Little Malheur rivers drainages. Aspen are present in the Project Area within isolated upland pockets. The Project Area plays an important role in the traditional cultural practices of the Burns Paiute Tribe. The Burns Paiute currently maintain a reservation in Burns, Oregon. Forested stands in the Project Area were historically dominated by large, fire-resistant ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and lesser amounts of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) at higher elevations and on north-facing slopes. Today, the understory and middlestory of these stands are crowded with fire-intolerant, small-diameter trees, and canopies are often in closed conditions. Between 1870 and 1900, rapid increases in western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis var. occidentalis) stand establishment within sagebrush-steppe plant communities throughout eastern Oregon coincided with the onset of favorable climatic conditions, major changes in land-use patterns, and decreases in fire frequency and intensity. Fire return intervals in mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass plant association groups varied between 15 and 25 years prior to Euro- American settlement (Miller & Rose, 1999). Increasing the distribution and density of juniper

within shrubland and grassland ecosystems dramatically impacts biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, fauna, and nutrient cycling (Bates, et al., 1999). The most frequently cited cultural factor in the historic1 expansion of juniper were the introduction of sheep and cattle grazing at the end of the 19th century. Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, many federal and unclaimed lands in the American West were heavily overgrazed as stockmen competed for a deteriorated public range (Foss, 1960). Unregulated livestock grazing resulted in removal or reduction of herbaceous fine fuels from the understory of shrubland plant communities, thereby reducing fire frequency, intensity, and extent of areas burned. Fire suppression also contributed toward a trend of fire exclusion as tactics and technologies advanced over time. Exclusion of fire in conjunction with favorable climate conditions, facilitated expansion of western juniper and other conifers into rangeland and riparian ecological communities throughout eastern Oregon. Increasing the distribution and density of western juniper within these plant communities alters historic biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, wildlife habitat specifically for greater sage-grouse, and nutrient cycling (Bates, et al., 1999). If juniper were removed, healthy grasslands and shrubland could re-establish without the need to re-seed or plant in much of the proposed Project Area. These areas were identified as high- priority conservation objectives for greater sage-grouse by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). However, if juniper encroachment continues unchecked, it could become more difficult and costly to re-establish healthy shrubland and grassland plant communities and greater sage- grouse habitat could continue to decline and be at risk of loss to stand-replacing wildfire. Additionally, the reduction of periodic fire along with fire suppression activity has affected dry upland forest stands composed of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Prior to 1890, the fire-return interval in lower-elevation, fire-adapted forests common to the southern Blue Mountains varied between 5 and 23 years (Maruoka & Agee, 1994). The low-intensity/high-frequency disturbance regime favored development of fire-resistant trees such as large ponderosa pine and, to a lesser extent, larger Douglas-fir. It also favored development of open stands with scant ladder fuels. Exclusion of wildland fire resulted in overstocked stand conditions, high levels of forest litter, fuel accumulations, increased ladder fuels, and increased proportions of fire-intolerant trees such as Douglas-fir and grand fir (Hann, 1997). The application of cultural fire, or intentional burning, by the Northern Paiute or other cultural groups also likely contributed to maintaining the open condition in the forests of the 19th century (Agee, 1993; Barrett 1980). Unmanaged and overcrowded forested stands in the northwest are susceptible to infestations of insects and disease outbreaks that can diminish stand vigor (Agee, 1993). There is an increasing realization that the forests and woodlands of the Blue Mountains evolved with fire and that historical conditions often were more resilient and sustainable than current conditions. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the project is to use a landscape-level approach to move approximately 126,500 acres (Map 4 in Appendix B) of sagebrush-steppe toward conditions that benefit greater sage- grouse habitat and sagebrush obligate species. Addressing hazardous fuels reduction and vegetation health of about 13,000 acres of interspersed forested areas and less than 1,000 acres of riparian communities within the larger sagebrush-steppe landscape would help restore fire-

1 Historic: Refers to a period prior to 1900 throughout this document.

resilient habitats, improving the vigor of fire-dependent areas and keeping fire size small allowing for suppression of wildfires damaging to sage-grouse habitat. There are multiple needs and management objectives to accomplish moving these plant communities toward the desired future condition. Specifically:

 Need 1. There is a need to protect and enhance habitat for the greater sage-grouse in what is known as the Bully Creek, Cow Valley, and Drewsey Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs; see Map 3 in Appendix B). Specifically, the purpose of the project is to address threats posed by wildfire, invasive annual grass, and conifer encroachment in the PAC by employing a risk-based conservation strategy across the landscape. This purpose and need is in complete alignment with the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (2015) and Secretarial Order 3336 – Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management, and Restoration Order (S.O. 3336, 2015). The BLM direction is to conserve, protect, and enhance sage-grouse habitat so that BLM management does not contribute to the need for the species to become listed under the Endangered Species Act. There is likewise a need to increase habitat components such as sagebrush cover in winter habitat and burn scars; as well as sage-grouse preferred grass and forb species. More than 90 percent of the Project Area is considered either a Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) or General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) for greater sage-grouse (see Map 3 in Appendix B). By restoring habitat for greater sage-grouse, other sagebrush obligate species would benefit.

 Need 2. There is a need to enhance and protect the traditional cultural values of the Burns Paiute Tribe in the Castle Rock Area of Environmental Concern and other relevant and important values present in the North Fork of the Malheur River Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Castle Rock is an area that is highly important for practice of Burns Paiute tribe cultural traditions. In order to achieve restoration and fuels reduction objectives in this area, the agency would need to engage in continuous consultation and work in close partnership with the Burns Paiute Tribe. Addressing the need would also likely result in attending to cultural concerns and consideration of viewsheds beyond the boundaries of the ACEC. Natural succession has been disrupted by past human activity to the extent that intervention is necessary in order to preserve the integrity of relevant and important values over the long term.

 Need 3. There is a need to improve the vigor and habitat suitability present in forest and high elevation (greater than 4700 feet ASML) sagebrush-bunchgrass communities within the Project Area. Insects and disease and overstocked stands of mixed conifer forest and sagebrush communities undergoing transition to juniper woodland are indicative of the severely altered fire regimes on these sites. Conifer encroachment in high elevation sagebrush communities is likely causing sage-grouse to avoid using these habitats (Coates, et al., 2017) (Dinkins, et al., 2014). Overstocked and diseased forest stands in the project area pose a hazardous fuels problem in fire management. Continuous horizontal and vertical fuels, and elevated fuel loading in forest present at Castle Rock and Ironside Mountain have increased risk of a surface fire moving into forest overstory and a becoming a high severity, stand-replacement crown fire. Reintroducing fire into

shrublands, forestlands, and riparian areas would move stands toward historic plant associations, support greater wildlife species diversity, reduce hazardous fuels, and enhance watershed function.  Need 4. There is a need to reduce the abundance and continuity of invasive annual grass species that are predominant in the lower elevation (less than 4700 feet AMSL) sagebrush-bunchgrass communities within the project area. The recent invasions of annual grass species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusa), and ventenata (Ventenata dubia) into low elevations sagebrush communities has resulted in a shortened fire return interval and an associated loss of sagebrush cover. Warmer and drier sagebrush-bunchgrass communities have lower resistance to invasion by nonnative plants and resilience to disturbance such as wildfire (Chambers, et al., 2014). The altered fire regime on these sites is now characterized by larger and more frequent wildfires than what occurred during the pre- 1860 historic reference period (Brooks, et al., 2004). There is a need to interrupt the annual grass-wildfire cycle in these warmer and less resistant sagebrush communities in order re-establish greater sage-grouse habitat components such sagebrush cover, perennial grasses, and forbs.

 Need 5. There is a need to capture the economic value of cut trees as sawlogs and biomass (i.e. firewood, mulch, fuel, etc.) where feasible. This would reduce treatment costs incurred by the agency, and supply raw materials and jobs that contribute to community stability.

 Need 6. There is need to develop a coordinated and collaborative approach with partners and neighbors in the area to reach habitat and vegetation objectives. Coordination and collaboration enhances the effectiveness of treatments on adjacent private land and protects public and private where this is possible. Applying the “all hands all lands” strategy described in S.O. 3336 to create treated areas that extend across jurisdictional boundaries and improve habitat suitability throughout entire landscapes would contribute to attaining sage-grouse conservation objectives at a larger scale. Some adjacent private landowners are treating both juniper and dry mixed conifer communities on their lands through agreements and grants with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Malheur County Soil and Water Conservation District. A collaborative strategy would be sought that improves habitat connectivity, seeks to restore key habitat components, protects treatment investments, reduces hazardous fuels, and enhances watershed values within the Project Area.

1.3 CONFORMANCE WITH SOUTHEASTERN OREGON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES The Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (EA) is tiered to and incorporates by reference, the content of the Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management., 2001), the Southeastern Oregon Resource

Management Plan and Record of Decision (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2002) (SEORMP/ROD), and the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) from the USDI 2015 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah. This proposal has been found consistent with all applicable terms, conditions, standards, and guidelines specified in the Southeastern Oregon RMP/ROD and the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA/FEIS. This EA considers the environmental consequences of the action alternatives and the No Action alternative to provide sufficient evidence for determining whether the anticipated impacts would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Relevant Southeastern Oregon RMP/ROD objectives that support the purpose and need for this project are listed below.

Supporting SEORMP/ROD Objectives for Need 1 (listed in order of appearance):  Rangeland Vegetation Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 38): Restore, protect, and enhance diversity and distribution of desirable vegetation communities, including perennial native and desirable introduced plant species. Provide for their continued existence and normal function in nutrient, water, and energy cycles.  Rangeland Vegetation Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 40): Manage big sagebrush cover in seedlings and on native rangeland to meet life history requirements of sagebrush- dependent wildlife.  Rangeland Vegetation Objective 3 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 41): Control introduction and proliferation of noxious weed species and reduce the extent and density of established weed species to within acceptable limits.  Forest and Woodlands Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 42): Restore productivity and biodiversity in western juniper and quaking aspen woodland areas. Manage western juniper where encroachment or increased density is threatening other resource values.  Special Status Animal Species Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 51): Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance populations and habitats of special status animal species. Manage in order to conserve or lead to recovery of threatened or endangered species.  Wildlife Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 51): Manage upland habitats in forest, woodland, and rangeland vegetation types so that the forage, water, cover, structure, and security necessary for wildlife are available on public land. Supporting Greater Sage-grouse ARMPA Objectives for Need 1 (listed in order of appearance):  Objective SSS 1 (ARMPA, p. 2-3): Protect PHMA necessary to conserve 90 percent of Oregon’s Greater Sage-grouse population with emphasis on highest density and important use areas that provide for breeding, wintering, and connectivity corridors. Protect GHMA necessary to conserve occupied seasonal or year round habitat outside of PHMA.  Objective FIRE 1 (ARMPA, 2-15): Manage wildland fire and hazardous fuels to protect, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-grouse habitat.

Supporting SEORMP/ROD Objectives for Need 2 (listed in order of appearance):  Castle Rock (SEORMP/ROD, p. 74): The relevant and important values identified for this ACEC are scenic, cultural, historic, and wildlife habitat.  Castle Rock ACEC (SEORMP/ROD, p. 75): Forest management practices such as prescribed burning, thinning, and western juniper control will be limited only to those actions necessary to maintain or enhance the relevant and important values.  North Fork Malheur River ACEC (SEORMP/ROD, p. 83): The relevant and important values identified in this ACEC are scenery, two special-status fish and their habitat, and a special-status amphibian and habitat.  North Fork Malheur River ACEC (SEORMP/ROD, p. 83): Forest management practices will be limited only to those actions necessary to maintain or enhance the relevant and important values.  Cultural Resources Objective 3 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 107): Consult and coordinate with American Indian groups to ensure their interests are considered and their traditional religious sites, landforms, and resources are taken into account.

Supporting SEORMP/ROD Objectives for Need 3 (listed in order of appearance):  Fire Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 38): Recognize fire as a critical natural process and use it to protect, maintain, and enhance resources.  Rangeland Vegetation Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 38): Restore, protect and enhance diversity and distribution of desirable vegetation communities, including perennial native and desirable introduced plant species. Provide for their continued existence and normal function in nutrient, water, and energy cycles.  Forest and Woodlands Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 41): Manage forests to maintain or restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, and disease do not exceed levels normally expected in a healthy forest. Manage forests for long-term, healthy habitat for animal and plant species.  Forest and Woodlands Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 42): Manage quaking aspen to maintain diversity of age classes and allow for species reestablishment and to reduce the dominance of western juniper outside of old-growth western juniper woodlands.  Water Resources Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 48): Restore, maintain or improve riparian vegetation, habitat diversity, and associated watershed function to achieve healthy and productive riparian areas and wetlands.

Supporting Greater Sage-grouse ARMPA Objectives for Need 3 (listed in order of appearance):  Objective VEG 2 (ARMPA, 2-10): Reduce encroaching conifer cover to zero within 1.0 mile of all occupied or pending leks and to less than 5 percent within 4.0 miles of such leks at a rate at least equal to the rate of encroachment.

Supporting SEORMP/ROD Objectives for Need 4 (listed in order of appearance):  Fire Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 37): Provide an appropriate management response (AMR) on all wildfires with emphasis on suppression costs, firefighter and public safety, and protection of benefits and values consistent with resource objectives.  Fire Objective 2 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 38): Recognize fire as a critical natural process and use it to protect, maintain, and enhance resources.

 Forest and Woodlands Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 41): Manage forests to maintain or restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, and disease do not exceed levels normally expected in a healthy forest. Manage forests for long-term, healthy habitat for animal and plant species. Supporting Greater Sage-grouse ARMPA Objectives for Need 4 (listed in order of appearance):  Objective VEG 3 (ARMPA, 2-10): Reduce the area dominated by invasive annual grasses to no more than 5 percent within 4.0 miles of all occupied or pending leks. Manage vegetation to retain resistance to invasion where invasive annual grasses dominate less than 5 percent of the area within 4.0 miles of such leks.

Supporting SEORMP/ROD Objectives for Need 5 (listed in order of appearance):  Forest and Woodlands Objective 1 (SEORMP/ROD, p. 41): Manage forests to maintain or restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, and disease do not exceed levels normally expected in a healthy forest. Provide for timber production where feasible and compatible with forest health.  Human Uses and Values Objective (SEORMP/ROD, p. 106): Manage public land and pursue partnerships to provide social and economic benefits to local residents, business, visitors, and future generations.

Supporting SEORMP/ROD Objective for Need 6:  Human Uses and Values Objective (SEORMP/ROD, p. 106): Manage public lands and pursue partnerships to provide social and economic benefits to local residents, business, visitors, and future generations. Supporting Greater Sage-grouse ARMPA Objectives for Need 6 (listed in order of appearance):  Objective VEG 8 (ARMPA, 2-11): Coordinate vegetation management activities with adjoining landowners.

Additionally, the following management objectives from the SEORMP/ROD (2002) support the purpose and need and apply to all the Project Objectives listed above:

 Fish and Aquatic Habitat (SEORMP/ROD, p. 49): Restore, maintain or improve habitat to provide for diverse and self-sustaining communities of fish and other aquatic species.  Visual Resources (SEORMP/ROD, p. 67): Manage public land actions and activities in a manner consistent with visual resource management (VRM) class objectives.  Wild and Scenic Rivers (SEORMP/ROD, p. 102): Protect and enhance outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) of designated national wild and scenic rivers (NWSRs), and provide interim protection of ORVs of rivers found suitable for inclusion in the NWSRs until Congress acts.  Lands Adjacent to Wilderness Study Areas (SEORMP/ROD, p. 104): Include BLM- administered land identified in the 1991 “Wilderness Study Report, Oregon” (WSRO) and determined to have wilderness values in adjacent wilderness study areas (WSAs) and manage it under the “Interim Management Policy for Land under Wilderness Review” (IMPLWR).

 Cultural Resources (SEORMP/ROD, p. 106): Protect and conserve cultural and paleontological resources.  Rangeland Vegetation (SEORMP/ROD-Appendix W-3): Monitor, restore, protect, and enhance the diversity and distribution of desirable vegetation communities, including perennial native and desirable introduced plant species. Provide for their continued existence and normal function in nutrient, water, and energy cycles.

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE The BLM will decide whether to implement restoration and fuels reduction actions to improve greater sage-grouse habitat and interspersed vegetative communities within the Project Area. This Project Area was identified as a high-priority area for habitat restoration in the Western Great Basin Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool (FIAT). The purpose and need incorporates management objectives outlined in the FIAT for ecological restoration activities and fuels management, and steps those down to the field level in this Project Area. The purpose and need for this project also is consistent with the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA from the subsequent 2015 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Great Basin Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah. The Deciding Official will rely upon the following additional factors when selecting between the No Action Alternative, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), or Alternative 3 (Non-impairment Alternative): 1. The degree to which the alternative achieves project objectives in a manner that considers the health and safety of the public and fire management personnel. 2. The degree to which the alternative achieves project objectives in a manner that is cost- effective. 3. The degree to which the alternative would allow the BLM and private landowners within the Project Area to cooperatively address shared fuels reduction and rangeland restoration goals and objectives.

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Comments were solicited from individuals and groups during the scoping period in spring 2015. Comments and issues raised during the scoping process were used during project development and/or incorporated into the project by adding mitigation measures and required project design elements and/or modifying the proposal where feasible. Public tours of the project area were conducted by the BLM in May and July of 2016. The lists of attendees are available as part of the project record. The EA was provided to the public for 30 days for review and comment on April 28, 2017. All identified interested publics and the appropriate American Indian Tribes were notified directly, as well as public notices published in the pertinent newspapers.

The BLM received comments that were specific to the NW Malheur EA, plan and project area. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed these comments and will provide responses in as part of Appendix 1 to the Decision Record. The BLM also made minor changes to the NW Malheur EA and those are referred to as part of the Comment Responses.

Additional comments from the public were received and reviewed by the IDT; however, those are not specifically listed because they were not site specific to the NW Malheur EA, plan and project area. These comments are filed in the NW Malheur Project Record and are available on request.

1.6 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES The Proposed Action has been designed to conform to the following documents, which direct and provide the framework for management of BLM lands within the Vale District:

 The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4320-4347), 1970  Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701), 1976  2010 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of Decision (ROD) (Oregon Veg. FEIS)  Vale BLM District Five Year Integrated Weed Control Plan EA (OR-030-89-19)  Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376; Chapter 758; P.L. 845, June 30, 1948; 62 Stat. 1155)  Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7470, et seq., as amended  National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470)  State, local, and Tribal laws, regulations, and land-use plans  Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review  Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species  Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands  Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management  Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds - 2010  Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)  Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)  Burns Paiute Tribe Aboriginal Territorial Protection Policy  American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)  BLM Manual Section 1780, Tribal Relations  Executive Order No. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites  Wilderness Manual 6330  Greater Sage-grouse National Technical Team Report, 2011  WO-IM-2012-044 – BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse And Use Planning Strategy  BLM-OR931-1408 – 2014 MOU between Western Juniper Utilization Group and OR/WA BLM concerning western juniper and economic opportunity  Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)  Relevant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documents for sage-grouse (75 FR 13910-14014) and bull trout (64 FR 58910-58933)  2010 Settlement Agreement between ONDA and BLM to Amend the SEORMP

1.7 TOPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS EA Resources and issues potentially affected by the Proposed Action and the alternatives have been reviewed. Resources/issues that may be affected have been addressed in Chapter 3. The following elements and issues are either not present or would not be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives and will not be analyzed further in this document:

 Hazardous Wastes – not affected  Prime or Unique Farmlands – not present  Wild Horses – not present  Caves and Karsts – none known  Lands and Realty – not affected  Energy and Mineral Resources – not affected  Paleontological Resources – not present

2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION In this section, BLM presents alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need identified in Section 1.2 of this document. This chapter also presents alternatives considered, but eliminated from further analysis in Section 2.5. 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Under this alternative, there would be no conifer cutting, silvicultural thinning, aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control, or use of prescribed fire within the Northwest Malheur Project Area without a separate NEPA decision. Forest in the project would continue to be at risk of being impacted by stand-replacement wildfire. Management under the No Action Alternative would proceed under the current Southeastern Oregon RMP/ROD (2002), the Oregon Greater Sage-grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (2015), and all other relevant policy direction. 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would use a combination of cutting encroaching conifer, prescribed burning, forest thinning, seedling planting, seeding of desirable grasses and forbs, and herbicide application within the Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project Area to meet the needs described in Chapter 1 (Section 1.2 Purpose and Need). To achieve the needs described across the project area, it has been divided into five vegetation treatment categories: 1) high-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, 2) low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, 3) mixed conifer, 4) non-conifer woody vegetation, and 5) the 2015 Bendire Fire Rehabilitation Area. The management objectives for each vegetation category are described in detail in the “Treatment Descriptions” section below. In 2015, an ecologist assigned to the on-going Vale BLM Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) team, delineated soil and vegetation map units within the Project Area. This was accomplished using remote sensing data and field validation. Vegetation descriptions and acreages associated with proposed treatments are based on this vegetation mapping (Tackman, 2015). Treatment of the Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is included in the Proposed Action under an exception to the non-impairment standard that allows fuels management treatments in

advance of prescribed fire found (1.6.D.2.d.i) within BLM manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas. No treatments of any kind are proposed within the Beaver Dam Creek WSA under the Proposed Action. High-elevation sagebrush acreages are dominated by mountain big sagebrush – bunchgrass ecological communities. Low-elevation sagebrush acreages are dominated by Wyoming sagebrush and big basin sagebrush. Mixed conifer areas exhibit ponderosa pine woodlands and mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir stands. Non-conifer woody vegetation includes quaking aspen, alder, willow, chokecherry, bitterbrush, and curlleaf mountain mahogany. Western juniper encroachment is occurring within all of the aforementioned ecological communities to some extent. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a 70 percent reduction in live conifer density, predominantly western juniper, over the next 15 years. The details of the Proposed Action are organized in the following manner. Presented first is the “Treatment Descriptions” section, which summarizes the management objectives for the five treatment categories. Then, there is a section called “Activity Descriptions”, which discusses the details of each of the different activities or tools identified to achieve the management objectives laid out in the Treatment Descriptions. Activities include fuels breaks along roads, broadcast burning, underburning, jackpot burning, machine pile burning, hand pile burning, conifer cutting, silvicultural thinning, aerial and ground-based application of herbicide for annual grass control, seeding of native grasses and forbs, and planting of sagebrush seedlings. Following the activity descriptions is a description of Alternative 3, “The WSA/WIU Non- Impairment Alternative”. Lastly, there is a comprehensive list of Required Project Design Elements (PDEs) that apply to all treatments and activities employed in both action alternatives. Project Design Elements would be implemented to protect resources and minimize or eliminate effects from the action alternatives.

2.2.1 Treatment Descriptions a) High-Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Restoration Treatment Management objectives under this treatment would be to reduce live conifer density and associated fuels in high-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass communities by 70 percent and reducing of treatment generated hazardous fuels that are 3 inches in diameter or larger by a mean total of at least 90 percent. Secondary objectives would be to prevent invasive annual grass cover from increasing from current cover values within the areas identified for treatment. Conifer cutting (predominantly western juniper), and machine pile burning would be the principal activities. Jackpot burning or a follow up lop and scatter activity would only be employed where excessive hazardous fuels are not created by conifer cutting activity. Biomass utilization2 may occur where accessible and feasible. Of the 102,055 acres of high-elevation

2 Biomass Utilization: Materials grown in forest or woodland environments that are by-products of land management, restoration, or fuel reduction treatments (historically non-utilized or underutilized material).

sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities within the Project Area, approximately 56,379 acres of are proposed for treatment (Tackman, 2015) due to the exclusion of the Beaver Dam Creek WSA from treatment. See Map 5 in Appendix B. There would also be approximately 45 miles of linear fuel breaks on BLM administered land constructed through the high elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass treatment area. A detailed description of fuel breaks activities is found in Section 2.2.2.a. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the treatment area would require a follow up treatment of aerial herbicide for invasive annual grass control within five years of completing prescribed burning activities. Localized seeding of native or desirable non-native grass and forb species could be used if sufficient perennial species are not present in understory following prescribed fire activities.

b) Low-Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Restoration Treatment Overall management objectives under this treatment would be oriented toward reducing western juniper density, reducing hazardous fuels, and improving resistance to invasive annual grasses and resilience to future fire disturbance (Chambers, et al., 2014). There are approximately 22,033 acres of low-elevation sagebrush plant communities proposed for treatment within the Project Area (Tackman, 2015). Although western juniper cutting could occur throughout the entire low elevation sagebrush / bunchgrass stratum, it would be the primary objective on approximately 17,000 acres. Juniper control and fuels reduction objectives under this treatment would include: 1) reduction of live juniper density by 70 percent, and 2) reduction of three inch or larger diameter fuels generated by the cutting by a mean total of 50 percent. For burned piles, the objective would be to establish a mean total of three desirable species per meter square across a pasture or treatment unit. Activities associated with western juniper control on low elevation sagebrush sites would include juniper cutting followed by jackpot burning and/or hand pile burning, and aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control. Some cutting may be only followed by lop and scatter activity if it is determined that downed trees would not present an excessive hazardous fuels issue. Biomass utilization would not occur in low-elevation sagebrush acreages. In most of the areas where juniper control followed by prescribed fire is utilized on low elevation sagebrush sites, a follow up treatment of aerial herbicide for annual grass control would be required within five years of completing pile burning to meet the annual grass cover objective. Localized seeding of desirable grass and forb species would be used if sufficient perennial species are not present in understory following a prescribed fire activity and following any aerial application of herbicide. On approximately 5,000 acres of this category, the primary objective would emphasize annual grass control and improving resistance and resilience of the treated area. In portions of the low elevation sagebrush treatment where heavy cheatgrass infestations (less than 2 percent native perennial grass cover; greater than 20 percent annual grass cover), or medusahead monocultures are present, the objective would be to increase perennial grass species density and foliar cover.

Treatment outcomes in this portion of the low elevation sagebrush stratum would be measured against the following objectives: 1. Attain 20 percent cover of seeded species by the end of the 15 year implementation period. 2. Attain a density of 3 large statured perennial grasses per square meter by end of 15 year implementation period. 3. Improve the vigor and fitness (seed head production, root mass, etc.) of native and seeded perennial plant species in treated areas by end of 15 year implementation period. This would be determined by a specialist’s qualitative assessment. There would be an herbicide pre-treatment on areas that are infested with medusahead rye or heavy layers of cheatgrass buildup in order to break up the annual grass thatch layer and allow the herbicide to make contact with the soil. The pre-treatment could include UTV harrowing or burning of isolated patches of medusahead and/or cheatgrass. Broadcast burning would only be used on areas dominated by medusahead rye and/or cheatgrass prior to an herbicide treatment if less than 5 percent of the identified area supports sagebrush. These areas consist of scattered patches across the landscape that is 500-3,000 acres in size. Sagebrush planting would be implemented throughout the low elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass communities and could be associated with either a juniper control activity or with an application aerial herbicide for annual grass control. Seedlings would be planted in patches of 100-5,000 acres in size with densities of 100-400 seedlings per acre. There would also be approximately 20 miles of linear fuel breaks on BLM administered land constructed through the low elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass treatment area.

c) Mixed Conifer Restoration Treatment Under this treatment, a thinning prescription followed by prescribed fire for fuels management would be applied to a majority of warm-dry and hot-dry stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas- fir. There are approximately 12,980 acres (Tackman, 2015) of mixed conifer and dry pine stands within the Project Area. Within the mixed conifer treatment areas, ladder fuels would be reduced sufficiently to interrupt the initiation of a crown fire by felling understory trees (less than 8 inch diameter-at-breast height (dbh)) so that remaining trees are spaced at an approximate average of 40 square feet of basal area/acre (Powell, 1999), but would vary from 11 to 109 square feet of basal area throughout the treated stands. Additional activities would include decreasing the potential for crown fires by reducing overstory canopy closure to a mean total of approximately 40 percent, and raising canopy base height to a mean of 20 feet above ground surface. Commercial thinning through harvest of large diameter (greater than or equal to 8-inch diameter) trees would be implemented to decrease canopy continuity within ponderosa pine dominated forests. Approximately 1,053 acres (Ott, 2015) are proposed for commercial treatment (greater than 8 inch dbh). The thinning prescription would promote or retain the largest and most well-formed ponderosa pine while breaking up horizontal and vertical fuel continuity within the stand, releasing remaining trees for increased vigor and productivity.

No new permanent roads would be constructed. Construction of up 4.5 miles of temporary roads may be needed to access potential treatment areas. If necessary, temporary roads would be constructed for immediate treatment needs and decommissioned within a year. Noncommercial silvicultural thinning activities would target small diameter (less than 8-inch diameter) conifers to reduce stocking and fuel laddering on forested sites. Approximately 11,927 acres are proposed for noncommercial treatment in the Project Area. If economically feasible, non-sawlog material generated by silvicultural thinning activities would be removed for biomass utilization or used on-site in rehabilitation projects. Fuels generated by thinning activities that are not removed for biomass utilization would be treated by piling and burning, mechanical crushing or whole-tree yarding. An underburn would be conducted within 10 years of the thinning treatment to further reduce ground fuels (litter, twigs, branches less than 3 inches) in the same stands. If underburning is necessary, deep duff may be raked away from the bases of old growth ponderosa pine, large snags, and large downed woody debris prior to underburning; however, not all mixed conifer stands are proposed for commercial thinning due to access restrictions, economics, and other resource concerns. The objective for the prescribed fire phase of the treatment would be to reduce surface fuels by a mean total of more than 50 percent. There would also be approximately 9.5 miles of linear fuel breaks constructed on BLM administered land through the mixed conifer treatment area.

d) Bendire Burned Area Rehabilitation Treatment Area The management objective under this treatment is to reduce the standing density of live and dead conifers within the perimeter of the 2015 Bendire Fire (see Map 4 and 5 in Appendix B) by 70 percent. Secondary objectives would be to reduce treatment generated hazardous fuels that are 3 inches in diameter or larger by a mean total of at least 90 percent, to increase shrub cover within the treatment area by the end of the fifteen year project implementation period, and to prevent annual grass cover from increasing from current cover values within the areas identified for treatment. Conifer cutting (predominantly western juniper), machine pile burning, aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control, and sagebrush seedling planting would be the primary activities conducted within this treatment area. Jackpot burning or a follow up lop and scatter activity would only be employed where excessive hazardous fuels are not created by conifer cutting activity. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the treatment area would require a follow up treatment of aerial herbicide for invasive annual grass control within five years of completing prescribed burning activities. Initial herbicide treatments within the Bendire Fire area were analyzed in “The Bendire Complex Fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Invasive Plant Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-ORWA-V000-2016-0027-EA” (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2015). Localized seeding of native grass and forb species would be used on and around burned machine piles to reduce the likelihood that areas burned under machine piles would become dominated by invasive annual

grass and noxious weeds post-treatment. There are approximately 27,660 acres that were impacted by the Bendire Fire that are proposed for treatment within the Project Area. Sagebrush planting would be completed throughout the Bendire burned area and could be associated with either a juniper control activity or with an application aerial herbicide for annual grass control. Seedlings would be planted in patches of 100-5,000 acres in size with densities of 100-400 seedlings per acre. There would also be 20 miles of linear fuel breaks on BLM administered land constructed through the Bendire Burned Area Rehabilitation Treatment Area.

e) Non-conifer Woody Vegetation Treatment Management objectives are to treat 90 to 100 percent of mountain mahogany shrublands displaying conifer encroachment occurring in patches of at least one-eighth acre. Treatments would also include any stands of hardwood species that occur in riparian or upland locations exhibiting conifer encroachment covering at least one-eighth acre. This would result in approximately 500 treated acres within the Project Area. This includes approximately 50 acres along the edge of 3.6 river-miles of the North Fork Malheur River on BLM-administered lands. BLM resource specialists would determine if sufficient bitterbrush, mahogany shrubs or riparian vegetation exist on site to warrant application of this treatment option. Conifer cutting followed by jackpot burning would be the primary activities used to reduce encroachment into stands of mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, aspen, willow, or chokecherry while maintaining and improving conditions for existing plants. Conifers also could be cut, hand piled and burned if the cutting generated excessive hazardous fuels within the targeted patch of mahogany or riparian hardwoods. Manual cutting of conifer with no follow-up burning also could be used in such stands. Small-scale late season broadcast burning would be done for aspen restoration wherever possible.

2.2.2 Activity Descriptions Activities are specific methods that would be employed to attain the management objectives described in the Treatment Descriptions. Activities are modified by PDEs described in the Project Design Element section. a) Fuel Breaks A network of approximately 150 miles of linear fuel breaks along one or both sides of existing roads that would be created to compartmentalize the 144,671 acres of BLM-lands within the Project Area (Map 5b in Appendix B) for the purpose of effective fire management and protection of treated areas. The fuel break areas created would differ along some road segments as only one side of a road could be developed by BLM due to land ownership, special management area status, or avoidance of riparian areas. Generally, the fuel breaks would be up to 300 feet wide, centered on the identified roads, with 150 feet on either side of a road. Fuel breaks would primarily be constructed along maintenance level two and three roads within the Project Area (see Table 2.1 below). However, approximately 51 miles of road with no

assigned maintenance level is included in the fuel break network. Most of this road is county road or provides access to privately owned inholdings in the project area. No new roads would be created nor would fuel breaks be developed along temporary roads or primitive trails. This treatment would impact approximately 3,200 acres. The network of fuel breaks extends to the project boundary on the southern, eastern, and northern perimeter of the Project Area. Table 2.1 Miles of Proposed Fuels Breaks by Road Maintenance Level Maintenance Level of Road Miles of Fuels Breaks Maintenance Level 1 2 miles Maintenance Level 2 34 miles Maintenance Level 3 63 miles Unclassified 51 miles

Establishing fuel breaks would increase the likelihood that future wildland fires burning intact or recovering sagebrush habitat could be suppressed to a reduced size. By altering the fuel type, fire behavior can be drastically changed by reducing flame lengths, rate of spread, and fire line intensity while increasing safety for fire suppression resources, as well as increasing potential for suppression success within the proposed Project Area. Fuel breaks would be constructed by mechanical thinning and mowing (down to 10 inches above ground surface) brush where necessary, herbicide treatments, and seeding of short stature, low biomass plants (i.e. a crested wheatgrass cultivar) that have a higher likelihood of becoming established on low elevation sites. Mowed fuel breaks would be maintained with herbicide application and periodic follow-up brush mowing treatments. At elevations of less than 4000 feet AMSL, fuel breaks would be seeded with a cultivar of crested wheatgrass. If necessary, fuel breaks above 4700 feet AMSL would be seeded with native grass species.

 Short term (within 3 years) o Mow or cut all brush (“brush out”) up to 150 feet maximum on either side of road. . Mow or hand cut all brush to 10 inches height above ground surface. . Fuel break width and design would vary with terrain and resource concern (e.g., riparian areas). . Along riparian features, shrubs would not be removed within 25 feet from edge of channel to protect from erosion. o Re-establish ditches on Maintenance Level 3 (ML3) roadsides using graders, blades, etc. . Gravel in all ML3 roads and keep all others bare (scraping and/or chemical treatment). Generally, a 15-foot wide vegetation free roadway with bare mineral soil would be maintained. o Chemically treat up to 150 feet maximum to each side of the road. . Pre-emergent herbicide to control invasive annual grasses (imazapic). o Seed native and/or non-native species, or combinations thereof (depending on site), to establish a perennial plant component that meets fuel break criteria. . Less than 4000 feet AMSL in elevation: seed mixes would include low- statured, nonnative, fire resistant grass species.

. Greater than 4000 feet AMSL in elevation: in native plant communities seed mixes of Sandberg bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail and other native species would be used; in nonnative dominated areas seed mixes would include low-statured, nonnative, fire resistant grass species. o Maintain existing roads to facilitate fire suppression operations/access (e.g. work with Malheur County Roads Department on this task). Roads would be kept to established maintenance levels per SEORMP/ROD (2002).

 Long Term (after 3 years) o Maintain roadside fuel break areas by mowing all brush (“brush out”) up to 150 feet maximum on either side of road o Monitor and repeat annual grass herbicide treatments as needed to maintain fuel break effectiveness on an average 5 years or longer. o Re-seed as necessary. o Maintain existing road surface condition for fire suppression access.

b) Aerial and Ground-based Application of Herbicide for Invasive Annual Grass Control Within the 15-year lifespan of the project, up to 80,000 acres of invasive annual grasses would be treated to prevent dominance of invasive annual grasses across Project Area. These treatments would be applied: (1) in the Low-Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Restoration Treatment areas; (2) as a follow-up to conifer cutting and burning in the High Elevation Sagebrush treatment; and (3) as a retreatment of Bendire Fire Area. Initial herbicide treatments within the Bendire Fire area were analyzed in “The Bendire Complex Fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Invasive Plant Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-ORWA-V000-2016-0027-EA” (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2015). In the Low Elevation Sagebrush treatment, monocultures of invasive annual grasses would be burned or prepared with a harrow prior to herbicide application to decrease or eliminate the litter layer in stands of medusahead rye and/or thick layers of cheatgrass. Annual grass-specific herbicide would then be applied to inhibit germination from the existing seed bank on site. The sites would then be reseeded with native or desirable non-native seed mix one year after the herbicide application to provide desirable competitive vegetation and encourage faster recovery. Broadcast burning methods are discussed in the Prescribed Fire activities section. In the High Elevation Sagebrush treatment, the applications of herbicide for annual grass control would be applied after conifer cutting and burning of machine piles if pre-treatment annual grass cover was 10 percent or more. Burned pile sites would be seeded with desirable grass species one year after the herbicide application. Similar to the High Elevation Sagebrush treatment, aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control in the Bendire Rehabilitation Treatment Area would follow conifer cutting and pile burning if pre-burn annual grass cover warranted use of the activity. Burned pile sites would be seeded with desirable grass species within one year of the herbicide treatment.

Herbicide treatments of invasive annual grasses would occur primarily as a pre-emergent using the approved herbicide, imazapic (Plateau) at 6-8 ounces/acre (0.09375 – 0.125 pounds (lbs)/acre of active ingredient imazapic). Application method would be by either low-boom or aerial spray. Aerial-spray treatments for invasive annual grasses would be used on infestations 50 acres or greater and/or on smaller infestations not accessible by ground equipment. However, imazapic could be used at 2-12 ounces (oz)/acre (0.0312 – 0.1875 lbs/acre), depending on the location and associated species at the treatment site. Herbicide application may need to occur on the same areas in consecutive years to achieve desired results. Aerial application of imazapic would occur from late summer to early fall to reduce potential impacts to desirable species occupying the treatment site and would be done by commercially contracted aircraft. Aircraft would be at the discretion of the contractor, and as allowed by BLM regulations, but may depend upon topography and availability of landing and reloading locations. Where aerial applications are determined to be the most appropriate treatment, their use would be in conformance with label instructions and the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon” ROD (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010). All design elements, mitigations, and Standard Operating Procedures described in Appendix of the ROD ( (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010), pp. 33-46) would be used. Ground-based applications of imazapic for annual grass control may also occur from late summer to early fall. These treatments would be accomplished with vehicle-mounted spraying systems using boom-less nozzles or booms. Spray tank sizes generally vary from 15-40 gallons on an off-highway vehicle to 100 or more gallons on a truck. Following herbicide treatment, up to 40,000 acres within the Project Area could be seeded using ground-based methods. This treatment would consist of seeding identified units with mixes of native grass and forb species. Non-native seed mixes would primarily be considered within the Low Elevation/Bunchgrass Treatment areas. Ground based seeding methods would primarily include the use of rangeland drill carts pulled by tractors, dozers or heavy equipment. The areas to be seeded from the ground are characterized by gentle to rolling terrain with finer grained deeper soils that are conducive to drilling. The goal of seeding these areas with ground-based equipment would be similar to those described under the aerial seeding treatment to increase the amount of seed: soil contact so that the probability of treatment success is increased. The seeding would occur in late fall or early winter (August – December).

c) Sagebrush Stock Planting Sagebrush seedling plantings, primarily Wyoming sagebrush, would occur in designated areas across the Low Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass treatment areas. Seedlings would be planted in patches of 100-5,000 acres in size with densities of 100-400 seedlings per acre. The goal of planting sagebrush seedlings would be to reduce the time necessary for the planted areas to provide cover and browse to greater sage-grouse and big game species. The locations for sagebrush seedling planting would be selected by determining which sites would have the highest chance of success based on suitable soil conditions, site conditions (precipitation, aspect, etc.), opportunity for spread (slope), known vegetation present prior to the invasive grasses,

ecological site descriptions, and on professional knowledge and observations of the area. This may be applied on approximately 30,000 acres within the Low Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Restoration treatment area and within the Bendire Burned Area Rehabilitation Treatment Area.

When possible, sagebrush seed would be gathered locally and sent to a nursery for growing a portion of the seedlings. This would provide site adapted plants available for reestablishment, increasing the potential for success. Seedlings would be planted with hand tools by BLM staff, volunteers, and/or contractors in the spring or fall.

d) Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning would be used to varying degrees in all resource treatments. Burning prescriptions would vary depending on specific objectives. A prescribed fire plan would specify management objectives, as well as air temperature, humidity, season, wind direction and speed, and fuel and soil moisture conditions under which a fire would be started or allowed to burn. Treatment methods or tools would include broadcast burning, underburning, jackpot burning, and/or piling and burning. Prescribed fire activities would be designed for maximum protection of existing sagebrush. Jackpot burning and piling would most often be applied in areas that support sagebrush communities, or in areas identified for treatment under the non-conifer hardwood portion of the Project Area. The schedule for burning during the 15-year implementation period is dependent upon weather, fuel conditions, project funding, and other arrangements. These factors, especially weather, make it difficult to accurately project the number of acres to be burned in a given year. Tools such as drip torches, fusees, UTV ignition, aerial ignition, and other firing devices are typically used to ignite prescribed burns. Roads, natural barriers, and mechanically constructed fire lines (less than 3 miles) would be utilized as fire breaks at the boundaries of burning units. Prescribed burning operations would be monitored to ensure that Project Design Elements are properly observed and objectives are achieved. Once treatment objectives are attained within targeted vegetation communities, no remaining acres would be treated. All burn plans would include escaped fire suppression and smoke management plans. Use of petroleum products during ignition would be monitored to ensure that any spill was immediately contained and neutralized. There are five different prescribed fire techniques or methods of application described below.

1. Broadcast Burning Broadcast burning is the controlled application of fire to wildland fuels within a predetermined area during specific environmental conditions to attain resource management or fuels reduction objectives. Broadcast burns are generally implemented in the fall (September and October) to moderate undesirable fire behavior. Broadcast burning is predominantly proposed for annual grasslands within the Low Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass treatment areas for the purpose of removing the thatch layer formed by

dense stands of invasive annual grasses prior to the application of an aerial herbicide for annual grass control. Broadcast burning may be used within discrete stands of quaking aspen in order to stimulate recruitment. Pretreatment activities that could occur within or near broadcast burn units include wetlining, blacklining, and handline construction around interior leave islands and fire-sensitive assets such as range improvements, special-status plants, or cultural resources. Dozer line would be limited to three miles for throughout the life of the project. Holding operations near property boundaries could be accomplished with pretreatment using small amounts of jackpot burning, juniper cutting, and/or piling and burning. Broadcast burning would only be used in the Low Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Restoration treatment where there are isolated monocultures of medusahead rye or other invasive annual grasses that include less than 5 percent sagebrush cover or in identified stands of quaking aspen. Broadcast burning would be utilized on less than 3,000 acres within the Project Area.

2. Jackpot Burning Jackpot burning is the application of prescribed fire to concentrations of fuels. Typically, it is applied during the time of year when the probability of fire spread is very low and in situations where fuels reduction is not a primary objective. Jackpot burning is the method used in units where residual activity created fuels or natural fuels are discontinuous. It also may be applied in isolated areas where natural fuel concentrations exist. Jackpot burning usually would be preceded by cutting individual trees and allowing them to cure. This treatment would be implemented in the late fall (October to December) or early spring (March to May) when soil and live fuel moistures are elevated and existing shrubs are more likely to be maintained. Jackpot burning would be the principal activity employed on the Low-Elevation Sagebrush/ Bunchgrass Restoration Treatment acreages and to a much lesser degree in the High Elevation/Bunchgrass treatment and the Non-conifer Woody Vegetation Restoration Treatments to maintain and improve stands of mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, chokecherry, willow, alder, and quaking aspen. Jackpot burning would be utilized on approximately 20,000 acres within the Project Area.

3. Underburning Underburning is the application of low-intensity prescribed fire to surface fuels beneath a forested canopy. Burning is prescribed to reduce stocking density of small-diameter (less than 8 inches) conifer trees and to reduce ground fuels (litter, twigs, and branches less than 3 inches in diameter). Underburning would be applied primarily in the Mixed Conifer Restoration Treatment units subsequent to the completion of silvicultural thinning.

The majority of underburning would occur in spring. Pretreatment of burning areas in fall could be necessary to reduce risk of escapement during spring burning. The pretreatment would include activities such as establishing blacklines or constructing handlines around the perimeter of leave islands or adjacent to burn unit boundaries. Approximately 10,000 acres of mixed conifer forest or pine woodlands would be underburned in the Proposed Action.

4. Machine Pile Burning Mechanical piling would be used to reduce fuel loading and continuity primarily in areas where juniper or other conifers have been cut and in Phase 2 juniper areas as defined by Miller et al.

(2005), which generally has 10 to 30 juniper trees per acre. Machine piles are usually 8- to 12- feet tall by 16- to 22-feet wide and would be constructed of previously cut juniper or other conifer with grapple-equipped excavators or dozers. The piles would be targeted to burn within two years of construction during the winter months (November to March) of the year. This treatment would be applied to approximately 45,000 acres.

5. Hand Pile Burning Hand piling would be used to reduce fuel loading and continuity primarily within areas with lower landscape resistance to invasive annual grasses such as the Low Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Treatment and in areas that are inaccessible with heavy equipment due to excessive slope or other limiting factors. Hand piles are usually constructed of cut up slash and are generally 3- to 5-feet tall by 3- to 5-feet wide. All piles would be targeted to burn within two years of construction during the winter months (November to March) of the year. This activity would be utilized on approximately 25,000 acres.

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA Prescribed Fire Complexity Analysis Under the Management Decisions section of the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (2015), there are four questions that must be answered (MD FIRE 18, page 2-17) to consider using prescribed fire in a project within sage-grouse habitat. These questions, and responses specific to the Northwest Malheur action alternatives, follow below:

 Why was an alternative technique not selected as a viable option? Use of prescribed fire is needed in the action alternatives to reduce the hazardous fuels generated by the treatments of conifers encroaching into greater sage-grouse priority and general habitat within the Project Area. The area in the project is remote with few roads and trails that would allow for removal of material with equipment and vehicles in a manner that did not result in damage to other resource values. There is no viable alternative to jackpot burning or pile burning fuels generated by cutting western juniper and small diameter pine and fir trees in this remote and inaccessible Project Area. Use of prescribed fire is also needed to prepare 100-5,000 acres patches within the Project Area that have converted to invasive annual grass monocultures for aerial application of herbicide for invasive annual grass control (imazapic). Without some form of burning, it is impossible to reduce the thatch of invasive grasses sufficiently so that the herbicide can fully make contact with the surface of the soil. A harrowing treatment of the thatch layer, or use of a granular form of imazapic, would be the fallback herbicide approaches to the medusahead monoculture patches. However, range scientists and noxious weed specialists in the area all indicate that this would not be nearly as successful of a pre-treatment as the use of prescribed fire ( (Davies, 2016); (Fritz, 2016); (Silva, 2016)).

 How are greater sage-grouse goals and objectives met by use of prescribed fire? Greater sage-grouse goals and objectives would be met by use of prescribed fire within the Northwest Malheur Project Area because it would allow for disposal of downed western juniper and other conifers that are encroaching upon habitat within the Bully Creek Priority Area of

Conservation (PAC) at a landscape scale. Conifer encroachment on sage-grouse habitat can result in the loss of key perennial grasses and forbs. Biodiversity within the understory of sage- grouse habitat is depleted as encroachment advances over time. Eventually habitat under the influence of encroachment will not meet the needs of sagebrush obligate wildlife species. Conifers expanding into sagebrush habitats can also provide perches for avian predators of sage- grouse such as hawks, eagles, and ravens (Connelly et al., 2000) and threaten lek security. Treatments of encroaching conifers across the landscape in the Project Area would allow for the attainment of the conifer reduction habitat objective in Table 2-2 (page 2-4) in the 2015 ARMPA. Use of prescribed fire on patches that have converted to annual grass monocultures allows for use of pre-emergent herbicides for annual grass control as the first step toward habitat restoration. Without the use of prescribed fire on these types of sites, follow up activities of herbicide application, seeding and planting sage-brush seedlings would not be as likely to succeed (Davies, 2016).

