DOCSLIB.ORG

Blue Mountains National Forests Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blue Mountains National Forests Proposed Revised Land Management Plan United States Department of Agriculture Blue Mountains National Forests Proposed Revised Land Management Plan Malheur, Umatilla, and Forest Service Wallowa-Whitman National Forests February 2014 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Proposed Revised Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests Baker, Crook, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler Counties, Oregon Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, and Walla Walla Counties, Washington Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agencies: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla County, Oregon Umatilla Indian Reservation Union County, Oregon State of Oregon Wallowa County, Oregon Baker County, Oregon Wheeler County, Oregon Grant County, Oregon Asotin County, Washington Harney County, Oregon Columbia County, Morrow County, Oregon Washington Garfield County, Washington Responsible Official: Kent Connaughton, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 1220 SW 3rd Avenue Portland, OR 97208 For Information Contact: Sabrina Stadler, Forest Plan Revision Team Blue Mountains National Forest 1550 Dewey Ave. Baker City, OR 97814 (541) 523-1264 Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMtnsPlanRevision Email: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMountainForestPlanRevisionComments Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Land Management Plan ....................................................................................... 1 Legal Framework ......................................................................................................................... 2 Decisions of a Forest Plan ........................................................................................................... 3 Decision Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 4 Best Available Science ................................................................................................................ 4 Organization of the Forest Plan ................................................................................................... 4 Consistency with Plan Components ............................................................................................ 9 Part 1 – Vision .............................................................................................................................. 10 Geographical Location .............................................................................................................. 10 Roles and Contributions of the Blue Mountains National Forests ............................................ 12 Unique Physical and Biological Characteristics ........................................................................ 12 Social and Economic Characteristics ........................................................................................ 13 Management Challenges............................................................................................................ 15 Considering Climate Change in Designing Desired Conditions ............................................... 19 Goals and Desired Conditions ................................................................................................... 19 Part 2 – Strategy........................................................................................................................... 74 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 74 Special Areas ............................................................................................................................. 74 Suitability of Areas .................................................................................................................... 96 Management Focus .................................................................................................................... 96 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 103 Annual Anticipated Accomplishments for each National Forest ........................................... 108 Allowable Sale Quantity .......................................................................................................... 108 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan .............................................................................................. 109 Part 3 – Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 117 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 117 Forestwide Standards and Guidelines ...................................................................................... 117 Management Area Standards and Guidelines .......................................................................... 130 Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation ........................................................ 145 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 145 Benchmark Analysis ................................................................................................................ 145 Current Level of Goods and Services Provided by the Unit ................................................... 146 Projections of Demand for Goods and Services ...................................................................... 147 Determination of the Potential to Resolve Public Issues and Management Concerns ............ 149 Determination of the Need to Establish or Change Management Direction ........................... 149 References ................................................................................................................................... 151 Proposed Revised Land Management Plan for the Blue Mountains National Forests i Contents Tables Table 1. Terrestrial and aquatic focal and management indicator species ..................................... 31 Table 2. Desired conditions for wildland fire* severity and frequency within each potential vegetation group ............................................................................................................... 34 Table 3. Desired conditions for forested structural stages, described as a percent of each upland forest or woodland potential vegetation group ...................................................... 