BLM Vale District October 20052011

Volume 3 Appendices, Literature Cited, Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms

and Environmental Impact Statement Impact Environmental and Department Interior of U.S. Management Land of Bureau Baker Field Office Office Field Baker Plan Management Resource Draft As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. Prepared by Baker Resource Area Vale District October 2011

Edward W. Shepard State Director. Oregon/Washington

Don Gonzalez District Manager Vale District Office

Ted Davis Field Manager Baker Resource Area Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Table of Contents Table of Contents

VOLUME 3

List of Appendices Chapter 1 Appendix 1.1. Laws, Regulations, And Policies that Apply to all Alternatives Chapter 2 Appendix 2.1. Best Management Practices Appendix 2.2. Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy Appendix 2.3. Livestock Grazing Systems Appendix 2.4. Sagebrush Structure and Canopy Closure Appendix 2.5. Determining Stocking Carrying Capacity Appendix 2.6. Process for Relinquishment Of Preference Appendix 2.7. Recreation Management Areas Appendix 2.8. Extensive Recreation Management Area (Erma) Direction Appendix 2.9. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Monitoring Form Chapter 3 Appendix 3.1. 303(D) Listed Streams Within The Decision Area Appendix 3.2. Comparison Between Rangeland Health Assessment and the Ironside Ecosite Inventory Appendix 3.3. Sensitive Plant Species Appendix 3.4. Fragstats Analysis of the Baker Subpopulation of Greater Sage-Grouse Appendix 3.5. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Appendix 3.6. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington Appendix 3.7. 2010 Progress Report On Evaluations and Determinations of Rangeland Health by Allotment and Management Category Appendix 3.8. Details on the Communication Sites Currently Located in the Decision Area Appendix 3.9. Vale District Office Inventory of Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Baker Resource Management Plan Planning Area

Literature Cited ...... LC-1 Glossary ...... G-1 Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... AA-1

TOC-1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies APPENDIX 1.1 - LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

Table of Contents

A. Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Apply to all Resources and Resource Uses ...... 1 B. Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Apply to Specific Resources and Resource Uses ...... 1 1. Climate ...... 1 2. Air quality ...... 1 3. Water Resources ...... 2 4. Soil Resources...... 3 5. Vegetative Communities ...... 4 6. Noxious Weeds ...... 4 7. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species ...... 4 8. Fire and Fuels Management ...... 8 9. Cultural Resources ...... 14 10. Paleontological Resources ...... 16 11. Visual Resources ...... 17 12. Cave and Karst Resources ...... 17 c. Resource Uses ...... 18 1. Forestry and Woodland Products ...... 18 2. Livestock Grazing ...... 19 3. Minerals ...... 20 4. Recreation ...... 21 5. Renewable Energy ...... 22 6. Lands and Realty ...... 22 d. Special Designations ...... 23 1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ...... 23 2. Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 23 3. Wilderness Study Areas ...... 23 e. Social and Economic Conditions ...... 24 1. Tribal Interests ...... 24 2. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 26 3. Public Safety ...... 27

Appendices 1.1 – p. i Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies APPENDIX 1.1: LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES THAT APPLY TO ALL ALTERNATIVES A. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES THAT APPLY TO ALL RESOURCES AND RESOURCE USES

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, 43 USC. 1701 et seq., provides the authority for BLM land use planning. The act mandates that public lands be managed for multiple uses in a manner that protects ecological values, maintains their natural condition, and provides food and habitat for wildlife. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. This includes the consideration of alternatives and mitigation of impacts. Executive Order 13352 of 2004 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation), directs Federal agencies to implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative conservation, with an emphasis on appropriate inclusion of local participation in Federal decision making, in accordance with their respective agency missions, policies, and regulations.

B. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES THAT APPLY TO SPECIFIC RESOURCES AND RESOURCE USES

1. Climate

Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3221, Amendment No. 1 (January 16, 2009) directs department bureaus and offices to consider and analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises, which includes RMPs.

2. Air quality

Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders The Clean Air Act, as amended (1990), 42 U.S.C. 7418, requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air pollution. This includes abiding by the requirements of state implementation plans. The following sections of the Act apply to this planning process: Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Section 109) State Implementation Plans (Section 110) Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities (Section 118) Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including visibility impacts to mandatory federal Class I Areas (Section 160 et. seq.)

Appendices 1.1 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Conformity Analyses and Determinations (Section 176(c))

Policies United States Department of Interior (DOI) Manual (910 DM 1.3) 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 2001 Updated Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy update) 1998 Departmental Manual 620 Chapter 1, Wildland Fire Management General Policy and Procedures Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 43 (1610) (BLM’s planning guidance and regulations)/BLM Manual 1601 Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations: As amended annually, describes policy and operations for all fire-related activities in the DOI and US Department of Agriculture (USDA). BLM Manual Section 9214, Prescribed Fire Management (1988), and BLM Handbook 9214 (2000): Describes the authority and policy for prescribed fire use on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management

Other Vale District Fire Management Plan (BLM 2009)

State Laws and Regulations OAR 340-200-0040, State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan: This implementation plan contains control strategies, rules, and standards prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon Statute 477.013 Smoke Management Plan: This plans places management of smoke under the authority of the State Forester and the Department of Environmental Quality and takes into consideration weather, volume of material to be burned, distance of the burning from designated areas, burning techniques, and provisions for cessation of further burning under adverse air quality conditions.

3. Water Resources

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1323, requires the Federal land manager to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any non-governmental entity. The Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 201, is designed to make the Nation’s waters “drinkable” as well as “swimable.” Amendments establish a direct connection between safe drinking water, watershed protection, and management. The Public Water Reserve No. 107 was signed by President Calvin Coolidge on April 17, 1926. The order withdrew certain lands from settlement, location, sale, or entry, and reserved them for public use. The lands withdrawn are those in public ownership at the time of the act,

Appendices 1.1 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies and those with vacant, unappropriated land containing a spring or waterhole, and all land within one quarter of a mile of every spring or waterhole The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001) provides for conservation, protection and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources. The Floodplains and Wetlands Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 require BLM to avoid adverse impacts to floodplains and wetlands. ORS 390.835(2) sets rules for dredging in State Scenic Waterways. This law requires a permit for any dredging, regardless of the amount, from the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL). In other waters, a permit is required only for movement of more than 50 cubic yards. Also, suction dredging in SSWs may not: a) divert a waterway or obstruct fish passage; b) include nozzling outside the wet perimeter; c) move boulders or logs from the wet perimeter, except by hand; d) disturb any woody plants; e) excavate from the streambank; f) fail to level pits and furrows outside the main channel; g) occur without a ODEQ discharge permit; h) occur on federal lands without permission; i) impede boating; j) operate within 500 feet of a home or campground between 6 pm and 8 am; or, k) operate within posted swimming areas. CFR 3809 regulates mineral exploration and development on public land is to prevent unnecessary andundue land degradation. BLM management is largely guided by the DOI Strategic Plan (2007 to 2012). Mission Goal Number One is to “Protect the nation’s natural, cultural, and heritage resources to “improve health of watersheds, landscapes, and marine resources that are DOI managed or influenced, consistent with obligations and state law regarding the allocation and use of water.” The first performance goal to measure success toward achieving this outcome is “…to achieve desired conditions on 90% of DOI managed stream/ shoreline miles where condition is known and as specified in management plans by 2012.” This is measured annually by accounting for a the miles of stream/shoreline achieving PFC. Taylor Grazing Act, 43 USC 315 was passed in 1934 to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range, and for other purposes.

4. Soil Resources

The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001) provides for conservation, protection and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies 5. Vegetative Communities

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington (USDI-BLM, 1997) provides direction to promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems, restore and improve public rangelands, and to provide sustainable resources to support the livestock industry. BLM’s National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (November 2004) contains guidance for the management of sagebrush plant communities for sage grouse conservation.

6. Noxious Weeds

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) provides that no federal agency shall authorize, fund or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk or harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. The Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PL 90-583 codified in 43 U.S. Code [USC] 1241) establishes legal guidance and responsibility for the management of weeds on federal lands. This law authorizes federal agencies to allow states to take weed control measures on federal lands. It authorizes the BLM to manage noxious weeds and to coordinate with other federal and state agencies in activities to eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of any noxious weeds on federal lands. The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 USC. 2814) provides for the designation of a lead office and a person trained in the management of undesirable plants; establishment and funding of an undesirable plant management program; completion and implementation of cooperative agreements with State agencies; and establishment of integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species. The Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004 established a program to provide assistance through states to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private lands. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 requires BLM to manage, maintain, and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible. Final Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. (BLM 2007)

7. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species

Federal Laws and Statutes Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16USC 1531 et seq.), as amended: Provisions of the ESA, as amended, apply to plants and animals that have been listed as endangered or threatened, those proposed for being listed, and designated and proposed critical habitat. The Act directs

Appendices 1.1 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies BLM to 1) conserve Threatened and Endangered Species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, and 2) not contribute to the need to list a species. Sikes Act of 1974, Title II (16 USC 670g et seq.), as amended: This Act directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to, in cooperation with the state agencies, develop, maintain, and coordinate programs for the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, and game species. Such conservation and rehabilitation programs shall include, but are not limited to, specific habitat improvement projects and related activities and adequate protection for species considered threatened or endangered. The Migratory Bird Act of 1929, as amended: This Act establishes federal responsibility to protect international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the USFWS, to regulate hunting of migratory birds. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan signed in 1986 between Canada and USA further sets population goals and how to achieve them. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended: This Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (MSA) as amended in 1996: This Act requires federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) of federally managed commercial fishery species. The BLM is required to consult on effects to Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, and Puget Sound pink salmon. The definition of EFH is “...those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to maturity.”

Federal/State Plans and Policies Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (USDA-FS & USDI-BLM 1995), commonly referred to as PACFISH, provides guidance for managing and monitoring grazing lands adjacent to streams where anadromous fish are present or potentially present. Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California. (USFS and BLM 1995). Eastside Draft EIS. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) 1(1):7 (USFS and BLM 1997a, 1997 b, 1997c); Scientific Findings. Supplemental Draft EIS, ICBEMP (USFS and BLM 2000); Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. ICBEMP (USFS and BLM 2003). Interagency MOU for the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Regions 1, 4, 6, Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Research Stations, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (USFS et al. 2002).

Appendices 1.1 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies BLM Manual 6521 – State Agencies: This manual updates the Bureau policies and procedure with State wildlife agencies with emphasis on wildlife-related work on public lands. BLM Manual 1745: This manual replaces the BLM manual section 6820, Wildlife Introduction and Transplants and transmits a revived BLM manual section. It expands the coverage to plants; provides for implementation of Executive Order 11987; and identifies key policies and guidelines for the planning, coordination, and execution of fish, wildlife, and plant introductions, transplants, augmentations, and reestablishment. It provides the basis to ensure that decisions made are ecologically sound and will not adversely impact ecosystems. BLM Manual 6600- Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plant Resource Inventory and Monitoring: This manual updates policy and programs guidance; identifies inventory and monitoring processes and standards; and establishes evaluation procedures. BLM Manual 66008/2/1990: Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plant Resource Inventory and Monitoring: This manual updates policy and programs guidance; identifies inventory and monitoring processes and standards; and establishes evaluation procedures. BLM Special Status Species Policy BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2001): It is the BLM’s policy to comply with the following stipulations: 1. Conserve federally listed and proposed threatened or endangered species and the habitats on which they depend. 2. Ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species (SSS) and do not contribute to the need to list any SSS, either under provisions of the ESA or other provisions of this policy. CA BLM Manual Supplement 6840.06 - BLM Sensitive Species Policy 3/25/1996: It is the BLM’s policy is to provide sensitive species with the same level of protection as is provided for candidate species in that is, to “ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed.” The Sensitive Species designation is normally used for species that occur on Bureau administered lands for which BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management. BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Species Management (BLM 2001): Policy guidance for sage-grouse habitat conservation is summarized in this manual. It provides national level policy direction, consistent with appropriate laws, for the conservation of special status species of animals and plants and the ecosystems on which they depend. Conservation in this Strategy, and consistent with 6840 policy, means the use of all methods and procedures necessary to improve the condition of special status species. National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004): The objective of this strategy is to manage public land in a manner that will maintain, enhance, and restore sage grouse habitats while providing for multiple uses public land. The following five goals will guide BLM’s implementation of the national strategy: 1. Develop a consistent and effective management framework for addressing conservation needs of Sage grouse on public lands.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies 2. Increase our understanding of resource conditions and priorities for maintaining and restoring habitat. 3. Expand available research and information that supports effective management of Sage grouse habitat. 4. Develop partnerships to enhance effective management of Sage grouse habitats. 5. Ensure leadership and resources are adequate to implement national and state-level Sage grouse habitat conservation strategies. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) covers the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, and Nevada. The Plan established recovery population goals, habitat management goals, and 47 management (recovery) zones. The High Cascades and Blue Mountain Zones (Zone 11 and 9, respectively) includes the Planning Area. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan described specific criteria for the Pacific Recovery Area (PRA) as necessary for delisting. Unity Reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan (USFS 1985): This plan remains in effect because, although the bald eagle has been delisted, it is considered a BLM sensitive species. Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (2006): Evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed action to develop a Wind Energy Development Program, including the adoption of policies and best management practices (BMPs) and the amendment of 52 BLM land use plans to address wind energy development. GOA Wind Power Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife (2005): Assesses (1) what available studies and experts have reported about the impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife in the United States and what can be done to mitigate or prevent such impacts, (2) the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in regulating wind power facilities, and (3) the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in protecting wildlife. Management Recommendations for Northern Goshawk in Southwestern United States Tech Manual RM-217 (USFS 1991): This manual provides technical guidelines on how we should manage habitat that could support goshawks. Furthermore, this manual has various management suggestions such as snags/acre, times to avoid logging, and habitat densities. Executive Order No. 13186 directs the BLM to protect, restore, enhance and manage habitat of migratory birds and prevent the loss or degradation of remaining habitats on BLM managed lands. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-050 provides interim guidance to enhance coordination and communication toward meeting the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Executive Order (EO) 13186. This interim management guidance establishes a consistent approach for addressing migratory bird populations and habitats when adopting, revising, or amending land use plans and when making project level implementation decisions until a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is established. Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-114 (BLM participation and support of development of State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy development), directs the BLM State Directors,

Appendices 1.1 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies District and Field Managers to consider State Wildlife Action Plans (also known as Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies) in land use and conservation planning on public lands. Executive Order # 13443 “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation” (2007) directs Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. Oregon Washington Special Status Species Policy, IM No. OR-91-57, issued 11/5/90, as amended by IM No. OR-91-57 change 1, issued 8/5/91, provides protection for plants which are not federally listed, proposed or candidates, and assigns these species to one of three lists: Bureau Sensitive, Assessment, and Tracking. The policy relies in part on the State of Oregon rules, which includes the Oregon Endangered Species Act, and lists prepared by the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base. Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2005) Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales: An example in southeast Oregon. (Karl, M. and J. Sadowski 2005) Oregon’s bighorn sheep and Rocky Mountain goat Management plan (ODFW 2003) Mule deer management plan (ODFW 2003b) Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002) Migratory Bird Management (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf) Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States (USFWS 2003) The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia): A Technical Conservation Assessment (McDonald et al. 2004) Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat (Hagen, C.A., ODF&W; 2005): The Baker Local Area Planning Group includes representatives from the Oregon Department of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, ranchers. In the future, this working group would encourage conservation groups, local minors, University’s, and the like to participate in sage-grouse decisions.

8. Fire and Fuels Management

Federal Laws and Statutes Protection Act of September 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 857; USC 594) Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of May 27, 1955 (69 Stat. 66; 42 USC 1856, 1856a) Economy Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 417; 31 USC 686) Disaster Relief Act, Section 417 (Public Law 93-288) Annual Appropriations Acts for the DOI The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974

Appendices 1.1 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Healthy Forest Restoration Act, December 2003 (PL 108-148)

Policies Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (USDI and USDA 2010) BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook H-1742-1 (BLM 2007) Department of Interior Departmental Manual 620 DM 3 (DOI 2004). 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDI and USDA 1995) 2001 Updated Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy update) (USDI and USDA 2001) 1998 Departmental Manual 620 Chapter 1, Wildland Fire Management General Policy and Procedures (DOI 1998) CFR Title 43 (1610) (BLM’s planning guidance and regulations), BLM Manual 1601 (BLM 2000)

BLM National Fire Policy 43 CFR 9212.0-6 Policy: It is the policy of the BLM to take all necessary actions to protect human life, the public lands, and the resources and improvements thereon through the prevention of wildfires. BLM Manual Section 9212, Fire Prevention (BLM 1992): Consistent with Departmental policy (910 DM 1.4), it is the BLM’s policy that: 1. Prevention of catastrophic wildfires is a high priority. Commitment to an effective wildfire prevention program is expected at all levels within the Bureau. 2. The wildfire prevention program shall be designed to minimize losses from fire consistent with resource objectives identified in the RMPs. 3. Wildfire prevention shall stress the analysis of risks, hazards, and values and the development of specific educational, engineering, enforcement, and administrative prevention actions. 4. Wildfire prevention activities shall be coordinated with all federal, state, county, and municipal agencies. 5. Each state and district office shall provide coordination, guidance, and assistance to achieve an aggressive wildfire prevention program and shall maintain and update as required a wildfire prevention plan integrated with the fire management planning process. 6. Wildfire Prevention Program funding shall be consistent with the identified needs as determined through a prevention analysis that is approved as an operational plan of the fire management plan (BLM 9212-1). 7. The BLM shall emphasize the use of hazardous fuels reduction techniques as part of the wildfire prevention program. BLM Manual Section 1742, Emergency Fire Rehabilitation (BLM 2007) and BLM Handbook 1742 (BLM 2007) provide for guidance for emergency fire rehabilitation including measures to prevent accelerated soil erosion, establishment of noxious and/or invasive plant species,

Appendices 1.1 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies and post-fire management of restoration areas. Fire line rehabilitation would include restoration of surface contours and closure to vehicles. BLM Manual Section 9214, Prescribed Fire Management (1988), and BLM Handbook 9214 (2000) describes the authority and policy for prescribed fire use on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. It is BLM policy that: 1. The role of fire and its potential use will be considered in establishing the management strategy for all ecosystems. 2. Prescribed fires may be initiated by planned or unplanned (unscheduled) ignition. See definitions under BLM Manual Section 9210. 3. All prescribed fires (including hazard reduction) projects will support one or more approved land management objective(s) derived from the Bureau’s land and management planning process. 4. The planning and execution of the prescribed fire will be funded by the benefiting program(s). 5. Each prescribed fire project will have an approved Prescribed Fire Plan completed before ignition and well be reported upon completion. Other agency projects supported by the Bureau will have approved participation. 6. Each prescribed fire will be managed and executed in conformance with the approved plan by qualified personnel. The term qualified will include experience, training, and physical fitness for key positions. 7. Prescribed fire projects will comply with federal, state, and local regulations and standards, including air quality and smoke management programs. 8. Pre-burn, burn, and post-burn fuel and weather measurement(s) will be taken on all prescribed fire projects for planning purposes, prescription compliance, and project evaluation. It may not be necessary to take post-burn weather measurements on fuel reduction projects. 9. Pre-burn and post-burn monitoring will be conducted to determine whether resource and fire objectives are achieved, unless where previous documented experience is adequate to predict post-burn results. Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, as amended annually, describes policy and operations for all fire-related activities in DOI and USDA. BLM Manual 1740 and BLM Manual Handbook H-1740-1 provide guidance and procedures for management and treatment of renewable resources, including utilization of management- prescribed fire and emergency fire rehabilitation. The 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy states: 1. Safety: Firefighter and Public Safety is the first priority. All Fire Management Plans and activities must reflect this commitment. 2. Fire Management and Ecosystem Sustainability: The full range of fire management activities will be used to help achieve ecosystem sustainability, including its interrelated ecological and social components. 3. Response to Wildland Fire: Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land use plans and RMPs and activities on a landscape scale, and across agency boundaries. Response to wildland fire is based on ecological, social, and legal consequences of the

Appendices 1.1 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies fire. The circumstances under which a fire occurs, and the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected dictate the appropriate management response to the fire. 4. Use of Wildland Fire: Wildland fire will be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Use of fire will be based on approved Fire Management Plans and will follow specific prescriptions contained in operational plans. 5. Rehabilitation and Restoration: Rehabilitation and restoration efforts will be undertaken to protect and sustain ecosystems, public health, and safety, and to help communities protect infrastructure. 6. Protection Priorities: The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources will be based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of the protection. Once people have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest value to be protected. 7. Wildland Urban Interface: The operational roles of federal agencies as partners in the Wildland Urban Interface are wildland firefighting, hazardous fuels reductions, cooperative prevention and education, and technical assistance. Structural fire suppression is the responsibility of tribal, state, or local governments. Federal agencies may assist with exterior structural protection activities under formal Fire Protection Agreements that specify mutual responsibilities of the partners, including funding. (Some federal agencies have full structural protection authority for their facilities on lands they administer, and may also enter into formal agreements to assist state and local governments with full structural protection.) 8. Planning: Every area with burnable vegetation must have an approved Fire Management Plan. Fire Management Plans are strategic plans that define a program to manage wildland and prescribed fires based on the area’s approved land management plan. Fire Management Plans must provide for firefighter and public safety; include fire management strategies, tactics, and alternatives; address values to be protected and public health issues; and be consistent with resource management objectives, activities of the area, and environmental laws and regulations. 9. Science: Fire Management Plans and programs will be based on a foundation of sound science. Research will support ongoing efforts to increase our scientific knowledge of biological, physical, and sociologic factors. Information needed to support fire management will be developed through an integrated interagency fire science program. Scientific results must be made available to managers in a timely manner and must be used in the development of land management plans, Fire Management Plans, and implementation plans. 10. Preparedness: Agencies will ensure their capabilities to provide safe, cost-effective fire management programs in support of land and RMPs through appropriate planning, staffing, training, equipment, and management oversight.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies 11. Suppression: Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives. 12. Prevention: Agencies will work together and with their partners and other affected groups and individuals to prevent unauthorized ignition of wildland fires. 13. Standardization: Agencies will use compatible planning processes, funding mechanisms, training and qualification requirements, operational procedures, values to be protected methodologies, and public education programs for all fire management activities. 14. Interagency Cooperation and Coordination: Fire management planning, preparedness, prevention, suppression, fire use, restoration and rehabilitation, monitoring, research, and education will be conducted on an interagency basis with the involvement of cooperators and partners. 15. Communication and Education: Agencies will enhance knowledge and understanding of wildland fire management policies and practices through internal and external communication and education programs. These programs will be continuously improved through the timely and effective exchange of information among all affected agencies and organizations. 16. Agency Administrator and Employee Roles: Agency administrators will ensure that their employees are trained, certified, and made available to participate in the wildland fire program locally, regionally, and nationally as the situation demands. Employees with operational, administrative, or other skills will support the wildland fire program as necessary. Agency administrators are responsible and will be held accountable for making employees available. 17. Evaluation: Agencies will adopt and implement a systematic method of evaluation to determine effectiveness of projects through implementation of the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. The evaluation will assure accountability, facilitate resolution of conflicts, and identify resource shortages and agency priorities. A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000 (September 2000), “Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment” contains the following key points and recommendations: 1. Continue to Make All Necessary Firefighting Resources Available: As a first priority, DOI will continue to provide all necessary resources to ensure that fire suppression efforts are at a maximum efficiency in order to protect life and property. 2. Restore Damaged Landscapes and Rebuild Communities: After ensuring that suppression resources are sufficient, invest in the restoration of communities and landscapes impacted by the year 2000 fires. 3. Investment in Projects to Reduce Fire Risk: The fires of 2000 have underscored the importance of pursuing an aggressive program to address the fuels problem with the help of local communities, particularly those in the wildland-urban interface areas, where threats to lives and property are greater and the complexity and cost of treatments higher. 4. Work directly With Local Communities: Working with local communities is a critical element in restoring damaged landscapes and reducing fire hazards proximate to homes and communities.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies 5. Be Accountable: A Cabinet-level management structure should be established to ensure that the actions recommended by the Departments receive the highest priority. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risk to Communities and the Environment: 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI and USDA 2001): This document provides a foundation for wildland agencies to work closely with all levels of governments, tribes, conservation, and commodity groups and community-based restoration groups to reduce wildland fire risk to communities and the environment. It also provides a suite of core principles and four goals. The core principles include the concepts of collaboration, priority setting, and accountability. The four goals are: Improve Prevention and Suppression. Reduce Hazardous Fuels. Restore Fire Adapted Ecosystems. Promote Community Assistance. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy: Implementation Plan (USDI and USDA 2001): This Implementation Plan establishes a collaborative, performance-based framework for achieving these goals and actions with performance measures and tasks to identify key benchmarks and track progress over time. It also provides tools to deliver national goals at the local level in an ecologically, socially, and economically appropriate manner. The Implementation Plan contains the following Implementation outcomes that respond to the four goals established in the 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy: 1. Losses of life are eliminated, and firefighter injuries and damage to communities and the environment from sever, unplanned and unwanted wildland fires are reduced. 2. Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to reduce the risk of unplanned and unwanted wildland fire to communities and the environment. 3. Fire adapted ecosystems are restored, rehabilitated and maintained, using appropriate tools, in a manner that will provide sustainable environmental, social and economic benefits. 4. Communities at risk have increased capacity to prevent losses from wildland fire and the potential to seek economic opportunities resulting from treatment and services. Restoring Fire Adapted Ecosystems on Federal Lands: A Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and sustaining Natural Resources, (USFS October 2002): The primary goal is to coordinate an aggressive, collaborative approach to reduce the threat of wildland fire to communities and to restore and maintain land health. Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities (Executive Order 2002): The Healthy Forest Initiative will implement core components of the National Fire Plan’s 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. This historic plan which was adopted by federal agencies and western governors, in collaboration with county commissioners, state foresters, and tribal officials, calls for protecting communities and the environment through local collaboration on thinning, planned burns and forest restoration projects. The initiative will complement the National Fire Plan by reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles and allowing more effective and timely actions.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 2003 [P.L.108-148] – Purposes of the Act include the following: 1. To reduce wildfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk federal land through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects; 2. To authorize grant programs to improve the commercial value of forest biomass (that otherwise contributes to the risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease infestation) for producing electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuel, and petroleum-based product substitutes, and for commercial purposes; 3. To enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape; 4. To promote systematic gathering of information to address the impacts of insect and disease infestations and other damaging agents on forest and rangeland health; 5. To improve the capacity to detect insect and disease infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to hard-wood forests; 6. To promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species; 7. To improve biological diversity; and 8. To enhance productivity and carbon sequestration

9. Cultural Resources

Federal Laws and Statutes The Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433, provides guidance for protecting cultural resources on federal lands and authorizes the President to designate national monuments on federal lands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 established a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470, directs agencies to consider the effects of proposed actions on properties eligible for or included on the National Register of Historic Places. A “Historic property” is any district, building, structure, site, or object that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because the property is significant at the national, state, or local level in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In some cases, such properties may be eligible because of historical importance to Native Americans, including traditional religious and cultural importance. Section 110 of the NHPA requires each federal agency to establish an affirmative program to identify, evaluate, protect, and preserve historic properties in consultation with others. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996, establishes a national policy to protect and preserve the right of American Indians to exercise traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices including but not limited to access to religious sites. Agencies are to avoid unnecessary interference with traditional tribal spiritual practices. In addition,

Appendices 1.1 – p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies compliance requires consultation with tribes when land uses might conflict with Indian religious beliefs or practices. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) 16 USC 470, as amended, defines and provides for the protection of archaeological resources on federal lands, irrespective of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, establishes a permit system for resources over 100 years old, and requires agencies to provide for public education and continuing inventory of federal lands. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. 3001, establishes rights to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians to claim ownership for the repatriation of human remains, and also funerary, sacred, and other objects, controlled by federal agencies and museums. Agency discoveries of such human remains and associated cultural items during land use activities require consultation with appropriate tribes to determine ownership and disposition. National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543; 16 U.S.C. 1241 et. seq. as amended through P.L. 107-325, December 4, 2002) established a National Trails system to promote preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment of the open-air, outdoor areas, and historic resources of the nation. The Act designated initial trail system components and established methods and standards for adding additional components. Executive Order 11593 of 1971, directs federal agencies to inventory public lands and to nominate eligible properties to the National Register of Historic Places. Executive Order 13007 of 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites), (61FR104), explicitly does not create any new right for Indian tribes, but does requires federal agencies to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions to: Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners; Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites; and Maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. Executive Order 13175 of 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) provides, in part, that each federal agency shall establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Executive Order 13287 of 2003 (Preserve America), directs federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of historic properties managed by the federal government, and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties, and establishing agency accountability for inventory and stewardship. 36 CFR 60 and 63 discuss the National Register of Historic Places and eligibility criteria for listing properties. 36 CFR 68 describes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic properties. 36 CFR 800 outlines the NHPA Section 106 process for protecting historic properties.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies 43 CFR 3 and 7 discuss the preservation of American antiquities and archaeological sites. 43 CFR 10 discuss requirements for implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance BLM Manuals 8100 Series: Cultural Resources Management: The manual is a reference source that provides basic information and general summary guidance for BLM’s cultural resource management program. The series includes 8110: Identifying Cultural Resources; 8120: Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resource Authorities; 8130: Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources; 8140: Protecting Cultural Resources; H-8120-1: Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation. The BLM meets its NHPA responsibilities under a protocol agreement with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, as provided for in the national BLM Programmatic Agreement, and through consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Related Management Plans Oregon Trail Management Plan (1989): The management plan provides direction for management of the Oregon Trail within the Planning Area.

10. Paleontological Resources

Federal Laws and Statutes FLPMA of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) requires that the public lands be managed in a manner that protects the ". . . quality of scientific . . ." and other values. The Act also requires the public lands to be inventoried and provides that permits may be required for the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands. NEPA of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) requires that ". . . important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage . . ." be protected, and that ". . . a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences ... in planning and decision making ..." be followed. Title 43 CFR, Subpart 8365 addresses the collection of invertebrate fossils and, by administrative extension, fossil plants. Title 43 CFR, Subpart 3622 addresses the free use collection of petrified wood as a mineral material for non-commercial purposes. Title 43 CFR Subpart 3621 addresses collection of petrified wood for specimens exceeding 250 pounds in weight. Title 43 CFR, Subpart 3610 addresses the sale of petrified wood as a mineral material for commercial purposes. Title 43 CFR, Subparts 3802 and 3809 address protection of paleontological resources from operations authorized under the mining laws. Title 43 CFR, Subpart 8200 addresses procedures and practices for the management of lands that have outstanding natural history values, such as fossils, which are of scientific interest.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Title 43 CFR, Subpart 1610.7-2 addresses the establishment of areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) for the management and protection of significant natural resources, such as paleontological localities. Title 43 CFR Subpart 8364 addresses the use of closure or restriction of public lands to protect resources. Such closures or restrictions may be used to protect important fossil localities. Title 43 CFR Subpart 8365.1-5 addresses the willful disturbance, removal and destruction of scientific resources or natural objects and 8360.0-7 identifies the penalties for such violations. Title 36 CFR, Subpart 62 addresses procedures to identify, designate, and recognize national natural landmarks, which include fossil areas. 18 USC Section 641 addresses the unauthorized collection of fossils as a type of government property. Secretarial Order 3104 grants to BLM the authority to issue paleontological resource use permits for lands under its jurisdiction. Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 and 43 CFR Title 3162 provide for the protection of natural resources and other environmental concerns, used to protect paleontological resources where appropriate. Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-691) and Title 43 CFR Subpart 37 address protection of significant caves and cave resources, including paleontological resources. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2009-011: Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources provides guidelines for assessing potential impacts to paleontological resources in order to determine mitigation steps for federal actions on public lands.

BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance BLM Manual 8270: Paleontological Resource Management Program and Handbook 8270-1 provides uniform policy and direction for the BLM Paleontological Resource Management Program. The objective of the program is to provide a consistent and comprehensive approach in all aspects relating to the management of paleontological resources, including identification, evaluation, protection, and use. The BLM OR/WA strategy document for managing vertebrate fossil resources (Martin 1995).

11. Visual Resources

BLM Handbook 8400; Visual Resource Management (BLM 1992).

12. Cave and Karst Resources

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 16 USC 4301, requires federal agencies to identify, protect, and maintain significant caves. The locations of such caves may be kept

Appendices 1.1 – p. 17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies confidential. Protection is afforded to not only the geologic structure, but also the associated decorations, inhabitants, artifacts, and water resources. BLM’s Interim Cave Management Policy (Instruction Memorandum No. OR-95-021) provides for the following: Where known or potential adverse impacts from human use to threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive plants or animals … are present … the responsible authorized officer shall act to protect these resources.

C. RESOURCE USES

1. Forestry and Woodland Products

Federal Laws and Statutes Stewardship End Result Contracting; Section 323, P.L. 108-7 (U.S. Congress, February 2003): Stewardship contracting focuses on the end result of forest restoration work. It allows for the exchange of goods (typically forest products) for service work (thinning, road repair, etc.) to be implemented in contracts up to ten years in length. Planning is done in a collaborative manner with local government, industry, environmental and citizens at large. Contracts are performance based; thus, they are awarded on a best value basis to the contractor that proposes the most efficient, and often most innovative, way to accomplish the tasks. H.R. 1904 - The Healthy Forests Restoration Act; P.L. 108-148 (U.S. Congress, December 2003): The Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides a variety of provisions intended to expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The Act also provides: Encouragement to remove and utilize biomass generated from project implementation; Protection to watersheds; Large scale silvicultural research; Monitoring and early warning systems for insect and disease outbreaks; Expedited NEPA analysis; Requirements to maintain and restore old-growth forest stands and retain larger, earlier seral, fire tolerant tree species in all HFRA projects; Collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities; Expedites judicial review of legal challenges to HFRA projects.

Federal Policy and Initiatives The Healthy Forests Initiative (Office of the President, August 2002): The Healthy Forest Initiative is intended to expedite administrative procedures for hazardous-fuel reduction and ecosystem-restoration projects on Federal lands. The intent is to protect communities and the environment by restoring forest health and reducing hazardous-fuels through forest thinning and prescribed burning. All activities are planned in a collaborative manner with local government, industry, environmental and citizens at large.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies BLM 5400 Manual Series – Sales of Forest Products (BLM, rev. January 1996): Provides guidance on the planning, award and conduct of timber sales and sales of special forest products on Public Lands.

State Laws and Statutes Oregon Forest Practices Act (Oregon State Legislature, 1971): The Oregon Forest Practices Act establishes minimum harvesting standards and protection measures for forest management actions within the state of Oregon. This Act serves as a baseline for BLM forest management design procedures and mitigating measures.

2. Livestock Grazing

Federal Laws and Statutes Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (42 USC 315, 315a through 315r), provides direction to protect rangelands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration while providing for managed use and improvement, and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon public lands. FLPMA of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.) recognizes livestock grazing as one of the "principal or major uses" of the public lands. It directs that the public lands be managed on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals while protecting the quality of other values (i.e. scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource and archeological). Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 USC 1901 et seq.) provides policy to manage, maintain, and improve the condition of public rangelands to increase productivity in accordance with management objectives and the land use planning process. 43 CFR 4100 Grazing Administration, exclusive of Alaska, provides uniform guidance for administration of grazing on the public lands. Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (43 CFR 4180 et seq.) defines the minimum resource conditions that must be achieved and maintained and the acceptable management practices to be applied to achieve those conditions: Also, where rangeland health standards are not met and livestock are a causal factor, adjustments would be made to livestock grazing

Policies Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington (USDI-BLM, 1997) provides direction to promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems, restore and improve public rangelands, and to provide sustainable resources to support the livestock industry. BLM Manual Handbook H-1740-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures, modified by Washington Office IM-2009-018, require

Appendices 1.1 – p. 19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies categorization of all livestock grazing allotments and identifies criteria for shifting from one category to another. BLM Manual Handbook H-1742-1, Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation, requires that burned areas will be rested from grazing until site-specific rehabilitation objectives (confirmed through monitoring and documented in writing) are achieved. BLM Handbook 4100, Grazing Administration, Oregon/Washington Supplement Release 4- 107, provides guidance for adjusting livestock grazing during periods of drought conditions.

3. Minerals

Federal Laws and Statutes The General Mining Law, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq., allows the location, use, and patenting of mining claims on sites on public domain lands of the United States. Amendments established a policy of fostering development of economically stable mining and minerals industries, their orderly and economic development, and studying methods for disposal of waste and reclamation. 43 CFR 3809 regulates mineral exploration and development on public land is to prevent unnecessary and undue land degradation. The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., provides that: Potential oil and gas resources be adequately addressed in planning documents; The social, economic, and environmental consequences of exploration and development of oil and gas resources be determined; and Any stipulations to be applied to oil and gas leases be clearly identified. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; the “Geothermal Steam Act” of 1970, as amended; and the “Mining and Mineral Policy Act” of 1970, declare that it is the continuing policy of the Federal government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. Section 102 of FLPMA directs that the public land will be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. BLM mineral policy (1984) states that public land shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. The 2001 President’s National Energy Policy states the measures that will increase and diversify our nation’s sources of both traditional and alternative energy resources, improve our energy transportation network, and ensure sound environmental management. This policy was emphasized by Executive Order 13212 which states that BLM must “…take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission or conservation of energy.” Executive Order 13212 provides the decisions made by BLM to take into account the adverse impacts on the President’s National Energy Policy. The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. 21a, establishes a policy of fostering development of economically stable mining and minerals industries, their orderly and economic development, and studying methods for disposal of waste and reclamation.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., requires application of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and also to proposed mining operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal. ORS 390.835(2) sets rules for dredging in State Scenic Waterways. This law requires a permit for any dredging, regardless of the amount, from the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL). In other waters, a permit is required only for movement of more than 50 cubic yards. Also, suction dredging in SSWs may not: a) divert a waterway or obstruct fish passage; b) include nozzling outside the wet perimeter; c) move boulders or logs from the wet perimeter, except by hand; d) disturb any woody plants; e) excavate from the streambank; f) fail to level pits and furrows outside the main channel; g) occur without a ODEQ discharge permit; h) occur on federal lands without permission; i) impede boating; j) operate within 500 feet of a home or campground between 6 pm and 8 am; or, k) operate within posted swimming areas.

4. Recreation

Federal Laws and Statutes The Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey BLM managed lands for recreational and public purposes under specified conditions. Executive Order 11644 (37 FR 2877; February 8, 1972) provided that off-highway vehicle (OHV) use will be controlled and managed to protect resource values, promote public safety and minimize conflicts with uses of public lands. This executive order directed federal agencies to designate specific areas and trails on public lands where OHV use may be permitted and areas where OHV use may not be permitted. Executive Order 11989 (May 24, 1977) further defined OHV, administrative use exemptions, and directed agencies to immediately close areas and trails whenever the agency determines that the use of OHV will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, wildlife, and wildlife habitat, cultural or historic resources (42 USC 4321). 43 CFR 8340 regulates Off-Road Vehicles. Subpart 8340 (Off-Road Vehicles) defines OHV and Open, Limited and Closed areas and defines spark arrestor. Subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use) defines regulations governing use of OHVs on public lands and lists special rules restricting OHV use and its effects on resource values. Subpart 8342 (Designation of Areas and Trails) lists area and trail designation criteria, procedures, and changes. Subpart 8343 (Vehicle Operations) lists vehicle operation standards, including noise restrictions, and permit requirements for certain types of OHV use.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance The BLM's National Management Strategy for Motorized OHV Use on Public Lands (2001) provides agency guidance and offers recommendations for future actions to improve motorized vehicle management.