 How are the COT Report objectives addressed and met? Conservation Objective: Retain and restore healthy native sagebrush plant communities within the range of sage-grouse. The use of prescribed fire allows for restoration of sagebrush plant communities by reducing encroaching conifers and highly flammable invasive annual grasses from the plant communities in the Project Area. The use of prescribed fire on monoculture patches of medusahead rye and/or cheatgrass within the Project Area would reduce the thatch formed by the grass and allow for a pre-emergent herbicide to be applied that would eliminate or greatly reduce competition from invasive annuals within the seedbed. This pre-treatment would be a critical step toward re-establishment of perennial grasses and new shrubs on the invaded sites. It would benefit winter sage-grouse habitat and reduce the threat of wildland fire within the Project Area. Conservation Objective: Remove pinyon-juniper from areas of sagebrush that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal) at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of pinyon-juniper incursion. The use of prescribed fire would allow for disposal of the large volume of woody material that is expected to be generated by cutting western juniper within sage-grouse habitat within the Project Area. Downed juniper in sage-grouse habitat needs to be burned or removed to prevent it from becoming a fuels hazard that threatens sage-grouse habitat and other resource values.

 A risk assessment to address how potential threats greater sage-grouse habitat would be minimized. The risk of burning downed conifers in jackpots or piles within sage-grouse habitat as modified by the PDEs is low. The risk of fire escape is low because the burning prescriptions required in the Proposed Action. Jackpots are burned in the spring when live fuel moistures are high and fire cannot carry beyond the targeted concentration of fuel. Piles are burned when the ground is frozen and usually with snow on the ground during the late fall or early winter season. Fire cannot carry outside of the cured pile under either of these conditions. Burned areas would be

seeded to reduce the threat of infestation by invasive grasses and noxious weeds following the burn. Herbicide application would be used to reduce the invasive species threat even further if necessary. The risk of using broadcast burning to remove medusahead and any associated thatch layer from annual grasslands within the low elevation sagebrush communities within the Project Area is low. Broadcast burning medusahead patches prior to an aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control is necessary to allow the herbicide to make contact with the soil and inhibit germination of the seedbed. These burns would be small operations (500-2,000) acres that would be conducted with holding resources sufficient to keep prescribed fire from impacting vegetation outside of a burn unit. These units would be identified during implementation. Sagebrush islands within the burn units would be required to represent less than 5 percent of the total unit area and they would be protected by combinations of handline, wetline, or blacklining prior to ignition in order to minimize loss. Holding efforts would focus on minimizing burning of any interior sagebrush islands and ensuring that no vegetation outside of the unit is affected by the burn. Risks of invasive annual grass and noxious weed invasion after the prescribed burning would be reduced since the herbicide treatment that follows the burn inhibits germination of the seedbed. Also, competitive seeding following the herbicide treatment would further reduce the threat of annual grass and noxious weed invasion on the treated sites.

2.2.3 Thinning and Cutting Activity Descriptions

Variable-density thinning involves a combination of commercial and noncommercial thinning techniques to retain trees grouped in small dispersed patches with substantially reduced ladder and crown fuels. Variable-density thinning would be the primary activity under the Mixed Conifer Restoration Treatment in forestlands dominated by ponderosa pine.

Commercial and/or noncommercial thinning may provide opportunities for biomass removal and utilization under stewardship contracts or small sales. Increasing attention toward biomass utilization is driven by environmental, social, and market considerations. The current primary and exploratory uses for biomass are in electricity generation and conversion to renewable fuels such as ethanol, bio-methane, and hydrogen. a) Noncommercial Thinning Noncommercial thinning involves manually cutting non-merchantable trees (less than 8-inch diameter) to reduce fuel laddering and/or help achieve specific resource objectives. Noncommercial thinning would be accomplished with chainsaws or hand tools. The activity fuels generated would be piled or possibly burned as jackpots unless removed for biomass utilization. b) Commercial Thinning Commercial thinning removes merchantable (greater than or equal to 8-inch diameter) trees to reduce fuels in a forested canopy that allow for development of high-intensity crown fires. It also can improve health and growth rates of trees remaining in a treated stand while mimicking historic conditions (leave large, old trees and removing small, young overstocked trees).

Commercial harvest activities may be performed using ground-based equipment such as mechanical harvesters, tractors, and rubber-tired skidders or via cable yarding. Slash generated by the commercial harvest would be removed to a landing for disposal by burning or for biomass utilization if economically feasible. Otherwise, fuels generated by commercial harvest would be piled within treatment units for burning. Commercial thinning within the Project Area would be conducted under timber sales or stewardship contracts. As stated earlier, approximately 1,053 acres are proposed for commercial logging within the Project Area. c) Conifer Cutting Only – Fall and Leave or Lop and Scatter (No Burning) In some situations, conifers (most likely western juniper and/or ponderosa pine trees) could be felled, lopped, and scattered. There would be no follow-up burning if this treatment was applied. Limbs would be cut so they do not stand higher than 48 inches. A conifer-cutting-only treatment may be applied in mountain big sagebrush and low/stiff sagebrush communities that are in early stages of transition to juniper woodland with less than 10 trees per acres, Phase 1 juniper woodlands as defined by Miller and others (2005) or as a strategy to reduce juniper encroachment within stands of mountain mahogany or bitterbrush while maintaining existing shrubs. This activity would be applied to approximately 5,000 acres.

2.2.4 Summary of the Proposed Actions Areas identified for treatment in the Project Area would fall into one of the following five treatment categories: high-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, mixed conifer, non-conifer woody vegetation, or Bendire Fire Rehabilitation. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a mosaic of burned and unburned patches within the Project Area, a reduction in live conifer density, an increase in perennial bunchgrass in treated areas, an increase in sagebrush cover, and a reduction in hazardous fuels over the next 15 years. The different types of treatment methods or tools identified to achieve the management objectives include broadcast burning, underburning, jackpot burning, pile burning, juniper cutting, silvicultural thinning and broadcast herbicide spraying activities, and competitive or restoration seeding or planting. Table 2.2 summarizes the treatment methods or tools to be utilized within the five vegetation categories.

Table 2.2 Summary Table of All Project Treatments and Activities Treatment Activities Conifer Silvicultural Broadcast Underburn Jackpot Machine Hand Herbicide Fuel Shrub Cutting Thinning Burning Burning Pile and Pile Broadcast Breaks Seedling Prescription Burn and and Planting Burn Seeding High- X X X X X X Elevation (Isolated Sagebrush Aspen stands only) Low- X X X X X X X Elevation (Invasive Sagebrush annual grass monocultures only) Mixed X X X X X Conifer Non-Conifer X X X X X Woody (aspen Vegetation only) Bendire X X X X X Burned Area Rehabilitation

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: THE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA) / WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNIT (WIU) NON-IMPAIRMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative to the Proposed Action was developed to focus on the sagebrush habitat restoration and protection objectives described in the Proposed Action while preventing impairment (even temporarily) of the suitability of the Castle Rock WSA for designation as wilderness. It would also avoid any activity (see project activity descriptions) or utilization of a project design element within WIU that could potentially impact any of the four defined aspects of wilderness character. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result the exclusion of approximately 17,524 acres out of 144,671 acres of BLM-administered lands described in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Map 6a in Appendix B shows all of the special management areas within the Project Area. Map 6b in Appendix B shows areas that would be excluded from treatment under this alternative. All treatments, activities, and project design elements outside of WSA and WIU would remain the same as described in the Proposed Action under this alternative. Like Alternative 2, there would also be 150 miles of linear fuel breaks constructed within the Project Area under this alternative. No fuel breaks would be constructed that bisect WIU or WSA. Under this alternative, there would be no manipulation of vegetation (mowing or seeding) associated with fuel breaks developed on a WIU or WSA boundary roads within the unit. Vegetation modification associated with fuel breaks on WIU or WSA boundary roads would only occur on the external edge of the boundary road.

2.4 REQUIRED PROJECT DESIGN ELEMENTS All action alternatives are designed to be in conformance with the Best Management Practices described in Appendix O of the SEORMP/ROD (pages O1-O8). The SEORMP Best Management Practices (BMPs) are “designed to maximize beneficial results and minimize negative impacts of management actions.” It is also designed to be in conformance with Appendix C of the Oregon portion of the USDI 2015 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments (ARMPA) for the Great Basin Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah identifies the Required Design Features (RDFs) required for certain activities in all greater sage-grouse habitat. Management Decisions (MDs) establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. In addition, the NW Malheur interdisciplinary team also developed Project Design Elements (PDE) to meet specific resource objectives. The list below is not an exhaustive list of BMPs or RDFs for the project; it is a list of the BMPs and RDFs that the interdisciplinary team found to be most pertinent for the Proposed Action. All of Appendix O of the SEORMP/ROD and Appendix C the Oregon ARMPA were used when developing the final operational specifications for a treatment. Below are specific PDEs that minimize or reduce effects to resources; however, this list is not exhaustive. Additional relevant aerial herbicide application PDEs are listed in Appendix A of this document.

Sage-grouse Habitat (SGH) SGH 1. Within 4.0 miles of an occupied or pending lek, vegetation treatments can occur two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset. SGH 2. Vegetation management activities that are timing sensitive for maximum effectiveness, such as herbicide application, jackpot burning, seeding operations, could occur during the breeding season within 4.0 miles of occupied or pending leks. Limit operations to no more than five days during the breeding and early brood-rearing period (Mar 1 –June 30). SGH 3. Conduct pre-treatment surveys for nests and do not damage or destroy identified nests during treatment operations. Conduct operations so as to minimize the risk of accidentally killing chicks. Breeding and early-brood-rearing typically occur from March 1 through June 30; use local information to further refine this period. SGH 4. Reduce potential perches for predatory birds of greater sage-grouse by ensuring downed woody debris or cut stems are no taller than 4 feet or more than one foot above the general height of the sagebrush to eliminate potential perch sites for sage-grouse predators. SGH 5. Provide training to all personnel and contractors on greater sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and identification of local areas used by the birds. SGH 6. Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 decibels) at sunrise at the perimeter of an occupied or pending lek during active breeding season in PHMA only.

Special Status Wildlife (SSW) SSW 1. Protect special status wildlife species habitat throughout the life of the project. Structures, including snags or occupied nests, or areas with special status species habitat value identified during wildlife surveys would be protected during project implementation. SSW 2. Implementation plans, including burn plans and mechanical treatment plans, would be reviewed by a BLM wildlife biologist prior to start of project operations.

Special Status Plants (SSP) and Biological Crusts SSP 1. Protect special status vegetation species throughout the life of the project. Special status plant populations would be avoided within mechanical treatment units. Fire intolerant sensitive plants would be protected during deployment of prescribed fire by black-lining resources and use of appropriate ignition techniques. A 100-foot buffer between SSP sites and aerial applications of herbicide would be maintained throughout implementation. A District Botanist would review implementation plans prior to project initiation and coordinate any necessary surveys

Noxious Weeds (NW) NW 1. Noxious weed populations in the area would be inventoried prior to treatment of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment units. Initial herbicide treatments of weed populations identified in or adjacent to the Project Area were analyzed in and would be treated in accordance with the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon” ROD (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010).

NW 2. Areas would be monitored for noxious weed invasions for a minimum of two years following any applications of prescribed fire. Weed populations that are identified in the Project Area would be treated in accordance with the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon” Record of Decision (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010). NW 3. All vehicles and equipment used during implementation, including the undercarriage of vehicles, would be cleaned prior to entering BLM lands and when moving from infested to non-infested areas to guard against spreading noxious weeds. NW 4. Dozer line would be seeded with mixtures of native grass, forb, and shrub seed or desired non-native seed mixes and may be applied with aerial or ground-based methods during rehabilitation.

Aquatic Species/Riparian Areas (AQ/RA) AQ/RA 1. Special-status fisheries habitat would be protected throughout the life of the project. Structures or areas with special-status species habitat value identified during fisheries surveys would be protected during project implementation. AQ/RA 2. Implementation plans would be reviewed by a BLM biologist prior to start of project operations. AQ/RA 3. Existing stream crossings (i.e., fords) would be utilized. Access would be restricted to unimproved low- water stream crossings. AQ/RA 4. Fuel buildups and overstocked stands in the riparian areas would be reduced using only noncommercial thinning, jackpot burning, and hand pile burning along perennial, fish-bearing streams. Hand piles would be located at least 50 feet from the creek flood plain along perennial, fish-bearing streams. AQ/RA 5. Use appropriate herbicide-free buffer zones for herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths from water of 100 feet for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications. In bull trout bearing streams (see map 15 in Appendix B), aerial minimum width from water is 300 feet.

Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (WSA) – See Map 6a in Appendix B WSA 1. All prescribed burning scheduled within the Castle Rock WSA would be prioritized for completion prior to implementing burning outside of the WSA in order to minimize the duration of visual impacts on the landscape. Hand piles or jackpots would be prioritized to burn as soon as they had cured and prior to other fuels in the Project Area so that they were visible for the shortest period of time possible. No machine piles would be constructed in the WSA. Downed juniper and juniper piles would be temporary and would not be present for longer than two years. WSA 2. No temporary road or new roads would be created in Castle Rock WSA. Priority would be given to using existing inventory roads or primitive wherever possible to remove material from the WSA. When it is necessary for equipment to travel off-road to remove logs it would occur only in frozen or dry soil conditions. WSA 3. All soil disturbance (ruts, trailing, etc.) caused by forest thinning, conifer cutting, or burning would be rehabilitated and seeded with native grasses by hand crews at the end of the treatment to minimize short-term visual effects.

WSA 4. Conifer cutting and prescribed fire implementation within the WSA would be carried out from existing routes to the largest extent possible. Approved cross-country motorized travel would be limited to non-saturated or frozen soil conditions in an UTV and the trips would be documented in the project file. Different routes of travel for UTV within the WSA would be used so as to minimize visual intrusions. Evidence of UTV related surface or vegetation disturbance would be raked and covered with debris to re-establish a natural appearance. WSA 5. Conifer cutting treatments would result in a natural appearance to the casual observer. Unit layout would be implemented so that no visually abrupt horizontal or vertical linear contrasts could be noticed on the landscape after treatments. WSA 6. Stumps would be flush cut and covered with soil or debris to reduce visibility across the entire Castle Rock WSA. Piles would be constructed over stumps wherever possible so that stumps were degraded by subsequent pile burning so that the effects of manual treatment were obscured. Any wood material that was left after pile burn would be distributed to eliminate piles. WSA 7. Hand line constructed for an underburn would have berms pulled back in and be water barred at the close of the burn. WSA 8. Post-treatment seeding will use native species only and will be done by hand. WSA 9. Implementation plans would be reviewed by a BLM recreation planner prior to start of project operations within the WSA or WIU within the Project Area. Recreation staff would monitor implementation occurring within these areas to ensure criteria for wilderness characteristics are met during cutting, thinning, and prescribed burning operations.

Wilderness Inventory Units (WIU) – See Map 6a in the Appendix B WIU 1. Within the two identified WIU units in the Project Area, WSA PDEs WSA5, WSA6, WSA7, and WSA9 would be also applied in WIU. WIU 2. Conifer cutting and prescribed fire implementation within the WIUs would be carried out from existing routes to the largest extent possible. Where UTV use is necessary off existing routes, any surface or vegetation disturbance caused by cross-country travel would be raked and covered with debris to re-establish a natural appearance. WIU 3. Seeding in a WIU would be done in a manner that eliminates or minimizes the appearance of drill rows. This would be done by modifying rangeland drills or utilizing a drag behind a drill such as a harrow, small logs, or tires.

Wild and Scenic River (WSR) WSR 1. Within the North Fork Malheur suitable WSR corridor in the Project Area, WSA project design elements WSA5, WSA6, and WSA9 would be also applied in WSR. WSR 2. All prescribed burning scheduled within the WSR would be prioritized for completion prior to implementing burning outside of the WSR in order to minimize the duration of visual impacts on the landscape. No machine piles would be constructed within the WSR. Handpiles or jackpots would be prioritized to burn as soon as they had cured and prior to other fuels in the Project Area so that they were visible for the shortest period of time possible. Downed conifers or conifer handpiles would be temporary and would not be present for longer than two years.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ACEC 1. Consultation with the Burns Paiute Tribe would guide all types of implementation within the Castle Rock ACEC. Tribal resource specialists would monitor implementation in the vicinity of Castle Rock and the ACEC when necessary. North Fork Malheur relevant and important values (fisheries, scenic resources, Columbia spotted frog) would be protected through implementation of wildlife, vegetation, and prescribed fire PDEs.) Viewshed effects on the Castle Rock ACEC would be addressed through tribal consultation.

Cultural Resources (CR) CR 1. Cultural resource values would be protected throughout the life of the project. Archaeological sites would be avoided within the mechanical treatment units and activity- generated fuels would not be piled within site boundaries. Sites with combustible constituents would be protected during the deployment of prescribed fire by black-lining resources and use of appropriate ignition techniques. CR 2. Implementation plans would be reviewed by a BLM archaeologist prior to start of project operations. CR 3. Project implementation would cease and cultural resource staff would be notified if new cultural resources are encountered within treatment areas. CR 4. Consultation with the Burns Paiute tribe would continue during implementation as treatments are initiated in areas of tribal concern.

Prescribed Burning (PB) PB 1. Prescribed burning would be conducted following the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan to protect air quality and reduce health and visibility impacts on designated areas. PB 2. All large diameter ponderosa pine and Douglas Fir (greater than 24 inches dbh) would be raked at the base to pull all debris and duff at least two feet away from the bole of the tree prior to underburning in order to prevent within 4 to 10 feet of the bole would be cleared before burning around any large diameter trees (e.g., greater than 24 inches). PB 3. Downed ponderosa pine or fir logs greater than 15 inches diameter and snags greater than 15 inches dbh would not be intentionally burned. Snags may be intentionally created if an area is determined to be snag deficient following mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. PB 4. Public notification would occur for all prescribed burning (jackpot burning, underburning, hand pile burning, and machine pile burning) that occurs during big game and upland bird hunting seasons (October to December). Public notice of treatment areas and treatment schedule would be posted on Fire Restriction and recreation signs in the areas. Public notice would also be made available through BLM press releases and on BLM websites to indicate when and where prescribed burning would be occurring in the Project Area. PB 5. Reduce fuel accumulations and overstocked stands in the North Fork Malheur River riparian areas using only noncommercial thinning, jackpot burning, and hand pile burning. Hand piles would be located at least 50 feet from the edge of a flood plain. Aerial

application will not occur when wind speeds are above 6 mph or when wind direction is towards the water.

Forested Stands (FS) FS 1. All non-commercial trees within 50 feet of the bole of all large diameter (e.g., greater than 24 inches) ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir would be removed. A minimum spacing in this area is not required. Exceptions would be in curlleaf mountain mahogany and aspen stands where larger trees may be girdled or felled for downed woody debris.

Skid Trails, Landing and Roads (ST) ST 1. Skid trails and landings would be approved by a BLM forester prior wood product removal and utilization. ST 2. Skid trails and landings would be water barred and re-seeded with native species mixes. ST 3. Hauling in all units would be restricted to dry or frozen ground conditions to prevent potential increases in sediment delivery to stream channels or wetlands. ST 4. Ground-based skidding systems would not be used on slopes greater than 35 percent. ST 5. Skidding material down or across stream channels or draws that collect and convey water would not occur. Ground disturbing activities would be limited to 10 percent exposed soil or less within riparian ecosystems. ST 6. To minimize detrimental soil conditions, total acreage impacted (compaction, puddling, displacement, and severe burning) would not exceed 12 percent of total acreage within the treatment area, including landings and system roads. ST 7. Old landings and skid trails would be used to the extent possible, or landings on previously disturbed sites, such as roads, road shoulders, and borrow pits. Landings would be located on level ground and would not require excavation. ST 8. Any temporary road constructed for commercial thinning would be closed with berms, boulders, or other barriers immediately following treatment. No constructed temporary roads would cross perennial streams. ST 9. Any road damaged by vehicles or equipment would be restored to its previous standard or higher, with special attention placed on installing and improving drainage on the road to facilitate fire suppression and safety. ST 10. Temporary roads and landings would be located on stable locations, e.g., ridge tops, stable benches or flats, and gentle-to-moderate side slopes. Construction on steep slopes, slide areas and high landslide hazard locations would be minimized. ST 11. Equipment washing sites would be located in areas with no potential for runoff into wetlands, riparian management areas, floodplains and waters of the state. Solvents or detergents would not be used to clean equipment on site. ST 12. Road and landing construction, reconstruction, or renovation activities would be limited to the dry season. Erosion control measures would be kept concurrent with ground disturbance to allow immediate storm proofing. ST 13. Prior to the wet season, provide effective road surface drainage would be provided through practices such as machine cleaning of ditches, surface blading including berm removal, constructing sediment barriers, cleaning inlets and outlets.

ST 14. Commercial use would be suspended where the road surface is deeply rutted or covered by a layer of mud or when runoff from the road surface is causing a visible increase in stream turbidity in the receiving stream. ST 15. Do not allow wet season haul on natural surface roads or high sediment producing surfaced roads without practicable and effective mitigation.

Livestock Grazing (LG) LG 1. Treated areas would be rested sufficiently to ensure that health and vigor of desired vegetation has recovered to levels adequate to support and protect upland function. General rest period following aerial herbicide application is one growing season and two growing seasons following prescribed burning and seeding. Depending upon the recommendation of the ID Team, rest could apply to an entire pasture or to a treated area. LG 2. Notification to permittees would occur no later than one grazing season prior to implementation of projects within their authorized pastures. LG 3. Implementation would be phased within pastures to minimize the impact of resting pastures following a treatment on grazing permittees within the Project Area. Cutting units, herbicide spray units, and prescribed burning units would be designed so that they do not extend beyond pasture boundaries. The intent is to avoid working in multiple pastures used by a single grazing permittee within the same year.

Vegetation (VG) VG 1. No mowing or cutting of sagebrush would be implemented across any low sagebrush / bunchgrass sites or wet meadows within the Project Area. If low sagebrush ecological sites are within an area designated for development of a fuel break, that activity would avoid the site. VG 2. Broadcast burning of medusahead rye monocultures and associated thatch would only occur within patches that contained 5 percent sagebrush or less. Patches of medusahead would be isolated from adjacent vegetation by fireline construction and any interior islands of sagebrush would be protected with handline, wetline, or blacklining to minimize loss of sagebrush within the treated patch of medusahead. VG 3. If it is not possible to broadcast burn medusahead rye and/or cheatgrass patches, then a harrow would be used to break up the thatch layer and create soil exposure prior to application of aerial herbicide for annual grass control. If broadcast burning cannot be used within the medusahead/cheatgrass patches to expose the soil, then an 8-10 ounce rate of imazapic may be used during the aerial application of herbicide. VG 4. Sites that lack sufficient understory species, such as fully developed juniper woodlands, medusahead monocultures, or areas that have burned at a high severity may require seeding following a prescribed fire treatment to attain the desired post-fire response. Mixtures of desired grass and forb seed may be applied to designated areas with aerial or ground-based methods. Candidate sites for seeding will be determined on a case-by-case basis as monitoring data is gathered. VG 5. Avoid manual cutting of juniper with old growth characteristics or obvious wildlife occupation (cavities or nests). Consider protection of such trees during all prescribed fire operations. Old-growth juniper would be determined using structural characteristics of the tree. Specific characteristics include: broad, non-symmetrical tops, deeply furrowed bark,

twisted trunks or branches, dead branches and spike tops, large lower limbs, trunks containing narrow strips of cambium, hollow trunks, large trunk diameters relative to tree height, and branches covered with bright yellow green lichen (Miller et al. 2005, p. 24).

Aerial Herbicide (AH) AH 1. Maintain a 300-foot buffer between any river or tributary that provides habitat for bull trout (genus species) and any aerial imazapic application of herbicide for annual grass control. AH 2. Maintain a 100-foot buffer between any standing body of water or wet meadow and any aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control. AH 3. Maintain a 100-foot buffer between any identified special status plant locality and any aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control. AH 4. Native American tribes with identified traditional plant use in the project area would be consulted during development of annual treatment plans. Buffers would be established between identified plant gathering sites and any aerial application of herbicide for annual grass control.

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

Analysis Area Location Evaluation An evaluation of the size and shape of the area considered for analysis occurred prior to preparing this environmental assessment. The first area considered for analysis was much larger, totaling approximately 358,517 acres. The area followed a logical boundary that can be found on the ground when the project is implemented. The western boundary of this area followed district and resource area boundaries. The northern boundary followed Highway 26, and the southern boundary followed roadways south of Beulah Reservoir. The eastern boundary follows roadways east of Pole Creek. However, the southern and far eastern portion of the potential Analysis Area included areas that are not greater sage-grouse habitat; therefore, potential treatment of those areas did not meet Need 1 of the Purpose and Need identified in Chapter 1 of maintaining or improving sage-grouse habitat. As a result, the potential Analysis Area was decreased and areas that were not sage- grouse habitat were not considered. This led to the development of the current Analysis Area.

Prescribed Burning Only and No Thinning or Fuels Reduction Treatments Alternative An alternative that would include no removal of trees and uses only prescribed fire to accomplish fuels management needs was considered but not developed for further analysis. In sagebrush areas, a prescribed-burning-only prescription likely would not allow for maintenance of shrubs essential to conservation of greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species, thus not

meeting Need 1 identified in the Purpose and Need for this project identified in Chapter 1 which recognizes the need to maintain and restore habitat quality and quantity for greater sage-grouse. As described above, forested stands in the Project Area are characterized by highly dense stocking conditions above historical. For example, in the Castle Rock ACEC, stand densities are over 200ft2/acre; historically, these stands were either very open with 2 to 6 large ponderosa pine trees per acre or mountain mahogany- or sagebrush-dominated stands with an occasional pine tree present (Spiegel, et al., 2016). If prescribed fire were introduced to these stands without any thinning or removal of fuels, there would be substantial risk for escapement of prescribed fire, high mortality of trees and soil damage from extreme heat, which would not meet Need 4 of the Purpose and Need. Additionally, fire and fuels modeling show that if a wildfire were to start in these areas, the event could result in catastrophic conditions that would cause high tree mortality, uncontainable, extreme fire behavior and would result in loss of adjacent sage-grouse habitat which would not meet Need 1 of the Purpose and Need. Without thinning and fuels reduction, the direct fire suppression tactics in the vicinity of these stands would not be possible. This would increase the likelihood of stand-replacing wildland fires. Thinning treatments would reduce tree density, create a more open structure stand with vertical and horizontal diversity, increase understory diversity for wildlife, and make stands more defensible from stand-replacing fires and resilient to insect infestations and diseases. This would not only help protect life, property, and resource values on private and public lands, but also would improve firefighter safety. As such, this alternative was considered, but not further analyzed.

Exclusion of Aerial Applications of Herbicide for Annual Grass Control Alternative Analyzing an alternative that would exclude the aerial application of imazapic for invasive annual grass control was considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. This approach to annual grass control would not be effective because invasive annual grasses spread aggressively and tend to dominate low and mid-elevation sagebrush communities following disturbance. The spread of invasive annual grasses into sagebrush communities often initiates an annual grass/fire cycle characterized by shortened fire return intervals and larger more contiguous burned areas (Brooks, et al., 2004). This would not meet the purpose and need to increase resistance and resilience and constrain future fire size in sagebrush communities within the project area. Manual treatments of widespread annual grass infestations would be cost-prohibitive and practically impossible at a landscape scale or even a project scale. Aerial application is the only method of delivery that would provide a consistent rate of application over the rugged, rocky, uneven landscape that is proposed for treatment. In most treatment areas, ground equipment could not maintain a consistent speed nor navigate the terrain and therefore would not provide an even rate of herbicide delivery. Research has found that treating invasive annual grasses, such as medusahead rye and cheatgrass, with the aerial applications of imazapic using appropriate best management practices followed by seeding with deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses can substantially increase a plant community’s resistance to invasive species and resilience to future disturbance (Davies, 2010) (Davies & Sheley, 2011).

No Commercial Biomass Utilization Alternative An alternative that excludes commercial biomass utilization in the Project Area was considered but not further developed. Materials generated from cutting conifers would be machine piled, hand piled, left in place or jackpot burned if not utilized for biomass. This would not capture the economic value of the cut trees. It also does not reduce treatment costs incurred by the agency, and does not supply raw materials and jobs that contribute to community stability, and thus, does not meet Need 5 of the Purpose and Need for the project identified in Chapter 1. This alternative also contradicts Oregon/Washington BLM’s 2014 Memorandum of Understanding with the Western Juniper Utilization Group to increase economic opportunities related to western juniper by utilizing cut juniper for biomass and other juniper byproducts (BLM-OR931-1408).

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 ASSUMPTIONS

Short-term and Long-term Assumptions Common to all Alternatives This EA makes reference to short-term and long-term environmental effects resulting from various actions and impacts. For analysis purposes, short-term refers to consequences that would end in less than 5 years and long-term refers to consequences that would (1) persist for 5 years or more and (2) would continue out into the foreseeable future, barring some unforeseen change or management intervention. 3.2 SUBJECTS EXCLUDED FROM THE ANALYSIS As mentioned in Chapter 1, the following elements and issues are either not present or would not be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives and will not be analyzed further in this document:  Hazardous Wastes – not affected  Prime or Unique Farmlands – not present  Wild Horses – not present  Caves and Karsts – none known  Lands and Realty – not affected  Energy and Mineral Resources – not affected  Paleontological Resources – not present

3.3 VEGETATION

3.3.1 Affected Environment In Chapter 2, this document identified 4 main vegetation groups within the Project Area: 1) high elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, 2) low elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, 3) mixed conifer, and 4) non-conifer woody vegetation. Treatments that target each group as well as a rehabilitation treatment for the Bendire Fire burned area are described in Chapter 2. A detailed description of these communities is below except for the invasive annual grass dominated vegetation, which will be addressed in the Noxious Weeds section later in this chapter.

Much of the Project Area currently supports expansive western juniper. Isolated pockets of old- growth western juniper also occur in the project area. Generally, these old-growth juniper pockets are found on rock outcrops or ridgelines with sparse surface fuels and would be identified prior to treatment during botanical surveys (see PDE SSP1 in Chapter 2). These trees are generally characterized as having an irregularly shaped crown, partially dead areas of the canopy and main trunk, deeply furrowed bark, yellow to yellow-green lichen in canopy, cavities in trunk, and big limbs. Understory plants include sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and a number of perennial and annual forbs. Western juniper are more commonly found encroaching on deeper soil areas. These areas often are associated with mountain big sagebrush. Miller and others (2005) believe expansion of western juniper into mountain big sagebrush plant communities in eastern Oregon began in the late 1870s. Research conducted on nearby Steens Mountain in Harney County, Oregon, found that more than 90 percent of the current standing trees began growth prior to 1900 and the expansion of western juniper has occurred at the expense of associated vegetation (Miller & Rose, 1999). Western juniper encroachment is common across the Project Area (See fig 3.1 below). The lack of frequent, low-intensity fire, in concert with other factors, has allowed western juniper to encroach into the shrublands and grasslands where juniper was much less abundant historically. Miller, et al. (2005, p. 24) identified three transitional phases of western juniper development:

• Phase I – Trees are present but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient and energy cycles) on the site. • Phase II – Trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site. • Phase III – Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influences ecological processes on the site.

Most of the western juniper stands within the Project Area are in Phase I. Lesser portions of the Project Area are in phases II and III. The total time to move from Phase I to Phase III varies by site, but Miller and Rose (1999) estimate a western juniper stand approaches canopy closure within 70 to 90 years of tree establishment on productive sites and 120 to 170 years on drier sites. Western juniper also has expanded into Wyoming and low sagebrush sites. Although juniper expansion occurred simultaneously in other habitat types, the rate of encroachment is much slower in low sagebrush than on big sagebrush sites. Establishment of western juniper within the low sagebrush sites interrupts the short stature of the plant community. This encroachment process eventually leads to the loss of shrubs and grasses from under the developing juniper stand. This loss negatively affects a wide variety of wildlife species and overall biological diversity (Barrett, 2007). The figure below shows juniper and pine expansion within the Project Area near Castle Rock from 1976 to 2014.

Figure 3.1 Juniper and Pine Expansion

High-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass High elevation sagebrush acreages are dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana). Mountain big sagebrush occurs on sites that are more productive than Wyoming big sagebrush sites. Soils are often deep and well drained on mountain slopes. Plant diversity and productivity is greater than on Wyoming big sagebrush sites. Herbaceous plant composition is similar to other sagebrush types, but mountain big sagebrush plant communities tend to have a higher density and cover of large perennial grasses and deep-rooted perennial forbs. Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass are often be found as soil depth and elevation increase. Gray rabbitbrush, wax currant (Ribes cereum), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) are commonly found in association with mountain big sagebrush. Portions of the high-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass acreages have burned in large wildfires within the past 2 decades. This allowed for invasion of noxious and invasive annual grasses, including medusahead rye grass.

Low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass

Low elevation sagebrush acreages are dominated by Wyoming sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), low sagebrush (A. arbuscula) and rigid sagebrush (A. rigida).

Low sagebrush most often is found on shallow soils with either a restrictive layer or bedrock within 12 inches of the soil surface. Low sagebrush sites tend to be low to moderately productive because of shallow soils. Low sagebrush occupies slightly lower productivity sites with shallower soils with more rock on the surface than taxa of big sagebrush. Herbaceous species found in association with low sagebrush includes bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Thurber's needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and Sandberg's bluegrass (Poa secunda). Forbs commonly found on the site include Hooker’s balsamroot (Balsamorhiza hookeri), taper tip hawksbeard (Crepis acuminata), false dandelion (Agoseris glauca), prairie lupine (Lupinus lepidus), Hood's phlox (Phlox hoodii), low pussytoes (Antennaria dimorpha), and cushion buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium). Wyoming big sagebrush occurs on drier sites than basin big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush. The associated plant community is often less diverse than mountain or basin big sagebrush plant communities due to shallower soil and less precipitation. Winward noted relatively few perennial forbs in undisturbed Wyoming big sagebrush plant communities compared to other sagebrush types (Winward, 1983). Within in the Project Area, common perennial grasses associated with Wyoming big sagebrush are Thurber's needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass; common perennial forbs are Hood’s and long-leaf phlox (Phlox longifolia). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is most common in the Wyoming big sagebrush plant communities within the Project Area and there are areas where cheatgrass dominates. In highly disturbed portions of the low elevations sagebrush zones (such as burn scars), medusahead rye has formed monocultures in patches across the landscape ranging from 10 to 1,000 acres. Gray rabbitbrush, littleleaf horsebrush (Tetradymia glabrata) and granite prickly phlox (Linathus pungens) are shrubs found in association with Wyoming big sagebrush.

Mixed conifer Mixed conifer includes ponderosa pine woodlands and mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir stands. There are approximately 12,980 acres (Tackman, 2015) of forested land within the Project Area. The current conditions of stands in the Castle Rock Area are greatly departed from historic conditions. Historically these stands were characterized by pure stands of open-growth, large- diameter ponderosa pine with occasional Douglas-fir and western larch. These stands of fire resistant species were maintained by frequent, low-intensity fire. Ponderosa pine forests and pine woodlands burned every 12 to 23 years historically (Maruoka & Agee, 1994); which is natural Fire Regime Condition Classification (FRCC) I (high frequency, low to mixed fire severity). Excess regeneration, later seral species such as true fir, and fuels were routinely removed by low-intensity “cleansing” fires. The larger, thicker-barked, mature trees were left to flourish in a setting that had only minor inter-tree competition for water, light, and nutrients. This type of stand structure is representative of the classic late seral, or “old growth,” forest. Fire exclusion over the past century has disrupted this cycle, allowing prolific in-growth to occur, and the stands have become overstocked. Coniferous trees in excess of 8 inches in diameter are abundant throughout the stratum and canopy closure is in excess of 75 percent. Considering that fire or fire surrogates have otherwise been excluded for more than 100 years,

fuels structure and patterns are considered highly departed from reference conditions and is currently rated as FRCC 3. While much of the relic old growth structure still remains, the current densely overstocked conditions have caused some large, old trees to die due to competition-induced stress, and without considerable density management, remaining old trees will likely succumb as well. This remaining old-growth structure and the absence of stumps indicate that the stands in the Castle Rock Area have not been logged; thus, these stands provide a rare opportunity to improve forest health while retaining the original old-growth characteristics and promoting a return to historically normal stand structure, composition and natural processes such as low-intensity, ground fires. Forested stands in the Project Area are characterized by highly dense stocking conditions above historical norms and are at risk to bark beetle attack. For example, in the Castle Rock Area, stand densities average over 200ft2/acre; historically, these stands were either very open with 2 to 6 large ponderosa pine trees per acre or mountain mahogany- or sagebrush-dominated stands with an occasional pine tree present (Spiegel, et al., 2016). This is due to lack of fire that kept understory and canopy closure more open. These fires selected for conditions including the recruitment of Ponderosa pine throughout the Project Area and the survival of Douglas-fir in small pockets of higher moisture where fire intensity would decrease, allowing them to survive. This increased stocking has led to a propensity of small diameter Douglas-fir. The Douglas-fir are developing pockets of moderate to severe mistletoe infections that will continue to increase in severity as the disease spreads and intensifies and Ponderosa Pine, a shade intolerant species, is out-competed. Throughout the Castle Rock forested stands, patches of mountain pine beetle- killed trees can be seen. These pockets are expected to expand due increased competition between the remaining trees and less resources for each tree to combat the epidemic ((Spiegel, et al., 2016); see Figure 3.2 below). Canopy height is low in comparison to historic conditions, further increasing the chance of a large stand-replacing fire. Ground vegetation is lacking in many areas as the canopy coverage is at or approaching 100 percent, creating a lack of light on the forest floor and an increased competition for moisture. This has led to a decrease of wildlife forage and high levels of ground fuels that will continue to worsen.

Figure 3.2 Aerial Detection Maps of Pine Beetle Spots (Ott, 2015) In most of the Project Area, Douglas-fir is an encroaching species due to lack of fire that would have killed regeneration prior to the trees reaching maturity. However, on some of the more mesic sites, Douglas-fir is either dominant, or co-dominant with pine, indicating the sites are appropriately occupied by this later seral species, although at densities higher than historic norms. Unfortunately, the Douglas-fir on these sites exhibits a severe infestation of dwarf mistletoe. Like the bark beetles, dwarf mistletoe is an endemic component of naturally occurring forests, and it provides benefits to some wildlife species in the form of nesting and forage habitat. Frequent fires that burned through the forest naturally kept this parasitic plant at lower, beneficial levels. The absence of fire has allowed the expansion of Douglas-fir to abnormal densities, exasperating dwarf mistletoe. This disease causes the crowns of infected trees to produce malformations known as “witch’s brooms,” which are a dense growth of branches and foliage that trap dead material the tree has cast off. Eventually these witch’s brooms will either die or break off from the tree due to increased weight and become ready concentrations of ground or ladder fuel. Infected regeneration is not likely to reach maturity and infected older trees will eventually die as the parasite spreads throughout the tree. Additionally, moderately to severely infected trees are under extreme stress, which greatly increases the likelihood of bark beetle attacks (Spiegel, et al., 2016). Western juniper is also encroaching in all stands. Typically, this species was relegated to dry, rocky sites that were protected from fire due to a sparseness of fuels and lack of fuel continuity to carry fires to the sites. The disruption of the fire return interval has allowed this species to expand well beyond its historic range, a widespread problem throughout the arid west. This juniper encroachment has only added to the poor forest health condition of these stands. As with excessive conifer regeneration, juniper is competing with overstory components of these stands and contributes to their stressed condition. Juniper, in conjunction with overstocked conifers of

all size classes, also has displaced the historic understory community. This is evidenced by the lack of shrubs, grasses and forbs and the skeletal remains of mountain mahogany that has long since succumbed to competition. This loss of understory components, particularly mountain mahogany, has decreased the area’s value as wildlife habitat.

Non-conifer woody vegetation Non-conifer woody vegetation includes hardwood species of quaking aspen, riparian species like alder, willow, and chokecherry, and woody species like bitterbrush and curlleaf mountain mahogany. Inventories were conducted in 2000 and 2001 during field assessments along most major drainages to locate riparian areas and assess their condition. Stream reaches in recovery or at Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) typically support tree species such as willow, quaking aspen, cottonwood and water birch or shrubby species such as coyote willow, golden currant, mock orange, and Wood’s rose. Healthy riparian areas also contain several species of native grasses, sedges, and rushes. There are stream segments that have lost or are losing native vegetation, including shrub and aspen communities. Some riparian areas are being invaded by noxious weeds and other exotic species, indicating disturbed or nonfunctioning stream systems. Within the Project Area there are a number of scattered aspen stands. Though occupying relatively small areas within vast landscapes, aspen woodlands provide essential habitat for many wildlife species (Maser, et al., 1984) (DeByle, 1985) and contain a high diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. Aspen are generally recognized as having more lush undergrowth than neighboring coniferous forests (Mueggler, 1985). The herbaceous vegetation occurs as a multilayered mixture of shrubs, forbs, and grasses and consists of a broad combination of species. Vegetation within these areas includes wet and mesic meadows dominated by herbaceous vegetation and reaches dominated by willows or aspen. Because of lack of fire, nearly all of aspen and riparian vegetation is being encroached by conifers, primarily juniper. The encroachment has led to decadent conditions in both aspen and riparian vegetative stands. Competition from the encroaching conifer trees for light, water, and nutrients, has resulted in the current decadent condition of these two vegetation communities. The aspen stands in the Project Area are over-mature and quickly degrading as they reach maximum age with little regeneration. These aspen stands are at further risk of being lost through a moderate to rapid conversion to conifers, which was historically kept in check through periodic fires. These fires also served to regenerate the even-aged aspen stands through prolific suckering. Several large stands (greater than 40 acres) and many isolated pockets of curlleaf mountain mahogany and bitterbrush are exhibited throughout the Project Area in the Castle Rock and Ironside Mountain areas. Conifer is encroaching is these area and replacing these shrub species. These are unique features within the Project Area, providing microhabitats for species and important forage for big game; loss of these habitats has a negative effect on big game. Besides the several large stands of curlleaf mountain mahogany, the pockets are typically less than a half- acre in size and are scattered throughout the area, often located along the edges of the mixed conifer stands or on scattered ridges within conifer stands.

3.3.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, trends described in the plant communities would be unchecked. Expansion of conifers into shrub steppe plant communities within the Project Area would continue at the expense of understory cover, density, and diversity. As juniper woodlands move from mid- to late-stages of development, thresholds would be approached or crossed. These thresholds include 1) significant decline in shrubs, 2) decline in fire ignition, 3) reduced tree mortality to fire due to increasing tree size, 4) decline in berry production, and 5) potential decline in herbaceous cover and diversity dependent on soils and other site factors (Miller, et al., 2005). Without the herbicide treatments, areas vulnerable to invasion from invasive annual grasses could trend parts of the Project Area towards becoming annual grassland, thereby decreasing the fire return interval and increasing the chances for large fires. Perennial grasses and forbs would continue to decline as stands of juniper developed into closed-canopy woodlands. Density and vigor of sagebrush, bitterbrush, and mountain mahogany shrubs in the planning area would decline. In mixed-conifer stands, as fuel loading continues to increase, the potential for a high-severity, stand-replacing wildfire, occurring under extreme situations and causing extensive plant mortality and soil sterilization, increases. Recovery would take several decades, increasing the risk of noxious weed, a lack of seed source, and invasive annual grass invasion. Additionally, as stand densities near unstable levels (a large number are there or nearing that level now), density dependent stress mortality would increase. Individual large and medium diameter conifers would continue to die from site resource competition and continued insect and disease mortality. The risk of mountain pine beetle and western pine beetle causing mortality in ponderosa pine (large and small) would remain high while stocking remains high (Spiegel, et al., 2016). Therefore, without treatment, many of the old growth trees (and many other individual trees from other cohorts) will be lost. There would also be little or no increase in understory perennial grasses, forbs and brush species in forested stands. These plants would continue to decline as litter layers deepen and conifers continue to utilize the limited site resources. The risk of a stand-replacement wildfire occurring in shrubland plant communities and mixed- conifer stands would remain the same or increase over time. This risk is associated with high fuel loads, overstocked stands, invasive annual grass cover, and poor road access. In these areas, fires would be difficult to suppress, suppression costs would increase, and firefighters would be placed at greater risk because associated fire behavior is elevated; as a result, direct suppression of fires in these areas would not likely occur as fire fighter safety would be the first priority. Therefore, fire size and severity is likely to be higher without treatment. High-intensity wildland fire combined with a depleted herbaceous understory would continue to contribute to a landscape-level conversion of historic plant communities. Conifer encroachment in curlleaf mountain mahogany and bitterbrush pockets overtops and shades out these species decreasing the amount of foliage and overall cover of these shrubs. The trend toward encroachment and decrease in shrub cover would continue under the No Action alternative, negatively affecting big game habitat and forage. Aspen communities would continue to decline as a result of continued encroachment of conifers. Conifers compete with aspen and riparian vegetation for available moisture. Although juniper

does not transpire year round in the colder climate of eastern Oregon as it does in warmer winter areas (Jeppesen, 1978), it does increase its water use in early spring because it is an evergreen species (Miller & Schultz, 1987). Advantageous use of soil moisture by juniper reduces understory vegetation, plant reestablishment, and vigor (Jeppesen, 1978). Juniper surface roots may extend outward considerable distance from the main stem depriving other vegetation of available soil moisture. When conifers overtake aspen communities, less water is available to the watershed, biomass of understory vegetation is significantly reduced, and the diversity of wildlife and plant species declines. The greatest concern is the loss of aspen communities once a conifer community becomes established because aspen does not readily establish from seed (McDonough, 1985) (Mitton & Grant, 1996). Riparian vegetation communities would likely also experience reduced community health as a result of overstory loss from fire. An increase of non-native invasive annual grass cover in the project area would increase the fire frequency and the potential for future large fires to occur. Higher fire frequency increases the risk to riparian treatment investments and to vegetation adjacent to the burn with low resistance to invasion. An increase in fires and subsequent fire suppression activities (e.g., dozer lines) can create disturbance and leave open niches for establishment of not only invasive species, but also noxious species. Under the No Action alternative, fuel breaks would not be constructed; therefore, vegetation within the proposed 150 foot fuel break footprints would not be disturbed or altered. However, without a strategic network of fuel breaks to facilitate fire containment and reduce the amount of acres burned annually, large and/or frequent wildfires are expected to occur across the project area based on wildfire trends over the last 30 years. Leaving intact and recovering sagebrush- steppe and mixed conifer forests unprotected by fuel breaks could have major consequences to sage-grouse habitat and traditional cultural values in the vicinity of Castle Rock. This would including a probable vegetation type conversion to annual-dominated systems in sagebrush communities, shortened fire return interval, eventual loss of native plant diversity, degraded watershed function, and increased surface disturbance from fire suppression.