37 Table 4. Desired conditions for species composition, described as a percent of each upland forest or woodland potential vegetation group ................................................................. 40 Table 5. Desired conditions for stand density, described as a percent of each upland forest or woodland potential vegetation group ................................................................................ 41 Table 6. Desired Conditions for age and structural composition of aspen (Swanson et al. 2010) ................................................................................................................................. 46 Table 7. Ranges of down wood (desired condition) ...................................................................... 49 Table 8. Desired percentage ranges across the landscape of snags (dead trees) per acre 10 inches d.b.h. and greater and less than 20 inches d.b.h. .................................................... 49 Table 9. Desired percentage ranges across the landscape of snags (dead trees) per acre 20 inches d.b.h. and greater ................................................................................................... 49 Table 10. Scenic integrity levels and scenic stability levels (desired condition) ........................... 52 Table 11. Management area designation, name, and acreage for each national forest (2F and 2G show miles) ................................................................................................................. 75 Table 12. Designated wilderness areas for each national forest .................................................... 76 Table 13. Miles of designated wild and scenic rivers for each national forest .............................. 78 Table 14. Miles of eligible wild and scenic rivers for each national forest ................................... 79 Table 15. Miles of suitable wild and scenic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL and WQMP
    Water Quality Report Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) September 2010 Last Updated: 09/2010 DEQ 10-WQ-023 This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Primary Authors: John Dadoly and Ryan Michie For more information contact: John Dadoly, Basin Coordinator 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4616 [email protected] Cheryll Hutchens-Woods, Water Quality Manager Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4619 [email protected] Eugene Foster, Manager of Watershed Management Section Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 229-5325 [email protected] Malheur River Basin TMDL September 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Scope of TMDL Chapter 3 Basin Assessment Chapter 4 Pollutant Sources Chapter 5 Summary of Current and Past Pollution Control Efforts Chapter 6 Dissolved Oxygen, Chlorophyll a, pH, and Phosphorus Chapter 7 Bacteria Chapter 8 Pesticides Chapter 9 Temperature Water Quality Management Plan Appendix A Bacteria TMDL Technical Information Appendix B Temperature TMDL Technical Data Appendix C Baseline Beneficial Use Status of the Malheur River Basin Appendix D Quality Assurance Project Plan/Sample & Analysis Plan: Malheur River Basin TMDL Nutrient Water Quality Study
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness Protection in the Blue Mountain Ecoregion Have Been Identified by the Nature Conservancy As Vital to Protect Biodiversity in the Area
    172 OREGON WILD Neither Cascades nor Rockies, but With Attributes of Both Blue Mountains Ecoregion xtending from Oregon’s East Cascades Slopes and Foothills to the from 30 to 130 days depending on elevation. The forests are home to Rocky Mountain intersection of Oregon, Idaho and Washington, the 15.3 million acres elk, mule deer, black bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, beaver, marten, raccoon, fisher, of the Blue Mountains Ecoregion in Oregon are a conglomeration of pileated woodpecker, golden eagle, chickadee and nuthatch, as well as various species Emountain ranges, broad plateaus, sparse valleys, spectacular river canyons of hawks, woodpeckers, owls and songbirds. Wolves, long absent from Oregon, are and deep gorges. The highest point is the Matterhorn that rises to 9,832 making their return to the state in this ecoregion. Individuals from packs reintroduced feet in the Wallowa Mountains. The ecoregion extends into southeastern Washington in nearby Idaho are dispersing into Oregon. Fish species include bull and rainbow and west central Idaho. trout, along with numerous stocks of Pacific salmon species. Most of the mountain ranges in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion are volcanic. The Depending on precipitation, aspect, soil type, elevation, fire history and other Crooked River separates the Maury Mountains from the Ochoco Mountains, which are factors, one generally finds various combinations of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodge- separated from the Aldrich Mountains by the South Fork John Day River. The Aldrich pole, western larch, juniper and Engelmann spruce throughout the Blue Mountains. Mountains are separated from the Strawberry Mountain Range by Canyon Creek. Beginning approximately at the Lower Deschutes River and rising eastward, the These ranges generally run east-west.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains Region
    1 Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains Region Editors Jessica E. Halofsky is a research ecologist, University of Washington, College of the Environment, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195- 2100; David. L. Peterson is a senior research biological scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N. 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. 2 Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains Region J.E. Halofsky and D.L. Peterson Editors U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-xxxx Month year 3 Abstract Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L., eds. 2016. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Blue Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-xxx. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Xxx p. The Blue Mountains Adaptation Partnership (BMAP) is a science-management partnership consisting of Malheur National Forest, Umatilla National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Pacific Northwest Region, the University of Washington, and the Climate Impacts Research Consortium at Oregon State University. These organizations worked together over a period of two years to identify climate change issues relevant to resource management in the Blue Mountains region and to find solutions that can minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. The BMAP provided education, conducted a climate change vulnerability assessment, and developed adaptation options for federal agencies that manage 2.1 million hectares in northeast Oregon, southeast Washington, and a small portion of southwest Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Assessment Report