5. Renewable Energy

Federal Laws and Statutes Executive Order 13212 states that “[i]t is the policy of this Administration that executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy.” Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. (BLM 2005). Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in 11 Western States (DOE and BLM 2006)

6. Lands and Realty

Federal Laws and Statutes FLPMA of 1976 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended (43 USC 869 et seq.) The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1971 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 The Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended 43 CFR 2100 (Acquisitions) 43 CFR 2200 (Exchanges) 43 CFR 2300 (Withdrawals) 43 CFR 2400 (Land Classification) 43 CFR 2500 (Disposition: Occupancy and Use) 43 CFR 2600 (Disposition: Grants) 43 CFR 2700 (Disposition: Sales) 43 CFR 2800 (Use: Rights-of-Way) 43 CFR 2900 (Uses: Leases and Permits) 43 CFR 9230 (Trespass) IM 2006-067 (BLM’s Wind Energy Development Policy ) IM 2005-006 (Solar Energy Development Policy) BLM-H-2200-1 (Land Exchange Handbook) BLM-H-1790-1 (NEPA Handbook) BLM-H-2100-1 (Acquisition Handbook)

Appendices 1.1 – p. 22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies BLM-H-2740-1 (Recreation and Public Purposes) BLM-MS-2200 (Land Exchange Handbook) BLM-MS-2880 (Oil & Natural Gas Pipeline Handbook) Wind Energy Development PEIS and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments (BLM 2005) PEIS, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land In the 11 Western States (DOE/EIS- 0386) (Draft October 2007)

D. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders FLPMA and BLM policy (Manual 1613 [BLM 1988a]) require the BLM to give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs during the land use planning process This analysis and the resultant findings for ACEC relevance and importance criteria and RNA designation and management has been performed pursuant to FLPMA Section 202 (43 USC 1712[c][3]), 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613 (BLM 1988a) and BLM Supplemental program Guidance for Land Resources (for Research Natural Areas) 1623 (Oregon State Office 10/1987). 2003 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan, Oregon State Land Board. Depart of State Lands, Salem, OR

2. Wild and Scenic Rivers

Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., requires federal land management agencies identify river systems and then study them for potential designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers. Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction, for Identification, Evaluation, and Management, BLM Manual 8351. (BLM 1993) Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual Section 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers, with Respect to Eligibility Criteria and Protective Management (IM 2004-196)

3. Wilderness Study Areas

Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders The Wilderness Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq., authorizes the President to make recommendations to the Congress for federal lands to be set aside for preservation as wilderness. Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, (BLM Handbook H-8550-1

Appendices 1.1 – p. 23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies E. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

1. Tribal Interests

Treaties and Executive Orders Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation: The Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla, signed June 9, 1855, ratified March 8, 1859 (12 STAT. 945), reserved rights for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to fish off-reservation at usual and accustomed stations, and to hunt, gather resources, and pasture animals on public lands in common with other citizens of the United States. Nez Perce Tribe: The Treaty with the Nez Perce, signed June 11, 1855, ratified March 8, 1859, reserved rights for the Nez Perce Indians to fish off-reservation, at usual and accustomed stations and to hunt, gather resources, and pasture animals on public lands in common with other citizens of the United States. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation: The Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, signed June 25, 1855, ratified March 8, 1859 (14 STAT. 751), reserved rights for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to fish off-reservation at usual and accustomed stations, and to hunt, gather resources, and pasture animals on public lands in common with other citizens of the United States. Members include descendants of Northern Paiute bands who were removed to the reservation in the 1880s. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: Executive Order (July 2, 1872) established the present location of the Colville Reservation in Washington. Subsequent orders led to the progressive diminishment of the reservation, and it was not until 1956 that a significant portion of withdrawn lands was restored to tribal ownership. Many descendants of the Joseph Band of the Nez Perce are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Traditional homelands of the Joseph Band of the Nez Perce are located in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. Burns Paiute Tribe: Executive Order (October 13, 1972) federally recognized the Burns Paiute Tribe and established the Burns Paiute Reservation. The original Malheur Reservation was established by executive order in 1872, but was dissolved by subsequent executive order in 1883. Members include descendants of Northern Paiute bands. Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Fort Hall Reservation: July 3, 1868 Treaty with the Shoshone (Eastern band) and Bannock tribes of Indians, 15 Stat 673 (Fort Bridger Treaty). June 14, 1867 Executive Order to establish reservation for the Boise and Bruneau bands of Shoshones and Bannock July 30, 1869. The 1868 Treaty articles include the right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Duck Valley Reservation: April 16, 1877 reservation established by Executive Order for the Western Shoshone; May 4, 1886 Executive Order expanded the reservation for Northern Paiute; July 4, 1910 also expanded the reservation. The creation and subsequent expansion of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation relocated bands of Northern Paiute, Northern Shoshone, and Bannock people.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation: In 1892, allotments of land were made to the Northern Paiute and Shoshone under the General Allotment Act of 1887. Reservation lands are located in Nevada and Oregon.

Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders NEPA of 1969 establishes national policy for protection and enhancement of the human environment. Part of the function of the federal government, as stated in the Act, is to "…preserve important … cultural … aspects of our national heritage and maintain whenever possible an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice." FLPMA of 1976 requires coordination with Indian tribes, as well as with other federal agencies and state and local governments, in the preparation and maintenance of an inventory of the public lands and their various resource and other values, in the development and maintenance of long- range plans providing for the use management of the public lands. American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 resolves that it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiian the inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions, including but not limited to access to religious sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. Federal agencies are directed to evaluate their policies and procedures to determine if changes are needed to ensure that such rights and freedoms are not disrupted by agency practices. The Act, a specific expression of First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom, is not implemented by regulations. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, addresses preservation of historic properties, including historical, archaeological, and architectural districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In some cases, such properties may be eligible because of historical importance to Native Americans, including traditional religious and cultural importance. Federal agencies must take into account effects of their undertakings on eligible properties. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 provides for the protection and management of archaeological resources, and specifically requires notification of the affected Indian tribe if archaeological investigations proposed in a permit application would result in harm to or destruction of any location considered by the tribe to have religious or cultural importance. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. 3001, establishes rights to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians to claim ownership and repatriate human remains, and also funerary, sacred, and other objects, controlled by federal agencies and museums. Agency discoveries of human remains and associated cultural items during land use activities require consultation with appropriate tribes to determine ownership and disposition. Executive Order 13007 of 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites), (61FR104), explicitly does not create any new right for Indian tribes, but does requires federal agencies to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions to:

Appendices 1.1 – p. 25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners; Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites; and Maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. Executive Order 13175 of 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) provides, in part, that each federal agency shall establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act) requires DOI agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when agency actions to protect a listed species, as a result of compliance with ESA, affect or may affect Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) (49 FR 7629) (1994) requires that each federal agency consider the impacts of its programs on minority populations and low-income populations. Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (currently listed in the Federal Register for re- authorization) provides a tool for tribes to propose work and enter into contracts and agreement with the USFS or BLM to reduce threats from catastrophic events that originate on federal lands adjacent to Indian trust land and Indian communities.

BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance The BLM Oregon State Office and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation signed an MOU for coordination and consultation on resource management and preservation issues. The BLM Oregon State Office and the Burns Paiute Tribe signed an MOU for coordination and consultation on resource management and preservation issues. The BLM Oregon State Office and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation signed an MOU for coordination and consultation on resource management and preservation issues.

2. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-3 and 1610.4-6) require that RMPs consider social, economic, and institutional information. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) (49 FR 7629) requires that each federal agency consider the impacts of its programs on minority populations and low-income populations.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 26 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3. Public Safety

Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, Pub. L. 94-580), as amended: In 1976, RCRA established a system for managing non-hazardous and hazardous solid wastes in an environmentally sound manner. Specifically, it provides for the management of hazardous wastes from the point of origin to the point of final disposal (i.e., “cradle to grave”). RCRA also promotes resource recovery and waste minimization.

Appendices 1.1 – p. 27 Baker FO Draft RMP Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices APPENDIX 2.1 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. RESOURCES ...... 1 1. Climate Change ...... 1 3. Water and Soil Resources ...... 1 4. Invasive Plants and noxious weeds ...... 9 5. Invasive Species (Other than Plants) ...... 10 6. Fisheries and Status Species (Aquatic Species) ...... 11 7. Wildlife and Special Status Species (Wildlife) ...... 11 8. Special Status Species (Plants) ...... 19 9. Fire and Fuels Management ...... 19 10. Cultural Resources ...... 20 11. Visual Resources ...... 21 B. RESOURCE USES ...... 21 1. Facilities ...... 21 2. Forestry and Woodland Products ...... 22 3. Livestock Grazing ...... 25 4. Recreation ...... 29 5. Transportation ...... 31 7. Lands & Realty ...... 42 C. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ...... 56 1. Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 56 2. Wilderness Study Areas ...... 57 NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 59

Appendices – 2.1 p. i Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices APPENDIX 2.1: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Best management practices (BMPs) are applied during implementation of projects and help to ensure that adverse impacts to natural resources are minimized. They are applied based on site- specific evaluation and are effective and practical means to achieve management goals for a given site. The BLM selects and applies BMPs on a site-specific basis. While BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, they are not considered a land use plan decision because they are not mandatory. As such, BMPs can be up-dated or modified without a plan amendment. future decisions on state data or information that is subject to change this should be identified in the RMP/EIS and a statement included that future decisions will be based on the information current at the time of the future action. Example: if the BMP’s outlined in Appendix 2.1 are based on current species data provided by the state wildlife agency and the agency routinely updates its data, the RMP/EIS should reflect that the data is likely to be updated and future decisions utilizing the information will be based on data at the time of the future action.

A. RESOURCES

1. CLIMATE CHANGE

1. Consider opportunities to optimize carbon sequestration (storage) when planning forest health projects and other vegetation treatments. 2. Promote vegetation management activities and projects that will reduce the intensity and size of future wildfires. 3. Plan fuel reduction treatments and other prescribed burn projects to minimize carbon release and greenhouse gas emissions that will still meet resource objectives for the site. 4. Consider expected long term changes in future rainfall and temperature patterns when making seed and seed stock selections for restoration and rehabilitation projects. 5. Aggressively follow an “Early Detection-Rapid Response” management strategy for noxious weeds and other invasive species as climate change factors are expected to give some unwanted species an increased competitive advantage over the next several decades. 6. Plan for larger peak flows in the future during design and placement of new structures including: bridges, culverts, and other management facilities.

3. WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES

General

1. Limit detrimental soil disturbance from management activities to 15 percent of a project area.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 2. Stabilize all management related erosion. Minimize soil loss and sediment delivery that is in excess of natural disturbance processes. 3. Retain or promote infiltration, permeability, and soil moisture storage. 4. Prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage, wash water and other harmful materials from being discharged into or near rivers, streams, and impoundments. 5. Locate ground disturbing activities and facilities away from hydric soils and wetlands. 6. Ground altering activities should not degrade conditions beyond which five or more years are necessary to recover soil compaction and restore the local native vegetation and sediment regime. Prohibit actions that compact hydric or wetland soils, reduce site potential vegetation and thermal cover, and alter hydrology (e.g., infiltration) except to the minimum extent allowable as determined by the ID team. 7. Use plantings and manage for obligate, facultative, or wetland species around degraded riparian/wetland sites 8. Do not allow ground-based machinery use within Riparian Management Areas that increases soil compaction or removes vegetation that exposes soil to additional erosion processes unless it is needed for restoration work and adverse effects can be mitigated. 9. Changes in hydrology of a stream, spring, lake, or wetland should be for restoration purposes only. 10. Limit activities within the Riparian Management Areas to those that have either a neutral or beneficial effect on aquatic objectives. 11. In Riparian Management Areas, employ measures to decrease stream sediment input both during and after culvert replacement construction activities (e.g., adequate road ditch relief, cross drains, wing wall rip-rapping). 12. Prior to construction or use of heavy equipment in and around Riparian Management Areas, flag critical riparian vegetation areas, wetlands, and other sensitive sites to prevent ground disturbance in these areas. 13. Place sediment barriers prior to construction around sites where significant levels of erosion may enter the stream directly or through road ditches. Maintain barriers throughout construction. 14. Plan rehabilitation of all disturbed riparian areas in a manner that results in conditions similar to or better than pre-work conditions through spreading of stockpiled materials, seeding, and/or planting. 15. Stabilization measures will be instigated within three days of construction completion or disturbance. Short-term stabilization measures will be maintained until permanent erosion control measures are effective. In riparian areas, planting shall be completed no later than spring planting season of the year following end of disturbance. 16. Retain vegetation on cut slopes unless it poses a safety hazard or restrict maintenance activities. 17. Prohibit activities that would degrade the sediment regime of perennial, perennial interrupted or intermittent stream channels unless the long-term objective of the activity is to restore stream physical function (e.g. juniper removal, thinning conifer encroachment, etc).

Appendices – 2.1 p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 18. Limit treatment of riparian areas within each sixth field subwatershed, to less than 10 percent of the total riparian vegetation within any one-year period. 19. Protect soil and vegetation along streams, lakes, bogs, swamps marshes, wet meadows, springs, seeps or other sources where the presence of water is indicated from disturbance that could cause non-attainment of Aquatic and Wildlife Objectives with special consideration around sources that supply domestic water. Leave streamside buffer strips of vegetation to attain Aquatic Objectives and protect natural streamside beauty.

Biological Crusts

1. Where biological crusts are present, grazing should occur when crusts are less vulnerable to shear and compressional forces. 2. In areas where biological crusts exceed 10 percent of the potential ground cover, consider modifying the season of use to avoid trampling of biological crusts in the dry season. 3. Provide designated trails, and restrict use to trails in high density recreational areas with biological crusts. 4. Where seeding occurs after a fire in areas with biotic crusts use minimal till or no till drills or other seeding methods that minimize soil surface and compressional impacts. 5. Avoid disturbance of intact biological crusts where possible. 6. Locate salt and water developments at least 500 feet away from well functioning intact biological crusts.

Weeds

1. Specify mixing and loading locations away from water bodies so that accidental spills do not contaminate surface waters. Require that spray tanks be mixed or washed further than 100 feet from surface water. 2. Implement effective invasive plant treatment using the least ground disturbing method available. 3. Reestablish vegetation as quickly as possible. Stabilize and protect unvegetated areas until vegetation is reestablished.

Fuels and Fire

1. Ensure that removal of vegetation or ground disturbing activities do not increase erosion for more than one season. Mitigation measures such as buffers, hydro-seeding, and wattles must be applied prior to fall precipitation (usually in October). 2. Prohibit ignition within riparian management areas, and locate ignition lines away from large open meadows, unless prescribed to meet aquatic objectives. 3. Avoid dropping fire retardant that is detrimental to aquatic communities in streams, lakes, ponds, and in riparian/wetland areas. Prohibit delivery of foam or additives within 100 feet of waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. Stabilize all areas that have had their erosion potential significantly increased or their drainage pattern altered by wildfires or by suppression related activities. Treatments include, but are not limited to: a. installing water bars and other drainage diversions in fire roads, fire lines, and other cleared areas; b. seeding, planting and fertilizing to provide vegetative cover; c. spreading slash or mulch to protect bare soil; d. repairing damaged road drainage facilities; e. clearing stream channels of structures or debris that is deposited by suppression activities; f. installing log erosion barriers (contour-felled and anchored trees); g. installing channel stabilization structures; h. installing trash racks above road drainage structures; and i. installing debris-retention structures. 5. Reduce erosion rates and provide for water quality protection by formulating fire prescriptions to minimize formation of water repellant soil and maintain adequate ground cover. 6. Maintain soil productivity, minimize erosion, and prevent ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies during prescribed fires. Some of the techniques used to prevent water quality degradation include: maintaining the integrity of the Stream Management Unit or stream course; and planning prescribed fires with intensities that will not result in soils becoming hydrophobic. 7. Minimize surface disturbance and avoid the use of heavy earth-moving equipment where possible on all fire suppression and rehabilitation activities, including “mop-up”, except where high value resources, including life and property, are being protected. 8. Install waterbars and seed all mechanically constructed firelines with native or adapted nonnative species as appropriate. 9. The location and construction of handlines should result in minimal surface disturbance while effectively controlling the fire. Hand crews should locate lines to take full advantage of existing land features that represent natural fire barriers. Whenever possible, handlines should follow the contour of the slope to protect the soil, provide sufficient residual vegetation to capture and retain sediment, and maintain site productivity. 10. Suppression in riparian areas should be by handcrews when possible. 11. To protect soil productivity, burning should be conducted if possible under conditions when a low-intensity burn can accomplish stated objectives. Burn only when conditions of organic surface or duff layer have adequate moisture to minimize effects to the physical and chemical properties of the soil and maximize the retention of the organic surface or duff layer. 12. Pile and burn slash outside of riparian/wetland areas. If riparian/wetland areas are within or adjacent to the prescribed burn unit, piles should be fire lined or scattered prior to burning.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 13. When preparing a unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps; pile small material (3-8 inches in diameter). Slash piles should be burned when soil and duff moisture are adequate to reduce potential damage to soil resources.

Livestock Grazing

1. Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to those areas and times that will not retard or prevent attainment of aquatic objectives. 2. If necessary at water gaps, the stream bank and approach lanes can be stabilized with native vegetation and/or angular rock to reduce chronic sedimentation. The stream crossing or water gap should be armored with up to cobble-size rock, and use angular rock if natural substrate is not of adequate size. 3. Livestock crossings or water gaps should not be located in areas where compaction or other damage may occur to sensitive soils and vegetation (e.g., wetlands) due to congregating livestock. 4. The maximum width of a water gap or stream crossing should be no less than 10 feet and no more than 20 feet wide in the upstream-downstream direction. 5. Install water developments (i.e., spring developments, pipelines/troughs and reservoirs) to facilitate upland distribution and reduce concentration in riparian wetland areas of livestock, wildlife. As springs are developed, fence to protect water source and areas where significant overflow from troughs occurs to protect riparian vegetation. 6. Locate fences so that they do not confine or concentrate livestock near the riparian zone.

Timber

1. Timber harvest and thinning should occur in RMAs only as necessary to maintain, restore or enhance conditions that are needed to support aquatic and riparian dependent resources and meet RMA objectives. 2. All protected streams would be illustrated on the Sale Area Map. 3. There would be no yarding of trees or logs, through, in, or across stream channels except in designated skyline corridors no more than 15 feet wide with full suspension within 25 feet of the active channel within an RMA. 4. Maintain a minimum of 50 percent ground cover to reduce surface runoff and erosion. 5. Identify sensitive soils and maintain a minimum of 60 percent ground cover on these sites. 6. Minimize site disturbance. Reestablish vegetation as soon as practicable. 7. Ensure that constructed erosion control structures are stabilized and working. 8. Keep detrimental soil disturbance under 15 percent or use remedial treatments to achieve this result. If disturbed condition on sensitive soils is expected to last for more than one winter, implement restoration treatments such as seeding, planting, or mulching to protect soils from elevated levels of erosion. 9. Time logging activities to the season in which soil damage can be kept to acceptable limits.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 10. Harvesting and skidding operations during wet conditions would follow the following guidelines: a. Cut-to-Length System - Processing of material on the designated skid trails by a harvester may occur when soils are dry to a depth of four inches. Limit harvester to one or two passes over the same piece of ground. The forwarder would stay on designated skid trails covered with a minimum of six inches of slash. b. Traditional Tractor Logging - Skidding may occur by conventional high-ground- pressure equipment when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Equipment is restricted to the designated skid trails. End lining would be used to move material to the designated skid trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Equipment may, by agreement, leave designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. 11. Generally, confine tractor skidding operations to slopes of less than 35 percent. 12. If debris should enter any stream, such debris shall be removed concurrently with the yarding operation and before removal of equipment from the project site. Removal of debris shall be accomplished in such a manner that natural streambed conditions and stream bank vegetation are not disturbed. 13. Provide adequate width no-cut/no-skid buffers for all perennial streams, springs and seeps as well as for non-perennial streams, springs and seeps which significantly impact water quality in perennial waters. 14. Maintain native vegetation on primary disturbed areas (temporary roads, skid trails, landings, etc.) by seeding with diverse native grass varieties.

Landings

1. Use mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of erosion, and subsequent sedimentation, on log landings. 2. Shape landings to disperse drainage and direct runoff away from watercourses at the time of construction. 3. Rock armoring and silt fences with straw bales may be used as necessary to direct water to areas of suitable drainage and to capture sediment. 4. All new landing cut and fill slopes would be mulched and the mulch would be maintained throughout the life of the project. 5. Fuel containment systems would be used at all landings. 6. Landings that would not be used again would be contour ripped and covered with slash or weed free straw if necessary.

Skid Trails and Temporary Roads

1. Scatter slash on all skid trails if necessary and available. 2. Temporary roads would be graded, outsloped and covered with slash if needed at termination of activities during the season of use. 3. A barrier would be placed at the takeoff of the temporary roads.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. Skid trails that may direct runoff onto roads or landings would have the first 25 feet covered with fine slash or weed-free straw (achieving 90 percent soil cover). 5. Design and locate skid trail and skidding operations to use designated crossings on draws to minimize soil compaction and erosion and potential transport of sediment to streams. 6. Install water bars on skid trails when logging is finished (forester, hydrologist or soil scientist will provide assistance as requested or needed). Water bar spacing is based on the percent slope of the skid trail, soil texture and erosion hazard rating for the unit. 7. Place water bar outlets, whenever possible, where concentrations of slash or other organic materials occur to disperse runoff and trap sediment before it can reach a drainage channel.

Rights-of-Way and Utility Corridors

1. Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously disturbed areas whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed communities. 2. Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of the rights-of-way and utility corridors, and across the full width of the disturbed area, as directed by the authorized officer. 3. Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by vegetation practices designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation cover should be reestablished to increase infiltration and provide additional protection from erosion. 4. Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also be employed for the removal of sediment from runoff.

Minerals Management

1. Minimize or avoid adverse effects to aquatic and other riparian-dependent resources from mineral operations. Ensure operators take all practicable measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife and other riparian dependent resources that may be affected by operations in RMAs. 2. Structures, support facilities, and roads should be located outside RMAs. Where no suitable alternative sites exist, locate facilities and roads in a way to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and other riparian dependant resources. 3. Existing roads should be maintained to minimize damage to aquatic and riparian dependent resources. 4. Oversized boulders shall not be wasted but shall be broken and utilized concurrently with the excavated material. 5. The operator shall comply with local and state safety codes covering quarry operations, warning signs, and traffic control. All necessary permits must be obtained from state and county agencies.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 6. Use of the site for equipment storage and stockpiling rock material is allowed for the duration of the contract or permit. Use of the site beyond that time would be authorized under a special use permit. 7. All topsoil shall be stockpiled or windrowed, as appropriate, for use in reclamation. 8. Prior to abandonment, all material sites will be graded to conform with the surrounding topography. Reject and oversize material that is not usable will be placed in the bottom of the pit, graded, and the pit floor and cutslopes covered with topsoil. Reseeding, if necessary, will be done as prescribed by the resource area manager. Access roads no longer needed by the BLM will be abandoned and reclaimed as directed by the resource area manager. 9. The following operational guidelines for mining activities have been compiled to assist the miner in complying with the 43 CFR 3809 regulations, which apply to all mining operations on BLM-administered lands. The manner in which the necessary work is to be done will be site specific and all of the following standards may not apply to each mining operation. It is the mining claimant's and operator's responsibility to avoid "unnecessary or undue degradation" and they must perform all necessary reclamation work. Refer to 43 CFR 3809 regulations for general requirements and performance standards. The BLM will provide site specific guidelines for some mining proposals.

Fertilizers

1. Apply fertilizers at appropriate agronomic rates so that no ground water pollution will occur below the root zone. 2. Do not apply fertilizer during or right before significant weather events, such as heavy rainfall, which will cause runoff. 3. Storage and loading areas should be located where accidental spills will not enter surface waters and should not be located near wellheads. 4. Follow label directions for storage, mixing, and disposal. 5. Prevent fertilizers from entering streams, use generous setbacks where drinking water intakes occur. 6. Contain and clean up all spills immediately; report to appropriate regulatory agency.

Recreation

1. Prohibit solid and sanitary waste facilities in RMAs. 2. Sanitation facilities (ranging from pit toilets to treatment plants) will be planned, located, designed, constructed, operated, inspected, and maintained to minimize possibilities of water contamination. All activities related to location, design, inspection, operation, and maintenance will be performed by trained, qualified personnel. 3. Refuse disposal will be managed to protect surface and subsurface soil and water resources from contamination by nutrients, bacteria, and chemicals.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. Prohibit discharges and disposal of human and animal waste, petroleum products, and other hazardous substances in or near streams in recreation areas. Educate the public to conduct their activities in ways that will not degrade water quality. 5. Avoid degradation of water quality by locating pack and riding stock facilities at safe locations away from springs, streams, lakes, wet meadows, and other surface waters. 6. Recreational vehicle sewage waste should not be disposed of in septic system drainfields given the potential for chemicals in the sewage waste to kill the microorganisms that drainfields need to function. 7. Place barriers-boulders, fences, gates, etc-outside of the bankfull width and across traffic routes to prevent unauthorized ORV access into and across streams and RMAs.

4. INVASIVE PLANTS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS

1. Prior to project implementation, surveys for weeds would be conducted. If weeds are discovered, they would be controlled prior to ground disturbance or mitigation measures would be employed to minimize weed spread. 2. Perform a noxious weed risk assessment when it is determined that an action may introduce or spread noxious weeds or when known habitat exists. (The Noxious/Invasive Weeds Risk Assessment form is located at the end of this appendix.) 3. All ground disturbing activities should be conducted to minimize or prevent the potential spread or establishment of invasive species. 4. Materials used for construction, stabilization or restoration projects should be free of invasive species. a. Gravel, fill, sand, stockpiles, and borrow materials should be free of invasive species before use or transport. b. All seed, hay, straw, mulch, or other vegetation material transported and used on BLM land for site stability, construction or restoration projects should be certified by a qualified Federal, state or county officer as free of noxious weeds and noxious weed seed. c. All baled feed, pelletized feed, and grain used to feed livestock on BLM land should also be certified as free of noxious weed seed and propagules. d. Plant only all states certified noxious weed free seed on construction, stabilization or restoration projects. 5. All contractors and land-use operators moving equipment in or out of weed-infested areas should clean their equipment before and after use on public land to remove weed seed and propagules. 6. All vehicles, including off-road and all-terrain traveling in or out of weed-infested areas should be cleaned to remove weed seed and propagules. 7. Control weeds annually in areas frequently disturbed such as gravel pits, recreation sites, road sides, and livestock concentration areas. 8. Consider livestock quarantine, removal, or timing limitations in weed-infested areas.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 9. Do not locate incident bases, camps (including spike/remote camps), helibases, staging areas, constructed helispots, and other centers for incident activities in weed infested areas. 10. The application of herbicides should be conducted to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect negative effects to non-target species and water quality. 11. Aerial application of herbicides should not be authorized or allowed within 300 feet of developed campgrounds, recreation residences, or private land unless otherwise authorized by adjacent landowners. 12. Only daily use quantities of herbicides will be transported to the project site. For remote locations, such as portions of the Grande Ronde River, not more than a five day quantity will be transported. 13. When approved herbicides are transported to a project site in a watercraft (inflatable boat, motor boat, etc), the following protections shall be implemented: herbicide(s) shall be transported in a buoyant sealed water- and air-tight container. The entire package should be securely tied to the watercraft. 14. Application of chemicals would be carefully controlled in/near sites with special status plants.

5. INVASIVE SPECIES (OTHER THAN PLANTS)

(Refer to BMPS specifically listed for noxious weed management related activities. Unwanted plants are frequently the most common threat posed by invasive species and many of those BMPs have value for non-plant invasive species as well.)

1. Educate/promote awareness among BLM employees and the public of the threats that unwanted species pose to public land and natural resources. Report possible discoveries to appropriate state and federal agencies for further action depending on the species discovered. 2. Maintain regular contact and coordination with other federal and state agencies that are also involved with invasive species management. 3. Follow an “Early Detection-Rapid Response” management strategy. 4. Insure that the BMPs listed under Transportation and Roads Management are followed as roads systems are frequently the most common vector for the spread of invasive species. 5. Insure that BMPs for vegetation treatment projects, timber harvests, silviculture, and ground disturbing activities are followed. 6. Monitor boats using waters managed by BLM for compliance with the new Oregon law that requires boats that are of certain classes and size to display an aquatic invasive species permit. Continue to assist the state with signing boat ramps and intakes, etc. regarding the new law and with implementation.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 6. FISHERIES AND STATUS SPECIES (AQUATIC SPECIES)

1. Construction or reconstruction of stream crossings should allow passage for fish and other riparian dependent species where connectivity has been identified as an issue. 2. Fish passage barriers should be retained where they serve to restrict access by undesirable nonnative species and are consistent with restoration of habitat for native species. 3. Protect fish habitat and water quality when withdrawing water for administrative purposes

7. WILDLIFE AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (WILDLIFE)

General

1. Wildlife escape ramps (bird ladders or other devices) will be installed in all existing and proposed livestock water troughs and guzzlers to reduce incidences of small animal entrapment and drowning. 2. Biological (plants and animals) surveys will be completed prior to initiation to all developmental projects at the proper season to determine absence or presence of special status species. 3. If any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are located during project layout or implementation, management activities will be altered to include proper protection measures. 4. Use temporal restrictions for permitted activities during sensitive breeding and seasonal periods for special status species to minimize potential impacts from direct disturbance of habitat and indirect effects from increased noise and human presence. 5. Use livestock fencing to control livestock distribution and to exclude livestock from important breeding or seasonal special status species habitats (e.g., riparian zones). 6. Construct fences in accordance with Bureau Manual 1741. The proposed fence lines would not be bladed or scraped and would be designed to comply with Visual Resource Management (VRM) policy. Design fences with proper wire spacing to prevent the passage of livestock without stopping the movement of wildlife. All fences will be installed with wire stays and smooth wire bottom strands to reduce incidence of injury and/or death to big game animals. 7. Use riding and herding livestock to control use in sensitive areas. 8. Employ radio-telemetry as appropriate to acquire detailed wildlife data including: habitat use, home range size, mortality and survivorship, and migration timing and routes. 9. Developments actions (i.e. construction and maintenance) will be avoided during peak breeding, nesting, and brooding seasons. (Refer to requirements for specific species.) 10. Use of pesticides shall comply with the applicable Federal and State laws. Pesticides shall be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within limitations imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. 11. Apply vegetation treatments may on either a localized or widespread basis to achieve the desired ranges of vegetation conditions discussed in Section 2.5 and employing tools, individually or in combination, identified in Appendix G.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 12. Reseed disturbed areas no later than the fall following the end of construction or operation and maintenance activities with BLM-approved the seed mixtures and application methods. 13. Maintain habitat for snag-dependent species and species dependent on large-diameter trees. a. Avoid/protect veteran and relic fire survivor trees and snags during location, design, and construction of proposed new roads, skid trails, and cable corridors. b. The tree marking guide will assure a diversity of snag structural classes and the highest probability for long-term retention with emphasis on retention of the largest snags. c. Where necessary, an unharvested perimeter will be left around large, relic, fire- burned trees and/or snags to protect them from harvest operations. d. Design silvicultural prescriptions to retain large diameter, live trees (except those posing safety concerns and infected or at-risk Douglas-fir) which may be managed for future snag recruitment and retention. Large diameter trees that are felled for safety concerns will be left on the ground, unless they are within approximately 150 feet of an accessible road and will likely be taken for firewood. In this case, they could be removed by the operator. 14. Down logs in excess of minimum down wood guidelines within the fuelbreak zone adjacent to privately owned land would also be removed. In grapple-pile treatment units, the large-diameter logs will be left in place.

Bats

1. Avoid disturbance of bat maternity and roost sites. 2. Install bat gates at the entrance of caves and mines where necessary to protect important bat habitats, minimize potential impacts to roosting bats, and protect human health and safety. 3. Solutions for reducing bat mortality at wind turbines are under development. These include acoustical deterrents, feathering blades during low wind periods, and increasing the cut-in wind speed for blade rotation.

Northern goshawk

1. Survey for the presence of nesting goshawks in suitable goshawk habitat for all major management actions (e.g., timber sales) prior to the implementation of management activities. Two years of surveys are recommended for all new timber sales. 2. For goshawk, ensure that the most recent version of the E-4 Special Provision issued May 10, 1996, in Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-78 is included in all new sale contracts. 3. Management activities should not alter stand structure within a radius of 660 feet from known goshawk nests.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. Minimize human disturbance in active northern goshawk nest areas between March 1 and September 30. 5. Nest disturbing management activities should not occur within a radius of 1,320 feet from known active goshawk nests between April 1 and August 1. 6. For restoration of northern goshawk habitat: retain large pre-settlement trees, aggressively thin small post-settlement trees, and retain carefully selected small trees as eventual replacements for the large trees. 7. To sustain northern goshawk and prey habitat implement prescribed fire, various slash treatments, and thinning from below to achieve non-uniform spacing of trees larger than 46 centimeters DBH, not to exceed 30 to 50 percent canopy opening. 8. Retain some defect and cull trees and trees with dwarf mistletoe brooms for goshawk nest trees within stands being developed or maintained as nesting habitat. 9. Create a diversity of canopy closures above 40 percent including greater than 60 percent canopy closures in at least 20 percent of the area to enhance goshawk foraging habitat. 10. Implement group selection, group shelterwood, and variable-spaced shelterwood treatments along with stand maintaining prescribed fire in dense and multistoried Douglas-fir potential vegetation types to rejuvenate the stand without destroying the forest structure important to the goshawk. 11. Implement treatments to convert stands of ponderosa pine located in the ponderosa pine potential vegetation type occupied by small crowded stems into open stands dominated by large fire resistant trees with non-uniform, irregular tree spacing through mechanical means or fire. 12. Limit all overstory or regeneration harvest and increase harvest rotation length in nest area clusters. 13. Retain at least 60 percent of foraging habitat in mid-aged (20 percent), mature (20 percent), and old (20 percent) forest successional classes. 14. Large diameter snags and logs should be retained in goshawk foraging areas. 15. Retain at least five large (greater than 46 centimeter dbh [18 inches], greater than 9.1 meters [30 feet] in height) snags per hectare (two large snags per acre), and at least seven large (greater than 30 centimeters [12 inches] diameter, greater than 2 meters [7 feet] in length) downed logs per hectare (three per acre) in foraging areas comprised of ponderosa pine forest in eastern Washington. At least 7 large snags per hectare (3 per acre) with at least 12 large downed logs per hectare (5 per acre) should be retained in interior-fir forests. 16. Conservation of goshawk habitat should be managed on a landscape-scale and multiple spatial scales. 17. Closely monitor the impact of the removal of northern goshawks from the wild for falconry purposes.

Post-Fledgling Family Area (PFA)

a. Within the PFA, design forest health projects and timber sale activities to promote retention and development of late-successional forest structure. This may include the

Appendices – 2.1 p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices thinning of overstocked early and mid-seral stage forest stands (approximately 20-80 years) that may or may not have late-successional structural components. Specific management considerations within the PFA and nest buffers includes: b. Harvesting activities would be undertaken within the PFA, with a minimum of 60 percent managed as late-successional forest (e.g., approximately 150 + years) where sufficient acreage exists to do so. Harvest of late-successional forest stands may occur only when based upon a risk assessment and a determination of imminent threat to the viability of the habitat. An example would be harvesting for the creation of a fire break. c. Retention of all large trees, especially ponderosa pine greater than 18 inches DBH within the buffer area. d. PFAs for drier forests east of the Cascade crest should have greater than 60 percent canopy closure. e. Avoid removing late-seral forest in PFAs, and retain snags and downed logs. f. Initiate snag creation and recruitment within the PFA. g. Management activities must avoid or minimize disturbance during the bonding and nesting period. Accordingly, seasonal restrictions would preclude all disturbances from April 1 through August 30. h. Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions. i. Minimize mechanized harvest activities that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and soil erosion.

Rocky Mountain elk

1. Prohibit motor vehicle use within crucial winter range between December 1 and April 30. 2. Avoid management activities that disrupt areas identified by state fish and wildlife agencies as important elk calving areas from May 1 to June 30. 3. Avoid management activities that disturb elk wallows. 4. Design vegetation manipulation projects using irregular patterns, untreated patches, and other methods to provide for optimum edge effect for visual and wildlife considerations. Layout and design would be coordinated with local ODFW biologists. Seeding would only be done to enhance and sustain multiple-use values. 5. Consult with ODFW prior to undertaking major construction and/or surface disturbing activities in high value wildlife habitats, particularly in areas such as ridgelines, saddles, and upper drainage heads. 6. Maintain adequate thermal and security cover in deer and elk habitat, particularly within timber stands adjacent to primary winter foraging areas. 7. Range developments will be designed to achieve both wildlife and livestock grazing management objectives. 8. Post treatment surveys will be conducted on big game.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Bald eagle

1. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits all activities that may disturb nesting and roosting bald eagles. 2. No project activities will occur from February 1 through July 30 (both dates inclusive) within 0.5miles from any occupied bald eagle nest site that may occur in a project area. If it is determined that a nest was unsuccessful for the nesting season, the BLM authorized officer may issue a written waiver to this term and condition. 3. Project activities that have potential to disturb bald eagle winter roosts, shall be restricted within 400 meters of the roosting area from November 1 to April 30. 4. Where bald eagle nests are blown from trees during storms or are otherwise destroyed by the elements, continue to protect the site in the absence of the nest for up to three (3) complete breeding seasons. 5. In bald eagle habitat, a biological evaluation will be conducted or reviewed by a journey- level biologist to determine if the use of the area by eagles is incidental or essential. 6. An area determined to be essential bald eagle habitat, will be protected from adverse modification through curtailment of conflicting activities, modification of activities, seasonal restriction of activities, or avoidance of the area 7. In bald eagle habitat, predator and rodent control using baited traps and/or poisons will not take place within one mile of an active bald eagle nest or ¼ mile of a known roost. 8. In bald eagle management areas (BEMAs) and essential habitat, fuel wood cutting and gathering will not be permitted, unless a site specific review determines that it is necessary to promote desired future habitat conditions for bald eagle and other desired wildlife species. If fuel wood cutting is deemed necessary to promote habitat conditions, then the following protective measures will be implemented: 9. sign cut unit boundary prior to the fuel wood cutting season; 10. down or standing fuel wood will not be cut and gathered within ¼ mile of the nest between January 1 and August 31 if a bald eagle nest is active; down woody material may be gathered outside of the nesting season; 11. no standing dead tree greater than 18inches dbh shall be cut or removed within 500 meters (i.e., 0.31 mile) of the nest at any time of the year; and 12. no standing dead trees greater than 16 inches dbh shall be cut, unless it meets the long- term management objectives 13. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, prescribed fire managers need to use smoke management forecasts to minimize smoke entering suitable habitat and to ensure that dissipation will be adequate. 14. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, predator and rodent control using baited traps and/or poisons will not take place. 15. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, all vegetation manipulations need to promote the development of large trees capable of supporting future bald eagle nesting, perching, and roosting regardless of other land allocations. Timber harvest is allowable only for the purpose of initiating long-term stand management to achieve bald eagle habitat objectives.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 16. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, protect all known nesting, roosting, and perch trees and provide alternative and future perch trees. Generally, these are any live trees (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, etc.) or snags over 21” in diameter at breast height. 17. Reduce bald eagle mortality associated with shooting and trapping which may include education and enforcement during the nesting season. Provide public information explaining any need for closures and other measures to protect the bald eagle nest sites. 18. Determine the need and cooperate with other land management agencies on tree planting for roosting/nesting. Build short-term artificial platforms for roosting and nesting, if necessary.

Columbia spotted frog

1. Do not fragment or convert wetland habitat to upland habitat through management activities including, but not limited to: water diversions, road construction, maintenance, or recreational facilities expansion. 2. Do not degrade wetland habitat or water quality for Columbia spotted frog. 3. Where possible restore wetlands for Columbia spotted frog. Digging in channels, lakes, or shorelines would be for restoration purposes only and would require protection of Columbia spotted frogs. 4. Do not locate landings within Riparian Management Areas with Columbia spotted frog habitat. 5. Do not construct fire lines within Riparian Management Areas with Columbia spotted frog habitat. 6. New temporary roads will be located outside of zones delivering sediment to Columbia spotted frog habitat (as determined by soil type, ground vegetation, and slope), will provide relief drainage, and will be hydrologically closed. 7. Commercial road use, including hauling/blading, will not contribute to siltation off the road into Columbia spotted frog habitat. 8. Do not allow in-channel, in lake, or shoreline digging where removal of substrate occurs or significant disruption where Columbia spotted frog spawning or rearing habitat occurs (e.g., in-stream gravel mining or dredging). 9. Activities will not reduce the amount of vegetative cover to the point of creating streambank instability. Maintain 90 percent streambank stability for Columbia spotted frogs. 10. In reservoirs which can provide Columbia spotted frog habitat, allow maintenance or development of shallow water habitat with emergent vegetation through July to provide egg laying and development. 11. Limit activities within the Riparian Management Areas to those that have either a neutral or beneficial effect on aquatic objectives. Timing of those activities will be outside Columbia spotted frog egg laying/hatching for that area. If not known, restrict activities from March 1 to May 31.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 12. Habitat connectivity will be maintained through properly functioning streams, marsh, in stream, and floodplain vegetation. Restore native sedges, rushes, and willows and protect Columbia Spotted Frog. 13. Buffers shall be placed in areas where there are established breeding and spawning pools or Columbian spotted frog habitat.