3.3.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action)

High- and low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass When designing juniper treatments, “a field guide for selecting the most appropriate treatment in sagebrush and piñon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin: Evaluating resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses, and predicting vegetation response” (Miller et al, 2014) would be consulted to ensure treatments are designed to meet the project objectives. Sagebrush and other shrubs recover after conifer control depending on the species and resiliency of the site (Barney & Frischknecht, 1974) (Tausch & Tueller, 1990) (Bates, et al., 2005). Removal of western juniper and other conifers on encroached systems would result in a rapid increase in herbaceous production and cover (Bates, et al., 1998) (Bates, et al., 2000), and influence on-site ecological processes such as increased water capture and storage (Pierson, et al., 2007) and nutrient cycling (Bates, et al., 2002). Removal of conifers by cutting and burning would create or maintain open sagebrush plant communities with composition of diverse associations of grasses and forbs. Juniper would be reduced to levels typical of more conditions prior to Euro-American contact. Generally, reducing juniper stocking would result in increased

herbaceous and shrub species composition and structural diversity, which is beneficial to greater sage-grouse and other species dependent on this ecosystem. Cutting and burning of encroaching conifers, including juniper, would release herbaceous components of plant communities and many shrubs would be retained, and subsequently released from competition with conifers, following treatment. Intense heat resulting in some plant mortality would occur in some localized areas where piles are burned. This effect would primarily be limited to areas directly beneath conifer trunks and large branches. Biomass removal of cut conifers would reduce potential for soil sterilization due to reduction of juniper slash to be burned. Potential benefits of nutrients released during burning would be reduced as some conifer is removed as biomass. However, extensive amounts of conifer would still remain on site for later burning. The burning of conifer will create a flush of nutrients available to plants which can result in a decrease in the site’s resistance to invasion of nonnative annuals (Miller, et al., 2014). Nonnative annual plants often increase after prescribed fire; however, native seeding would help reduce the potential of nonnative invasions. The Proposed Action also includes seeding of desirable grasses, forbs, and shrubs if needed within treated areas to accelerate plant community recovery. Seeding would encourage quicker growth responses from desired plant species and/or to further inhibit invasive annual grass growth. Seeded areas would be rested from livestock grazing for at least two growing seasons after the seeding. The rest would allow seeded plants and plants outside the seeding that are within the rested area to establish and grow freely to produce a strong root system for energy storage and to encourage reproduction. The aerial application of imazapic at the low rates (6 to 8 oz) used to select for invasive annual grasses poses a low risk to other terrestrial plants. At the maximum rate, imazapic (12 oz) poses a moderate risk to non‐target terrestrial forbs and some grasses. Terrestrial plants are not at risk from off‐site drift, surface runoff or wind erosion of imazapic. When used to control invasive annual grasses, imazapic did not affect perennial forb cover. However, it reduced the cover of native annual forbs, and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda) for at least three years post‐ treatment (Pyke, et al., 2014). Susceptibility of native perennial plants as adults or seedlings is unknown for many species and soil types; thus, there is some uncertainty about the retention of native perennials when this herbicide is used as a selective herbicide for annual grasses, and about the success of revegetation efforts immediately following herbicide applications. Native annual plants, if they emerge at the same time as invasive annual grasses, may be susceptible and harmed by imazapic applications (Pyke, 2011). In areas recently burned, treatments with imazapic would give residual native perennials the opportunity to recover and regrow before the invasive annual grasses re‐establish. Most native perennial bunch grasses are tolerant to imazapic at typical rates. Due to the potentially large treatment areas, uneven terrain and changing topography, imazapic would primarily be applied aerially to assure a consistent rate of application across all acres treated. Since the herbicide is selective for annual grasses and annual weedy species, the effect of aerial spraying on non‐ targeted native vegetation would be negligible. However, some native annual forbs and grasses could be impacted temporarily.

Sagebrush steppe vegetation within the fuel breaks (i.e., fuel treatment zones) would be directly affected, while indirect effects would occur adjacent to the fuel break footprint and beyond within the Project Area. By design, existing vegetation within the 150 miles of fuel breaks in the Project Area would be replaced (except for perennial species in unseeded/natural fuel breaks that meet fuel break criteria) or modified in most cases. No mowing or seeding would occur to on low or rigid sagebrush flats or wet meadows (see PDE VG1 in Chapter 2). Seeded species would replace remnant native species and non-native invasive species to ensure fuel breaks consist of low statured, competitive, fire resilient perennial species in low elevation sagebrush sites that are vulnerable to invasion by annual grasses. Sagebrush mowing would be the primary type of vegetation modification on high elevation sagebrush / bunchgrass communities. Observation of project design elements would not allow mowing or alteration of low sagebrush, rigid sagebrush or wet meadow sites along the fuel break network. Opening the shrub canopy through mowing can result in a release of herbaceous plants in the short-term (1-3 years), especially annual species (Davies & Sheley, 2011). An indirect effect of mowing vegetation to create fuel breaks would include the potential for annual plants, including noxious and invasive species, to spread from the fuel break into adjacent vegetation communities. Herbicide applications and perennial plant seedings would likely be required in some areas to control noxious and invasive weeds and reduce the potential for spread into adjacent vegetation communities. Another indirect effect would include reduced size and frequency of wildland fires and increased capability to protect existing native plant communities. Seeding green strips of desirable low stature perennial vegetation along fuel breaks in sagebrush communities could also occur in the 300-foot wide (150-feet on each side of road) fuel break footprint. Seeding perennial plant species in fuel breaks would change plant community composition and structure within the treatment footprint by replacing annual grasses and forbs, and/or native perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs with perennial species that meet fuel break criteria. Species selected for this project have shown to be effective at maintaining increased levels of moisture into the fire season, are low in stature, and have potential to be effective at competing with invasive annual species. Species considered within green strips would include crested wheatgrass cultivars and possibly Sandberg’s bluegrass in high elevation communities (greater than 4700’ ASML). A major long-term threat identified for sagebrush (and, thus, greater sage-grouse habitat) is wildfire. Although the disturbance footprint/treatment footprint is greatest within fuel breaks, the long-term benefit to vegetation (i.e., habitat) in and around the Project Area would also be greatest. A system of highly effective fuel breaks created to the specifications desired by fire managers to best reduce the imminent threat of wildfire fire by improving fire suppression activities (ensuring access and compartmentalizing the landscape) would protect intact habitat as well as recovering or rehabilitated habitat better than the No Action alternative and moderately better than Alternative 3. Further, monitoring and control would limit impacts to vegetation outside the fuel break. Also, creating fuel breaks poses some risk of invasive or noxious species colonizing fuel breaks, but project design features and maintenance (e.g., herbicide treatment) would minimize this risk.

Mixed conifer forest Commercial thinning (potentially through stewardship contracts) and prescribed burning would decrease density of overstocked stands within the Project Area, returning forested areas to historic conditions. Under this alternative, 1,053 acres are proposed for commercial timber harvest. It is expected that stands would move from weighted averages of 108 and 124 square feet/acre in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated stands, respectively, to more historical densities (averaging close to 60 to 100 square feet/acre). Additionally, lower stand densities would directly reduce risk of insect and disease outbreaks within the forested stands, improve tree vigor and health, allow fire to be used to reduce fuels, and decrease the proportion of Douglas-fir and western juniper. Thinning around large-diameter trees would limit risk of mortality by reducing competition/stress and fuel loading. There would be potential in certain areas to protect, promote, and enhance stands of large-diameter trees. Stocking would be reduced to increase resources available to large trees, spur growth of ground forage for wildlife and reduce risk of large, stand-replacing fires. This would be accomplished by removing diseased and smaller Douglas-fir and western juniper. Large remnant Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees should be retained. Trees with low canopy heights (<20 feet) would be removed to reduce ladder fuels. Trees will not be uniformly spaced within a stand but exhibit a natural clumpy-gap appearance to mimic naturally occurring variation. Whenever possible, after treatment, stands would be prescribed burned to reduce fuels, kill encroaching juniper and Douglas-fir regeneration and reintroduce a natural process that shaped these forests and woodlands. Thinning along main roads would be heavier to create a defensible fire line, but these treatments also would strive to mimic natural variation through feathering and contouring. Since the current condition would not allow prescribed fire due to the dangerous, high fuel loads and ladder fuels, the resulting condition from the Proposed Action would allow use of prescribed fires to restore natural processes, and reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire in adjacent sage-grouse habitat. The FRCC rating of the ponderosa pine dominated forest and woodland stratum would drop from class 3 to class 1 as fuel loading decreases and fuel patterns are less continuous. Development of 7 miles of fuel breaks within the mixed conifer forest on BLM administered lands would reduce the threat of wildland fire moving from a sagebrush community in to the forest. It would likewise reduce the threat of a human caused ignition along the Castle Rock – Beulah Reservoir road.

Non-conifer woody species Removal of conifers would reduce stand density and consequently competition for light, water and nutrients, allowing regeneration of riparian and aspen vegetation communities. Overall, impacts to riparian and aspen communities would be positive. Specifically, aspen, riparian shrubs and herbaceous cover and species richness would be enhanced and fuel loading would be reduced. Treatment would reduce effects of western juniper encroachment on stands of mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, willow, chokecherry, aspen, and other woody riparian species that are at least one-eighth acre in size. It is estimated that this treatment would be applied on less than 500 acres within the Project Area, of which approximately 890 acres are large patches of mountain mahogany. Broadcast burning cut juniper within quaking aspen stands would be expected to kill

all dominant and sub-canopy juniper trees and stimulate aspen suckering within remnant stands. Research suggests that burning during fall season would be the most effective method of eliminating juniper and stimulating recruitment within aspen patches in the northern Great Basin (Bates & Miller, 2004). Jackpot burning and conifer cutting within stands of mountain mahogany and bitterbrush shrubs would reduce or eliminate competing conifers while maintaining the existing understory plant community and minimizing the effects of fire on the understory component. It is anticipated that reducing the presence of western juniper within existing patches of these shrubs would increase their distribution, density, and vigor over a long-term period.

3.3.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) No treatment activities are proposed in WSAs or WIUs located wholly or partially within the Project Area. The Project Area includes 2 WIU areas, West Fork Bendire (OR-034-007) and Rocky Basin (OR-02-017). West Fork Bendire WIU has 10,519 acres of public land in the Project Area and is located immediately east of Castle Rock. Approximately 792.5 acres of the north portion of the Rocky Basin WIU is included in the Project Area and is southwest of the North Fork Malheur River. The Project Area also encompasses the 6,200-acre Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is in the north central portion of the site. Under this alternative, these areas, totaling 17,512 acres, would not be treated. In general, treatment activities would reduce fuel loads and overall vegetation density. If a fire were to start in the treated areas, the likelihood of success of suppression efforts would be higher than in untreated areas. There would also a higher probability of stopping a fire from spreading into untreated areas, providing some protection to untreated areas. However, should a fire start in untreated areas, depending on location and accessibility, it may be result in extreme fire behavior (crowning, sustained runs, long distance spotting) and may not be safe for direct suppression efforts.

High- and low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass and conifer encroachment Impacts resulting from the proposed activities in these treatment areas are essentially the same as Alternative 2, outside of the WSAs and WIUs. Reducing conifer encroachment in sagebrush communities has benefits for greater sage-grouse and many other species dependent on these communities. Cutting and burning of encroaching conifers, including juniper, would reduce competition and release herbaceous components of plant communities and many shrubs would be retained, and subsequently released from competition with conifers, following treatment. Appropriate seeding of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs within treated areas would accelerate plant community recovery. Seeding would encourage quicker growth responses from desired plant species and/or to provide additional desirable competitive vegetation to inhibit invasive annual grass growth. However, under this alternative up to 17,512 acres of the WSAs and WIUs will go untreated, permitting current negative conditions and trends unchanged in the southwestern and central portions of the Project Area and reducing the overall resource benefits for greater sage-grouse in sagebrush habitat and creating fragmentation. Conifer encroachment in untreated areas would continue to progress toward later seral phases of juniper stands. Under this alternative fuel breaks would be established adjacent to the WSA and WIU units but they would not offer the same effectiveness as the fuel breaks described in the Proposed Action.

The decrease in effectiveness would occur because no vegetation manipulation (i.e. mowing or seeding a green strip) would be allowed within a unit with wilderness values. Fuel breaks with vegetation modification along only a single edge are not as effective at containment of fire spread as those with modification along both edges of the road that forms vegetation free break in fuel continuity.

Mixed conifer Under this alternative, a reduction from the Proposed Action of approximately 222 acres or one- quarter of commercial timber harvest treatment areas are proposed in this alternative outside, due to the exclusion of the WSA and WIU areas. Commercial and noncommercial thinning (potentially through stewardship contracts) and prescribed burning would selectively decrease density of the proportion of Douglas-fir and western juniper in overstocked stands, returning forested areas to historic conditions. Returning stands to historic conditions would also include the use of prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads. Over the past five years there has been a marked increase in insect related mortality. As stand densities near maximums (a large number are there or nearing that level now), density caused stress mortality would increase. Individual large and medium diameter conifers would continue to die from site resource competition and continued insect and disease mortality. Lowering stand densities would directly reduce risk of insect and disease outbreaks within the treated forested stands and improve tree vigor and health. However, this alternative excludes the areas most affected by pine beetle mortality and does not allow for treatments to create resiliency in stands that are currently unaffected or only slightly affected by beetles, but will likely be severely affected in the future without treatment. There would be little or no increase in understory grasses, forbs and brush species in untreated forest stands. These plants would continue to decline as litter layers deepen and conifers continue to utilize the limited site resources. The number of acres with a high risk of stand replacement fire would continue to increase. Litter layers over most the area would continue to build up and an increase in woody fuels will occur as trees die, increasing future surface fire intensities. Crowns in the un-thinned stands would continue to increase in crown bulk density, and crown heights would continue to be low, creating undesirable ladder fuels.

Non-conifer woody species In non-conifer woody areas, less than half or approximately 306 acres of large stands of mountain mahogany are proposed for treatment under this alternative. In untreated stands of mahogany, conifer encroachment in curlleaf mountain mahogany and bitterbrush pockets shades out these species decreasing the amount of foliage and overall cover of these shrubs. The trend toward encroachment and decrease in shrub cover would continue in the untreated areas, negatively affecting big game habitat and forage.

3.4 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Fire Regime and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) The Project Area is divided into five vegetation treatment categories: 1) high-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, 2) low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass, 3) mixed conifer, and 4) non- conifer woody vegetation and for the purpose of evaluating the current Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) in the Project Area these categories will be used herein. Non-conifer woody vegetation includes quaking aspen, alder, willow, chokecherry, bitterbrush, and curlleaf mountain mahogany, and represents less than one percent of the Project Area and occurs in patches across the landscape. This vegetation stratum will follow the fire regimes of the vegetation community immediately adjacent and will not be analyzed separately in the section. A historic fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention or fire suppression, including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee, 1993). Following coarse-scale definitions developed, (Hardy, et al., 2001) (Schmidt, et al., 2002), five natural (historic) fire regimes of major vegetative communities have been classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) and fire severity (amount of replacement) on dominant over-story vegetation. The five fire regime classifications commonly interpreted for fire and fuels management purposes include: I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a classification of the departure amount from the natural fire regime (Hann & Bunnell, 2001). Determination of departure amount is based on a comparison of current attributes (vegetation-fuel composition, fire frequency, and fire severity) to the expected attributes of natural fire regime. This departure results in changes to one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). There are no wildland vegetation and fuel conditions that do not fit within one of the three classes.

A simplified description of the FRCCs and associated potential risks is presented below.

Table 3.1 Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) (Hann & Bunnell, 2001) FRCC Description Potential Risks

Condition Within the natural Fire behavior, effects, and other associated Class 1 (historical) range of disturbances are similar to those that occurred (low) variability of vegetation prior to fire exclusion (suppression) and other characteristics; fuel types of management that do not mimic the composition; fire frequency, natural fire regime and associated vegetation severity and pattern; and and fuel characteristics. other associated disturbances Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels are similar to the natural (historical) regime.

Condition Moderate departure from the Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g. Class 2 natural (historical) regime of native species, large trees, and soil) is low. (moderate) vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire Fire behavior, effects, and other associated frequency, severity and disturbances are moderately departed (more or pattern; and other associated less severe). disturbances Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are moderately altered. Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to moderate; risk of loss of key ecosystem components is moderate.

Condition High departure from the Fire behavior, effects, and other associated Class 3 natural (historical) regime of disturbances are highly departed (more or less (high) vegetation characteristics; severe). fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and Composition and structure of vegetation and pattern; and other associated fuel are highly altered. disturbances Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate to high. Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.

Changes in FRCC have greatly influenced the distribution, composition, and structure of rangeland, woodland, and forest vegetation within the Project Area. In a few locations, frequency of fire has decreased because of fire suppression activities and/or removal of fine burnable fuels (grasses) by historic grazing practices. Changes resulting from decreased fire frequency include:

 Encroachment of conifers, including ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western juniper, into higher elevation non-forested vegetation (sagebrush, aspen, and mountain mahogany).  Increased tree density and fuel loadings into former savanna-like stands of western juniper and ponderosa pine.  Increased density or cover of big sagebrush and other shrubs, with an accompanying loss of herbaceous vegetation.  Increased fuel loading in mixed conifer forests.

In contrast, fire frequency has increased in lower elevation where exotic annual grasses such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye have become established. Changes resulting from increased fire frequency include:

 Loss of plant community diversity on some landscapes within the Project Area.  Altered fuel bed from discontinuous (native perennial) to continuous (invasive annual grass).  Reduced brush and forb density.  Increased fine fuel loading and continuity throughout the lower elevations (less than 4,700 feet AMSL) of the Project Area. As mentioned previously, a description of the four vegetation stratums and associated fuel models are the following:

High-Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Stratum High-elevation sagebrush acreages are dominated by mountain big sagebrush. Historic mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities comprise approximately 71 percent of the BLM- administered acres within the Project Area. This stratum is composed of a shrubland occupying a mountainous landform. Within the mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum, historic fire frequencies were estimated to be 15 to 20 years (Miller & Rose, 1999), which is natural fire regime classification II (high frequency, high fire severity). In general, the surface fire behavior fuel model for this stratum is currently a fuel type model Grass-Shrub (GS) 2 (Scott & Burgan, 2005). Fuel model GS2 is composed of grass and shrubs combined, with shrubs that are 1 to 3 feet high, resulting in a fire spread rate that is high and moderate flame lengths (Scott & Burgan, 2005). With the presence of vegetation in amounts that are uncharacteristic of the plant community under a historic fire regime, the vegetation currently within the Project Area is highly departed from historic conditions. Considering that fire has been excluded from more than 90 percent of this stratum for more than 100 years, the fuel composition, fire frequencies, and burn patterns within the Project Area also are considered highly departed from reference conditions. Based on the large amounts of vegetation within the Project Area that are uncharacteristic of the historic range of variability and the high level of fire exclusion that has occurred in the Project Area, this stratum is rated as FRCC 3.

Low-Elevation Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Stratum

Low-elevation sagebrush acreages are dominated by Wyoming sagebrush, rigid sagebrush and low sagebrush. Historic low and rigid sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities comprise approximately 5 percent of the Project Area. This stratum is composed of a shrubland and/or grassland occupying a mountainous landform. Low sagebrush communities burned every 200+ years historically (Miller, et al., 2005); which is natural fire regime classification V (low frequency, high fire severity). In general, the fire behavior fuel type model expected for this stratum is currently similar to a GS 1, in which the primary carrier of fire is grass and shrubs combined (Scott & Burgan, 2005). Composition of vegetation in the stratum is slightly to moderately departed from the composition of plant communities that would have existed under a historic fire regime. Considering that the low sagebrush stratum is estimated to have burned only every 200 years historically, the fuel composition, fire frequencies, and burn patterns within the Project Area are considered similar or slightly departed from reference conditions. Based on the moderate departure of vegetative composition and fire frequency in the low sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum within the Project Area, it is rated FRCC 2. Wyoming big sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities comprise approximately 10 percent of the Project Area. This stratum is composed of a shrubland occupying landforms of low hills and benches. Within the Wyoming big sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum, historic fire return intervals were estimated to be 35 to 100 years (Whisenant, 1990), which is natural fire regime classification III (high frequency, mixed fire severity). In general, the surface fire behavior fuel type model for this stratum is currently a GS 2 (Scott & Burgan, 2005). Cheatgrass is an invasive species present in the understory of many stands of Wyoming big sagebrush in the Project Area in amounts that are not considered characteristic of reference conditions. The current structure and composition of the Wyoming big sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum is highly departed from reference values. Juniper encroachment and cheatgrass present in abundant quantities are not characteristic of Wyoming sagebrush\bunchgrass community reference conditions. A lack of early seral, grassy, fire-created openings also characterizes the stratum. In light of these departures from reference conditions, this stratum is rated as FRCC 3.

Mixed Conifer and Ponderosa Pine Woodland Stratum Potential ponderosa pine woodland and mixed conifer communities constitute approximately 9 percent of the Project Area. This stratum is composed of ponderosa pine woodlands and mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir stands occupying a mountainous landform. Ponderosa pine forests and pine woodlands burned every 12 to 23 years historically (Maruoka & Agee, 1994); which is natural fire regime classification I (high frequency, low to mixed fire severity). In general, the surface fire behavior fuel type models that can be expected within this stratum are currently a Timber Litter (TL) 5 or 8, depending on the amount of downed wood that is present (Scott & Burgan, 2005). The amount of dead and downed woody material on the ground is the primary carrier of fire and affects fire behavior. Timber Litter model 8 has a moderate load a long-needle pine litter, and may include small amount of herbaceous load, while TL 5 has light slash or downed wooded present and applies more to forested stands on north aspects and areas

with Douglas fir present. Fire behavior in this fuel type is characterized by fast moving fires and moderate to high fireline intensity. Heavy needle cast and duff throughout the stratum often remain 4 to 12 inches deep. Forest overstory in this stratum primarily consists of a very dense, second-growth, stand of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir with juniper encroachment. Due to fire suppression and insufficient management of forest overstory trees, these stands have a dangerous susceptibility to a catastrophic crown fire. Coniferous trees in excess of 9 inches in diameter are abundant throughout the stratum and canopy closure is often in excess of 75 percent. Considering that fire or fire surrogates have otherwise been excluded for more than 100 years, fuels structure and patterns are considered highly departed from reference conditions. This stratum is rated as FRCC 3.

Fire History Existing fire history records (1980-2015) indicate more than 90 fires have occurred within the Project Area. Several of the large fires listed below started in forested stands and rapidly spread to adjacent areas, including important greater sage-grouse habitat. Only fires greater than 100 acres in size are included in the table below. Many of these fires burned beyond the Project Area. However, only the acres burned within the Project Area are reported in the table. It is notable that fire frequency and burned area appears to increase substantially around 2007. Map 7 in Appendix B shows fire history.

Table 3.2 Project Area Fire History Acres within Project Fire Name Year Area

Beulah 1981 1,958

Sheep Rock 1981 647

Bully Creek 1983 1,659

Lower Beulah 1986 474

Beulah 1989 297

Adobe Reservoir 1991 300

Ironside 1994 10,757

Powder 1994 6,040

Castle Rock 1994 160

Clevenger Mountain 1998 175

Big Flat 1998 100

Hunter Creek 2003 232

Irish Springs 2007 45,772

Ironside 2007 371

Juniper Reservoir 2007 28,350

Iron 2012 9,875

Kitten Canyon 2014 1,434

Bendire Complex 2015 33,502

Total Acres 142,103*

*Several of the fires listed had overlapping fire boundaries among years. For example, the Iron Fire, a wildfire that burned approximately 9,875 acres in 2012, burned again in 2015 in the Bendire Complex. Therefore, the acres listed above are not additive across the Project Area.

3.4.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Prescribed fire and vegetation treatments would not be reintroduced to the Project Area under the No Action alternative. Juniper-encroached plant communities would continue on a predicted successional transition to fully developed juniper-woodlands (Miller, et al., 2005). Loss of habitat for sagebrush obligates, including greater sage-grouse, would continue. Mixed conifer and pine-dominated forest stands would continue to present a severe crown fire hazard and threaten private property and resource values. The fire return interval would increase as understory vegetation decreased over time. Fire regimes would shift toward an IV or V throughout the Project Area, resulting in stand-replacing fires with high severity fire effects. Fires would be more difficult to suppress, suppression costs would increase, firefighters would be placed at greater risk because fuel loads are high and associated fire behavior is elevated. Under the no action alternative, the chance of a stand replacing fire igniting in the forest present at Castle Rock and Ironside Mountain and spreading into the surrounding sagebrush habitat is increased.

3.4.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Implementation of the Proposed Action would move fire regimes to desired conditions that more closely mimic historic conditions and create a more diverse plant community and successional stages. Implementation of the Proposed Action would lower the risk of a large-scale, high severity wildfire event occurring in the Project Area. The overall FRCC rating of the planning area would change from a Class 3 to a Class 1 as open early seral shrubland increase across the landscape and closed canopy pine forest and pine woodland stands are treated. Within ponderosa pine forested areas, stocking of invaded western juniper would decrease to be more in line with historical levels under the Proposed Action. Sapling and pole sized ponderosa pine stocking would be reduced substantially. The pines that remain would have increased vigor and be more able to withstand natural disturbance processes such as fire and insect attack. Duff depths would be reduced and with more sunlight and moisture, the ground cover would respond with much greater numbers of herbaceous and grass species. Bitterbrush, bunchgrass, and other upland vegetation would benefit from decreased stocking of trees. Treatment of Douglas-fir scattered through the stands includes sanitation of mistletoe pockets, reduction of understory and retention of larger diameter trees. Sanitation of dwarf mistletoe pockets would include removal of Douglas-fir where the upper two-thirds of the crown is infected or if the whole tree is infected. Where possible, isolated Douglas-fir trees infected with mistletoe in the lower one-third of the canopy would be retained for wildlife purposes. The FRCC rating of the ponderosa pine dominated forest and woodland stratum would drop from Class 3 to Class 1 as fuel loading decreases and fuel patterns are less continuous. The fire behavior fuel type model would change from a TL 5 or 8. Immediately following treatment, fire behavior in these areas would be expected to have low rates of spread, low fire intensities, and low flame lengths because ladder fuel would be removed. Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) The Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) calculates and classifies fuel bed characteristics and potential fire behavior. FCCS reports input and calculated fuel characteristics for each fuel bed component from canopy to ground fuels. It uses these inputs to assess the relative fire hazard of each fuel bed in regards to surface fire behavior, crown fire potential, and available fuel potentials scaled on an index from 0 to 9. The FCCS model takes into account

weather and fuel conditions which simulate wildfire behavior through the fuel bed to generate potentials. These FCCS fire potentials can be used to facilitate communication of the potential fire hazard across a specified area.

Inputs used in FCCS were taken from the District Forester’s site evaluation for current conditions. Those current conditions were classified into 6 groups based on similarities of stand characteristics. Under moderate weather and fuel conditions with partially cured 1hr fuels, given current conditions, the FCCS model predicts a stand replacement, high intensity, and high severity burn based on the Crown Fire Potential (CFP), Transmissivity, and Available Fuel Potential (AFP) as shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 FCCS Model Predictions under Current Conditions Surface Crown Crown Species FCCS Crown BTU/ft2/ Tons/ Fueled Fire Fire Initiat AFP percent Code Transmit min Acre Potential Potential e A PP 80 679 6 7 5 9 9 6751 170 DF 20 B PP 70 679 6 7 5 9 9 6751 244 DF 30 C PP 50 689 6 8 8 9 9 6751 775 DF 50 D PP 65 679 6 7 8 8 9 6751 180 DF 35 E PP 85 689 6 8 8 9 9 6751 361 DF 15 F PP 80 699 6 9 8 9 9 6751 305 DF 20 PP = Ponderosa pine, DF = Douglas-fir

Table 3.4 shows the fire potentials after prescribed treatments. The area was grouped into three classifications based on projected basal area cover of the overstory canopy based on the District Forester’s recommendations. Under the same environmental and fuel conditions as above, the model predicts a surface fire with some potential for crown fire with less intense, less severe conditions. Most notable is the initiation potential into the crowns and the AFP post treatment.

Table 3.4 FCCS Model Predictions after Prescribed Treatments Surface Crown Crown Species FCCS Crown BTU/ft2/ Ton Fueled Fire Fire Transmi AFP percent Code Initiate min s/Ac Potential Potential t A PP 80 DF20 643 6 4 3 8 3 4743 105 B PP 90 DF 10 654 6 5 3 8 4 4743 125 C PP 50 DF 50 643 6 4 3 8 3 4742 144

Treatments conducted in the mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum and Wyoming big sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum would change the FRCC rating from a class 3 to a class 2. The fire behavior fuel type model would not likely change and remain a Grass-Shrub (GS) 2 (Scott and Burgan, 2005). Treatment of juniper encroachment and decadent brush in this stratum would

reduce woody fuels, and therefore change the fire behavior as shrub litter, grasses, and forbs would be the primary carriers of fire post-treatment. Fuels would not be appreciably altered by juniper cutting on the low sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum. Cutting juniper from 60 to 80 percent of the discrete low sagebrush communities may move the rating of FRCC 2 to a rating of FRCC 1. The fire behavior fuel type model would remain a GS 2 (grass-shrub fuels; (Scott & Burgan, 2005)) following treatment of the low sagebrush stratum. Fire behavior would continue to be characterized by low intensity and carried by curing herbaceous fuels. It is a management objective in the areas dominated by invasive annual grasses (cheatgrass, ventenata, and medusahead rye) to establish absolute vegetative cover of 70-80 percent native or desirable non-native grass species, including 10 percent seasonal forb cover, to stop the spread of invasive annual grasses and stabilize the sites. In general, the fire behavior fuel type model expected for this stratum will remain a GS 2 (Scott and Burgan 2005), but will shift the stratum toward re-establishing the historic vegetative community, including forbs and sagebrush, in order to provide fully functional sage-grouse habitat, thereby changing the rating of FRCC 3 to FRCC 1. Fire spread is governed by the fine, and continuous herbaceous fuels that have cured or are nearly cured. Fire behavior will continue to be characterized by fast rate of spread. Biomass removal, where appropriate, would reduce the number of piles burned, and implementation costs would decrease. Fuel breaks would be used to alter fire behavior by reducing the flame length, rate of spread and reaction intensity (BTU/ft²/sec). Reducing fire behavior would allow firefighters to safely suppress wildfires along roadsides and limit the potential of large wildfire growth. Direct impacts from fuel breaks would not be significant in comparison to the loss of greater sage-grouse habitat caused by a large scale wildfire. Greater sage-grouse habitat loss from fuel breaks along roadsides would be mitigated by large scale greater sage-grouse restoration treatments within the Project Area. Using FCCS, a predicted fire behavior comparison was developed to show the difference between a mowed fuel bed and an untreated fuel bed (sagebrush) in the shrublands of the Project Area. Fuel beds are based on an evaluation of current conditions in sagebrush habitat and a mowed fuel bed that comprises part of a fuel break along with the adjacent road. Table 3.5 shows the input variables used to develop the predicted fire behavior for a mowed and un-treated fuel bed.

Table 3.5 FCCS Inputs: Mowed Fueled (fuel break) versus Untreated in Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Stratum Percent Mowed Fuel Cover Height Fuel Loading Relative cover (percent)/ Live bed (60u1) (percent) (feet) (t/acre) Species percent Herbaceous 40 0.6 50 0.1 8 = Bromus tectorum 30 = Poa secunda 2 = Taeniatherum caput- medusae 30 = Pseudoroegneria spicata 30 = Elymus elymoides Shrub 25 0.5 50 1.3 80 = Artemisia spp. 20 = Chrysothamnus spp. Un-Treated Percent Cover Height Fuel Loading Relative cover (percent)/ Fuelbed Live (percent) (feet) (t/acre) Species (60u2) percent Herbaceous 40 0.6 50 0.1 70 = Bromus tectorum 15 = Poa secunda 5 = Taeniatherum caput- medusae 10 = Pseudoroegneria spicata

Shrub 15 2.5 50 3.85 80 = Artemisia spp. 20 = Chrysothamnus spp.

Table 3.6 Environmental Scenarios Fuel Moistures (percent) Herbaceous 60 Shrub 90 Crown 90 1hr 5 10hr 6 100hr 7 Slope (percent) 0 Wind speed (mph) 15

Using Table 3.5 fuel bed inputs and Table 3.6 (fuel moistures, slope and wind speed) fire behavior was predicted within a mowed fuel bed. The fuel bed would be treated for cheatgrass and seeded with desired perennial bunchgrasses. The graphs 1 through 4 below in Figure 3.3 show the fire behavior comparison between a mowed fuel bed (60u1) and an un-treated fuel bed (60u2). The surface fire potential (index 0-9), flame length (ft.), rate of spread (ft./min) and reaction intensity (BTU/ft²/sec) in a mowed fuel bed (60u1) was significantly reduced in comparison to an untreated fuel bed (60u2).

Figure 3.3 Graphs of Fire Behavior Comparison between a Mowed fuel bed and an Untreated fuel bed

Firefighters use a fire characteristics chart to help determine the appropriate level of fire suppression and type of equipment to be used. Table 3.7 defines these characteristics by flame length (ft), rate of spread and fireline Intensity (BTU/ft/s). Fire behavior exhibiting flame lengths less than 8 feet can be suppressed by using direct attack suppression tactics. Flame lengths over 8 feet cannot be suppressed directly and would need indirect attack tactics. In general, a flame length of 8 feet or less is what the proposed fuel break design is based on. In the FCCS (Figure 3.4) scenario, untreated fuel beds (60u2) could not be suppressed directly whereas a mowed fuel bed (60u1) could be suppressed directly. Fuel breaks would reduce the risk to resources including the investment made to the recovery of the Bendire Fire.

Table 3.7 Relationship of Surface Fire, Flame Length and Fireline Intensity to Suppression Interpretations

Figure 3.4 Fire Characteristics Chart: Mowed (Fuel break) versus Untreated Fuel beds

Implementation of the Proposed Action would lower the risk of a large-scale, high-severity wildfire event, making future wildfires easier and safer for firefighters to suppress and minimizing loss of greater sage-grouse habitat. The overall FRCC rating would change from a class 3 to a class 1 as open, early-seral shrublands increase and closed-canopy pine forest and pine woodland stands are treated. This overall FRCC rating change would restore fire regimes to a more natural condition.

3.4.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) The Project Area encompasses 2 Wilderness Inventory Units, West Fork Bendire (OR-034-007) and Rocky Basin (OR-02-017). West Fork Bendire WIU has 10,519 acres of public land in the Project Area and is located immediately east of Castle Rock. Approximately 792.5 acres of the north portion of the Rocky Basin WIU is included in the Project Area and is southwest of the North Fork Malheur River. The Project Area also encompasses the 6,200-acre Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is in the north central portion of the site. Under this alternative, these areas totaling 17,512 acres would not be treated. As was discussed under Alternative 1, in untreated areas juniper-encroached plant communities would continue on a predicted successional transition to fully developed juniper-woodlands over time (Miller, et al., 2005). Loss of habitat for sagebrush obligates, including greater sage-grouse, would continue. Mixed conifer and pine-dominated forest stands would continue to present a severe crown fire hazard and threaten private property and resource values. If a fire started in untreated areas, depending on location and accessibility, the result may be catastrophic and may not be safe for direct suppression efforts, resulting in an increased suppression costs and stand- replacing fire effects. Although, opportunities to suppress the fire may occur at neighboring treated areas. In general, areas receiving treatment would have reduced fuel loads and overall vegetation density as was discussed in Alternative 2. Wildfires occurring in treated areas would be of a lower intensity and severity than untreated areas making it safer for firefighters to direct attack a fire to suppress it. Therefore, if a fire were to start in the treated areas, the likelihood of success of suppression efforts would be higher than in untreated areas. There is also a higher probability of stopping a fire from spreading into untreated areas. This offers some protection to untreated areas from fire starts in nearby treated areas.

3.5 NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES 3.5.1 Affected Environment The Project Area has documented occurrences of 15 noxious weed species classified as economically important by Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Malheur County (See Table 3.8). Fourteen of the species have 20 locations documented in NISIMS (National Invasive Species Information Management System); however, there are other known sites of the same species within the Project Area that are not documented in NISIMS. Noxious weeds are a concern because they displace and compete with native plants thereby having an adverse impact on agricultural and forest economies and resources such as fish, wildlife, recreation, and overall watershed health. Perennial pepperwood is classified as T-listed by ODA. T-listed weeds are defined by ODA as weeds that are targeted and identified as an economic threat to the state, and proposed to receive priority treatment. The others, including medusahead rye grass, three species of knapweeds, houndstongue, yellow starthistle, Canada thistle, musk thistle, bull thistle, whitetop, Mediterranean sage, Dalmatian toadflax and kochia are B-listed. B-listed weeds are a class of weeds that while economically

important, are treated and controlled on a site specific, case-by-case basis. A 13-acre site of yellow starthistle was discovered on the north end of Beulah Reservoir on Bureau of Reclamation land in 2015 and has also been reported on private land on Warm Springs Creek. Medusahead rye grass is prevalent around ranches, old homesteads, and other high traffic areas in lower elevations within approximately 6 miles of Beulah Reservoir and the area between the county line and the west side of the North Fork Malheur River. The biennial Scotch thistle is established in lower elevations, predominantly along road rights of ways in Castle Rock and Ironside Mountain areas. Bull thistle, a biennial, and Canada thistle, a long-lived perennial, can be found in higher elevations and are generally associated with riparian areas, springs, seeps, and old, disturbed logging areas. Houndstongue, another biennial, is spreading into allotments within the Project Area and is abundant on neighboring forest lands. The knapweeds have limited distribution along road right-of-ways and hunters’ camps. These are spotted knapweed, a biennial or short-lived perennial; diffuse knapweed, an annual or short-lived perennial; and Russian knapweed, a long-lived perennial. Spotted knapweed occurs in small enough infestations to make treatment and eradication practical. Russian knapweed is often found in previously cultivated sites and benches associated with riparian areas. Diffuse knapweed is also limited in distribution and could conceivably be eradicated; however, eradication of a species with seed longevity as great as knapweeds is a lofty goal seldom achieved. Heart-podded whitetop and globe-podded whitetop, deep-rooted, long-lived perennials, are established within the Project Area. All are deep-rooted plants that can spread by rootstalks and seeds. In 2002, a small infestation of the biennial Mediterranean sage was discovered near the dam on the southeastern end of Beulah Reservoir. Dalmatian toadflax has been reported on private land near Beulah Reservoir and perennial pepperweed is establishing on private property and Bureau of Reclamation adjacent to the reservoir. Both species are deep rooted, long-lived perennials that spread from the rootstalks and seeds. There is also a much larger population of Dalmatian toadflax on private land at the confluence of Little Malheur River and Lost Creek, which continues upstream at least 0.5 miles on both sides of Lost Creek. In 2012, a biological control agent (Mecinus janthiniformis) was released to augment a small population that had expanded to that area. The toadflax weevil is keeping the toadflax in control.

Invasive species The Project Area also has several species of invasive plants and grasses including tumble and blue mustards, Russian thistle, prickly lettuce, clasping pepperweed, bur buttercup, cheatgrass, North African grass, and common mullein (See Table 3.9). Invasive species are plants, animals, or pathogens that are non-native to the landscape and whose introduction and spread causes or are likely to cause harm.

Table 3.8 Noxious Weed Classifications ODA Malheur Co. Common name Scientific name weed status weed status Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B B

Heart podded Whitetop Lepidium draba B -- Globe podded Whitetop Lepidium appelianum B -- Musk thistle Carduus nutans B B Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis B A Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe (C. maculosa) B A Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B B Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare B C Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B B Kochia Kochia scoparia B C Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium T B Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica B A Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B B Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis B A Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae B C

Table 3.9 Invasive Species Common and Scientific Names

Common name Scientific name

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Bur buttercup Ceratocephala testiculata

Blue mustard Chorispora tenella

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum

Russian thistle Salsola kali L.

Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum North African grass Ventenata dubia

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus L.

CLASS A-LISTED WEED: A weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment system possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent. Recommended action: infestations are subject to eradication or intensive control when and where found. CLASS B-LISTED WEED: A weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties. Recommended action: limited to intensive control at the state, county, or regional level as determined on a site specific, case-by-case basis. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide management plan is not feasible, biological control (when available) shall be the primary control method. CLASS T-LISTED WEED: Annually, a target list of weed species is selected that will be the focus for prevention and control by the Noxious Weed Control Program. Action against these weeds receive priority. T-listed noxious weeds are designated by the Oregon State Weed Board and directs ODA to develop and implement a statewide management plan. T listed noxious weeds are species selected from either the A or B list. MALHEUR COUNTY CLASS C-LISTED WEED: A weed species of known economic importance and of general distribution subject to control as local conditions warrant.

3.5.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) The No Action alternative would not mechanically disturb the landscape in the Project Area, and therefore would limit potential introduction of new weeds and spread of existing infestations. Without action, sagebrush-bunchgrass plant communities would continue to progress toward less diverse juniper-woodland or shrub-plant communities. Wildfires that occur in these communities tend to be severe enough to kill large numbers of understory plants, which further increases susceptibility of the Project Area to noxious weeds and invasive plant infestations. Wildfire disturbance particularly promotes colonization of medusahead rye grass, North African grass, and cheatgrass. Without treatment desirable native species will be displaced, degrading sage- grouse and other sagebrush obligate species habitat.

3.5.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Initially, mechanical treatments, use of prescribed fire, and removal of cut juniper and conifers could open up areas for weed colonization by creating disturbed habitat that may favor noxious weed and invasive plant establishment. One study conducted in Oregon (Bates, et al., 2005) showed that production of the invasive plant cheatgrass increases from 2 to 4 years after juniper cutting treatment and decreases to a level statistically similar to non-treated juniper stands 13 years after treatment. Under the Proposed Action, a short-term increase in cheatgrass production would be expected immediately after treatments, but cheatgrass presence on treated sites would be statistically similar to the non- treated areas in the long-term. The same study documents an increase in perennial grass production on treated sites when compared to non-treated sites. Bates et al 2005 found that if 2 to 3 perennial bunchgrasses per square meter are present prior to treatment, it is sufficient for natural recovery and results in higher production of perennial grasses and forbs when compared to the control plots. There also would be some increased risk of new weed infestations from public gathering of firewood and other treatment byproducts since the public cannot effectively be required to maintain relatively weed free vehicles like BLM employees or contractors. However, if PDEs are followed there would likely be only minimal increases in long-term risk of new weed populations or expansion of existing weed populations. There would be comprehensive botanical surveys conducted prior to implementation of Proposed Action. Monitoring for noxious weeds and invasive plants would occur for a minimum of two years post-treatment and any weeds found would be treated in accordance with the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon” Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010)). As was outlined in the Proposed Action in Chapter 2, herbicide treatments of invasive annual grasses would occur primarily as a pre-emergent using the approved herbicide, imazapic (Plateau) at 6-8 ounces/acre (0.09375 – 0.125 pounds (lbs)/acre of active ingredient imazapic). Application method would be by either low-boom or aerial spray. Aerial-spray treatments for invasive annual grasses would be used on infestations 50 acres or greater and/or on smaller infestations not accessible by ground equipment. However, imazapic could be used at 2-12 ounces (oz)/acre (0.0312 – 0.1875 lbs/acre), depending on the location, associated species at the treatment site, and density of thatch. Treatments may need to occur on the same areas in consecutive years to achieve desired results. Aerial application of imazapic would occur from late summer to early fall to reduce potential impacts to desirable species occupying the treatment site and would be done by commercially contracted aircraft. Aircraft used would be at the discretion of the contractor, and as allowed by BLM regulations, but may depend upon topography and availability of landing and reloading locations. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the Bendire Fire treatment area would require a follow up treatment of aerial herbicide for annual grass control within five years of completing prescribed burning activities. Initial herbicide treatments within the Bendire Fire area were analyzed in “The Bendire Complex Fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Invasive Plant Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-ORWA-V000-2016-0027-EA”

(U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2015). Localized seeding of native grass and forb species would be used on and around burned machine piles to reduce the likelihood that areas burned under machine piles would become dominated by annual grass and noxious weeds post-treatment. There are approximately 23,000 acres that were impacted by the Bendire Fire that are proposed for follow up treatments within the Project Area. Where aerial applications are determined to be the most appropriate treatment, their use would be in conformance with label instructions and the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon” ROD (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010). All design elements, mitigations, and Standard Operating Procedures described in Appendix of the ROD ( (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010), pp. 33-46) would be used and a complete effects analysis of use of these herbicides is contained therein. Following herbicide treatment, up to 63,000 acres within the Project Area, which includes 23,000 acres within the Bendire Fire perimeter, could be seeded using ground-based methods. This treatment would consist of seeding identified units with mixes of native grass and forb species. Non-native seed mixes would only be considered within the Low Elevation/Bunchgrass Treatment areas. Ground based seeding methods would primarily include the use of rangeland drill carts pulled by tractors, dozers or heavy equipment. The areas to be seeded from the ground are characterized by gentle to rolling terrain with finer grained deeper soils that are conducive to drilling. The goal of seeding is to encourage quicker growth responses from desired plant species and/or to further inhibit invasive annual grass growth. Using ground-based equipment increases the amount of seed and soil contact so that the probability of treatment success is increased. The seeding would occur in late fall or early winter (October – December). Overall, management actions which promote healthy shrub-steppe, forest, riparian, and open woodlands would reduce the threat of large-scale wildfires. These vegetative communities would be more resistant to noxious weed introduction and spread than declining plant communities or communities impacted by a large wildfire. There would most likely be no increase in noxious weed populations or establishment of new populations provided that appropriate PDEs are observed and the treatments are monitored. By decreasing the spread and extent of noxious weeds and invasive plants, quality habitat for sage-grouse and sagebrush obligate species would increase.

3.5.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, up to approximately 17,500 acres would not be treated; the untreated areas do not include the Bendire Fire area or the low elevation sagebrush site. Therefore, the analyses for those areas in Alternative 2 apply herein. The untreated areas occur in high elevation/bunchgrass and forested areas centrally located within the Project Area. Any known noxious weeds sited within this area would not be treated increasing their potential to spread at a local scale and would not improve habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligates in those areas.

3.6 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS (Vascular and Nonvascular)

3.6.1 Affected Environment There are no federally listed threatened or endangered plant species known or suspected to occur in the Project Area. There is one state-threatened plant species Stanleya confertflora (Biennial Stanleya) documented to occur in the Project Area. There is one state-threatened plant species -- Thelypodium eucosmum (arrow-leaf thelypody) -- and three state-candidate plant species -- Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady’s slipper), Phacelia minutissima (dwarf phalcelia), and Trifolium leibergii (Leiberg’s clover), suspected to exist in the Project Area based on habitat preferences. This was determined by a review of the special-status plants species identified on the Oregon/Washington BLM State Director’s 2015 Special Status Species List (IM OR-2015-028), which includes federal and state endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species; as well as Sensitive and Strategic Species. The rare species databases for WA/OR BLM GeoBOB (Geographic Biotic Observations), ORBIC (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center), and the Forest Service’s NRIS (Natural Resource Information System) also were examined to determine previously documented special-status plant locations within or in close proximity to the Project Area. Special Status Plants that have the potential to occur based upon habitat in the Project Area and habitat preference are listed in Table 3.10. There are two previously documented locations of Stanleya confertflora on private lands in the Project Area. No Special Status Plant surveys have been completed in the Project Area in the last ten years.

Table 3.10 Special Status Plant Species that have potential to occur within the Project Area. Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Description NON-VASCULAR PLANTS Schistidium Moss SEN Large loose/dense sods on wet/dry rocks / on soil in crevices of rocks cinclidodonteum + boulders, intermittent streams, elevations 1500-3400 m. Texosporium sancti- Lichen SEN Arid to semi-arid shrub-steppe, grassland or savannah communities jacobi up to 1000 m. Requires natural openings or gaps in arid vegetation that are not maintained by fire. VASCULAR PLANTS Achnatherum Wallowa Ricegrass SEN Dry, shallow, rocky soil. 1000-1600 m. wallowaensis Allium geyeri var. Geyer's Onion SEN Moist, open slopes, meadows, or stream banks in mountains. 200- geyeri 4000 m. Achnatherum Desert Needlegrass SEN Rocky slopes, canyons, washes. < 2200m speciosum Botrychium lunaria Moonwort SEN Open to lightly wooded meadows, sparsely vegetated scree slopes. Moist but well-drained soils with a neutral pH. Bupleurum Bupleurum SEN Talus slopes/rocky soil; open, dry meadows/ridgetops. Mosaic of americanum open areas and scrubby coniferous trees. Carex atrosquama Blackened Sedge SEN Subalpine and alpine meadows, river gravels, shorelines; 300–3600 m Carex capillaris Hairlike Sedge SEN Mesic-moist tundra, seeps on cliffs, rocks, slopes, fens, meadows, shores, prairie sloughs, edges of sphagnum mats, moist woods. 0– 3500 m. Carex cordillerana Cordilleran Sedge SEN Rocky slopes w/ organic layer + leaf litter in mesic mixed forests, or disturbed, open, grassy slopes. 500–2400 m Carex idahoa Idaho Sedge SEN Riparian moist meadows. 2000–2600 m.

Carex micropoda Pyrenaean Sedge SEN Moist meadows, stream banks, seeps, snow beds and areas irrigated by meltwater. 10–4000 m.