    Source Water Assessment Report City of Hermiston, Oregon PWS #4100372 August 26, 2003 Prepared for City ofHenniston · Prepared by I•l :(•1 Stale of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Drinking Water Protection Program Drinking Water Program Department of Environmental Quality reg on 811 SW Sixth Avenue 111eodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Portland, OR 97204-1390 503-229-5696 TTY 503-229-6993 August 26, 2003 Pat Napolitano City of Hermiston 180 NE 2nd Street Hermiston, Oregon 97838 RE: Source Water Assessment Report City of Hermiston PWS # 4100372 Dear Mr. Napolitano: Enclosed is the Source Water Assessment Report for the surface water portion of City of Hermiston' s drinking water protection area. A source water assessment report for the groundwater supply will be addressed in a separate report. The assessment was prepared under the requirements and guidance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan developed by a statewide citizen's advisory committee here in Oregon over the past two years. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) are conducting the assessments for all public water systems in Oregon. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water system staff/operator, consumers, and community citizens can begin developing strategies to protect your source of drinking water. Oregon's obligation is to conduct the Source Water Assessments for the watershed area upstream of the intake to the state border. The water system and DEQ should consider coordinating with adjacent states to ensure consistency in the delineation and susceptibility methods beyond the state border prior to protection planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL Response to Public Comments
    MALHEUR RIVER BASIN TMDL AND WATER QUALITY MANGEMENT PLAN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS September 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Malheur River Basin TMDL & WQMP: Response To Comments September 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Response to Comments ......................................................................................................................... 3 Response to Jim Bentz’s Comments ........................................................................................................ 3 Responses to BLM Vale and Burns District Comments ............................................................................ 4 Response to Bureau of Reclamation Comments .................................................................................... 20 Response to EPA Region 10 Comments ................................................................................................ 25 Response to Ken Freese’s Comments .................................................................................................... 25 Response to Harney County Court Comments ....................................................................................... 26 Response to Harney Watershed Council Comments .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Bull Trout Final\WPD Final\Chapter 14 Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon
    Chapter: 14 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Malheur Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. 71 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Members of the Malheur Recovery Unit Team who assisted in the preparation of this chapter include: Wayne Bowers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Jason Fenton, Burns Paiute Tribe Tom Friedrichsen, U. S. Forest Service, Burns Ranger District Dan Gonzalez, Burns Paiute Tribe Gina Lampman, Bureau of Land Management Sam Lohr, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Union County Community Sensitivity and Resilience
    Union County Community Sensitivity and Resilience This section documents the community’s sensitivity factors, or those community assets and characteristics that may be impacted by natural hazards, (e.g., special populations, economic factors, and historic and cultural resources). It also identifies the community’s resilience factors, or the community’s ability to manage risk and adapt to hazard event impacts (e.g., governmental structure, agency missions and directives, and plans, policies, and programs). The information in this section represents a snapshot in time of the current sensitivity and resilience factors in the community when the plan was developed. The information documented below, along with the findings of the risk assessment, should be used as the local level rationale for the risk reduction actions identified in Section 6 – Mission, Goals, and Action Items. The identification of actions that reduce a community’s sensitivity and increase its resilience assist in reducing the community’s overall risk, or the area of overlap in Figure G.1 below. Figure G.1 Understanding Risk Source: Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup, 2006. Northeast Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Page G-1 Community Sensitivity Factors The following list documents the key community sensitivity factors in Union County. Population • Union County has minimal population growth (1.7% between 2000 and 2005), and an increasing number of persons aged 65 and above (16% in 2005 and an expected 20% in 2025). Elderly individuals require special consideration due to their sensitivities to heat and cold, their reliance upon transportation for medications, and their comparative difficulty in making home modifications that reduce risk to hazards.