Utility Corridors and Rights-of-way

1. Unless otherwise agreed to by the authorized officer in writing, power lines shall be constructed in accordance to standards outlined in 'Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power lines, 'Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., 2006. The holder shall assume the burden and expense of proving that pole designs not shown in the above publication are 'avian safe.' Such proof shall be provided by an avian expert approved by the authorized officer. The BLM reserves the right to require modifications or additions to all power line structures placed on this right-of-way, should they be necessary to ensure the safety of large perching birds (i.e. Install bird diverters on any above ground lines.) Such modifications and/or additions shall be made by the holder without liability or expense to the United States. 2. Use existing utility corridors and rights-of-way to consolidate activities to reduce habitat loss, degradation, and/or fragmentation from new construction. Where possible, install new power lines within existing powerline corridors or highway rights-of-way. 3. If installation is not possible within existing corridors, seek to minimize disturbance to known breeding, nesting, and brooding habitats by placing powerline corridors >3.2 km (2mi) from these areas 4. Aggressively treat noxious weeds and other invasive plants where they threaten quality wildlife habitat and apply best management practices to prevent infestations from occurring. 5. Managers will err on the side of wildlife protection and use the greatest set-back distance where feasible and necessary.

Sage-grouse

Livestock Grazing

1. Spring or early winter livestock trailing will be routed in a manner that will avoid direct overlap with sage-grouse during the breeding season of March 1 April 30 to avoid noise and disturbance to ongoing breeding activities. Lek locations will be provided to permittees so they may comply with this conservation measure. 2. Rangeland development actions (such as fence construction or development of water troughs) in sage-grouse breeding habitat will be avoided during the peak of strutting and nesting activities (March 1-May 31) and will be located away from established lek sites in accordance with guidelines established in the “Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance population and habitat” (Hagen 2005).

Appendices – 2.1 p. 17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices

Wind Energy Development

1. Sage-grouse protection measures at each tower site (MET and turbine) shall be as follows: a. Install perch-guard devices on each anemometer arm to discourage raptors from perching. b. Install bird deflectors on the lower portion of each guy wire. c. Tie at least two (2) brightly colored ribbons on each guy wire, one at a minimum of four feet and one approximately seven feet, above the ground. These ribbons should be long enough to allow movement in light winds. 2. The location of MET towers shall be avoided within two miles of an active lek or known seasonal concentration area (i.e. roost areas, brood rearing areas). A MET tower may be located within two miles of an active lek or seasonal concentration area if it can be placed out of the direct line of sight of these areas or if the visibility of the tower can be reduced in such a manner that reproductive activities are not adversely impacted. 3. Self supporting MET towers are strongly recommended and use of towers requiring guy wires is discouraged. If guy wires are necessary, all wires shall have permanent markers (bird flight diverters) attached for their entire length to increase visibility. 4. Additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be required to mitigate negative effects of installing MET towers in sage-grouse habitats. 5. Operators are to provide for monitoring of nearby leks or seasonal concentration areas as determined by the BLM. This information and associated requirements should be provided to prospective applicants for wind energy testing and monitoring authorizations at the pre-application meeting in advance of application filing. 6. Power down applications to each turbine will be installed when winds are strong and facing perpendicularly to the slope. 7. Any resulting water developments (i.e. temporary reservoirs) will be monitored for mosquito activity so it shall not be a vector of disease (West Nile) in sage-grouse. 8. Bird-deterring methods will be followed like painting the blades in such a way as to accentuate them (Hodos 2003).

Ferruginous Hawks

1. Improve prey habitat for ferruginous hawks by providing native shrub vegetation and increasing edge habitat. a. Windrow chained brush to provide cover for prey. b. Maintain or restore sagebrush-grass rangeland by removing Western juniper. 2. Maintain ownership of public lands that have substantial numbers of ferruginous hawks. 3. Avoid seeding of exotic grasses and cultivating in ferruginous hawk habitat, where possible. 4. Do not disturb nest sites from March 15 to July 15.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 5. Generally, avoid treatments between March 1 and August 1 each year, especially during the incubation period when ferruginous hawks are more prone to abandon nests if disturbed.

8. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (PLANTS)

1. Conduct botanical inventory for the presence/absence of special status plants prior to all ground disturbing project implementation. Inventory would be conducted during the time of year appropriate for species identification, allowing occupied plant habitat to be identified, mapped, flagged and protected as needed. 2. Avoid locating fire suppression surface-disturbing activities (i.e. control lines, access routes, helipads, etc.) within special status plant habitats, except when human life or private property is threatened. 3. Avoid actions that cause concentrated use or disturbance (e.g. trampling, ORVs, road construction, range improvements) in special status plant habitats. 4. Utilize integrated weed management treatments where invasive plants are encroaching on special status plant habitats. 5. Avoid adverse impacts of herbicide spraying on special status plants. 6. Avoid application of insecticides within 1/4 mile of occupied habitat unless clearly beneficial to special status plants, to protect pollinators. 7. Avoid seeding within occupied special status plant’s habitats unless it is clearly beneficial to special status plants. 8. Use only native seed for reseeding special status plant habitats, when seeding is required. 9. Do not authorize late season grazing in Snake River goldenweed (Pyrrocoma radiate) locations to reduce browse and trampling damage. (Provide common and scientific name?) 10. Do not authorize early season grazing in biennial stanleya (Stanleya confertiflora) sites to reduce trampling damage. (Provide common and scientific name?) 11. Both implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be completed for projects where there are potential impacts to special status plants.

9. FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

Refer also to BMPs listed in the “WATER AND SOILS RESOURCES – Fuels and Fire” section.

1. Minimize surface disturbance and avoid the use of heavy earth-moving equipment where possible, on all fire suppression and rehabilitation activities, including “mop-up”, except where high value resources (including life and property) are being protected. 2. Install waterbars and seed all mechanically constructed firelines with native or adapted nonnative species as appropriate. 3. Avoid dropping fire retardant that is detrimental to aquatic communities in streams, lakes, ponds, and in riparian/wetland areas. Prohibit delivery of foam or additives within 100 feet of waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. The location and construction of handlines should result in minimal surface disturbance while effectively controlling the fire. Hand crews should locate lines to take full advantage of existing land features that represent natural fire barriers. Whenever possible, handlines should follow the contour of the slope to protect the soil, provide sufficient residual vegetation to capture and retain sediment, and maintain site productivity. 5. Suppression in riparian areas should be by handcrews when possible. 6. To protect soil productivity, burning should be conducted if possible under conditions when a low-intensity burn can accomplish stated objectives. Burn only when conditions of organic surface or duff layer have adequate moisture to minimize effects to the physical and chemical properties of the soil. When possible, maximize the retention of the organic surface or duff layer. 7. Slash should not be piled and burned with riparian/wetland areas. If riparian/wetland areas are within or adjacent to the prescribed burn unit, piles should be fire lined or scattered prior to burning. 8. When preparing a unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps; pile small material (3-8 inches in diameter). Slash piles should be burned when soil and duff moisture are adequate to reduce potential damage to soil resources.

10. CULTURAL RESOURCES

General Cultural Resources BMPs

1. Protect prehistoric, historic, and traditional cultural properties unless an exemption is specified in a programmatic agreement or a project specific mitigation plan is developed in consultation with the appropriate recognized tribes and/or State Historic Preservation Officer. 2. Maintain and enhance cultural resource databases and spatial data. 3. Assess wildfire and suppression effects to all cultural resources known to exist within the burned area and stabilize or rehabilitate where necessary. 4. Develop predictive models in consultation with the Oregon SHPO and the appropriate tribal entities for use during cultural resource inventories. Validate and refine modeling efforts over time, utilizing the most current GIS data available.

BMPs Specific to Construction and Mining

1. Operators shall not knowingly alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically important paleontological (fossil) remains or any historical or archaeological site, structure, or object on Federal lands. 2. The operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the resource area manager, any paleontological (fossil) remains or any historical or archaeological site, structure, or object that might be altered or destroyed by exploration or mining operations, and shall leave such discovery intact until told to proceed by the resource area manager.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 3. The resource area manager shall evaluate the discovery, take action to protect or remove the resource, and allow operations to proceed within 10 working days.

11. VISUAL RESOURCES

Scenery

1. Short-term reductions to existing scenic integrity levels should be authorized only when needed to achieve the long-term restoration or rehabilitation of scenic integrity and/or scenic stability. Reductions should reduce scenic integrity by no more than one level, and mitigation measures should be designed to minimize the impacts. 2. Special design and reclamation measures may be required to protect scenic and natural landscape values. This may include transplanting trees and shrubs, mulching and fertilizing disturbed areas, use of low profile permanent facilities, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface-disturbing activities may be moved to avoid sensitive areas or to reduce the visual effects of the proposal. 3. Above ground facilities requiring painting should be designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. 4. Disturbed areas should be contoured to blend with the natural topography. Blending is defined as reducing form, line, and color contrast associated with the surface disturbance. Disturbance in visually sensitive areas should be contoured to match the original topography, where matching is defined as reproducing the original topography and eliminating form, line, and color caused by the disturbance as much as possible. 5. Consider the effects on visual values (complete VRM contrast rating) from all new surface disturbing activities.

B. RESOURCE USES

1. FACILITIES

Septic Systems

1. Septic systems designed for more than 20 people per day, fall under state or US EPA underground injection control Class V regulations. If septic systems are designed for fewer than 20 people per day, then other state or local regulations may apply. 2. Locate septic systems far enough from drinking water sources to avoid potential contamination (minimum setback distances are typically defined by state or local governments that have oversight of underground injection control or septic programs). 3. Septic tanks and drainfields must be of adequate size to properly treat the volume of wastewater. 4. Design should be completed by a licensed engineer. 5. Proper operation and maintenance are imperative. 6. Pump septic tanks every two to five years.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 7. Hazardous chemicals should be taken to a hazardous waste collection site rather than disposed into a septic system.

Parking Lots

1. Design parking lots to manage runoff appropriately with techniques such as grassy swales and vegetated filter strips. 2. Design parking lots to allow infiltration, for example concrete grid pavement is a good option. 3. Sweep up litter and debris, especially around storm drains or other direct connections to surface water.

All Surface/soil Disturbing Activities

1. Construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to minimize impacts to resource values, public health and safety, and minimize user conflicts of approved activities and access within an area as appropriate.

2. FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS

Timber Harvest and Silviculture

1. Timber harvest projects should be developed through interdisciplinary review that considers multiple use of the general area and ensures that the harvest systems used are appropriate for the site. 2. Timber harvest or other ground disturbing projects should not cause irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions. 3. Clear cutting should only be used only where it is silviculturally essential to accomplish the relevant forest management objectives, or where the size of clear-cut blocks, patches, or strips is kept at the minimum necessary to accomplish silvicultural and other multiple- use management objectives. Cutting units should not exceed 40 acres in normal circumstances; more than 40 acres may be appropriate for salvage of an area already environmentally damaged by fire, insect or wind, or where larger cutting units would sanitize the area from an insect or disease infestation. 4. The selection of trees in partial cuts would be made in a manner to improve the genetic composition of the residual stand. 5. Use directional felling systems where needed to minimize site damage; to protect streams, buffer strips, riparian areas, cultural sites, or reserved timber (including wildlife trees); or to increase timber utilization. 6. Logging activities would be timed to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values. 7. Logging units will be laid out in a manner that would reduce the risk of windthrow. 8. Design harvest units and forest health treatments to blend with natural terrain. 9. Each sale plan must include plans for prompt reforestation of the sale area after completion of the timber harvest operation by natural or artificial means. Disturbed areas

Appendices – 2.1 p. 22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices will be artificially reforested when natural forest regeneration cannot be reasonably expected in 5 to15 years.

Logging Systems

1. Plan for use of harvest systems that minimize damage to the site and reserved trees, and provide maximum protection from fire, insects, disease, wind and other hazards. 2. Ground-based skidding systems are not recommended on slopes that are 35 percent or greater. Specialized ground-based systems (cut-to-length, harvester-forwarder) may exceed this limitation based on site specific conditions. 3. Utilize designated skid trails, where feasible, when using ground-skidding logging systems. 4. Locate skid trails on upper slope positions, as far as possible from surface water. Avoid skidding across drainage bottoms or creating conditions that concentrate and channelize surface flow. 5. Skyline yarding systems should have a minimum distance of 150 feet between either the yarder or tail-hold end, of yarding corridors. 6. Outdated or hybrid cable yarding systems such as hi-lead or jammer systems are discouraged, but may be approved on a case specific basis.

Slash Treatment

1. To achieve fire hazard reduction and to provide for reforestation and other forest management opportunities, full consideration must be given at time of sale planning to desirability and method of slash disposal and site preparation. 2. Slash disposal will be done in a manner conducive to re-vegetation and advantageous to wildlife. 3. Slash may be burned when necessary and such burning will be in conformance with state air pollution regulations. 4. Slash may be scattered in cutting units and treatment areas, consistent with fuel loading limitations.

Landings

1. Design landings to minimize disturbance consistent with safety and efficiency of operation. (Refer also to BMPs in the “Landings” subsection of the “WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES – Timber” section.) 2. Landings will be of minimum size commensurate with safety and equipment requirements and located on stable areas to minimize the risk of material entering adjacent streams and waters. Landings should be located on firm ground away from RMAs or surface water. Avoid landing locations on unstable areas, steep side hills or areas which require excessive excavation.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Utilization

1. Encourage complete utilization of all harvested trees, including marginal and non- commercial species. Each forest products sale will provide opportunity for maximum use of all timber or other vegetative resources sold. 2. Explore opportunities for utilization of unmerchantable material as biomass.

Roads

1. The existing road network should be adequate for most forest management needs. Where necessary, construct only temporary spur roads. (Refer to the BMPs in the “TRANSPORTATION – Roads” section.)

Temporary and Restricted System Roads: Closure, Stabilization and Obliteration

1. Close, stabilize or obliterate temporary and restricted system roads upon completion of all forest management activities. If subsequent treatment access is required following primary treatment, retain temporary roads until all work is completed. a. Close by obstructing the road with gates, earthen barricades, logs, stumps, or boulders as necessary to accomplish temporary closure. b. Stabilize by leaving road in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further maintenance. c. Obliterate by decompacting road surface (ripping and/or sub-soiling) and obstructing all entrances to the former roadway.

Soil Protection

1. Conduct forested land treatments when soil surfaces are either frozen, dry, or have adequate snowpack to minimize impacts to soil and water resources. a. When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM- authorized activities, such as log yarding and hauling, should be limited or cease unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer. b. Timber harvest on frozen ground should have a minimum snow cover of one foot and should be stopped during periods of thawing or other wet periods. If any rutting of native surface roads occurs, winter logging activity and hauling should be stopped during these periods. 2. Install water-bars and apply native seed, when available, to skid trails and landings prior to temporary seasonal closures and following harvest operations. Consider ripping or sub-soiling on temporary haul roads, landings and main, arterial skid trails to reduce compaction where soil and slope conditions permit. 3. When ground-skidding or cable-yarding, logs should have the lead end suspended. 4. Use low pressure grapple equipment, if possible, when piling slash. 5. Design and locate skid trail and skidding operations to avoid across ridge and across drainage operation and minimize soil compaction.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 6. Allow no more than 12 percent of the area, excluding permanent roads, to become compacted during initial stand entry. Reentry of previously compacted stands will include mitigation (ripping, sub-soiling, etc.) to reduce compaction to acceptable levels. 7. Follow-up evaluation of stabilization measures should be conducted to insure that restoration measures are adequate for re-vegetation, soil productivity and stabilization.

RMAs and Water Quality

1. Timber harvest projects should include provisions to avoid detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment. 2. For each landing, skid trail, or fire trail, provide and maintain a drainage system to control the dispersal of water and to prevent sediment from entering streams. 3. Where timber should be removed to achieve forest and/or riparian management objectives that results in inadequate shade protection, plan to promptly reestablish cover along the stream after cutting is completed. Fast growing deciduous species or other suitable vegetation may be required to restore shade as quickly as possible. Leave understory vegetation as undisturbed as possible to filter runoff and help stabilize the soil. 4. Avoid trapping and turning small streams out of their natural streambeds.

3. LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Grazing Treatments

1. Grazing schedules are developed and adjusted through the adaptive management process on an allotment-specific basis. This process controls grazing to mitigate impacts to resource values, make progress toward multiple use management objectives, and achieve sustainability. Grazing management practices would be consistent with Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix 3.6) and Grazing Systems in the Planning Area (Appendix 2.3).

Rangeland Improvements

Implementation of rangeland projects and improvements is one facet of adaptive management employed to reduce resource management conflicts and to achieve multiple use management objectives. The standard design elements and procedures for rangeland improvements summarized below have been standardized over time to mitigate impacts and will be adhered to when constructing and maintaining rangeland projects. 1. Preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis documentation (EIS, EA, categorical exclusion, or administrative determination) of the proposed project will be completed prior to implementation. Proposed rangeland improvements may be modified or abandoned or an EIS may be required if the analysis indicates that significant adverse environmental impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated. a. Impacts of all rangeland management activities, including project development and maintenance, in wilderness study areas (WSAs) will be assessed prior to

Appendices – 2.1 p. 25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices implementation to ensure that they meet wilderness Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review unless and until the area is removed from the study category (either wilderness designation or the WSA is released by Congress). b. A cultural resources inventory will be completed prior to any surface-disturbing activities associated with the implementation of proposed rangeland improvements. If significant cultural values are identified, every effort will be made to avoid adverse impacts through relocation, redesign or abandonment of the project. Where avoidance is not possible, the BLM will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance with the programmatic memorandum of agreement by and between the BLM, the Council, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (January 14, 1980) to develop appropriate mitigative measures in compliance with section 106 of the “National Historic Preservation Act” (1966). Management adherence to agreed upon mitigative measures will be implemented in compliance with these regulations. c. Pre-project on-the-ground special status species surveys would be completed in areas where federally listed, federal candidate and/or Bureau Sensitive species are likely to occur. If a project could potentially affect any listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or its critical habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be initiated (ESA). The project may be modified, relocated, or abandoned in order to meet ESA requirements. If a project may contribute to the need to list a Federal candidate or Bureau sensitive species, a technical assistance request will be made to the USFWS. Mitigation measures or protections to minimize impacts to federally listed, federal candidate and Bureau Sensitive species will be incorporated into project design features. d. Projects which have the potential to adversely affect relevant or important values in ACEC’s would be evaluated to identify potential impacts. Proposed actions would be redesigned to avoid adverse impacts, appropriate mitigating actions would be required, or the proposed project would be abandoned to maintain the relevant and important values for which the ACEC was designated. e. A visual resource contrast rating procedure would be employed to minimize adverse impacts created by proposed projects on the landscape. 2. Surface-disturbing activities associated with project implementation will be held to a minimum necessary to complete the project. Disturbed soil will be rehabilitated to blend into surrounding soil surfaces and vegetated as needed with adapted perennial species to stabilize soils and preclude invasion and dominance of undesirable and weedy species. 3. The existing road and trail system will be utilized to provide access for rangeland project construction and maintenance. If needed, unimproved trails and tracks may be developed to reach construction sites unless this action is inconsistent with the management of SMAs, then other means of access may be required. New trails and tracks would continue to be used for project maintenance. Any new authorized road construction would be in accordance with standard operating procedures and BMPs for road construction.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 26 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. Normal maintenance of existing projects and new projects will occur, as consistent with original design, through the life of the plan in order to support authorized uses of public land. Maintenance can include activities such as replacement of pipeline sections, fencepost and wire replacement, cleaning of reservoirs within the original disturbance area, replacement of water troughs, cleaning and maintenance of spring boxes, cleaning or resetting of cattleguards, and maintenance of livestock handling facilities. While maintenance of existing facilities may occur in SMAs, there may be further mitigation actions required to ensure that values of these places are not impaired.

Vegetation Treatments

1. Projects which manipulate vegetation composition, including seedings and woody species control projects, will be completed primarily to direct vegetation composition toward desired conditions and to enhance and sustain multiple use values. 2. The preferred method for control of woody species is burning with management ignited or natural ignited fire, but may include cutting, chaining, or spraying of herbicides. Vegetation treatment projects will be designed and implemented utilizing irregular patterns of treatment consistent with topography, VRM, and site potential. 3. Design will provide optimum edge effect for visual quality and desirable landscape diversity for all values. Layout and design will be coordinated with interested publics, including ODFW. 4. Current and accepted technologies (including drilling, broadcast seeding, and planting of seedlings) will be implemented to ensure the success of establishment of desired species mixtures and attainment of desired future conditions within vegetation communities. Methods of establishment used will be determined on a site-specific basis during project planning. a. Seed mixtures will be determined on a site-specific basis to include perennial species adapted to climatic and edaphic conditions, based on the best available information from appropriate State and local rangeland and wildlife experts. b. Seeding of herbaceous and shrub species will be accomplished primarily by use of rangeland drill or similar techniques to enhance the probability of seeding success. Where rangeland drills are used, slopes will be drilled on the contour to minimize soil movement. c. Broadcast seeding of herbaceous and shrub species will occur on small disturbed areas, rough terrain, and rocky areas where drilling is inappropriate. d. Proposed seeding within WSA’s or RNA’s would be addressed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with policies. e. All seedings, including those areas rehabilitated following wildland fire, will be deferred from livestock grazing until seeding establishment objectives have been achieved. Additional herbaceous production resulting from vegetation manipulation projects and fire will not be allocated for use until monitoring data support that it is available on a sustained basis.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 27 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Water Developments

1. Water developments would follow established standards for construction (BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-2). 2. Reservoir development would involve the construction of pits and dams to impound surface water for livestock, wildlife, and other resource values. a. Rights to use water on public land associated with the construction of reservoirs and pits be acquired, perfected, maintained and administered under the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Oregon. b. Pits would be constructed in playas, dry lake-beds, and other natural depressions. Dams would be constructed in drainages. c. Water storage capacity of pits or reservoirs would generally be less than 2.0 acre- feet. Fill material to complete dam construction may come from the impoundment area or a borrow area outside the impoundment area. d. Excavated material from pits would be piled adjacent to the pit. e. Topsoil would be stockpiled to be used for rehabilitation of borrow areas and other areas stripped of soil. As consistent with resource objectives, reservoirs and pits may be excluded from livestock use through fencing or other means. 3. All State of Oregon water well drilling regulations would be adhered to, both in drilling and equipping. a. A safety device would be installed on new power line transformers to prevent electrocution of raptors. b. Metal storage tanks would be painted to blend with the surrounding landscape. c. Consistent with VRM objectives of the area, wells and associated structures would be located where topographic features or vegetation would serve to screen associated structures and disturbances from the casual observer. 4. Spring development would involve digging or drilling to intercept naturally occurring waterflow. a. Perforated pipe and/or collection boxes would be utilized to collect and divert water through a pipeline to troughs away from riparian vegetation associated with spring areas. b. Usually, the spring source and trough overflow area would be fenced to prevent livestock grazing and trampling impacts to riparian vegetation communities. c. Water would be made available inside fenced spring developments for wildlife use. d. In those areas that receive recreation use, access may be provided via a style (stairs over a fenceline) or a walk-through device specifically designed to preclude livestock passage. 5. Pipelines will be constructed to convey water from wells, springs, reservoirs, and other water sources to troughs in areas lacking adequate water to maintain appropriate animal distribution. 6. Troughs will usually be placed in upland vegetation communities less vulnerable to livestock impacts and soil compaction.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 28 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 7. Generally, 1 to 2-inch diameter plastic pipe would be installed with pipe-laying equipment consisting of a modified ripper tooth mounted on a tractor and buried to a depth adequate to protect the development, though seldom deeper than 30 inches. Where obstructions prohibit pipeline burial, the pipe may be laid on the ground surface and covered with borrow soil. 8. At times, reservoirs and other storage facilities may be constructed along pipelines. Reservoirs associated with pipelines will normally be fenced to exclude livestock, while providing water for wildlife use. In the event of equipment failure, reservoirs may provide temporary emergency water for livestock. 9. Access points to and escape routes from water troughs will be provided for birds and small mammals.

Fences

1. Established standards for fence construction on public land would be followed (BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1). Fences would be designed to develop a barrier to livestock movement while minimally impeding wildlife movement (in accordance with A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences, Paige, 2008). 2. Design features would be developed specific to each proposed fencing project to accomplish the desired objectives while avoiding undesired impacts and controversy. 3. Surface disturbance associated with fence construction and maintenance will be minimized. Though the canopy of vegetation along fencelines may be removed and scattered, no blading or scraping would be authorized to clear routes for fence construction. 4. All fences would be consistent with the VRM class of the area. 5. Gates would be located and constructed at appropriate locations to provide for livestock passage. Gates and cattleguards, as appropriate, will be located at road crossings to provide vehicular passage. Gates will be constructed adjacent to all cattleguards to provide passage by equipment which cannot cross cattleguards. 6. Recreation access would be provided where fences are necessary in the vicinity of recreation sites.

4. RECREATION

Refer also to BMPs in the “WATER AND SOILS – Recreation” section.

1. Generally avoid placing new facilities or infrastructure within expected long-term channel migration zones. Where activities, such as the placement or construction of road- stream crossings, boat ramps, docks, and interpretive trails, inherently must occur in RMAs, locate them to minimize impacts on riparian dependent resource conditions (e.g., within geologically stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites). 2. Consider removing or relocating existing recreation facilities which are causing unacceptable impacts in RMAs.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 29 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 3. Construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to minimize impacts to resource values, public health and safety, and minimize user conflicts of approved activities and access within an area as appropriate. 4. Harden site and locations subject to prolonged/repetitive concentrated recreational uses with selective placement of gravel or other porous materials and allow for dust abatement, paving and engineered road construction. 5. Use public education and/or physical barriers (such as rocks, posts, vegetation) to direct or prelude uses and to minimize impacts to resource values. 6. As appropriate, employ limitations of specific activities to avoid or correct adverse impacts to resource values. 7. Employ land use ethics programs and techniques such as “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly.” Use outreach efforts of such programs to lessen needs to implement more stringent regulatory measures to obtain resource protection. 8. Restoration of dispersed and developed campgrounds usually includes some or all of the following: a. removal of campground fill material and/or structures, such as berms, toilets, fences, picnic tables b. ripping or sub-soiling sites to remove compaction c. stream bank restoration d. placement of rock or other barriers such as fences to block vehicle access; gravel surfacing of existing sites to designate access routes and parking e. planting shrubs and trees to restore streamside, floodplain, and meadow vegetation f. reducing or clearing noxious weeds 9. Design remedial actions to restore floodplain characteristics (elevation, width, gradient, length, and roughness) in a manner that closely mimics, to the greatest degree possible, those that would naturally occur at that stream and valley type. 10. Overburden or fill comprised of native materials, which originated from the project area, can be used to reshape the floodplain, placed in small mounds on the floodplain, used to fill anthropogenic holes, buried on site, and/or disposed of in upland areas. 11. To the greatest degree possible, non-native fill material originating from outside the project area shall be removed from the floodplain to an upland site. 12. Consider de-compaction of soils once overburden material is removed. 13. Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, including trails and dispersed sites, in a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of the aquatic objectives. Complete and ID team analysis of aquatic objectives prior to construction of new recreation facilities inside riparian management areas (RMAs). (Refer also to BMPs in the “WATER AND SOILS RESOURCES – Recreation” section.) 14. For existing recreation facilities inside RMAs, assure that the facilities or use of the facilities will not prevent attainment of aquatic objectives. Relocate or close recreation facilities where aquatic objectives cannot be met. 15. Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of aquatic objectives. Where adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific site

Appendices – 2.1 p. 30 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices closures are not effective in meeting aquatic objectives and avoiding adverse effects on aquatic objectives, eliminate the practice or occupancy. 16. Develop campgrounds, OHV play areas, and other areas concentrating recreational uses well away from special status plant habitat. 17. Limit OHV use to designated routes when adjacent to special status plant habitat. 18. Manage public vehicle access to maintain the habitat effectiveness of security cover and key seasonal habitat (such as winter range) for deer and elk.

5. TRANSPORTATION

Road Construction

1. Minimize new road construction. Emphasize the use of existing roads through continued use or reconstruction. 2. Base road design criteria and standards on road management objectives such as traffic requirements of the proposed activity and the overall transportation plan, economic analysis, safety requirements, and resource objectives. 3. Design roads to: minimize total surface disturbance and disruption of natural drainage patterns; conform with topography; and maintain forest productivity, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. 4. Minimize sediment production from borrow pits and gravel sources through proper location, development, and reclamation. Provide for quarry drainage to prevent sediment from entering streams. 5. Minimize excavation when constructing roads through: the use of balanced earthwork; designing roads no wider than necessary to accommodate the immediate anticipated use; and end hauling where sideslopes are between 50 and 70 percent. 6. Design full-bench roads for slopes over 60 percent. End-haul excess material to a geologically stable site for disposal and away from riparian conservation areas. Use balanced cut-and-fill road construction where practical. 7. Where possible, locate roads on stable terrain and well-drained soils such as ridgetops, natural benches, and flatter transitional slopes near ridges and valley bottoms and moderate sideslopes. Avoid slumps, rock bluffs, slide prone areas, concave slopes, clay beds, and where rock layers dip parallel to the slope. 8. Avoid head walls, midslope locations on steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, seeps, old landslides, sideslopes in excess of 70 percent, and areas where the geologic bedding planes or weathering surfaces are inclined with the slope. Implement extra mitigation measures when these areas cannot be avoided. 9. If possible, construct roads when soils are dry and not frozen. Hold wet-weather road building to a minimum, particularly on poorly drained, erodible soils which may drain mud directly to streams. When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities should be limited or cease unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 31 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 10. Design cut and fill slopes at the normal angle of repose – approximately 3(h):1(v) – or less where feasible. Locate roads to minimize heights of cutbanks. Avoid high, steeply sloping cutbanks in highly-fractured bedrock. Vary the steepness of slopes on cut and fill slopes commensurate with the strength of the soil and bedrock material as established by an engineering geologist or other specialist in soil mechanics. 11. Build fills in lifts to ensure optimum compaction and minimize slumpage. Avoid the inclusion of slash, logs and other organic debris in fills. 12. On primary roads wherever serious erosion is likely, large cut-and-fill slopes should be stabilized with plant cover as soon as possible. Seed (revegetate) cuts and fills the first fall season following disturbance. Local experience will indicate the best practices and species to use. 13. Generally, berms should be removed or at least broken frequently to allow lateral drainage to non-erodible areas. Berms are desirable on large erodible fills to prevent drainage from the road crown down the center of the fill section. 14. Plan ditch gradients steep enough (generally greater than 2 percent) to prevent sediment deposition. 15. Strip and stockpile topsoil ahead of construction of new roads, if feasible. Reapply soil to cut and fill slopes prior to revegetation. 16. Plan transportation networks to avoid road construction within riparian conservation areas. Vegetation strips between roads and streams will be of adequate size to support achievement of indicators of watershed/aquatic conditions. 17. Minimize and balance cuts and fills, especially near streams. Design roads to balance cuts and fills or use full bench construction where stable fill construction is not possible. 18. Plan to dispose of excavated waste material on geologically stable sites and away from Riparian Conservation Areas. 19. Construct roads to comply with Oregon Forest Practices Act plan and design guidelines. 20. In rippable materials, construct roads with no overhanging banks.

Road Drainage

1. Design road drainage systems to prevent fill erosion and avoid direct sediment discharge into streams. Use the Forest Service “Guide for Controlling Sediment from Secondary Logging Roads” or equivalent to assist in drainage design. 2. Minimize water velocity, and minimize water travel time on roads, road cuts, road fills, in ditches and in other drainage features containing coarse or fine sediment. 3. Provide adequate drainage from the surface of all roads by using outsloped or crowned roads, well-placed dips or water bars, or insloped roads with ditches and cross-drains or relief culverts as appropriate. 4. In some areas, alternating inslope and outslope sections can be built into the road, especially if road grades are rolled to dispose of road surface flow. 5. Outsloped roads are appropriate when fill slopes are stable, drainage will not flow directly into stream channels, and transportation safety considerations can be met. Sloping the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage is normally recommended

Appendices – 2.1 p. 32 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices for local spurs or minor collector roads where low traffic volume and lower traffic speeds are anticipated, in situations where long intervals between maintenance will occur, and where minimum excavation is wanted. Out-sloping is not recommended on steep slopes. 6. For insloped roads, generally design ditch gradients to be between 2 and 8 percent to prevent sediment deposition and ditch erosion. The higher gradients may be suitable for more stable soils; use the lower gradients for less stable soils. Sloping the road base to the inside edge is an acceptable practice on roads with steep sideslopes and where the underlying soil formation is very rocky and not subject to appreciable erosion or failure. 7. Crown and ditching is recommended for arterial and collector roads where traffic volume, speed, intensity and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range from 0 to 15 percent where crown and ditching may be applied, as long as adequate drainage away from the road surface and ditch lines is maintained. 8. Vary road grades to reduce concentrated flow in road surface, ditches, and culverts and on fill slopes and road surfaces. If necessary, include short road segments with steeper grades, consistent with traffic needs and safety, to avoid problem areas or to take advantage of terrain features. 9. Size drainage structures appropriately to handle anticipated flow during normal runoff or storms. Install drainage structures on roads before fall or spring runoff. 10. Locate cross drains, culverts, water bars, dips, and other drainage structures in such a manner as to avoid discharge onto erodible soils, fill slopes, and unstable terrain such as head walls or slumps without outfall protection. Culverts should be placed on solid ground to avoid road failures. Install culverts or drain dips frequently enough to avoid accumulations of water that will cause erosion or road ditches and the area below the culvert and drain dip outlets. 11. Use riprap, woody debris, downspouts, or similar devices where necessary to reduce the erosion energy of the emerging water and prevent erosion of fills. Provide rock or other basins at the outlet of culverts and rock the drain dips if economically feasible. 12. When installing culverts and drain dips, avoid changes in channel orientation and place these structures to conform to the natural channel gradient. Design culverts for maximum stream flow (e.g., 25year discharge). 13. Use drainage dips instead of culverts on roads where gradients would not present a safety issue. Locate drainage dips in such a way so water would not accumulate or where outside berms prevent drainage from the roadway. 14. Construct drain dips deep enough into the subgrade so that traffic will not obliterate them. Dips should be angled 20 to 45 degrees perpendicular to the road and have a drainage grade of 2-8 percent. 15. Plan ditch gradients steep enough (generally greater than 2 percent) to prevent sediment deposition. 16. Install relief culverts with a minimum drain grade of 2 percent. 17. Where possible, install relief culverts at the gradient of the original ground slope; otherwise armor outlets with rock or anchor downspouts to carry water across the fill slope.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 33 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 18. Skew relief culverts 20 to 30 degrees toward the inflow from the ditch to improve inlet efficiency. Develop the catch basin at sufficient size to prevent the culvert inlet from plugging. 19. Culverts in natural drainage ways would be oriented to minimize fill slope erosion or to carry water beyond fills. 20. Provide drainage where groundwater causes slope instability. 21. Prevent downslope movement of sediment by using sediment catch basins, drop inlets, changes in road grade, headwalls, recessed cut slopes, slash filter windrows, or other design features. 22. Route road drainage through vegetative filtration fields, slash windrows, or other sediment settling structures. Install road drainage features above stream crossings to route discharge into filtration zones before entering a stream.

Riparian Areas

1. Avoid new road construction in RMAs, except where necessary for stream crossings. Avoid riparian/wetland areas where feasible; locate in these areas only if the roads do not interfere with the attainment of proper functioning condition (PFC) and riparian management objectives (RMOs). 2. Keep stream disturbance to an absolute minimum. Avoid stream courses, wetlands, and unstable areas when reconstructing existing roads or constructing new roads and landings. Minimize impacts where avoidance is not practical. 3. Construct roads in a manner that prevents debris, overburden, and excess materials (including sidecast soil, stumps, logs or other material) from entering a stream. Deposit excess materials outside of stream protection zones in stable locations well above the high-water level and never into the stream channel. Include these waste areas in soil stabilization planning for the road. 4. Construct catchment basins, brush windrows, and culverts in a way to minimize sediment transport from road surfaces to stream channels. Install culverts in natural drainage channels in a way to conform with the natural streambed gradients with outlets that discharge onto rocky or hardened protected areas. 5. Retain adequate vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads. 6. When constructing roads near streams, use slash filter windrows to minimize sediment reaching the stream. Minimize the amount of woody debris buried in embankments and minimize the amount of snow, ice, and frozen soil added to embankments. 7. Establish adapted vegetation on all cuts and fill immediately following road construction and maintenance. 8. Minimize hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery from roads and route drainage away from potentially unstable channels, fills, and hillslopes inside and outside of RMAs. 9. Unless no other source is available, gravel should not be taken from streambeds except from dry gravel bars. Washing of gravel into streams will normally cause sedimentation and should be avoided.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 34 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 10. Avoid placing fill material in floodplain unless the material is large enough to remain in place during flood events.