Carex pelocarpa New Sedge SEN Alpine slopes, ridge crests, rocky lakeshores; 2700–3700 m

Carex retrorsa Retrorse Sedge SEN Swamps, wet thickets, along streams, marshes, sedge meadows, shores of streams, ponds, and lakes. 0–1900 m Castilleja flava var. Rural Paintbrush SEN Sagebrush steppe rustica Cyperus lupulinus A Cyperus SEN Well-drained, open roadsides, fields, prairies; 0–1700 m ssp. lupulinus Cypripedium Clustered Lady's- SC Moist to dry coniferous forests and thickets; 0--3200 m fasciculatum Slipper Eleocharis bolanderi Bolander's Spikerush SEN Fresh, often summer-dry meadows, springs, seeps, stream margins; 1000–3400 m Heliotropium Salt Heliotrope SEN Yellow Pine Forest, Red Fir Forest, Lodgepole Forest, Foothill curassavicum Woodland, Chaparral, Valley Grassland, wetland-riparian Lipocarpha Aristulate Lipocarpha SEN Sandy soils, emergent shorelines, stream banks, ponds, ditches. 0– aristulata 1500 m Lupinus nevadensis Nevada Lupine SEN Hillsides, valleys, with sagebrush; 1000–3000 m

Lycopodium Ground Cedar SEN Coniferous forest with thick duff. Rotting wood or acidic soil. complanatum Meadows and open ridgetops. 4300 ft Pellaea bridgesii Bridges' Cliff-Brake SEN Rocky slopes and cliffs, on granitic substrates. 1200--3600 m

Phacelia lutea var. Mackenzie's Phacelia SEN Open, dry clay to occasionally sandy soils in the deserts and foothills mackenzieorum of Harney and Malheur Counties.

Table 3.10 Special Status Plant Species that have potential to occur within the Project Area. Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Description Phemeranthus Spiny fameflower SEN Cliffs, ledges, and outcrops in basaltic soils; 700-1100 m spinescens Phacelia minutissima Dwarf Phacelia SC Damp ground, moist stream banks in sagebrush communities, under quaking aspen, moist sunny flats, and edges of mesic meadows. 5,000-7,000 ft. Potamogeton Rafinesque's SEN Ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers. 5-2500 m diversifolius Pondweed Salix farriae Farr's Willow SEN Wet montane to subalpine meadows, stream banks; 600-2700 m

Salix wolfii Wolf's Willow SEN Stream banks, springs, wet meadows, bogs; 2000-3800 m

Stanleya Biennial Stanleya SEN Barren clay slopes in sagebrush communities, heavy clay flats, loose confertiflora soil mounds, dry sandy grounds, alkaline meadows and flats; 600- 1500 m Suksdorfia violacea Violet Suksdorfia SEN Wet, mossy, rocky crevices and cliffs. 0-3000 m.

Thelypodium Arrow-Leaf ST Shady slopes and canyons, pinyon-juniper and oak woodland eucosmum Thelypody communities, stream beds, stream sides; 700-1000 m Trifolium leibergii Leiberg's Clover SC In Oregon it is restricted to an area that ranges 2 miles on either side of the Middle Fork of the Malheur River and continues for approximately 10 miles. It grows on a distinct habitat characterized by a thin, gravelly soil layer consisting of decomposing (broken- down) volcanic ash "tuff." ST = State Threatened, SC = State Candidate, SEN = BLM Sensitive

Biological Soil Crusts Optimum abundance and growth conditions for biological crust are usually found in areas of low vascular plant cover, low elevations, and in shallow soils with fine textures that contain low quantities of loose surface rock or large quantities of embedded rocks (U.S. Department of Interior, 2001). The majority of the Project Area has high vascular plant cover due to the juniper-dominated landscape. Elevations in the Project Area climb steeply from the river bottoms at 3,000 feet to the ridge tops in the rugged country at approximately 7,500 feet. Soils range from very shallow to deep, with shallow soils mostly dominated by rock on steep to very steep slopes. Surface textures are loams, with clay occasionally present in the subsoil. Major vegetation cover types in the Project Area associated with biological crust development include low sagebrush and big sagebrush. Occurrence of crusts in these cover types is directly related to elevation, precipitation, soil depth, soil texture, and interspaces between vascular plant cover. During the 2000–2001 field seasons, a portion of the Project Area (the North Fork Malheur GMA) was assessed for upland rangeland health conditions. Soil resources were assessed for basic physical functions, including soil/site stability (capacity to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources, including nutrients and organic matter, by wind and water); hydrologic function (capacity to capture, store, and safely release water, to resist a reduction in this capacity, and to recover this capacity following degradation); and integrity of the biotic community (capacity to support functional and structural communities, to resist losses due to disturbance, and to recover following disturbance). All of these functions relate directly or indirectly to biological crust cover, either as a deterrent to wind and water erosion or as a component of an intact biological community.

Crusts in about 45 percent of the assessment sites during the 2000-2001 site visits were comprised only 0-1 percent of total vegetative and ground cover. Crusts were not found in approximately 50 percent of the sites assessed. This generally lower crust abundance may be due to historical livestock grazing, higher elevations and precipitation, dense juniper and big sagebrush cover, or a combination of factors. The assessments identified approximately 5 percent of the sites having 1-5 percent cover of biological crusts. These sites had slightly higher moss populations due to their locations in some of the high elevation forested areas. All previous vascular and non-vascular plant surveys were conducted more than 10 years ago in the Project Area. The special-status plant species list has been revised since then. Some of the plants now included were not previously included on the list, and therefore would not have been targeted within the earlier surveys. Surveys conducted since 2007 are adequate; previous surveys should be resurveyed due to the new special status species list. Prior to project implementation, special-status plant surveys would be required for all areas with proposed ground disturbing activities. Surveys would include both vascular and non-vascular special-status plants including biotic crust with potential for habitat within the Project Area.

3.6.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Possible direct and indirect effects of the No Action alternative could include loss of special- status plant habitat due to juniper and other conifer encroachment in open sagebrush steppe and riparian habitats. Potential special-status plants associated with open habitats in the sagebrush steppe include rural paintbrush, Nevada lupine, dwarf phacelia, and biennial Stanleya. With no action these special-status plants could be negatively impacted by uncharacteristic severe wildfire event. Possible impacts would be adverse and long-term.

3.6.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Negative direct impacts to special-status plants are not expected to occur due to the PDEs, such as PDE SSP1 in Chapter 2, that would provide for buffers and avoidance of any special-status plant sites identified within the Project Area. Specific buffers for herbicide application are addressed in PDE AH3. Some special-status plant species occur in areas with overstory trees and filtered sunlight. It is highly probable that overstory tree removal and the resultant changes in microclimate would make these sites less habitable to these special-status plants. Four special status plants are an exception to this: rural paintbrush, Nevada lupine, dwarf phacelia, and biennial Stanleya all occur in open sagebrush steppe habitats. It is probable that juniper removal would help maintain open sage steppe habitats that are preferred by these four taxa. Prescribed burning of fuel jackpots also would potentially create new, unoccupied open habitats for weedy nonnative plants. Burning of jackpots of cut juniper would increase nitrogen availability that nonnative annual grasses can better utilize than native perennial bunchgrasses. Burning of jackpots could increase the abundance and distribution of weeds, which could create a source of increased competition for special-status plants; however, PDEs NW1 through NW5 would minimize these impacts to help the potential for weed introduction. Indirect impacts would be both positive and negative to potential special-status plant habitat depending upon

individual plant requirements. Overall impacts would likely be positive long term due to more stable plant communities and reduced risk from conifer encroachment and uncharacteristic severe wildfire.

3.6.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative approximately 17,500 acres centrally located in the Project Area would not be treated. Under this alternative, approximately 222.3 acres of commercial timber harvest are proposed outside of the WSA and WIU areas, excluding forested stand treatments within WSA and WIU which would be beneficial to those sensitive plant species that prefer this habitat. However, this alternative may not benefit four special status plants that occur in open sagebrush steppe habitats if conifer encroachment is occurring in these areas. The four species are rural paintbrush, Nevada lupine, dwarf phacelia, and biennial Stanleya. 3.7 WILDLIFE HABITAT, SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE There are several Federal, State and BLM special-status wildlife species known to occur or have potential habitat within the Project Area. Table 3.11 below lists the special status species and their habitats.

Table 3.11 Special Status Terrestrial Species with potential to occur within the Project Area.3

Common Name Scientific Name Status4 Habitat Description Birds American Falco peregrinus V Woodland forests and cliffs. peregrine falcon anatum American white Pelecanus V Isolated islands; freshwater lakes or reservoirs. pelican erythrorhynchos Haliaeetus Bald eagle ST Old-growth and mature-forested areas near waterways. leucocephalus Dolichonyx Bobolink V Grasslands oryzivorus Sagebrush obligate found in shrublands contiguous big Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC sagebrush, greasewood, rabbitbrush habitats Tympanuchus Columbian sharp- Sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe, mountain shrub, and phasianellus SEN tailed grouse riparian zones columbianus Franklin's gull Larus pipixcan V Aquatic habitats Inhabits sagebrush-steppe, grasslands, forested areas, including Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BCC juniper, with open shrub component for foraging Grasshopper Ammodramus V Large continuous open grassland sparrow savannarum Greater sage- Centrocercus SEN, Mountain big sagebrush plant communities grouse urophasianus V Horned grebe Podiceps auritus SEN Hemi-marsh with open water and emergent vegetation Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis CR Open forest with shrub stratum Inhabits grasslands, pastures and agricultural fields with Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC fences, sagebrush with scattered juniper and open woodlands; requires elevated perches throughout for hunting and nesting Purple martin Progne subis CR Forested edges, montane forests, and deserts Artemisiospiza Sagebrush obligate, associated with open, evenly spaced big Sage sparrow BCC nevadensis sagebrush 1-2 meters high up to 6,800 feet in elevation Oreoscoptes Sagebrush obligate, large patches of sagebrush-steppe and Sage thrasher BCC montanus bitterbrush with shrub heights 30-60 cm White-headed Picoides CR Coniferous forests dominated by pines woodpecker albolarvatus Mammals Dry habitats where open areas are interspersed with mature Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes V forests with abundant snags Desert scrub, chaparral, and grassland communities with Kit fox Vulpes macrotis ST sparse ground cover Gray wolf (northern Canis lupus Highly adaptive species, utilizes a variety of habitats SEN Rocky Mtn DPS) including temperate forests, mountains, and grasslands

3 Based on the final State Director’s Special-Status Species List. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2015-028 Attachment 1, and Birds of Conservation Concern (2008) list for BCR 9 (Great Basin). 4 FT = Federally Threatened, FC = Federal Candidate, ST = State Threatened, CR = State Critical, V = State Vulnerable, SEN = Sensitive in OR and WA (no other listing status), BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern identified on list BRC9.

Table 3.11 Special Status Terrestrial Species with potential to occur within the Project Area.3

Common Name Scientific Name Status4 Habitat Description None – species Odocoileus Herbaceous forage, vegetation and landforms that provide Mule deer of hemionus hiding and thermal cover, and access to sources of water public interest None – Winter ranges are most common in open forests and Cervus species floodplain marshes in the lower elevations. In the summer it Rocky Mountain Elk canadensis of migrates to higher elevation forests. nelsoni public interest Antrozous Rocky outcrops, desert habitats, oak- and pine-forested areas Pallid bat V pallidus and open farmland Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy rabbit V, SEN Sagebrush obligate (outside Columbia Basin) Euderma Spotted bat V Prominent rock features, and rock-faced cliffs maculatum Townsend's big-eared Corynorhinus CR Caves or cave-like roosting habitat bat townsendii Washington ground Urocitellus SEN Sagebrush-steppe with deep sandy or silt-loam soils squirrel washingtoni Invertebrates Found near river habitats, which can range from sandy or Columbia clubtail Gomphus lynnae SEN muddy to rocky, shallow rivers with occasional gravelly rapids; water flow tends to be slow-moving Silver-bordered Found near bogs, open-riparian areas, marshes containing Boloria selene SEN fritillary Salix spp. and larval food plants Freshwater marshes, streams, oases, ponds, seeps, sloughs, Yuma skipper Ochlodes yuma SEN springs, and canals a wide variety of natural, agricultural, urban, and rural Western Bombus occidentalis SEN habitats, although species richness tends to peak in flower- bumblebee rich meadows of forests and subalpine zones

Greater sage-grouse The U.S. Fish and Wildlife determined that Greater Sage-grouse are “not warranted at this time" (80 FR 191, 2015). Greater Sage-grouse are managed under the BLM Special Status Species (SSS) direction guidance. The BLM guidance is to conserve this species and its habitat and shall ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed. The Project Area contains General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) and Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) for greater sage-grouse. Greater sage-grouse are considered to be sagebrush obligates, relying on the plant for food and cover throughout the year. The species needs an extensive home range with specific sagebrush habitat types required for mating, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering.

To fulfill their lifecycle needs, sage-grouse can move several miles encompassing different types of habitats (Connelly, et al., in press 2011). The spatial scales are broken into four orders (broad, mid, landscape, and site-specific) in which sage-grouse select habitat for their life-history needs. The low- and stiff-sagebrush flats within the Project Area could be optimal foraging areas as they generally are rich in forbs. In winter, sage-grouse congregate in areas where sagebrush is available above the snow or on windswept ridges. By late fall, sagebrush is almost exclusively the only item in the diet and remains so until spring. Sage-grouse generally use big sagebrush for nesting habitat, although some have been known to nest in low sagebrush and other habitats. For the brood-rearing stage and pre-nesting period for hens, areas that are rich in forbs are important. Herbaceous understory composition in nesting and brood-rearing habitats is sufficient to provide abundant plant and insect food sources for sage-grouse. Based on 2015 lek count data, there are 22 sage-grouse leks within the Project Area. Of the 22 leks, 10 are occupied, 5 are occupied pending, and 7 are unoccupied pending. Breeding habitat occurs near Bendire Ridge, Castle Rock, and north of Ironside Mountain. Spatial distribution of leks in the Project Area tends to be more widely scattered than in other areas. The highest lek densities in Malheur County are associated with low-sagebrush communities that are close to mountainous topography with abundant natural water sources. The Project Area has the necessary relief and natural water sources, but currently has few leks possibly due to encroaching western juniper. The best nesting and brood-rearing areas in Malheur County are typically moist, mid- to upper-elevation rangelands comprised of low sagebrush and mountain or Wyoming big sagebrush communities with a network of springs, meadows, and streams. No sage-grouse winter survey data are available for the Project Area. Sagebrush habitats are generally so poorly connected, and exhibit such an abundance of significant-sized western juniper encroachment areas, that winter habitat availability for sage-grouse appears to be lacking. It is likely that winter habitats occur elsewhere, and sage-grouse migrate annually to and from the area, depending upon winter severity. However wintering areas may be located in inaccessible regions, may vary based upon weather and may be found long distances from other known habitats (e.g. mating, nesting, brooding). In higher elevations, sagebrush stands are relatively unfragmented so nesting, brooding, and wintering habitat areas could potentially occur in close proximity. The mountain big sagebrush communities have potential to provide quality wintering habitat as snow depth rarely covers the plants. Winter habitat is lost or of poor quality in areas where mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass communities and low-sagebrush flats have been encroached upon and outcompeted by western juniper, resulting in the loss of the shrubs and the conversion to juniper woodlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have identified seven threats to destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range for sage grouse. They are: 1) habitat conversion for agriculture, urbanization and infrastructure, 2) fire, 3) invasive plant and juniper encroachment, 4) grazing, 5) energy development, 6) climate change and 7) habitat

fragmentation. For this analysis, the focus will be on the threat of invasive plants and juniper encroachment. A full analysis of the threats to sage-grouse habitat is available in the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives Final Report (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013).

Sagebrush and Shrub-Steppe Communities About 100 to 190 species of wildlife either breed or feed within big sagebrush habitats, depending upon shrub structural characteristics (Maser, et al., 1984). Other documents also indicate substantial wildlife reliance on sagebrush for all or part of their life history requirements. Species of concern listed in Table 3.6 that likely reside in sagebrush habitats are Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, sage thrasher, kit fox, mule deer, elk, pygmy rabbit and Washington ground squirrel. Landbirds of management importance were most abundant in mid- to upper-elevation sagebrush types and frequently associated with tall shrubs and canopy cover of 15 percent or more. These areas are typically associated with small changes in topography and aspects that foster the most productive and diverse steppe habitat conditions. Wyoming big sagebrush communities occupy about 80 percent (104,490 acres) or more of the Project Area. Mesic zone (> 10 inch precipitation) Wyoming, mountain, and basin big- sagebrush variants are present, as are stiff-sagebrush and low-sagebrush habitats. Mesic Wyoming big-sagebrush communities mostly exhibit fine-scale patchiness and canopy cover ranges between 5 percent and 25 percent. Heavier sagebrush canopies are considered to be between 15 percent to 20 percent cover, while lighter canopies are between 5 percent and 10 percent cover. These arrays of cover densities provide both shrub cover and quality herbaceous understories that support communities of shrub-steppe wildlife. Many mesic Wyoming big-sagebrush communities also show heterogeneous shrub ages, densities, and canopy heights that were desirable for wildlife forage and habitat structure. Sage- grouse nesting and wintering cover is abundant, but was spatially disconnected, and many areas were impacted by western juniper. Low sagebrush communities occupy the highest elevations, especially regions along Bendire Ridge and Stemler Ridge. Low-sagebrush communities typically supported a robust and diverse understory of grasses and forbs that are of value to nearly all species of terrestrial wildlife. Mountain-sagebrush communities are abundant in the Project Area. Mountain sagebrush canopy cover appeared to be primarily within the 20 percent to 30 percent-plus range. Reconnaissance of the Project Area noted there are many areas of low-sagebrush types that also support subdominant communities of tall sagebrush (mountain, basin big, stiff, and Wyoming big sagebrush). Many of these “nested” habitat types are particularly valuable for sage-grouse nesting and escape cover. They also are excellent habitat patches for land birds such as sage thrashers, gray flycatchers, and loggerhead shrikes. Basin big-sagebrush communities occupy many low-elevation drainages, including the Malheur River, North Fork Malheur River, Bendire Creek, and Willow Spring Creek. They generally occur in narrow and often discontinuous patches of deeper soils. Soil and vegetation inventory

data did not delineate basin big-sagebrush communities, and they were not mapped in the assessment process. Estimates of canopy cover within these communities appear to be 25 percent or more. Basin big-sagebrush communities typically show well-connected overstories, but tended to have weak herbaceous understories, presumably from historic grazing practices and diminished site capability. Antelope bitterbrush and mountain mahogany communities are found throughout the Project Area. These communities occur in small patches throughout the Project Area. Many lower elevation stands of antelope bitterbrush and mountain mahogany are important winter foraging areas for mule deer and elk. Pastures such as Juniper Gulch and Pete’s Mountain provide wintering mule deer and elk with thermal relief cover in western juniper stands intermingled with stands of bitterbrush and mountain mahogany on south-facing slopes. While western juniper thermal cover is important for wintering elk and deer, juniper encroachment into antelope bitterbrush and mountain mahogany sites can limit their productivity and long-term persistence without management intervention.

Western juniper woodlands Current distribution of western juniper within the Project Area likely is due to fire suppression and historic grazing effects on shrub-steppe rangelands. Historically, junipers occurred in sparse stands situated on ridges and rocky areas where the loss to periodic fire was lessened. While junipers provide nesting habitat and food for some avian species, and cover and thermal relief to wintering elk and mule deer, the impact of their encroachment into mountain shrub, conifer, riparian, and sagebrush areas is limiting the suitability of many habitats for other sensitive wildlife species. The risk of loss of crucial habitat components and habitat connectivity for a number of species exists with the current extent of juniper invasion. Wildlife species listed Table 3.6 that may resided or utilize juniper woodlands are golden eagle and loggerhead shrike.

Mixed-conifer forests Forested habitats within the Project Area exhibit an overabundance of downed woody debris, likely a product of overcrowding of trees and insects. Fuel loading and the risk of catastrophic fire in many of these stands potentially limit the long-term sustainability of desired habitat conditions for forest-dependent wildlife. While many areas supported a desired complement of species in multiple age classes, the suitability of these habitats for wildlife in the future may be limited as shifts in species composition, understory conditions, and age structure of the stands deteriorate the quality of the area for dependent wildlife.

Forested communities exist in mid- to upper-elevation areas and consist of multiple conifer species. Ponderosa pine stands in the Project Area exist on drier sites at mid elevations. Currently, many of these stands are being invaded by juniper and/or Douglas-fir. With increased prevalence of western juniper within existing stands, it can be expected that understory composition will degrade, as will the competitive ability of desired conifers. With limited recruitment of desired species, habitat conditions would be less able to support sensitive and locally important species in the long term. Wildlife species listed in Table 3.6 that likely reside or utilize forested communities are American peregrine falcon (forested areas near rocks and cliffs), bald eagle (forested areas near waterways), golden eagle, Lewis’ woodpecker, purple martin, white-headed woodpecker, fringed myotis, mule deer, elk, and pallid bat.

Grasslands Bobolink, grasshopper sparrow and kit fox—listed in Table 3.6 – have potential to occur in grasslands within the Project Area. Mule deer also use these areas seasonally. However, most of the grasslands in the Project Area were created by wildfires and are large monocultures of invasive grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead, instead of native bunchgrasses mixed with low sagebrush or other shrubs as they were historically. These monoculture grasslands of invasive grass species do not have the same plant structure to provide thermal and hiding cover for wildlife, plant diversity or nutritional value for wildlife species as sagebrush/bunchgrass communities do.

Riparian areas, wet meadows and reservoirs The Project Area supports an extensive network of dry and wet meadow complexes. There are also several reservoirs, including Beulah Reservoir, that occur within the Project Area. In most meadow areas, plant community composition is diverse and comprised of willows, grasses, sedges, rushes, and forbs. Invasive and noxious plant species are limited in their presence and dominance. Woody riparian habitat quality and structural character varies significantly by stream. Some isolated water sources support quaking aspen. Many aspen stands are at risk due to canopy closure from adjacent conifers or invasion by western junipers. Wildlife species of interest in Table 3.6 that occur within riparian areas, wet meadows and reservoirs are American white pelican, Franklin’s gull, horned grebe, Columbia clubtail, silver- bordered fritillary and Yuma skipper. Pronghorn, mule deer, elk, sage-grouse, and other wildlife also utilize riparian areas.

Rock outcrops and caves There are many places throughout the Project Area where large rocks and rock formations are present, especially around Castle Rock and in the wild and scenic portion of the Malheur River. These rock formations create crevices and caves that support many species of wildlife. This includes opportunities for nesting, roosting and thermal cover for American peregrine falcon, golden eagle, pallid bat, spotted bat and Townsend's big-eared bat.

3.7.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action)

Sagebrush and shrub-steppe communities The No Action Alternative would not have any direct effects on sagebrush-dependent species in the short term. As western juniper increases into the shrub steppe habitat over time those species associated with shrub-steppe habitat decrease. For example, Brewer’s sparrows and vesper sparrows showed a strong negative correlation to increases in western juniper density and to areas occupied by western juniper (Noson, et al., 2006). Brewer’s sparrows are sensitive to sagebrush loss, declining with the loss of shrubs and shifting their diets from insects to seeds with changes in food availability. Because they return to the same breeding territories each year, there can be a time-lag in their response to major habitat changes (Paige & Ritter, 1999).

The risk of a stand-replacement wildfire occurring in shrubland plant communities would remain the same or increase over time. High-intensity wildland fire combined with a depleted herbaceous understory would continue to contribute to a landscape-level conversion of historic plant communities. If a stand-replacing fire occurred, then habitat would be lost and it would take a significant amount of time to recover or may not recover at all if invasive grass species moved in. Conifer encroachment in curlleaf mountain mahogany and bitterbrush pockets decreases the presence of these shrubs. The trend toward encroachment and decrease in shrub cover would continue under the No Action Alternative. Currently, the sagebrush obligate species have downward population trends within their range due to fragmentation and reduction of available, grasslands, open-woodland and shrub-steppe habitat (Paige & Ritter, 1999). The No Action Alternative would continue this trend locally by the continuation of the juniper expansion and loss of shrub-steppe habitat, thereby greatly impacting greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species.

Western juniper woodlands There would be no direct short-term impacts to wildlife species dependent on juniper woodlands. In the long term, these areas would continue to expand and benefit those wildlife species. However, there also would be a greater risk of catastrophic, high-intensity wildfires should these areas expand, potentially resulting in loss of this habitat with a long recovery time for replacement.

Mixed-conifer forests In the short term, the No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on wildlife species of concern in mixed-conifer forested areas. However in mixed-conifer stands, as fuel loading continues to increase, the potential for a high-severity, stand-replacing wildfire occurring under extreme situations and causing extensive plant mortality and soil sterilization, increases. Recovery would take several decades, increasing the risk of noxious weed and cheatgrass invasion. Additionally, as stand densities near maximums (a large number are there or nearing that level now), density dependent stress mortality would increase over time. Individual large and medium diameter conifers would continue to die from site resource competition and continued insect and disease mortality. The amount of this habitat in the Project Area is limited and loss of these areas for wildlife would be significant.

Grasslands Most of the grasslands in the Project Area were created by wildfires and are currently large monocultures of invasive grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead, not native bunchgrasses mixed with some shrubs as they were historically. These monoculture grasslands of nonnative species don’t have the same plant structure, plant diversity and nutritional value for wildlife species as bunchgrass communities do. The No Action Alternative would have no direct effect on these areas in the short term and, in the long term, these areas would likely expand. These areas also have a high likelihood of reburning in a wildfire event, perpetuating and expanding these monocultures.

Riparian areas, wet meadows and reservoirs The No Action Alternative would have no short-term direct impact on wildlife utilizing these areas. However, in the long term, riparian and aspen communities would continue to decline as a result of continued encroachment of conifers, including juniper. Conifers compete with aspen and riparian vegetation for available moisture. Although juniper does not transpire year round in the colder climate of eastern Oregon as it does in warmer winter areas (Jeppesen, 1978), it does increase its water use in early spring because it is an evergreen species (Miller & Schultz, 1987). Advantageous use of soil moisture by juniper reduces understory vegetation, plant reestablishment, and vigor (Jeppesen, 1978). Juniper surface roots may extend outward considerable distance from the main stem, depriving other vegetation of available soil moisture. When conifers overtake aspen communities, less water is available to the watershed, biomass of understory vegetation is substantially reduced, and the diversity of wildlife and plant species declines. The greatest concern is the loss of aspen communities once a conifer community becomes established because aspen does not readily establish from seed (McDonough, 1985) (Mitton & Grant, 1996). Western juniper encroachment into stream, meadow, and aspen communities impacts habitat effectiveness for wildlife. Junipers provide increased nesting opportunities for numerous birds as well as thermal cover and hiding cover from predators. Without management intervention in appropriate areas, woodland conditions would dominate, and opportunities for re-establishment of historic habitat structure and composition would be lost. Therefore, in the long term, wildlife species of concern would be impacted if no action is taken.

Rock outcrops and caves The No Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect impacts to rock outcrops and caves and therefore, no direct impacts to wildlife species dependent on these areas.

Herbicide Impacts Disturbance from conifer treatment activities would not occur. Invasive annual grasses would not have the opportunity for expansion into the disturbed areas. Herbicide would not be used to control invasive annual grass expansion from current locations. Areas that already contain invasive annual grasses would continue to degrade or convert to annual grassland and the suitability for wildlife habitat would decrease.

3.7.2 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action)

Sagebrush and shrub-steppe communities Sagebrush and other shrubs recover after conifer control (Barney & Frischknecht, 1974) (Tausch & Tueller, 1990). Removal of western juniper on encroached systems would result in a rapid increase in herbaceous production and cover (Bates, et al., 2000) (Bates, et al., 1998), and influence on-site ecological processes such as increased water capture and storage (Pierson, et al., 2007) and nutrient cycling (Bates, et al., 2002). Removal of juniper by cutting and burning would create or maintain open-sagebrush plant communities with diverse associations of grasses and forbs; thereby restoring or maintaining habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species.

Intense heat resulting in some plant mortality would occur in some localized areas where piles are burned. This effect would primarily be limited to areas directly beneath juniper trunks and large branches. Biomass removal of cut juniper would reduce potential for soil sterilization due to reduction of juniper slash to be burned. The Proposed Action also includes seeding of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs if needed within treated areas to accelerate plant community and wildlife habitat recovery. Project Design Elements (PDEs; SGH 1 through SGH 6 and SSW 1 through SSW 3 in Chapter 2) would ensure that cover for sagebrush obligate wildlife species be maintained. Additionally, timing restrictions on treatment operations in greater sage-grouse habitat to minimize disturbance to breeding and nesting sage-grouse also protects other nesting or denning wildlife species. The impacts to wildlife species of concern are not significant in the short-term as long as PDEs are observed and implemented, and in the long-term, the Proposed Action would be beneficial as habitat is maintained or improved. Under this alternative, post treatment (herbicide, burning, and seeding) rest from livestock grazing would occur for at least three growing seasons. Many wildlife species (sagebrush obligates and big game) would benefit from the additional forage and cover from perennial grasses that are normally grazing by livestock every other year. Sage-grouse and other ground nesting birds would realize an increased amount of nesting and hiding cover while big game would realize the lack of competition with livestock for perennial grass species. Over the long-term, establishment of fuel breaks as specified in Alternative 2 is expected to reduce large-scale fire size, protect remaining sage-grouse habitat and important habitats of other native wildlife, and allow for the recovery of natural and seeded plant communities that mostly consist of shrub-steppe habitats. Protection from fire would result in improved habitat for wildlife which require or favor shrub habitats for breeding, hiding, thermal cover, and foraging. Once established, fuel breaks and buffer areas could provide adequate cover for some small mammals, reptiles, and ground-nesting birds such as horned larks. Other wildlife may use these areas only temporarily for feeding or travel. Some species may avoid treatment areas completely due to lack of appropriate cover or food. For purpose of this analysis, the fuel breaks are considered to be low- or non-functioning wildlife habitat. Fuel breaks would further protect the treated areas and the intact habitat that exists within the area, and break the fire cycle in the annual grass dominated landscapes. Habitat fragmentation is already occurring at a large scale due to the trend of large catastrophic fires in and adjacent to the project area. Fuel breaks would provide fire suppression resources with more opportunities to safely engage large fires, protect areas of intact habitat, and prevent large scale habitat fragmentation. It is not anticipated that maintenance of roads included in the fuel break network (See map 5b: Proposed Fuel Breaks) would result in increased levels of vehicular traffic or a change in the character of traffic. Fuel breaks are limited to maintenance of existing roads only and would therefore not contribute to the anthropogenic disturbance cap (Oregon Greater Sage- Grouse ARMPA, Appendix E, 2015) for priority habitat within the Bully Creek PAC. Traffic would continue to be extremely limited due to the rugged and remote character of the project area.

Western juniper woodlands There would be no direct short-term impacts to wildlife species dependent on latter stages of transition to juniper woodlands as described in (Miller, et al., 2005) as these woodlands are not proposed for treatment. This proposal may have some short-term negative impacts to some wildlife species like mule deer as they adjust to alterations in available hiding cover across the Project Area. However, in the long-term, forage would be improved as new shrub growth occurs and hiding cover would be replaced with shrubs instead of juniper. Birds that utilize juniper for nesting, cover, or food, where thinning will occur, would be negatively impacted. Overall, these populations will not be affected because juniper habitat will be available outside of proposed treatment areas and required Project Design Elements (PDEs) protect old-growth juniper and isolated islands of uncut conifers in the treatment areas. Additionally, in the long-term, these areas would be maintained as proposed treatments around these woodlands prevent their expansion, therefore maintaining relatively the same amount of wildlife habitat over time.

Mixed-conifer forests Non-commercial and commercial thinning and prescribed burning would decrease density of overstocked stands within the Project Area, returning forested areas to historic reducing risk of insect and disease outbreaks within the forested stands, improving tree vigor and health, allowing fire to be used to reduce fuels, and decreasing the proportion of Douglas-fir. Thinning around large-diameter trees would limit risk of mortality by reducing competition/stress and fuel loading. There would be potential in certain areas to protect, promote, and enhance stands of large-diameter trees benefiting wildlife that prefer large trees for nesting and roosting and providing thermal cover for big game species. Stocking would be reduced to increase resources available to existing large trees, spur growth of ground forage for wildlife and reduce risk of large, stand-replacing fires. This would be accomplished by removing Douglas-fir and juniper. Large remnant Douglas-fir and ponderosa trees would be retained benefiting wildlife. Trees with low canopy heights (less than 20 feet) would be removed to reduce ladder fuels. Trees would not be uniformly spaced within a stand but exhibit a natural clumpy-gap appearance to mimic naturally occurring variation. The resulting condition would make possible the use prescribed fires to restore natural processes, and reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire in adjacent sage-grouse habitat. Project design elements are in place to protect snags important for woodpeckers and bat species of concern and large downed wood for thermal cover for mule deer and elk. No known nests for eagles occur in the Project Area, but surveys for sensitive wildlife species would be conducted prior to project implementation per the PDEs and appropriate protection would be implemented if nests are found.

Grasslands Most of the grasslands in the Project Area were created by wildfires and are currently large monocultures of invasive grasses such as cheatgrass and medusahead, not native bunchgrasses mixed with some shrubs as they were historically. These monoculture grasslands of nonnative species do not have the same plant structure, plant diversity and nutritional value for wildlife species as bunchgrass communities do. The Proposed Action would result in the treatment and

conversion of invasive annual grasslands back to historic conditions of native bunchgrass and sagebrush. PDEs would minimize impacts to wildlife species currently utilizing these areas and in the long term, provide better habitat for these and other species that require sagebrush habitat as part of their life histories.

Riparian areas, wet meadows and reservoirs Treatment would reduce effects of western juniper encroachment on stands of mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, willow, chokecherry, aspen, and other woody riparian species that are at least one-eighth acre in size. Removal of conifers would reduce density and, consequently, competition for light, water and nutrients, allowing regeneration of riparian and aspen vegetation communities. Overall, impacts to riparian and aspen communities would be positive. Specifically, aspen, riparian shrubs and herbaceous cover and species richness would be enhanced and fuel loading would be reduced. This improvement of herbaceous cover and richness would benefit wildlife species dependent on riparian area vegetation for foraging including Columbia clubtail and silver-bordered fritillary, mule deer, and elk. Broadcast burning cut juniper within quaking aspen stands would be expected to kill all dominant and sub-canopy juniper trees and stimulate aspen suckering within remnant stands. Research suggests that burning during fall season would be the most effective method of eliminating juniper and stimulating recruitment within aspen patches in the northern Great Basin (Bates & Miller, 2004). Implementing the timing of these treatments in the fall would minimize any impacts the reproductive timing of species utilizing these areas (i.e. elk using these areas for calving or birds nesting). Treatment in riparian areas would have no impact on habitat for birds utilizing reservoirs including American white pelican, Franklin’s gull, horned grebe, trumpeter swan. PDEs would be implemented to minimize disturbance to nesting birds should surveys indicate presence of a special-status wildlife species in a treatment area. There would be a long-term benefit to wildlife of concern as habitat is improved or maintained by removing encroaching conifer. Jackpot burning and juniper cutting within stands of mountain mahogany and bitterbrush shrubs would reduce or eliminate competing juniper while maintaining the existing understory plant community and minimizing the effects of fire on the understory component. It is anticipated that reducing the presence of western juniper within existing patches of these shrubs would increase their distribution, density, and vigor over a long-term period, benefiting wildlife species that use these areas by increasing the amount of forage and thermal and hiding cover available.

Rock outcrops and caves The Proposed Action includes PDEs developed to avoid damage of special-status species habitat in rock outcrops and caves. There would be no direct or indirect effects to wildlife utilizing these areas. Herbicide Impacts Most impacts to wildlife or their habitat would occur within or immediately adjacent to the treated areas, and would diminish and as the distance from the treatment area increases. The risk of adverse effects to wildlife from dermal contact or ingestion would vary by the amount of herbicide applied to vegetation that is used as forage, the toxicity of the herbicide,

physical features of the terrain, weather conditions, and the time of year. The likelihood of most larger and mobile wildlife species being directly sprayed is very low since human activity associated with herbicide treatments generally would cause wild animals to flee or seek cover. Disturbance from treatments would occur, however implementation of Standard Operating Procedures and Mitigation Measures associated with invasive plant treatments, would minimize or restrict occurrence during critical periods (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010). Smaller resident species, including small mammals, reptiles and invertebrates, would be affected by disturbance the most. Many species of wildlife tend to avoid large areas infested with invasive plants. This is primarily due to the vegetation structural changes caused by invasive plants competing with natural vegetation as well as low palatability due to noxious weed defenses such as toxins, spines, and /or distasteful compounds (DiTomaso, et al., 2006). For the reasons described above, the likelihood of an exposure leading to illness or death of wildlife other than the least mobile species is low to none. Some wildlife species consume large quantities of grass and are therefore potentially at risk where broad‐scale applications of selective herbicides have been made on invasive plants where native grasses exist. Thus, 100 percent grass grazing scenarios were specifically modeled in the Ecological Risk Assessments. However, reaching Ecological Risk Assessment‐identified risk levels would be unlikely unless the animals foraged exclusively within the treatment area for an entire day (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010). Wildlife may be impacted through direct or indirect contact or ingestion of chemicals or exposed plant, water, or animals, including insects. Based on the findings of the Ecological Risk Assessments and following Standard Operating Procedures the potential risk to wildlife from ingestion or direct contact would be negligible, especially at the population level. Discussion and links to Ecological Risk Assessments for the proposed herbicide are available in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon FEIS (U.S Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010 Appendix 8:605-608, Appendix 9:632, 633, 642) and the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (USDI, Imazapic only, Appendix C).

3.7.3 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, the central portion of the Project Area, which encompasses approximately 17,500 acres, will not be treated. The untreated portion of this alternative is predominately high elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass and forested stands. The analysis for Alternative 2 applies to this alternative with the exception of forested or high elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass communities. In these communities within the untreated areas, the analysis under Alternative 1 applies. Under this alternative, approximately 222.3 acres or one-quarter of commercial timber harvest under Alternative 2 is proposed outside of the WSA and WIU areas. In stands proposed for treatment, stand densities would decrease, returning forested areas to historic composition, reducing risk of insect and disease outbreaks within the forested stands, improving tree vigor and

health, allowing fire to be used to reduce fuels, and decreasing the proportion of Douglas-fir. Thinning around large-diameter trees would limit risk of mortality by reducing competition/stress and fuel loading. There would be potential in certain areas to protect, promote, and enhance stands of large-diameter trees benefiting wildlife that prefer large trees for nesting and roosting and stimulating understory vegetation growth proving foraging and thermal cover for big game species. Outside the proposed treatment areas, pine beetle infestations and tree mortality would continue. This benefits species like woodpeckers and other cavity nesting wildlife species; however, the infestation is spreading rapidly as discussed in Chapter 3.3 (Vegetation Analysis) and will ultimately result in large areas of stand mortality. In general, areas receiving treatment would have reduced fuel loads and overall vegetation density and move vegetative communities toward historic conditions benefiting sagebrush- dependent wildlife species like greater sage-grouse. As was discussed in Alternative 2, there may be some short-term negative impacts to species like mule deer as they adjust to alterations in hiding cover across the Project Area, but in the long-term forage would be improved and hiding cover would be replaced with shrubs instead of juniper. There would be some short-term negative impacts to bird species that utilize western juniper for nesting structure or forage on berries. However, under this alternative the area proposed for treatment is smaller than Alternative 2 reducing the magnitude and extent of the impacts.

Herbicide Impacts Under this alternative, impacts from herbicide would be identical to those described in Alternative 2 above. The potential to treat the central portion of the Project Area, which encompasses approximately 17,500 acres, would not exist and therefore reduces the overall amount of acres for herbicide application. Wildlife in this area would not be disturbed from herbicide application activities or be impacted through direct or indirect contact or ingestion of chemicals or exposed plant, water, or animals, including insects.

3.8 WATER RESOURCES/WATER QUALITY 3.8.1 Affected Environment The Project Area encompasses portions of three subbasins: Upper Malheur (HUC #17050116), Bully (HUC#17050118), and Willow Creek (HUC#17050119). It includes three major perennial river systems that flow to the Snake River via the Malheur River — North Fork Malheur River, Little Malheur River, and Malheur River, and a small portion of South Willow Creek that drains north to Willow Creek. Each river system contains perennial, interrupted perennial, and intermittent seasonally flowing streams. BLM manages only small portions of the main drainages in the Project Area. Approximately 85 percent of the BLM-managed drainages are smaller contributing tributaries.

North Fork Malheur River The North Fork Malheur River drains about 250,000 acres (395 square miles) with a main channel length of approximately 60 miles. Only about half the acres drained by the North Fork Malheur River are within the Project Area. North Fork Malheur River is a perennial flowing

river until it reaches Beulah Reservoir. Although flow in the river below Beulah Reservoir remains perennial, it is controlled by Vale Oregon Irrigation District and may vary due to irrigation use. A series of irrigation ditches present along most of the river downstream from Castle Rock Ranch are used to irrigate the meadows along the river’s floodplain. Within the Project Area, this river receives its flow from North Fork Malheur River watershed upstream, Little Malheur River, Bendire Creek, Warm Springs Creek, and several perennial and intermittent side channels. BLM manages approximately 4.3 miles of North Fork Malheur River. Warm Springs Creek, which drains 48,000 acres, and Bendire Creek, a major tributary to Warm Springs Creek, are perennial streams in their lower reaches, with small, perennial, and intermittent segments scattered throughout the upper reaches. The lower reaches of these streams are on private land within the Project Area and are often ditched to irrigate meadows. Some of the flow on Bendire Creek is controlled by Murphy Reservoir, a significantly sized reservoir of approximately 30 surface acres, used mainly for recreational purposes. BLM manages approximately 2.6 miles of Warm Springs Creek within the Project Area.

Little Malheur River Little Malheur River has two major tributaries within the Project Area—Lost and Bridge creeks—as well as several smaller tributaries. This system drains about 88,000 acres (137 square miles), with a main channel length of 46 miles, before flowing into the North Fork Malheur River above Beulah Reservoir. Little Malheur River is a low-gradient, perennial-flowing system. Many segments of the river are private, irrigated meadows interspersed with small canyon reaches. BLM manages approximately 1.5 miles of Little Malheur River within the Project Area. Lost Creek, the main tributary to Little Malheur River, is comprised of perennial flow draining about 19,600 acres (31 square miles). Lost Creek’s perennial flow begins where several springs with associated drainages in the headwaters flow into the main channel. The main tributaries to Lost Creek are Cannon Gulch and Little Lost Creek. Cannon Gulch, draining 925 acres, is a large spring/meadow complex that contributes perennial flow close to the headwaters of Lost Creek. The remaining water contribution to Lost Creek is from perennial and intermittent unnamed tributaries, all from spring sources. BLM manages approximately 1.1 miles of Lost Creek within the Project Area. Bridge Creek, the second largest tributary to Little Malheur River, is a perennial system that drains about 15,000 acres (23 square miles). This creek begins at several spring sources and flows through wetland meadow systems before it flows into Little Malheur River. BLM manages approximately 0.5 miles of Bridge Creek within the Project Area.

Malheur River Malheur River is a large system that drains over three million acres (4,750 square miles) in eastern Oregon. A portion of the Malheur River in the Lower Malheur Subbasin is included in the Project Area. This system drains about 26,000 acres (40 square miles) along approximately seven miles of the Malheur River. BLM manages approximately 1.9 miles of Malheur River in the Project Area.

Calf Creek, the only perennial tributary to Malheur River within the Project Area, drains about 21,000 acres (32 square miles). Calf Creek consists of perennial flow beginning toward the top of the watershed. The stream flows into a tight, narrow canyon with large boulders in the channel creating deep pools. The watershed only contains six stream miles of perennial flow.

Stream Flow The timing and amount of spring runoff is dependent on snowpack depth and condition, as well as spring weather factors such as temperature and rainfall. Subsurface recharge and overland flow to these streams are mainly from snowmelt, with peak flows and overland runoff occurring in April and subsiding in late May. By late June and early July, surface flow in the interrupted and intermittent streams is reduced to short, discontinuous segments. Base flows on perennial and intermittent streams are sustained through the summer and fall by groundwater discharge and springs. Ephemeral drainages receive water during spring runoff and rainfall events. The drainage network transports surface water, groundwater, and sediment and has a channel and road component. Perennial fish-bearing streams within the Project Area include Bendire, Clover, South Clover, Cottonwood, North Bully, South Bully, Middle Willow, and Rail Canyon creeks and the North Fork and Little Malheur rivers. Roads transport surface flow as well as intercept subsurface water (through flow) and can divert these waters into road ditches and eventually into adjacent streams, which can adversely impact fish, fish habitat and water quality. Therefore, the number of roads, road design, road use, road maintenance, and road drainage structures are important components of fish habitat and water quality management.

Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) A number of streams in the Malheur River Basin are listed as water-quality limited by the state for high temperatures and bacteria loads, including fecal coliform (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2010) High bacteria concentrations limit water-contact recreation (such as wading, swimming and fishing) among other uses. High temperatures put fisheries at risk. Waterbodies listed as impaired include the Upper Malheur River, Lower Malheur River, Lower Willow Creek, portions of Bully Creek, and the North Fork Malheur River. Within the Project Area, the North Fork and Little Malheur rivers are on a list of impaired water bodies for high temperatures. The lower North Fork, below Beulah Reservoir, as well as portions of Willow and Bully creeks also are listed for bacteria, although the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives will have no effect on bacteria levels in these waterbodies these actions do not alter the sources of the bacteria. Impaired listings are determined by TMDLs, the maximum amount of pollutant that can be present in a water body without violating water quality standards. A list of impaired water bodies is usually referred to as the 303(d) list. The state Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for assessing data, compiling the 303(d) list and developing TMDLs. Both the 303(d) list and TMDLs are submitted to Environmental Protection Agency for approval.

Temperature Within the Project Area, the North Fork Malheur and Little Malheur, above Beulah Reservoir, and Bear Creek, a tributary of Little Malheur, are listed. South of the Project Area, Cottonwood Creek and Pole Creek (tributaries of the Lower Malheur River), and Basin Creek tributary of Willow Creek are listed. Most of these streams are classified as redband trout habitat with a seven-day-average maximum temperature standard of 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Headwater portions of North Fork Malheur and its tributaries are classified as bull trout spawning and rearing habitat with a seven-day-average maximum temperature standard of 53.6 degrees Fahrenheit. High daily water temperatures in the North Fork Malheur above Beulah Reservoir in 2005 ranged from around 65 degrees Fahrenheit in June, peaking at 87 degrees Fahrenheit in August and dropping to the 60s again in October. Water temperatures below the reservoir were significantly lower ranging from 53 degrees Fahrenheit in June to a peak of 67 degrees Fahrenheit in August. The primary source of heating is from removal of natural streamside vegetation, which increased the amount of solar radiation the streams receive. The loss of vegetation and stream warming is caused by agricultural activities, current and legacy grazing impacts, western juniper expansion, and hydrologic modifications such as water withdrawals and diversions (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2010). Loss of riparian vegetation and natural stream channel form have been identified as widespread conditions in the basin and are well known causes of increased water temperature. The TMDL requires designated agencies to implement management strategies to restore or protect streamside vegetation, as well as encourage best management practices to minimize water withdrawals or diversions. The TMDL also requires the Bureau of Reclamation to eliminate excessive temperature increases downstream of its dams and to evaluate managed flows that may be required for the survival of downstream vegetation communities. An agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan, which addresses agricultural activities on private lands, was adopted for the Malheur River Basin by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Malheur County, Harney County, the city of Ontario, and local irrigation districts are required to cooperate with restoration efforts outlined in the plan. Irrigation systems have been improved by installing concrete-lined irrigation ditches, and piped water delivery systems. Wetlands and sediment ponds have been constructed to trap sediment and reduce nutrient and bacteria concentrations. The plan also manages or eliminates human disturbance from land management activities such as road building, urban development, forest management, farming, and grazing.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Proper functioning condition (PFC) surveys are local surveys completed by the BLM and used as baseline data for channel stability and riparian conditions. The condition of the channel and riparian vegetation exerts strong control over water temperature and fine sediment. Approximately 126 miles of perennial and intermittent streams within Project Area have been surveyed and assessed. Approximately 30 percent of streams surveyed are at PFC or functional at risk with an upward trend. Table 3.12 summarizes this information.