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork Malheur River for the National Wild
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Valeg District Office 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918 September 1993 North Fork Malheur River Final Eligbility Study Report for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLM/OR/W A/PL-93/44+ 1792 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Vale District Office ®- - IN REPLYREFER- TO:. 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918 8354 N. F. Malheur September 2, 1993 Dear Interested Citizen: The Final Eligibility Study Report for the congressionally designated North Fork Malheur Study River finds the river meets the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The report incorporates the pertinent information received during a 30-day public comment period ending October 23, 1992 on the draft study report and information we have gathered since completing the draft report. The primary purpose of the report is to determine if the study river, or any portion of it, is "free flowing" and possesses any "outstandingly remarkable values", as described in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance of Redband Trout Oncorhynchus Mykiss in the Malheur River Basin, 2007
    Distribution and Abundance of Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Malheur River Basin, 2007 Brian Bangs, Stephanie Gunckel and Steve Jacobs Native Fish Investigations Project Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife June 2008 This project was partially financed with funds administered by the Burns Paiute Tribe, ODFW Agreement Number 799002-00 and the Sport Fish Restoration Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Project F-126-R-20. Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area......................................................................................................................... 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 4 Site Outcome .............................................................................................................................4 Density and Population Estimates ..........................................................................................5 Length Frequency Analysis .....................................................................................................9 Physical Habitat ........................................................................................................................9 Occurrence of Other Fish
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur National Forest PROGRAM of WORK
    Malheur National Forest PROGRAM OF WORK 2018 This page intentionally left blank Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2017 Forest Statistics and Accomplishments Summary ..................................................................................... 3 Protecting Sacred Site ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Restoring First Foods .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Forest-wide ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Map: Forest-wide Projects ................................................................................................................................ 11 Forest-wide Ongoing Project Update ............................................................................................................... 13 Forest Plan Revision: Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur National Forests ............................................... 17 LIDAR Acquisition and Expansion: Crow Project............................................................................................... 18 Blue Mountain Ranger District ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality of the Malheur Lake System and Malheur River, and Simulated Water-Quality Effects of Routing Malheur Lake Water Into Malheur River, Oregon, 1984-85
    WATER QUALITY OF THE MALHEUR LAKE SYSTEM AND MALHEUR RIVER, AND SIMULATED WATER-QUALITY EFFECTS OF ROUTING MALHEUR LAKE WATER INTO MALHEUR RIVER, OREGON, 1984-85 By L.A. Fuste' and S.W. McKenzie U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4202 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS and the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Portland, Oregon 1987 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY] Dallas L. Peck, Directdr For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: Oregon Office Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports 847 N.E. 19th Avenue, Suite 300 Federal Center, Building 810 Portland, Oregon 97232 Box 25425 Denver, Colorado 80225 11 CONTENTS Page Abstract----------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction------------------------------------------------------- 2 Obj ectives---------------------------------------------------- 2 Geographic and geologic setting------------------------------- 2 Generalized hydrology and historic conditions ----------------- 4 Harney Basin--------------------------------------------- 4 Malheur River basin-------------------------------------- 5 Acknowledgments ----------------------------------------------- 5 Water quality of Malheur Lake system and Malheur River basin------- 7 Malheur Lake system------------------------------------------- 7 Background----------------------------------------------- 7 Data collection program----------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • 57. Survey of the Columbia River and Its Tributaries
    SURVEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES - Part VIII SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT: FISHERIES No. 57 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Explanatory Note The series embodies results of investigations, usually of restricted scope, intended to aid or direct management or utilization practices and as guides for administrative or legislative action. It is issued in limited quantities for the official use of Federal, State or cooperating agencies and in processed form for economy and to avoid delay in publication. Washington, D. C. December 195>0 United States Department of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary- Fish and Wildlife Service Albert M. Hey, Director SURVEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER ANT) ITS TRIBUTARIES - - PART 8 Area VII. Snake River, above Payette River to upper Salmon Falls By Zell E. Parkhurst Fishery Research Biologist Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 57 . CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 List of Streams The Survey 5 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Columbia River System 3 2 Irea VII • 4 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Columbia River Stream Survey has been to pro- vide data for the evaluation of each stream, or portion of stream, from the standpoint of its present and potential value in relation to the maintenance of the salmon resources of the Columbia River The Columbia River watershed has been divided into several survey areas or units as shown in Figure 1 This report deals with the streams in Area VII. Area VII includes the Snake River and its tributaries from a point above the mouth of the Payette River to Upper Salmon Falls. The area begins approximately 3S>7 miles above the mouth of the Snake River and extends for a distance of approximately 216 miles upstream.
    [Show full text]