Stream Crossings

1. Obtain all necessary permits for stream crossings before beginning activities. 2. Minimize the number of stream crossings. Comply with Stream Channel Alteration Law (Title 42, Chapter 38, Idaho Code) and ensure that all Class I stream culvert installations allow fish passage. Cross streams as close to a right angles to the main channel as possible. Locate the crossing where the channel is well-defined, unobstructed, and straight. 3. Before working in a stream channel or in a streamside riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA), all heavy equipment or other machinery will be inspected for hydraulic or other leaks. Fix identified problems before entering areas that drain directly to stream. Clean equipment with accumulations of oil, grease, or other toxic materials prior to use in these areas. An emergency spill containment kit will be located on site during construction activity. 4. Fuel storage and fueling of equipment will not occur within streamside riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). 5. Minimize the number of unimproved stream crossings. When a culvert or bridge is not feasible, locate drive-through (low water crossings) on stable rock portions of the drainage channel. Harden crossings with the addition of rock and gravel if necessary. Use angular rock if available. 6. Use materials that would withstand 100-year flow events (e.g., concrete, well anchored concrete mats, etc.) on permanent low water ford crossings. 7. Utilize natural bedrock geology to provide hardened and stable low water ford crossings. Where erosive soils exist, harden approaches with non-erodible materials on permanent crossings. Provide relief drainage on approaches. 8. Use washed rock/gravel in temporary low water ford crossings, where a non-fill structure is not possible. 9. Do not locate stream crossings strictly on a grade basis. Choose a stable site and adjust grade to it, when possible. 10. Grade control structures are permitted to prevent headcutting above or below the culvert or bridge. Grade control typically consists of boulder structures that are keyed into the banks, span the channel, and are buried in the substrate. The hydraulic impacts of grade control structures must be analyzed for effects on the stream crossing. 11. Structures containing concrete must be cured or dried (approx 7 days) before they come into contact with stream flow. 12. Incorporate road dips into stream crossing design, to ensure catastrophic flood events will transport overflow back into the stream channel instead of onto the road bed. 13. Locate and design drainage dips immediately upgrade of stream crossings and provide buffer areas and catchment basins to prevent sediment from entering the stream.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 35 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 14. The toes of fills on larger creek crossings should be protected above the high-water line to prevent soil movement. 15. For long-term roads, Design and locate water crossing structures in natural drainage channels to accommodate adequate fish passage, provide for minimum impacts to water quality, and capable of handling a 100-year event for runoff and floodwaters. 16. In bridge location, plan to avoid relocation of the stream channel. Where the stream must be changed, use riprap, vegetative cover, or other means to reduce soil movement into stream. 17. In building bridge footings and abutments, limit machine work as much as possible to avoid disturbing the stream. This initial work often greatly increases turbidity and sediment movement. 18. Projects should be reviewed by an engineer with design input from an experienced fisheries biologist and hydrologist. Such personnel shall oversee or review the project during construction to ensure that BMPs are being properly implemented. A licensed engineer will provide design review for projects that result in structures that are greater than 20’ in width. 19. Assess sites for a potential to headcut below the natural stream gradient. Use field surveys and quantitative analysis to assess headcut potential. 20. Use culverts that pass, at a minimum, a 50-year storm event and/or have a minimum diameter of 24 inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18 inches for road crossdrains. 21. Proper sized aggregate and riprap should be used during culvert construction. Place riprap at culvert entrance to streamline water flow and reduce erosion. 22. Replace undersized culverts and repair or replace damaged culverts and downspouts. Provide energy dissipators at culvert outlets or drainage dips. 23. For removal or replacement of existing road-stream crossing structures (culverts, bridges, etc.), restore the stream channel and reconnect the floodplain at the site. Heavy equipment may only be used when an ID team has determined that it will not retard attainment of Aquatic Objectives. Upstream of the isolated project area, divert stream flow through use of coffer dams (diversions) constructed with non-erosive materials or by-pass culvert. 24. For culvert removal projects, restore natural drainage patterns and when possible promote passage of all fish species and life stages present in the area. Evaluate channel incision risk and construct in-channel grade control structures when necessary. 25. Flood relief culverts will be designed to restore and maintain access to off-channel holding areas for aquatic species (including fish). Therefore, existing floodplain channels should be the first priority for location of flood relief culverts. Flood relief culverts should be installed in a manner that match floodplain gradient and do not lead to scour at the outlet. 26. The stream slope at the stream crossing shall approximate the average channel gradient of the natural stream up and downstream of the structure. The maximum slope for closed- bottomed culverts shall not exceed 6 percent because of difficulties in retaining substrate

Appendices – 2.1 p. 36 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices in the culvert at higher gradients. Open-bottom arches can be placed in channel gradients that exceed 6 percent. 27. If a closed culvert is used, the bottom of the culvert shall be buried into the streambed not less than 20 percent and not more than 50 percent of the culvert height. For open- bottomed arches and bridges, the footings or foundation shall be designed to be stable at the largest anticipated scour depth. Substrate and habitat patterns within the culvert should mimic stream patterns that naturally occur above and below the culvert. Coarser material may be incorporated to create velocity breaks during high flows, thereby improving fish passage, and to provide substrate stability. 28. The use of riprap is permissible above bankfull height to protect the embankment. If the use of riprap is required for structure stability, then an additional analysis may be required to ensure that the structure is not undersized. Riprap may only be placed below bankfull height when necessary for protection of abutments and pilings for bridges. However, the amount and placement of riprap around the abutments and/or pilings should not constrict the bankfull flow. 29. Limit activities of mechanized equipment to streambank areas or temporary platforms when installing or removing structures, unless channel is dewatered. 30. If access is required through construction site, a temporary crossing shall be constructed and removed within the same instream period and the disturbed ground shall be rehabilitate to pre-existing conditions. Rehabilitation will include re-vegetating, recontouring and controlling surface erosion through the following two years. 31. Re-vegetate disturbed areas with vegetation of similar structure and composition to pre- existing vegetation and ground cover. Use native species. Conserve on-site woody vegetation for rehabilitating disturbed areas (in channel structure, upland down wood, bank erosion control, etc). Flush cut or remove entire root wad. If wood is kept on site to meet upland down wood objectives, place away from area prone to firewood use. Large woody debris resulting from clearing activities may be placed in the downstream channel to meet aquatic objectives. 32. Monitor structures after high flow events, which occur during the first fall/winter/spring after project completion. Assess the following parameters: headcutting below natural stream gradient, substrate embeddedness in the culvert, scour at the culvert outlet, and erosion from sites associated with project construction. Apply remedial actions to correct. 33. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings. Limit cutting or removal of vegetation on the closed road-bed to the amount required to access the culvert site 34. Restore natural drainage patterns and when possible promote passage of all fish species and life stages present in the area. Evaluate channel incision risk and construct in-channel grade control structures when necessary. 35. Use sediment control barriers immediately adjacent to the stream, between the disturbance areas and the stream as necessary to ensure no visible increase in stream turbidity occurs. 36. Space drainage features used for storm-proofing and treatment projects to prevent road surface runoff from entering stream channels.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 37 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 37. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable sites out of the flood prone area (the elevation at two times max bankfull depth). Waste material other than hardened surface material (asphalt, treated timbers, metal objects, etc) may be used to restore natural or near-natural contours. 38. When removing a culvert from a first or second order, second order, or non-fishing bearing stream, ID team shall determine if culvert removal should require dewatering or fish removal or both. If necessary to meet Aquatic Objectives, isolate construction area and remove fish from project area. 39. For any repair work in streams occupied by native fish, instream work will be timed to avoid disturbance of staging adult fish, redds, or gravels with unemerged juveniles where possible. Timing restrictions may be waived in cases of overriding safety concerns or the threat of further severe resource damage. 40. Diversions constructed with material mined from the streambed or floodplains are not permitted. 41. Pumps must have fish screens and be operated in accordance with state and federal fish screen criteria. 42. If diversion allows for downstream fish passage, (i.e., is not screened), place diversion outlet in a location to promote safe reentry of fish into the stream channel, preferably into pool habitat with cover. 43. Dissipate flow energy at the bypass outflow to prevent damage to riparian vegetation or stream channel. 44. When necessary, pump seepage water from the de-watered work area to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland areas and filter water prior to reentering the stream channel. 45. When dewatering is no longer required, slowly release water back into the channel. Prevent loss of surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water. Prevent a sudden increase in stream turbidity. Monitor downstream during this process to prevent stranding of aquatic organisms below the construction site. 46. Use temporary stream crossings to access the opposite side with any equipment or vehicles (including ATVs). 47. Design temporary crossings to pass existing flow plus the 10 year event (probability) for 6 hr rainfall events to account for summer thunderstorms or 24 hour event for winter flows. 48. Restrict access to temporary crossings. 49. Use ramped low water fords in debris flow susceptible streams (e.g., if the temporary crossing is a low water ford, access should be restricted to blocked residences, emergency vehicles, contractors, and BLM inspection personnel). 50. Clear drainage ways of all debris generated during construction or maintenance that may interfere with drainage or affect water quality. 51. Before fall or spring runoff, stabilize slopes where exposed material (such as excavation, embankment, waste piles) may erode and enter streams by seeding, compacting, riprapping, benching, mulching, or other suitable means. 52. Disturbed areas will be seeded following work, mulch may be applied.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 38 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 53. Place drainage diversions approximately 50 ft above stream crossings so that water may be filtered through vegetative buffers before entering the stream.

Road Maintenance

1. Maintain all roads immediately after logging and the primary roads whenever necessary by cleaning ditch lines, blading debris from empty landings, trimming damaged culvert ends and cleaning out culvert openings. 2. Grade road surfaces only as often as necessary to maintain a stable running surface and to retain the original surface drainage. 3. Maintain erosion control features through periodic inspection and maintenance, including cleaning dips and cross-drains, repairing ditches, marking culvert inlets to aid in location, and clearing debris from catch basins and culverts. 4. Maintenance should be performed to conserve existing surface material, retain the original crowned or out-sloped, self-draining cross section, prevent or remove rutting berms (except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard normal surface runoff. 5. Avoid undercutting back slopes. Do not disturb the toe of cut slopes. 6. Remove berms from the downslope side of roads, consistent with safety considerations. 7. Avoid casting graded material over the fill slope or shoulder where it can cause stream sedimentation or weaken slump-prone areas. 8. Place all excess material removed by maintenance operations in safe disposal areas and stabilize these sites to prevent erosion. Avoid locations where erosion will carry materials into a stream. 9. Inspect roads after major runoff events and intense or prolonged rainstorms, placing priority on roads in municipal watersheds. 10. Evaluate all bridges and culverts on roads to be closed to determine the need for removal or periodic maintenance. 11. Avoid using roads during wet periods if such use would damage the road drainage features. 12. Monitor surface drainage during wet periods and close the road if necessary to avoid undue damage. 13. Consider improving inadequately surfaced roads that are to be left open to public traffic during wet weather with gravel or pavement to minimize sediment production and maximize safety. 14. Maintain roads in special management areas (SMA’s) according to SMA guidance. Generally, retain roads within existing disturbed areas and sidecast material away from the SMA. 15. When landslides occur, save all soil and material usable for reclamation or stockpile for future reclamation needs. Avoid side casting of slide material where it can damage, overload, and saturate embankments, or flow into down-slope drainage courses. Reestablish vegetation as needed in areas where vegetation has been destroyed due to side casting.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 39 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 16. Apply dust abatement or other surface stabilizing chemicals in a manner which prevents entry into streams. Do not place in road ditches, and do not allow pooling on the road surface. 17. Control roadside brush only to the extent required for good road maintenance and safety. Roadside brushing of vegetation should be done in a way that prevents disturbance to root systems and visual intrusions (i.e., avoid using excavators for brushing). 18. For road segments that parallel stream courses, consider the need for stream shade along with safety considerations during brushing operations. This may necessitate hand brushing, partial brushing, or limbing, with consideration for providing growth for future shade. 19. Avoid brushing along stream channels and floodplains. Preserve as much ground vegetation as possible, and brush only where necessary for human safety or to avoid threats to structural stability. Do not brush beyond 4 feet of the road as measured by the edge of the drivable road surface (not measured from turnouts or road shoulder). Maintain riparian overstory to provide stream shade. Maintaining a minimum height of riparian vegetation by brushing once every 3 years instead of once every 5 years. Prune riparian vegetation rather than completely removing it. 20. To provide for woody debris recruitment, when removing down logs in the road which extend into a stream, any material on the fill slope and in the stream will not be removed, except in cases where the retention of this material would result in a safety concern (i.e., downstream facilities). 21. During maintenance or repair, place woody debris from the road-crossing inlet downstream of the road crossing.

Snow Removal

1. Plow snow only on existing roads. 2. Snow should not be completely removed on unpaved roads. In general, a minimum two inches of snow should be left on the roadway during plowing operations to protect the surface of the road. 3. When plowing snow for winter use of roads, provide breaks in snow berms to allow for road drainage. Drainage holes should be spaced as required to obtain satisfactory surface drainage without discharge on erodible fills. 4. Avoid plowing snow into streams. Avoid plugging ditches and culverts during snow plowing operations.

Timber Roads and Landings

1. Logging road locations, particularly on sensitive areas, should be evaluated by a forester, soil scientist, wildlife biologist, and other specialists as needed. The location should be fitted to the topography to minimize cut and fill situations. In areas of important big game habitat, consultation with the wildlife biologist will be necessary to reduce impacts on wildlife, particularly in areas such as ridgelines, saddles and upper drainage heads. Where

Appendices – 2.1 p. 40 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices alternative locations are not possible, incorporate mitigating measures into road development plans. Avoid stream crossings, if possible. If not possible, minimize approach cuts and fills and channel disturbance and maintain stream bank vegetation. 2. For timber harvest spur roads, take advantage of natural landing areas (flatter, better drained, open areas) to reduce soil disturbance associated with log landings and temporary work roads. 3. Mitigate loss of snags where snags will not create a safety hazard. 4. Locate landings outside of Jurisdictional Wetlands and RMAs. 5. Locate new landings outside of Riparian Management Areas or at least 300 ft from waterbodies (whichever is greater) and avoid expanding existing landings in Riparian Management Areas when sediment delivery to stream channels could occur. 6. Locate landings in areas with low risk for landslides.

Road Rehabilitation (Renovation, Closure, and Obliteration)

1. Conduct road rehabilitation with an overall goal of restoring hydrologic functions, including: eliminate or reduce erosion and mass-wasting hazards associated with roads; eliminate or reduce human access and associated impacts to aquatic systems; and enhancing natural hydrologic processes through reduction of drainage network. 2. Rehabilitation actions to be employed include bridge and culvert removal, removal of asphalt and gravel, installing drainage culverts, constructing road dips, subsoiling or ripping of road surfaces, outsloping, waterbarring, fill removal, sidecast pullback, revegetating with native species, and placement of large wood and/or boulders 3. Reconstruct road and drainage features that: do not meet design criteria or operation and maintenance standards; have been shown to be less effective for controlling sediment delivery; prevent attainment of terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian objectives; or do not protect watersheds from increased sedimentation and peak flows. Prioritize reconstruction based on current and potential damage to terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian resources; ecological value of the resources affected; and feasibility of options such as helicopter logging and road relocation out of riparian conservation areas. 4. Close and stabilize or obliterate and stabilize roads not needed for future management activities. Prioritize based on current and potential damage to terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian resources and ecological value of the resources affected. 5. Leave abandoned roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further maintenance. Remove culverts. Close abandoned roads to traffic. Physically obstruct the road with gates, large berms, trenches, logs, stumps, or rock boulders as necessary to accomplish permanent closure. 6. For culvert removals on closed roads, limited cutting or removal of vegetation on the closed road-bed to access the culvert site may be required. 7. For road obliteration within riparian areas, re-contour the affected area to mimic natural floodplain contours and gradient to the greatest degree possible. 8. Consider temporary or permanent road closure for all dead-end roads or roads with an expected duration of use of fewer than five years.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 41 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 9. When obliterating or removing segments immediately adjacent to the stream, consider using sediment control barriers between the project and the stream. 10. Drainage features used for storm proofing and treatment projects should be spaced as to hydrologically disconnect road surface runoff from stream channels. 11. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable sites out of the flood prone area (the elevation at two times max bankfull depth). Waste material other than hardened surface material (asphalt, treated timbers, metal objects, etc) may be used to restore natural or near natural contours. 12. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings to the greatest extent possible.

7. LANDS & REALTY

Aboveground Storage Tanks

1. Aboveground storage tanks should have spill and overfill prevention and leak detection. 2. Secondary containment should be designed to contain the entire volume of the materials that can be stored in the aboveground storage tank. 3. Tanks should be protected from corrosion. 4. Aboveground storage tanks should be protected from physical damage and vandalism through use of guard posts and fencing, as necessary. 5. Aboveground storage tanks should be operated, maintained, and closed appropriately.

Land Exchanges and Sales

1. The following general management criteria would be applied when considering land exchanges within the planning area. To be considered to be in the public interest, exchanges must: a. facilitate access to public land and resources b. maintain or enhance important public values and uses c. maintain or enhance local social and economic conditions d. facilitate implementation of other goals and objectives of the RMP 2. It is important to minimize the impact to the local tax base by emphasizing exchanges rather than direct purchases.

Direct Purchases

1. Direct purchases of non-Federal lands may occur when the same public interest general management criteria apply as described under Land Exchanges above.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 42 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Disposal of Land by Sale

1. Current BLM Washington Office policy prohibits the disposal of land acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds. Generally, exchanges are the preferred method of disposal but sales will be utilized when: a. sale is required by national policy b. sale is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis, and where disposal through exchange would cause unacceptable delays c. disposal through exchange is not feasible. 2. The preferred method of selling public land will be by competitive bidding at public auction to qualifying purchasers. However, modified competitive bidding procedures may be used when there is no legal public access to a tract, when necessary to avoid jeopardizing an existing use on adjacent land, or to avoid dislocation of existing public land users. Public land may be sold by direct sale at fair market value when: a. such land is needed by state or local governments b. direct sale is needed to protect equities arising from authorized use c. from inadvertent unauthorized use that was caused by survey errors or title defects d. there is only one adjacent landowner

Methods of Disposal

1. Methods of disposal for implementing land disposal actions include the following: a. BLM and other Federal jurisdictional transfers b. transfers to state and local agencies (e.g., “Recreation and Public Purpose Act” patents, in-lieu selections, airport patents) c. state exchanges d. private exchanges e. sales f. desert land entries

Public Parcels within Privately-Owned Land

1. Scattered parcels of public land located within consolidated private areas could be exchanged or sold. Land exchanges would be the preferred method of disposal because this would maintain the current public and private land bases. Parcels of public land may be exchanged for land with greater resource values within BLM retention areas.

All Surface/soil Disturbing Activities

1. Disturbance from rights-of-way and/or disturbance in utility corridors use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously disturbed areas, rather than traverse undisturbed communities. 2. Areas disturbed during project construction will be reseeded with a mixture of grasses, forbs and shrubs to meet site specific needs or habitat requirements.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 43 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 3. Disturbed areas should be contoured to blend with the natural topography. Blending is defined as reducing form, line, and color contrast associated with the surface disturbance. Disturbance in visually sensitive areas should be contoured to match the original topography, where matching is defined as reproducing the original topography and eliminating form, line, and color caused by the disturbance as much as possible.

Rights-of-Way and Utility Corridors

1. Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously disturbed areas whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed communities. 2. Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of the rights-of-way and utility corridors, and across the full width of the disturbed area, as directed by the authorized officer. 3. Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by vegetation practices designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation cover should be reestablished to increase infiltration and provide additional protection from erosion. 4. Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also be employed for the removal of sediment from runoff.

Wind Energy Program

Site Monitoring and Testing

1. The area disturbed by installation of meteorological towers (i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum. 2. Existing roads shall be used to the maximum extent feasible. If new roads are necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate BLM road design standards. 3. Meteorological towers shall be located to avoid sensitive habitats or areas where ecological resources known to be sensitive to human activities (e.g., sage-grouse) are present. 4. Installation of towers shall be scheduled to avoid disruption of wildlife reproductive activities or other important behaviors, and shall be consistent with sage-grouse management strategies. (Refer to BMPs in the “WILDLIFE – Sage-grouse” section.) 5. Guy wires on permanent meteorological towers shall be avoided, however, may be necessary on temporary meteorological towers installed during site monitoring and testing. If guy wires are necessary, the meteorological towers shall be periodically inspected to determine whether permanent markers (bird flight diverters) attached to the guy wires are necessary to increase visibility. 6. Meteorological towers installed for site monitoring and testing shall be inspected periodically (at least every 6 months) for structural integrity. 7. A study design strategy shall be required for any environmental studies initiated or baseline data collected during the site testing and monitoring period. The operator shall submit the study design strategy to the BLM authorized officer for review.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 44 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices

Plan of Development Preparation

1. Site turbines close together to minimize the development footprint (subject to technical constraints such as the need for greater separation between larger turbines). 2. The BLM and operators shall contact appropriate agencies, property owners, and other stakeholders early in the planning process to identify potentially sensitive land uses and issues, rules that govern wind energy development locally, and land use concerns specific to the region. 3. Available information describing the environmental and socio-cultural conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project shall be collected and reviewed as needed to predict potential impacts of the project. 4. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required notice of proposed construction shall be made as early as possible to identify any required air safety measures. 5. To plan for efficient use of the land, necessary infrastructure requirements shall be consolidated wherever possible, and current transmission and market access shall be evaluated carefully. 6. The project shall be planned to utilize existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum extent feasible and to minimize the number and length/size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas. 7. A monitoring program shall be developed to ensure that environmental conditions are monitored during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. The monitoring program requirements, including adaptive management strategies, shall be established at the project level to 8. Ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are mitigated. The monitoring program shall identify the monitoring requirements for each environmental resource present at the site, establish metrics against which monitoring observations can be measured, identify potential mitigation measures, and establish protocols for incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and BMPs. 9. “Good housekeeping” procedures shall be developed to ensure that during operation the site will be kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; to prohibit scrap heaps and dumps; and to minimize storage yards.

Wildlife and Other Ecological Resources

1. Operators shall review existing information on species and habitats in the vicinity of the project area to identify potential concerns. 2. Operators shall identify important, sensitive, or unique habitats in the vicinity of the project and design the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these habitats. Such measures may include avoidance, relocation of project facilities or lay-down areas, and/or relocation of biota.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 45 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 3. Operators shall conduct surveys for Federal and/or State-protected species and other species of concern (including priority wildlife and special status plant and animal species) within the project area and design the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these resources. The amount and extent of ecological baseline data required shall be determined on a project-specific basis. 4. Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area using surveys consistent with current methodologies and standards shall be conducted and design the project to minimize or mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes (e.g., development shall not occur in riparian habitats and wetlands). 5. Operators shall determine the presence of bat colonies and avoid placing turbines near known bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies; in known migration corridors; or in known flight paths between colonies and feeding areas. 6. Operators shall determine the presence of active raptor nests (i.e., raptor nests used during the breeding season) and design the project to provide for spatial buffers and timing restrictions for surface disturbing activities. Measures to reduce raptor use at a project site (e.g., minimize road cuts, maintain either no vegetation or plant species that are unattractive to raptors around the turbines) shall also be identified. 7. Turbines shall be configured to avoid landscape features known to attract raptors if site studies show that placing turbines there would pose a significant risk to raptors. New wind turbines should be mounted on taller towers as close together as feasible and outside canyons, ravines, and valleys, and where rodent and owl burrows are relatively scarce. 8. Facilities shall be designed to discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates by birds. For example, power lines and poles shall be configured to minimize raptor electrocutions and discourage raptor and raven nesting and perching. 9. A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate negative impacts on vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other species. The plan shall identify reclamation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction measures that shall be implemented to ensure that all temporary use areas are restored. The plan shall require that restoration occur as soon as possible after completion of activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.

Refer also to BMPs in the “WILDLIFE” and “WATER AND SOILS RESOURCES” sections.

Visual Resources

1. The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer and visualization simulations in public presentations. 2. Visual resource management (VRM) considerations shall take place early in the project planning phase in accordance with BLM VRM manual and handbooks.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 46 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 3. Visual mitigation planning and design shall be performed through field assessments, applied GPS technology, photo documentation, use of computer-aided design and development software, and visual simulations to reflect a full range of visual resource best management practices. 4. Operators shall utilize digital terrain mapping tools at a landscape/viewshed scale for site planning and design, visual impact analysis, and visual impact mitigation planning and design. The digital terrain mapping tools shall be at a resolution and contour interval suitable for site design and accurate placement of proposed developments into the digital viewshed. 5. Visual simulations shall be prepared and evaluated in accordance with BLM Handbook H-8432-1, or other agency requirements, to create spatially accurate depictions of the appearance of proposed facilities. Simulations shall depict proposed project facilities from Key Observation Points and other visual resource sensitive locations. 6. Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. 7. Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount of lighting on ancillary structures.

Ground Transportation

1. An access road siting and management plan shall be prepared incorporating existing BLM standards regarding road design, construction, and maintenance such as those described in the BLM 9113 Manual and the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (revised 2007). 2. A transportation plan shall be developed, particularly for the transport of turbine components, main assembly cranes, and other large pieces of equipment. The plan shall consider specific object sizes, weights, origin, destination, and unique handling requirements and shall evaluate alternative transportation approaches. In addition, the process to be used to comply with unique state requirements and to obtain all necessary permits shall be clearly identified. 3. A traffic management plan shall be prepared for the site access roads to ensure that no hazards would result from increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be adversely impacted. This plan shall incorporate measures such as informational signs, flaggers when equipment may result in blocked throughways, and traffic cones to identify any necessary changes in temporary lane configuration.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 47 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Noise

1. Proponents of a wind energy development project shall take measurements to assess the existing background noise levels at a given site and compare them to the anticipated noise levels associated with the proposed project.

Noxious Weeds and Pesticides

1. Operators shall develop a plan for control of noxious weeds and invasive species to address monitoring, education of personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods for treating infestations. 2. The use of certified weed-free mulch and certified weed-free seed shall be required. 3. If trucks and construction equipment are arriving from locations with known invasive vegetation problems, a controlled inspection and cleaning area shall be established to visually inspect construction equipment arriving at the project area and to remove and collect seeds that may be adhering to tires and other equipment surfaces. 4. If pesticides are used on the site, an integrated pest management plan shall be developed to ensure that applications will be conducted within the framework of BLM and DOI policies and entail only the use of EPA-registered pesticides. 5. Pesticide use shall be limited to non-persistent, immobile pesticides and shall only be applied in accordance with label and application permit directions and stipulations for terrestrial and aquatic applications. 6. Any applications of herbicides will be subject to BLM herbicide treatment standard operating procedures. Only herbicides on the list of approved herbicide formulations (updated annually) will be used on public lands.

Cultural/Historic Resources

1. The BLM will consult with Indian tribal governments early in the planning process to identify issues regarding the proposed wind energy development, including issues related to the presence of cultural properties, access rights, disruption to traditional cultural practices, and impacts to visual resources important to the tribe(s). 2. The presence of archaeological sites and historic properties in the area of potential effect shall be determined on the basis of a records search of recorded sites and properties in the area and/or, depending on the extent and reliability of existing information, an archaeological survey. Archaeological sites and historic properties present in the area of potential effect shall be reviewed to determine whether they meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 3. When any right-of-way application includes remnants of a National Historic Trail, is located within the viewshed of a National Historic Trail’s designated centerline, or includes or is within the viewshed of a trail eligible for listing on the NRHP, the operator shall evaluate the potential visual impacts to the trail associated with the proposed project and identify appropriate mitigation measures for inclusion as stipulations in the POD.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 48 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. If cultural resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain cultural material have been identified, a cultural resources management plan (CRMP) shall be developed. This plan shall address mitigation activities to be taken for cultural resources found at the site. Avoidance of the area is always the preferred mitigation option. Other mitigation options include archaeological survey and excavation, and monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential, but no artifacts were observed during an archaeological survey, monitoring by a qualified archaeologist may be required during all excavation and earthmoving in the high-potential area. A report shall be prepared documenting these activities. The CRMP also shall (1) establish a monitoring program, (2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of artifacts and destruction of property on public land.

Paleontological Resources

1. Operators shall determine whether paleontological resources exist in a project area on the basis of the sedimentary context of the area, a records search for past paleontological finds in the area, and/or, depending on the extent of existing information, a paleontological survey. 2. If paleontological resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain paleontological material have been identified, a paleontological resources management plan shall be developed. This plan shall include a mitigation plan for collection of the fossils; mitigation may include avoidance, removal of fossils, or monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential but no fossils were observed during survey, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist may be required during all excavation and earthmoving in the sensitive area. A report shall be prepared documenting these activities. The paleontological resources management plan also shall (1) establish a monitoring program, (2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of fossils on public land.

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

1. Operators shall develop a hazardous materials management plan addressing storage, use, transportation, and disposal of each hazardous material anticipated to be used at the site. The plan shall identify all hazardous materials that would be used, stored, or transported at the site. It shall establish inspection procedures, storage requirements, storage quantity limits, inventory control, nonhazardous product substitutes, and disposition of excess materials. The plan shall also identify requirements for notices to Federal and local emergency response authorities and include emergency response plans. 2. Operators shall develop a waste management plan identifying the waste streams that are expected to be generated at the site and addressing hazardous waste determination procedures, waste storage locations, waste-specific management and disposal

Appendices – 2.1 p. 49 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices requirements, inspection procedures, and waste minimization procedures. This plan shall address all solid and liquid wastes that may be generated at the site. 3. Operators shall develop a spill prevention and response plan identifying where hazardous materials and wastes are stored on site, spill prevention measures to be implemented, training requirements, appropriate spill response actions for each material or waste, the locations of spill response kits on site, a procedure for ensuring that the spill response kits are adequately stocked at all times, and procedures for making timely notifications to authorities.

Storm Water

1. Operators shall develop a storm water management plan for the site to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and prevent offsite migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil erosion.

Human Health and Safety

1. A safety assessment shall be conducted to describe potential safety issues and the means that would be taken to mitigate them, including issues such as site access, construction, safe work practices, security, heavy equipment transportation, traffic management, emergency procedures, and fire control. 2. A health and safety program shall be developed to protect both workers and the general public during construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind energy project. Regarding occupational health and safety, the program shall identify all applicable Federal and State occupational safety standards; establish safe work practices for each task (e.g., requirements for personal protective equipment and safety harnesses; Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard practices for safe use of explosives and blasting agents; and measures for reducing occupational electric and magnetic fields (EMF) exposures); establish fire safety evacuation procedures; and define safety performance standards (e.g., electrical system standards and lightning protection standards). The program shall include a training program to identify hazard training requirements for workers for each task and establish procedures for providing required training to all workers. Documentation of training and a mechanism for reporting serious accidents to appropriate agencies shall be established. 3. Regarding public health and safety, the health and safety program shall establish a safety zone or setback for wind turbine generators from residences and occupied buildings, roads, rights-of-ways, and other public access areas that is sufficient to prevent accidents resulting from the operation of wind turbine generators. It shall identify requirements for temporary fencing around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during construction or decommissioning activities. It shall also identify measures to be taken during the operation phase to limit public access to hazardous facilities (e.g., permanent fencing installed only around electrical substations, and turbine tower access doors locked).

Appendices – 2.1 p. 50 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 4. Operators shall consult with local planning authorities regarding increased traffic during the construction phase, including an assessment of the number of vehicles per day, their size, and type. Specific issues of concern (e.g., location of school bus routes and stops) shall be identified and addressed in the traffic management plan. 5. If operation of the wind turbines is expected to cause significant adverse impacts to nearby residences and occupied buildings from shadow flicker, low-frequency sound, or EMF, site-specific recommendations for addressing these concerns shall be incorporated into the project design (e.g., establishing a sufficient setback from turbines). 6. The project shall be planned to minimize electromagnetic interference (EMI) (e.g., impacts to radar, microwave, television, and radio transmissions) and comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Signal strength studies shall be conducted when proposed locations have the potential to impact transmissions. Potential interference with public safety communication systems (e.g., radio traffic related to emergency activities) shall be avoided. 7. The project shall be planned to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, including lighting regulations, and to avoid potential safety issues associated with proximity to airports, military bases or training areas, or landing strips. 8. Operators shall develop a fire management strategy to implement measures to minimize the potential for a human-caused fire and respond to natural fire situations.

Construction

General

1. All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the construction phase, as appropriate. 2. The area disturbed by construction and operation of a wind energy development project (i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum. 3. The number and size/length of roads, temporary fences, lay-down areas, and borrow areas shall be minimized. 4. Topsoil from all excavations and construction activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during reclamation. 5. All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Reclamation activities shall be undertaken as early as possible on disturbed areas. 6. All electrical collector lines shall be buried in a manner that minimizes additional surface disturbance (e.g., along roads or other paths of surface disturbance). Overhead lines may be used in cases where burial of lines would result in further habitat disturbance. 7. Operators shall identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope instability (such as groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake activities, slope angles, and the dip angles of geologic strata). Operators also shall avoid creating excessive slopes during excavation and blasting operations. Special construction techniques shall be used where applicable in areas of steep slopes, erodible soil, and stream channel crossings.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 51 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 8. Erosion controls that comply with county, State, and Federal standards shall be applied. Practices such as jute netting, silt fences, and check dams shall be applied near disturbed areas.

Wildlife

1. Timing restrictions for construction activities may be implemented to minimize impacts to wildlife. 2. In accordance with the habitat restoration plan, restoration shall be undertaken as soon as possible after completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats. 3. All construction employees shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, pets shall not be permitted on site during construction.

Visual Resources

1. Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by clearly delineating construction boundaries and minimizing areas of surface disturbance; preserving vegetation to the greatest extent possible; utilizing undulating surface disturbance edges; stripping, salvaging and replacing topsoil; contoured grading; controlling erosion; using dust suppression techniques; and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation.

Ground Transportation

1. Existing roads shall be used, but only if in safe and environmentally sound locations. If new roads are necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate BLM road design standards and be no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended functions (e.g., traffic volume and weight of vehicles). Excessive grades on roads, road embankments, ditches, and drainages shall be avoided, especially in areas with erodible soils. Special construction techniques shall be used, where applicable. Abandoned roads and roads that are no longer needed shall be recontoured and revegetated. 2. Access roads and on-site roads shall be surfaced with aggregate materials, wherever appropriate. 3. Access roads shall be located to follow natural contours and minimize side hill cuts. 4. Roads shall be located away from drainage bottoms and avoid wetlands, if practicable. 5. Roads shall be designed so that changes to surface water runoff are avoided and erosion is not initiated. 6. Access roads shall be located to minimize stream crossings. All structures crossing streams shall be located and constructed so that they do not decrease channel stability or increase water velocity. Operators shall obtain all applicable Federal and State permits. 7. Existing drainage systems shall not be altered, especially in sensitive areas such as erodible soils or steep slopes. Potential soil erosion shall be controlled at culvert outlets

Appendices – 2.1 p. 52 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices with appropriate structures. Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts shall be cleaned and maintained regularly. 8. Project personnel and contractors shall be instructed and required to adhere to speed limits commensurate with road types, traffic volumes, vehicle types, and site-specific conditions, to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow and to reduce wildlife collisions and disturbance and airborne dust. 9. Traffic shall be restricted to the roads developed for the project. Use of other unimproved roads shall be restricted to emergency situations. 10. Signs shall be placed along construction roads to identify speed limits, travel restrictions, and other standard traffic control information. To minimize impacts on local commuters, consideration shall be given to limiting construction vehicles traveling on public roadways during the morning and late afternoon commute time. Consideration shall also be given to opportunities for busing of construction workers to the job site to reduce traffic volumes.

Air Emissions

1. Dust abatement techniques shall be used on unpaved, unvegetated surfaces to minimize airborne dust. 2. Speed limits (e.g., 25 mph [40 km/h]) shall be posted and enforced to reduce airborne fugitive dust. 3. Construction materials and stockpiled soils shall be covered if they are a source of fugitive dust. 4. Dust abatement techniques shall be used before and during surface clearing, excavation, or blasting activities.

Excavation and Blasting Activities

1. Operators shall gain a clear understanding of the local hydro-geology. Areas of groundwater discharge and recharge and their potential relationships with surface water bodies shall be identified. 2. Operators shall avoid creating hydrologic conduits between two aquifers during foundation excavation and other activities. 3. Foundations and trenches shall be backfilled with originally excavated material as much as possible. Excess excavation materials shall be disposed of only in approved areas or, if suitable, stockpiled for use in reclamation activities. 4. Borrow material shall be obtained only from authorized and permitted sites. Existing sites shall be used in preference to new sites. 5. Explosives shall be used only within specified times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife or streams and lakes, as established by the BLM or other federal and state agencies.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 53 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Noise

1. Noisy construction activities (including blasting) shall be limited to the least noise- sensitive times of day (i.e., daylight hours only or specified times) and weekdays. 2. All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. All construction equipment used shall be adequately muffled and maintained. 3. All stationary construction equipment (i.e., compressors and generators) shall be located as far as practicable from nearby residences. 4. If blasting or other noisy activities are required during the construction period, nearby residents shall be notified in advance.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

1. Unexpected discovery of cultural or paleontological resources during construction shall be brought to the attention of the responsible BLM authorized officer immediately. Work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find to avoid further disturbance to the resources while they are being evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are being developed.

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

1. Secondary containment shall be provided for all onsite hazardous materials and waste storage, including fuel. In particular, fuel storage (for construction vehicles and equipment) shall be a temporary activity occurring only for as long as is needed to support construction activities. 2. Wastes shall be properly containerized and removed periodically for disposal at appropriate offsite-permitted disposal facilities. 3. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials to the environment, the operator shall document the event, including a root cause analysis, appropriate corrective actions taken, and a characterization of the resulting environmental or health and safety impacts. Documentation of the event shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer and other Federal and State agencies, as required. 4. Any wastewater generated in association with temporary, portable sanitary facilities shall be periodically removed by a licensed hauler and introduced into an existing municipal sewage treatment facility. Temporary, portable sanitary facilities provided for construction crews shall be adequate to support expected onsite personnel and shall be removed at completion of construction activities.

Public Health and Safety

1. Temporary fencing shall be installed around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during construction to limit public access.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 54 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Operation

General

1. All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the operational phase, as appropriate. These control and mitigation measures shall be reviewed and revised, as needed, to address changing conditions or requirements at the site throughout the operational phase. This adaptive management approach will help ensure that impacts from operations are kept to a minimum. 2. Inoperative turbines shall be repaired, replaced, or removed in a timely manner. Requirements to do so shall be incorporated into the due diligence provisions of the rights-of-way authorization. Operators will be required to demonstrate due diligence in the repair, replacement, or removal of turbines; failure to do so may result in termination of the right-of-way authorization.

Wildlife

1. Employees, contractors, and site visitors shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, any pets shall be controlled to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife. 2. Observations of potential wildlife impacts, including wildlife mortality, shall be reported to the BLM authorized officer immediately.

Visual Resources

1. Operators shall monitor and maintain visual mitigation measures for the approved project in accordance with a visual monitoring and compliance plan. The operator shall maintain revegetated surfaces until a self-sustaining stand of vegetation is reestablished and visually adapted to the undisturbed surrounding vegetation. No new disturbance shall be created during operations without completion of a VRM analysis and approval by the authorized officer.

Ground Transportation

1. Ongoing ground transportation planning shall be conducted to evaluate road use, minimize traffic volume, and ensure that roads are maintained adequately to minimize associated impacts.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 55 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Monitoring Program

1. Site monitoring protocols defined in the POD shall be implemented. These will incorporate monitoring program observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and BMPs to minimize future environmental impacts. 2. Results of monitoring program efforts shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer.

Public Health and Safety

1. Permanent fencing shall be installed and maintained around electrical substations, and turbine tower access doors shall be locked to limit public access. 2. In the event an installed wind energy development project results in electromagnetic interference (EMI), the operator shall work with the owner of the impacted communications system to resolve the problem. Additional warning information may also need to be conveyed to aircraft with onboard radar systems so that echoes from wind turbines can be quickly recognized.

Decommissioning

General

1. Prior to the termination of the right-of-way authorization, a decommissioning plan shall be developed and approved by the BLM. The decommissioning plan shall include a site reclamation plan and monitoring program. 2. All management plans, BMPs, and stipulations developed for the construction phase shall be applied to similar activities during the decommissioning phase. 3. All turbines and ancillary structures shall be removed from the site. 4. Topsoil from all decommissioning activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during final reclamation. 5. All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native shrubs, grasses, and forbs. 6. The vegetation cover, composition, and diversity shall be restored to values commensurate with the ecological setting.

C. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

1. New proposals for outfitting and guiding special use permits or recreation event permits should be approved only when the special use or event is consistent with Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs), wild and scenic rivers desired conditions, and when a need is identified by a Needs Assessment and Capacity Analysis.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 56 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices 2. Hitching, tethering, hobbling, and confining of saddle and pack animals within wild and scenic river corridors should be authorized or allowed only in designated stock facilities or at hardened campsites. 3. New trails should not be constructed within 200 feet of Class 1 and 2 streams unless no other feasible alternative exists. 4. Recreation livestock should be allowed or authorized only in designated areas. 5. Timber harvest roads should not be constructed within wild and scenic river corridors. 6. Firewood collection (except for use at onsite campfires) should be allowed only at designated sites within wild and scenic river corridors. 7. The construction of roads and river crossings that are visible from the river corridor of wild and scenic sections should be prohibited except when necessary to meet recreation purposes. S-36 Oil and gas leasing shall not be authorized within 1,320 feet of the high water mark in wild river corridors.

2. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

General BMP for Wilderness Study Areas

1. Existing and proposed uses that could compromise wilderness study area (WSA) eligibility prior to congressional designation should not be authorized.

Normal Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Guidelines for Wilderness Study Areas

1. Rehabilitation following wildland fire in a WSA will comply with Wilderness Interim Management Policy (IMP) H-8550-1. When a proposed rehabilitation project addresses an area coving land both within and outside a WSA, it will be treated as two separate projects. The area outside the WSA will be treated in accordance with this guide. The area inside the WSA will be treated in accordance with the Wilderness IMP referenced above. 2. Interested parties will be allowed a 30-day comment period on the proposed treatment in WSA’s, unless it is not possible to do so because of emergency conditions (i.e., the 30- day comment period would result in missing the optimum period for treatment). If a full 30-day period would result in missing the optimum period for rehabilitation, key contacts would be notified for immediate comment, and a follow up copy of the treatment prescription would be forwarded. 3. Disturbance caused by fire suppression actions will be evaluated in WSA’s. If it is determined that wilderness suitability is affected by the fire suppression disturbance, mitigation of the disturbance will occur prior to release of suppression resources. Costs associated with mitigating suppression actions will be covered by wildland fire suppression funds, not emergency fire rehabilitation funds. 4. The “minimum tool” will be applied to all fire rehabilitation projects within WSA’s. Any rehabilitation actions must maintain an area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. Fire rehabilitation should be accomplished using methods and equipment that causes the

Appendices – 2.1 p. 57 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices least damage to wilderness resources. The use of motorized vehicles and mechanical equipment will be minimized to the extent possible. 5. The appropriate species and methods for seeding will be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine if the proposed method meets the policy and guidelines for WSA’s. Seed and planting will utilize native species, and will minimize cross-country use of motorized equipment. Seedings and plantings will be staggered or irregular so as to avoid a straight-line plantation appearance. Seed will be applied aerially unless the area to be rehabilitated is small, or ground application will not impair wilderness characteristics. 6. Because the covering of seed greatly affects its successful germination, mechanized equipment may be considered to cover the seed after aerial application. If the burned area is determined to be crucial wildlife habitat, and shrub seed is not applied aerially, then seedlings may be hand planted.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 58 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS RISK ASSESSMENT

Directions: Adjust spacing as necessary. Retain one copy of this document with your project files. Provide the Weed Coordinator with a second copy of the form and a project map which will be retained for future use. A definition for each of the two factors can be found on the next page.

1. Project Name: NEPA No.

2. Date Risk Assessment was completed:

3. Describe steps taken to complete Risk Assessment: E.G. compared map of project area with weed inventory layer. Visited site and conducted weed inventory, spoke with weed coordinator, etc.

4. Project Description:

5. Project Location: Be specific.

6. Factor 1 assesses the likelihood of noxious/invasive weed species spreading to the project area. For this project, the factor rates as _ and _ at the present time. This rating was based on the following findings:

Describe here.

7. Factor 2 assesses the consequences of noxious/invasive weed establishment in the project area. For this project, the factor rates as __ and __. This rating was based on the following findings:

Describe here.

8. Factor 1 * Factor 2 = Risk Rating: ___, __ (Score and rating). (The Risk Rating is obtained by multiplying Factor 1 by Factor 2.)

9. Based on this risk rating, preventative management measures are/ are not (circle one) needed or this project. Preventative management measures developed for this project are as follows:

Describe here.