Table 3.12 Summary of Streams Assessed For PFC within Project Area Status Miles of Streams Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 28 miles Functional - At Risk with an Upward Trend 10.5 miles Functional - At Risk, Neutral 49.2 miles Functional – At Risk, Downward Trend 19.5 miles Non-Functional 18.8 miles

3.8.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Riparian vegetation— sedges, rushes, grasses—and woody species—willow, alder, aspen, red osier dogwood and cottonwood—are important for maintaining stream channel integrity, water quality, and fish habitat. The root systems of these plant species stabilize and protect stream banks from eroding during high-water events. Stream banks covered with herbaceous vegetation and stands of woody species catch sediment during high-water events and help maintain and restore flood plain function. Deep-rooted riparian vegetation also dissipates the energy associated with high water, thus reducing its erosive potential. With no action, juniper and other conifers would increase in number and become increasingly established in riparian areas. Juniper and other conifers slowly invade riparian areas by shading out or outcompeting desired riparian species. This would decrease riparian vegetation diversity, and productivity and function of riparian areas over time. The loss of desired riparian species (e.g., willow, sedges, and cottonwood) to conifer encroachment could lead to deterioration of stream channel integrity, bank stability, water quality and aquatic species habitat. Juniper stands tend to have less complex vegetative communities, less understory cover, and more bare soil, and bare inter-canopy areas exhibit high rates of erosion (Reid et al. 1999). When riparian areas are dominated by juniper, and a high-flow event occurs, there is a greater potential for erosion, leading to bank instability and subsequent channel degradation. In the event of a high-severity or high-intensity wildfire there would likely be an increase in sediment inputs into streams due to erosion of upland soils, leading to elevated stream water temperatures. The loss of overstory in the riparian area (e.g., conifers, riparian shrubs, and graminoids) as a result of a wildfire represents a risk of long-term reduction in shade contribution and a long-term increase in stream temperatures within and downstream of the Project Area. Furthermore, this would negatively affect the Proper Functioning Condition rating of the assessed streams within the Project Area. Additionally, riparian vegetation plays an important role in maintaining water quality. Water quality can be degraded by changes in chemical/nutrient content, temperature, turbidity, and levels of sedimentation. Juniper and conifer expansion into riparian areas can lead to degraded water quality from stream bank instability, degraded channel morphology, loss of storage capacity, and reduced potential for groundwater recharge. The resulting impact can lead to increased sedimentation and changes to nutrient cycles associated with the loss of deciduous and herbaceous vegetation. Groundwater recharge affects low- or late-season flows and thus water temperature.

3.8.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) The combined activities within thinning units (i.e. prescribed burning and conifer cutting) in the uplands would not alter water and riparian resources because the treatment areas would be physically separated by standard or site specific buffers that adequately trap sediment, promote infiltration, and are free of channelized flow. There would be no decrease in the amount of shade provided to the stream or stream bank, so stream temperatures would not increase over current conditions. However, if conifer encroachment is treated in the uplands, there will be a reduction in the likelihood of a high-intensity and high-severity wildfire spreading across the landscape and reaching and impacting a riparian corridor. The Proposed Action includes removing conifer from some riparian areas. Map 8 in Appendix B shows streams and proposed treatment areas under this alternative. Project Design Elements would protect riparian vegetation close to the stream’s edge. There is little potential for these treatments to contribute sediment into a stream channel because there are sufficient distances and ground cover between the channels and activities to effectively trap any sediment that might leave the site via overland flow. Treating conifer encroachment and maintaining current bank resistance from roots means that the channel’s sensitivity to instream erosion would remain the same or improve as riparian vegetation reestablishes and there would be no additional channel incision or widening as a result. Therefore, there would be no changes in water depths or stream velocities for a given discharge or flow. No increase in runoff would be expected because the low-moderate intensity fire would not remove large overstory or create hydrophobic soils. In addition, the activities would not result in a reduction in stream bank and/or bed stability over current conditions. At present, the major source of sediment in some streams is natural erosion of the stream banks and channel beds. Thinning of trees can increase openings in the forest canopy, which can lead to greater accumulations of snow than would occur in an undisturbed forest. Warm rain-on-snow events can melt this increased snowpack quickly and result in higher than normal flows. Since the proposed project involves non-commercial thinning and prescribed burning, not all trees would be harvested, therefore openings created in the forest canopy would be small. The trees left on site are expected to respond to thinning with increased growth due to reduction in competition. This would result in incremental chance of a temporary increase in snowpack (e.g. less than10 years). With relatively small amount of non-commercial thinning (3,700 acres) and project sites that are spread out between six different watersheds, no measurable increase in peak flows from the proposed activity is anticipated. Increases in base flows due to removal of vegetation are expected to be minimal and short term (e.g. less than 5 years). An increase in base flow can be expected after harvesting of trees in forested areas since the harvested trees are no longer using water from the site; however, the remaining trees may use more water than they had previously. Additionally, increased grass and brush cover is expected, which also would utilize more water. No increase in runoff would be expected due to underburning because a low- moderate-intensity fire would not remove large overstory or create hydrophobic soils. Thus, the combined activities in the thinning units would have no effect on stream discharge (i.e. magnitude, timing, duration, pattern, and variability). The amount, type and distribution of shade-providing vegetation at a given site is controlled by channel processes and land use. The character of riparian vegetation communities in many locations of the Project Area has been altered as a consequence of grazing, altered wildland fire

regimes, and juniper encroachment. Channel incision has been causally linked with conversion of riparian ecological types to vegetation communities more typical of upland areas (e.g. juniper) (Toledo & Kauffman, 2001). Although juniper provides stream shading (a larger contribution than would occur naturally), channel incision and juniper encroachment adversely affect species that provide canopy cover, bank stability, and streambank/floodplain roughness that contribute to stream shading and sediment deposition. The purpose of juniper removal from riparian areas identified in the Proposed Action is to aid restoration of riparian vegetation communities, and subsequent maintenance or restoration of water quality. Additionally, project actions that may result in initial reduction of shade or increased sediment input would be assessed and coordinated with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Project design and BMPs would be implemented to prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse effects. The Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 41 Water Quality Standards allow short-term degradation of existing water quality as a result of activities that are intended to restore the geomorphology or riparian vegetation of a water body, or control invasive species, so long as the DEQ determines that there is a net ecological benefit of the restoration activity. Reasonable measures that are consistent with the restoration objectives for the water body must be used to minimize the degradation. Because streams are affected by energy input via direct solar radiation, the factors that control energy inputs to streams (such as channel width and stream shading) are among the most important factors affecting stream temperature that can be affected by BLM management. Conifer cutting to remove encroaching juniper in the uplands away from riparian areas would have no effect on stream temperatures, sediment inputs, discharge patterns, or channel bank and bed stability from current conditions. Removal of juniper by manual cutting causes minimal ground disturbance that could expose soils to erosion. Buffers (PDEs) would maintain stream bank and bed stability at current conditions and therefore would not result in channel widening or incision, both of which can lead to increases in stream temperatures and sediment inputs. While the hydrologic response of juniper removal is variable and not well understood, there is anecdotal evidence that show increased discharge in streams and springs following juniper removal (Miller et. al., 2005). Should base flows increase following treatment and extend later into the hot season, there would be measurable beneficial effects to water and riparian resources, including a potential reduction in stream temperatures, narrower stream channels, wider riparian areas, and improved bank stability due to riparian vegetation expansion. Jackpot and pile burning in mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming sagebrush, bunchgrass, and mountain shrub communities would have no short-term adverse effects on water and riparian resources because there would be effective buffers between burned areas and the channel. No increase in runoff would be expected because the low-moderate-intensity fire would not create hydrophobic soils. If or when erosion was to occur following burning of juniper- sagebrush steppe communities, it likely would happen within the one year (Emmerich & Cox, 1992). However, erosion in sagebrush-steppe communities most often takes place during storm events in mid-late summer. Burning in the fall would minimize or negate short-term impacts, allowing adequate spring growth of vegetation cover to stabilize bare ground before storms occur the following season. Furthermore, the burns would occur at low to moderate intensity to prevent development of hydrophobic soils (except in pockets) and maintain some ground cover.

100

Thinning and fire treatments in this project would not affect aquatic habitat for fish or fish populations in the area. No instream structures would be removed, and there would be no effect to stream bank and channel stability. Reduction of conifers within standard and site-specific buffers would be done according to project design features and would allow rapidly growing riparian woody species to increase and improve fisheries habitat over the long-term. Riparian species provide higher bank stability functions and would promote increased sinuosity, groundwater storage, and late-season flows will improve the Proper Functioning Condition ratings for the streams that have been evaluated within the Project Area.

3.8.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, approximately 17,500 acres will not be treated within WSAs and WIU centrally located within the Project Area. Map 9 in Appendix B shows streams and proposed treatment areas under this alternative. Outside of this area proposed for non-treatment, the Analysis under Alternative 2 applies. Within the proposed untreated area, the analysis under Alternative 1 applies.

3.9 SPECIAL STATUS AQUATIC SPECIES

3.9.1 Affected Environment

Fisheries Perennial fish-bearing streams within the Project Area include Bendire, Clover, South Clover, Cottonwood, North Bully, South Bully, Middle Willow, and Rail Canyon creeks and the North Fork and Little Malheur rivers. At least 12 native fish species occur in Project Area streams and include interior redband trout, bull trout, mountain whitefish, redside shiner, specked dace, longnose dace, chiselmouth, bridgelip and largescale suckers, northern pikeminnow, and sculpins. Two species have special- status designations: bull trout, which are federally listed as threatened, and redband trout, which are on the BLM’s special-status species list. Specific information about the bull trout and redband trout life history, habitat needs and status is below. In the Malheur River drainage, anadromous runs of steelhead, Chinook salmon, and possibly Pacific lamprey were lost with construction of the Columbia, Snake, and Malheur river dams, including Agency Dam (1934) on the North Fork Malheur River. Access to the Malheur River from the Snake River was limited after 1881 due to construction of Nevada Diversion Dam on the lower Malheur River below Vale. Several nonnative fish species occur in the main Malheur River, and include brown bullhead, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and yellow perch. In general, nonnative fish are blocked from the upper reaches of the North Fork and its tributaries by Agency Dam, although illegally introduced white crappie in Beulah Reservoir may occur in small numbers. ODFW periodically stocks a coastal strain of hatchery rainbow trout in Beulah and Murphy reservoirs, and some natural reproduction likely occurs upstream of these impoundments in the North Fork Malheur River and in Bendire Creek.

101

Besides trout, other cold-water dependent fish species are sculpins. Little is known about their distribution because they are secretive and rarely identified in inventories. Shorthead sculpin occur in the North Fork and Little Malheur rivers, and other species may be present. Because their habitat requirements are similar to trout, sculpins likely are confined to headwater areas in smaller tributaries where stream temperatures and sediment loads are lowest.

Bull Trout The Malheur River is identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) migration, over-wintering, and foraging habitat and is designated critical habitat (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Bull trout require very cold, pristine streams and are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The North Fork Malheur River bull trout subpopulation is in the Upper Malheur Subbasin. Because dams on both Beulah and Warm Springs reservoirs prevent upstream fish passage, the North Fork Malheur bull trout are isolated from other populations in the Malheur and Snake River systems. The North Fork subpopulation is not connected with other subpopulations, so opportunities for recolonization do not exist. However, no competitive or hybridizing species, such as brook trout, occur in the North Fork, making this basin especially valuable to bull trout as a refuge. Bull trout migrate between headwater tributaries on Malheur National Forest, where they spawn in the fall, and Beulah Reservoir. Spawning does not occur within BLM-managed property nor do records indicate that bull trout historically spawned here. However, migratory and possibly rearing habitat is present on BLM reaches in Upper and Middle North Fork Malheur watersheds. Vale District BLM administers 1,441 acres in the North Fork Malheur River corridor and 4.5 miles of the 13.8 river miles that extend from the south boundary of the Malheur National Forest to Beulah Reservoir. The 13.8-mile river segment and Beulah Reservoir (1768.9 acres) are designated critical habitat for bull trout. The majority of BLM lands in the river corridor occur from the Forest boundary 4.0 miles downstream to the confluence with Little Malheur River. Public land in this reach is interspersed with about 2.0 stream miles of private land. A disjunctive 0.5 mile BLM river segment is 2 miles above Beulah Reservoir. The North Fork Malheur River above Beulah Reservoir is situated within a basalt canyon with moderately steep to precipitous hillslopes. Riparian communities are dominated by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and red osier dogwood in the upstream reaches, and willow, mock orange, dogwood, and grasses downstream. Although livestock utilization in the canyon during the late 1970s and 1980s was moderate to heavy, grazing schedules have been altered and recent monitoring on federal land shows good conditions and upward trends for riparian vegetation in most areas. Total bull trout numbers for the North Fork Malheur River were estimated in 1991-92 to be about 4,000 fish (Buchanan, et al., 1997), but numbers have likely increased due to fishing closures and habitat improvements. Since 1996, redd numbers appear to be correlated with precipitation, and lower redd numbers recorded between 2002 and 2005 may reflect recent drought conditions. Total redds observed in the North Fork Malheur Watershed from Aug-Oct. 1992-2013, Baker and Grant Counties, Oregon (Hurn, 2013) are depicted in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 below.

102

Number of Redds 200 150 150 115 125 112 99 97 82 100 74 67 75 64 63 64 55 53 38 38 50 2 8 13 9 0

Number of Redds

Figure 3.5 The number bull trout redds observed in the North Fork Malheur River watershed from 1992-2013 (Hurn, 2013).

Redds per Mile

8 7.1 6.7 7 6.6 6.4 5.7 5.9 6 5.1 5.3 4.6 5 4.1 4 3.6 3.9 3.8 4 3.3 3.1 3 1.7 2 1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0

Redds per Mile

Figure 3.6 The number bull trout redds per mile of stream observed in the North Fork Malheur River watershed from 1992-2013 (Hurn, 2013).

Excessive sedimentation and chemical contamination are not concerns in BLM river segments. Except in periods of seasonal runoff, turbidity is low in the North Fork, and rocky substrates were not embedded in the reaches surveyed. Absence of mining, industry, or residential areas in the upper basin precludes chemical contamination. In upper reaches, no evidence of nutrient loading, such as abnormal algal growth, is present, although water quality testing has not been done. Excessive nutrients from agricultural runoff may be of concern near and around Beulah Reservoir, however. Water temperatures within the Middle North Fork watershed are functioning at unacceptable risk to migrating bull trout adults. Thermographs placed in the North Fork Malheur River above the confluence with Little Malheur River have recorded

103

maximum daily and seven-day average maximum temperatures well above the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standard. After receiving warmer water from Little Malheur River and flowing 77 miles through private land, the North Fork daily maximum temperatures in Water Gulch pasture increased 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on average. There are no physical barriers to bull trout movement throughout their migratory corridor, but fish flushed below Beulah Reservoir dam are not able to return and are lost to the population. Unscreened irrigation diversions at Castle Rock Ranch may impact migrating fish on the North Fork below the confluence with Little Malheur River. Five diversions on private land on Little Malheur River near the Malheur National Forest boundary have been screened, though it is unlikely bull trout currently utilize the Little Malheur River. A 1998 ODFW stream survey described in-stream habitat conditions in the North Fork Malheur River on BLM-administered reaches between Beulah Reservoir and the USFS boundary upstream. Riffles and rapids were the most common habitat type, and percentage of pool area was low, ranging between 4 percent and 11 percent. Few large pools (>1 m2) were present. Densities of large woody debris measured at less than 20 pieces/mile were not at levels recommended for appropriate functioning, and potential sources of short- or long-term wood recruitment decreased with distance downstream. Off-channel habitats consisted of some backwaters and side channels, but these areas were infrequent due to the constrained valley landform. Although constrained, the river in this section was not downcut and was linked hydrologically to off-channel areas during periods of high flow. Refugia were not available for maintenance of early bull trout life stages, but adequate migratory habitat for adults and possibly juveniles existed in spring and fall when water temperatures were cool. It is probable that peak and base hydrologic flows have been altered by logging, grazing, and road building in the watershed, but there is no indication that functioning is impaired. Flooding has occurred in the past, but significant disturbance associated with flooding events is not readily evident. Based on hydrologic, geologic, soil and vegetation characteristics, it is reasonable to conclude that overall this watershed is moderately resilient to natural hydrologic disturbances such as flooding, debris flows or mass movement processes. Road densities in the North Fork Malheur watershed are moderate at 1.03 miles of road per square mile. A road follows the river valley for 6 miles above Beulah Reservoir, but only a 2- mile stretch approaches within 200 feet of the river. The road surface is well graveled and does not appear to generate excessive amounts of sediment. The North Fork corridor is roadless from Castle Rock Ranch to Crane Creek crossing in Malheur National Forest, with the exception of two swaths bladed in 1998 and 1999 across the river on Whitley Canyon Allotment. Natural revegetation and reclamation work have reduced the impacts of this blading on trout habitat. Disturbance from timber harvest and fire on BLM holdings is relatively low in the North Fork Malheur River area. Between 1955 and 1996, 36 acres in Middle North Fork Malheur watershed and 373 acres in Little Malheur watershed were logged. Since 1980, a few major wildfires have occurred, including the 5,780-acre Powder Timber Fire in Little Malheur watershed, and a 500- acre fire in juniper and grassland at Beulah Reservoir. However, disturbance from historical agriculture and livestock use has been significant in North Fork Malheur and Little Malheur watersheds. Riparian areas along the migratory bull trout corridor have been impacted in reaches

104

above Beulah Reservoir by agriculture, livestock, and roads, but reaches above the confluence with Little Malheur River are relatively intact, with herbaceous and woody riparian components approaching potential natural communities. Based on data from 1999 (Burns Paiute Tribe, FY 1999 Annual Report), migration of 18 radio- tagged adult bull trout from Beulah Reservoir began in mid-April and continued until late May, with most fish moving above Crane Creek Crossing by Aug. 1. In May 1999, one radio-tagged adult was observed 1 km up the Little Malheur River. In 1998, tagged bull trout also were found in the Little Malheur River in May and early June. All of these fish returned to the North Fork Malheur River within two weeks and continued their migration upstream. No 1999 radio-tagged adults remained within the BLM portion of North Fork Malheur River during the warm summer season (June 30 to Oct. 10). Tagged bull trout returned to Beulah Reservoir in late-October to mid-December, with peak returns to the reservoir occurring in November.

Great Basin Redband Trout Great Basin redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.), a Bureau-sensitive species in Oregon (Instruction Memorandum No. IM OR-2015-028Attachment) and state critical species, are found in the Project Area in Beulah Reservoir, Willow Creek, Bully Creek, and Malheur River (Currens, 1996). This species prefers cold, clear, fast-flowing water with clean cobbles and gravels. These trout are adapted to the dry, hot summers of eastern Oregon and can withstand short periods of time at peak water temperatures of 75 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit, which would be lethal to most other trout (Bowers, et al., 1979). Native redband trout in eastern Oregon have evolved adaptations to live in harsh environments characterized by extremes of water temperature and flow. During low-flow periods, redband trout are found primarily in headwater areas in fragmented populations. Although this rainbow trout subspecies has adapted to warm, arid rangeland streams, high water temperatures in downstream reaches limit its summer distribution. Trout distribution during fall, winter and spring is less fragmented because higher flows and lower temperatures allow fish to use more stream corridors. During spring, it is possible that individual trout can move throughout the basin. In these situations, hatchery strains of rainbow trout may not be effective predators or competitors. However, hatchery trout have hybridized with most populations of resident redband trout in much of the Columbia River Basin and undoubtedly, a considerable amount of genetic diversity has been lost during the last 100 years. In the Project Area, rainbow/redband trout occur in the mainstem North Fork, Little Malheur River, and Lost, Bendire, and Calf creeks. Allozyme genetic testing of trout from Bear Creek on North Fork Malheur River in Malheur National Forest showed that these fish had allelic frequencies mostly characteristic of native inland redband trout, with some genetic drift or introgression with hatchery stock (Currens, 1994). However, genetic analysis of trout from Calf Creek suggested that this population has been influenced by introduced or hybridized rainbow trout (Currens, 1994) (Currens, 1996). Rainbow trout occur in Bendire Creek, likely migrants from hatchery fish stocked in Murphy Reservoir. Consequently, maintenance and improvement of habitat for headwaters trout population is a high priority. Current distribution of stream fish in the geographic area is primarily influenced by summer water temperatures and flow levels. Maximum water temperatures are higher in downstream

105

reaches than at the headwaters, and cold water species such as redband trout and sculpins are restricted to higher elevations in summer. Several factors may contribute to high stream temperatures: (1) summer flows can be extremely low or intermittent, and low-water volumes heat up easily; (2) irrigation diversions can further reduce flow, and water returning from irrigated fields can be warmer than the source stream; and (3) scarcity of riparian canopy increases solar heating. Riparian vegetation not only shades water from hot summer sunlight, but also stores and cools subsurface water by trapping moisture and sediments in its matted root systems. Fingerling hatchery rainbow trout are stocked annually by ODFW into Beulah (80,000 fish) and Murphy (4,000 fish) reservoirs. Rainbow trout have escaped reservoirs and survived to spawn with native redband trout in nearby streams, generating genetically mixed trout populations with varying percentages of hybrid genes. The goal of the stocking program is to provide angler opportunities, and anglers from Vale, Ontario, and Idaho utilize this fishery.

Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles Streams, reservoirs, and wetlands in the Project Area provide habitat for a diversity of aquatic organisms. Amphibians are especially vulnerable to habitat degradation and can be impacted by loss of riparian vegetation, reduced flows, and the presence of exotic predators such as nonnative fish or bullfrogs. Two native amphibians found in this geographic area, Columbia spotted frogs and northern leopard frogs, are special-status species. One native reptile, the painted turtle, is also a special-status species. Specific information about these species’ life history, habitat needs and status is below. Table 3.13 Special status aquatic animal species that have the potential to occur within the Project Area based on the final state director’s Special-Status Species List (Instruction Memorandum No. IM OR-2015-028Attachment) Common Scientific Status Habitat Description Name Name Rana Columbia Pooled or flowing wetlands, moist meadows, and luteiventris CR/V Spotted Frog forests. (Great Basin) Northern Lithobates Permanent water with rooted aquatic vegetation. CR Leopard Frog pipiens Summer: wet meadows and fields. Slow-moving and shallow water with surface or Chrysemys emergent vegetation and a muddy substrate. Painted Turtle CR picta Terrestrial habitat: sparsely vegetated areas with southern exposure near aquatic habitat.

Status: CR = State Critical, V = State Vulnerable.

106

Columbia Spotted Frog The Great Basin population of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is restricted to portions of southeastern Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah and has been heavily impacted by loss of habitat and introduction of exotic species. In the Project Area, Columbia spotted frogs occur in the North Fork Malheur, Little Malheur, and Bendire Creek watersheds. Special-status Columbia spotted frogs occur in Bendire Creek and its tributaries. Kingsbury Gulch (outside of the Project Area) in Pete’s Mountain Pasture also has populations of Columbia spotted frogs. Spotted frogs require permanent water with algae or aquatic plants for cover, usually near springs. Removal of riparian vegetation and lowered water tables adversely affect frog populations, and excess sedimentation may reduce survival of overwintering adults. Spotted frogs often do not breed, feed, and hibernate at the same sites and therefore need suitable habitat between those sites to act as corridors of movement. The corridor must be moist to provide protection from desiccation and must provide cover as protection from predators. Studies with marked frogs in Idaho showed that frogs moved up to 2.3 km between foraging and hibernating habitats (Bull, 2005). Riparian cover, especially herbaceous species, protects frogs from overhead predators, increases food availability, and provides suitable movement corridors between important habitat components. Additionally, bank-stabilizing rushes, sedges, and willows increase the abundance of slow-water oxbows, side channels, and meadows necessary for frog breeding habitat.

Northern Leopard Frog The northern leopard frog (Rana pipens) is listed as critical on the Oregon's sensitive species list and is BLM-sensitive species (Instruction Memorandum No. IM OR-2015-028Attachment). It has disappeared from many parts of its previous range. It is a smooth-skinned green, brown, or sometimes yellow-green frog covered with large, oval dark spots, each surrounded by a lighter halo. The northern leopard frog requires a mosaic of habitats to meet the requirements of its life stages. It breeds in a variety of aquatic habitats that include slow-moving or still water along streams and rivers, wetlands, permanent or temporary pools, beaver ponds, and human- constructed habitats such as earthen stock tanks and borrow pits. Subadult northern leopard frogs typically migrate to feeding sites along the borders of larger, more permanent bodies of water and recently metamorphosed frogs move up and down drainages and across land to locate new breeding areas. The northern leopard frog range includes the northern tier U.S. states, western states and the southern Canadian provinces. It is now considered uncommon in a large portion of its range in the western United States, and decline of the species has been documented in most western states due to habitat loss, disease, non-native species, pollution and climate change (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.).

Painted Turtle The western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) is listed as critical on the Oregon's sensitive species list (Instruction Memorandum No. IM OR-2015-028Attachment) and is a Conservation Strategy Species for the Blue Mountain ecoregion. It has disappeared from many parts of its previous range in Oregon, but is widespread from Canada south into the central United States. In Oregon the painted turtle is primarily found in the Columbia River Basin and in the northern portion of the Willamette River Basin (Rosenburg, et al., 2009).

107

Painted turtles require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Aquatic habitat consists of slow- moving and shallow water of streams, small lakes and ponds, preferably with a soft, muddy bottom with surface or emergent vegetation; structures such as logs or vegetation are used for basking and are also an important habitat feature. Terrestrial habitat is used for nesting, where sparsely vegetated, south-facing areas are preferred (Rosenburg, et al., 2009). In Oregon, western painted turtles and wester pond turtles share much of the same habitat. Mating occurs in late spring to mid-summer, with nesting occurring in June and July. Average clutch size is 8 eggs, but is highly variable. In Oregon, males may reach sexual maturity at 3 to 5 years; females at 7 to 9 years of age. Eggs hatch in the fall, and hatchlings may emerge at that time, or over-winter in the nest and emerge in the spring. Nest failure is primarily due to predation by small mammals but can also be due to inundation of the nest site (Rosenburg, et al., 2009). The primary limiting factors for the western painted turtle in Oregon are loss of aquatic and nesting habitats due to conversion or invasive species, as well as predation (Rosenburg, et al., 2009). Aquatic Invertebrates Limited information is available on invertebrates, and more is known about aquatic than terrestrial species. Stream invertebrates are routinely collected as part of the fisheries habitat monitoring program. These collections are analyzed for species composition, abundance of organisms, and presence of certain indicator species. If many species adapted to polluted or degraded environments are found, then the stream being assessed may be a candidate for restoration or improvement. Conversely, the presence of invertebrates found only in clean water, such as certain stoneflies or mayflies, indicates good stream conditions. Invertebrate samples collected in 2000 by the Malheur National Forest from the North Fork Malheur River 3 miles upstream from the BLM boundary showed that the invertebrate community was dominated by caddisfly species (especially Brachycentrus and Wormaldia) and mayflies (Epeorus) with low tolerances to pollution or nutrient enrichment. Diversity of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly species was high. Midge larvae, which are adapted to high-sediment loads and organic enrichment, were common. Other pollution-tolerant taxa included dragonflies, damselflies, and water mites. Stoneflies (Calineuria, Claassenia, and Pteronarcys), indicators of clean water, were present in low numbers. Freshwater mussels were inventoried in the Project Area in 2004. The western pearlshell mussel, a species dependent on good water quality, was abundant in the North Fork Malheur River above Beulah Reservoir but occurred in lesser numbers in Little Malheur River. No other mussel species were observed.

3.9.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action)

Fisheries Under the No Action alternative, fuel loads would not be reduced. Current conditions and trends would be maintained until a wildfire event. During the past century, fire suppression and timber

108

harvest has altered fuel loads and forest structure in dry forest communities of the Project Area. Because of this, the probability of large-stand replacement fires has increased. Changing fire regimes and potential for larger, more destructive fires may threaten the loss of aquatic habitat diversity and lead to accelerated extinction of some vulnerable populations (Elliott & Vose, 2006). Aquatic species habitat likely would be affected by the loss of riparian species following juniper and other conifer invasion. While these effects would not occur immediately, there would be a slow unraveling or degradation of habitat conditions that would be accelerated during watershed disturbances. Potential effects of degraded habitat include loss of habitat complexity, bank instability, change in groundwater storage and release, increased water temperatures, and a likely change in macroinvertebrate density and diversity. The long-term impacts of juniper-dominated riparian areas include decreased water quality and aquatic habitat condition. Because of significant water usage, encroaching western juniper could dewater springs and riparian areas where western juniper would not naturally occur. Conversely, because few vegetation treatments would occur, there would be few ground-disturbing negative impacts of these actions on aquatic or riparian areas.

3.9.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Generally, aquatic species present in the Project Area are not expected to be adversely affected by disturbances to habitat resulting from prescribed burning and silvicultural thinning activities. Ground disturbance occurring in the uplands would be sufficient distances from stream channels to avoid introduction of fine sediments. Map 8 in Appendix B shows streams and proposed treatment areas under this alternative. Reestablishing more natural patterns and processes would lead to restoration of more complex, productive aquatic habitats. Treatment of juniper and other encroaching conifers in riparian areas would facilitate recovery of a riparian deciduous community, restore the riparian zone to more historic conditions and reduce risk of a high-severity wildland fire. The existing deciduous (alder, cottonwood, dogwood, willow species) component also would be enhanced due to reduced competition with conifers. By expanding the deciduous community, greater bank stability, sediment capture, long-term stream shading, nutrient input, and water storage and release would be expected. Late-season release of cool groundwater would be important for fish survival during low flows. Project Design Elements AQ/RA 1 through 5 from Chapter 2 ensures treatment of western juniper encroachment in riparian areas would avoid bank damage and sediment inputs to streams. At specific sites, removal of invasive western juniper would reduce transpiration losses and increase availability of water for riparian vegetation and storage, providing long-term benefits to aquatic habitats. Larger conifers that would be selectively cut and felled into the flood plain would provide for future large wood recruitment into stream channels. This eventually would provide cover and habitat complexity for fish, amphibians, and aquatic reptiles. Expanding the riparian hardwood community also would affect the aquatic food web. Seasonal inputs of terrestrial insects from riparian areas are an important food source for drift feeding fish species (Young, et al., 1997).

109

These inputs are highest from closed-canopy riparian areas dominated by deciduous plant species (Elliott & Vose, 2006). Altering the vegetation within the riparian zone to facilitate expansion of existing deciduous vegetation would improve aquatic habitat and conditions for fish, amphibians and aquatic reptiles of concern. The activities proposed along fish-bearing streams would have no effect on special-status fish, amphibian and reptile species so long as PDEs are observed. No temporary roads would be constructed within riparian zones and treatments would be limited to hand cutting and piling. Piles would be burned outside the flood plain. This would minimize ground disturbance and sediment entering into streams. Prescribed underburns in the uplands would be initiated when conditions are conducive to lower-intensity burns. Low-intensity fire in the riparian zone likely would result in a patchy burn pattern and leave shade-providing riparian vegetation. A patchy burn also would minimize chances of excessive sediment delivery to streams because sediment trapping vegetation would remain. Water temperature in fish-bearing streams and rivers on public land within the Project Area is not expected to increase. Field observations indicate the topography and channel orientation of the stream combined with the expected canopy retention on adjacent hillslopes would not result in a net loss of effective stream shade. It is expected that due to the spatial location and low magnitude of anticipated effects, sediment moving into stream channels would not reach the North Fork Malheur River, and the condition of bull trout habitat would be maintained. Herbicide Impacts Spot treatment may occur in areas to control nascent and existing populations of noxious weeds to keep them from spreading. These actions may include manual, or herbicide treatments and the method and timing used to control would be species specific. Large-scale (at the pasture level or larger) herbicide treatment impacts to riparian areas, aquatic resources, water quality, fisheries and water resources are minimized or eliminated through adherence to appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), buffers, chemical application, and other required design features as outlined in the 2010 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of Decision. See also PDE AQ/RA 5 in Chapter 2. Direct application avoidance of the perennial streams and surface water, along with season of application, would limit the opportunity for herbicide mobility during the herbicide’s active life, resulting in a negligible impact to movement of the herbicide overland and into stream systems. The lasting effects from the herbicide application include improved hydrologic function of the watershed as the site becomes re-vegetated with desirable species. Map 15 in Appendix B shows treatment buffers for aerial application of herbicides on streams occupied by bull trout and designated critical habitat for bull trout.

3.9.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, approximately 17,500 acres will not be treated within WSAs and WIU centrally located within the Project Area. Map 9 in Appendix B shows streams and proposed treatment areas under this alternative. Outside of this area proposed for non-treatment, the analysis under Alternative 2 applies. Within the proposed untreated area, the analysis under Alternative 1 applies.

110

3.10 SOILS

3.10.1 Affected Environment The Malheur River Basin covers a large and varied region and contains diverse group of soil types. Soils in the northwest portion of the basin range from productive volcanic ash on north- facing slopes (Mount Mazama ash from approximately 6,500 years ago) and underlying silt loam on less-protected south slopes to shallow residual soils on ridge tops. In the rolling hills that comprise a majority of the basin, soils often consist of a thin layer of wind-deposited loess, a loosely compacted yellowish-gray deposit of windblown sediment. Narrow floodplain deposits are found along streams in this area. Deeper floodplain soils are found in the lower portion of the basin and are the basis for extensive agricultural activity. These soils generally are easily eroded and alkaline (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2010). Soil resources found in Project Area occur predominantly on gently undulating to steep plateaus of basalt, rhyolite, or welded tuff with some very steep faulted and dissected terrain, including large areas of canyons and rock escarpments. Soils were surveyed and described in “Oregon's Long Range Requirements for Water” Appendix 1-10, Malheur Drainage Basin (Oregon Water Resources Board, 1969). The Project Area consists of 35 soil mapping units from this Order IV soil survey. Soil mapping units are complexes of soils that are made up of one or more soil types, known as classification units. The Project Area’s 35 soil mapping units incorporate classification units (CU) which in turn have slope group designations of 1 to 6 that range between 0 percent and 60 percent slope. Descriptions of soil mapping units, CUs, slope groups, and individual CUs are found in the table at end of this section. Five major classification units – 60, 76, 83, 84 and Lo—comprise about 77 percent of the major soil components within the Project Area. The dominant soils in the southern end are CU 76 and CU S76, a variant of CU 76. CU S76 is a small component that only occurs in rugged landscape on the flat, rocky tops of some of the large ridges and in the rocky Grasshopper Flat area. The central portion of the Project Area is dominated by CUs 82, 83, and 84. Other soil types include CU 75, which comprises approximately 5 percent of the area, and is located along the ridges on the eastern side of the Little Malheur River in the northern portion of the Project Area. CU 60, at approximately 8 percent, is a minor component located on gently, rolling hills. CU 56 is associated with the area’s few large, wet meadow systems. CUs Br, En, Ga, Pe, Ru, and Vi are all associated with higher elevation and steep sloping areas in the northern portion of the Project Area. Soils within all CUs are well drained, even though CUs 56 and Lo have cemented pans in the subsoil. Soil surface textures range from silt loam to loam, and subsurface textures range from silt loam to clay loam. All CUs except for 75 and 84 have a significant amount of clay textured soil. Rock fragments in the soil profile range from none in CUs 60 and Lo to extremely stony in S76. The effective rooting depth in most of the Project Area (CUs 75, 76, S76, 83, and 84) is very shallow to shallow (10-20 inches) and is limited primarily by parent material and low annual precipitation. Effective rooting depth in the other CUs is moderately deep to deep and limited by precipitation. Table 3.14 summarizes the soil CUs across the Project Area.

111

Table 3.14 Soils Classification Units within the Project Area (described in Oregon Water Resources Board, 1969) Classification Classification Unit Classification Unit Slope Acres in Project Unit 1 2 Group Area 1 0 1566.0 1 10 0 316.9 55 0-2 1817.5 56 2-3 4689.6 60 4373.3 60 56 3 6476.4 60 76 3 1677.0 60 83 6 715.6 60 96 6 6636.2 75 2-6 10,835.0 76 50,419.8 76 83 5-6 13,303.9 76 96 5-6 1506.5 83 2-6 17,028.4 83 82 96 5-6 12,056.5 83 84 4-5 48.5 83 84 96 4 246.8 84 4 2233.9 84 82 3 7765.8 84 82 96 5-6 7557.0 84 83 2-6 4651.0 84 83 82 5-6 19,604.1 96 5 537.7 96 76 5-6 2919.7 Br 5 2163.9 Br En 5-6 8641.1 En 5-6 1772.1 En Br 5-6 1132.8 Je 0 155.7 Lo 5-6 38,329.5 Pe 3-4 3197.4 Ru 4-6 9652.5 S76 2-3 5514.7 Vi 1-2 77.2 Vi Ga 2 526.3 Six slope groups are used on soil maps and are defined as follows (Oregon Water Resources Board, 1969): Slope Group Descriptive Name and Slope Range 1 Nearly level, dominantly 0 to 3 percent slope (0 to 2 when used with series) 2 Gently sloping, dominantly 3 to 7 percent slope ( 2 to 7 when used with series) 3 Sloping, dominantly 7 to 12 percent slope 4 Moderately steep, dominantly 12 to 20 percent slope 5 Steep, dominantly 20 to 35 percent slope 6 Very steep, dominantly 35 to 60 percent slope, with some areas steeper than 60

112

3.10.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under this alternative, no soil-disturbing treatments would be implemented. Detrimental soil conditions from management activities would not increase above existing levels. The No Action Alternative would have fewer adverse effects on soil productivity than the Proposed Action. Although activities proposed in and adjacent to the analysis area and analyzed in other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents would still occur, the present environmental conditions and trends would continue. The absence of additional adverse impacts may be offset by continued western juniper encroachment. As juniper dominates a site, there is a decline in the shrub and herbaceous layer. Studies suggest where juniper invasion has occurred, the degree the herb layer is depleted depends upon the depth to the soil restrictive layer. Within the Project Area, approximately 60 percent of the soils are characterized by a shallow restrictive layer. As the density of desirable grasses and shrubs is reduced, the amount of bare ground increases. A greater potential exists for runoff and erosion, which may contribute to sediment yield, nutrient loss, and reduced productivity (Miller, et al., 2005). Juniper expansion also is known to affect the distribution of soil organic matter, carbon, and nutrients. Studies indicate a higher concentration of soil nutrients accumulate in litter and soils beneath juniper canopies than in interspace soils. However, the benefits to site productivity are not realized unless the trees are removed (Miller, et al., 2005). Sites where juniper was cut showed an increase in shrub and herbaceous cover, less surface runoff, greater soil organic matter content, increased infiltration rates, and higher soil productivity. If no action is taken, the beneficial effects of juniper thinning that would improve soil productivity would not be attained and habitat for sagebrush obligate species, like the greater sage-grouse, would be lost. Additionally under the No Action Alternative, forest thinning and hazardous fuel reduction activities would not occur. Restoration opportunities to restore forest stand resilience to wildfires and disease would be lost. Fuels would continue to accumulate and would likely result in more intense and wide-spread wildfires. Indirect effects would be a greater potential for soil nutrient loss due to volatilization and the formation of a hydrophobic (water-repellant) surface following a wildfire event. Fire results in the loss of cover and, on steeper slopes, renders the soil more susceptible to surface erosion. A stand-replacing wildfire could have long-term adverse effects on the soil resource, negating any improvements in site productivity achieved by not implementing management activities. If no action is taken, the spread of invasive weeds would persist through natural processes. Soil benefits such as improved nutrient cycling, stabilization, and productivity that would be accomplished by seeding and planting would be lost. In summary, the No Action alternative would not result in additional soil disturbance and detrimental impacts resulting from management activities. However, a future downward trend in soil productivity may occur as a consequence of increased juniper encroachment, wildfire risk, and spread of invasive weed species.

113

3.10.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) All proposed vegetation treatments would affect soil conditions to some degree. Map 10 in Appendix B shows Alternative 2 treatment areas overlayed with major classification units of soil types in the Project Area. Activities most likely to cause detrimental ground disturbances are mechanical treatments of juniper and conifer stands, piling, and burning of slash. Effects on soil resources are analyzed with respect to existing conditions, or no action. High-intensity fire would kill some plants and may alter physical soil characteristics over a small area of the piles. Areas of greatest impact would be directly below juniper trunks and large branches. In the short-term, surface erosion could slightly increase on portions of burned areas, especially if there is an extreme rain event before vegetation starts to regenerate. However, the limited burn areas and retention of live root systems of herbaceous and root-sprouting plants throughout the Project Area would reduce the possibility of any accelerated erosion. To reduce impacts from pile burning, piles would only be burned when soils are saturated, frozen, or covered in snow. Areas of biomass removal would be subject to mechanical equipment and soil disturbance primarily on skid trails and landing areas. These areas would be subject to increased soil compaction and erosion. These impacts are expected to be minor due to the short duration of the biomass utilization activity and to the limited area suitable for biomass utilization. In the long-term, soil stability would be enhanced due to reduction of juniper cover and the subsequent increase in grasses, forbs and shrubs. Implementing the activities described in the Proposed Action has potential to cause isolated areas of compaction, create adverse surface conditions, and diminish site productivity. Soil compaction and rutting most likely would occur on skid trails and landings, where tractors and skidders make multiple passes over a designated area. The use of mechanical harvesters normally results in a greater area of ground disturbance since they are not confined to skid roads. Mechanical or hand treatment of conifer creates large amounts of organic litter that reduces the influence on soils from wind and water erosion. Upland treatments aimed at increasing desirable herbaceous species would not be expected to alter existing watershed runoff and erosion characteristics. Although shrubs would be defoliated, the standing woody material would aid in reducing snow scouring and potential wind erosion (SEORMP FEIS, Appendix S, 2001). Reducing western juniper cover would maintain or improve the soil resource function by insuring adequate moisture for deeper-rooted shrubs and grasses. This allows for more water infiltration to occur, increasing the effective moisture of the site, and decreasing the runoff and erosion. Prescribed fire would only be used where it (1) aids in restoring upland soil productivity, (2) invigorates shrub, forb, and grass components, and (3) enhances on-site vegetation growth (SEORMP FEIS, 2001, p. 464). To protect soil characteristics during prescribed fire applications, restrictions based on seasonal and moisture conditions would be incorporated into burn plans. Prescribed fire as a land treatment would have a greater impact on area soils than either mechanical or chemical methods. These impacts to soil resources are expected to be greatest first year post-fire. Soil surface physical and biological characteristics should return to pre-fire conditions within three growing seasons. After prescribed fire, the loss of vegetation and litter from the surface horizon would subject soils to enhanced wind and water erosion, depleting nutrients. However, potential for erosion would be short-term. Once vegetation is reestablished, wind and water erosion effects on soils and nutrients would be reduced.

114

Low-intensity underburns would have minimal effects on soil properties. Typically, cool broadcast burns have a slight short-term positive effect of increasing available nutrients, with a slight negative effect 3 to 5 years post burning, due to decreases in nitrogen. Soil productivity is expected to improve due to the positive flush of post-treatment nutrients. Regardless of the vegetation treatment method used, over the short term, water quantity from precipitation events and overland flow would increase in treated areas, which could result in increased erosion and a temporary increase in sedimentation from high-intensity summer storms. This sediment transport could impact water quality over the short term in drainages associated with these treatments. However, erosion caused by snowmelt and gentle rainfall would be limited. Erosion from treatment areas is not expected to be of consequence. Increased water yield from treated areas would occur for many years, but would diminish each year as herbaceous regrowth occurs. A shift in vegetation cover from sagebrush overstory to herbaceous species would reduce raindrop interception and decrease snowpack accumulations for 1 to 2 years following treatment. Areas that receive treatment to reduce conifer encroachment would retain brush canopy and tree canopy (in forested areas) that would eventually regrow and lessen the effects of raindrop impact and snow scour. Generally, either no effects or short-term effects have been found at concentrations likely to occur from typical herbicide application rates. Similar to other treatment methods, direct effects to soils could include small amounts of compaction and disturbance during implementation of herbicide treatments, and indirect effects could result from changes in plant composition and vegetative cover. In the long term, treatments could improve soil conditions by removing invasive plants and restoring native vegetation on the site (USDI, 2010; USDA, 2011). Access for temporary road construction and maintenance in this alternative could result in increased short-term adverse effects to upland soils. The application of aquatic resource standards and Best Management Practices (SEORMP FEIS Appendix O) and project design elements (PDEs) listed in Chapter 2 for soil disturbance would reduce most road-related, short- term and long-term negative impacts within riparian areas.

3.10.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, approximately 17,500 acres will not be treated within WSAs and WIU centrally located within the Project Area. Map 11 in Appendix B shows Alternative 3 treatment areas overlayed with major classification units of soil types in the Project Area. Outside of this area proposed for non-treatment, the analysis under Alternative 2 applies. Within the proposed untreated area, the analysis under Alternative 1 applies.

3.11 RECREATION

3.11.1 Affected Environment Within the Project Area, dispersed hunting and associated motorized-vehicle-supported camping are primary recreational activities. The diverse habitat supports wildlife populations that receive some of the area’s greatest hunting pressures. Other dispersed recreational activities include driving for leisure, photography, wildlife viewing, rock-hounding, hunting of various mammal and bird game species, fishing on the North Fork

115

Malheur River near the Malheur National Forest, and hiking. The Castle Rock geologic feature is an occasional quest of hardier hikers. Chukar Park Recreation Site, 6 miles north of Juntura on a county road, is the only developed recreation sites in the Project Area. This fee site has 15 pull-in units with tables, grills, and vault restrooms. For 5 to 6 months, it accommodates a campground host who, in part, assists in maintaining the site’s irrigated grounds. Two undeveloped recreation sites are also within the Project boundary. A vault toilet remains at the long-vacated BLM Castle Rock Fire Guard Station site, accessed by a BLM-maintained county dirt road just north of the Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Previously protected as a fenced exclosure area, this now open site remains popular for dispersed camping activities, mostly for upland game hunters. The Hunter Springs exclosure has long been used intermittently by dispersed campers, hikers, and hunters. The undeveloped Horseshoe Bend Springs site on the Malheur River east of Juntura has primitive road access off U.S. Highway 20 for dispersed vehicle-supported campers and day-use visitors to its hot springs. Much of the recreational off-road vehicle use is incidental to hunting activities in designated “open” Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use areas. Designated motorized vehicle travel areas include Castle Rock and Beaver Dam Creek WSAs, and Castle Rock and North Fork Malheur River ACECs.

3.11.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) There would be no direct impact on recreational activities under this alternative. There are more likely to be disruptions to recreational activities in the vicinity of the Project Area from fire suppression and smoke from wildfires during the summer and fall seasons. However, long term, big game hunting opportunities would be altered as habitat conditions decline due to the loss of species and structural diversity in rangeland and ponderosa pine woodland plant communities from conifer encroachment or future large wildfires.

3.11.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, there would be short-term adverse impacts to some recreational opportunities from temporary road, primitive road or trail closures for treatment activities like tree felling, biomass extraction, prescribed fire activity, aerial herbicide application, and safety needs. Impacts would be adverse to some localized recreational opportunities near proposed project implementation sites in the short term as sites may be temporarily closed, detours need for traffic control near management activities, etc. Additionally, short-term direct effects on solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation of the area would be related to the sights and sounds of construction activities, including noise, dust, and vehicle emissions from forestry activities and equipment, as well as potential access restrictions to the unit during forestry activities for public health and safety. These actions could last for 6 to 8 weeks each year, during operations, over the 15-year lifespan of the project. Providing prompt rehabilitation from fire management activities and vegetative treatments would decrease displacement time of recreational pursuits. In the short-term, implementation of the Proposed Action alternative could displace recreational users and affect recreation opportunities and experiences by temporarily changing the landscape’s scenic quality. However, the Proposed Action will be beneficial in the long term to

116

recreation as the risk of catastrophic wildfire is decreased and the vegetative condition improves allowing for better hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. Long-term, implementation of the Proposed Action would benefit quality and quantity wildlife observation and hunting opportunities as the condition and health of area vegetation improves for wildlife. Other beneficial impacts would occur as these areas are protected from hazardous fuel levels, decreasing chances of uncontrolled and high-intensity fires that change landscapes, which alter recreational opportunities. Although recreation use quickly adapt to fire aftermath, changes and increases in recreational us will result as the landscape improves due to fire and fuels treatment projects.

3.11.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under Alternative 3, no fuels reduction or restoration treatments would occur in the Castle Rock WSA or identified WIU units in the Project Area (see map 6b). Approximately 17,500 acres would be removed from the treatments described in the Proposed Action. In all areas outside of the WSA and WIU, treatments would remain the same as described in the Proposed Action. Within the proposed untreated area in Alternative 3, the analysis under Alternative 1 applies.

3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

3.12.1 Affected Environment Within the Project Area, public lands associated with the major canyons of the Malheur River, including its North Fork and the upper elevations surrounding the Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (WSA), are within visual resource management (VRM) Class II and Class III areas. The Castle Rock WSA and the North Fork Malheur River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), are managed in accordance to VRM Class I objectives. Castle Rock ACEC is managed in accordance to VRM Class II objectives. See Map 12 in Appendix B for VRM designations. The remainder of the Project Area is designated VRM Class III and IV. VRM Class I areas possess the highest and most sensitive esthetic qualities compared to visual values of public lands designated as VRM Class IV. The objective of the assigned VRM classes is as follows:

 VRM Class I: Objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes, and it allows limited management activity. The level of change should be very low and must not attract attention.  VRM Class II: Objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape characteristics should be low. Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must conform to the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.  VRM Class III: Objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer.

117

 VRM Class IV: Objective is to provide for management activities that require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. Management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of view attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through carefully locating activities, minimizing disturbance, and designing the projects to conform to the characteristic landscape. BLM Manual 8431 defines a contrast rating system to assess the degree to which management activities affect the visual quality of a landscape. This process looks at the visual contrast between the existing landscape and a proposed management action as well aiding in identifying measures to mitigate or minimize impacts. The first step in this visual contrast process is to identify Key Observation Points (KOPs) which usually occur along common travel routes or easily accessible observation points with critical viewpoints. The most prominent visual feature in the Project Area is Castle Rock. Within the Project Area, 3 KOPs were identified were identified with unobstructed views of Castle Rock and will be used in the assessment of potential effects of the proposed project. The 3 KOPs are: 1. Beulah Reservoir boat ramp and camp sites – Castle Rock visible approximately 8 miles away, looking north 2. Castle Rock Guard Station – Castle Rock visible about 2.5 miles away, looking south 3. Castle Rock Road – Castle Rock visible about 4.5 miles away, looking southwest. The rating sheet from these 3 KOPs are included in Appendix C.

3.12.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) There would be no short-term visual resource impacts under the No Action alternative. In the long term (more than 50 years), visual resources may be negatively affected due to the loss of diversity of plant communities and structure on the landscape from western juniper and ponderosa pine expansion. However, VRM I by definition allows for natural ecological changes to occur over time on the landscape. There would be no visual impacts resulting from conifer removal and prescribed fire. Fuel loads as well as vegetative components would not be improved and therefore, the chances of a view shed altering fire event would not be abated. Large and intense fire events can alter the normal or accustomed landscapes, and in areas of high-fuel loading can completely change the vegetative diversity, leaving fire scars very visible on the landscape and often decreases the quality of landscape’s scenery.

3.12.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) See Map 10 in Appendix B for proposed treatment areas and VRM classes. Visual Contract ratings were performed from the Key Observation Points described above to determine of there would be impacts to visual resources from the Proposed Action. At KOP 1, located at the campground on Beulah Reservoir, a contrast rating of “none” or no degree of contrast was determined between the current conditions and the short-term potential visual impacts from the proposed project implementation. This means that the Proposed Action does not change the form, line, color, or texture of the landscape, and would not attract the attention of the casual observer at the observation point.

118

At KOP 2, located at the former Castle Rock Guard Station site, a weak degree of contrast between the current conditions and the proposed vegetative manipulations was determined for the form, line, color and texture of vegetative features. This means that the casual observer may notice vegetation changes. These changes will only be noticeable during cutting, piling and burning phases of project implementation, which may take 3-5 years to implement in its entirety. Post-treatment, the changes will likely be unnoticeable to the casual observer. At KOP 3, located north of Castle Rock in the Irish Springs fire area, proposed timber harvest and juniper cutting activities may be visible in VRM II areas affecting the color and texture of vegetative features. These changes will be most noticeable during project implementation and will likely be unnoticeable to the casual observer post-treatment. From this KOP, the top of Castle Rock is visible, but no treatments are proposed there, so there is no degree of contrast. Implementation of PDEs (PDEs WSA1-WSA8 and WIU1-WIU3) will minimize impacts and are designed to reduce noticeability by the casual observer. For example stumps would be flush cut and covered lightly to reduce visibility within 150 feet of Castle Rock-Ironside Road in VRM I areas within the Project Area. From 150-feet to 250-feet out, trees would be cut at angles so that stump cut is not visible from high-use roads. The negative visual impact of juniper cutting or forest thinning would be temporary, lasting until cut trees are removed from the site or burned within 2 to 4 years after treatment. Stumps would be cut to blend in with surrounding vegetation heights. After 3 to 4 years, most needles would fall off remaining cut trees creating a less noticeable color contrast, further reducing visual impacts. Upon completion of the project, visual resources and the aesthetic character would be enhanced as regeneration of deciduous shrubs and grasses takes place and overall diversity increases. Positive effects to visual resources would be noticeable after 2 to 4 years by retention of vigorous and healthy stands of open sagebrush communities. Long-term, VRM improvements would occur due to creation of a variety of visual patterns, forms, and textures from changes in the vegetation components. Implementing the various proposed projects, with applicable Project Design Elements, would negatively impact visual resources in the short-term (2 to 5 years), but will meet established VRM class objectives within the Project Area in the long-term.

3.12.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, approximately 17,500 acres will not be treated within WSAs and WIU centrally located within the Project Area. Lands within this untreated area are categorized at VRM I and II. See Map 11 in Appendix B for treatment areas and VRM classes. The proposed untreated area under this alternative is visible at KOP 1 and KOP2. Therefore, this will not change the view of the casual observer from the current conditions and the analysis under Alterative 1 applies for these KOPs. At KOP 3, located north of Castle Rock in the Irish Springs fire area, proposed timber harvest and juniper cutting activities under this alternative may be visible in VRM II areas affecting the color and texture of vegetative features. These changes will be most noticeable during project

119

implementation and will likely be unnoticeable to the casual observer post-treatment. From this KOP, the top of Castle Rock is visible and will not be affected visually, as no treatments are proposed there.

3.13 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Character Inventory Units Sections 3.13 and 3.14 discuss BLM-administered lands that have been documented to contain wilderness characteristics per direction found within BLM Manual 6310 (BLM 2012). In general, these areas have been identified as lands that are at least 5,000 continuous acres, are generally natural in appearance, provide outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation, and may contain supplemental values (i.e., scientific, educational, scenic, or historical values). Inventory units described below meet all of these criteria, and are documented as containing wilderness characteristics (BLM 2012). Only WIUs within the NW Malheur Project Area are addressed in the analysis.

3.13.1 Affected Environment Two Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) occur in the Project Area – Beaver Dam Creek and Castle Rock. About 1,100 acres of the 19,580-acre Beaver Dam Creek WSA lie in the northeastern portion of the site. Although the Beaver Dam Creek WSA lies within the Project Area, no actions are proposed within this WSA. Therefore, the Beaver Dam Creek WSA will not be discussed further. Wilderness Study Areas were inventoried by the BLM in 1980 as a result of a congressionally mandated wilderness review program. Until Congress decides to designate a WSA as a Wilderness Area, or release all or a portion of a WSA from further wilderness consideration, BLM manages WSAs in accordance with the agency’s Interim Management Policy for Land Under Wilderness Review (USDI BLM 1995) to not impair its suitability for preservation as wilderness. If designated a Wilderness Area, the primary and secondary wilderness values of the WSA will be preserved and protected. BLM’s Wilderness Sturdy Report from 1991 states the following:

“The Castle Rock Wilderness Study Area (OR-3-18) is located in Malheur County, Oregon, approximately 26 miles north of the community of Juntura and US Highway 20. The WSA includes 5,560 acres of BLM lands and 640 acres of split-estate lands in two parcels. The WSA is roughly triangular shaped, and has three narrow extensions which give it a slightly irregular perimeter. It is bounded by high standard dirt roads on public land by private property. Portions of the area are steep and support stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, western juniper and mountain mahogany. The most notable feature is Castle Rock. It is the neck of an extinct volcano and reaches an elevation of 6,780 feet.

The WSA is in a substantially natural condition. Thirteen interior unnatural features visually influence approximately 13 percent of the WSA. These features consist of two reservoirs, four developed springs, one corral, an old remnant dam, three miles of three ways, 8 miles of fence and a power line approximately 0.5 miles in length. The WSA

120

does not offer outstanding opportunities for solitude but with its diverse vegetation and rugged terrain there are outstanding opportunities for recreation (hunting, backpacking, camping, horseback riding, rock climbing and winter sports). Special features include: Castle Rock, diverse plant communities, rocky mountain elk and sage grouse.”

3.13.2 Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 Impacts (No Action within WSA) Under the No Action alternatives, the wilderness characteristics (generally natural in appearance, provide outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation, and may contain supplemental values (i.e., scientific, educational, scenic, or historical values) would not be affected within the Castle Rock WSA.

Without treatment in the Castle Rock WSA, fuel loading would continue to increase, decreasing the potential to contain a natural fire if one were to start within the WSA. Additionally over time, as noted in the Section 3.3, there would be reduction in the abundance and extent of mountain mahogany and quaking aspen from historical levels or lost entirely. And, tree stress and mortality would continue to spread within the WSA from pine beetle attacks (Spiegel, et al., 2016). Table 3.15 summarizes some of the risks without treatment.

Table 3.15 Summary of Wilderness Characteristics Lands and Risks Wilderness Value Risk to Natural Resource Size Not affected Invasive species would change the landscape’s vegetation Naturalness character if not treated post fire Solitude Vegetative screening could be decreased Opportunities for hunting could reduce, temporary effect of Primitive Recreation other activities Habitat would not be improved and would continue to degrade, Supplemental Values cultural resources and visual resources would be reduced Private property and structures to the south east and west of Other WSA

3.13.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Bureau of Land Management Manual 6330 (2012) provides policy on managing Wilderness Study Areas, which are a part of the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System. The manual states that that the BLM “not impair the suitability” of areas we have identified as “having wilderness characteristics” and is typically termed the non-impairment standard. There are exceptions to the non-impairment standard defined in BLM Manual 6330 (2012). The manual states that “when a use and/or facility that does not meet the non-impairment standard meets one of these exceptions, the BLM will endeavor to allow only the least impairing activities that facilitate the use and/or facility in order to avoid unnecessary impacts to wilderness characteristics. If an impairing proposed project—even one that meets an exception—can be

121

implemented outside of a WSA and accomplish the objectives identified in the purpose and need statement prepared under NEPA, the BLM should endeavor to ensure that the project is implemented outside the WSA.” Under the Proposed Action, BLM Manual 6330 (2012) is referenced specifically for the following: Replacement for wildland fire (page1-16). Pre-fire treatment used to replace either type of wildland fire is only allowed in WSAs where it meets the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions (specifically 1.6.C.2.F). Due to their controversial nature and the complexities of analyzing the effects of these treatments on the non-impairment criteria, more extensive NEPA analysis (e.g. an EIS) including public involvement may be required when fuel treatments are proposed for use as a replacement for wildland fire. The policy in 1.6.D.8.b.iii must be satisfied. Fuel treatments may be permitted under the restoration or public safety exceptions to the non- impairment standard when: A. wildfire in the WSA will inevitably cause unacceptable risks to life, property, or natural resources outside the WSA; or B. natural successional processes have been disrupted by past human activity to the extent that intervention is necessary in order to return the ecosystem to a condition where natural process can function; or C. non-native species have altered the fire regime so that wildland fires pose an undue risk to the native ecosystem. Conclusive documentation of A, B, or C, above, is documented below. When fuel treatment is allowed, the BLM must strive to achieve the desired conditions through the least impacting method. Fuel treatments should not be authorized in a WSA if the same objectives can be accomplished by the BLM through fuel treatments on public lands outside of the WSA.

Exceptions to Non-Impairment Standards A. Wildfire in the WSA will inevitably cause unacceptable risks to life, property, or natural resources outside the WSA;

Based on the fire history (see Map 7 in Appendix B) over the past 35 years, large scale fires have not occurred within either Castle Rock WSA. Castle Rock has only had small fires within the WSA.

In Castle Rock, steep terrain, constricting topography and lack of roadways leading into the WSA, contribute to the high risk of containing a natural fire. Nearly half the WSA is bordered by private land. The fuel loading for the abundant growth of vegetation over the years in the WSA creates a high probability for a catastrophic fire.

In the Castle Rock WSA, treatment activities would include thinning and cutting of high and low elevation sagebrush habitats, conifer cutting and subsequent burning activities would occur (broadcast burn, jackpot burn, under burning, pile burning). These activities would reduce the fuel loading to improve the ability to contain a natural fire. In addition to the thinning,

122

prescribed fire can help to restore the abundance and extent of mountain mahogany to historical levels. However, fires would be ‘light’ and occur in areas with light fuels, as moderate to high severity fires usually kill mountain mahogany (Spiegel, et al., 2016). Table 3.16 summarizes some of the risks should a catastrophic fire occur.

Table 3.16 Summary of Wilderness Characteristics Lands and Unacceptable Risks Wilderness Value Unacceptable Risk to Natural Resource

Size Not affected Invasive species would change the Naturalness landscape’s vegetation character if not treated post fire Solitude Vegetative screening could be decreased Opportunities for hunting could reduce, Primitive Recreation temporary effect of other activities Habitat would not be improved and would Supplemental Values continue to degrade, cultural resources and visual resources would be reduced Private property and structures to the Other southeast and west of WSA

B. Natural successional process have been disrupted by past human activity to the extent that intervention is necessary in order to return the ecosystem to a condition where natural process can function; or,

Natural successional processes have been disrupted in the Castle Rock WSA; the area is dominated by a hot/dry Ponderosa Pine/Douglas fir mix with a large component of Mountain Mahogany scattered across southern-western aspects and northern and eastern ridges. Aspen stands are being converted to Douglas fir whereas historically, fires helped regenerate aspen stands and reduced Douglas fir (Ott, 2015). The canopy is closed and the understory has not been controlled by fire. High densities of over-crowded trees cause increased competition and fewer resources for each tree to combat infestations. As a result, small patches of Mountain Pine Beetle killed tress can be seen. Figure 3.7 shows pine beetle spread.

123

Figure 3.7 Aerial Detection Maps of Pine Beetle Spots (Ott, 2015) – same as Figure 3.2

Photos 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 show the current condition of the forested stands within the Castle Rock WSA.

Photo 3.1 A dry pine stand with Douglas-fir encroachment. Note large pine in background, dead mountain mahogany at foreground and back right.

124

Photo 3.2 Ladder fuels in an overly-dense Douglas-fir stand. Note the complete lack of ground vegetation and thick woody ground fuels

Photo 3.3 Juniper encroachment into mountain mahogany stands. Note the dead/dying mahogany in foreground and large amounts of young juniper in the understory.

Ladder fuels are essentially fuels in the form of understory and mid-story trees that create a ladder that would allow a fire on the ground to move in to the crown or canopy of a forest (the tops of the forest). Once a fire is established in the crown and running it is extremely difficult to

125

stop with suppression resources. Historically, dry pine/mixed conifer forest in eastern Oregon were much less crowded and low intensity fires tended to stay on the ground and were less of threat to human safety and other resource values.

C. Non-native species have altered the fire regime so that wildland fires pose an undue risk to the native ecosystem;

Human activities of disrupting the natural fire regime have occurred in the Project Area. Because natural fires have not occurred, Aspen stands have been decreasing while Douglas Fir and Juniper stands have been increasing. Unregulated livestock grazing (end of 19th century) resulted in the removal or reduction of herbaceous fine fuels from the understory of shrub land plant communities, thereby reducing fire frequency, intensity, and area burned. Fire suppression also contributed toward the trend of fire exclusion as tactics and technologies advanced over time. Exclusion of fire in conjunction with favorable climate facilitated the expansion of western juniper and other conifers into rangeland and riparian ecological communities throughout eastern Oregon. Increasing the distribution and density of western juniper within these plant communities can severely alter historic biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, wildlife habitat specifically for greater sage-grouse, and nutrient cycling (Bates, et al., 1999).

Figure 3.8 Juniper and Pine Expansion – same as Figure 3.1

126

Actions that clearly benefit a WSA by protecting or enhancing these wilderness characteristics are allowable even if they are impairing, though they must still be carried out in the manner that is least disturbing to the site. Long term benefit is the naturalness of the WSA; short term impact is motorized UTV travel. Duration and timing to implement the treatment activity is more beneficial to naturalness and solitude to shorten the duration of activities such as cutting and burning in a particular area within the WSA. Treatments by vegetation type are displayed in the table below.

Table 3.17 Alternative 2 Treatments by Vegetation Type in WSA Total Unit Percent of total Treatment Unit Acreage Identification/Name acreage Acreage Castle Rock WSA High Elevation Treatment 6,200 1,228 20 Low Elevation Treatment 6,200 3,470 56 Pine/Mixed Conifer 6,200 1,456 23 Treatment

Project Design Elements (WSA1 through WSA9) identified in Chapter 2 would be implemented to maintain naturalness and minimize the time and presence of human impacts on the landscape, minimizing the temporary short-term impacts to WSAs.

3.14 WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNITS

3.14.1 Affected Environment The Project Area encompasses two areas that have been found based on inventories performed by the BLM between 2007 and 2012 to have wilderness characteristics or Wilderness Inventory Units (WIU), West Fork Bendire and Rocky Basin. These areas were found to be of sufficient size, are in a natural condition, have outstanding opportunities for solitude and have opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation; therefore, they meet the wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Both Wilderness Character Units appear to be affected primarily by the forces of nature. The area limited number of roads, topography, changes in elevations, drainage patterns and vegetation densities allow for solitude and a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities for hiking, sightseeing, photography, and hunting.

West Fork Bendire West Fork Bendire (Unit OR-034-007) inventoried area according the wilderness criteria forms (available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/vale/plans/files/WForkBendire_OR-034- 007_ALL.pdf ), meets the minimum of 5,000-acre size requirement. The unit is 10,519 acres. The unit’s elevation ranges from 3,460 to 6,120 feet. Vegetation consists of predominately of sagebrush and both native and non-native grasses. Due to dynamic topography and the unit’s size it offers solitude. The dispersed recreational opportunities are considered outstanding in quality when they are combined. The unit has supplemental values because all but a small portion of the eastern-most extent within the Castle Rock ACEC (discussed in more detail in a later section).

127

Rocky Basin The Rocky Basin unit (OR-02-017) inventoried area according the wilderness criteria forms (available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/vale/plans/files/RockyBasin_OR-02-017_ALL.pdf), meets the minimum of 5,000-acre size requirement. The unit is 11,360 acres of public land. The unit contains desert lowlands, gently rolling hills and a high, flat plateau with elevations ranging from 3,700 to 5,088 feet. The dominant vegetation is big sage, grass and juniper. The size, ruggedness, lack of much vehicular access and few people visiting or using this basin area is conducive to creating a place and atmosphere of solitude. The unit does not have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. The unit also contains supplemental values as it is critical deer winter range and may also be habitat for sage grouse, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk, both Federal Species of Concern.

Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans The potential effects of a Proposed Action on lands with wilderness characteristics and compliance with any management-level decision (established in BLM RMPs) for the units must be considered by the BLM when making project-level decisions. In addition, for lands within the Vale District that are within the planning area for the SEORMP, a court-approved settlement agreement also sets out certain requirements that BLM must follow until BLM completes an RMP amendment for the SEORMP (Settlement Agreement between ONDA, Committee for the High Desert, WWP, and BLM (June 7, 2010). Until the BLM completes the RMP Amendment for the SEORMP, the settlement agreement precludes the BLM from implementing a project where deemed by the BLM to diminish the size or cause the entire BLM inventory unit to no longer meet the criteria for wilderness character (ONDA v. Bureau of Land Management 2010).

3.14.2 Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 Impacts (No Action) The West Fork Bendire and Rocky Basin WIU were found to have wilderness characteristics and area of sufficient size, are in a natural condition, have outstanding opportunities for solitude or have opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. Under these alternatives, none of these characteristics would change. The area’s limited number of roads, topography, changes in elevations, drainage patterns and vegetation densities allow for solitude and a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities would remain unaffected.

In the long-term, fuel loads would continue to increase, and the health of forest communities will continue to diminish as trees become infected with disease and insects affecting natural conditions. Large and intense fire events not only alter the normal landscapes, but in areas of high-fuel loading can completely remove vegetative components, which often decrease the opportunities for solitude and affects recreation and hunting opportunities.

128

3.14.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) In general, when evaluating actions with potential effects on WIU, the BLM considers the quality of wilderness characteristics and determines whether the action would result in:

• Reduction of naturalness to the point that all or a portion of an area found to possess wilderness characteristics would no longer meet this criterion • Reduction of identified opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation to the point that they would no longer be outstanding • Degradation of unique, supplemental, or other features identified for the unit Under the Proposed Action, short-term direct effects on apparent naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation of the area would be related to the sights and sounds of construction activities, including noise, dust, and vehicle emissions from forestry activities and equipment, as well as potential access restrictions to the unit during forestry activities for public health and safety. These impacts would be temporary. In the long-term, the area’s outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would not be impaired. Implementation of vegetative treatments would reduce fuel loads, decrease risk of catastrophic wildfire and make wildfire suppression efforts safer and easier, and protecting naturalness within the WIUs and restore historic conditions. Table 3.18 Alternative 2 Treatments by Vegetation Type in WIU Total Unit Percent of total Treatment Unit Acreage Identification/Name acreage Acreage West Fork Bendire High Elevation Treatment 10,519 6515 62 Low Elevation Treatment 10,519 1089 10 Pine/Mixed Conifer 10,519 2910 28 Treatment Bendire Fire Treatment 10,519 3.32 0.0003 Rocky Basin High Elevation Treatment 11,360 792 7

Project Design Elements (WIU1 through WIU3) identified in Chapter 2 would be implemented to maintain naturalness and minimize the time and presence of human impacts on the landscape, minimizing the temporary short-term impacts to WIUs.

3.15 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS In 1988, Congress designated 14.8 miles of the North Fork Malheur River upstream of Beulah Reservoir to the Malheur National Forest boundary as a study river for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). BLM then conducted mandated eligibility and suitability evaluations of the river. The resulting Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan Record of Decision determined that the upper most 3.6 miles of the river was eligible for a tentative “wild” river classification. Until Congress takes action on BLM’s

129

recommendation, BLM is required to manage the eligible river corridor (1/2 mile wide and 1/4 mile either side of the river on federal lands) to protect its outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) of scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife. Additional and more specific information regarding the study river is found in the North Fork Malheur Final Eligibility Study Report for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (USDI BLM 1993) and the SEORMP ROD (pp. 102-104, and Map WSR-1, “Existing and Recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers”).

3.15.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) of scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife of the North Fork Malheur Study River (3.6 miles, 996 acres on BLM-administered lands) would continue to be protected in the short term. In the long-term, fuel loads as well as vegetative components of the scenery would not be improved and the chances of a viewshed altering fire event would not be abated. Large and intense fire events not only alter the normal or accustomed landscapes, but in areas of high-fuel loading can completely change vegetative diversity, which often decreases the quality of landscape’s scenery. Without treatment, important vegetative features that preserve fish and wildlife habitat and maintain water quality (an important component of fish habitat) could be negatively affected over the long-term (greater than 50 years) due to the loss of plant community diversity and riverbank stabilizing structure from juniper expansion or large, intense wildfires. Negative impacts to ORVs via affects to the vegetative community and fish habitat within the river, may affect the tentative “wild” classification for Congress’s consideration as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

3.15.2 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Under Alternative 2, up to 50 acres may be treated in the 3.6 miles wild and scenic river segment on BLM-administered lands. The landscape setting of the river corridor would be preserved. River bank stabilization and shade provided by the retention riparian vegetation species, such as willows, on the river’s embankment would benefit the river’s fishery, including bull trout (a special-status species), and wildlife habitat along the river. Removal of a western juniper specimens conducted with the appropriate Project Design Elements (PDEs WSR1 and WSR2 in Chapter 2) would minimize the potential for impacts. However, there would be short-term, temporary impacts to the scenic value of the ORVs until cut juniper are piles and burned within two years as stated in PDE WSR 2. There would not be an affect the river’s fish, wildlife, scenery, or recreational ORVs in the long-term post-treatment. And, the qualifying study river segment would remain eligible for a tentative “wild” classification and congressional consideration as a component of the NWSRS.

3.15.3 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as seen in Alternative 2.

3.16 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECs) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) are areas within public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to

130

protect life and safety from natural hazards. Two ACECs have been designated in the Project Area—Castle Rock ACEC (22,799 acres) and North Fork Malheur River ACEC (1,810 acres). Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are managed to maintain or enhance their relevant and important values. These relevant and important values are found in the SEORMP ROD (2002), page 68 and discussed as they relate to each ACEC below. The relevant and important values identified for the Castle Rock ACEC include scenic, cultural, rare geologic feature, and wildlife habitat (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1996). The scenic value surrounding Castle Rock is rated as VRM class II with “A” quality scenery and high sensitivity (SEORMP 2002, p. 74). The VRM class II rating requires that any change to landscape characteristics be low and project activities not attract the attention of the casual observer. The area continues to be an important traditional-use area, and a culturally significant landmark for the Burns Paiute Tribe. Castle Rock is one of the most prominent physical features in the region and can be seen from 50 miles away or more (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1996) and for this reason, it was an important landmark for historic immigrants during western settlement. Wildlife values are associated with an abrupt elevation change that has resulted in a unique area with different habitats in close proximity. Wildlife habitat has both local and regional importance for both big game and non-game wildlife species, including habitat for nearly two-thirds of the wildlife species on the Resource Area (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1996). Forested stands in the Castle Rock ACEC are characterized by highly dense stocking conditions above historical norms and are at risk to bark beetle attack. For example, stand densities average over 200 ft2/acre; historically, these stands were either very open with 2 to 6 large ponderosa pine trees per acre or mountain mahogany- or sagebrush-dominated stands with an occasional pine tree present (Spiegel, et al., 2016). This is due to lack of fire that kept understory and canopy closure more open. These fires selected for conditions including the recruitment of ponderosa pine throughout the Project Area and the survival of Douglas-fir in small pockets of higher moisture where fire intensity would decrease, allowing them to survive. This increased stocking has led to a propensity of small diameter Douglas-fir. The Douglas-fir are developing pockets of moderate to severe mistletoe infections that will continue to increase in severity as the disease spreads and intensifies and ponderosa pine, a shade intolerant species, is out-competed. Throughout the Castle Rock forested stands, patches of mountain pine beetle-killed trees can be seen. These pockets are expected to expand due to increased competition between the remaining trees and less resources for each tree to combat the epidemic (Spiegel, et al., 2016). Canopy height is low in comparison to historic conditions, further increasing the chance of a large stand- replacing fire. Ground vegetation is lacking in many areas as the canopy coverage is at or approaching 100 percent, creating a lack of light on the forest floor and an increased competition for moisture. This has led to a decrease of wildlife forage and high levels of ground fuels that will continue to worsen. The relevant and important values identified for the North Fork Malheur River ACEC include scenery, two special-status fish and their habitats (bull trout and redband trout), and a special- status amphibian and its habitat (Columbia spotted frog) (SEORMP 2002, p. 82). This ACEC includes a river segment landform that consists of steep canyon walls with vertical relief of more than 500 feet. A view of the river from the canyon rim provides an outstanding scenic picture. This ACEC is also an important transition zone between forest and range wildlife habitats of

131

eastern Oregon. Western juniper encroachment is occurring in the riparian zones along the river displacing and out-competing important riparian vegetation like willow and it the uplands in high-elevation sagebrush communities within this ACEC.

3.16.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Current management for all programs and activities maintains the relevant and important values in both ACECs (Castle Rock ACEC and North Fork Malheur River ACEC) in the short term. These ACECs were designated under current management, and impacts of management to the relevant and important values were analyzed in the Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan. There would be no impacts to cultural or geologically relevant and important features in either ACEC because there would be no new ground disturbing activities. In the long-term, fuel loads would continue to increase and vegetative components would degrade as a result of no vegetative treatments. Therefore, the chances of a viewshed altering fire event would not be abated. Large and intense fire events not only alter the normal or accustomed landscapes, but in areas of high-fuel loading can completely change the vegetative diversity, which often decreases the quality of landscape’s scenery. Without treatment, visual resources and important vegetative features that preserve wildlife, fish and amphibian habitat and maintain water quality could be affected over the long-term (>50 years) due to the loss of plant community diversity and structure on the landscape from juniper expansion or large, intense wildfires. For example, mountain mahogany stands currently are and would be encroached upon more by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and western juniper, shading out the mahogany and resulting in the loss of this plant community. Mountain mahogany provides forage and cover for big game. This would then negatively impact the relative and important features in both ACECs associated with wildlife and aquatic species. Scenic and natural resource attributes contributing to cultural resource values and archaeological resources could be negatively impacted by large, intense fire events and declines in native wildlife and plants.

3.16.2 Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 Impacts The difference in acres proposed for treatment by alternative are identified in the Table 3.19 below.

Table 3.19 Difference in Acres Proposed by Alternatives. Vegetation Type Proposed for Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ACEC Name Treatment (acres) (acres) Castle Rock High Elevation Sagebrush / 12,497.5 5,740.4 ACEC bunchgrass Low Elevation Sagebrush / 3,962.4 341.8 bunchgrass Forested Areas 5,378.1 1,011.7 Total Area Proposed for Treatment 21,838 7,093.9 North Fork High Elevation Sagebrush/ 1,774 1,774 Malheur bunchgrass River ACEC Total Area Proposed For Treatment 1,774 1,774

132

Implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would not affect the scenic, geologic, or culturally relevant and important values in the Castle Rock and North Fork Malheur River ACECs. See section 3.12 Visual Resources; and 3.17 Cultural Resources for a more detailed analysis. Project Design Elements (PDEs; CR 1-CR4, AH4, and ACEC 1 in Chapter 2) are identified and would be implemented to protect these relevant and important values throughout the life of the Proposed Action.

In the long term, scenic values would be protected because implementation of vegetative treatments would reduce fuel loads, decrease risk of catastrophic wildfire and make wildfire suppression efforts safer and easier. However a much smaller area is proposed for treatment in the Castle Rock ACEC under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 making wildfire suppression efforts more difficult and potentially unsafe for firefighters in untreated areas with high fuel loads.

Because these alternatives would improve riparian resources by removing juniper encroachment and competition, this would enhance or improve the health and vigor of riparian vegetation. This in turn would stabilize the banks of riparian areas, provide shade for creeks, and improve forage and hiding cover for all wildlife species, therefore maintaining or improving relative and important values for aquatic species in the North Fork Malheur ACEC and wildlife species in the Castle Rock ACEC. Project Design Elements would be implemented to protect aquatic special status species that relevant and important values of the ACEC. See section 3.9 Special Status Aquatic Species for a more detail analysis. Reduction of encroachment of western juniper and other forestry practices would improve habitat for forest-dependent wildlife species including big game (mule deer and elk) and non- game species (including greater sage-grouse) by improving plant vigor and encouraging new shrub growth, therefore maintaining or improving the amount of habitat available to these species. This would then enhance the relevant and important values for wildlife habitat in the ACECs. See section 3.7 Wildlife Habitat, Special Status Wildlife, for a more detailed analysis of impacts. However, as shown in the table above, there are fewer acres proposed for treatment under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2. Alternative 2 enhances 66 percent more area than Alternative 3. Therefore, the objectives for management of ACECs would be better met under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3. 3.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.17.1 Affected Environment The Project Area lies between the cultural interface of the Northern Great Basin and the Columbia River Plateau. This area is culturally significant to tribes from two cultural and environmental locations—the Northern Great Basin and Southern Plateau tribes. The cultural heritage is reflected in a variety of resources and site types in the area. Campsites, rock art, rock alignments, toolstone quarries, and plant-gathering areas testify to the diversity of resources utilized by American Indians before and after the arrival of immigrants from Europe and elsewhere.

133

Cultural resources include archaeological sites, districts, and materials that are physical evidence of past human lifeways; as well as landscapes and traditional resources such as plants and animals that are part of a cultural identity. Such heritage resources may be important for maintaining rituals and ethnic continuity. These are considered irreplaceable and nonrenewable resources documenting the legacy of past human use. The Burns Paiute Tribe maintains strong cultural and spiritual ties to the landscape and resources in the affected environment. This includes traditionally important natural resources and the location of significant historic events. Particularly those related to the former Malheur Reservation (Couture, 1986). The Castle Rock landscape is among the most important places in eastern Oregon for the continuation of Burns Paiute culture and tradition.

Legal direction Cultural resource management involves a complex mix of government laws, policies, and implementing regulations. The purpose of this analysis is to accomplish the responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in conjunction with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and other related authorities including tribal consultation (BLM Manual Section 1780, Tribal Relations) and American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). Analyses will include archaeological inventories as well as attempts to identify traditional cultural resources through ethnographic studies and tribal consultations. The SEORMP (2002) Management Decisions, Objectives, Rationale, Monitoring and Management Actions for Cultural Resources identify three objectives: 1. Protect and conserve cultural and paleontological resources. 2. Increase the public’s knowledge of, appreciation for, and sensitivity to cultural and paleontological resources. 3. Consult and coordinate with American Indian groups to ensure their interests are considered and their traditional religious sites, landforms and resources are taken into account. The desired future condition for the Project Area is to maintain or enhance soil productivity and thus the valuable characteristics of the cultural deposits that lie within. Management should be designed to maintain or improve cultural preservation and associated beneficial uses. More details relating to goals, standards, and guidelines are available in the Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan (SEORMP) and Record of Decision (2002). Additionally, the BLM is required to consider the effects of agency actions on cultural resources that are determined eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation also are an important element of management of cultural resources on public lands. Further laws that address various aspects of heritage resource management on BLM land include, but are not limited to: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, as amended in 1988 (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, and Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites of 1996.

134

Links to laws, executive orders, and regulations pertaining to cultural resources and regulatory acts that describe the role of tribes are on the National Park Service’s internet site at www.nps.gov/history/laws.htm.

Tribal Interests The Vale BLM maintains “government to government” relations with numerous American Indian tribes that have reserved or executive order rights on the Vale BLM District. Tribal members utilize native plant species in a variety of ways—food, medicine, dress, basketry, or ceremonial purposes. Environmental manipulations of various types occurred including burning, broadcast sowing, pruning and harvesting plants and various “taking” practices for animals. Native American tribes with rights on the Vale BLM District include:

 Burns Paiute Tribe  Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation  Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs  Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribes  Nez Perce Tribe  Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Duck Valley Reservation The listed tribes are considered to be from two cultural and environmental locations—the Northern Great Basin and the Southern Plateau. The Burns Paiute have expressed interest in this Project as their tribe has a particularly strong relationship to the area. They would continue be consulted throughout the implementation process. Burns Paiute Tribal membership is mainly comprised of descendants of those who were forcibly removed from the 1.8 million acre Malheur Reservation established in this area in 1872. Agency mismanagement and upheavals led to some native people fleeing the area in 1878, when some joined a Bannock uprising, as detailed in Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins’ 1888 “Life Among the Paiutes.” The prime reservation lands were returned to the public domain in 1880 and quickly sold off. Those who survived the Bannock War were rounded up and held at the Beulah Agency or Fort Harney prior to being forcibly marched to Washington State (Howard, 1907). Burns Paiute later became a distinct federally recognized tribe with a 771 acre reservation near Burns in 1972.

The Northern Great Basin The Great Basin comprises about 400,000 square miles between the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada, including a large percentage of Nevada, parts of California, Oregon, Utah and Idaho. Subsistence in this harsh environment required detailed knowledge of seasonal resource availability; as well as complex social, technological, and logistical mechanisms for efficient and sustainable resource extraction. The Burns Paiute were known as the Wada’Tikas, or Wada Eaters after the waada seeds (Suaeda depressa) that were an important resource. Mobility and subsistence were tied to seasonal resource abundance. Roots and fish were gathered in the spring and dried for winter use. Summer travels were geared towards seed harvests and hunting. Fish, waterfowl and riparian plant resources, as well as jackrabbit and larger game animals, were of particular importance in the fall and into the winter, when dried and stored foods supplemented the diet.

135

As depicted in the following diagram (Figure 3.9) of the seasonal round, prehistoric people knew their territory, available foods, and the environmental dynamics. The basic roots gathered for winter storage include camas bulb (kehmmes), bitterroot (thlee-tahn), khouse or cous (qawas), wild carrot (tsa-weetkh), wild potato (keh-keet), and other root crops. Fruit collected includes serviceberries, gooseberries, hawthorn berries, thorn berries, huckleberries, currants, elderberries, chokecherries, blackberries, raspberries, and wild strawberries. Other food gathered includes pine nuts, sunflower seeds, and black moss.

Figure 3.9 The Northern Shoshone-Bannock (Great Basin) Seasonal Round.

The Southern Plateau The Southern Plateau group had a generally riverine focus, with a semi-sedentary winter pit house village settlement pattern and subsistence relying primarily on salmon, ungulates, and wild-root crops. The boundary crosses the Snake River above Weiser, Idaho, at the southern end of Hells Canyon and follows the rugged mountains that form the southern rim of the Salmon River Drainage east to the Bitterroot Range. Plateau people utilized approximately 135 species of plants as sources of foods, flavorings, or beverages. They include root vegetables, green

136

vegetables, fruits and nuts, inner bark of trees, mushrooms, one lichen species, and a variety of causal foods, sweeteners, flavorings, and beverage plants (Hunn, et al., 1998).

Until the early 1900s, the culture of the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Indians was based on a yearly cycle of travel from hunting camps and fishing spots to celebration and trading camps. The three tribes spent most of their time in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The most plentiful foods were salmon, roots, berries, deer and elk. The Indian people had to move from place to place from season to season to their food source, prepare it for consumption and for winter storage. They followed the same course from year to year in a large circle from the lowlands along the Columbia River to the highlands in the Blue Mountains (see Figure 3.10; (Hunn, 1991)).

Figure 3.10 The Plateau Seasonal Round.

The most frequently occurring type of cultural resource in the project area are lithic dominated archaeological sites, known as “lithic scatters”. Such deposits are the archaeological signature of pre-contact era hunter-gatherer occupations that can span several thousand years. Lithic scatters typically include obsidian, chert, and basalt artifacts and are often visible at the surface of the ground. There are 20 cultural resource properties documented in the Northwest Malheur planning area that display a pre-contact period component. Sites of this type in the planning area range between 0.1 and twenty-five acres in size and several display potential for patterned subsurface components.

137

Historic post-contact era cultural resource properties may include standing buildings; and/or archaeological features such as foundations or structural ruins, privy pits, refuse dumps, and blazed trees. Sites with historic components in the project area are most likely associated with late 19th and early 20th century cattle ranching or homesteading activities. There are six cultural resource properties that have been identified within the project area that display a historic period component. Post-contact era cultural resource properties in the Northwest Malheur Project Area range between 1.1 and 3.7 acres in size. There are just under 25,000 acres within the Northwest Malheur Project area that are considered “High Probability” for the occurrence of cultural resources. Several cultural resource properties documented in the vicinity of the planning area contain or are adjacent to accumulations of hazardous fuels. Prior to project implementation, a Class II cultural resource inventory and consultation of the Burns Paiute Tribe would be required to comply with the terms of the 2015 Protocol for Managing Cultural Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Oregon. The Protocol describes how the BLM and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will cooperate under a national Programmatic Agreement to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

3.17.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, there would be no direct effect on cultural resources identified in the Project Area as no prescribed fire or habitat restoration treatments would be implemented. However, with no implementation of ecological restoration activities, the archaeological record would continue to be altered by processes associated with bare-ground-under-juniper woodland canopy. As plant density and cover decreases under juniper woodlands, archaeological deposits may be subject to accelerated surface erosion (Buckhouse & Mattison, 1980). Risks of archaeological deposit alteration by wildfire or fire suppression would increase under the No Action alternative as existing hazardous fuels remain in place and juniper woodlands expand. American Indian traditional root-gathering and other traditional practices in the area would likely be disrupted by wildfire and/or wildfire suppression actions. Use of spring root camps could be discontinued if surrounding overstory was removed by fire.

3.17.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) Without adequate protections or mitigations, these resources, when present, could be vulnerable to damage and loss from Alternative 2. As such, when a proposed vegetation treatment project is submitted (prior to implementation) to a BLM archaeologist, the 2015 BLM/SHPO Protocol will be researched for applicability with the Proposed Action. The protocol describes how the BLM and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office would cooperate under a National Programmatic Agreement to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If the Proposed Action is not identified in the protocol, a Class III cultural resource inventory would be completed prior to vegetation treatments. The Class III inventory would assess the proposed management actions in conjunction with effects on archaeological resources prior to any ground-disturbing activities.

138

Once the Level III cultural resource survey and report is completed, it would be submitted to the Oregon State Preservation Office requesting concurrence and ultimately completion of the Section 106 responsibilities. Cultural resources of all eligible and potentially eligible cultural resources would be avoided during proposed ground-disturbing activities, which include ground seeding of native species. If cultural resources are located during implementation of the project, work immediately would cease and a BLM archaeologist would be notified immediately. The cultural resource would be assessed and a mitigation plan would be developed in consultation with the Oregon SHPO. If any potential human remains, suspected burial site, or funerary objects were discovered, implementation would immediately halt and the area would be protected. Consultation with the Burns Paiute would guide protection of the site in place (as described in Burns Paiute Aboriginal Territorial Protection Policy, 2006). Therefore, under the Proposed Action no detrimental effects on cultural resources are expected provided project design elements are observed. Fuel reductions treatments would enhance long-term stability of prehistoric and historic era archaeological properties. As the likelihood of a large-scale, high-severity wildfire diminishes across the landscape, risks associated with excessive heating of surface obsidian (Linderman, 1992), combustion of built wooden features, and accelerated erosion of site deposits, would likewise decrease. There also would be no detrimental effect on American Indian plant-gathering activities practiced in the vicinity of Project Area if the Alternatives are implemented as designed. Implementation may increase distribution and density of riparian vegetation stands important to the practice of tribal traditions. The Proposed Action would not impact culturally important root crops in the Project Area since such habitats are typically characterized by sparse grass/low- shrub fuel models. Threats posed by wildfire to traditionally important habitats would be immediately reduced. Additionally, the higher rate of effective containment, control, or eradication of invasive species, like medusahead rye, ventenata, and cheatgrass, would help to protect native plant areas important to Native Americans and other visitors by reducing the encroachment of invasive species. Access to traditional use areas would be coordinated with interested Tribes during project implementation to avoid effects to subsistence and traditional cultural practices.

The Proposed Action would include Standard Operating Procedures, Mitigation Measures, and Project Design Features that are designed to avoid any major direct and indirect effects on cultural resources. Broad-scale herbicide application for medusahead and cheatgrass could affect large areas; a project design feature in this EA is to notify the tribes of such proposals and coordinate with them to avoid conflicts where possible.

In the long-term, cultural resources in the vicinity of the Project Area would benefit from fuels reduction treatments because archaeological resources and built historic resources would be less likely to sustain damage from a severe wildfire and fire suppression activities.

139

3.17.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment is WSA or WIU) Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as seen is Alternative 2. There would most likely be no detrimental effect on cultural resources provided PDEs are observed. Cultural resources in the vicinity of Castle Rock would be at a higher risk of disturbance from stand replacement wildfire and fire suppression under this alternative since forested stands and rangeland in the associated wilderness study area, wilderness inventory units, and most of the ACEC would remain untreated for hazardous fuels. 3.18 AIR QUALITY

3.18.1 Affected Environment Under the Clean Air Act, BLM administered lands were given Class II air classification, which allows moderate deterioration caused by new pollution. BLM would manage all public lands as Class II unless they are reclassified.

Air quality in the Project Area is good. Dust and smoke occasionally impact quality; however, the area hasn’t exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Additional information related to climate and air resources is described in the Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan FEIS (2001, p. 29).

The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, an area designated as a Class 1 airshed under the Clean Air Act, is within approximately 30 air miles west of the Project Area. Designation as a Class 1 airshed allows only very small increments of new pollution above existing air pollution levels.

Smoke emissions from prescribed burning would generally dissipate to the north and east of the planned Project Area, in the direction of the most common winds. The predominant wind direction flows southwest to the northwest. Weather, as illustrated by wind, moves into the Project Area generally from the southwest or west and exits the Project Area to the northeast or east. Periods of degraded air quality can occur though typically these events are short-lived. These events are usually associated with development of a stable air mass and/or cold air inversion. This phenomenon occurs most often during winter months and less so during spring and fall. Smoke from wildfires and, to a lesser degree prescribed fires, also is a considerable source of degraded air quality, primarily from particulate matter contained in smoke. Smoke from wood-burning stoves can cause periods of degraded air quality during the winter heating season, usually associated with the stable air and/or inversion phenomenon mentioned above.

3.18.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under the No Action alternative no treatments would occur. If left untreated, juniper would continue to expand and become dense stands that suppress shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Forested stands would continue to accumulate fuel. The risk for severe wildfires would increase and the landscape after a fire would require a longer recovery period. The impact to air quality would be greater from a wildfire than prescribed fire. Wildfires would burn longer, consume more biomass, and produce more smoke and particulate matter. The communities of Juntura, Ironside, and Brogan and surrounding rural residences could be impacted from higher concentrations of particulates in the air, resulting in respiratory discomfort.

140

3.18.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action would produce smoke from slash pile burning and underburning, and dust from mechanical treatments. Impacts to air quality from pile burning could range from reduced visibility to pneumonic irritation and smoke odor affecting people in proximity to the Project Area. These impacts generally last from one to three days, with most the most issues occurring during the actual ignition phase, which could last from one to a few days depending on number of slash piles ignited. Residual smoke produced from burnout of large fuels, or slower burning fuel concentrations, could occur for one to three days following the ignition phase. Impacts to air quality from mechanical treatments would be airborne dust generated while operating equipment and road use for implementation of projects. These impacts would be limited to the immediate area around the equipment and end when operations stop.

The areas of greatest impact from burning would be those downwind and down drainage from the Project Area. A wind vector analysis and review of topographic features indicated these areas are typically south, southeast and east. The impact would be dependent on atmospheric conditions at the time of ignition. Pile burning would be conducted when atmospheric stability and wind conditions promote smoke dispersion into the atmosphere. In addition, burning would be planned when diurnal wind conditions limit the amount of smoke pooling in canyons and valleys. The highest impact area from mechanical treatments would be on unimproved roads (i.e., dirt) used in association with the project. Removal of cut trees for biomass would cause fewer disturbances to air quality than heavy equipment and reduce the amount of biomass burned on site.

All burning activities would comply with the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan and the Clean Air Act, and no air quality effects would be expected to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Burning to manage vegetation would occur in uplands away from populated areas. While the preferred disposal of hazardous fuels is for use as commercial product or biomass energy sources, burning would be done where those options are not feasible due to access or economic factors. Burning would occur in the spring or fall after some precipitation has been received to limit potential for fire spread, but while larger material in the piles is still dry enough to burn. Dry fuels burn cleaner and hotter than wet fuels; therefore, less smoke is produced. All burning would be done under desirable weather conditions to meet objectives for risk reduction and fuel consumption, and to minimize smoke impacts to populated areas. Despite mitigation measures to reduce impacts, smoke would still be visible, and could cause a temporary localized exceedance of particulate matter standards or result in impaired visibility.

The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Class I airshed, located immediately west of the smoke management area (a 30-mile radius from the Project Area), is highly unlikely to be impacted by smoke due to dominant wind vectors in the region that come from the west and southwest, pushing smoke away from the airshed.