10. Based on this risk rating, project modifications are/are not (circle one) needed for this project. Project modifications developed for this project are as follows.

Describe here.

Weed Risk Assessment completed by: Name and Title______

Reviewed by/Date Reviewed: ______(weed coordinator) Date:______

Appendices – 2.1 p. 59 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices Risk Factors

Factor 1

NONE, (0): Noxious/invasive weed species are not found within or are adjacent to the proposed project area. Project activity is not likely to result in the establishment of noxious/invasive weed species in the project area.

LOW, (1-3): Noxious/invasive weed species present in areas adjacent to but not within the project area. Project activities can be implemented and prevent the spread of noxious/invasive weeds into the project area.

MODERATE, (4-7): Noxious/invasive weed species located immediately adjacent to or within the project area. Project activities are likely to result in some areas becoming infested with noxious weed species even when preventative management actions are followed. Control measures are essential to prevent the spread of noxious/invasive weeds within the project area.

HIGH, (7-10): Heavy infestations of noxious/invasive weeds are located within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Project activities, even with preventative management actions, are likely to result in the establishment and spread of noxious/invasive weeds on disturbed sites throughout much of the project area.

Factor 2

LOW TO NONEXISTENT (1-3): None. No cumulative effects expected.

MODERATE, (4-7): Possible adverse effects on site and possible expansion of infestation within the project area. Cumulative effects on native plant communities are likely, but limited.

HIGH, (7-10): Obvious adverse effects within the project area and probable expansion of noxious weed infestations to areas outside the project area. Adverse cumulative effects on native plant communities are probable.

FACTOR 1 * FACTOR 2 = Risk Rating

Risk Rating

NONE, (0): Proceed as planned.

LOW, (1-10): Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatment on noxious weed populations that get established in the area.

MODERATE, (11-49): Develop preventative management measures for proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of noxious weeds into the area. Preventative management measures should include modifying the project to include seeding the area to occupy disturbed sites with desirable species. Monitor area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of newly established populations of noxious weeds and follow- up treatment for previously treated infestations.

HIGH, (50-100): Project must be modified to reduce risk level through preventative management measures, including seeding with desirable species to occupy disturbed sites and controlling existing infestations of noxious weeds prior to project activity. Project must provide at least 5 consecutive years of monitoring. Projects must also provide for control of newly established populations of noxious weeds and follow-up treatment for previously treated infestations.

Appendices – 2.1 p. 60 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS APPENDIX 2.2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (BAKER ARMS)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Purpose ...... 1 3. Background ...... 2 4. Expectations and Limitations of the Baker ARMS ...... 2 5. Aquatic AND Riparian Ecosytems ...... 4 6. Ecosystem Management ...... 6 7. Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Conditions in the Baker Field Office Planning Area ...... 7 8. Restoring and Maintaining Watershed Conditions ...... 8 9. Components of the Baker ARMS ...... 10 10. Aquatic and Riparian Resource Management Goals ...... 10 11. Desired Conditions and Applicable Scales ...... 11 12. Desired Conditions ...... 14 1. Watershed Function ...... 14 2. Species Diversity ...... 21 3. Productive Capacity ...... 22 4. Disturbance Processes ...... 23 5. Invasive Species ...... 24 6. Soil Quality ...... 24 7. Water Quality ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 8. Fishing Opportunities...... 26 13. Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) ...... 26 1. Purpose ...... 26 2. Definition ...... 27 3. RMA Widths ...... 27 4. RMA Delineation and Modification ...... 27 5. RMA Delineation Criteria ...... 28 6. Default RMA Widths ...... 30 7. Desired Conditions...... 31 14. Conservation and Restoration Watersheds ...... 33 1. Conservation Watersheds ...... 34 2. Restoration Watersheds ...... 35 15. Priority Ranking for Conservation and Restoration Watersheds ...... 36 16. Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Management Strategies ...... 40 1. Protection ...... 40 2. Passive Restoration ...... 40 3. Active Restoration ...... 40 4. Rehabilitation ...... 40

Appendix 2.2 – p. i Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 17. Multi-Scale Analysis ...... 41 1. Watershed Analysis ...... 42 2. Objectives of a Watershed Analysis ...... 42 3. Appropriate Methodology ...... 42 4. The Six Steps of Site-Specific Analysis ...... 43 5. Baker FO Watershed Analysis Direction ...... 43 18. Standards and Guidelines ...... 44 19. Adaptive Management and Monitoring ...... 53 1. Adaptive Management ...... 53 2. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring ...... 54 3. Monitoring and Evaluation of the RMP and Baker ARMS ...... …57 LITERATURE CITED ...... 58

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Default Riparian Management Area Widths (No Action Alternative and Alternative 1)..... 30 Table 2: Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 2 and 3) ...... 30 Table 3: Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 4 and 5) ...... 31 Table 4: Special status fish species in the Baker FO Planning Area. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: Baker FO Priority Conservation Watersheds...... 38 Table 6: Baker FO Priority Restoration Watersheds...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 7: RMA Standards and Guidelines...... 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Natural Connectivity Model...... 5 Figure 2: Influences on stream channels at a range of spatial and temporal scales ...... 13 Figure 3: Relationship between recovery time and sensitivity to disturbance for different spatial scales...... 13 Figure 4: A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic ...... 14 and riparian resources...... 14

Appendix 2.2 – p. ii Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS APPENDIX 2.2: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1. INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office (FO) Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy (ARMS) provides guidance and programmatic direction for watershed, subwatershed, riparian, and aquatic conservation and restoration, and is also integrated with other management direction. Conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats at risk of degradation should be considered together with the full array of broad-scale ecosystem and social components, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

• landscape dynamics • terrestrial source habitats • aquatic and riparian species • hydrologic processes • socio-economics • tribal governments

Management actions will balance short-term risks to aquatic and riparian resources (as well as other resources) with long-term benefits as actions are considered that move these resources toward a natural range of variability for desired conditions.

The Baker ARMS provides the core set of goals, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines for aquatic and riparian management within the Baker FO Planning Area administrative boundary.

2. PURPOSE

The impetus behind the development of the Baker ARMS is based on A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions (USDA and USDI 2004), which provides direction and guidance for use in developing the aquatic and riparian resource components for federal land management plan revisions. It is intended to provide a consistent foundation for implementation of the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat component of the Interior Columbia Basin (ICB) Strategy (USDA and USDI 2003). It also facilitates consistency among both BLM and Forest Service land management plans in terms of the structure of the aquatic and riparian components, while providing for a high level of discretion to agency decision makers in the substance of their individual land management plan revisions.

In August 2008, BLM Oregon/Washington and Idaho State Office managers submitted the Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies for BLM Resource Management Plans in the Interior Columbia Basin (BLM 2008), which provides clarification, guidance, and

Appendix 2.2 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS examples for developing aquatic and riparian management strategies in conjunction with BLM RMP revisions. It is also intended for BLM District and Field Managers to further implement BLM policy and assure that aquatic and riparian management strategies are consistent across the Pacific Northwest.

3. BACKGROUND

The Baker ARMS is a refinement of earlier strategies, including: the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) (USDA and USDI 1994a and 1994b), the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH) (USDA and USDI 1995), and the BLM Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM Bull Trout Strategy) (BLM 1995).

Two independent assessments were completed to evaluate the utility and effectiveness of these earlier strategies (Reeves 2006, Heller and McCammon 2004). Both concluded that the basic approaches and associated management direction are sound, generally understood and implemented by federal land management agency personnel, and have significantly changed the way aquatic resources are managed on federally-managed lands in the Pacific Northwest (USFS 2010). Specifically, they found that the strategies have led to improved and proactive management of aquatic resources and these changes appear to++ be maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. In addition, Reeves (2006) noted that implementation of the ACS has resulted in positive changes in federal land management agency culture.

Scientific studies completed after these strategies were initiated (Naiman et al. 2000, Spence et al. 1996) continue to support their general framework and assumptions. Evaluations of the strategies, as described above, indicate the need for and utility of a more localized riparian and aquatic management strategy that incorporates new science (e.g., Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Reeves et al. 1995) and addresses issues and clarifications identified during more than a decade of field-level implementation.

These needed refinements provide a primary basis for development of the Baker ARMS. They include increased recognition that disturbance is integral to the resiliency of ecosystems, consideration of scale effects (spatial and temporal) on ecosystem processes, confirmation of the value and utility of watershed-scale analysis, the need for a monitoring component, and establishment of improved connection between management intent and direction in the strategy.

4. EXPECTATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE BAKER ARMS

The Baker ARMS is designed to provide a consistent approach to maintain and restore the ecological health and processes of watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystems on public lands administered by the BLM Baker FO. It recognizes that periodic disturbances are often necessary to maintain ecological function. The goal of the strategy is to prevent degradation of

Appendix 2.2 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS riparian and aquatic ecosystems and to restore habitat and the ecological processes responsible for creating habitat over broad landscapes (USDA and USDI 1994b). It is not expected that all watersheds will be in good condition at any point in time, nor will any particular watershed be in a certain condition through time. Instead, if the Baker ARMS is effective, the proportion of watersheds in good condition is expected to remain the same or increase over time (Reeves et al. 2006). The Baker ARMS does not identify a particular desired or acceptable distribution of watershed condition.

The Baker ARMS maintains the goal of the ACS, which is to develop networks of properly functioning watersheds that support populations of fish and other aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms across the Baker FO Planning Area. To accomplish all of the desired conditions will likely take several decades to possibly more than a century (USDA and USDI 1994b). Similar to the ACS, the Baker ARMS is intended to protect watersheds in the short term (10-20 years) that currently have good habitat and fish populations (FEMAT 1993). The strategy is expected to improve the ecological condition of watersheds, but the condition of most watersheds extensively degraded from past management activities will likely take an extended period time to improve (FEMAT 1993).

The Baker ARMS is expected to contribute to the recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish, particularly anadromous salmon and trout1 by increasing the quantity and quality of freshwater habitat (FEMAT 1993). By itself, however, it is not expected to prevent the listing of any species or distinct population segment, primarily because federal land management agencies are responsible only for the habitat they manage. State fish and wildlife agencies are responsible for populations on all lands and for the regulation of activities that affect populations and habitats on other ownerships. For listed salmon and trout, factors outside the responsibility of federal land managers contribute to the status and trends of populations. These include changes in freshwater and estuarine habitats, harvest in commercial and recreational fisheries, management of dams, and the effects of hatchery practices and introductions (National Research Council 1996).

An additional factor beyond the scope of the federal land manager control is climate change. Nonetheless, federal land managers have responsibility to address and be responsive to climate- related impacts. An adaptive management approach can be used to make adjustments in plan components as the local effects of climate change become apparent or as the ability to make accurate projections improves.

1 Anadromous fish spend their early life in freshwater, move to the ocean to mature, and then return to freshwater to reproduce. Appendix 2.2 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 5. AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYTEMS

Aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest are dynamic in space and time (Reeves et al. 1995). Ecologically healthy watersheds are maintained by natural disturbances that create spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability in the physical components of the system (Naiman et al. 1992a). Natural disturbances have resulted in a mosaic of habitat conditions over time and native fish populations have adapted to this dynamic environment (Naiman et al. 1992a, Reeves et al. 1995). Aquatic and riparian ecosystems are most resilient2 to the types of disturbances under which they have developed. Recovery from disturbance may take decades or longer, depending on its magnitude and extent, but some improvements can be expected in 10 to 20 years (Reeves 2006).

Naiman et al. (1992b) describe different disturbance regimes based on the frequency and magnitude of disturbance and its location within a watershed (e.g., headwaters, middle, or lower reaches). Under natural disturbance regimes, a landscape would have watersheds exhibiting a range of conditions because of the asynchronous nature of large and infrequent disturbance events. More recent studies describe stream systems as complex, branching networks rather than linear systems, providing a better understanding of the ecological processes that link riparian and aquatic and headwater and downstream ecosystems (Benda et al. 2004, Fisher 1997). These perspectives imply that aquatic ecosystems are not static. Rather, streams are invariably dynamic, and conditions vary in space and time because of periodic events such as wildfire, large storms and subsequent floods, hillslope failures, landslides, debris flows, and channel migration. An important implication is that streams and aquatic ecosystems are linked to the dynamics of both the riparian and upland communities and the watershed and physical processes that shape them.

Small streams3 serve as critical source areas for high quality water. Because the spatial extent of headwater streams makes up a major portion of the total catchment area (Sidle et al. 2000, Meyer and Wallace 2001), these and adjacent upland ecosystems are important sources of sediment, water, nutrients, energy, and organic matter for downstream systems (Furniss et al. 2005, Gomi et al. 2002, Meyer et al. 2003, Wipfli et al. 2007). These relationships are illustrated by the Natural Connectivity Model (Figure 1).

Riparian ecosystems are among the most diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats on the landscape. They have many interfaces, edges, or ecotones and possess a relatively high diversity of resources. Riparian zones control energy and material flux, are sites of biological and physical interaction at the terrestrial/aquatic interface, support unique vegetation

2 Resiliency of an ecosystem is the degree to which the system can be disturbed and recover to a state where processes and interactions function as before (Holling 1973, Reeves et al. 1995). 3 Small streams are also called headwater, intermittent, ephemeral, seasonal, low-order, and upper network streams (after Furniss et al. 2005). Appendix 2.2 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARRMS assemblages, provide critical habitats for rare and threatened species, and are refuges and souurce areas for a wide variety of species (Kauffman et al. 2001).

Riparian zones also play a critical role in connectivity of watersheds by providing dispersal and travel habitat and corridors across the landscape for both terrestrial and riparian--dependent species. The functions of living and dead vegetation in riparian zones include regulating bank erosion, providing an adequate and continuous supply of coarse woody debris to streams, and providing shade and microclimate protection.

Most vertebrates (53 percent of wildlife species occurring in Oregon and Washington) use riparian zones for at least part of their activities (Kauffmman et al. 2001). Moreover, approximately 26 and 30 percent of flora in Oregon and WWashingtonn, respectively, are faculttative or obligate wetland species (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2006, FEMAT 1993). These species play a critical role in the productivity, resiliency, and function of riparian zones.

Figure 1. Natural Connectivity Model. Headwater streams are sources of energy and serve as conduits for fish, amphibians and other biota, nutriennts, energy, and wood, linking upland ecosystems with larger navigable waters downstream (modified from Wipfli et al. 2007).

Appendix 2.2 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 6. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Management and conservation strategies (Holling and Meffe 1996, Dale et al. 2000), including those involving aquatic organisms (National Research Council 1996, Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999), require consideration of large spatial and temporal extents and the conservation of biophysical processes rather than just individual biological and physical elements. In the case of many legally listed fish, this necessitates a transition from the current focus on relatively small spatial extents with little or no consideration of temporal dimensions, to larger spatial extents (ecosystems and landscapes) over longer (i.e., 10 – 100 years) time periods (Reeves et al. 1995, Poff et al. 1997, Naiman and Latterell 2005). Williams et al. (1989), for example, found that no fish species listed under the ESA was ever recovered after listing and attributed this failure to the general focus of recovery efforts on habitat attributes rather than on restoration and conservation of ecosystems.

Factors to be considered in developing ecosystem management plans and policies include the frequency, magnitude, extent, duration (Pickett and White 1985, Hobbs and Huenneke 1992), and context of interacting disturbance regimes (including legacy effects) in managed ecosystems (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Reeves et al. 1995, Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). The resilience of an ecosystem can be reduced if any of these factors are modified. Reduced resilience can lead to a decrease in the range of conditions that an ecosystem can experience, extirpation of some species, increases in species favored by available habitats, and an invasion of exotic species (Lugo et al. 1999, Levin 1974, Harrison and Quinn 1989, Hansen and Urban 1992). The effects of land management on the ecosystem depend on how closely the management disturbance regime resembles the natural disturbance regime with regard to these factors.

The focus of ecosystem management on ecological processes and dynamics is well supported in the scientific literature. Ecosystems constantly change through time. They are not steady state, and periodic disturbance is necessary to maintain the long-term productivity and integrity of an ecosystem (Lugo et al. 1999). Based on recognition of ecosystem dynamics, a key focus of ecosystem management and the Baker ARMS is maintaining or restoring ecological processes and resilience as opposed to attempting to maintain a desired set of static conditions through time (Dale et al. 2000). Ecosystem management also strives to maintain a variety of ecological states or patches in a desired spatial and temporal distribution (Gosz et al. 1999, Concannon et al. 1999).

Ehrenfeld (1992) supports these perspectives, noting that conditions in many ecological communities are in flux because of disturbance. This makes it difficult to determine a normal state. Applying fixed standards developed for ecological conditions at small spatial extents with the expectation of achieving constant conditions over large areas is likely to compromise or decrease the long-term productivity of ecosystems and can create false or unrealistic expectations about the outcomes of policies or regulations (Holling and Meffe 1996, Bisson et al. 1997, Caraher et al. 1999, Dale et al. 2000, Poole et al. 2003).

Appendix 2.2 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS

A variety of sources, including interested citizens, interest groups, scientific review and evaluation groups (e.g., the Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999, National Research Council 1996), regulatory agencies, and policy- and decision makers have called for developing policies and practices to manage the freshwater habitats of at-risk fish at ecosystem and landscape extents. Ecosystem management responds to this need and the failure of previous conservation strategies by focusing on larger, varied spatial extents and longer timeframes.

7. WATERSHED AND AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITIONS IN THE BAKER FIELD OFFICE PLANNING AREA

BLM-administered public lands within the Baker FO Planning Area are generally located in northeastern Oregon, the majority of which are located in Baker County, Oregon, and are part of the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province. Watershed conditions in most areas of the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province have been degraded to varying degrees by a long history of land use activities, including placer and lode mining, timber harvesting, road construction, livestock grazing, irrigated agriculture, water diversions, and other human uses (USDA 2010). The impacts of these activities are still reflected in the condition of many watersheds today (McIntosh et al. 1994a, 1994b, and Wissmar 2004). The extent and quality of aquatic habitats, as well as watershed and soil conditions, have been greatly reduced from historic conditions, and populations of anadromous and resident fishes have declined as a result (Gregory and Bisson 1997). In particular, large declines in pool habitat, large wood, and aquatic habitat diversity have been noted in streams in the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province (McIntosh et al. 1994a, 1994b). In addition, high road densities contribute sediment, alter riparian habitats, and increase the rate of watershed runoff. Access to more than 3,700 stream miles on National Forest System (NFS) lands are blocked or partially blocked by culverts that were not originally designed to provide for fish passage.

Remaining high-quality aquatic habitats are often isolated and fragmented. Increasingly, these habitats are limited to federally-managed lands and no longer represent the full range of habitat types or conditions to which aquatic species are adapted. Restoration of watershed and aquatic habitat conditions has been underway for decades but will require an increasingly more integrated approach to improve effectiveness. Restoration needs to address terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats over multiple spatial scales and multiple ownerships. In some cases, improvements may not be seen for decades or centuries (Reeves et al. 1995). Habitat restoration, by itself, is not a substitute for appropriate environmental protection, and management that relies solely on rehabilitation of altered habitats cannot sustainably provide for ecosystem health (Gregory and Bisson 1997; Wissmar et al. 1994a, 1994b).

Degraded habitat conditions and several other factors have contributed to the federal listing of several fish species under the ESA: Snake River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are listed as threatened; middle Columbia Basin steelhead

Appendix 2.2 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS are listed as threatened; and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are listed as threatened within their entire range in the western United States (USDA 2010).

Water quality does not meet standards in more than 1,200 miles of stream in Oregon and Washington. Water quality limited stream segments occur in every major drainage within the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province on both private and public lands (USDA 2010).

Water that flows from forested lands is used downstream for drinking water, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation, among other uses. Watershed restoration may have varying societal benefits, depending on geographic location, by improving water quality for downstream users, moderating flood flows, maintaining the quantity of water that flows from streams and rivers on public lands, and reducing the amount of sediment that enters the streams (USDA 2010).

8. RESTORING AND MAINTAINING WATERSHED CONDITIONS

The overall strategy of the Baker ARMS is to accelerate improvement of watershed and aquatic and riparian habitat conditions across the landscape by: 1) conducting new and ongoing management activities in a manner that, across broad scales, protects watersheds in good condition and allows for passive recovery of those that are degraded; 2) actively restoring conditions at watershed scales in high-priority areas by implementing integrated, strategically- focused sets of restoration treatments that facilitate recovery of critical watershed processes.

Much of the forested and non-forested vegetation in the Baker FO Planning Area is highly departed from desired conditions. Dry forest vegetation types have both the greatest extent of departed acres and the greatest level of departure. Alteration of vegetative conditions has cascading effects on the extent and quality of riparian and aquatic habitats and overall watershed conditions. Riparian and aquatic habitats in the Baker FO Planning Area have become fragmented to the extent that local populations of some aquatic species have become extinct, while the sustainability of remaining species is at increasing risk (USDA 2010).

The overall strategy of the Baker ARMS incorporates the assumption that the level of restoration needs within the Planning Area is large and exceeds the capacity of the existing BLM workforce and budgets. As a consequence, there is a need to prioritize implementation of projects in order to efficiently use available resources. Those projects that benefit multiple resources across broad scales should have a higher priority than those that benefit just one resource.

Restoration will be accomplished by a combination of active and passive management. Active management will be concentrated in watersheds with functionally impaired aquatic and riparian ecosystems or in areas where previous investments in the land have been made. Undeveloped areas will remain largely undeveloped, and unplanned fire will be the main tool utilized to improve ecosystem resilience in those areas. The full range of wildfire suppression strategies, from aggressive suppression to monitoring, will be used within all areas so long as the effects are

Appendix 2.2 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS compatible with maintaining or achieving desired conditions. The BLM also recognizes that restoration should not just occur in areas that are the most departed from desired conditions. By treating or maintaining areas that are close to or at the desired condition, management may prevent a departure that could result in the need for expensive restoration treatments.

The highest priority is to first restore critical watershed processes in watersheds in which the structure and function of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems are largely intact, but are threatened by existing or projected watershed conditions. Resource priority conflicts (e.g., aquatic species versus terrestrial species, forest health versus rangeland health) will be resolved through interoffice, interagency, and/or interdisciplinary team discussion during outyear program and project development or on a project-by-project basis. However, management actions shall not preclude the attainment of aquatic and riparian desired conditions (see Section 12).

The overall objective of the Baker ARMS is to protect and restore whole watersheds, while reducing risk to remaining populations of aquatic species and increasing the availability and connectivity of high quality aquatic and riparian habitats. Watersheds in good condition should be preserved by reducing existing impacts, implementing best management practices or standards and guidelines, and through more comprehensive project design. Watershed restoration activities should be prioritized so that investments are made in areas that have the highest restoration potential while providing the greatest benefit to multiple resources and the least risk to existing special status species populations. These areas are identified as priority watersheds. Restoration actions may take place in watersheds of lower priority or even in non- prioritized watersheds as circumstances warrant and as opportunities are presented.

Land managers should recognize and seek to restore the processes responsible for creating and maintaining aquatic and riparian habitats, as well as the diversity of those habitats. This may include, but is not limited to:

Altering the structure and composition of upland vegetation in order to move towards achieving desired conditions Managing vegetation to reduce wildfire risk and restore stand structure and resiliency Reducing road-related erosion and sediment delivery to streams through road closure, road obliteration, improved maintenance, and/or improved erosion control Removing barriers that block or restrict access to historically occupied habitats or restrict connectivity between habitats Altering riparian habitats to favor deciduous trees and shrubs as appropriate where such species were formerly abundant Reintroducing keystone species, such as beaver, into suitable habitats within their former range Increasing the diversity and complexity of aquatic and riparian habitats by promoting natural establishment and succession of riparian plant communities Restoring the natural range of stream flows to the extent possible Managing invasive species to maintain the composition and diversity of native species

Appendix 2.2 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Restoring complexity and aquatic and riparian habitat Adapting management actions to account for the expected effects of climate change

9. COMPONENTS OF THE BAKER ARMS

The Baker ARMS combines ecosystem and landscape4 perspectives to forge a management strategy that is intended to be applied over broad heterogeneous areas. The key components of the Baker ARMS are listed, in no particular order, as follows and described below in further detail: Aquatic and riparian resource management goals (Section 10) and desired conditions (Section 12) Establishment of Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), which are areas where aquatic and riparian-dependent resources receive primary management emphasis (Section 13). Restoration and conservation watershed designation (Section 14) and prioritization (Section 15), including protection of special status fish species. Restoration and conservation management strategies and guidance (Section 16). Multi-scale analysis for use in subsequent project-level decisions (Section 17). Standards and guidelines that are applicable to all RMAs and to projects and activities in areas outside of RMAs that are identified through National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis as potentially degrading to RMAs and/or desired conditions, or that retard or prevent the attainment of aquatic and riparian habitat desired conditions (Section 18). Monitoring and adaptive management to determine if the RMP and Baker ARMS are being implemented correctly and are achieving resource goals and desired conditions (Section 19).

Interaction of the aforementioned components at the watershed or landscape scale provides the basis for watershed, aquatic, and riparian ecosystem management and restoration. These components work together and complement each other to achieve the goal of a distribution of watershed conditions that are resilient to natural disturbance and that maintain, restore, and enhance habitat for inland and anadromous fish, other aquatic organisms, and a variety of wildlife and other riparian-dependent resources on BLM lands in the Baker FO Planning Area. They will not achieve desired results if implemented alone or in limited combination. As such, they are designed to be applied in an integrated manner.

10. AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS

Desired conditions establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy and properly functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish habitats. Because the quality of water

4 A landscape is a collection of biophysical elements and ecosystem types that occupy relatively large (105-107 acres) contiguous areas (Hunter 1996, Concannon et al. 1999). Appendix 2.2 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS and fish habitat in aquatic systems is inseparably related to the integrity of upland and riparian areas within the watersheds, the desired conditions are to maintain or restore the following:

Water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems and conditions that promote compliance with state water quality standards. Stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) of the natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, which promote the stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to effectively route flood discharges. Natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Diversity and productivity of native and desired plant communities in riparian zones. Riparian vegetation to: • Provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems; • Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and aquatic zones; • Help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic of the natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within the specific geo-climatic region. Habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desirable non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian- dependent communities. Improve connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species.

11. DESIRED CONDITIONS AND APPLICABLE SCALES

The Baker ARMS is designed to contribute to the sustainability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and species. Thus, the Baker ARMS is intended to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds and to retain the ability of riparian and aquatic ecosystems to recover from natural disturbances. To provide for resilient, productive, and persistent natural systems, it is important for management to conserve natural processes that constrain or influence the structure and variability in landscapes; conserve the natural variation or diversity; and account for the influence of scale by identifying and conserving patterns and key processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Rieman et al. 2006).

Stream habitats are heterogeneous and dynamic in longitudinal (headwaters to larger rivers), lateral (stream, floodplain, riparian area interactions) and vertical (stream channel-hyporheic interactions) dimensions (Stanford and Ward 1992). Stream and riparian habitats also vary in time in relationship to disturbance (Reeves et al 1995). Different physical processes may affect aquatic habitat at different spatial and temporal scales. Figure 2 displays the relative frequencies

Appendix 2.2 – p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS and scales of selected disturbances that may affect stream channels and watersheds, producing spatially and temporally variable habitats. For example, disturbance from storms, debris flows and/or fires are typically more frequent and occur at smaller spatial scales than climate change and tectonic processes. The probability that a particular location will be affected by disturbance at a particular time may be low, but it increases with increasing spatial scale.

The scale of biological response to disturbance will vary depending upon spatial requirements (home range, territory size, migratory patterns) and temporal constraints (e.g., generation time, migration time) of different species (Rieman et al 2006). Similarly, the relationship between recovery time and the relative sensitivity to disturbance will vary depending on the relative scale of various habitat and stream features (Figure 3). For example, individual sites have a relatively high sensitivity to disturbance but have relatively short recovery periods. Conversely, watersheds have a relatively low sensitivity to an individual disturbance, but have a relatively long recovery period. Aquatic and riparian ecosystems management needs to account for processes interacting at multiple scales to establish the context for aquatic resource conservation (Fausch et al. 2002).

The general desired conditions for the Baker ARMS apply at the landscape or watershed scale, not at a particular site. The national hydrologic unit code (HUC) is the basis for defining the scales at which desired conditions apply. The three HUC fields (or watershed scales) most relevant to implementation of the Baker ARMS are: subbasin (4th field HUC), watershed (5th field HUC), and subwatershed (6th field HUC). Individual project assessments often use data collected at finer scales such as the subwatershed, drainage, valley segment, site, or stream reach scale (Figure 4).

Appendix 2.2 – p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Figure 2. Influences on stream channels at a range of spatial and temporal scales (Montgomery and Buffington 1998).

Figure 3. Relationship between recovery time and sensitivity to disturbance for different spatial scales (Frissell et al. 1986, Naiman 1998, Naiman et al. 1992b).

Appendix 2.2 – p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS

Figure 4. A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic and riparian resources.

Aquatic populations can be nested in a manner consistent with the watershed-scale definitions. Bull trout core populations (Whitsell et al. 2004) and anadromous fish populations for example have been generally identified at the subbasin level (4th field HUC). Bull trout local populations and anadromous fish major and minor spawning areas are generally located within watersheds (5th field HUC) or subwatersheds (6th field HUC).

12. DESIRED CONDITIONS

The following desired conditions explain the conditions, processes, and relationships that the BLM Baker FO will seek to achieve over time using adaptive management and monitoring data, including trend data when available and where applicable. Desired conditions are generally to be applied at the watershed scale but some are more appropriate at the subbasin or subwatershed scale. Some conditions may already exist; some are achievable over the life of the RMP; others may only be achievable over a longer period of time, possibly decades. Movement towards achieving desired conditions will depend on funding and program direction provided by higher levels within the BLM, the Department of Interior, and Congress, and will also be affected by natural events.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS It is also important to recognize that because of limited and scattered BLM ownership throughout the Baker FO Planning Area, the opportunity or ability to attain desirable and/or functioning resource conditions is not always possible from management actions conducted on BLM lands alone. And in some cases, the BLM cannot achieve desired conditions over the life of the RMP because resource and landscape recovery is typically a long-term and gradual process. Therefore, BLM efforts to collaborate with other public land and resource management agencies and non-governmental organizations, as well as private landowners, to achieve or maintain desired conditions are crucial.

12.1 Watershed Function

Watershed function includes all of the surface and subsurface processes acting on or beneath hillslopes and within stream channels that control the movement of water, wood, sediment, and nutrients. The rate at which these processes occur is affected by local geology, topography, and climate and is moderated by local soil and vegetation. The movement of water and sediments modifies the physical structure of watersheds and determines the spatial distribution and composition of riparian and aquatic habitats (USDA 2010).

Several elements combine to control the multiple processes that are fundamental to the development and long-term vitality of watersheds. These include characteristics of flow regime, composition of riparian areas and wetlands, stream channel characteristics, and habitat characteristics, each of which is described in this section.

Properly functioning watersheds will provide a range of benefits both on and off of BLM- administered lands, including, but not limited to, providing habitat for terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian-dependent species; maintaining water quality; providing channel stability; reducing erosion; moderating floods; and maintaining reliable stream flows for downstream users.

Desired Conditions for Conservation Watersheds

1. Watersheds with good habitat and functionally intact ecosystems that contribute to and enhance the conservation and recovery of specific threatened or endangered fish species and provide high water quality and quantity. Watersheds that contribute to short-term conservation and long-term recovery at the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Recovery Unit, or other appropriate population scale. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

2. Roads in conservation watersheds do not present substantial risk to aquatic and riparian resources. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

3. Conservation watersheds that have high watershed integrity and provide resilient aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Desired Conditions for All Watersheds

1. Watershed-scale processes that control the routing of water, sediment, wood, and organic material operate at levels that result in self-sustaining riparian and aquatic ecosystems that do not require human intervention or restoration. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

2. The distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features, including natural disturbance regimes, provide aquatic and riparian ecosystems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. Scale: Subbasin.

3. Spatial connectivity exists within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, uplands, riparian areas, headwater tributaries, and intact habitat refugia. These network connections provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic, riparian-dependent, and many upland species of plants and animals. Scale: Spatial connectivity is between watersheds at the subbasin scale for resource area-wide planning; spatial connectivity is between subwatersheds at the watershed scale for project planning.

12.2 Hydrologic Function

Hydrologic function includes all of the processes involved in the conversion of precipitation to streamflow, as well as properties of the flow regime, including the magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and variability of streamflow within a watershed. All important physical and biological processes within watersheds, including the movement of water, sediment, wood, and nutrients, as well as the creation of aquatic habitats, are driven by variability of the flow regime (Angermeier 1997). Recurring flows of moderate to high magnitude are responsible for most sediment transport and maintain stream channel size and shape (Wolman and Miller 1960). High flows rearrange and create riparian habitats by dispersing seeds and creating sites for establishment of riparian species. In summer months, low flows sustain riparian vegetation that provides channel and bank stability, especially on low-gradient streams in wide, unconfined valleys. Differences in topography within riparian zones, combined with the differing water requirements and tolerances of riparian plant species result in diversity of habitat types (USDA 2010).

On hillslopes, the primary controls of hydrologic function are topography, the type and density of vegetation, and the physical properties of soils. The alteration or removal of vegetation or ground cover by activities such as fire, timber harvest, the use of mechanized equipment, livestock grazing, and the construction of roads alters hydrologic pathways in ways that can result in increased hillslope and stream channel erosion rates (USDA 2010).

Appendix 2.2 – p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Groundwater inflows and hyporheic exchange in streams and floodplains are important contributors to streamflow, especially in summer, and has the additional benefit of being a source of cool water that helps moderate stream temperatures (USDA 2010).

Desired Conditions

1. Instream flows, including water yield, timing, frequency, magnitude, and duration of runoff, are sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of movement of sediment, nutrients, and wood. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows are within the natural range of variability in which the system developed. Scale: Watershed.

2. The species composition and structural diversity of native plant communities in riparian management areas, including wetlands, provides adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and supplies amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris and fine particulate organic matter sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Scale: Subbasin scale for resource area-wide planning; watershed scale for project planning.

3. The timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation are within the natural range of variability. Scale: Watershed.

4. The sediment regime is within the natural range of variability. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. Scale: Watershed.

5. The timing, duration, and variability of inundation, or water table elevation, in wetlands, seeps, and springs are within the natural range of variability. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

12.3 Riparian Function

Riparian areas are loosely defined as the zones adjacent to stream channels, ponds, and lakes that are transitional between the channel and upland habitats (NRC 2002). Riparian vegetation includes species that require free or unbound water or conditions more moist than normally found in the area (Franklin and Dyrness 1973).

Riparian areas are important for their critical role in nutrient cycling, stream channel and bank stability, water quality, filtering of sediment from upslope areas, and the supply of particulate and woody organic material to stream systems. Riparian vegetation provides stream shade that contributes to thermal regulation in both winter and summer. Particulate organic material derived from riparian vegetation forms the base of aquatic food webs, while large organic

Appendix 2.2 – p. 17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS material creates channel structure and habitat complexity. Some aquatic insects require certain types of riparian vegetation (e.g., willows) in order to complete their life cycles, while an estimated 75 percent of terrestrial wildlife species in the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province either depend on riparian zones directly or utilize them more than other habitats (Raedeke 1989, Thomas 1979). Riparian areas are considered the most critical of wildlife habitats in the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). This is due not only to the unique habitat features found in riparian zones, but also because they serve as natural corridors or migration routes and as connecting corridors between patches of suitable habitat in an otherwise fragmented landscape.

Desired Conditions

1. Riparian areas within any given watershed reflect a natural composition of native and desired non-native plant and animal (aquatic and terrestrial) species and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance regimes affecting the area. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

2. Key riparian processes and conditions, including slope stability and associated vegetative root strength; bank stability; wood delivery to streams; input of leafy and organic matter to aquatic and terrestrial systems; solar shading; microclimate; and water quality, are within ranges typical of the biophysical setting and the corresponding disturbance regime. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

3. Riparian vegetation has the species composition, structural diversity, age class diversity, and extent that is characteristic of the setting in which it occurs and the hydrologic and disturbance regimes in which it developed. The condition and composition of small habitat patches may change over small temporal and spatial scales but remains relatively constant at larger scales. Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

4. Riparian shrub communities occupy their historical range and extent. Individual plants are capable of reaching the full potential for a typical individual of a particular species, as defined by plant height, width, and growth form. Individual plants are able to propagate, or reproduce, vegetatively and/or sexually. Plant communities are similar in species composition, age class structure, canopy density, and ground cover to plant associations (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative of a particular setting. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

5. Riparian areas consist of native assemblages of riparian-dependent plants and animals free of persistent non-native species and provide for dispersal and travel corridors, as well as connectivity, between geographically important areas for both terrestrial and aquatic animals and plant species within the planning area. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 12.4 Wetland Function

Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, seeps, fens, springs, peatlands, and marshes, occur in areas where the soil is either inundated by water or saturated for at least part of the growing season. Wetland vegetation includes species that are adapted to saturated soil conditions. Some, but not all, streamside riparian areas that meet the above criteria may be classified as riverine wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979), but wetlands occur in a variety of settings where there is a source of either surface or groundwater. Wetlands, in general, have disproportionately higher plant species diversity relative to surrounding upland habitats.

Small wetlands may be isolated from other surface waters and often represent unique habitats that are highly important to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Some wetlands are also critical habitat for many sensitive, rare, or uncommon plant and lichen species, many of which occur only in these habitats.

Wetlands play an important role in protecting water quality, processing excess nutrients, and contributing to groundwater recharge, among other functions, but not all wetland types provide the same functions, nor do they provide them equally (Euliss et al. 2004). Many wetlands are sites of natural water storage that, depending on where they occur, contribute to groundwater recharge and reduce the magnitude of floods. Because of the contribution to biological diversity, wetlands are regulated under Federal law by the Clean Water Act and through Executive Order 119901, which requires federal agencies to limit or avoid activities that result in impacts to wetlands.

In addition, some wetlands are essential breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for many species of fish and wildlife, including breeding bird populations, migratory bird, fish, and shellfish species. Approximately 75 percent of the terrestrial wildlife species in the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province are known to use riparian or wetland habitats during their lifetimes (Raedeke 1989, Thomas 1979).

Desired Conditions

1. The extent and diversity of wetland types on BLM-administered lands within the Baker FO Decision Area is maintained or increased. Scale: Subbasin.

2. The surface and subsurface flow paths that support wetland habitats are undisturbed. The timing and duration of inundation of wetlands are within natural ranges. Plant species composition in wetlands is characteristic of the biophysical setting in which they occur. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 12.5 Stream Channel Function

Streams and rivers convey water, as well as sediment, nutrients, organic material, and dissolved substances. The physical attributes of stream channels are determined largely by local geology, topography, climate, and characteristics of the flow and sediment transport regimes.

Desired Conditions

1. The physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations, are properly functioning and in dynamic equilibrium with the flow and sediment regimes under which aquatic systems have evolved. Scale: Watershed to subwatershed.

2. Channel morphology, structure, complexity, and diversity are in ranges that are characteristic of the local geo-climatic setting. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

3. The sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved is maintained, including the timing, volume, rate and character of input, storage, and transport. Scale: Watershed.

12.6 Aquatic Habitat Function

Aquatic habitats are an important source of biodiversity because of the variety of physical and hydrologic settings in which they occur. Aquatic habitats can be divided into lotic areas (streams and rivers) and lentic areas (lakes, ponds, and wetlands). Open water habitats, or lentic areas, occur on river floodplains and in topographic depressions and may be hydrologically supported by either ground water or surface water. Backwater or off-channel areas that have physical connections to streams and rivers (i.e., lotic areas) can be biologically important as rearing habitat for many aquatic species, including trout and salmon.

Aquatic habitats are shaped by a combination of physical and biological factors (including streamflow variability, sediment transport, stream channel characteristics, riparian habitat characteristics, water quality, accumulation, and the processing of wood and other organic material) and the connectivity and spatial distribution of habitat types within and adjacent to channel networks.

Desired Conditions

1. Aquatic habitats contribute to ecological conditions capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian- dependent species. Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

2. Management activities contribute to the protection of population strongholds for listed or proposed threatened and endangered species, state classified sensitive species, and narrow endemics, as these strongholds provide high quality habitat and support expansion

Appendix 2.2 – p. 20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS and re-colonization of species to adjacent watersheds. These areas conserve key demographic processes likely to influence the persistence of populations or metapopulations. Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

3. Habitat elements (including spawning and rearing habitat, substrate, pool habitat, winter habitat, migration corridors, cover, food, habitat complexity, water quality, refugia, productivity, and connectivity) are in functional condition and are sufficiently distributed to support self-sustaining populations of native resident and anadromous fish. Scale: Subbasin.

4. Native fish species have access to historically occupied aquatic habitats and connectivity between habitats allows for the interaction of local populations. Scale: Subbasin.