Herbicide drift Aerial and ground application of herbicides may transport herbicides through drift, allowing airborne herbicides to move beyond the intended target. Primary factors that influence drift are droplet size and formulation of the herbicide, wind speed, humidity, height of the emission, equipment and application techniques and the size of the area treated. The factor that has the

141

greatest influence on downwind movement is the droplet size. Where aerial applications are determined to be the most appropriate treatment for the control of invasive annual grasses, use by the BLM and contractors would be in conformance with label instructions and the 2010 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of Decision. All design elements, mitigations, and SOPs (Appendix) described in the ROD would be used. Procedures as noted in the 2010 “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon” Record of Decision (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010) that can be employed to reduce drift include: 1) using a low spray nozzle height, 2) using the lower end of pressure range, 3) increasing the nozzle size, 4) using drift-reducing nozzles, 5) using drift control additives, and 6) using sprayer shield.

Where aerial applications are determined to be the most appropriate treatment for the control of invasive annual grasses, use by the BLM and contractors would be in conformance with label instructions and the 2010 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of Decision. All design elements, mitigations, and SOPs (Appendix) described in the ROD would be used. Therefore, herbicide applications implemented with required design features, standard operating procedures and best management practices will be have no impact on air quality or the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Class I airshed.

3.18.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) The analysis for Alternative 2 applies for this alterative except that up to 17,500 acres would be excluded from prescribed burning and herbicide application. This would further reduce potential effects identified in Alternative 2.

3.19 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

3.19.1 Affected Environment Public land in the Project Area is managed for a wide array of social and economic benefits at local, regional, and national levels. These benefits include livestock forage, water production/storage/transport and recreation and aesthetic values. Because wide-ranging values are placed on these resources, the benefits realized from public land management may seem inequitable both socially and economically.

Malheur County is a sparsely populated rural area with strong economic ties to natural resources. As of 2014, Malheur County had a population of 30,359 (3.2 people per square mile; census.gov website 2015). Most of the population is near the region’s four major highways -- Interstate 84, Highway 20, Highway 26 and Highway 95. Federal land ownership is mixed, with BLM managing approximately 70 percent and other federal ownership managing 2 percent. Total federal land ownership is 72 percent of the county (SEORMP ROD 2002, p. 4). Farming, ranching, logging, and recreation are the primary economic activities. As of 2009, the median household income was $35,578. About 27 percent Malheur County residents live below the poverty line (census.gov, 2015).

Livestock production is a major source of employment in rural Malheur County. In Malheur County, livestock production accounts for 49percent of total county agricultural commodity sales (OSU Extension Service, January 2011). Cattle industry sales increased from $134,966,000 in

142

2010 to $154,108,000 in 2012 (Oregon State University, 2013), a majority of which is at least partially generated through public land grazing. Malheur County led the state of Oregon in production of number of head of cattle/calves (200,000 or 16percent of the total Oregon production, (Oregon State University, 2013)).

Recreation is an important component of most lifestyles and includes driving for pleasure, camping, backpacking, fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, photography, wildlife viewing, motorized vehicle use, and sightseeing. These activities contribute to the overall quality of life for residents. Primary recreation activities in the area are big game hunting, UTV use, and camping. Other recreation activities are fishing, rock-hounding, photography, wildlife viewing, and driving for pleasure. Beulah Reservoir provides additional recreational opportunities for fishing, boating and swimming. The North Fork Malheur River is a regionally noted as a “Blue Ribbon Trout Fishing” river.

In addition to local recreation use, the undeveloped, open spaces in the planning area attract visitors from out of the area. Hunting and other types of dispersed outdoor recreational experiences contribute to the local economy on a seasonal basis. Fee hunting on nearby private lands and organized guided and independent recreation are important contributors to the local and regional economy.

The communities of Juntura, Oregon is south of the Project Area on Highway 20. Both unincorporated communities are centers for the local, rural ranch and farm families and other residents. Juntura offers lodging, a RV park, restaurant, small store, and a post office. Ironside only offers a post office. During the spring and summer, visitors enjoy hiking, camping, and wildlife viewing. During the fall hunting season, the region is a popular destination for hunters of several game species including deer, antelope, elk, quail, chukar, and big horn sheep.

Ironside, Oregon is a very small community north of the Project Area on Highway 26. Ironside provides no services, but residents experience higher traffic and more visitors to the area in the spring and fall as well.

In the Project Area, water production, storage, and transport are important functions for ecosystem health and for local water users. Several hundred acres of irrigated farm and pasture lands are in or immediately adjacent to the Project Area and are supported by irrigation projects, wells, small reservoirs, surface water diversions and Beulah Reservoir, which holds approximately 35,000 acre-feet.

The Project Area also contains approximately 13,000 acres of forested lands comprised of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, western juniper, and quaking aspen. A number of ponderosa pine stands are old growth timber. There are approximately 1,300 acres of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with an associated commercial value of approximately $15 million. Past sales have been commercial salvage sales. In the Powder Fire Salvage (1996), 363,000 board- feet of primarily ponderosa pine were purchased, and in the Ironside Salvage Sale (1995), 643,000 board-feet of mixed species, primarily Douglas-fir and white fir, were purchased. Since 1955, total volume of sales has been approximately 4 million board-feet. Intensive commercial harvest would be unlikely in the Castle Rock and North Fork Malheur River ACECs and the administratively suitable North Fork NWSR because harvest would likely affect the relevant and

143

important or outstandingly remarkable values of those areas (SEORMP ROD 2002). However, on the remaining forested areas in the planning area, commercial sale of timber and biomass utilization have a local economic benefit by providing employment opportunities and monetary inputs.

3.19.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under a No Action alternative, no service or stewardship contracts would be granted. No construction supplies or Proposed Action-related services would be purchased from local vendors under this alternative; however, it is expected that local residents would be hired to augment the existing workforce in addition to opening other contracting opportunities.

Under the No Action Alternative, herbicides which were made available to apply on invasive annual grasses and noxious weed species on public lands (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010) would not be allowed under the No Action alternative, leaving the area vulnerable to future wildfire events, particularly with regard to invasive annual grasses like cheatgrass, ventenata, and medusahead rye. These annual grasses are fine fuels that are easily ignited and quickly spread, making them difficult to suppress by firefighters. The Project Area has experienced many large wildfires, most recently the 2015 Bendire Fire, which greatly impacts natural and socio-economic resources both in the short and long term.

Without the use of effective chemicals to reduce these invasive plants, BLM and surrounding lands would be affected in a variety of negative ways. Infestations can reduce recreational land values and the spiny species can cause human health problems ( (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010), page 321). In addition, invasive plants can have a negative effect on observation-based tourism, as the wildlife and wildflowers that people come to enjoy and photograph are crowded out by invasive plants ( (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010), page 321). Significant investment is being made on adjacent private and State lands, using the herbicide imazapic to control infestations of cheatgrass, ventenata, and medusahead rye. Under the No Action alternative, seed of these species are expected to germinate and subsequently drift to adjacent land ownerships, impacting productivity on these other ownerships, allowing the area affected by invasive annual grasses to spread.

Medusahead rye, ventenata, and cheat grass out-compete remaining native bunchgrasses and displace forb and sagebrush recovery, further reducing the forage value for livestock production. Invasive annual grasses are among the earliest grass species to green up during the spring. Consequently, surface moisture typically used by native grasses is used by invasive annual grasses prior to native grasses coming out of dormancy.

Medusahead rye is a poor forage species for both livestock and wildlife and ventenata provides even poorer forage. If not treated, range conditions would continue to decline as these species dominate adjacent native plant communities. According to the FEIS for Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon, July 2010, livestock carrying capacity could be reduced by 35 to 90 percent from weed infestations lowering yield and quality of forage (page 321). As a result of a shift in vegetative communities to more of an annual component, the potential exists for rangelands to move toward a downward trend. Poorer range conditions could lead to lower weaning weights or a reduction in overall cattle numbers, affecting the economics of the affected ranchers, as well as the chance of the BLM permanently reducing permitted

144

AUMs on the allotments. Gig game would generally be displaced looking for forage opportunities in other areas and conversion of adjacent sagebrush communities would negatively impact the greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent wildlife species. This would affect hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities in the long-term.

At the same time, public lands in and around the Project Area would continue to contribute social amenities such as open space and recreational opportunities (including hunting, hiking, sightseeing, and camping). It is expected that recreation use would remain the same. These amenities enhance local communities and tourism and would not be affected by the No Action alternative.

3.19.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action likely would utilize stewardship and service contracts to cut juniper and other conifer, as well as provide biomass utilization and machine piling. As a result, local employment would increase. Purchase of supplies and equipment necessary for implementation of the Proposed Action from community merchants would benefit the local economy. Small economic increases during implementation of the Proposed Action are also likely to occur for the more distant towns of Burns and Vale/Ontario. Both areas provide a broader range of services and supplies, including airports, and are anticipated to benefit from the proposed activities.

Under the Proposed Action seeding of desirable species that help stabilize soils and control invasive weeds would maintain good range condition, forage quality and carrying capacity for all demands.

This alternative could utilize contracts to potentially drill seed, aerially seed, cleanout water catchments, and maintain or improve roads (to the appropriate BLM-maintenance levels) for access to treatment areas. To contract all treatments and improvements under this alternative the cost is estimated to be approximately $16,000,000. Contracting projects would provide economic opportunities for local contractors and suppliers.

Biomass utilization, if feasible, would provide materials for variety of purposes, including energy and hog fuel for industry. Designated wood harvest areas in the Project Area would allow the public to utilize cut juniper for poles and firewood and juniper boughs for decorative uses.

Improved rangeland health would increase forage production for livestock and wildlife across the invasive annual grass sites in the Project Area; thereby increasing economic benefits to ranch operators and fostering more desirable recreation opportunities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. However, this outcome is not an immediate benefit. These treatments take time to accomplish the desired goals of native plant species and may take the entire 15-year treatment window or longer to reestablish.

Additionally, improving or maintaining greater sage-grouse habitat via proposed juniper removal methods across the Project Area maintains or improves native plant communities. This provides continued or additional recreational opportunities such as hunting, wildlife and wildflower viewing, and photography in the short and long term.

145

3.19.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Under this alternative, approximately 17,500 acres will not be treated within WSAs and WIU centrally located within the Project Area. This would eliminate the potential for stewardship service contracts to occur in those areas and reduce the potential for local employment opportunities and local economic stimulus when compared to Alternative 2. Outside of this area proposed for non-treatment, the analysis under Alternative 2 applies. Within the proposed untreated area, the analysis under Alternative 1 applies. 3.20 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

3.20.1 Affected Environment There are a total of 23 grazing allotments within the Project Area (see Map 16 in Appendix B). A few of the allotments are “Common” in which there are multiple permittees authorized to graze livestock, however, the majority of the allotments only have a single permittee. In total, 27 permittees graze livestock in 104 Pastures, within the Project Area.

Table 3.20 Grazing Allotments Allot # of Allot # Allotment Name # of Permittees AUMS Pastures 161 AGENCY MOUNTAIN 1,400 3 5 10202 ALLOTMENT NO.3 13,480 5 7 10217 BEULAH RESERVOIR 2,560 1 13 145 BRIDGE CREEK EAST 1 1 109 BRIDGE CREEK WEST 4 1 1 10212 BUTTE TREE 69 1 1 162 CALF CREEK 1,793 1 1 10211 CASTLE ROCK 4,816 1 16 10201 CLOVER CREEK INDIVIDUAL 2 1 226 COTTONWOOD CREEK 68 1 3 10206 DEARMOND-MURPHY 6,503 1 24 114 IRONSIDE MOUNTAIN EAST 140 1 1 112 IRONSIDE MOUNTAIN WEST 124 1 1 133 KIVETT 26 1 1 224 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN 214 1 1 10219 MALHEUR RIVER 53 1 3 10205 RAIL CANYON 3,023 1 9 10208 RING BUTTE 32 1 2 153 SOUTH WILLOW CREEK 85 1 1 233 SQUAW BUTTE 35 1 1 10213 WEST CLOVER CREEK 1 1 10216 WHITLEY CANYON 2,376 2 3 10222 WILLOW BASIN 7,006 1 7

146

Allotments within the Project Area are managed under the 2000 Bully Creek Landscape Management Plan (BCLAMP), and the 2009 North Fork Geographic Management Area Interim Grazing Strategy, depending in which watershed the allotments reside. These allotments generally have a 4/1 - 10/31 permitted grazing season, and are divided, via fencing, into smaller pastures with either a rest rotation or deferred grazing rotation grazing system as part of their Allotment Management Plan (AMP). Pasture rotations and management are designed to assist in meeting resource objectives outlined in the BCLAMP, and are based upon the plant phenological stages. Alterations to grazing schedules, such as a change in pasture rotations are limited to 5 days either side of the entry/exit dates, and must retain grazing within the same phenological season of use analyzed and identified in the SEORMP. Terms & Conditions that require livestock operators to meet and maintain resource objectives, such as upland utilization limits, riparian stubble height requirements, and limitations on the use levels of willows and other woody species, are also included in the individual term grazing permits. These terms and conditions along with the associated grazing systems were designed, implemented, and have assisted greatly in the recovery of rangeland vegetation from the historically unmanaged grazing practices once prevalent in the area. Due to multiple methods of disturbance (fire, vehicles, grazing, etc.), weeds and annual grasses are present within the Project Area. While still a minority of the existing vegetation, these species are invasive, and have the ability to out-compete native vegetation if not kept in check, and the native vegetation maintained in a healthy and productive state. These weeds and annual grasses often have little forage value and are commonly unpalatable to livestock and wildlife. While cheatgrass has nutritive value and is palatable before seed ripe, forage value diminishes quickly following seed ripe. Medusahead is a poor forage species for both livestock and wildlife and has low palatability because of its high silica content. Medusahead is known to exist within large portions of the Project Area on the western quarter, the rest of the area contains low to moderate levels of infestation, as well as on other adjacent ownerships at low to high densities, and the potential for invasion exists from roadways and other nearby sources. Ventenata is a more recently introduced invasive annual grass with small sites being found in all elevations. In central Oregon, downy brome (cheatgrass), medusahead and ventenata can be found coexisting in rangelands and in some areas ventenata is displacing the two other species.

3.20.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities would continue to transition into western juniper woodlands. Continued juniper expansion would cause corresponding reductions in desired shrub and herbaceous plant cover and density. This would lead to reductions in key forage plant species production and increased competition for existing forage between wildlife and livestock. Potential spot treatments on cheatgrass, ventenata, and medusahead would be ineffective without pretreatment. Existing populations of annual invasive species would continue to expand and out compete perennial native vegetation, eventually reducing forage production.

3.20.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action)  Notification to Permittee shall occur no later than 1 grazing season prior to implementation of projects within their authorized pastures.  Project boundaries and implementation will be designed along pasture boundaries, so as to avoid working in multiple pastures pertaining to a single permittee, within a single year, unless preferred by permittees.

147

Project Design Elements as listed above, are designed to limit the extent of the impacts to the rangeland resource and livestock grazing as much as possible. Pastures within the Project Area that will need periods of rest for vegetation to recover after treatments. Areas and timeframes for incorporating rest from livestock grazing are situational and treatment dependent. If there is a single treatment (seeding) then the rest period will be for two growing seasons. If multiple treatments (herbicide + seeding) the rest period will be for three growing seasons. Pastures or partial pastures would be closed to grazing via pasture deferment or pasture closure. In areas rested, there would be short-term adverse impacts to permittees from moving cattle herds to different areas during the rest period (or possible temporary downsizing of cattle herds). Beneficial long-term impacts from the resulting improved rangeland would outweigh the adverse short-term impacts.

148

Table 3.21 Treatment Activities Vegetation Categories Herbicide Restoration Piling Juniper Silvicultural Broadcast Jackpot Broadcast Shrub Treatment Underburn and Cutting Thinning Burning Burning and Seedling Zones Burning Seeding Planting

High- X (only in Elevation X Phase II and X X Sagebrush III juniper)

Low- Elevation X X X X Sagebrush

Mixed Conifer X X X X X

Non-Conifer X (aspen Woody X X X X only) Vegetation

Invasive Annual Grass X X Dominated X Vegetation

149

Areas where rest (by deferment or closure) from grazing will likely need to occur, through a separate agreement or decision process, are generally: Areas treated with imazapic (1 growing season), areas where some type of burning will occur followed by seeding (2 growing seasons), and any large seeded areas (2 growing seasons) where livestock would be drawn to in the spring. In some cases (burning + herbicide treatment + seeding) the sequence and combination of these treatments could potentially create a need to rest a pasture, or portion of the pasture, for up to 5 years. In the event that sequence of treatments necessitate working in multiple pastures pertaining to a single permittee, and multiple season of rest are required, the grazing rotation within remaining pastures would be adjusted as feasible. Any adjustments to pasture rotation would abide by the scheduled “phenological season of use” so as to maintain the integrity of the analysis in which the grazing authorization is based. Additionally, pastures in a rest or deferred rotation would be maintained in a rest or deferred rotation. In general, the long term effects of the Proposed Action to the resource and livestock grazing would be beneficial. Herbaceous vegetation would respond positively to proposed treatments with increased production, plant cover and density, creating an overall healthier site condition, as competition for resources is reduced. Plant communities would become more efficient at utilizing site resources, thus, increasing native competitive ability and reducing potential for expansion of less desirable annual grass species. Increased production of vegetation would reduce competition for forage among herbivories, and livestock distribution would improve. Utilization levels would be lessened at a site specific level as a more even utilization pattern would occur across the allotments.

3.20.4 Alternative 3 Impacts (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) This alternative to the Proposed Action was developed to focus on the sagebrush habitat restoration and protection objectives described in the Proposed Action while preventing impairment (even temporarily) of the suitability of the Castle Rock WSA a for preservation as wilderness. It would also avoid any activity (see project activity descriptions) or utilization of a PDE within WIU that could potentially impact any of the four defined aspects of wilderness character. See the Alternative 3 Treatment Map for areas that would be excluded from treatment under this alternative. All treatments, activities, and PDEs outside of WSA and WIU would remain the same as described in the Proposed Action under this alternative. Effects to livestock grazing under this alternative remain largely similar to that of the Proposed Action, with the exception that the lands withdrawn from treatment would continue in their current state of transition from native rangeland vegetation to areas dominated by juniper and invasive annual grass. The loss of native vegetation and forage due to the continued transition of these rangelands would increase competition between ungulates and potentially higher grazing utilization levels by all species. The number of permittees potentially affected would remain the same; however, two of the permittees would potentially have 1 less pasture affected by vegetative treatments.

3.21 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

3.21.1 Affected Environment The Northwest Malheur Project Area is Malheur County in eastern Oregon. The minority population of Malheur County is 40.4 percent (census.gov, 2015). Approximately 27.4 percent of the population in the county is below poverty level (census.gov, 2015). 150

According to information from the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), Harney County is rated 1.30 (threshold 1.20), Malheur County is rated 1.30, and Grant County is rated 1.30, on the distressed area index (OECDD, 2002). These counties have experienced significant declines in natural resource industry jobs over the past decade. These job losses contribute to factors used to determine a distressed community.

3.21.2 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) The No Action Alternative does not create any new employment opportunities in Malheur County, and therefore, does not offer any improvement to the affected environment.

3.21.3 Alternative 2 Impacts (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 Implementation of any alternative that provides the opportunity for employment may positively affect low-income families who are either unemployed or underemployed. Implementation of any alternative is not expected to impose a disproportionately high or adverse effect to those populations. The Vale District has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Burns Paiute Tribe in Burns, Oregon. This MOU provides the mechanism for regularly scheduled consultations on proposed activities. Beyond this, the District notifies and consults with the tribe in a manner consistent with the government-to-government relationship on any matters that ripen outside of the defined meeting schedule. Any potential impacts are discussed and mitigated through these processes. Both alternative 2 and alternative 3 comply with Executive Order 12989 “Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”.

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative effects as the impacts on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

For this analysis, the 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code sixth-level or subwatersheds was chosen as the Cumulative Effects Assessment Area (CEAA). Any subwatershed that is encompassed by the Project Area or the included the boundary of the Project Area was included in this assessment area, resulting in a CEAA of approximately 590,139.4 acres. This boundary is definable on the landscape, regardless of political boundaries or ownership, and has similar actions occurring in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future as actions proposed in this Project. See Map 14 in Appendix B for a map of the CEAA.

Baseline existing vegetation estimates within the CEAA were derived from Landfire existing vegetation type (EVT) data and then adjusted along an elevational or precipitation zone gradient (See Table 4.2 for baseline CEAA vegetation estimate). Landfire is a fully integrated national data framework (USDA-DOI that provides landscape scale geospatial information for cross- boundary land management and assessment purposes.

151

The CEAA includes land managed by the Vale District BLM, Burns District BLM (west and southwest of the Project Area) and Malheur National Forest (northwest of the Project Area), as well as actions conducted by NRCS on private land. These agencies were contacted to request information regarding past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CEAA. Actions by private individuals on private lands, State lands, Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Energy are not part of this assessment because data was not available for analysis. The table below shows ownership acres within the CEAA.

Table 4.1 Acres of Ownership Acres of Ownership within Cumulative Effects Assessment Area Ownership Acres within CEAA Bureau of Land Management 281,591.8 U.S. Forest Service 93,544.9 Private 208,178.4 State 2,832.8 Bureau of Reclamation 3,785.8 Department of Energy 205.7 Total Area 590,139.4

Table 4.2 Existing Vegetation Categories Existing Vegetation Categories within NW Malheur CEAA Ecological Category Acres within CEAA High Elevation Sagebrush (>4700’ AMSL) 203,418 Low Elevation Sagebrush (<4700’ AMSL) 253,662 Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Forest 133,057

4.1 PAST AND PRESENT ACTIVITIES Post-wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation activities such as seeding and planting, fuels reduction, forest thinning, range improvement seedings, juniper cutting, various types of prescribed fire, and aspen and riparian treatments are all activities that have occurred in the CEAA that are comparable to the actions proposed within Alternatives 2 and 3 for this Project. The table below summarizes the past and present actions.

Table 4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Activities within CEAA NRCS Vale Burns US Forest activities on Activity General Description BLM BLM Service private land (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forest Restoration / Fuels Management Activities Silvicultural Non-commercial Treatments - fuels forest thinning, management, forest commercial forest 2282 616 22,124 0 restoration, fire thinning, Rx burning salvage, of activity fuels and

152

NRCS Vale Burns US Forest activities on Activity General Description BLM BLM Service private land (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) natural fuels, fire salvage Conifer Encroachment / Sagebrush Steppe Restoration Activities Conifer Conifer cutting, lop Encroachment and scatter, jackpot Treatments – conifer burn, pile burn, or 27,375 810 0 25,061 cutting on sagebrush removal as biomass steppe from sagebrush steppe Resistance – Resilience / Annual Grass Control Activities Native seedings, Annual grass control perennial non-native treatments on 49,678 0 0 0 seedings, aerial sagebrush steppe imazapic applications. Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Enhancement Activities (Resistance – Resilience, conifer encroachment, sagebrush restoration combined) Conifer Habitat enhancement encroachment, annual and fire threat 69,553 810 0 25,061 grass control, reduction within sagebrush seedlings PHMA

4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Activities and resulting effects analyzed in this section are organized into categories that correlate, in general, with the vegetation categories introduced in Chapter 2 and the greater sage- grouse habitat classification described in Chapter 3. The categories include: 1) fuels reduction and correlated forestry activities, 2) conifer encroachment treatments in sagebrush communities, 3) annual grass control in sagebrush communities, 4) and conifer control, annual grass control, and sagebrush planting within general and priority sage-grouse habitat. These categories will combine past, present and reasonably foreseeable similar actions with the No Action Alternative, and action alternatives, and examine their combined effects on the vegetation and habitat of the CEAA. Other resources are addressed later in this section.

4.2.1 Fuels Reduction and Forestry

4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under this alternative, no actions or activities would occur within the Northwest Malheur Project Area. A majority of the forested stands within the Project Area are untreated and occur around Castle Rock in WSA and WIU. No past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities have occurred in WSA and approximately 750 acres of conifer removal, predominately juniper removal, has occurred in WIU.

Untreated stands would continue on the trajectory of increased tree mortality spread of insects and disease. Mortality in these stands also alters hydrology, nutrient cycling, energy flow and wildlife habitat availability. Fire would not be reintroduced under the no action alternative.

153

The mixed conifer forest stands would continue to present a severe crown fire hazard and threaten sage-grouse habitat and cultural resource values present in the vicinity of Castle Rock. The FRCC would not incrementally shift from FRCC 3 toward FRCC 2 or 1. Firefighters would continue be placed at greater risk as during future suppression efforts in untreated forested portions of the CEAA. If a wildfire was to occur in these stands, it would likely result in a high severity, stand-replacement event. The current conditions of the stands are not cumulative with past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities in the CEAA.

4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) – Within the defined CEAA, the effects of forest restoration and fuels reduction activities such as thinning, pile burning and underburning, could be considered cumulative with the effects of previous and reasonably foreseeable forest management activities implemented within the Northwest Malheur CEAA. There are approximately 133,057 acres of forested land within the CEAA.

The Proposed Action in combination with other forest restoration and fuels management efforts in the CEAA such as the Castle Rock Fuels Reduction Project (CX-OR-030-04-02), the Otis Mountain / Moffet Table Fuels Management Project (EA OR-06-025-056), and USFS forest management activity on the North Fork Malheur River to incrementally shift forest composition and structure towards more open and fire resistant historic reference conditions within the CEAA. Implementation of the Northwest Malheur Proposed Action, in combination with the previously completed and foreseeable future forest management activities, would result in treatment of 38,197 acres of the 133,057 total forested acres within the CEAA. This would represent treatment on approximately 29 percent of the total ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest acreage within the CEAA. Under Alternative 3 (Wilderness Value Non-impairment), the effects of implemented forest treatments would combine with the same previously implemented and foreseeable future forestry activities to affect 33,831 acres of the 133,057 total forested acres. This would represent treatment on approximately 25 percent of the total forested acreage within the CEAA. The combined effect of the forested treatments on the CEAA landscape would be similar if not identical to the effects of the action alternatives on the forested portion of the Northwest Malheur Project Area in terms of changes to forest composition, forest structure, fuel loading, and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). See the Forest and Woodlands and Fire Management Sections 3.3. and 3.4 of Chapter 3 for a discussion of anticipated environmental effects.

4.2.2 Conifer Control and Sagebrush Communities

4.2.2.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under this alternative, no new actions or activities would occur within the NW Malheur Project Area. Approximately 55,175 acres have been treated in the past across the CEAA and 8308 are scheduled to be implemented within the reasonably foreseeable future.

Untreated sagebrush communities stands would continue on the trajectory of increased juniper encroachment and conversion to juniper woodland. This negatively impacts most wildlife habitat, aquatic resources, cultural resources, livestock grazing, and special status plant species.

154

Some avian species that utilize juniper woodlands for cover and forage would lose habitat as juniper abundance is reduced across the CEAA.

If a wildfire were to occur in the future in high-elevation sagebrush areas, the results would likely be of high severity and large size, resulting in mortality of sagebrush and allowing for invasion of noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses, including medusahead rye grass.

The current conditions of these sagebrush communities are cumulative with past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities in the CEAA as they create a patchwork or fragmented approach to restoring and maintaining greater sage-grouse habitat versus supporting a large landscape approach across the entire CEAA.

4.2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Within the CEAA, there are 509,206 acres of high-elevation and low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass ecological communities. Of these, approximately 53,175 acres have been treated by removing conifers, or there are plans in place to remove conifers within the next four years. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has completed 16,753 acres of conifer control on sagebrush habitat within the CEAA and has 8,308 acres of conifer control planned within the next four years. Conifer control efforts within the CEAA have been predominantly western juniper control projects completed on high elevation sagebrush plant communities. Implementation of the Northwest Malheur Proposed Action, in combination with the previously completed and foreseeable future conifer encroachment activities, would result in treatment of 128,284 acres of the 509,206 total sagebrush acres within the CEAA. This would represent treatment on approximately 25 percent of the total high elevation and low elevation sagebrush acreage within the CEAA that is under the influence of conifer encroachment. Under Alternative 3 (Wilderness Value Non-impairment), the effects of implemented conifer control treatments would combine with the same previously implemented and foreseeable future conifer control activities to affect 119,741 acres of the 509,206 total sagebrush acres. This would represent treatment on approximately 23 percent of the total sagebrush acreage within the CEAA. The combined effect of the conifer control treatments on the CEAA landscape would be similar if not identical to the effects of the action alternatives on the sagebrush-bunchgrass plant communities of the Northwest Malheur Project Area in terms of changes to rangeland vegetation, watershed values, and wildlife habitat. See the Vegetation (Section 3.3), water quality (Section 3.8), and wildlife (Section 3.7) sections of Chapter 3 for a discussion of anticipated environmental effects.

4.2.3 Invasive Annual Grass Control

4.2.3.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Low-elevation sagebrush areas within the CEAA that have been affected by past wildfire would continue to be affected by monocultures of cheat grass and medusahead rye infestations excluding greater sage-grouse use and limiting use of the ecosystem by other wildlife and livestock. Existing populations of annual invasive species would continue to slowly expand and out compete perennial native vegetation, reducing forage production for wildlife and livestock.

155

This also creates a seed source for expansion or spread of invasive into future downwind disturbances from wildlife or activities.

The potential for an increased fire return interval and fire size would remain due to the continued presence of fine fuels from invasive annual grasses. Current and future restoration actions such as seedings and plantings would have less potential for success due to increased competition for resources.

4.2.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Extensive invasive annual grass infestations are found primarily in low-elevation sagebrush/bunchgrass communities within the CEAA. Many of the most severe resistance- resilience problems within the CEAA have been burned in the past by wildfire which has accelerated the spread of invasive annual grass across the landscape and created a continuous fine fuel bed that will carry future wildfires. There are approximately 253,662 acres of low elevation sagebrush plant communities within the CEAA. Land management activities have been completed on approximately 49,678 acres of low elevation sagebrush plant communities that would increase resistance to invasion by exotic annual grasses or improve resilience to future ecological disturbance. These past treatments include non-native seedings associated with the Vale Range Improvement projects in 1966, native seedings associated with ESR efforts within the last 20 years, and approximately 30,000 acre aerial application of imazapic for annual grass control associated with The Bendire Complex Fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Invasive Plant Management Plan (DOI-BLM-ORWA-V000-2016-0027-EA). Implementation of the Northwest Malheur Proposed Action, in combination with the previously completed and foreseeable future invasive annual grass control activities, would result in treatment of 63,039 acres of the 253,662 total low elevation sagebrush acres within the CEAA. This would represent treatment on approximately 25 percent of the total low elevation sagebrush acreage within the CEAA. Under Alternative 3 (Wilderness Value Non-impairment), the effects of implemented annual grass control treatments would combine with the same previously implemented annual grass treatment activities to affect 58,481 acres of the 253,662 total low elevation sagebrush acres. This would represent treatment on approximately 23 percent of the total low elevation sagebrush acreage within the CEAA. The combined effect of the annual grass control treatments, as well as the development of the linear fuel breaks described in the action alternatives, on the CEAA landscape would be similar if not identical to the effects of the action alternatives on the low elevation sagebrush ecological communities of the Northwest Malheur Project Area in terms of changes to rangeland vegetation, watershed values, wildlife habitat, and fire management. See the vegetation (Section 3.3), fire management (Section 3.4), wildlife (Section 3.7), and water quality (Section 3.8) sections of Chapter 3 for a discussion of anticipated environmental effect.

4.2.4 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Enhancement

4.2.4.1 Alternative 1 Impacts (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, the reduction of suitable sagebrush habitat from invasive annual grass-fire cycle and conifer encroachment would continue within the CEAA. Sagebrush, used for cover and food, would continue to decrease with no planting of seedlings or fire

156

protection measures put in place within the Bully Creek PAC and throughout the CEAA. Perennial herbaceous species used by sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species for cover and food would continue to decline in abundance and diversity across the landscape over time (Baruch-Mordo, et al., 2013). Low-elevation sagebrush areas within the CEAA that have been affected by past wildfire would continue to be infested by monocultures of invasive annual grasses and further decline in suitability for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. Wet meadows and riparian areas that are seasonally important to sage-grouse would continue to decline under the influence of conifer encroachment (Miller, et al., 2005).

The potential for large fires impacting sagebrush habitat would increase as fine fuel in the form of invasive annual grasses increases on the CEAA landscape. Loss of sagebrush habitat due to fire disturbance would likely result in sage-grouse population declines within the Bully Creek PAC and connected habitats.

4.2.4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (No Treatment in WSA or WIU) Within the CEAA, there are 271,831 acres of greater sage-grouse Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and 154,185 acres of General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). The priority sage-grouse habitat within the CEAA is primarily within the Bully Creek PAC but also encompasses the Cow Valley and Drewsey PACs to a lesser degree.

To date, there have been 25,180 acres of conifer control activities, and 45,772 acres of herbicide treatments for annual grass control or revegetation projects (grass seeding, sagebrush seeding, or sagebrush planting) implemented by BLM within PHMA in the CEAA. Most of the BLM treatments of PHMA were completed under the Bully Creek Landscape Area Management Project (EA OR-030-99-019) and The Bendire Complex Fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Invasive Plant Management Plan (DOI-BLM-ORWA-V000-2016-0027-EA). There have been 2,742 acres of conifer control activities and 3,906 acres of revegetation projects implemented by BLM within GHMA in the CEAA. There are 25,061 acres of NRCS funded conifer control treatments on private lands that have been completed or are ongoing in the CEAA, although it is not known if these treatments are in PHMA or GHMA.

Implementation of the Northwest Malheur Proposed Action, in combination with the previously completed and foreseeable future conifer control and invasive annual grass control projects, would result in treatment of 143,228 acres of the 271,831 acres of total PHMA sage-grouse habitat within the CEAA. This would represent treatment on approximately 52 percent of the total PHMA acreage within the CEAA. Implementation of the proposed action would likewise result in 66,103 acres treated of the 154,185 total acres of GHMA habitat in the CEAA when considered in combination with the previously completed and ongoing habitat enhancement work. This would represent treatment on approximately 42 percent of the total GHMA acreage within the CEAA.

Under Alternative 3 (Wilderness Value Non-impairment), the effects of implemented sagebrush habitat restoration and protection activities would combine with the previously implemented or ongoing similar activities to affect 134,600 acres of the 271,831 total PHMA acres. This would represent treatment on approximately 49 percent of the total PHMA acreage within the CEAA.

157

Implementation of Alternative 3 would likewise result in 36,089 acres treated of the 154,185 total acres of GHMA habitat in the CEAA when considered in combination with the previously completed and ongoing habitat enhancement work. This would represent treatment on approximately 23 percent of the total GHMA acreage within the CEAA.

The combined effects of the action alternatives with the previously completed actions on sage- grouse habitat in the CEAA would be similar if not identical to the effects of the action alternatives on greater sage-grouse habitat in the Northwest Malheur Project Area. Increased available sagebrush cover, increases in cover and diversity of native understory species (including sage-grouse preferred forbs), and reduction in predator perches would be identical to the effects described in Chapter 3. The Northwest Malheur Project action alternatives in combination with previously completed and ongoing restoration activities within the CEAA would directly address three of the primary threats to sage-grouse identified in the USFWS Conservation Objectives: Final Report 2013 (invasive annual grass, fire, conifer encroachment). See the fire management (Section 3.4) and wildlife (Section 3.7) sections of Chapter 3 for a full discussion of anticipated benefits to greater sage-grouse habitat.

4.2.5 Other Resources The action alternatives include design elements developed to avoid impacts to special status plants, noxious weeds other than invasive annual grass, water quality, special status aquatic species, visual resources, special status lands, land with wilderness character, wild and scenic rivers, ACECs, cultural resources, and social and economic values.

Project design elements would reduce effects related to loss of soil productivity, sedimentation of water sources, and wildlife species other than sagebrush obligates to levels that are immeasurable at the CEAA scale.

Effects of smoke on the air quality and project related noise would be short-lived and would not have the potential to combine with the effects of other projects within the CEAA. Therefore, the cumulative potential of these effects was not analyzed at any scale.

Effects to livestock grazing would be limited to the allotments and pastures within the Project Area and would include additional allotments and pastures only if they are part of a grazing rotation with those allotments and pastures within the Project Area. The effects on livestock grazing from the proposed action and its alternative would be cumulative with grazing permit renewals expected to be authorized within the next 10 years for allotments within the project boundaries.

5.0 PROJECT MONITORING PLANS

5.1 INTRODUCTION This monitoring plan describes the activities that the Vale District, Malheur Field Office. Planning Team staff and fire operations personnel will perform to ensure that prescribed burning and mechanized vegetation treatments conform to project design criteria and meet objectives established in Chapter II of the Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-OR-V040-2015-001-

158

EA). The plan guides implementation and effectiveness monitoring for 15 years after EA competition for all burning and mechanical vegetation treatments described in the EA. Implementation monitoring assesses whether a project is implemented as designed while effectiveness monitoring is employed to address questions about the accomplishment of specific treatment objectives and the long-term effectiveness of PDEs. This monitoring plan satisfies the monitoring needs described in SEORMP FEIS (April 2001), SEORMP ROD (September 2002), and the Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (2015), as well as the prescribed fire monitoring requirement described in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2003 (USDI – USDA).

This monitoring plan is not a decision document. If monitoring should determine that treatments outside the scope of the Proposed Action are necessary, then a separate site-specific environmental analysis and decision document may need to be prepared. 5.2 COORDINATION Scheduled monitoring visits and data collection will be dependent on treatment objectives, timing of implementation activities, and the responses of specific resources to fire and fire surrogates. For this reason, close and frequent coordination between resource specialists, implementation specialists, management, permittees, and interested public is essential. 5.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The following is a list of key personnel, and their responsibilities, involved in coordinating and implementing the Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project Monitoring Program. Malheur Field Office Manager 1. Updates the District Fuels Planner and/or IDT of any significant issues raised by publics or stakeholders pertinent to monitoring program.

Deputy Fire Staff 1. Will serve as a liaison between the Vale BLM line officers, State Office and research personnel, and all other agency personnel.

Fire Ecologist 1. Ensure that monitoring data is forwarded to appropriate line officers, resource specialists, research personnel, and personnel from other agencies. 2. Work within Fire/Fuels and District organizations to secure critical personnel and resources for monitoring program. 3. Works with specialists to develop data collection protocols.

District Fuels Planner 1. Requests and manages budget for monitoring activities on an annual basis. 2. Work with Interdisciplinary Team (resource specialists). 3. Work with burn supervisors.

159

Project Prescribed Burn Supervisor 1. Conduct effectiveness monitoring associated with prescribed burning to ensure fuels reduction objectives are met. 2. Ensure monitoring is documented and forward results to the District Fuels Staff for central filing.

Mechanical Treatment Contracting Officer Representative (COR)/Timber Sale Administrator 1. Ensure all PDEs are incorporated into implementation contracts, as appropriate. 2. Conduct all implementation monitoring associated with mechanical treatments (pine thinning, juniper cutting, piling) that is not conducted by an on-site resource advisor. 3. Ensure monitoring is documented and forward results to the Fire Ecologist for central filing.

Rangeland Management Specialist 1. Coordinate and communicate with allotment permittees when necessary. 2. Ensure that pastures are rested for appropriate periods following prescribed fire and other treatments.

Additional Resource Specialists (Archaeology, Botany, Wildlife Resources, Noxious Weeds, Aquatics/Riparian, Forestry, Wilderness) 1. Conduct resource specific implementation and effectiveness monitoring. 2. Maintain monitoring documentation and forward documentation to the Fire Ecologist for central filing.

5.4 RESULTS AND DOCUMENTATION Monitoring results may be utilized to: 1) document fire effects; 2) evaluate the success or failure of treatments and PDEs; and 3) assess the potential for future treatments and project design elements; 4) determine recommendations for rest from livestock grazing. Monitoring results and documentation will be maintained by individual resource specialists in paper files, and electronic databases. Results may also be tracked with the monitoring and inventory protocol database and analysis tools by the Fire Ecologist.

160

Table 5.1 Project Monitoring Plan Implementation Element or Effectiveness Objective Methods Responsibility Timing Monitoring Post-treatment surveys. Invasive At one year intervals for a species identified would be treated minimum of two years after Implementation Determine if noxious weeds become Noxious Weed Noxious with herbicide as described in implementation. Species with established in areas of disturbance and Specialist Weeds “Vegetation Treatments Using long viable seed life would control of invasions with herbicide. Herbicides on BLM Lands on require 5+ years of Oregon” ROD (BLM 2010). monitoring. Verify that all vehicles and equipment are Apply Interagency Standards for Rx Burn Pre- and post- implementation Noxious cleaned pre- and post-operation as per Fire and Aviation Operations, Implementation Supervisor, throughout the life of the Weeds Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation (Redbook) during equipment COR/PI project. Operations, (Redbook) guidelines. inspections. Spring following fall Invasive Determine efficacy and impacts to non- Post-treatment survey, ocular Noxious Weed applications with follow up Annual Implementation target species from invasive grass inspections and observations of Specialist/PI monitoring one year post- Grass treatments target and desired vegetation treatment and in year 2. Monitor implementation activities such as herbicide applications Cultural conifer cutting, line construction, During Implementation Verify that appropriate PDEs are Archaeologist, Resources Implementation prescribed fire ignition, and mop- implemented to protect cultural resources. COR/PI And throughout the life of the up with visual observation, project. photography, and written description. Monitor implementation activities Multiple Ensure ACEC values are protected or like herbicide applications, conifer During Implementation Resource Cultural enhanced through consultations with cutting, line construction, Implementation Specialists, And throughout the life of the Resources appropriate Tribes and development of prescribed fire ignition, and mop- COR/PI, Tribal project. relevant project design features. up with visual observation, monitor photos, and written description. Ensure that pastures are rested sufficient to ensure that health and vigor of desired vegetation has recovered to levels adequate Coordination and communication Rangeland to support and protect upland function. with allotment permittees and After implementation of Rangeland Implementation Management General rest period following aerial field visits with affected treatment. Specialist herbicide application is at least one growing permittees. season, at least two growing seasons following prescribed burning and seeding.

161

Table 5.1 (Continued) Project Monitoring Plan

Implementation Element or Effectiveness Objective Methods Responsibility Timing Monitoring Determine if fuels in Estimations of fuel treatments will be Fuels treatment units are reduced District Fuels Effectiveness collected using standardized monitoring After implementation Management sufficiently to meet Planner methods including photo points. treatment objective. Determine if weather Will monitor any site or time specific Fuels conditions and prescribed weather and fire criteria as identified in the Rx Burn Supervisor During Implementation Management fire parameters are within project burn plan. Implementation the range of variability. Visual observation of smoke plume from Predict trajectory and ground level. Prior to ignition phase Smoke (Air Implementation vertical dispersion of smoke Rx Burn Supervisor and immediately after Quality) Assessment of wind speed and direction on plumes. day of implementation. Receive clearance implementation for ignition from the State. Ensure that all fuel spills are Immediately control and/or clean spill Rx Burn Supervisor Hazardous contained without harm to through use of hazmat spill kit. Report During Implementation Materials personnel or the large spill (>42 gallons) to hazmat Mechanical implementation environment. coordinator. Treatment COR/PI Determine if adequate big Wildlife During and game cover remains in Visual estimate, cover and composition Wildlife Biologist Biology – Big Implementation immediately after treatment units after measurements Game Cover implementation implementation Wildlife Monitor implementation activities such as Prior to, during Biology – Verify that appropriate aerial herbicide, conifer cutting and Wildlife Biologist Implementation, and Implementation sage-grouse PDES are employed prescribed burning with visual observation, throughout the life of photography, and written description. the project. Ensure that structures, such Wildlife as snags, down wood, nests, Monitor activities such as conifer cutting Biology – During and after or areas with SSS habitat and prescribed fire with visual observation, Wildlife Biologist Special Status Implementation implementation value are protected in photography, and written description. Species treatment units

162

Table 5.1 (Continued) Project Monitoring Plan Implementation Element or Effectiveness Objective Methods Responsibility Timing Monitoring Visually inspect to ensure compliance Evaluate riparian response to with project design features for One year prior to Aquatics/ thinning and/or burning. riparian area. Resource treatment to gather Riparian Implementation Determine the effects of Standard monitoring methods and Specialist baseline data and at 2 Areas/Hydrology actions on stream channel protocols for assessing change in years following treatment. characteristics and function. morphology, shade, water quality, and temperature. Vegetation- During implementation Determine if SSS are avoided Special Status Implementation Monitor over time with photo points Botanist and two years after in treatment units. Species implementation Determine if juniper mortality Vegetation – Rx Burn During implementation Effectiveness in treatment units meets Visual estimate Juniper Mortality Supervisor and immediately after 70percent objective

Vegetation – Determine if annual grass One year after Visual Estimates, Cover and Resource Annual Grass Effectiveness cover is reduced to 10percent implementation and three Composition measurements Specialists Cover or less in treated areas year after treatment.

Determine if seedling planting One year after Vegetation – is effective in low elevation Standardized monitoring methods Resource implementation and at one Sagebrush Effectiveness sagebrush treatment areas and including Photo point Specialist year intervals for three Planting the Bendire Fire burned area years. Rx Burn Determine if juniper mortality Monitor during implementation, Vegetation – Supervisor During or immediately Effectiveness in aspen/mahogany stands possibly using photography or written Mahogany/Aspen after implementation meets treatment objectives description Mechanical Treatment COR Vegetation – Assess understory seed source First two growing seasons Post-fire is available in prescribed fire Resource after burning and an Implementation Visual estimates, belt transects. understory treatment units to determine Specialists additional two years to response need for post-burn seeding. assess that need

163

Table 5.1 (Continued) Project Monitoring Plan

Implementation or Element Effectiveness Objective Methods Responsibility Timing Monitoring

Ensure that appropriate structure is left in pine stands Monitor unit layout and marking Forestry Implementation Forester, COR/PI During implementation following mechanical and subsequent treatment. treatment.

Ensure skid trails landing and Approve location of skid trail, Skid Trails roads are appropriately landing, and temporary roads prior Before, during and after Landings Implementation Forester, COR/PI constructed on the landscape to construction. Inspect implementation and Roads and rehabilitated after closure rehabilitation while in progress.