12.7 Species Diversity

Providing for the appropriate amount, distribution, and quality of habitat for native and desired non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent species (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates) within the Baker FO Planning Area is an integral component of ecological function. The ability to sustain this habitat over time, as well as the connectivity of habitat patches, is also important to the maintenance of ecological function.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires land and resource management plans to contribute to the diversity of plant and animal communities, based on the suitability and capability of the land area, while meeting overall multiple-use objectives. The overall goal for this framework is to provide the ecological conditions that support a diversity of native plant and animal species within a planning area. Natural ecosystems are only sustainable when the native biodiversity (the variety of life and its processes) and the functional basis of productivity are maintained (Johnson and O’Neil 2001).

In general, comparing the existing vegetative communities to a set of reference conditions (pre- settlement, natural range of variability, etc.) allows the evaluation of changes in disturbance regimes and acts as a check on the adequate representation of ecological communities (Samson 2002), which in turn should support species diversity. There are instances where maintaining ecosystem diversity might not provide the ecological conditions necessary to sustain populations of certain species, in which case a species-specific approach is warranted. This is often the case for those species that are listed under the ESA by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Desired Conditions

1. The natural range of habitats for native and desired non-native aquatic and riparian- dependent species (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates), including threatened and endangered species, species identified as being of local or regional

Appendix 2.2 – p. 21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS conservation concern, and focal species, is of adequate quality, distribution, and abundance to contribute to maintaining native and desired non-native species diversity. This includes the ability of species and individuals to interact, disperse, and find security within habitats in the planning area.

2. Population strongholds for the fish focal species provide high quality habitat and support expansion and re-colonization of species to adjacent unoccupied habitats. These areas conserve key demographic processes likely to influence the sustainability of aquatic species.

3. Federally listed species trend towards recovery or are delisted. Management activities improve the conservation status of species identified as being focal species or of local or regional conservation concern. Habitats and populations are managed in accordance with conservation planning documents, recovery plans, best available science, and local knowledge.

4. Specialized habitat components, such as caves, standing dead trees, seeps, and springs, are found across the landscape in amounts and types commensurate with the natural communities in which they occur.

Scale: Desired conditions for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales (i.e., resource area-wide, subbasin to subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation, these desired conditions should be used concurrently with resource management direction and design criteria provided in the RMP. Design criteria include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Standards and Guidelines that provide specific information and guidance for project decision-making. Design criteria may also include references to other applicable guidance, such as laws and regulations, which are already in place and not necessarily repeated in this strategy.

12.8 Productive Capacity

Productive capacity is described in terms of the growth and accumulation of riparian plant biomass (primary productivity), as well as the growth of aquatic and riparian-dependent animal species (vertebrate and invertebrate) that use the products of primary productivity (secondary productivity). Key elements of productivity include the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils that provide for vegetative growth and the accumulation and cycling of nutrients.

Productivity is based on using natural resources no faster than they are produced or can be replaced and is based on using natural resources without impairment of the long-term productive capacity of the ecosystems from which they are derived. Recent science recognizes that the sustainability of natural systems requires the preservation of the key processes under which those systems developed (Aber et al. 2000, Chapin et al. 1996, Holling 1992, Reeves et al. 1995). In aquatic systems, variability of the flow regime is responsible for creating and maintaining

Appendix 2.2 – p. 22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS habitats, influencing riparian establishment and succession, controlling the routing of sediment, and regulating nutrient cycles.

Desired Conditions

1. Long-term productivity of BLM-administered lands is sustained by the ecological processes as described in the aforementioned ecological desired conditions. Forest and rangeland ecosystems provide ecological goods and services for human consumption without diminishing long-term productive capacity. Scale: Resource area-wide.

12.9 Disturbance Processes

Natural disturbances include wildfire, insects and disease, flooding, drought, landsides, windstorms, and herbivory. There are two types of wildland fire: planned fires (prescribed fires) and unplanned fires (wildfires). Planned fires are ignited by a management action and are designed to meet specific land management objectives. Unplanned fires are those not ignited by management actions; although some unplanned fires may be managed to meet specific land management objectives (USDA 2010).

Disturbances, either of natural or of human origin, affect all aspects of ecosystems at a landscape level. Human-caused disturbances include timber harvesting, road construction, mining, domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of exotic species. Disturbances can impact aquatic and riparian habitat stages, successional stages, structural differentiation, nutrient cycles, forage availability, water quality and quantity yields, successional pathways, wildlife variety and quantity, carbon balances, scenic variability, and the availability and economic value of products (USDA 2010).

In many ecosystems, biotic communities have developed adaptations to specific disturbances. Many plant species, for example, may rely on either fire or floods for reproduction and are thus disturbance-dependent. The effect of any particular disturbance is a property of the disturbance as well as the system it affects. One example is the effect of flooding on rivers in which a regularly recurring flood pulse is responsible for maintaining the long-term dynamics of the river channel, as well as vegetation, on the adjacent floodplain. In this case, the flood is an integral part of the system and is not a disturbance in the same sense (Pickett and White 1985). Instead, disturbance in such systems occurs when there is significant departure from the average hydrological regime (Bayley 1995). Disturbance also depends on spatial scale.

Desired Conditions

1. Wildland fire plays an appropriate ecological role in creating the resilient forest and rangeland conditions and aquatic and riparian habitat needed to adapt to the conditions that result from climate changes. Scale: Subbasin to subwatershed.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 2. Normal levels of insects and disease disturbances fulfill the natural role by creating diverse landscapes and important riparian-dependent species habitat components, such as hollow trees, dead wood, and mistletoe brooms. Scale: Resource area-wide.

12.10 Invasive Species

Invasive species are recognized as a major threat to native aquatic and riparian-dependent species (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates) and habitat, as well as social and economic conditions. The effects of invasive species can cause reductions in long-term productivity of the land, cause economic loss, disrupt recreational use, and reduce resource production.

A wide range of species can be invasive, including plants, fish, animals, insects, fungi, mussels, and pathogens. Some aquatic invasive species are commonly transported between water bodies by recreational boating and fishing activities. The area affected by invasive plant species has increased throughout the Interior Columbia Basin over the last 100 years (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Many highly invasive aquatic species are well established in neighboring states, in the Columbia River, and in the lower reaches of major tributaries adjacent to BLM-administered lands. Streams and springs on public land are at risk of invasion by detrimental invasive organisms, such as New Zealand mudsnails and Asian clams. Lakes and reservoirs are at risk of invasion by zebra mussels, hydrilla, and other highly undesirable introduced plant and animal species.

Desired Conditions

1. Healthy, native, and desired non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent species and high quality aquatic and riparian habitat dominate the landscape and are resilient. Invasive species are absent or occur in small areas. Invasive species do not jeopardize the ability of BLM-administered lands to provide the goods and services communities expect or the habitat that aquatic and riparian-dependent species diversity depends upon. Scale: Watershed scale.

12.11 Soil Quality

Soils develop over long time periods (from decades to centuries), depending on local site characteristics, including climate, the nature of geological parent material (rock type), the actions of living organisms (including vegetation, soil organisms, and microbes), topography, and weathering and decomposition processes (Brady 1990, Harvey et al. 1994). The biological, physical, and chemical properties of soils contribute to both the biological productivity of riparian plant communities and the hydrologic functioning of watersheds. In addition, soils likely store as much carbon as is contained in above ground vegetation and, as a result, are important when considering the effects of climate change (USDA 2010).

Appendix 2.2 – p. 24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Decomposition of organic material is the principal source of nutrients in soil and varies with vegetation type, species composition, and fire history (Jurgensen et al. 1997). Important properties include soil depth, organic matter content, nutrient content, ground cover (litter), soil texture, water holding capacity, and infiltration capacity, all of which have biological and physical importance (Childs et al. 1989, Meurrisse et al. 1990). Soil properties vary greatly across the landscape and between different soil types.

Surface soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams are common contributors to reduced water quality (Coats and Miller 1981). Sediment in streams is commonly known for its effects on aquatic species and habitats (Bisson and Bilby 1982, Bjornn and Reiser 1991, Cordone and Kelly 1961, Waters 1995).

High intensity wildfires may result in elevated post-fire water temperatures (Dunham et al. 2007), channel incision (Moody and Kinner 2006), greatly elevated erosion rates (MacDonald and Robichaud 2008, Shakesby and Doerr 2006) and loss of soil carbon and nitrogen (Bormann et al. 2008).

Desired Conditions

1. The productivity of forested and rangeland ecosystem soils is maintained at levels that contribute to long-term sustainability of those ecosystems. Soil organic matter, soil physical properties (ground cover, bulk density, and texture), and coarse woody material are at levels that maintain soil productivity and hydrologic function. 2. Surface erosion rates are within the natural range of variability for a given biophysical setting.

Scale: Watershed to subwatershed depending on the severity of the disturbance.

12.12 Water Quality

Water quality is regulated nationally by authority of the Clean Water Act. Water quality criteria are established by the individual states and some tribes for the protection of aquatic species and humans. Water quality criteria vary depending on the beneficial use of water. For example, the criteria for irrigation use, domestic use, and coldwater fisheries are all different.

For aquatic species, water quality concerns include elevated stream temperature, elevated fine sediment levels, and the availability of nutrients on which aquatic food webs are based. Rivers that originate on public lands (mostly national forests) are used for irrigation of agricultural crops and for human consumption. These rivers must meet appropriate water quality criteria for those uses. Ongoing protection of water quality in domestic supply watersheds and protection and enhancement of riparian areas is a priority.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Desired Conditions

1. Water quality of surface and groundwater is sufficient to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. It is within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and is capable of benefiting the survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

2. The quality of water emanating from BLM-administered land is sufficient to provide for state- designated beneficial uses, including human uses.

3. Water quality in streams on BLM-administered land is sufficient to meet applicable state, local, and tribal water quality criteria.

Scale: Resource area-wide.

12.13 Fishing Opportunities

Fishing is a traditional recreational and subsistence use within the Baker FO Planning Area. It is an important aspect of local lifestyles and cultures and provides recreational and economic opportunities to surrounding communities, tribes, family groups, and individuals to socialize and harvest food for their own use.

Desired Conditions

1. Opportunities for hunting and fishing are available in a variety of settings. BLM- administered lands provide a mix of opportunities that foster recreational and subsistence fishing, support Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife management objectives, and contribute to local, tribal, and regional economies and lifestyles.

Scale: Resource area-wide.

13. RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS (RMAs)

13.1 Purpose

Because aquatic and riparian resources on public lands are associated with streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, and adjacent riparian vegetation, it is critical that such areas be clearly identified. Within such areas, riparian-dependent resources receive primary management emphasis. Functionally, RMAs: 1) influence delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams; 2) accommodate vegetation that provides root strength for channel stability; 3) provide stream shade; and 4) protect water quality (Naiman et al. 1992a).

Values to consider when identifying and managing RMAs, in addition to factors addressed within this strategy, include the contribution of fine organic matter to the stream system, provision of

Appendix 2.2 – p. 26 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS bank stability, role or function in controlling sediment inputs to streams, contribution of nutrients and other dissolved materials, influence on riparian microclimate and productivity, minimizing wind throw, importance of stream order, gradient, and perennial and intermittent flows. 13.2 Definition

RMAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary management emphasis. RMAs are not intended to be treated as ‘no management’ zones, since treatments may be essential to achieving or maintaining desired riparian and aquatic conditions. RMAs include riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent, perennial, and headwater streams, and other areas where “proper” ecological function is crucial for maintaining water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery to the system, so that they function within the natural range of variability. Management activities adjacent to or within RMAs are subject to specific standards and guidelines (Section 18).

13.3 RMA Widths

RMA width is a function of site condition and is based on potential to affect aquatic and riparian function and value. This strategy allows for adjustment of RMA widths to reflect site-specific conditions while also recognizing watershed-wide riparian conditions and trends. In general, RMA widths are intended to:

Maintain and restore riparian structure and function; Benefit fish and riparian-dependent resources; Maintain or enhance water quality conditions; Maintain or enhance water flow; Enhance conservation of organisms dependent on the transition zone between uplands and instream habitats; and Improve connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species.

13.4 RMA Delineation and Modification

Delineation and modification of RMAs requires watershed or site-specific analysis to reflect regional variation in site characteristics. Boundary adjustments or changes in land use within RMAs should be based on site-specific or reach-scale analysis. Such analysis should use the six components of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (RIEC 1995) (Section 17.4).

The widths of RMAs shall be adequate to protect the stream from non-channelized sediment inputs and sufficient in size to deliver organic matter and woody debris, as well as to provide stream shade and bank stability. RMAs shall also be delineated according to the following rule set:

Appendix 2.2 – p. 27 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 1. RMAs shall differentiate or delineate areas of particular value for aquatic conservation. This may be accomplished in a variety of ways such as mapping, through establishment of default widths, or through the use of criteria. 2. RMAs shall include streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, and unstable lands that are likely to affect the condition and/or function of the channel network and aquatic habitat. 3. RMAs shall include lands adjacent to all waters occupied by special status species, and key intermittent tributaries to those waters.

RMA dimensions may be modified or adjusted via watershed analysis, or where stream reach data and/or site-specific analysis supports a modification to default RMA dimensions, including during project-level planning. Watershed and site-specific analyses are not decision-making processes, but they provide information on riparian and aquatic processes, functions, resource values, and risks, as well as ecologically appropriate criteria that support site-specific determinations regarding default RMA width modification. These criteria can be identified using existing riparian and aquatic condition data, in combination with best available science, local knowledge, and professional judgment.

Application of criteria to modify RMA dimensions should address management activities that can retard or prevent the attainment of established riparian and aquatic management desired conditions. Pertinent site-specific, stream reach, and watershed values should also be addressed in supporting rationale for modifying RMA dimensions and land management activities occurring in these areas. In all cases, management actions shall not preclude the attainment of aquatic and riparian desired conditions (Section 12) and the rationale supporting RMA width modification and its effects will be documented through the appropriate analysis and decision- making process.

13.5 RMA Delineation Criteria

The four categories of stream or waterbody as recommended in PACFISH will be applied:

Category 1: Fish-bearing streams Category 2: Perennial non-fish bearing streams Category 3: Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than one acre Category 4: Intermittent or seasonally flowing streams and wetlands less than one acre, and unstable areas (i.e., landslides and landslide-prone areas).

The following RMA delineation criteria are similar to those recommended in PACFISH, with a few minor additions and modifications:

In forested ecosystems, and in non-forested rangeland ecosystems within watersheds (5th HUC) that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, Category 1 and 2 RMAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or the extent of the Rosgen flood-prone area width (Rosgen

Appendix 2.2 – p. 28 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 1996), or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to the extent of unstable source areas5, or the default minimum slope distance (in feet) on both sides of the stream channel (see Section 11.6), whichever is greatest.

In non-forested rangeland ecosystems within watersheds (5th HUC) that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, Category 1 and 2 RMAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the extent of the Rosgen flood-prone area width. The use of the Rosgen flood-prone area width as a RMA delineation criterion replaces the 100- year floodplain, as recommended in PACFISH, to avoid having to determine or map such an arbitrary or political flow level. The 100-year floodplain designation is normally made for socio- economic descriptions and has no particular geomorphic significance. The flood-prone area generally includes the active floodplain and the low terrace (i.e., abandoned floodplain). The flood-prone area width is measured at the elevation that corresponds to twice the maximum depth of the bankfull channel as taken from the established bankfull stage (Rosgen 1996).

In forested and non-forested rangeland ecosystems, Category 3 RMAs consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or the default minimum slope distance (in feet) (see Section 13.6) from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, whichever is greatest.

Category 4 includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. In forested and non-forested rangeland ecosystems, Category 4 RMAs only apply to intermittent or seasonally flowing streams that have a defined channel with signs of annual scour and deposition. At a minimum, a Category 4 RMA must include:

1. the intermittent stream channel and the extent of unstable source areas (if present) 2. the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of riparian vegetation 3. in watersheds (5th HUC) that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, the area from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or the default minimum slope distance (in feet) (see Section 13.6), whichever is greatest. 4. in watersheds (5th HUC) that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, the area from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or the default minimum slope distance (in feet) (see Section 13.6), whichever is greatest.

5 Unstable source areas are defined as those areas that provide source for in-channel structure, which includes channel components that provide roughness, sediment capture and release, and instream habitat. These components can vary by vegetation and stream type, stream size, and ecologic zone. Appendix 2.2 – p. 29 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 13.6 Default RMA Widths

In the absence of watershed or site-specific analysis, default RMA widths will be based on those recommended in PACFISH (Table 1). The Interior Columbia Basin (ICB) Strategy concluded that RMA widths and delineation criteria prescribed in PACFISH would be sufficient to provide for riparian function (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

Modification of default RMA widths requires either watershed or site-specific analysis to provide the ecological basis for the change, or may be specific to the management activities proposed and conducted within RMAs. In all cases, rationale acquired through watershed or site-specific analysis will be used to support the modification of default RMAs.

Table 1. Default Riparian Management Area Widths (No Action Alternative and Alternative 1) Category* Default RMA Width* 300 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional 1 - Fish-bearing streams delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. 2 - Perennial non-fish bearing 150 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional streams delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, wetlands greater than one acre or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 100 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges 4 - Intermittent or seasonally of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. flowing streams and wetlands less than one acre In watersheds that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 50 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. * Additional criteria apply (see Section 13.5)

Table 2. Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 2 and 3) Category* Default RMA Width* 300 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional 1 - Fish-bearing streams delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. 2 - Perennial non-fish bearing 100 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional streams delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. 50 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, wetlands greater than one acre or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 50 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges 4 - Intermittent or seasonally of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. flowing streams and wetlands less than one acre In watersheds that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 25 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. *Additional criteria apply (see Section 13.5)

Appendix 2.2 – p. 30 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 3. Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 4 and 5) Category* Default RMA Width* 300 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional 1 - Fish-bearing streams delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. 2 - Perennial non-fish bearing 200 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional streams delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, or to the extent wetlands greater than one acre of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest. In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 150 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of 4 - Intermittent or seasonally riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. flowing streams and wetlands less than one acre In watersheds that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 75 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. *Additional criteria apply (see Section 13.5)

13.7 RMA Desired Conditions

The overall desired condition for RMAs within any given watershed is to a provide a distribution of aquatic and riparian habitat conditions, within the range consistent with the aquatic and riparian ecosystems in which they developed, to support a natural composition of native and desired non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent species (plants and animals, invertebrates and vertebrates).

The dynamic nature and complexity of aquatic and riparian ecosystems can result in a wide range of values that make selection of precise target values difficult. The following habitat features may not all occur within a specific stream segment within a given watershed, but all generally should be represented and achievable at the watershed scale over the long-term. It is recognized that because of past land uses and legacy effects, it may not be possible to achieve desired habitat conditions during the life of the RMP (15-20 years), even with intensive restoration actions taking place.

Desired habitat features and conditions may change as scientists gain a greater understanding of aquatic and riparian ecosystem processes and functions (e.g., PIBO EM/IM trend data). Desired habitat features and conditions may be modified to better reflect conditions that are attainable in a specific watershed or stream reach based on local geology, topography, climate, and vegetation potential. Modifications can be made in the absence of watershed analysis where watershed or site-specific data or analysis supports the change. In all cases, rationale supporting modifications will be documented. In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species, modifications would be subject to approval by, or in consultation with, USFWS and/or NMFS. Additionally, standards and guidelines (Section 18) will be used to guide management actions to maintain or achieve RMA desired conditions.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 31 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Except where indicated below, all of the desired habitat features and conditions would apply to both forested and non-forested ecosystems in watersheds that support special status fish species (Table 4). Application of the desired conditions for the habitat features below would require thorough analysis. That is, if the desired condition for an important habitat feature such as pool frequency is met or exceeded, there may be some latitude in assessing the importance of the desired condition for other habitat features that contribute to good habitat conditions. For example, in headwater streams with an abundance of pools created by large boulders, fewer pieces of large wood might still constitute good habitat. The overall goal is to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity, through a combination of habitat features, to meet the life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed.

Table 4. Special status fish species in the Baker FO Planning Area Federal Status Washington Oregon Common Name Scientific Name (ESA) Status1 Status2 Chinook salmon – Snake River Spring/Summer Run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened C Threatened Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon – Snake River Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened C Threatened Fall Run ESU Steelhead – Snake River Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened C S-V Basin ESU Steelhead –Mid Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened C S-V Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened C S-C Redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi Species of Concern -- S-V Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Species of Concern SM S-V 1 WA Status Definitions: C = Candidate; SM= State Monitor 2 OR Status Definitions: S-US = Sensitive-Unclear Status; S-C = Sensitive-Critical; S-V = Sensitive-Vulnerable

Within any given watershed, BLM-authorized land uses would be evaluated at the project or reach level and would strive to support the attainment of desired conditions, or not impede the attainment of desired conditions, over the long-term. Areas where desired conditions already exist or are close to being achieved would be maintained and would not be adversely affected over the long-term.

1. Habitat Connectivity Native fish species have access to historically occupied habitats. Decisions to remove barriers would be dependent on evaluations of the potential impacts from non-native species competition and/or maintenance of genetic integrity of special status and other native fish species.

2. Water Temperature - Cold Water Biota Habitat complexity provides daily, seasonally, annually, and spatially variable water temperatures within desired species-specific ranges. Maximum water temperatures for specific fish species life histories are: Anadromous salmonid migration and rearing: less than 18°C (NMFS 1996); Anadromous salmonid spawning: less than 16°C (NMFS 1996); Appendix 2.2 – p. 32 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Inland native salmonid migration: less than 15°C (INFISH 1995); Inland native salmonid spawning and rearing: less than 9°C (INFISH 1995); Bull trout migration: less than 15°C (FWS 1998); Bull trout spawning: less than 10°C (FWS 1998); Bull trout rearing: less than 15°C (FWS 1998); Bull trout incubation: less than 6°C (FWS 1998)

3. Pool Frequency One pool every five to seven channel widths in pool-riffle stream channels and one to four channel widths in step-pool stream channels.

4. Width to Depth Ratio Less than or equal to 10:1 for confined channel types (Rosgen channel types A, E, and G); less than 20:1 for moderately confined channel types (Rosgen channel type B); and less than 40:1 for unconfined channel types (Rosgen channel types C and F).

5. Channel Substrate Condition Spawning gravel surface fines (<6.4 mm) <10 percent C channels (e.g., pool tails); spawning gravels surface fines <5 percent A and B channels; spawning gravel fines by depth, <25 percent; or cobble embeddedness less than 30 percent in Rosgen channel types A2 and A3; B2 and B3; C2 and C3; E3; and G2 and G3.

6. Large Woody Material (applicable to forested ecosystems only) Near-natural patterns in size and amount of in-channel, large woody material and potential wood recruitment on streambanks and floodplains.

7. Bank Stability For Rosgen channel types A, B, and E, 80 percent of any stream reach should have bank stability greater than 95 percent. For Rosgen channel type C, 80 percent of any stream reach should have bank stability greater than 90 percent.

8. Riparian Vegetation Riparian and wetland conditions in proper functioning condition. Generally mature to late seral conditions. Over 75 percent of the plant community type along the streambank provides high bank stability, deep fibrous roots, and good resistance to streambank erosion. Riparian vegetation provides adequate shade, large wood debris recruitment (in forested ecosystems), and habitat connectivity.

14. CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION WATERSHEDS

Identification of conservation and restoration watersheds (5th HUC) provides a means for prioritizing management direction and for establishing goals, desired conditions, and standards

Appendix 2.2 – p. 33 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS for monitoring and management. Based on the availability of staff and budgetary resources when planning for management of RMAs, the BLM should identify the most effective and cost- efficient opportunities for conservation and restoration. Managers must acknowledge that some watersheds will not be restored to physical or biological potential within the RMP timeframe (up to 20 years) because of cumulative effects and/or legacy effects of past land management actions, as well as private land and other existing land uses not controlled by the BLM. These watersheds would be reduced in priority for treatment or designation.

All watersheds with BLM land within the Baker FO Planning Area were identified as either conservation or restoration watersheds. In general, all watersheds that support anadromous fish species were categorized as conservation watersheds due to their high quality habitat conditions and hydrologic functions that reflect natural conditions. The remaining watersheds were identified as restoration watersheds due to their generally low quality habitat conditions and hydrologic functions that do not reflect natural conditions. Geographically, all conservation watersheds lie downstream of Hells Canyon Dam, while all restoration watersheds lie upstream of Hells Canyon Dam. Construction of the Hells Canyon Complex of dams, beginning with Brownlee Dam in 1958 and ending with Hells Canyon Dam in 1967, created the furthest upstream barriers to anadromous Snake River fish passage and extirpated salmon and steelhead runs upstream of Hells Canyon Dam.

Due to scattered and limited BLM ownership, primary criteria for identifying conservation and restoration watersheds depended on ESA-listed fish species presence (i.e., distribution), BLM ownership within a given watershed, and other public land ownership, including other Federal and State land and resource management agencies based on available GIS data in November 2009. Other criteria considered in the watershed identification process included special status fish species and habitat presence, amount of perennial stream miles adjacent to BLM land, watershed, upland and riparian condition (i.e., Proper Functioning Condition [PFC] [BLM 1998]) and Rangeland Health Standards [BLM 1997]), existing aquatic species diversity, fish and riparian habitat potential and productivity, and other special status species presence and resource needs (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates).

The purpose is to provide resource managers and the public with a clear intent of watershed, riparian, and aquatic resource management emphasis and priorities when considering land uses and management actions.

14.1 Conservation Watersheds

The management goal for conservation watersheds is to maintain the existing habitat condition. Conservation watersheds are often associated with ESA-listed anadromous fish species (i.e., Chinook salmon) and/or aquatic species strongholds and contain populations or subpopulations of both ESA-listed anadromous and resident (i.e., bull trout) fish species with high genetic integrity, connectivity, and/or expansion potential into nearby watersheds. Conservation watersheds are often outstanding in watershed processes and/or functions that are relatively

Appendix 2.2 – p. 34 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS undisturbed and natural in setting. Hydrologic functions, such as sediment routing and flow regimes, are within a natural range of frequency, duration, and intensity. Waters meet designated or existing beneficial uses. Land uses and human activities do not influence aquatic and hydrologic function as indicated by low road density and few stream crossings. Examples of conservation areas include roadless, undeveloped, and forested ecosystem-dominated watersheds that support anadromous fish species. However, conservation areas or portions thereof may be subject to management that allows limited land use while maintaining natural processes.

Conservation watersheds generally rely on passive restoration while monitoring habitat conditions to assess habitat loss or gain without action. However, conservation watersheds can also be actively managed to conserve or restore physical and biological processes. For example, a conservation watershed where vegetative species and structure trend outside the historic range of variability as a result of fire suppression may be actively managed to reduce the risk of a devastating wildfire that could disrupt ecological processes in the watershed for a prolonged period. Active management may also involve road and trail maintenance to minimize erosion and sediment delivery to streams and other waterbodies to conserve hydrologic and biological processes. As a general rule, minimal investment in conservation watersheds over time is necessary to maintain function and critical elements of instream and riparian habitat.

Within all conservation watersheds, however, opportunities for active restoration are limited due to limited and discontinuous BLM land ownership. The opportunity or ability to attain desirable and/or functioning resource conditions is not always possible from management actions conducted on BLM lands alone, and in some cases cannot achieve desired conditions within the life of the RMP because resource and landscape recovery is typically a long-term and gradual process. Therefore, efforts to collaborate with other public land and resource management agencies and non-governmental organizations to accomplish active restoration in conservation watersheds are crucial.

14.2 Restoration Watersheds

The management goal for restoration watersheds is to restore or improve habitat conditions where biological and physical processes and functions do not reflect natural conditions due to cumulative and/or legacy effects of past land management actions or natural disturbances. Common disturbances to these watersheds may include long-term (decadal) increases of sediment input to streams, loss or depletion of large wood or recruitment potential, altered hydrologic processes, and/or elevated water temperatures. Cumulative impacts and natural disturbances (i.e., fire, landslides, and floods) exacerbate altered conditions and active management may be necessary to restore the physical and biological function of these systems. Identifying and assessing adverse impacts of management on restoration watersheds will allow managers to focus restoration in the most cost-effective manner for achieving hydrologic and biological recovery. This implies the utilization of a wide range of active restoration treatments to achieve desired landscape responses and accomplish land management objectives.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 35 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Restoration watersheds are often associated with special status resident fish species (i.e., redband trout) and ESA-listed resident fish species (i.e., bull trout) with low genetic integrity, connectivity, and/or expansion potential into nearby watersheds.

Management activities within restoration watersheds should minimize or avoid adverse effects to resources and accelerate achievement of restored watershed and habitat conditions. Individual discretion to balance short-term risks to fish species and other aquatic and riparian resources with long-term benefits for multiple resources will move these watersheds toward a natural range of variability.

Within some restoration watersheds, however, opportunities for active restoration may be limited due to limited BLM and other public land ownership. The opportunity or ability to attain desirable and/or functioning resource conditions is not always possible from management actions conducted on BLM lands alone, and in some cases cannot achieve desired conditions within the life of the RMP because resource and landscape recovery is typically a long-term and gradual process. Therefore, efforts to collaborate with other public land and resource management agencies and non-governmental organizations, as well as private landowners, to accomplish restoration actions are crucial.

15. PRIORITY RANKING FOR CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION WATERSHEDS

The primary criteria used in the initial priority ranking of BLM conservation and restoration watersheds included the following (within a given 5th HUC watershed) based on available GIS data in November 2009:

1. ESA-listed fish species distribution and designated critical habitat presence(using StreamNet data as of November 2009); 2. amount of BLM-administered acres (500-acre minimum); 3. percent BLM ownership (based on acres); 4. percent public land (federal and state) ownership (based on acres) (40% minimum); and 5. amount of perennial stream (length in miles) adjacent to BLM land (9-mile minimum).

Due to scattered and limited BLM ownership within most watersheds, the purpose behind the use of a minimum criteria process was to identify and prioritize those watersheds in which the BLM has a majority of land ownership and could affect the most change when acting as a sole agency and public land manager.

There are a total of 70 watersheds (5th HUC) within the Baker FO Planning Area that contain BLM-administered lands. Of those 70 watersheds, 44 were identified as conservation watersheds and 26 were identified as restoration watersheds.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 36 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS

Of the 44 conservation watersheds, only 8 of those watersheds met two or more of the minimum prioritization criteria and were prioritized and ranked accordingly (Table 5). As such, 36 conservation watersheds currently remain non-prioritized and unranked; 17 of which didn’t meet any of the minimum prioritization criteria. Conservation watersheds not currently prioritized are those where BLM ownership is relatively minor, isolated, or otherwise limits opportunities for effective restoration work.

Of the 26 restoration watersheds, 20 watersheds met two or more of the minimum prioritization criteria. However, all 26 restoration watersheds were prioritized and ranked because they all met at least one of the minimum prioritization criteria (Table 6).

Other criteria that can be used to further refine the initial priority ranking of BLM conservation and restoration watersheds or prioritize currently non-prioritized watersheds include, but are not limited to: water quality (i.e., 303(d) stream listings), upland and riparian condition based on monitoring results (e.g., Proper Functioning Condition [PFC], Rangeland Health Standards (RHS) (BLM 1997), PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion [PIBO] monitoring, and Multiple Indicator Monitoring [MIM] [Burton et al. 2008]), other special status species presence and resource needs (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates), and subbasin plans and ESA- listed species recovery plans as available and where applicable. Conservation and restoration opportunities within each watershed should also be identified in the near future and should consider the expected cost and response time to effect measurable changes toward achieving aquatic and riparian resource goals.

As stated before, it is possible that the BLM may choose to conduct restoration work in a conservation watershed, or vice versa, especially if there are funding and/or partnership opportunities available. Priorities are subject to change as the BLM receives new information or management direction, including new listings or delistings of species under the ESA.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 37 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS

Table 5. Baker FO Priority Conservation Watersheds 5th HUC BLM Percent BLM Listed Fish 5th HUC Rank 5th HUC Name Total Total BLM Perennial Species Number Acres Acres Acres* Stream Miles Present** 1 1706010606 Lower Joseph Creek 104,684 9,078 58.3 9.2 STL 2 1706010607 Lower Grande Ronde River 160,688 8,617 5.4 27.4 BT, STL, CHS 3 1706010301 Cherry Creek-Snake River 87,931 3,950 55.7 10.6 BT, STL, CHS Grossman Creek-Grande 4 1706010601 114,755 3,146 46.8 9.7 BT, STL, CHS Ronde River Mud Creek-Grande Ronde 5 1706010602 154,044 3,985 39.8 9.9 BT, STL, CHS River 6 1707010201 Upper Walla Walla River 101,804 2,735 43.7 9.1 BT, STL 7 1707020205 Upper Camas Creek 104,725 1,431 83.3 4.9 BT, STL, CHS

8 1706010405 Upper Catherine Creek 117,253 1,018 45.0 1.8 BT, STL, CHS * Includes federal and state land ownership (i.e., BLM, FS, and State of Oregon) * STL = steelhead; BT = bull trout; CHS = Chinook salmon

Table 6. Baker FO Priority Restoration Watersheds Listed 5th HUC BLM Percent BLM 5th HUC Fish Rank 5th HUC Name Total Total BLM Perennial Number Species Acres Acres Acres* Stream Miles Present** 1 1705020206 Burnt River Canyon-Burnt River 53,630 32,503 69.1 52.5 None 2 1705020308 Ruckles Creek-Powder River 166,605 60,718 52.3 43.0 None 3 1705020205 Clarks Creek-Burnt River 60,564 12,648 42.7 18.0 None 4 1705020208 Burnt River 15,4478 54,579 35.4 68.8 None 5 1705020311 Lower Powder River 61,474 23,134 38.4 22.1 BT 6 1705020207 Alder Creek-Pritchard Creek 89,273 30,802 34.5 19.5 None 7 1705020103 Rock Creek-Snake River 146,154 31,991 21.9 56.5 None 8 1705020309 Love Creek-Powder River 87,931 22,118 25.2 46.6 None 9 1705020107 Indian Creek-Snake River 117,723 16,842 34.6 42.1 BT 10 1705020106 Pine Creek 193,439 19,319 68.2 2.3 BT 11 1705020204 Big Creek-Burnt River 94,063 13,581 26.1 15.4 None 12 1705020302 Sutton Creek-Powder River 115,766 8,150 29.4 14.8 None 13 1705020310 Eagle Creek 123,493 3,631 88.0 7.1 None 14 1705020102 Birch Creek-Snake River 90,113 10,285 14.4 8.5 None 15 1705020202 South Fork Burnt River 75,101 2,615 63.6 5.9 None 16 1705020203 Camp Creek 51,923 4,203 50.5 0.8 None 17 1705020104 Brownlee Creek-Snake River 70,987 6,461 9.1 12.5 BT 18 1705020201 North Fork Burnt River 124,134 1,346 84.5 2.8 None 19 1705020307 Big Creek 54,822 1,898 47.2 2.3 None 20 1705020304 Rock Creek-Powder River 120,685 3,556 24.6 8.9 BT 21 1705020306 Wolf Creek-Powder River 108,611 3,820 17.0 8.4 BT 22 1705011904 Middle Willow Creek 123,392 6,533 9.7 3.5 None 23 1705020303 Baldock Slough-Powder River 72,435 4,774 11.2 0.1 None

Appendix 2.2 – p. 38 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 6. Baker FO Priority Restoration Watersheds Listed 5th HUC BLM Percent BLM 5th HUC Fish Rank 5th HUC Name Total Total BLM Perennial Number Species Acres Acres Acres* Stream Miles Present** 24 1705011902 Upper Willow Creek 112,808 2,396 2.1 0.7 None 25 1705020305 North Powder River 75,055 122 63.0 0.4 BT 26 1705020301 Upper Powder River 105,386 25 77.7 0.0 BT * Includes federal and state land ownership (i.e., BLM, FS, and State of Oregon) ** BT = bull trout

Appendix 2.2 – p. 39 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 16. AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

16.1 Protection

The Baker ARMS strives to protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems that are currently in good condition so that naturally regenerative processes can continue to operate. Management actions should conserve riparian areas that are ecologically intact and fully functional, while human activities that significantly impair aquatic and riparian ecological functions should be restricted. Conservation watersheds that include wilderness areas and minimally developed watersheds would fall within this management strategy. However, high priority restoration projects may exist within portions of some conservation watersheds; while some restoration watersheds may have a stream segment or portion of land that is ecologically intact and functional, which would also warrant protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

16.2 Passive Restoration

This management strategy generally applies to low priority restoration watersheds, but can be applied to any watershed regardless of designation or priority. Under this strategy, management actions should prevent further loss of aquatic and riparian ecosystem integrity, and to the extent possible, remove anthropogenic disturbances from altered aquatic and riparian ecosystems to allow natural processes to be the primary agents of recovery. Management actions should also allow the natural disturbance regime to dictate the speed of recovery in areas that have a high probability of returning to a fully functional state without human intervention, keeping in mind that the speed of recovery may be several decades (or more) once anthropogenic disturbances are removed or mitigated.

16.3 Active Restoration

Under this strategy, management actions should return functionally impaired aquatic and riparian ecosystems to more natural or pre-existing conditions, based on location, by combining elements of natural recovery with active management activities that accelerate the development and recovery of self-sustaining and ecologically healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Several watershed, riparian, and stream restoration activities fall under this category, including: vegetation treatment, stream channel and instream habitat restoration, stream crossing removal or improvement, road density reduction, and road condition improvement. In general, the speed of recovery under this strategy would be more rapid than with passive restoration, but could take several years (or decades) once anthropogenic disturbances are removed or mitigated.

16.4 Rehabilitation

Under this strategy, management actions should recover or restore naturally self-sustaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems to the extent possible, while acknowledging that irreversible resource modification, such as dam construction, permanent channel changes due to urbanization and roads, stream channel incision, and floodplain development, allows for only partial recovery

Appendix 2.2 – p. 40 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS or restoration of ecological functions. Where ecological self-sufficiency cannot occur, actions that combine both natural and active management approaches should be applied.

17. MULTI-SCALE ANALYSIS

Generally, no single assessment will adequately address the complex issues facing resource managers today. Fine-scale assessments provide necessary context for management and project planning, but they cannot adequately address broad patterns and processes, such as habitat conditions for wide-ranging species. Broad-scale assessments provide necessary context for policy formulation and for mid- and fine-scale assessment, but they cannot by themselves provide detailed information, such as site-specific habitat conditions. Together, issue-driven multi-scale assessments provide a comprehensive basis for sustainable land and resource management.

Multiple levels of review and assessment provide the context to implement broad-scale decisions on individual BLM Districts or within a particular Resource Area. As needed, multi-scale analysis may be used for future plan amendments or revisions and for subsequent project-level decisions. The four potential analysis scales are basin, subbasin, watershed, and project. Analysis at the appropriate scale is generally recognized to provide needed context for (and thus it improves) decision making.

Following are the four levels of review/assessment that may be used for multi-scale analysis:

1. Broad-scale (e.g., analysis of ecosystems in the Interior Columbia River Basin); 2. Mid-scale (e.g., ecosystem analysis at the subbasin scale); 3. Fine-scale (e.g., ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale); 4. Site-scale (e.g., reach analysis, project-based or site-specific analysis).

Management considerations for multi-scale analysis include the following:

Plans are generally developed and analyzed at the scale of the land management unit, normally analogous to a subbasin (or group of subbasins) scale. Subsequent finer scale analysis, such as to support restoration prioritization and monitoring strategy development, should include interagency coordination. Assessments should include evaluation of existing conditions, factors limiting aquatic species populations, resource risks, management needs, and restoration opportunities. Information developed at the finer scale should be considered in implementing the aquatic conservation or restoration measures and used to make adjustments or modifications to appropriate management actions, as warranted. Multi-scale analysis provides a basis for integrating and prioritizing conservation measures for wide-ranging species.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 41 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Existing mid and fine-scale analyses that serve as a source of information for the Baker FO include Northwest Power Planning Council subbasin plans, ESA salmon/steelhead recovery plans, and Water Quality Restoration Plans (WQRPs).

17.1 Watershed Analysis

The purpose of an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale is to develop and document an understanding of the ecological structures, functions, processes, and interactions occurring at the watershed scale. This process is designed to describe past and current conditions and develop restoration and management recommendations. The ultimate goal is to provide guidance for management actions that would sustain or improve the health and productivity of natural resources.

17.2 Objectives of a Watershed Analysis

1. Evaluate cumulative watershed effects – watershed analysis enhances the ability to estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management actions. 2. Define watershed restoration needs, goals, and objectives – provides guidance on the type, location, and sequence of appropriate activities within a watershed. 3. Monitor the effectiveness of watershed protection measures – process for adaptive management feedback loop. 4. Provide sufficient watershed context for understanding and carrying out land use activities with a geomorphic context – important tool used in meeting ecosystem management goals and desired conditions.

17.3 Appropriate Methodology

The Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (RIEC 1995) provides resource managers with the flexibility and discretion to focus a watershed analysis as necessary to meet management goals and desired conditions, such as defining the number and scope of issues to be addressed. A watershed analysis can be a very simple and straightforward process, taking a few days or weeks to develop, or a complicated process that takes several weeks or months to accomplish. Although watershed analysis is not a decision-making process, it helps to identify opportunities for future management actions, including planning, project development, and regulatory compliance.

For small or scattered tracts of public lands, watersheds with small amounts of BLM lands, or in areas where a watershed analysis has not been completed, the use of site-specific analysis or stream-reach analysis is appropriate. The site-specific or reach analysis should follow the six- step process identified below, which is similar to watershed analysis but limited in geographic scope. The level of a focused site-specific or reach analysis should be commensurate with the scope, magnitude, and issues related to BLM activities or projects and related aquatic resources and values. Where appropriate, an abbreviated watershed analysis may be used in conjunction with a more focused site-specific analysis. A site-specific analysis includes the following steps:

Appendix 2.2 – p. 42 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS

17.4 The Six Steps of Site-Specific Analysis

Step 1: Characterization - Characterize the RMA and vicinity, including reference to aquatic habitat, channel type, valley type, and stream gradient.

Step 2: Issues and Key Questions - Describe the issues, including aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions, which will be affected by existing and proposed actions being considered for NEPA decision. This includes the factors limiting aquatic species populations, resource risks, management needs, restoration opportunities, and interagency coordination.

Step 3: Current Conditions - Describe the current condition of the RMA within the context of the proposed action. This may include discussion of riparian function (e.g., PFC). This should also include quantitative stream and riparian condition data (e.g., Multiple Indicator Monitoring [MIM]).

Step 4: Reference Conditions - Describe the expected or desired future condition. If an undisturbed reference reach similar in channel, valley, and vegetation type is available, measure conditions there for comparison or reference condition.

Step 5: Synthesis and Interpretation - Compare existing and reference conditions of specific ecosystem elements including differences, similarities, trends, and triggers. Identify the capability of the system to achieve desired conditions.

Step 6: Recommendations - Summarize conclusions from steps one through five by addressing each of the issues and answering the key questions. Document the logic flow through the analysis, linking issues and key questions from step two with the interpretation presented in step five, and based on conclusions from steps one, three, and four. Identify monitoring and recommendations responsive to issues and key questions, as well as data gaps and limitations of the analysis.

17.5 Baker FO Watershed Analysis Direction

BLM lands within the Baker FO Decision Area often consist of small scattered tracts of land; therefore, BLM ownership usually does not comprise the majority of land ownership within most watersheds. Many watersheds also have scattered tracts of land that are primarily of private or non-federal ownership. The greatest opportunity for completing or updating existing watershed or other multi-scale analyses occurs in drainages where majority land ownership is comprised of both BLM and Forest Service lands. Because BLM is typically not the majority landowner, the BLM Baker FO should continue to collaborate with the Forest Service to complete or update watershed or other multi-scale analyses, which can be used to provide guidance for cumulative effects analysis, prioritization for restoration and management actions, and direction and

Appendix 2.2 – p. 43 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS information for landscape and ecosystem management efforts that involve mixed land ownerships.

18. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Standards and guidelines (Table 7) are technical and scientific specifications to be used in the design and constraint of projects and activities in RMAs. Both standards and guidelines are intended to assure that management activities that disturb or modify land, water or vegetation in RMAs will only occur if the activities maintain, restore, or enhance riparian dependent resources when viewed at the watershed or larger scale over time. They help assure that the relevant processes for which RMAs are established are assessed to avoid watershed scale effects and minimize effects to aquatic and riparian resources at the site scale.

Standards: Standards are constraints placed upon project and activity decision-making and are established to help achieve the goals and desired conditions of the Baker ARMS or to comply with applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders, and directives. A standard is a requirement to be met in the design of projects and activities.

Guidelines: Guidelines provide guidance and information for carrying out projects and activities to help achieve the goals and desired conditions.

Laws, regulations, and other agency policy and directives are generally not repeated in the Baker ARMS and are not repeated in the standards and guidelines. For example, threatened and endangered species have very specific direction in law, regulation, policy, agency directives, and other sources, such as recovery plans. Therefore, standards and guidelines for threatened and endangered species are limited. If a particular resource is not addressed in these standards and guidelines, it does not mean the resource is not managed for or that the BLM considers a particular resource less important than those listed.

Neither standards nor guidelines are commitments or final decisions approving projects and activities. Standards and guidelines do not compel or force action; they apply only when an action is being taken.

Standards and guidelines apply to all RMAs, including projects and activities conducted outside of RMAs that are identified through NEPA analysis as potentially degrading to RMAs, after the RMP and Baker ARMS is approved. For convenience, standards and guidelines (see Table 7) are numbered consecutively with an alphanumeric system; an “S” indicates a standard, while a “G” indicates a guideline.

For land management activities proposed in watersheds that support listed fish species and/or designated critical habitat, in conjunction with informal and formal ESA Section 7 consultation,

Appendix 2.2 – p. 44 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS all applicable guidelines shall become standards or PDCs and/or conservation measures shall be developed that address resource and/or regulatory agency concerns.

Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas When RMAs are functioning properly, project activities shall be designed to maintain those conditions. When RMAs are not properly functioning, project activities shall be designed to improve those conditions. Management actions in RMAs shall avoid or minimize adverse effects on special status fish species and S-1 other native aquatic species and their habitats. Management actions in RMAs shall not result in long-term degradation to aquatic and riparian conditions at the watershed scale. Limited short-term or site-scale effects from activities in RMAs may be acceptable when they support, or do not diminish, long-term benefits to aquatic and riparian habitat and species. Trees may be felled within RMAs when they pose a safety risk, and should be kept on-site when needed to G-1 maintain or enhance riparian and aquatic habitat. Coordinate with federal, tribal, state, and local governments to secure instream flows needed to maintain G-2 riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat. Coordinate with federal and state fish management agencies to identify and eliminate adverse effects on G-3 special status fish species and their habitat from unauthorized or illegal habitat manipulation, fish stocking, and fish harvest. Apply herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and other toxicants, and other chemicals only to maintain, protect, S-2 or enhance aquatic and riparian resources or to restore native plan communities. When conducting chemical treatments within a RMA, a spill kit and containment plan should be on-site at all times. Prohibit storage and mixing of fuels and other chemicals, including refueling, within RMAs unless there are S-3 no other practicable alternatives. Refueling sites and storage areas within or adjacent to an RMA must have an approved refueling and spill containment plan. Timber Management Timber harvest and thinning shall occur in RMAs only as necessary to maintain, restore, or achieve desired S-1 conditions. New landings, designated skid trails, staging, or decking should not occur in RMAs, unless there are no reasonable alternatives, in which case they should: G-1 • Be of minimum size • Be located outside the active floodplain • Minimize effects to large wood, bank integrity, temperature, and sediment levels G-2 Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over the active channel. Timber harvest projects shall include provisions to avoid detrimental changes in water temperatures, S-2 blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment. Firewood collection shall not be authorized or allowed in the active floodplain or within primary source S-3 areas for large woody debris. Clearcutting, shelterwood, and other even-aged methods of harvest shall be allowed within RMAs only when an interdisciplinary team/deciding official has determined that protection can be assured for resources, such as soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and the regeneration of the timber resource. It shall also be determined as the optimal harvest method for any of the following reasons: S-4 • Establishing, maintaining, or improving habitat for special status aquatic and riparian-dependent species • Obtaining a desired resource management plan outcome, such as reducing hazardous fuels or enhancing aquatic or riparian species habitat. When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities (e.g., heavy S-5 machinery operation, yarding, and hauling) should be limited or prohibited unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer. G-3 Avoid skidding across channel bottoms or creating conditions that concentrate and channelize surface flow.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 45 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas Use directional felling, when applicable, to minimize skidding distance and locate skid trails outside of RMAs. Wildland Fire and Fuels Management Generally, management actions should balance short-term risks with long-term benefits to aquatic and G-1 riparian habitat and resources. Disturbed areas, such as firelines, drop-points, camps, roads, and trails should be restored by scattering slash G-2 piles, replacing logs and boulders, scarifying soils, recontouring terrain, and reseeding with native species. All firelines within 100 feet of intercepting trails, roads, or stream crossings should be restored by cutting G-3 stumps flush and close to the ground (height of 4 to 5 inches), covering tops with a layer of soil (1 to 2 inches), and chopping and roughening the ends of logs and stumps with an ax or Pulaski. G-4 Waterbars should be constructed on fireline slopes that exceed 10 percent. G-5 Chemicals and retardant should not be used for suppression and mop-up activities within riparian areas. Water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on stream channel stability, G-6 sedimentation, and in-stream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic species habitat. Pumping directly from a stream channel should be avoided if chemical products are to be injected directly G-7 into the system. When chemicals are to be used, pumping should be conducted from a fold-a-tank that is located outside the riparian area. Temporary firefighting facilities (e.g., incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other G-8 centers) for incident activities should be located outside RMAs. An interdisciplinary (ID) team, including a fisheries biologist, should be used to pre-determine incident base, dipping, and helibase locations during pre-suppression planning. If the only suitable location for these activities is within a RMA, an exemption may be granted following a review and recommendation by an ID G-9 team and/or a resource advisor. The ID team and/or resource advisor should prescribe the location, conditions of use, and rehabilitation requirements that comply with the primary goal of avoiding adverse effects to terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian habitat and resources. Aerial application of chemical retardant, foam, or other firefighting chemicals and petroleum should be avoided within 300 feet of waterways. An exception is warranted where overriding safety imperatives exist G-10 or, following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor and fisheries biologist, when the action agency determines fire activity would cause more long-term damage to riparian and aquatic habitat and species than suppression activities (e.g., chemical delivery to surface waters). Water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on stream channel stability, G-11 sedimentation, and in-stream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and fish habitat. Generally locate and configure firelines to minimize sediment delivery, creation of new stream channels, and G-12 unauthorized roads and trails. Pumps shall be screened at drafting sites to prevent entrainment of native and desired non-native fish and S-1 shall have one-way valves to prevent back-flow into streams. Portable pump set-ups shall include containment provisions for fuel spills and fuel containers shall have S-2 appropriate containment provisions. Vehicles should be parked in locations that avoid entry of spilled fuel into streams. Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) (NWCG 2006) techniques during wildfire suppression S-3 activities in RMAs. To minimize soil damage when chipping fuels within RMAs, limit chip bed depths on dry soils to 7.5 cm or S-4 less (Busse et al. 2005). Prohibit mechanical slash piling within riparian management areas and prohibit the use of mechanical fuel S-5 reduction equipment within RMAs. Only hand piling of slash material and burning can be conducted within RMAs when approved by a soil, S-6 hydrology, and/or fisheries specialist and the deciding official. Rationale for allowing slash pile burning

Appendix 2.2 – p. 46 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas within RMAs must be documented using site-specific analyses contained within appropriate NEPA and/or Section 7 ESA consultation documents. If RMAs are within or adjacent to a prescribed burn unit, piles should be firelined or scattered by hand prior to burning. When preparing a unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps within or adjacent to G-13 RMAs. Instead, pile material no bigger than 8 inches in diameter. Slash piles should only be burned when soil and duff moisture is adequate to reduce potential damage to soil, water, and riparian resources. Roads Management G-1 Avoid new road construction in RMAs, except where necessary for stream crossings. Wetlands and unstable areas should be avoided when reconstructing existing roads or constructing new roads G-2 and landings. Consider aligning new roads or realigning existing roads outside of RMAs. Minimize impacts where avoidance is not practical. Construction or reconstruction of stream crossings should allow passage for other riparian-dependent species G-3 where connectivity has been identified as an issue. Fish passage barriers should be retained where they serve to restrict access by undesirable non-native species G-4 and are consistent with restoration of habitat for native species. Minimize hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery from roads. This includes roads inside and outside G-5 of RMAs. Road drainage should be routed away from potentially unstable channels, fills, and hill slopes. This applies G-6 both inside and outside of RMAs. Route road drainages so they cannot reach streams, which may be accomplished by directing road drainages G-7 away from streams and filtering them through adequate vegetation buffers. G-8 Protect fish habitat and water quality when withdrawing water for administrative purposes. Stabilize, close, or obliterate roads not needed for future management activities. Prioritize these actions G-9 based on current and potential damage to native aquatic species and the ecological value of riparian resources affected. Avoid side-casting (placement of unconsolidated earthen waste materials resulting from road construction or S-1 maintenance) in RMAs. S-2 Avoid placing fill material on organic debris in RMAs. Minimize or avoid disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and S-3 interception of surface and subsurface flow, when constructing or reconstructing roads or landings either inside or outside of RMAs. New or replaced permanent stream crossings will accommodate at least the 100-year flood event, including S-4 associated bedload and debris. Where physically feasible, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings will avoid diversion of G-13 streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure. In fishbearing streams, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings will provide and maintain passage S-5 for all fish species and all life stages of fish. S-6 Temporary roads within RMAs will be decommissioned a maximum of three years after their construction. Avoid brushing along stream channels and other water sources unless it is necessary for human safety or to avoid threats to structural stability where modifying structure design would not eliminate the need for G-14 brushing. Do not brush beyond 4 feet of a road as measured by the edge of the drivable road surface (not measured from turnouts or road shoulder). Maintain riparian overstory to provide stream shade by pruning riparian vegetation rather than completely removing it. Preserve as much ground vegetation as possible. Livestock Grazing Management During allotment management planning or the permit renewal process, consider the removal of existing G-1 livestock handling or management facilities from RMAs. Minimize livestock trailing, bedding, watering, loading, and other handling in RMAs and adjacent to springs, G-2 wetlands, and seasonally wet meadows. G-3 Avoid trampling of special status fish species and/or redds by livestock.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 47 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas Manage the timing and intensity of grazing to maintain or achieve desired conditions and meet rangeland S-1 health standards and guidelines. New livestock handling and/or management facilities shall be located outside RMAs, except for those that S-2 inherently must be located in an RMA and those needed for resource protection. Salt blocks or other supplements to distribute livestock shall be placed in the uplands and away from riparian S-3 areas. Grazing after wildland fire should be deferred until vegetation recovers to a condition where grazing will not cause the percent composition of native species to be reduced (cause a downward trend in key species). This G-5 generally will take a minimum of 1 to 2 years, but could be more or less depending on the extent and severity of the fire and other factors. Consider the development of off-channel water sources (e.g., spring developments, pipelines/troughs, and G-6 reservoirs) to decrease grazing pressure in riparian areas. Surface disturbance related to range improvement projects (e.g., fencing and off-channel water sources) would be held to a minimum. Disturbed soil would be rehabilitated to blend into surrounding soil surface G-7 and reseeded as needed with a mixture of grasses, forbs, and browse as applicable to replace ground cover and reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion. Locate fencing so that it does not confine or concentrate livestock near riparian areas. Minimize vegetation G-8 removal, especially potential large wood recruitment sources, when constructing fence lines. Livestock stream crossings and water access points (i.e., water gaps) shall not be constructed within known G-9 or suspected native salmonid spawning areas or areas with suitable spawning substrate. Fencing at stream crossings and water gaps shall not inhibit upstream or downstream movement of fish or S-4 impede bedload movement. Consider passage of large wood and other debris when constructing fencing at water gaps. At water gaps, streambanks and approach lanes shall be stabilized with native vegetation and/or angular rock to reduce chronic sedimentation. Livestock stream crossings and water gaps should be armored with up to S-5 cobble-size substrate, or use angular rock if natural substrate is not of adequate size. Refer to water gap design criteria in the FWS and NMFS aquatic restoration biological opinions (ARBOs). New livestock stream crossings and water gaps shall not be located in areas where compaction or other S-6 damage may occur to hydric, fine-textured soils and associated vegetation (e.g., seeps, springs, or wetlands) due to congregating livestock. Where practicable, develop springs with a buried collection system (i.e., installing a short pipeline that G-10 delivers water to a trough). Immediately after spring development, construct fencing around the spring in order to minimize soil disturbance and compaction at the source. Locate troughs associated with off-channel water developments on ground with a slope, vegetated buffer, and distance (25 foot minimum) from stream channels and lentic areas to ensure that the disturbed area G-11 associated with the water development does not contribute sediment to or remove vegetation from hydric soils, riparian, or wetland areas. Use an automatic shut-off system or efficiently return overflow to the source in a short return interval. Recreation Management Avoid placing new facilities or infrastructure within expected long-term channel migration zones. Where activities, such as the placement or construction of road-stream crossings, boat ramps, docks, and interpretive S-1 trails, inherently must occur in RMAs, locate them to minimize impacts on riparian dependent resource conditions (e.g., within geologically stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites) and to allow for the attainment of desired conditions. Consider removing or relocating existing recreation facilities which are causing unacceptable impacts in G-1 RMAs. Sanitation facilities shall be planned, located, designed, constructed, operated, inspected, and maintained to S-2 minimize possibilities of surface water and groundwater contamination. All activities related to location, design, inspection, operation, and maintenance will be performed by trained and qualified personnel.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 48 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas Prohibit discharges and disposal of human and animal waste, petroleum products, and other hazardous G-2 substances in or near streams in recreation areas. Educate the public to conduct their activities in ways that will not degrade water quality. Minerals Management Adverse effects to aquatic and other riparian-dependent resources from mineral operations should be minimized or avoided. For operations in RMAs, ensure operators take all practicable measures to maintain, G-1 protect, and rehabilitate water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife and other riparian-dependent resources that may be affected by the operations. Structures, support facilities, and roads should be located outside RMAs. Where no alternative to siting facilities in RMAs exists, locate them in a way to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and other riparian- G-2 dependent resources. Existing roads should be maintained to minimize damage to aquatic and riparian- dependent resources. Where possible, adjust the operating plans for existing activities to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and G-3 riparian dependent resources in the RMAs to allow for attainment of desired conditions. For activities conducted pursuant to valid existing rights and operating plans that may pose risks to aquatic and riparian habitat, existing authorities shall be used to mitigate and/or require, to the extent authorized, S-1 design features that would contribute to the maintenance of banks, shorelines, water quality, amount and distribution of woody debris, thermal regulation, characteristic erosion rates, and amount and distribution of source habitats. When management activities are conducted in RMAs, ground disturbance shall be minimized and sufficient ground cover shall be retained (existing vegetation and/or by seeding, plantings, and erosion control G-4 measures) to limit soil movement within RMAs. Buffer widths, vegetation cover, and/or natural topography features should be sufficient to minimize risks of erosion/sediment reaching stream channels and other waterbodies. Establish an interdisciplinary team to develop a rehabilitation plan whenever RMAs or adjacent uplands have G-5 experienced severe damage to soils and vegetation from either fire or fire suppression activities. Permit sand and gravel mining and extraction within RMAs only if no alternatives to do so outside of RMAs S-2 exist, and if adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat and species would be avoided. Locate mine waste facilities with the potential to generate hazardous material (per the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1980) outside of RMAs. If no S-3 reasonable alternative to locating these facilities in RMAs exists, then locate and design the waste facilities using the best conventional techniques to ensure mass stability and prevent the release of acid or toxic materials. Evaluate and apply the results of inspection and monitoring to modify mineral plans, leases, or permits as S-4 needed to eliminate adverse impacts to riparian and aquatic habitat and species. Lands and Realty Authorizations for all new and existing rights-of-way shall result in the reestablishment, restoration, or mitigation of habitat conditions and ecological processes identified as being essential for the maintenance or S-1 improvement of habitat conditions for fish, water, and other riparian-dependent species and resources. These processes include in-stream flow regimes, physical and biological connectivity, water quality, and integrity and complexity of riparian and aquatic habitat. If existing support facilities are located within RMAs, they should be operated and maintained to restore or G-1 enhance aquatic and riparian-dependent resources. At the time of permit reissuance, consider removing support facilities, where practical. Locate new hydroelectric power support facilities outside of RMAs. Support facilities include any facilities or improvements (e.g., workshops, housing, switchyards, staging areas, and transmission lines) not directly S-2 integral to the production of hydroelectric power or necessary for the implementation of prescribed protection, mitigation or enhancement measures. G-2 Use land acquisition, exchange, and conservation easements to support the conservation and restoration of

Appendix 2.2 – p. 49 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas aquatic and riparian habitat and species. Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously disturbed areas G-3 whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed communities. Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of rights-of-way and utility corridors, and across the full G-4 width of the disturbed area, or as directed by the deciding official. Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by vegetation practices G-5 designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation cover should be reestablished to increase infiltration and provide additional protection from erosion. Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and G-6 prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also be employed for the removal of sediment from runoff. For water diversions and canals, condition permit issuance to require meeting existing appropriate fish S-3 screening criteria based on fish presence (i.e., ESA-listed fish and non-listed fish). Prioritized Conservation and Restoration Watersheds There shall be no net increase in the mileage of BLM-administered roads in any prioritized watershed unless S-1 the increase results in a reduction in road-related risk to watershed condition. Priority should be given to roads that pose the greatest relative ecological risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Hydroelectric and other surface water development authorizations should include requirements for in-stream S-2 flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore special status fish and other desirable aquatic species populations, riparian dependent resources, favorable channel conditions, and aquatic connectivity. New hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not be located in a prioritized watershed unless it S-3 can be demonstrated that there are minimal risks and/or no adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat and species. General Watershed and Habitat Restoration Watershed restoration projects should be designed to maximize the use of natural ecological processes as a G-1 tool in meeting and maintaining restoration goals and desired conditions. G-2 Watershed restoration projects should be designed to minimize the need for long-term maintenance. Watershed and habitat restoration projects should avoid or minimize adverse effects on special status fish G-3 species and their habitats. Management actions should balance short-term risks with long-term benefits to aquatic and riparian resources. Design and implement watershed and habitat restoration projects in a manner that promotes the long-term G-4 ecological integrity of ecosystems and conserves the genetic integrity of special status fish species and other native aquatic species. All ground-disturbing activities should be conducted to minimize or prevent the potential spread or G-5 establishment of invasive species. G-6 Materials used for restoration projects on BLM-administered lands should be free of invasive species. State certified weed-free straw and mulch shall be used for restoration projects conducted or authorized on S-1 BLM-administered lands. Native plant materials should be used for restoration activities where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-native non-persistent plant species may be used in the G-7 following situations: emergency situations to protect basic resource values, as an interim non-persistent measure to aid re-establishment of native plant communities if native plant material is not available, or in permanently altered plant communities. Cooperate with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies and private landowners to develop watershed-based G-8 coordinated resource restoration plans or other cooperative agreements. Do not use planned restoration as a substitute for preventing habitat degradation; that is, use planned restoration only to mitigate existing problems and not to mitigate the effects of S-2 proposed management activities. It is acknowledged that some proposed activities may have short-term adverse effects, but they shall not degrade or preclude trends to achieve aquatic and riparian resource goals

Appendix 2.2 – p. 50 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas and desired conditions over the long-term. Conduct water quality monitoring before, during, and after project implementation to determine the effects G-9 of restoration activities on water resources. Conduct non-commercial treatments of vegetation in RMAs as a means to help restore plant species composition and structure that would occur under natural disturbance regimes. The resulting benefits to aquatic systems should include one or more of the following: desired levels of stream shade, bank stability, stream nutrients, large wood inputs, increased grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and reduced soil erosion. An additional benefit includes fuels reduction, which decreases the probability of a catastrophic fire in a watershed containing isolated populations of special status fish species and habitat. Treatments may include, G-10 but are not limited to, the following: thin conifers in even-age stands (typically plantations) to expedite late- seral conditions; thin conifer understory to maintain viability of later-seral trees; create stand structure that would be expected under natural disturbance regimes; alder treatments; disease pocket treatments; create planting gaps to promote growth of conifers, deciduous trees, shrubs, and grass. Brush (felled trees) removal, planting of tree seedlings (conifer and deciduous) and shrubs, and animal damage control (no pesticides) are also included. Conduct riparian vegetation planting as a means to help restore plant species composition and structure that would occur under natural disturbance regimes. The resulting benefits to the aquatic systems should include G-11 desired levels of stream shade, bank stability, stream nutrients, large wood inputs, increased grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and reduced soil erosion. Activities may include the following: planting of conifers, deciduous trees, and/or shrubs; placement of sedge and or rush mats; gathering and planting willow cuttings. Restore meadow sites along stream corridors or adjacent uplands through removal of conifers which have G-12 become established as a result of fire exclusion or other anthropogenic causes. To restore or increase species diversity of riparian vegetation, fell conifer and/or hardwood trees (if above G-13 natural stocking levels) to create riparian planting gaps. An interdisciplinary (ID) team, including, but not limited to, a silviculturist, botanist or ecologist, fisheries G-14 biologist, and wildlife biologist, should be involved in designing restorative vegetation treatments within RMAs. Restoration activities should be designed to produce native facultative and obligate wetland species in G-15 wetland/hydric soils. Design invasive plant treatments to reduce or eliminate adverse effects to riparian and aquatic habitat and species. Use site-specific project design (e.g., application rate and method, timing, wind speed and direction, S-3 nozzle type and size, buffers, etc.) to minimize the potential for adverse disturbance and/or contaminant exposure to special status aquatic species. Mixing/refilling and storage of chemicals or fuels shall be take place outside of RMAs or where an accidental spill will not run into surface waters or result in groundwater contamination. Impervious material S-4 shall be placed beneath mixing/refilling and storage areas in such a manner as to contain any spills associated with mixing/refilling and storage. When approved pesticides are transported to a project site in motorized or non-motorized watercraft, the following protections should be implemented: only daily quantities of pesticide(s) should be transported to G-16 project site; pesticide(s) should be transported in one gallon or smaller containers, sealed in a water- and air- tight container, and placed in a buoyant dry-bag. The entire package should be securely tied to the watercraft. Instream Habitat Improvements Large wood and boulders should only be placed in areas where they would naturally occur and in a manner that closely mimics natural accumulations for that particular stream type. Large wood includes whole conifer and hardwood trees, logs, and root wads. Large wood size (diameter and length) should account for G-1 bankfull width and stream discharge rates. When available, trees with rootwads should be a minimum of 1.5 times the bankfull channel width, while logs without rootwads should be a minimum of 2 times the bankfull width. Structures may partially or completely span stream channels or be positioned along stream banks.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 51 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas Key boulders (footings) or large wood can be buried into streambanks or channels but should not constitute G-2 the dominant placement method of boulders and large wood within a given watershed. Anchoring large wood with cable should be used sparingly and when the protection of infrastructure or consideration of downstream landowner concerns is a high priority. Before using cable, attempt to use, when feasible, the following anchoring alternatives, in preferential order: a. use adequate-sized wood sufficient for stability; G-3 b. orient and place adequate-sized wood in such a way that wood movement is unlikely; c. use ballasting (gravel and/or rock) to increase the mass of the structure to resist movement; d. use large boulders as anchor points for large wood; or e. pin wood to large rock with rebar to increase wood weight. Gravel augmentation should only occur in areas where the natural supply of gravel has been eliminated or significantly reduced through anthropogenic means (e.g., directly downstream of dams). Gravel to be placed G-4 in streams should be of properly-sized gradation for that stream, clean, and non-angular. When possible, use gravel of the same lithology as found in the watershed. After gravel placement, allow the stream to naturally sort and distribute the material. Install boulder weirs low in relation to channel dimensions so that they are completely overtopped during channel-forming flow events (~ 1.5 year flow events). If larger boulders are needed to withstand bankfull G-5 flows, boulder size should be determined through a site-specific analysis (e.g., shear stress analysis) and should not promote bank scouring and channel routing around the structure. Boulder weirs should be placed diagonally across the channel or in a traditional “V” or “U” shaped configuration with the apex oriented upstream. Boulder weirs should be constructed to G-6 allow upstream and downstream passage of all native aquatic species and life stages that occur in the stream. For fish species, this can be accomplished by providing plunges no greater than 6” in height, allowing for juvenile fish passage at all flows. Headcut Stabilization and Associated Fish Passage When armoring a headcut, use sufficient sizes and amounts of material to prevent continued upstream G-1 movement of the headcut. Materials may include both rock and organic materials that are native to the area. Minimize lateral migration of channel around headcut (i.e., flanking) by placing rocks and/or organic G-2 material at a lower elevation in the center of the channel cross-section to direct flows to the middle of the channel. In streams with known or presumed fish presence, provide fish passage over stabilized head-cuts. Log or G-3 rock weir structures may be used to provide fish passage. Construct weirs in a “V” shape, oriented with the apex upstream, and lower in the center to direct flows to the middle of the channel. Key weirs into the streambed to minimize structure undermining due to scour, preferably at least 2.5 times G-4 their exposure height. The weir should also be keyed greater than 8 feet into both banks, if feasible. If several structures will be used in a series, space the weirs at appropriate distances to promote fish passage of all life stages of native fish. Incorporate State fish passage criteria (e.g., jump height, pool depth, etc.) in G-5 the design of weir structures. Recommended weir spacing should be no closer than the net drop divided by the channel slope. For example, a one-foot high weir in a stream with a two-percent gradient will have a minimum spacing of 50-feet. Removal of Legacy Structures Remove large wood, boulders, rock gabions, and other in-channel structures that were constructed to improve fish habitat but were installed in a manner that was and continues to be inappropriate for the given G-1 stream type, or where these structures have resulted in widened stream channels, increased width/depth ratios, decreased sinuosity, and increased stream exposure to solar radiation. If the structure being removed is keyed into the bank, fill in “key” holes with native materials as to restore G-2 contours of streambank and floodplain. Compact the fill material adequately to prevent washing out of the soil during flood events. Do not mine material from the stream channel to fill in “key” holes. G-3 When removal of buried (keyed) structures may result in significant disruption to riparian vegetation and/or

Appendix 2.2 – p. 52 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines Riparian Management Areas the floodplain, consider using a chainsaw to extract the portion of log within the channel and leaving the buried sections within the streambank. Assess sites for potential headcutting below the natural stream gradient. If headcutting and channel incision G-4 are likely to occur due to structure removal, additional measures must be taken to avoid or reduce these impacts. Bank Restoration Restore eroding streambanks to reduce chronic bank erosion, improve water quality, restore natural channel cross-sections, expand floodplain area, promote growth of riparian vegetation, and create undercut banks for G-1 fish hiding cover. Projects should not significantly restrict the channel migration zone and ability of the channel to form and maintain habitat. To the extent possible, use bank stabilizing materials that would naturally occur at that site, such as large G-2 wood, woody and herbaceous plantings, native sedge/rush mats, and native rock. Streambanks may be reshaped and sloped where the objective is to reduce bank slope angle to provide more G-3 favorable planting surfaces. However, such work should not change the location of the bank toe. Floodplain Overburden Removal Remove anthropogenic overburden and fill, such as dredged mine tailings, railroad beds, dikes, berms, levees, and other fill types, from floodplains to restore natural floodplain functions, including overland flow G-1 during high-water events, dissipation of flood energy, increased water storage to augment low flows, sediment and debris deposition, growth of riparian vegetation, nutrient cycling, and development of side channels. Create floodplain characteristics (i.e., elevation, width, gradient, length, and roughness) that mimic those that G-2 would naturally occur at that particular stream and valley type. Overburden or fill comprised of native materials that originated from the project area may be used to reshape G-3 the floodplain, used to fill anthropogenic holes, buried on site, and/or disposed into upland areas. Conduct a contaminant survey for mine tailing removal projects prior to project implementation. If G-4 contaminants are found above levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency, consult with appropriate agencies.

19. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

19.1 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. Adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes (BLM 2006).

Adaptive management requires knowledge of the current conditions, potential or capability of riparian sites and streams, current management and effects of the management on the resources, and management changes that may be made to move the current condition toward the desired condition. Single indicators of conditions or trend are usually not adequate to make good decisions. Information on the condition and trend of the vegetation, streambanks, aquatic resources, and knowledge of current management practices can help establish cause-and-effect relationships that are important to make appropriate decisions. Such information allows refinement and development of more realistic, site-specific project or activity design, standards, and criteria.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 53 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS

Monitoring is an integral component of many management approaches, including adaptive management and ecosystem management. Adaptive management is based on monitoring that is sufficiently sensitive enough to detect relevant ecological changes. In addition, the success of adaptive management depends on the accuracy and credibility of information obtained through inventories and monitoring. Close coordination and interaction between monitoring and research are important for the adaptive management process to succeed. Data obtained through systematic and statistically valid monitoring can be used by scientists to develop research hypotheses related to priority issues. Conversely, the results obtained through research can be used to further refine the protocols and strategies used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of Baker RMP and Baker ARMS implementation.

Monitoring results provide resource managers with the information to determine whether an objective has been met, and whether to continue or modify the management direction. Findings obtained through monitoring, together with research and other new information will provide a basis for adaptive management changes to the plan. The monitoring process and adaptive management share the goal of improving effectiveness and permitting response to increased knowledge and dynamic landscapes. Monitoring plans will also not remain static and should be periodically evaluated to ascertain that monitoring questions and standards are still relevant, and should be adjusted as appropriate and necessary. As such, some monitoring protocols might be discontinued or others might be added as knowledge and issues change with implementation.

19.2 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

Monitoring is a process of gathering information through observation and measurement to ensure that project design criteria and mitigations are implemented correctly and effectively, and to determine if project or resource goals and desired conditions are being achieved.

Plan-level (e.g., Environmental Analysis [EA] and Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) and compliance-level (e.g., Biological Assessment [BA] and Biological Opinion [BO]) monitoring should (1) determine if the plan, project, or activities are being implemented correctly and are achieving desired results or conditions; (2) provide a mechanism for accountability and oversight; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts; and (4) provide a feedback loop for adaptive management so that management direction and actions can be evaluated and, if necessary, modified.

The two main types of plan-level and compliance-level monitoring are implementation and effectiveness monitoring, specifics of which are described below:

Implementation monitoring is used to determine if management actions, decisions, and standards and guidelines, as identified in plan-level or compliance-level documents, are being implemented in a timely manner and according to agency policy or protocol.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 54 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if management actions and decisions, as designed and executed, are effective in meeting project goals and objectives as defined in activity plans, EAs, EISs, BAs, or BOs. Effectiveness monitoring provides a measure of achievement or progress toward achieving desired outcomes or conditions, and may require long-term monitoring of established ecological indicators at different scales.

An example of a monitoring protocol that can be used for both implementation and effectiveness monitoring is the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol (Burton et al. 2008), which provides for both short-term (implementation) and long-term (effectiveness) indicators to be measured at the site-specific scale, which allows observers to directly link a management change to resource goals and desired conditions. This provides critical information for establishing cause and effect relationships when evaluating condition and trend.

The PIBO monitoring program is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in meeting aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions provided in the PACFISH and INFISH (USDA 1995) strategies, and the effectiveness of aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions in federal land use plans in the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB). More specifically, the program is intended to answer the following questions:

What is the status and trend of stream reaches as indicated by in-channel indicators in the UCRB? What is the status and trend in watershed condition in the UCRB? What is the relationship between grazing practices (implementation) and stream reach condition (effectiveness) in the UCRB? What are the distributions for reference and managed watersheds? This enables the development of appropriate management goals and desired conditions for stream and riparian parameters. What are the distributions for reference and managed streams and riparian areas, and are there differences in their trends?

Management considerations for riparian monitoring should be:

Objective-based: Monitoring should be focused on answering specific or key questions. Properly located: Locate priorities for monitoring and Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) locations using a broad-scale inventory such as PFC (BLM 1998). Measurable: Apply quantitative, site-specific methods such as MIM at local indicator sites (i.e. DMAs) for trend monitoring and short-term compliance with resource management criteria and desired conditions.

Management considerations for all monitoring should include the following:

Focus monitoring on key questions that inform decision making and allow adjustments to management.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 55 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Monitoring emphasis and intensity should be commensurate with the importance of the question(s) being asked. For example, if adaptive decision making is being used, it would be important to monitor key parameters to the degree necessary in order to support the current course of action or to trigger an alternate approach. Plan level monitoring should make use of, and not duplicate, broad-scale monitoring programs. To the extent practicable, monitoring conducted at the plan scale should be compatible with, and complementary to, broader and finer-scale monitoring. Monitoring should be coordinated with, and where possible consolidated with, similar efforts of other agencies or interested parties. Outcome-based management approaches rely on monitoring for their success and typically require a different level and type of monitoring than prescriptive approaches. Monitoring commitments in plans should be feasible and achievable.

The results of monitoring efforts should be summarized and shared with other state and federal regulatory, land, and/or natural resource management agencies and Native American tribes, as requested.

Project design criteria, mitigation, and applicable standards and guidelines should be monitored on a specific action or subsample of activities or project area. Agency representatives overseeing the actions should do the monitoring, as well as an interdisciplinary or multi-agency team, through a combination of any of the following methods:

Review EAs, BAs, and BOs for identified standards and guidelines, BMPs, project specifications, and terms and conditions to ensure that they are provided for in contracts or plans of operation (project design and mitigation criteria) Review contract administration reports (daily diaries) Review activities on the ground before, during, and after implementation Assess whether identified standards and guidelines, BMPs, project specifications, and terms and conditions in NEPA and/or Section 7 ESA consultation documents were implemented Where appropriate, photograph site conditions before, during, and after implementation (i.e., photo monitoring).

The Baker FO implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategy will include the use of approved databases and reporting mechanisms, while ensuring that data is collected and reported in a consistent manner. Monitoring protocols will be in accord with appropriate BLM technical references or other acceptable monitoring methods that address aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions. Acceptable monitoring methods would include consistent application of protocols that document existing conditions, allow for comparison and trend, and have been generally approved and accepted by other state and federal land and/or natural resource management agencies, and Native American tribes.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 56 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS 19.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of the RMP and Baker ARMS

BLM planning regulations require the monitoring and evaluation of RMPs at appropriate intervals. Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource management because it provides information on the relative success of management strategies. The implementation of the RMP and the Baker ARMS will be monitored to ensure that management actions follow prescribed management direction (implementation monitoring), meet desired conditions (effectiveness monitoring), and are based on accurate assumptions (validation monitoring).

After approval of the RMP and the Baker ARMS, an implementation schedule will be completed and would incorporate monitoring plans. Monitoring data will be used to assess resource conditions, identify resource issues and conflicts, determine if resource goals and desired conditions are being met, determine trends for achievement of desired conditions, and periodically refine and update desired conditions and management strategies.

Monitoring will be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and organizations in order to enhance the efficiency and usefulness of the results across a variety of administrative units. The approach will build on past and present monitoring work. In addition, specific monitoring protocols, criteria, goals, and reporting formats will be developed.

Management actions (see Chapter 2 of the RMP) will be monitored to determine whether aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions, including standards and guidelines, are being achieved or implemented for the benefit of special status aquatic species populations and their habitats. Monitoring data will be collected, maintained, and used to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in meeting aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions, including standards and guidelines, provided in the Baker ARMS.