Ensure hand piles and COR/PI, Fuels Castle Rock During implementation Implementation jackpots are burned within 2 Implementation tracking Planner, Wilderness WSA in that area years, conditions permitting Specialist

Ensure equipment used for Castle Rock commercial removal is Forester, COR/PI, Implementation Visual observation during removal During work in that area WSA limited to existing inventoried Wilderness Specialist roads and primitive routes Ensure conifer cutting and thinning results in a natural Castle Rock Review unit layout before appearance to the casual Forester, COR/PI, Before and during WSA and Implementation manipulating. Visual observation, observer (flush cut stumps, Wilderness Specialist implementation. WIUs project tracking linear contrast, residual wood, rehabilitated soil disturbance) Ensure no machine piles are Visual observation, project Forester, COR/PI, WIUs Implementation During implementation. constructed in WIU tracking Wilderness Specialist Ensure seeding is done in a Visual observation, project COR/PI, Wilderness WIUs Implementation manner that minimizes the During implementation. tracking Specialist appearance of drill rows

164

6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION A. Agencies, Tribes, and Individuals Consulted:  Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation  Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs  Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribes  Nez Perce Tribe  Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Duck Valley Reservation  Burns Paiute Tribe  Malheur County, Oregon  U.S Fish and Wildlife Service  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife  U.S. Forest Service, Malheur National Forest  Burns District Bureau of Land Management  Natural Resources Conservation Service  Private Land Holders and Affected Permittees B. Participating BLM Employees: This EA was prepared under a third-party contract by Rabe Consulting. BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) states that contracting may be used for the preparation of a NEPA document or for certain portions of the analyses (BLM 2008). The BLM has the responsibility for assuring that the documentation meets NEPA and BLM requirements. The BLM is responsible for the scope and content of the analysis within this NEPA document and the supporting materials including the administrative record. Additionally, subsequent decisions and findings are those of the BLM, not of the contractor, which will reflect a review of the underlying NEPA document. The BLM has independently evaluated environmental issues and the information submitted. BLM resource specialists responsible for providing guidance, resource data, and evaluation of the document:  Interdisciplinary Team Leader — Donald Rotell  Rangeland Management Specialist — Kevin Eldredge  Hydrology/Soils — Linus Meyer  Fisheries/Aquatic Species — Jake Ferguson/Monica Ketcham  Forestry/Woodlands — Eric Ott  Fire/Fuels/Air Quality — Kevin Moriarty/Jason Simmons  Wildlife — Jake Ferguson/Monica Ketcham  GIS — Marissa Russell  Cultural Resources — Cheryl Bradford/Kelli Barnes  Botany – Roger Ferriel  Noxious Weeds — Lynne Silva  Recreation/Visual Resources/WSA/WIU — Kari Points/Dan Thomas  ACECs – Susan Fritts  Planning and Environmental Coordinator/Social and Economics/Climate Change — Todd Bowen/Brent Grasty  Litigation Specialist — Shannon Wolery

165

7.0 REFERENCES

80 FR 191, 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species. pp. 59858-59942. Agee, J. K., 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. Barney, M. A. & Frischknecht, N. C., 1974. Vegetation changes following fire in the pinyon- juniper type of west-central Utah.. Journal of Range Management, pp. 27:91-96. Barrett, H., 2007. Western Juniper Management: A Field Guide.. s.l.:The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Baruch-Mordo, S. et al., 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: a proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species.. Biological Conservaton, Volume 167, pp. 233-241. Bates, J. D. & Miller, R. F., 2004. Restoration of Aspen Woodland Invaded by Western Juniper: Applications of Partial Cutting and Prescribed Fire.. Victoria, Canada., s.n. Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F. & Svejcar, T., 2005. Long-Term Successional Trends following Western Juniper Cutting.. Rangeland Ecology & Management., p. 58:5.. Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F. & Svejcar, T. J., 1998. Understory patterns in cut western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis spp. occidentalis Hook.) woodlands.. Great Basin Naturalist, pp. 58:363- 374. Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F. & Svejcar, T. J., 2000. Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western juniper woodlands.. Journal of Range Management., pp. 53:119-126.. Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F. & Svejcar, T. S., 1999. Plant Succession in Cut Juniper Woodlands (1991-1998).. In Range Field Day Annual Report June 1999.: Agricultural Exp. Station. OSU and USDA Research Service.. Bates, J., Svejcar, T. & Miller, R. F., 2002. Effects of juniper cutting on nitrogen mineralization.. Journal of Aridland Environments, pp. 51:221-234.. Bowers, W., Hosford, B., Oakley, A. & Bond, C., 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangeland- the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon, Native Trout.. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-84.. Brooks, M. et al., 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes.. BioScience, 54(7), pp. 677-688. Buchanan, D., Hanson, M. L. & Hooton, R. M., 1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout, Distribution, Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status., Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

166

Buckhouse, J. C. & Mattison, J. L., 1980. Potential Soil Erosion of Selected Habitat Types in the High Desert Region of Central Oregon.. Journal of Rangeland Management, pp. 33:282-285. Bull, E. L., 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted fron in northwestern Oregon Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-640, Portland: Pacfic Northwest Research Station. Burns Paiute Tribe, FY 1999 Annual Report. Malheur River Basin Cooperative Bull Trout/Redband Research Project. Burns: Burns Paiute Tribe. census.gov, 2015. Malheur County, Oregon Quick Facts. [Online] Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41045.html [Accessed 2 March 2015]. Chambers, J. et al., 2014. Using resistance and resilience concepts to reduce impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and greater sage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach.Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326, Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Coates, P. et al., 2017. Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of greater sage-grouse.. Rangeland Ecology and Management, Volume 70, pp. 25-38. Connelly et al., 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), pp. 967-985. Connelly, J. W. et al., in press 2011. Conservation of Sage-grouse: a synthesis of current trends and future management.. In S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Series (vol. 38): s.n. Couture, M. D., 1986. Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin Population.. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, pp. 8:150-160. Currens, K., 1994. Genetic analysis of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from the Malheur and Owyhee Rivers. OCFRU Genetics Laboratory Report, p. 94(1). Currens, K., 1996. Genetic variation of rainbow trout from the Snake River and Harney basins. OCFRU Genetics Laboratory Report, p. 96(1). Davies, K., 2010. Revegetation of Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Steppe. Rangeland Ecol Manage, Volume 63, p. 564–571. Davies, K., 2016. Personal communication via phone regarding herbicide use [Interview] 2016. Davies, K. & Sheley, R. L., 2011. Promoting Native Vegetation and Diversity in Exotic Annual Grass Infestations.. Restoration Ecology, 19(2), pp. 159-165. DeByle, N. V., 1985. Animal impacts. In: Aspen: ecology and management in the wester United States. . Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

167

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-119, pp. 115- 123. Dinkins, J. et al., 2014. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus) hen survival: effects of raptors, anthropogenic and landscape features, and hen behavior.. Can. J. Zool., Volume 92, pp. 319-330. DiTomaso, J., Kyser, G. B. & Pitcairn, M. J., 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide. Cal- IPC Publication 2006-03.. Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council. Elliott, K. & Vose, J. M., 2006. Fire Effects on Water Quality:A Synthesis of Response Regulating Factors Among Contrasting Ecosystems. s.l., s.n. Emmerich, W. & Cox, J., 1992. Hydrologic Changes Immediatley After Seasonal Burning on Intorduced and Native Grasslands. Journal of Range Management, Volume 45, pp. 476-479. Foss, P., 1960. Politics and Grass: The Administration of Grazing on the Public Domain.. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.. Fritz, C., 2016. Personal communication via phone regarding herbicide use [Interview] 2016. Hann, W. J., 1997. Landscape dynamics of the Basin.. In: An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume II.. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405., pp. 337-1,055. Hann, W. J. & Bunnell, D. L., 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales.. International Journal of Wildland Fire, pp. 10:389-403. Hardy, C. C., Schmidt, K. M., Menakis, J. M. & Samson, N. R., 2001. Spatial data of national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, pp. 10:353-372. Howard, Oliver Otis 1907. My Life and Experiences among Our Hostile Indians: A Record of Personal Observations, Adventures, and Campaigns among the Indians of the Great West…. Hartford, Connecticut: A.D. Worthington & Co. . Hunn, E., 1991. The Plateau. In: The First Oregonians. Portland, OR: Oregon Council for the Humanities. Hunn, E., Turner, N. J. & French, D., 1998. Ethnobiology and Subsistence.. In: Handbook of North American Indians, volume 12.. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 525-545. Hurn, S., 2013. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Bull Trout Spawning Report, s.l.: s.n. Jeppesen, D. J., 1978. Comparative moisture consumption by the western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis).. In: Proceedings of the western juniper ecology and management workshop; 1977 January; Bend, OR.. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 83-90.

168

Linderman, C. A., 1992. The Effects of Fire on Obsidian Artifacts: A Problem in Hydration Dating in a Woodland Environment. Unpublished Senior Honors Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.: s.n. Maruoka, K. R. & Agee, J. K., 1994. Tech Notes No. 2: Fire Histories: Overview of Methods and Applications. [Online] Available at: www.fs.fed.us/pnw/mdr/past/bmnri/publications/technotes/html/tn2.shtml [Accessed 29 January 2015]. Maser, C., Thomas, J. W. & Anderson, R. G., 1984. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands-the Great Basins of southeastern Oregon: The relationship of terrestrial vertebrates to plant communities and structural conditions.. General Technical Report PNW-172, pp. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.. McDonough, W. T., 1985. Sexual reproduction, seeds, and seedlings.. In: Aspen: ecology and management in the Western United States.. s.l.:United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119., pp. 28-28. Miller, R., Chamber, J. C. & Pellant, M., 2014. A Field Guide for Selecting the Most Appropriate Treatment in Sagebrush and Piñon-Juniper Ecosystems. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 322-rev, s.l.: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Miller, R. F. et al., 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western juniper. Oregon State University Technical Bulletin 152. Miller, R. F. & Rose, J. A., 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe.. Journal of Range Management, pp. 52:550-559. Miller, R. F. & Schultz, L. I., 1987. Water relations and leaf morphology of Juniperus occidentalis in the northern Great Basin.. Forest Science, pp. 33(3):690-706. Mitton, J. B. & Grant, M. C., 1996. Genetic variation and the natural history of quaking aspen.. BioScience, pp. 46:25-31.. Mueggler, W. F., 1985. Vegetation associations. In: Aspen: ecology and management in the Western United States.. s.l.:United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119., pp. 45-56. Noson, A., Schmitz, R. A. & Miller, R. F., 2006. Influence of fire and juniper encroachment on birds in high-elevation sagebrush steppe. Western North American Naturalist, 66(3), pp. 343- 353. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2010. Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), s.l.: s.n. Oregon State University, 2013. 2012 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates, s.l.: Oregon Agricultural Information Network, OSU Extension Economic Information Office. Oregon Water Resources Board, 1969. Oregon's Long Range Requirements for Water, Appendix I-10, Malheur Drainage Basin. s.l.:s.n.

169

Ott, E., 2015. Personal Communication Regarding Forest Treatments in the NW Malheur Project Area. [Interview] (5 August 2015). Paige, C. & Ritter, S. A., 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities.. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, pp. Boise, ID.. Pierson, F. B., Bates, J. D. & Svejcar, T. J., 2007. Long-term erosion changes in runoff and erosion after cutting western juniper.. Range Ecology and Management, pp. 60:285-292.. Powell, D., 1999. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands In Northeastern Oregon and SoutheasternWashington: An Implementation Guide forThe Umatilla National Forest. F14-SO- TP-03-99., s.l.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest, Umatilla National. Pyke, D., 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In: S. K. a. J. Connelly, ed. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 531-584. Pyke, D. et al., 2014. Range-wide ecological responses of arid Wyoming big sagebrush communities to fuel treatments in the Intermountain West.. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 67(5), pp. 455-467. Rosenburg, D. et al., 2009. Conservation Assessment of the Western Pond Turtle in Oregon, s.l.: s.n. Schmidt, K. M. et al., 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management.. Gen. Tech. Rep., RMRS-GTR-87., pp. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.. Scott, J. & Burgan, R. E., 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. General Technica lReport RMRS-GTR-153, s.l.: USDA, Forest Service, Rock Mountain Research Station. Silva, L., 2016. Personal communication regarding herbicide use [Interview] 2016. Spiegel, L., Johnson, J. M. & McWilliams, M., 2016. Insect and Disease Review of Castle Rock ACEC, s.l.: Blue Mountains Forest Insect And Disease Service Center Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Tackman, C., 2015. NW Malheur Project Area Vegetation Categories, Vale, Oregon: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Tausch, R. J. & Tueller, P. T., 1990. Foliage biomass and cover relationships between tree- and shrub-dominated communities in pinyon-juniper woodlands.. Great Basin Naturalist, pp. 50:121-134.. Toledo, Z. O. & Kauffman, J. B., 2001. ROOT BIOMASS IN RELATION TO CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY OF HEADWATER STREAMS. Toledo, Z. O. and Kauffman, J. Boone. (2001), ROOT BIOMASS IN RELATION TO CHANNEL Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 37, pp. 1653-1663.

170

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1996. Castle Rock ACEC Evaluation, s.l.: s.n. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon.. [Online] Available at: https://www.blm.gov/or/plans/vegtreatmentseis/documents.php U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2015. The Bendire Complex Fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Invasive Plant Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-ORWA-V000-2016-0027-EA, s.l.: s.n. U.S. Department of Interior, 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2, s.l.: s.n. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management., 2001. Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vale District BLM Office, Vale, Oregon.: s.n. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2002. Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Vale District BLM Office, Vale, Oregon: s.n. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, 75(200), pp. 63898-64070. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report, s.l.: s.n. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens). [Online] Available at: https://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/nleopard_frog.html [Accessed 2015]. Whisenant, S. G., 1990. Changing Fire Frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: Ecological and Management Implications. In: Proceedings: Cheatgrass Invasion Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrb Biology and Management.. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service Technical Report. Int-276., pp. 4-10. Winward, A., 1983. Using sagebrush ecology in wildland management.. In: First Utah shrub ecology workshop.. Logan, UT: Utah State University.. Young, M. K., Rader, R. B. & Belish, T. A., 1997. Influence of Macroinvertebrate Drift and Light on the Activity and Movement of Colorado River Cutthroat.. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, pp. 126:428-437.

171

APPENDIX A: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES, MITIGATION MEASURES, CONSERVATION MEASURES, PREVENTION MEASURES, AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

172

Information included in this Appendix is a compilation of information originally presented in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (USDI 2007a), Record of Decision (USDI 2007a), and Biological Assessment (USDI 2007b), as well as the Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report (USDI 2007c), and the Oregon FEIS (USDI 2010) and Record of Decision (USDI 2010). Standard Operating Procedures In the following section, Standard Operating Procedures applicable to non-herbicide treatments are listed first under each resource, followed by the Standard Operating Procedures, Mitigation Measures, and Oregon FEIS Mitigation Measures applicable to herbicide applications. Standard Operating Procedures have been identified to reduce adverse effects to environmental and human resources from vegetation treatment activities based on guidance in BLM manuals and handbooks, regulations, and standard BLM and industry practices. The list is not all encompassing, but is designed to give an overview of practices that would be considered when designing and implementing a vegetation treatment project on public lands (USDI 2007c:2-29). Effects described in this EA are predicated on application of the Standard Operating Procedures or equivalent, unless an on-site determination is made that their application is unnecessary to achieve their intended purpose or protection. For example, the Standard Operating Procedure to “complete vegetation treatments seasonally before pollinator foraging plants bloom” would not be applied to treatments not likely to have a significant effect on pollinators. PEIS Mitigation Measures (marked as MMs in the list below) were identified for all potential adverse effects identified for herbicide applications in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (17-States PEIS; BLM 2007a), and adopted by its Record of Decision. In other words, NO potentially significant adverse effect identified in the 17 States analysis remained at the programmatic scale after the PEIS Mitigation Measures were adopted. Like the Standard Operating Procedures, application of the mitigation measures is assumed in the analysis in this EA, and on-site determinations can decide if their application is unnecessary to achieve the intended purpose protection. Oregon FEIS Mitigation Measures (marked as Oregon FEIS MMs in the list below) were identified and adopted for adverse effects identified in the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Environmental Impact Statement (Oregon Final EIS; BLM 2010). Application of these measures is also assumed in the analysis in this EA unless on-site determinations are made that they are not needed, or there are alternative ways, to meet the intended purpose or protection. Again, no potentially significant adverse effect was identified at the programmatic scale in the Oregon FEIS with the Standard Operating Procedures and Mitigation Measures assumed. BLM manuals and handbooks are available online at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/blm- library/publications/blm_publications/manuals.html

173

Guidance Documents Chemical BLM Handbook H-9011-1 (Chemical Pest Control), and manuals 1112 (Safety), 9011 (Chemical Pest Control), 9015 (Integrated Weed Management), and 9220 (Integrated Pest Management). Chemical

 Prepare an operational and spill contingency plan in advance of treatment.  Conduct a pretreatment survey before applying herbicides.  Select the herbicide that is least damaging to the environment while providing the desired results.  Select herbicide products carefully to minimize additional impacts from degradates, adjuvants, other ingredients, and tank mixtures.  Apply the least amount of herbicide needed to achieve the desired result.  Follow herbicide product label for use and storage.  Have licensed or certified applicators or State-licensed “trainees” apply herbicides, or they can be applied by BLM employees under the direct supervision of a BLM-certified applicator.  Use only USEPA-approved herbicides and follow product label directions and “advisory” statements.  Review, understand, and conform to the “Environmental Hazards” section on the herbicide product label. This section warns of known herbicide risks to the environment and provides practical ways to avoid harm to organisms or to the environment.  Consider surrounding land use before assigning aerial spraying as a treatment method and avoid aerial spraying near agricultural or densely populated areas.  Minimize the size of application area, when feasible.  Comply with herbicide-free buffer zones to ensure that drift will not affect crops or nearby residents/ landowners.  Post treated areas and specify reentry or rest times, if appropriate.  Notify adjacent landowners prior to treatment, if appropriate.  Keep a copy of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) at work sites. MSDSs are available for review at http:// www.cdms.net/.  Keep records of each application, including the active ingredient, formulation, application rate, date, time, and location.  Avoid accidental direct spray and spill conditions to minimize risks to resources.  Avoid aerial spraying during periods of adverse weather conditions (snow or rain imminent, fog, or air turbulence).  Make helicopter applications at a target airspeed of 40 to 50 miles per hour (mph), and at about 30 to 45 feet above ground.  Take precautions to minimize drift by not applying herbicides when winds exceed >10 mph (>6 mph for aerial applications), or a serious rainfall event is imminent.  Use drift control agents and low volatile formulations.  Conduct pre-treatment surveys for sensitive habitat and Special Status species within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas.

174

 Consider site characteristics, environmental conditions, and application equipment in order to minimize damage to non-target vegetation.  Use drift reduction agents, as appropriate, to reduce the drift hazard to non-target species.  Turn off application equipment at the completion of spray runs and during turns to start another spray run.  Refer to the herbicide product label when planning revegetation to ensure that subsequent vegetation would not be injured following application of the herbicide.  Clean OHVs to remove plant material. The BLM has suspended the use of the adjuvant R-11. Land Use Chemical

 Consider surrounding land uses before aerial spraying.  Comply with herbicide-free buffer zones to ensure that drift will not affect crops or nearby residents and landowners.  Post treated areas and specify reentry times, if appropriate

Air Quality See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Management). Chemical

 Consider the effects of wind, humidity, temperature inversions, and heavy rainfall on herbicide effectiveness and risks.  Apply herbicides in favorable weather conditions to minimize drift. For example, do not treat when winds exceed 10 mph (>6 mph for aerial applications) or rainfall is imminent.  Use drift reduction agents, as appropriate, to reduce the drift hazard.  Select proper application equipment (e.g., spray equipment that produces 200- to 800- micron diameter droplets [spray droplets of 100 microns and less are most prone to drift]).  Select proper application methods (e.g., set maximum spray heights, use appropriate buffer distances between spray sites and non-target resources).

Soil Resources See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Management). General

 Assess the susceptibility of the treatment site to soil damage and erosion prior to treatment.

175

Chemical

 Minimize treatments in areas where herbicide runoff is likely, such as steep slopes when heavy rainfall is expected.  Minimize use of herbicides that have high soil mobility, particularly in areas where soil properties increase the potential for mobility.  To avoid the loss of finer-sized soil particles and avoid having herbicide-treated soils blown or washed off-site, avoid exposing large areas of wind-erosion group 1 or 2 soils when a combination of dry soil and seasonal winds are expected. Mitigation measures could include the use of selective herbicides to retain some vegetation on site; reseeding so cover is present before the windy season affects dry soils; staggering treatment of strips until stubble regrows enough to provide an acceptable filter strip; rescheduling treatments away from the windy season; or, other measures to prevent wind erosion on these soil groups. (Oregon FEIS MM)

Water Resources See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Management). Chemical

 Consider climate, soil type, slope, and vegetation type when developing herbicide treatment programs.  Select herbicide products to minimize impacts to water. This is especially important for application scenarios that involve risk from active ingredients in a particular herbicide, as predicted by risk assessments.  Use local historical weather data to choose the month of treatment.  Considering the phenology of target aquatic species, schedule treatments based on the condition of the water body and existing water quality conditions.  Plan to treat between weather fronts (calms) and at appropriate time of day to avoid high winds that increase water movements, and to avoid potential storm water runoff and water turbidity.  Review hydrogeologic maps of proposed treatment areas. Note depths to groundwater and areas of shallow groundwater and areas of surface water and groundwater interaction. Minimize treating areas with high risk for groundwater contamination.  Conduct mixing and loading operations in an area where an accidental spill would not contaminate an aquatic body.  Do not rinse spray tanks in or near water bodies.  Minimize the potential effects to surface water quality and quantity by stabilizing terrestrial areas as quickly as possible following treatment.  Establish appropriate (herbicide-specific) buffer zones for species/populations (Tables A- 1 and A-2). (MM)  Areas with potential for groundwater for domestic or municipal use shall be evaluated through the appropriate, validated model(s) to estimate vulnerability to potential groundwater contamination, and appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed if

176

such an area requires the application of herbicides and cannot otherwise be treated with non-herbicide methods. (MM)  Use appropriate herbicide-free buffer zones for herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths from water of 100 feet for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications.  Maintain buffers between treatment areas and water bodies. Buffer widths should be developed based on herbicide and site-specific conditions to minimize impacts to water bodies.  To protect domestic water sources, no herbicide treatments should occur within 100 feet of a well or 200 feet of a spring or known diversion used as a domestic water source unless a written waiver is granted by the user or owner. (Oregon FEIS MM)  Site-specific analyses for roadside treatments should specifically consider that drainage ditches and structures lead to streams and that normal buffer distances, herbicide selection, and treatment method selection may need to be changed accordingly, particularly where those ditches are connected to streams with Federally Listed or other Special Status species. (Oregon FEIS MM)  Buffer intermittent stream channels when there is a prediction of rain (including thunderstorms) within 48 hours. (Oregon FEIS MM)  Proposals to boom or aerially spray herbicides within 200 feet of streams that are within 1,000 feet upstream from a public water supply intake, or spot apply herbicides within 100 feet of streams that are within 500 feet upstream from a public water supply intake, will include coordination with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the municipality to whom the intake belongs. (Oregon FEIS MM)

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Chemical

 Use appropriate herbicide-free buffer zones for herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths from water of 100 feet for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications.  See mitigation for Water Resources and Vegetation. (MM)

Vegetation See Handbook H-4410-1 (National Range Handbook), and manuals 5000 (Forest Management) and 9015 (Integrated Weed Management). Chemical

 Refer to the herbicide label when planning revegetation to ensure that subsequent vegetation would not be injured following application of the herbicide.  Use native or sterile plants for revegetation and restoration projects to compete with invasive plants until desired vegetation establishes.  Identify and implement any temporary domestic livestock grazing and/or supplemental feeding restrictions needed to enhance desirable vegetation recovery following treatment.

177

Consider adjustments in the existing grazing permit, to maintain desirable vegetation on the treatment site.  Establish appropriate (herbicide-specific) buffer zones (Tables A-1 and A-2) around downstream water bodies, habitats, and species/populations of interest. Consult the ecological risk assessments (ERAs) prepared for the PEIS for more specific information on appropriate buffer distances under different soil, moisture, vegetation, and application scenarios. (MM)  When necessary to protect Special Status plant species, implement all conservation measures for plants presented in the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Biological Assessment (see Appendix 5). (MM)

Pollinators Chemical

 Complete vegetation treatments seasonally before pollinator foraging plants bloom.  Time vegetation treatments to take place when foraging pollinators are least active both seasonally and daily.  Design vegetation treatment projects so that nectar and pollen sources for important pollinators and resources are treated in patches rather than in one single treatment.  Minimize herbicide application rates. Use typical rather than maximum rates where there are important pollinator resources.  Maintain herbicide free buffer zones around patches of important pollinator nectar and pollen sources.  Maintain herbicide free buffer zones around patches of important pollinator nesting habitat and hibernacula.  Make special note of pollinators that have single host plant species, and minimize herbicide spraying on those plants and in their habitats.

Terrestrial Wildlife, Fish and Other Aquatic Resources See manuals 6500 (Wildlife and Fisheries Management) and 6780 (Habitat Management Plans) Chemical

 Use herbicides of low toxicity to wildlife, where feasible.  Use timing restrictions (e.g., do not treat during critical wildlife breeding or staging periods) to minimize impacts to wildlife.  Do not use the adjuvant R-11 (MM)  To protect Special Status wildlife species, implement conservation measures for terrestrial animals presented in the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Biological Assessment (See Appendix 5) (MM)

178

 Impacts to wildlife from herbicide applications can be reduced by treating habitat during times when the animals are not present or are not breeding, migrating or confined to localized areas (such as crucial winter range). (Oregon FEIS MM)  When treating native plants in areas where herbivores are likely to congregate, choose herbicides with lower risks due to ingestion. This mitigation measure is applicable if large areas of the herbivores’ feeding range would be treated, either because the treatment areas are large or the feeding area for an individual animal is small. (Oregon FEIS MM)  Where possible, design native vegetation treatment areas to mimic natural disturbance mosaics. Patchiness is usually beneficial to most wildlife, and patchiness is usually tolerated by species that prefer contiguous habitat. (Oregon FEIS MM)  Use of adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes is recommended for applications near aquatic habitats. (Oregon FEIS MM)

Special Status Species See Manual 6840 (Special Status Species) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Biological Assessment. Chemical

 Provide clearances for Special Status species before treating an area as required by Special Status Species Program policy. Consider effects to Special Status species when designing herbicide treatment programs.  Avoid treating vegetation during time-sensitive periods (e.g., nesting and migration, sensitive life stages) for Special Status species in area to be treated.

Livestock See Handbook H-4120-1 (Grazing Management). Chemical

 Whenever possible and whenever needed, schedule treatments when livestock are not present in the treatment area. Design treatments to take advantage of normal livestock grazing rest periods, when possible.  As directed by the herbicide product label, remove livestock from treatment sites prior to herbicide application, where applicable.  Use herbicides of low toxicity to livestock, where feasible.  Take into account the different types of application equipment and methods, where possible, to reduce the probability of contamination of non-target food and water sources.  Notify permittees of the herbicide treatment project to improve coordination and avoid potential conflicts and safety concerns during implementation of the treatment.  Notify permittees of livestock grazing, feeding, or slaughter restrictions, if necessary.  Provide alternative forage sites for livestock, if possible.

179

Paleontological and Cultural Resources See handbooks H-8120-1 (Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation) and H-8270-1 (General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management), and manuals 8100 (The Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources), 8120 (Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resource Authorities), and 8270 (Paleontological Resource Management). See also: Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act (1997) and the State Protocol between the Oregon-Washington State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the manner in which the Bureau of Land Management will meet its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. (2015). Chemical

 Follow standard procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented through the Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act and State protocols or 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, including necessary consultations with State Historic Preservation Officers and interested tribes.  Follow BLM Handbook H-8270-1 (General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management) to determine known Condition 1 and Condition 2 paleontological areas, or collect information through inventory to establish Condition 1 and Condition 2 areas, determine resource types at risk from the proposed treatment, and develop appropriate measures to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts.  Consult with tribes to locate any areas of vegetation that are of significance to the tribe and that might be affected by herbicide treatments; work with tribes to minimize impacts to these resources.  Follow guidance under Human Health and Safety in the PEIS in areas that may be visited by Native peoples after treatments.

Visual Resources See handbooks H-8410-1 (Visual Resource Inventory) and H-8431-1 (Visual Resource Contrast Rating), and Manual 8400 (Visual Resource Management). Chemical

 Minimize the use of broadcast foliar applications in sensitive watersheds to avoid creating large areas of browned vegetation.  Consider the surrounding land use before assigning aerial spraying as an application method.

180

 Minimize off-site drift and mobility of herbicides (e.g., do not treat when winds exceed 10 mph; minimize treatment in areas where herbicide runoff is likely; establish appropriate buffer widths between treatment areas and residences) to contain visual changes to the intended treatment area.  If the area is a Class I or II visual resource, ensure that the change to the characteristic landscape is low and does not attract attention (Class I), or if seen, does not attract the attention of the casual viewer (Class II).  Lessen visual impacts by: 1) designing projects to blend in with topographic forms; 2) leaving some low growing trees or planting some low-growing tree seedlings adjacent to the treatment area to screen short-term effects; and 3) revegetating the site following treatment.  When restoring treated areas, design activities to repeat the form, line, color, and texture of the natural landscape character conditions to meet established Visual Resource Management (VRM) objectives.

Wilderness and Other Special Areas See handbooks H-8550-1 (Management of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)), and H-8560-1 (Management of Designated Wilderness Study Areas), and Manual 8351 (Wild and Scenic Rivers). General

 Revegetate disturbed sites with native species if there is no reasonable expectation of natural regeneration.  Provide educational materials at trailheads and other wilderness entry points to educate the public on the need to prevent the spread of weeds. Chemical

 Use herbicides only when they are the minimum treatment method necessary to control weeds that are spreading within the wilderness or threaten lands outside the wilderness.  Give preference to herbicides that have the least impact on non-target species and the wilderness environment.  Implement herbicide treatments during periods of low human use, where feasible.  Address wilderness and special areas in management plans.  Control of weed infestations shall be carried out in a manner compatible with the intent of Wild and Scenic River management objectives.  Mitigation measures that may apply to wilderness and other special area resources are associated with human and ecological health and recreation (see mitigation measures for Vegetation, Fish and Other Aquatic Resources, Wildlife Resources, Recreation, and Human Health and Safety). (MM)

Recreation See Handbook H-1601-1 (Land Use Planning Handbook).

181

Chemical

 Schedule treatments to avoid peak recreational use times, while taking into account the optimum management period for the targeted species.  Notify the public of treatment methods, hazards, times, and nearby alternative recreation areas.  Adhere to entry restrictions identified on the herbicide product label for public and worker access.  Post signs noting exclusion areas and the duration of exclusion, if necessary.  Mitigation measures that may apply to recreational resources are associated with human and ecological health (see mitigation measures for Vegetation, Fish and Other Aquatic Resources, Wildlife Resources, and Human Health and Safety). (MM)

Social and Economic Values Chemical

 Consider surrounding land use before selecting aerial spraying as a treatment method, and avoid aerial spraying near agricultural or densely-populated areas.  Post treated areas and specify reentry or rest times, if appropriate.  Notify grazing permittees of livestock feeding restrictions in treated areas, if necessary, as per herbicide product label instructions.  Notify the public of the project to improve coordination and avoid potential conflicts and safety concerns during implementation of the treatment.  Control public access until potential treatment hazards no longer exist, per herbicide product label instructions.  Observe restricted entry intervals specified by the herbicide product label.  Notify local emergency personnel of proposed treatments.  Consult with Native American tribes to locate any areas of vegetation that are of significance to the tribes and Native groups and that might be affected by herbicide treatments.  To the degree possible within the law, hire local contractors and workers to assist with herbicide application projects and purchase materials and supplies for herbicide treatment projects (including the herbicides) through local suppliers.  To minimize fears based on lack of information, provide public educational information on the need for vegetation treatments and the use of herbicides in an integrated vegetation management program for projects proposing local use of herbicides.  For herbicides with label-specified re-entry intervals, post information at access points to recreation sites or other designated public use or product collection areas notifying the public of planned herbicide treatments in languages known to be used by persons likely to be using the area to be treated. Posting should include the date(s) of treatment, the herbicide to be used, the date or time the posting expires, and a name and phone number of who to call for more information. (Oregon FEIS MM)  Consider the potential for treatments to affect communities from herbicide-contaminated resources originating from the BLM, such as subsistence resources or water used downstream for human or agricultural uses. (Oregon FEIS MM) 182

 Coordinate with and/or notify neighboring landowners who may want to treat, or are already treating, adjacent lands. (Oregon FEIS MM)  To the extent permitted by normal contracting authority, ensure materials safety data sheets and other informational or precautionary materials are available in languages spoken by the work crews implementing treatments. This includes but is not limited to material such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards along with agency, industry and manufacturers’ recommendations and Human Health and Safety Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation measures or equivalent. (Oregon FEIS MM)

Rights-of-way Chemical

 Coordinate vegetation treatment activities where joint or multiple use of a ROW exists.  Notify other public land users within or adjacent to the ROW proposed for treatment.  Use only herbicides that are approved for use in ROW areas.

Human Health and Safety Chemical

 Establish a buffer between treatment areas and human residences based on guidance given in the HHRA, with a minimum buffer of ¼ mile for aerial applications and 100 feet for ground applications, unless a written waiver is granted.  Use protective equipment as directed by the herbicide product label.  Post treated areas with appropriate signs at common public access areas.  Observe restricted entry intervals specified by the herbicide product label.  Provide public notification in newspapers or other media where the potential exists for public exposure.  Store herbicides in secure, herbicide-approved storage.  Have a copy of MSDSs at work site.  Notify local emergency personnel of proposed treatments.  Contain and clean up spills and request help as needed.  Secure containers during transport.  Follow label directions for use and storage.  Dispose of unwanted herbicides promptly and correctly.

Best Management Practices for Noxious Weed Management Best Management Practices (BMPs) are those land and resource management techniques designed to maximize beneficial results and minimize negative impacts of management actions. Interdisciplinary site-specific analysis is necessary to determine which management practices would be necessary to meet specific goals. BMP’s described are designed to assist in achieving the objectives for maintaining or improving water quality, soil productivity, and the protection of 183

watershed resources. The ones specific to noxious weed management are provided below. They are included in the District’s Resource Management Plan under a variety of resource headings. The ones specific to noxious weed management are provided below.

 All contractors and land-use operators moving surface-disturbing equipment in or out of weed-infested areas should clean their equipment before and after use on public land.  Control weeds annually in areas frequently disturbed such as gravel pits, recreation sites, road sides, livestock concentration areas.  It is recommended that all vehicles, including off-road and all-terrain, traveling in or out of weed-infested areas should clean their equipment before and after use on public land.

Invasive Plant Prevention Measures Invasive Plant Prevention Measures are designed to prevent the spread of invasive plants by minimizing the amount of existing non-target vegetation that is disturbed or destroyed during project or vegetation treatment actions (USDI 2007a:2-20). They are designed to work in conjunction with BLM’s policy requiring that planning for ground-disturbing projects in the Resource Area, or those that have the potential to alter plant communities, include an assessment of the risk of introducing noxious weeds, and if there is a moderate or high risk of spread, actions to reduce the risk must be implemented and monitoring of the site must be conducted to prevent establishment of new infestations.

Project Planning

 Incorporate prevention measures into project layout and design, alternative evaluation, and project decisions to prevent the introduction or spread of weeds.  Determine prevention and maintenance needs, including the use of herbicides, at the onset of project planning.  Before ground-disturbing activities begin, inventory weed infestations and prioritize areas for treatment in project operating areas and along access routes.  Remove sources of weed seed and propagules to prevent the spread of existing weeds and new weed infestations.  Pre-treat high-risk sites for weed establishment and spread before implementing projects.  Post-weed awareness messages and prevention practices at strategic locations such as trailheads, roads, boat launches, and public land kiosks. Coordinate project activities with nearby herbicide applications to maximize the cost-effectiveness of weed treatments.

Project Development

 Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives.  Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment.  To prevent weed germination and establishment, retain native vegetation in and around project activity areas and keep soil disturbance to a minimum, consistent with project objectives.

184

 Locate and use weed-free project staging areas. Avoid or minimize all types of travel through weed-infested areas, or restrict travel to periods when the spread of seeds or propagules is least likely.  Prevent the introduction and spread of weeds caused by moving weed-infested sand, gravel, borrow, and fill material.  Inspect material sources on site, and ensure that they are weed-free before use and transport. Treat weed-infested sources to eradicate weed seed and plant parts, and strip and stockpile contaminated material before any use of pit material.  Survey the area where material from treated weed-infested sources is used for at least 3 years after project completion to ensure that any weeds transported to the site are promptly detected and controlled.  Prevent weed establishment by not driving through weed-infested areas.  Inspect and document weed establishment at access roads, cleaning sites, and all disturbed areas; control infestations to prevent spread within the project area.  Avoid acquiring water for dust abatement where access to the water is through weed- infested sites.  Identify sites where equipment can be cleaned. Clean equipment before entering public lands.  Clean all equipment before leaving the project site if operating in areas infested with weeds.  Inspect and treat weeds that establish at equipment cleaning sites.  Ensure that rental equipment is free of weed seed.

Conservation Measures from the PEIS Biological Assessment Mitigation Measures (above) include “when necessary to protect Special Status [plant/fish/wildlife species], implement all conservation measures for [plant/fish/wildlife species] presented in the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Biological Assessment” (USDI 2007f). Those Conservation Measures are presented here for use with Special Status species as needed.

Plant Conservation Measures As dictated in BLM Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management), local BLM offices are required to develop and implement management plans and programs that will conserve listed species and their habitats. In addition, NEPA documentation related to treatment activities (i.e., projects) will be prepared that identify any TEP plant species or their critical habitat that are present in the proposed treatment areas, and that list the measures that will be taken to protect them. Many local BLM offices already have management plans in place that ensure the protection of these plant species during activities on public land. However, a discussion of these existing plans is outside the scope of this programmatic BA. The following general guidance applies to all management plans developed at the local level.

185

Required steps include the following:

 A survey of all areas within potential habitat by a botanically qualified biologist, botanist, or ecologist to determine the presence/absence of the species.  Establishment of site-specific no activity buffers by a qualified botanist, biologist, or ecologist in areas of occupied habitat within the proposed project area. To protect occupied habitat, treatment activities would not occur within these buffers.  Collection of baseline information on the existing condition of TEP plant species and their habitats in the proposed project area.  Establishment of pre-treatment monitoring programs to track the size and vigor of TEP populations and the state of their habitats. These monitoring programs would help in anticipating the future effects of vegetation treatments on TEP plant species.  Assessment of the need for site revegetation post treatment to minimize the opportunity for noxious weed invasion and establishment. At a minimum, the following must be included in all management plans:

 Off-highway use of motorized vehicles associated with treatments should be avoided in suitable or occupied habitat.  Post-treatment monitoring should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the project.

In addition, the following guidance must be considered in all management plans in which herbicide treatments are proposed to minimize or avoid risks to TEP species. The exact conservation measures to be included in management plans would depend on the herbicide that would be used, the desired mode of application, and the conditions of the site. Given the potential for off-site drift and surface runoff, populations of TEP species on lands not administered by the BLM would need to be considered if they are located near proposed herbicide treatment sites.

 Herbicide treatments should not be conducted in areas where TEP plant species may be subject to direct spray by herbicides during treatments.  Applicators should review, understand, and conform to the “Environmental Hazards” section on herbicide labels (this section warns of known pesticide risks and provides practical ways to avoid harm to organisms or the environment).  To avoid negative effects to TEP plant species from off-site drift, surface runoff, and/or wind erosion, suitable buffer zones should be established between treatment sites and populations (confirmed or suspected) of TEP plant species, and site-specific precautions should be taken (refer to the guidance provided below).  Follow all instructions and Standard Operating Procedures to avoid spill and direct spray scenarios into aquatic habitats that support TEP plant species.  Follow all BLM operating procedures for avoiding herbicide treatments during climatic conditions that would increase the likelihood of spray drift or surface runoff.

The following conservation measures refer to sites where broadcast spraying of herbicides, either by ground or aerial methods, is desired. Manual spot treatment of undesirable vegetation can

186

occur within the listed buffer zones if it is determined by local biologists that this method of herbicide application would not pose risks to TEP plant species in the vicinity. Additional precautions during spot treatments of vegetation within habitats where TEP plant species occur should be considered while planning local treatment programs, and should be included as conservation measures in local-level NEPA documentation. The buffer distances provided below are conservative estimates, based on the information provided by ERAs, and are designed to provide protection to TEP plants. Some ERAs used regression analysis to predict the smallest buffer distance to ensure no risks to TEP plants. In most cases, where regression analyses were not performed, suggested buffers extend out to the first modeled distance from the application site for which no risks were predicted. In some instances the jump between modeled distances was quite large (e.g., 100 feet to 900 feet). Regression analyses could be completed at the local level using the interactive spreadsheets developed for the ERAs, using information in ERAs and for local site conditions (e.g., soil type, annual precipitation, vegetation type, and treatment method), to calculate more precise, and possibly smaller buffers for some herbicides. Imazapic

 Do not apply by ground methods within 25 feet of terrestrial TEP species or aquatic habitats where TEP plant species occur.  Do not apply by helicopter at the typical application rate within 25 feet of terrestrial TEP plant species.  Do not apply by helicopter at the maximum application rate, or by plane at the typical application rate, within 300 feet of terrestrial TEP plant species.  Do not apply by plane at the maximum application rate within 900 feet of terrestrial TEP species.  Do not apply by aerial methods at the maximum application rate within 300 feet of aquatic TEP species.  Do not apply by aerial methods at the typical application rate within 100 feet of aquatic TEP species.  In areas where wind erosion is likely, do not apply within ½ mile of TEP plant species.

The information in this appendix provides a general guideline as to the types of habitats in which treatments (particularly fire) may be utilized to improve growing conditions for TEP plant species. However, at the local level, the BLM must make a further determination as to the suitability of vegetation treatments for the populations of TEP species that are managed by local offices. The following information should be considered: the timing of the treatment in relation to the phenology of the TEP plant species; the intensity of the treatment; the duration of the treatment; and the tolerance of the TEP species to the particular type of treatment to be used. When information about species tolerance is unavailable or is inconclusive, local offices must assume a negative effect to plant populations, and protect those populations from direct exposure to the treatment in question. Treatment plans must also address the presence of and expected impacts on noxious weeds on the project site. These plans must be coordinated with BLM weed experts and/or appropriate

187

county weed supervisors to minimize the spread of weeds. In order to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and other unwanted vegetation in occupied or suitable habitat, the following precautions should be taken:

 Cleared areas that are prone to downy brome or other noxious weed invasions should be seeded with an appropriate seed mixture to reduce the probability of noxious weeds or other undesirable plants becoming established on the site.  Where seeding is warranted, bare sites should be seeded as soon as appropriate after treatment, and at a time of year when it is likely to be successful.  In suitable habitat for TEP species, nonnative species should not be used for revegetation.  Certified noxious weed seed free seed must be used in suitable habitat, and preference should be given to seeding appropriate plant species when rehabilitation is appropriate.  Straw and hay bales used for erosion control in suitable habitat must be certified weed- and seed-free.  Vehicles and heavy equipment used during treatment activities should be washed prior to arriving at a new location to avoid the transfer of noxious weeds.

Conservation Measures for Site Access and Fueling/Equipment Maintenance For treatments occurring in watersheds with TEP species or designated or undesignated critical habitat (i.e., unoccupied habitat critical to species recovery):

 Where feasible, access work site only on existing roads, and limit all travel on roads when damage to the road surface will result or is occurring.  Where TEP aquatic species occur, consider ground-disturbing activities on a case by case basis, and implement Standard Operating Procedures to ensure minimal erosion or impact to the aquatic habitat.  Within riparian areas, do not use vehicle equipment off of established roads.  Outside of riparian areas, allow driving off of established roads only on slopes of 20% or less.  Except in emergencies, land helicopters outside of riparian areas.  Within 150 feet of wetlands or riparian areas, do not fuel/refuel equipment, store fuel, or perform equipment maintenance (locate all fueling and fuel storage areas, as well as service landings outside of protected riparian areas).  Prior to helicopter fueling operations prepare a transportation, storage, and emergency spill plan and obtain the appropriate approvals; for other heavy equipment fueling operations use a slip-tank not greater than 250 gallons; Prepare spill containment and cleanup provisions for maintenance operations.  Do not conduct biomass removal (harvest) activities that will alter the timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows outside the range of natural variability.

188

Conservation Measures Related to Herbicide Treatments The complexity of this action within riparian areas requires local consultation, which will be based on herbicide risk assessments. Possible Conservation Measures:

 Maintain equipment used for transportation, storage, or application of chemicals in a leak proof condition.  Do not store or mix herbicides, or conduct post-application cleaning within riparian areas.  Ensure that trained personnel monitor weather conditions at spray times during application.  Strictly enforce all herbicide labels.  Do not broadcast spray within 100 feet of open water when wind velocity exceeds 5 mph.  Do not broadcast spray when wind velocity exceeds 10 mph.  Do not spray if precipitation is occurring or is imminent (within 24 hours).  Do not spray if air turbulence is sufficient to affect the normal spray pattern.  Do not broadcast spray herbicides in riparian areas that provide habitat for TEP aquatic species. Appropriate buffer distances should be determined at the local level to ensure that overhanging vegetation that provides habitat for TEP species is not removed from the site. Follow all instructions and Standard Operating Procedures to avoid spill and direct spray scenarios into aquatic habitats.

Amphibians and Reptiles Conservation Measures Many local BLM offices already have management plans in place that ensure the protection of these species during activities on public lands. In addition, the following conservation measures are the minimum steps required of the BLM to ensure that treatment methods would be unlikely to negatively affect TEP species. Conservation measures:

 Survey all areas that may support TEP amphibians and/or reptiles prior to treatments.  In habitats where aquatic herpetofauna occur, implement all conservation measures identified for aquatic organisms in Chapter 3.  Within riparian areas, wetlands, and aquatic habitats, conduct herbicide treatments only with herbicides that are approved for use in those areas.  Do not broadcast spray herbicides in riparian areas or wetlands that provide habitat for TEP herpetofauna.  When conducting herbicide treatments in upland areas adjacent to aquatic or wetland habitats that support TEP herpetofauna, do not broadcast spray during conditions under which off-site drift is likely.  Follow all instructions and Standard Operating Procedures to avoid spill and direct spray scenarios into aquatic habitats that support TEP herpetofauna.

189

General Riparian, Aquatic and Stream Conservation Measures Related to Fisheries

 Implement Standard Operating Procedures to minimize sedimentation and disturbance of riparian, estuarine, and coastal vegetation.  To avoid erosion and future recreational uses within close vicinity of aquatic areas, limit or exclude construction of new permanent or temporary roads within the boundary of treatment riparian areas.  Where possible, to avoid increased instream sedimentation, choose low-intensity burns and manual treatment methods over mechanical treatment methods and use of domestic animals.

General Herbicide Treatment Conservation Measures Related to Fisheries

 Where feasible, minimize spray operations around aquatic habitats to days when winds are > 10 miles per hour for ground applications, and > 6 miles per hours for aerial applications, to avoid wind drift or direct application of herbicides into these habitats.  Where feasible, minimize the use of terrestrial herbicides (especially bromacil, diuron, and tebuthiuron) in watersheds with downgradient ponds and streams if potential impacts to salmonids are of concern.

190

Table A-1: Summary of Environmental Effects of Use of Imazapic

Resource Proposed Herbicide: Imazapic Target Target Vegetation Areas Soils Imazapic is moderately persistent in soils and has not been found to Medusahead, Roadsides, move laterally with surface water. Most imazapic is lost through Cheatgrass, Rangelands, (BLM 2010a, p. biodegradation. Sorption to soil increases with decreasing pH and African ROWs 182-184) increasing organic matter and clay content. The project area has wiregrass relatively high pH and clay content. (Ventenata) Water Quality, Imazapic has low potential to leach into the groundwater. Riparian, and Imazapic would have very high water solubility and negligible to Wetlands slight potential for transport in surface runoff, due to its adsorption (BLM 2010a, potential with soil and organic matter. In addition, imazapic is pp. 197 & 212, rapidly degraded by sunlight in aqueous solution, with a half-life of and 224) one or two days. In aquatic systems, imazapic rapidly photodegrades with a half-life of 1 to 2 days (Tu et al. 2001). Aquatic dissipation half-lives have been reported from 30 days (water column) to 6.7 years in anaerobic sediments (SERA 2004c). Little is known about the occurrence, fate, or transport of imazapic in surface water or groundwater (Battaglin et al. 2000). However, according to the herbicide label for Plateau, in which imazapic is the active ingredient, it is believed to be a groundwater contaminant (BASF 2008). Imazapic risk to aquatic plants from accidental spills of imazapic is moderate to high at the maximum application rate and low to moderate at the typical application rate (there is no acute risk to aquatic plants in standing water at the typical application rate). Aquatic plants are generally not at risk from off-site drift of imazapic, except when applied aerially at the maximum application rate with a buffer of 100 feet or less; a buffer of 300 feet for streams occupied by bull trout. Imazapic, an ALS-inhibitor, is a selective, systemic herbicide. It would not be used for treatment of aquatic vegetation, but could be used in riparian areas.

Due to these characteristics and the SOPs that would be employed, impacts to water resources impacts are not anticipated to be significant from proposed imazapic applications. Fish and Other Imazapic would be moderately toxic to fish, but is not proposed for Aquatic aquatic use. Resources The average half-life for imazapic in a pond is 30 days, and this herbicide has little tendency to bioaccumulate in fish (Barker et al. (BLM 2010a, p. 1998). According to the manufacturer’s label, imazapic has a high 225) runoff potential from soils for several months or more after application. Accidental direct spray and spill scenarios generally pose no risk to fish when imazapic is applied at either the typical or maximum application rate. Risk Assessments show fish are not at risk from off-site drift or surface runoff of imazapic. No treatment will take place directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present with this herbicide. Adjuvants will be used to minimize drift and help bind the herbicide to the site of application.

191

References for Appendix A

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2007a. Record of Decision and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2007b. Final Biological Assessment for Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2007c. Final Programmatic Environmental Report for Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2010. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon.. s.l.:s.n.

192

APPENDIX B: MAPS

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

APPENDIX C: VISUAL CONTRAST RATING WORKSHEET

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221