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategies will include the use of agency-approved databases and reporting mechanisms. Monitoring methods will be in accord with appropriate BLM policies, technical bulletins and references, or other agency-approved monitoring protocols that address aquatic and riparian management resource goals and desired conditions provided in the Baker ARMS. Acceptable monitoring methods would be adaptive and include protocols that have been generally approved and accepted by other state and federal land and/or natural resource management agencies, and Native American tribes.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 57 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS LITERATURE CITED

Aber, J., N. Christensen, I. Fernandez, J. Franklin, L. Hidinger, M. Hunter, J. MacMahon, D. Mladenoff, J. Pastor, D. Perry, R. Slangen and H. van Miegroet. 2000. Applying ecological principles to management of the U.S. National Forests. Issues in Ecology 6 (Spring). Angermeier, P. L. 1997. Conceptual roles of biological integrity and diversity. In: Watershed restoration: principles and practices. J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood and M. P. Dombeck, eds. Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society: 49-65. Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 45(3): 153- 158. Benda, L., N.L. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. Pollock. 2004. The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience, 54, 413– 427. Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2(4): 371-374. Bisson P.A., G.H. Reeves, R.E., Bilby, and R.J. Naiman. 1997. Watershed management and Pacific salmon: desired future conditions. In: Stouder, D.J., Bisson, P.A., Naiman, R.J. (Eds.), Pacific Salmon and their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 447–474. Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences Of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. W. R. Meehan, ed. Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society. Special Publication 19: 83-138. Bureau of Land Management , Department of the Interior. 1995. Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-010. Oregon/Washington State Office. Portland, OR. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon in Oregon and Washington. BLM Oregon State Office: Portland, OR. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2006. A Field Guide For Incorporating Adaptive Management Principles Into the Bureau of Land Management, National Environmental Planning Act Analysis, and the Land Use Planning Process. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2008. Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies for BLM Resource Management Plans in the Interior Columbia Basin. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR and Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. Bormann, B. T., P. S. Homann, R. L. Darbyshire and B. A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(11): 2771-2783.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 58 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Brady, N. C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York, MacMillan Publishers, 2 Ltd. Burton, T. A., E. R. Cowley, and S. J. Smith. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation – Multiple Indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin. Version 5.0/April 2008. Boise, ID: Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office and US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150. Busse, M. D. and G. M. Riegel. 2005. Managing ponderosa pine forests in central Oregon: who will speak for the soil? In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Ponderosa Pine: Issues, Trends, and Management, October 18-21, 2004, General Technical Report PSW-GTR- 198. M. W. Ritchie, D. A. Maguire and A. Youngblood, eds. Albany, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 109-122. Caraher, D.L., J. Henshaw, F. Hall, W.H. Knapp, B.P. McCammon, J. Nesbitt, R.J. Pederson, I. Ragenovitch, and C. Tiez. 1992. Restoring Ecosystems in the Blue Mountains – A Report to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain Forests. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon, USA. Chapin, F. S., III, M. S. Torn and M. Tateno. 1996. Principles of ecosystem sustainability. American Naturalist 148(6): 1016-1037. Childs, S. W., S. P. Shade, D. W. R. Miles, E. Shepard and H. A. Froehlich. 1989. Soil physical properties: importance to long-term forest productivity. In: Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forests. D. A. Perry, R. Meurisse, B. Thomas, R. Miller, J. Boyle, J. Means, C. R. Perry and R. F. Powers, eds. Portland, OR. Timber Press: 53-66. Coats, R. N. and T. O. Miller. 1981. Developing best management practices for California forests. A 208 progress report. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 36(4): 205-208. Concannon, J.A., C.L. Shafer, R.L. DeVelice, R.M.; Sauvajot, S.L. Boudreau, T.E. Demeo, and J. Dryden. 1999. Describing landscape diversity: a fundamental tool for landscape management. In: Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malick, A.J., eds. Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.: 195-218. Vol. 2. Cordone, A. J. and D. W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game 47(2): 189-228. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979. Crowe, E. A. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetlands classification of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. February 1997. Dale V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, and R.P. Neilson. 2000. The interplay between climate change, forests, and disturbances. Science of the Total Environment, 262, 201-204. Dunham, J. B., A. E. Rosenberger, C. H. Luce and B. E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of wildfire and channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10(2): 335-346.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 59 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Ehrenfeld, D. 1992. Ecosystem health and ecological theories. In: Constanza, Island Press, Washington, DC (1992), pp. 135–143. Euliss, N., J. LaBaugh, L. Fredrickson, D. Mushet and M. Laubhan. 2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands 24(2): 448-458. Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience, 52, 483-498. FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination]. Fisher, S.G. 1997. Creativity, idea generation, and the functional morphology of streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 305-318. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 417 pp. Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management,10, 199-214. Furniss, M.J. and C.J. Colby. 2005. Draft Annotated bibliography of small and intermittent streams and related topics. USFS-PNW Research Station Aquatic and Land Interactions Program. Corvallis, OR. 218 p. Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater streams. BioScience, 52, 905-916. Gosz, J.R., J. Asher, B. Holder, R. Knight, R. Naiman, G. Raines, P. Stine, and T.B Wigley. 1999. An ecosystem approach for understanding landscape diversity. In: Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malick, A.J., eds. Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.: 157-194. Vol. 2. Gregory, S. V. and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. In: Pacific salmon and their ecosystems. D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. New York. Chapman & Hall: 277-314. Hansen, A.J. and D.L. Urban. 1992. Avian response to landscape patterns: the role of species life histories. Landscape Ecology, 7, 163-180. Harrison, S. and J.F. Quinn. 1989. Correlated environments and the persistence of metapopulations. Oikos, 56, 293-298. Harvey, A. E., J. M. Geist, G. L. McDonald, M. F. Jurgensen, P. H. Cochran, D. Zabowski and R. T. Meurisse. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 71 p.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 60 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Heller, D., and B. McCammon. 2004. Aquatic strategies in Region 6 – Are they working? Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Natural Resources, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208. Hobbs, R.J. and L.F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology, 6, 324-337. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23. Holling, C. S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62(4): 447-502. Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337. Hunter, M.L. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team. 1999. Recovery of wild salmonids in western Oregon forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the Oregon Plan for salmon and watersheds. Tech. Rep. 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Salem, OR: Governor’s Natural Resource Office. 99 p. Johnson, D. H. and T. A. O'Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University Press. Jurgensen, M. F., A. E. Harvey, R. T. Graham, D. S. Page-Dumroese, J. R. Tonn, M. J. Larsen and T. B. Jain. 1997. Impacts of timber harvesting on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity, and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43(2): 234-251. Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L.A. Mahrt, W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. In: Johnson, D.H., O'Neil, T.A. (Eds.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. pp. 361-388. Levin, S. 1974. Dispersion and population interactions. American Naturalist, 108, 207-228. Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscale Approach. Washington, DC: Island Press. 351 p. Lugo, A.E., J.S. Baron, T.P. Frost, T.W. Cundy, and P. Dittberner. 1999. Ecosystem processes and functioning. In: Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malick, A.J., eds. Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference For Ecosystem Management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.: 219-254. Vol. 2. MacDonald, L. H. and P. R. Robichaud. 2008. Post-Fire Erosion and the Effectiveness of Emergency Rehabilitation Treatments over Time. Stream Notes January: 1-6. McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves and L. A. Brown. 1994a. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 68(Special Issue): 36-53. McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves and L. A. Brown. 1994b. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-321, Volume III. Portland, Oregon, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 55 pp. Meurisse, R. T., W. A. Robbie, J. Niehoff and G. Ford. 1990. Dominant soil formation processes and properties in western-montane forest types and landscapes-some implications for

Appendix 2.2 – p. 61 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS productivity and management. Proceedings - management and productivity of western- montane forest soils, General Technical Report INT-280, Boise, Idaho, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. In: Press, M.C.; Huntley, N.J.; Levins, S., eds. Ecology: Achievement And Challenge. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific: 295-317. Meyer, J.L., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Srayer, D.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin, and P.H. Zedler. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative For Defending Small Streams And Wetlands. Sierra Club and American Rivers. 24 pp. Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel Processes, Classification, And Response, In River Ecology and Management, edited by R. Naiman and R. Bilby, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 13-42. Moody, J. A. and D. A. Kinner. 2006. Spatial structures of stream and hillslope drainage networks following gully erosion after wildfire. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31(3): 319-337. Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Derg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. O’Connor, P. L. Olson, and E. A. Steel. 1992a. Fundamental Elements of Ecologically Healthy Watersheds in The Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion. Pages 127–188 in R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.B. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D. O’Connor, P.L. Olson, and E.A. Steel. 1992b. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Naiman, R.J. 1998. Biotic stream classification. Pages 97-119 in R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby (Editors). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. Naiman, R.J., R.E., Bilby, and P.A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. BioScience, 50, 996-1011. Naiman, R.J., and J.J. Latterell. 2005. Principles for linking fish habitat to fisheries management and conservation. J. Fish Biol., 67, 166-185. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. August. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 452 p. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New York, USA

Appendix 2.2 – p. 62 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience, 47, 769-784. Poole W.R., D.T. Nolan, T. Wevers, M. Dillane, D. Cotter, and O. Tully. 2003. An ecophysiological comparison of wild and hatchery-raised Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts from the Burrishoole system, western Ireland. Aquaculture, 222, 301–314. Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide (technical editors). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume III. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Raedeke, K. J., ed. 1989. Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife And Forestry Interactions. Seattle, WA, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. Version 2.2, August 1995. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A Disturbance- Based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation, J.L. Nielsen (Editor). American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334-349. Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan: An Assessment after Ten Years. General technical report PNW-GTR-577. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Rieman, B.E., J.T. Peterson, and D.L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout displaced bull trout along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams?: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 63-78. Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO. Samson, F. B. 2002. Population viability analysis, management and conservation planning at large scales. In: Population Viability Analysis. S. Beissinger and D. McCullough, eds. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago Press. Shakesby, R. A. and S. H. Doerr. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. Earth-Science Reviews 74(3-4): 269-307. Sidle R.C., Y. Tsuboyama, S. Noguchi, I. Hosoda, M. Fujieda, and T. Shimizu. 2000. Streamflow generation in steep headwaters: A linked hydro-geomorphic paradigm. Hydrological Processes 14: 369385. Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Funded jointly by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. TR-4501-96-6057. Man Tech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments: Recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 63 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Pages 91-124 in R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, Thomas, J. W., ed. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Washington And Oregon, Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1995. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. July. Coeur d’Alene, ID. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2010. Blue Mountains Forests Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Proposed Action. Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa- Whitman National Forests. Pacific Northwest Region. March. Portland, OR. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1994a. Final Supplemental ACS Environmental Impact Statement On Management Of Habitat For Late-Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within The Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) and Proposal to Amend Wording about the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1994b. Record of Decision On Management of Habitat for Late- Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) and Proposal to Amend Wording about the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish- Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). February. Washington, DC. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2003. The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. January. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2004. A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions. July. U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. 2006. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. February. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethseda, Maryland. Whitesel, T.A., and Seven Others. 2004. Bull Trout Recovery Planning: A Review of the Science Associated with Population Structure and Size. Science Team Report #2004-1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 64 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.2: ARMS Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America— Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern: 1989. Fisheries, 14(6), 2–20. Wipfli, M.S., J.S. Richardson, and R.J.Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43, 72–85. Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves and J. R. Sedell. 1994a. A history of resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s-1990s). Northwest Science 68(Special Issue): 1-35. Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves and J. R. Sedell, eds. 1994b. Ecological Health of River Basins in Forested Regions Of Eastern Washington and Oregon. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-326. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Wissmar, R. C. 2004. Riparian corridors of eastern Oregon and Washington: Functions and sustainability along lowland-arid to mountain gradients. Aquatic Sciences - Research Across Boundaries 66(4): 373-387. Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal of Geology 68: 54-74.

Appendix 2.2 – p. 65 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems APPENDIX 2.3: LIVESTOCK GRAZING SYSTEMS

A. GRAZING SYSTEMS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

The following descriptions outline the typical periods of grazing use in the planning area; however, there is a wide range of variability in the planning area in plant phenology, elevation, and climate, so dates will vary from those given. Maximum allowable utilization levels for allotments where rangeland health standards and livestock management guidelines have not yet been achieved can be more restrictive than for allotments where all standards are met.

1. DISCUSSION OF UTILIZATION LEVELS IDENTIFIED BELOW FOR VARIOUS GRAZING SYSTEMS

The degree of allowable use identified for a key plant species, measured over several years, serves as a guideline or reference point to evaluate the impacts grazing may be having on the overall welfare of the plant community. In monitoring degrees of utilization, the primary concern is the trend in the community resulting from various levels of use. If the trend is down, utilization records can identify whether the decline in the plant community was due to excessive utilization levels.

The regulation behind the establishment of the below utilization levels is 43 CFR 4110.3-2(b), which states that, "When monitoring shows that active use is causing an unacceptable level or pattern of utilization [emphasis added] or exceeds the livestock carrying capacity as determined through monitoring, the authorized officer shall reduce active use if necessary to maintain or improve rangeland productivity...”

The utilization levels suggested below would be used primarily in adjusting stocking rates to meet the desired utilization. This occurs whenever the process of monitoring and evaluating rangeland use results in a decision to adjust active use. To most permittees, moving cattle to the next pasture in the sequence, or off the allotment, before exceeding the utilization level is preferred over establishing a pattern of exceeding their target utilization level which eventually results in a permanent reduction in their active use. In the short term, exceeding the target utilization level during critical growth periods justifies scheduling rest or deferment the next year or two to allow plants to recover. Brewer et al. (2007) suggests bluebunch wheatgrass should never be grazed two successive years at heavy or severe levels during its critical growth period and should not be grazed more than two successive years during the critical growth period even if the use is light to moderate. Anderson (1991) found that bluebunch wheatgrass takes years to fully recover its vigor and reproductive capability following a onetime utilization of over 50 percent during the critical growth period.

Allotment management plans could include utilization levels which are either lower or higher than those outlined below. Utilization levels could also be adjusted downward where one or both of the following occur, and a lower utilization target is deemed necessary:

Appendix 2.3– p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems

Intact biological soil crusts are present and are key to providing soil stability. Late spring grazing may have the potential for moderate impact to biological crusts, and summer grazing may have the potential for high impact to biological crusts (according to the 2000 Interior Columbia Basin Supplemental Draft EIS), especially when that use exceeds slight to light in intensity. Grazing at other seasons has lower potential for impact to biological crusts, but still could adversely affect them when use is moderate to heavy. Wildlife habitat objectives, such as nesting cover, are not being met with the utilization rates given.

Early Spring Grazing System

Under this system, grazing occurs basically during the month of April, with late March or early May use sometimes also included. Spring grazing provides plants an opportunity to recover after utilization of early plant growth. By removing livestock before most spring and summer precipitation occurs, the plants will be able to store carbohydrates, set seed, and maintain their vigor.

This spring treatment can be used every year with little effect on the plant. Early use must take place before deep-rooted perennial grass plants are in the boot stage. There must also be enough soil moisture in the ground to provide for regrowth after grazing. Therefore, flexibility in the early treatment will allow for use prior to April 1 but generally not after May 15, except at higher elevations with higher precipitation. Used with caution to prevent streambank shearing and soil compaction during the wettest parts of spring, especially where there are fine-textured soils, this system is very compatible with improving riparian zone vegetation. There is time for nearly complete recovery of riparian vegetation, so there is no need to monitor riparian utilization.

Alternatives 1 and 3: Stocking rates on the areas with early spring grazing would be based on 50 percent utilization of a combination of the previous season’s growth and the current season’s early growth of herbaceous key species. Livestock are removed while plants are still growing; therefore, only a small percentage of the annual production of the key species is removed. The spring grazing period has to be short, and plant regrowth continues about 30 to 45 days after livestock removal. Where standards are met, up to 55 percent utilization could be appropriate for early spring grazing. The need to maintain sufficient nesting cover to achieve sage grouse objectives is one factor which, if present, would justify lowering the utilization level to 40 percent utilization.

Spring/Summer Grazing System

Spring/summer systems consist of grazing during the spring or spring/early summer every year. Although in most cases grazing occurs primarily between May 1 and June 30, in some allotments grazing would extend into mid-July. Under this system, grazing occurs during the critical growth period of most plants. Carbohydrate reserves are continually being utilized because the green

Appendix 2.3– p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems parts of the plant are constantly being removed by livestock. Such systems usually need to be modified to conform with Livestock Management Guideline #6, which requires periodic rest from grazing during critical growth periods. Depending on how early in the season livestock are removed, this system can allow nearly complete recovery of riparian vegetation post-grazing, and spring grazing can be very compatible with allowing riparian improvement. When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.

Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates on the allotments with spring/summer grazing would generally be based on 40 percent relative utilization of the key species (measured at the end of the grazing period). Where standards are met, 45 percent utilization could be appropriate.

In studies concerning the grazing response of cool season perennial bunchgrasses, Cook (1971) showed that 50 percent utilization was too severe for continuous late spring and summer use. The two species of grass in the study correspond in stages of vegetative growth to the key bunchgrasses in the decision area. Anderson (1991), studying the effects of defoliation and vigor recovery of bluebunch wheatgrass, revealed a high sensitivity to utilization during the active growing season, especially when that use occurred when the plant was at the boot stage, a period early in its seed producing stage of growth. Utilization levels during the growing season of greater than 50 percent were shown to cause significant reductions in vigor and productivity.

Deferred Grazing System/Fall Grazing

Under this system, grazing occurs after seed ripe of the key grass species, usually mid-July or later, and most commonly in the fall. Grazing during this treatment will not begin until after most plants have reached seed ripe and have stored adequate carbohydrate reserves. This treatment will assist in meeting the objectives by providing all plants an opportunity to complete their life cycles and produce the maximum amount of cover and forage. Upland ranges are particularly benefitted by this system. Although such a system can be compatible with riparian improvement, there are risks to riparian zones from potentially higher utilization on woody browse species, limited regrowth time for streambank vegetation, and lower palatability of upland forage. When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.

Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates where deferred grazing occurs would be based upon 60 percent utilization of the annual production of key species, or 65 percent utilization in nonnative seedings. Where standards are met, an additional five percent utilization could be added to the above.

Appendix 2.3– p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems Spring/Fall Grazing System

Spring/fall grazing involves use for one to two months between April 1 and June 30, followed by a non-grazed period during the summer every year. In some years, another grazing period of one to two months would occur in the fall. Spring/fall grazing would result in grazing of primarily herbaceous species during the early grazing period. Very little use of the woody key species is expected during this time. Fall use occurs after most herbaceous species have completed their growth cycle and are dormant. However, moderate utilization of woody key species would be expected. This schedule is often used in seedings of nonnative perennial bunchgrasses to maintain productivity and availability of species adapted to grazing use, but it is not usually used where there are riparian zones or where bluebunch wheatgrass is a key species. When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.

Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates where spring/fall grazing occurs would be based upon 50 percent utilization of the annual production of key species. When riparian conditions are an issue, stocking rates would be based on meeting riparian objectives instead of upland range utilization. Where standards are met, 55 percent utilization would be appropriate.

Rotation Grazing System with Spring/Summer Use

This version of rotation grazing results in the key species being grazed during part of the growing season every year. This system alternates grazing between early spring use one year and during the critical growing period the next year. The early spring grazing would end in time for the key species to replenish food reserves (see Early Spring Grazing System). As a result, the decline in vigor caused by use during the critical period of the growing season is somewhat offset by early grazing in alternate years. This rotation grazing system is expected to only slightly enhance the reproduction of the herbaceous key species on native range because every pasture is grazed each year. Many new seedlings would be grazed or pulled up before becoming established. Woody key species would improve in vigor and reproduction because they are normally not grazed by livestock during the spring and early summer (Vavra and Sneva, 1978). When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.

Alternatives 1and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates where this version of rotation grazing occurs would be based upon a multiyear average of 50 percent utilization of the annual production of key species. Where standards are met, 55 percent utilization would be appropriate.

Winter Grazing System

Under this system, grazing would occur between November 15 and March 1, although winters in the area are severe enough that livestock are not on the range during this whole period. Grazing

Appendix 2.3– p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems during this treatment occurs when most plant species are dormant. Most plants will have completed their life cycles and stored maximum carbohydrates for the next growing season. Livestock would be removed prior to plants initiating growth in the early spring. Monitoring of the winter grazing systems would not focus on utilization of the previous season’s herbaceous vegetation except to monitor for residual cover for nesting habitat if that is an issue.

Alternative 1: Stocking rates would be based on woody browse utilization of 30 percent if woody riparian species are key to the system.

Season-long Grazing

Season-long grazing of a pasture generally begins during the growing season and extends to the end of the period of authorized use, typically into the fall period. Season-long grazing is only authorized for one or both of the following reasons:

The limited amount of public land in most of these allotments does not justify the cost of the additional fences and water developments needed to initiate a rotation system. The system meets the permittee's management needs for flexibility in integrating the public land parcels with private land grazing, and utilization levels are light enough that the public land is not being overgrazed. Season-long grazing would not be acceptable when riparian zones are present.

Alternatives 1 and 3: Stocking rates on the areas with season-long grazing would generally be based on 40 percent utilization of the annual production of key species. Where standards are met, 45 percent utilization would be appropriate.

Multiyear Grazing Schedules

Often the mix of management objectives associated with a given pasture can better be met by varying the season of use over a repeating cycle of two or more years. Multiyear grazing schedules are primarily developed with varied seasons of use through an established rotation to allow desirable vegetation species the opportunity to regain vigor and health for future growth, productivity, and sustainability of resource values. Similarly, opportunities for recovery from grazing impacts to other resources, specific to a season of use, may be provided by varying the season in which livestock graze a pasture. Most multiyear grazing schedules can be defined as either a deferred-rotation or rest-rotation schedule. Both types of grazing schedules were designed primarily to promote plant vigor, seed production, seedling establishment, root production, and litter accumulation for herbaceous plants in upland ecosystems.

Deferred Rotation Grazing

Deferred rotation is discontinuous grazing which includes grazing various parts of an allotment at different times in succeeding years. This allows each part or pasture to rest successively during

Appendix 2.3– p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems the growing season to permit seed production, seedling establishment, and restoration of plant vigor. Deferred rotation grazing differs from rest rotation grazing in that there is no year-long rest provided for any part of the allotment. In its simplest form, a deferred rotation grazing schedule within a pasture provides for a 2-year rotation cycle with one year of use during the critical period of plant growth followed by one year where use is deferred until after the growing season. More conservative schedules provide for a higher proportion of deferment than years of use during the period of active growth. When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.

Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates on the allotments with deferred rotation grazing would be based on a multiyear average of 50 percent utilization of the annual production of key species, or 60 percent utilization on nonnative seedings. Where standards are met, an additional five percent utilization could be added to the above.

Rest Rotation Grazing System

Rest rotation grazing is a form of deferred rotation in which at least one pasture within an allotment is rested from grazing for a minimum of a full year. A pasture or unit of range is rested from use after a season of grazing to allow plants an opportunity to make and store food to recover vigor, allow seed to be produced, allow seedlings to become established, and allow litter to accumulate between plants. The amount of rest needed for these purposes depends on management objectives that are determined for each individual allotment, the plants involved, and character of the range. Caution should be implemented to ensure that higher levels of utilization during use periods of a pasture do not preclude meeting management objectives while providing for rest in other pastures. When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.

Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates on the allotments with rest rotation grazing would be based on a multiyear average of 50 percent utilization of the annual production of key species, or 60 percent utilization on nonnative seedings. Where standards are met, an additional five percent utilization could be added to the above.

Appendix 2.3– p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.4: Sagebrush Structure APPENDIX 2.4: SAGEBRUSH STRUCTURE AND CANOPY CLOSURE A. SAGEBRUSH CANOPY CLOSURE CLASSES

The following descriptions of sagebrush canopy cover classes and management implications for wildlife species are excerpted from BLM Technical Note 417, “Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales: An example in southeast Oregon.” (Karl and Sadowski 2005).

Class 1: No Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Grassland) Rangelands that exhibit a grassland aspect are characteristic of this class. Species that tend to occupy habitats with low vegetative structure, such as pronghorn and horned lark, use these rangelands. Forage and invertebrate food sources can be abundant, even for species that rely primarily on sagebrush cover for nesting and hiding. Several different vegetation types can comprise class 1 rangelands (Figures 2-4), and these various vegetation types can actually meet a portion of the habitat requirements of wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush. Native or nonnative class 1 rangelands can be a wildlife issue of concern if they occupy extensive tracts of land within a GMA [geographic management area]. Depending on ecological site potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable. Locations where fire and, in some cases, other disturbances have occurred recently are indicative of class 1 rangelands in eastern Oregon. It is common to observe class 1 rangelands that support a heterogeneous mix of annual and perennial species.

Class 2: Trace to 5 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Grassland) Rangelands that exhibit a predominantly grassland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure 5) [figure not included here]. Relatively recent fire or other treatments, with ongoing sagebrush recolonization, are normally indicative of class 2 rangelands. Wildlife species often associated with low vegetative structure, such as pronghorn and horned lark, use these rangelands. Class 2 rangelands do not meet most of the complex shrub cover needs of sage-grouse and other wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush. Klebenow (1970) reported that sage-grouse nesting was nearly nonexistent where sagebrush canopy cover on chemically treated areas was 5 percent or less. However, the vegetation of class 2 rangelands can still meet a portion of the habitat needs of these wildlife species. Native or nonnative class 2 rangelands can be a wildlife issue of concern if they dominate extensive tracts of land within a GMA. Depending on ecological site potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover and composition can be highly variable.

Class 3: Greater than 5 Percent to 15 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland) Rangelands that exhibit a predominantly shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure 6) [figure not included here]. The 10 to 15 percent sagebrush canopy cover range is capable of supporting many of the habitat needs of wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated understory herbaceous species. Connelly et al. (2000) reported that sage-grouse in Oregon and Idaho select winter habitat with sagebrush canopy cover as low as 12 to 15 percent, generally measured above snow level. Hanf et al. (1994) reported that winter habitat selected by

Appendix 2.4 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.4: Sagebrush Structure female sage-grouse in central Oregon was dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush, with canopy cover ranging from 12 to 16 percent. In addition, unpublished surveys from BLM’s Vale District suggested that sagebrush obligate songbirds began to reoccupy crested wheatgrass seedings when the sagebrush canopy cover exceeded 5 percent. In Nevada, crested wheatgrass seedings with sagebrush canopy cover of about 10 percent provided structural complexity sufficient to sustain a greater diversity of grassland-nesting and shrubland-nesting nongame birds than unconverted sagebrush, monocultural crested wheatgrass, or crested wheatgrass in poor condition (McAdoo et al. 1989). Depending on ecological site potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable.

Class 4: Greater than 15 Percent to 25 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland) Rangelands that exhibit a shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure 7) [figure not included here]. This class is capable of supporting the habitat needs of a variety of wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated understory herbaceous species. Hanf et al. (1994) and Connelly et al. (2000) reported that sage-grouse nesting habitat needs and winter habitat needs can be served by sagebrush canopy cover within the 15 to 25 percent range. Depending on ecological site potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable.

Class 5: Greater than 25 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland) Rangelands that exhibit a shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure 8) [figure not included here]. Sagebrush canopy cover greater than 25 percent can provide security, cover, and food for wildlife species. Research conducted on Steens Mountain in eastern Oregon by Sheehy (1978) demonstrated the value of this class of cover for fawning mule deer. Pygmy rabbits are often associated with canopy cover of 25 percent or more. This level of canopy cover hides the rabbits and provides them with their primary source of food (Weiss and Verts 1984). Connelly et al. (2000) reported nesting use by sage-grouse in class 5 habitats. Depending on ecological site potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable.

Use of these canopy cover classes is integral to the sagebrush assessment process and will be discussed frequently in this example. The geographic extent of these canopy cover classes at the pasture level forms the basis for: 1) characterizing habitat conditions at the pasture level and at the GMA level, and 2) ascertaining achievement or non-achievement of Oregon’s Standard 5 for Rangeland Health, when combined with understory herbaceous species composition data from range surveys.

Appendix 2.4 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.5: Grazing Carrying Capacity APPENDIX 2.5: DETERMINING STOCKING CARRYING CAPACITY

Procedures for Determining Proper Stocking Level or Carrying Capacity: Any of These Methods May Be Used in the Planning Area

1. The following formula can be used when calculating a desired stocking level using utilization and actual use data: ACTUAL USE = POTENTIAL ACTUAL USE ADJUSTED UTILIZATION* DESIRED UTILIZATION

*Adjusted utilization is the measured average utilization adjusted to a “normal” production year. The Precipitation Index and Yield Index as described in Sneva and Hyder (1962) would typically be used to adjust to a “normal” year. Measured utilization is multiplied by the Yield Index to get the adjusted utilization.

5-10 years of data would be needed in order to have enough data to calculate a meaningful average and be able to use this method. Years that appear to be an aberration (significant difference from the long-term mean) may need to be disregarded. Actual use in the above formula would include livestock use and estimated big game wildlife use where appropriate. The amount of big game AUMs would either be the number carried forward from the 1989 RMP or would be recalculated on a case by case basis within periodic rangeland health evaluations (see Number 4 below). 2. Areas with slopes greater than 45% (60% in the case of sheep) and areas greater than 2 miles from water may be deducted from the current livestock forage allocation (or initial stocking rate as in Option 3 below) in order to calculate an adjustment. 3. Stocking rates may be calculated using NRCS Initial Stocking Rates by General Seral Condition, tying ecological sites and their current condition (as estimated by Similarity Index) to estimated AUMs. 4. If periodic rangeland health evaluations identify a need for livestock reductions, big game forage demand may be deducted from the current livestock forage allocation (or initial stocking rate as in Option 3 above) using the three mathematical calculations described below. These calculations are consistent with the Southeast Oregon Resource Management Plan (2001) in Vale District, and they use locally adapted studies on dietary overlap cited in Vavra and Sneva (1978).

Appendix 2.5 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.5: Grazing Carrying Capacity Mathematical Calculations Used for Determining Wildlife Forage Demand:

a) Land ownership differences: The percentage of the grazing allotment administered by the BLM would be multiplied by the MO/benchmark number to determine the number of big game supported on public land versus other ownerships such as state or private. b) Body mass differences: The number of big game at Management Objective/benchmark levels supported on BLM lands would be divided by a factor of 5.3 (for deer), 7.0 (for pronghorn), and 2.4 (for elk) to determine the number of each species that would potentially consume forage equal to one AUM, which is defined as 800 pounds of air dry forage. (The figure derived from this calculation is referred to as the unadjusted forage demand because it does not factor the dietary differences between livestock and big game.) c) Dietary preference differences: The unadjusted forage demand would be multiplied by factors of 0.18 for deer, 0.10 for antelope, and 0.70 for elk to reflect the differences in forage preferences between livestock and big game (this figure is referred to as the adjusted forage demand). For example: The adjusted big game forage demand (sometimes referred to as the competitive AUM’s) needed to support 50 mule deer on an allotment with 80 percent public land over a period of 12 months would be 86.4 AUM’s [50 deer x 12 months x 18 percent dietary overlap x 80 percent public land].

Appendix 2.5 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.6: Relinquishment of Preference APPENDIX 2.6: PROCESS FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF PREFERENCE

The process for relinquishing grazing preference is as follows:

1. The BLM is contacted about possible relinquishment of all or a portion of the grazing preference to an existing permit/lease. a. The BLM discusses consequences and options with the permit holder. b. The BLM will not recognize as valid, or be bound by, any provisions that purport to make a relinquishment conditional upon specific action(s) by the Bureau. If such provisions accompany a proposal of relinquishment, the proponent will be informed that the relinquishment will not be processed and that the BLM will continue to administer their grazing preference and permit or lease on public lands accordingly.

2. The permit holder continues to pursue preference relinquishment. a. The BLM helps permit holder prepare a Letter of Relinquishment that details the portion of the permitted use and interest in associated range improvements to be relinquished. b. The BLM verifies concurrence of any base property lien holder(s) by receiving written consent of the relinquishment. c. If preference for a portion of the grazing use authorized by the permit is relinquished, the BLM will modify the relevant permit to authorize livestock use commensurate to the retained grazing use with appropriate NEPA analysis and proposed decision. If preference for all of the grazing use authorized by the permit is relinquished, the permit is automatically terminated. d. If range improvement projects have been identified for removal as a result of the relinquishment process, the BLM will conduct appropriate NEPA analysis and issue a proposed decision relevant to the range improvements.

3. The BLM will examine and document whether continued livestock use of all or part of the relinquished permit meets Rangeland Health Standards. a. Conduct land health evaluation if none has been previously completed. b. Review any management changes made to allow the allotment to move toward meeting Rangeland Health Standards and any monitoring completed following the land health evaluation. c. If rangeland health standards are being met, proceed to #4. d. If rangeland health standards are not being met and current livestock management is the cause… i. Determine what portions of the allotment are not suitable for livestock grazing. Allow forage from those areas to be allocated to other uses. ii. Determine what portions of the allotment are capable of making significant progress towards meeting rangeland health standards through administrative actions (changes in livestock numbers and/or season of use, combining allotment with an adjacent

Appendix 2.6 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.6: Relinquishment of Preference allotment…) or construction of range improvements, conduct appropriate NEPA, issue a proposed decision, and proceed to #4.

4. The BLM will consider re-allocating all or a part of the relinquished AUMs to livestock grazing, choosing from the following options, and modifying the relevant permit following appropriate NEPA analysis and proposed decision: a. If a community allotment, re-allocate acquired grazing capacity to remaining permittees. b. Issue a grazing permit to a qualitifed applicant, and if one of the following two conditions apply, these would determine who has priority over other applicants: 1) Combine with another adjacent allotment that has unmet resource objectives 2) A permittee with a nearby allotment that has unmet resource objectives. c. Continue livestock grazing on the allotment but not recognize an individual with the preference to the forage (maintain as a reserve forage allotment). d. Allocate acquired grazing capacity to other resource uses. If the permit or lease has been completely relinquished, the BLM would terminate the permit or lease for the duration of the plan. If the permit or lease has been partially relinquished, the BLM would appropriately modify the permit or lease and ensure that livestock grazing is appropriately reduced on the public lands covered by the permit and subject to the partial relinquishment for the duration of the plan.

5. In the event an application is received for all or part of an allotment that has all its forage allocated to other uses, the BLM will review the decision process which led to the allotment being closed to livestock use, consider re-allocating all or a part of the relinquished AUMs to livestock grazing, conduct appropriate NEPA analysis and issue a proposed decision.

Appendix 2.6 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas APPENDIX 2.7 – RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS

Table of Contents

A. Overview ...... 1 B. Managing Recreation Resources for Beneficial Outcomes ...... 1 C. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum ...... 6 1. Primitive ...... 6 2. Semi-primitive Non-motorized ...... 6 3. Semi-primitive Motorized ...... 6 4. Roaded Natural ...... 6 5. Rural ...... 7 6. Urban...... 7

List of Tables

Table 2.7-1. SRMA: Burnt River ...... 8 Table 2.7-2. SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 3 (From Or/Wa State Line To Highway 129) ...... 10 Table 2.7-3. SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 4 (From Highway 129 To Snake River Confluence) ...... 12 Table 2.7-4. SRMA: Lookout Mountain ...... 14 Table 2.7-5. SRMA: National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (Nhotic) ...... 16 Table 2.7-6. SRMA: Wild And Scenic Rivers - Powder Wild And Scenic River (Thief Valley Dam To Highway 203) ...... 18 Table 2.7-7. SRMA: Snake River Breaks (Brownlee, Oxbow, Hells Canyon Reservoirs) ...... 20 Table 2.7-8. SRMA: Snake River/Mormon Basin Back Country Byway ...... 22 Table 2.7-9. SRMA: South Fork Of The Walla Walla River ...... 24 Table 2.7-10. SRMA: Virtue Flat Ohv Play Area ...... 26 Table 2.7-11. SRMA: Wild And Scenic Rivers...... 28 Table 2.7-12. SRMA: Wild And Scenic Rivers...... 30 Table 2.7-13. SRMA: Sheep Mountain, Homestead, Mcgraw WSAs and Lands With Wilderness Characteristics ...... 32

Appendices 2.7 – p. i Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas APPENDIX 2.7: RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS

A. OVERVIEW

Two types of Recreation Management Areas are identified in the land use plan for BLM lands: Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs). This appendix only discusses SRMAs. Appendix 2-7 identifies management actions specific to ERMAs.

B. MANAGING RECREATION RESOURCES FOR BENEFICIAL OUTCOMES

This appendix briefly describes the foundation for Benefits Based Recreation (BBR) and its application to recreation management. It then summarizes proposed implementation direction for Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) in the Baker RMP Planning area. General plan direction for each SRMA is detailed in the tables at the end of this appendix.

The purpose of BBR management is to provide opportunities for visitors to participate in a variety of quality non-motorized and motorized recreation opportunities within specific areas of public lands referred to as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). SRMAs are areas where BLM will focus management, facilities developments, and emphasize recreational opportunities, if necessary for public health and safety. BLM guidance in the BLM planning Handbook H-1610-1 requires the application of a BBR protocol to SRMAs, involving the identification of the Recreation Niche Objectives, Setting, and Actions to help visitors experience quality recreation activities and experiences. Identifying the Appropriate Marketing Strategy is also required for each SRMA, ranging from “Undeveloped” (no marketing at all), or “Community” (working with local communities), or “Designation” (working with state or national markets to bring in visitors outside the area or region).

Within each SRMA, one or more Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) may also be identified. RMZs are “nested” in SRMAs and are usually smaller areas in SRMAs where specific recreation activities occur. RMZs are identified when different opportunities and management exist within the same SRMA boundary. The Grande Ronde River (Washington), Wild and Scenic Rivers, WSAs/ lands with wilderness characteristics, Snake River Breaks, and Burnt River and South Fork Walla Walla River are SRMAs having more than one RMZ within a SRMA boundary. Within each SRMA, BLM has also identified related land use allocations that interact with the recreation setting of an area, such as a proposed Off-Highway Vehicle designation, or Visual Resource Management Class. These actions, along with proposed recreation setting combine to influence the type and quality of recreation opportunities and experiences.

The recreation setting can be defined along a continuum ranging from primitive to urban. The planning area contains settings ranging from primitive to rural. Setting character is directly influenced and determined by the management, marketing, and administrative actions of BLM

Appendices 2.7 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas and other recreation-tourism providers. Those actions and the resulting setting character also affect and actually determine the kinds of recreation opportunities being produced.

There are three broad recreation settings categories. The settings include: • Physical – considers the resources and facilities • Social – looks at visitor use • Administrative – management controls and services

The classifications further define the settings within a range of “Primitive” to “Urban”. A brief description of the classification is as follows: • Primitive (P) – The landscape is relatively undisturbed with few signs of human presence. Very few encounters with other visitors occur. Regulations and information will normally be posted prior to entering this zone and agency presence is very rare. • Back Country (BC) – The landscape is more natural and the limited improvements tend to blend with the environment. Access does not include motorized vehicles and signing and agency presence is scarce. • Middle Country (MC) – The landscape is natural in appearance with some modifications not highly noticeable. Visitors will encounter other groups utilizing the area, but agency presence is random. Information and signing are present. • Front Country (FC) – The landscape is partially modified with visitors prevalent and agency personnel periodically available. Rules and information are clearly posted. • Rural (R) – Includes a substantially modified landscape with visitors dispersed throughout and a prominent level of agency presence and regulation. • Urban – Not found within the decision area.

Benefits based recreation management objectives focus on specific experiences and beneficial outcomes from recreation activities. In the following pages, these benefits-based management objectives have been written in a two page summary for each SRMA: the Wild and Scenic Rivers, WSA/Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Snake River Breaks, Lookout Mountain, Virtue Flat OHV, National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (NHOTIC) South Fork Walla Walla River, Snake River/Mormon Basin Back country Byway, Grande Ronde River (Washington), and Burnt River Canyon.

Public lands along the Wallowa, Grande Ronde, and Powder Rivers will continue to be managed under the 1993 BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde Wild & Scenic River Management Plan, and the 1994 Powder Wild & Scenic River Management Plan. Prescribed Setting descriptions for rivers or river segments coincide with the direction and objectives identified in the Wild& Scenic River Plans. Each summary identifies proposed marketing, recreation niche, outcome objectives, targeted recreation opportunities, character settings and land use allocations from other resource programs. SRMA specific implementing actions for each SRMA will be contained in the implementation plan for this RMP.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas

Recreation Management Zone ______NATURAL RESOURCE RECREATION SETTINGS MATRIX EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED SETTING PHYSICAL – Qualities of the Landscape Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural Urban Pristine Transition More than 10 On or near BLM On or near roads Municipal More than ½ mile from any Remoteness miles from defined Primitive maintained for On or near street and More than 3 miles from physically existing BLM (generally any Roads, but at least ½ regular or continuous primary roads any motorized / defined motorized

ed from TLDs) motorized / mile from all use (inc. BLM roads and within mechanized BLM TLD. transportation linear pp mechanized maintained roads (inc. Roads), but at least ½ highways. towns or a disturbances but > 3 miles.

M BLM *TLD. BLM Roads). mile from highways. cities. Character of the natural Character of the natural Naturalness Natural landscape with any landscape retained. A few landscape partially (landscape Undisturbed modifications in harmony modifications contrast with modified but none

texture form, natural with surroundings and not character of the landscape overpower natural line, color) landscape. visually obvious or evident (e.g. fences, primitive landscape (e.g. roads, (e.g. stock ponds, trails). roads). structures, utilities). Developed trails made No Maintained and marked Rustic facilities such as Visitor mostly of native materials structures. trails, simple trailhead campsites, restrooms, Facilities such as log bridges. Foot/horse developments and basic trailheads, and Structures are rare and trails only. toilets. interpretive displays. llustrated Matrixin

I isolated. *TLD - transportation linear disturbances

Appendices 2.7 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas SOCIAL – Qualities Associated with Use Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural Urban 3-6 encounters/day off 15-29 encounters/day off Contacts < 3 encounters/day 7-14 encounters/day off Busy place with travel routes (e.g., travel routes (e.g., (average with at camp sites and < travel routes (e.g., People seem to be other people

ed campsites) and 7-15 campgrounds) and 30 or any other 6 encounters/day on staging areas) and 15-29 generally everywhere. constantly in pp encounters/day on travel more encounters/day en a group) travel routes. encounters/ day en route view.

M routes. route. Average Fewer than or equal Greater than 50 Group Size 26-50 people per

to 3 people per 4-6 people per group. 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group. people per (other than group. group. group. your own) Small areas of alteration. Small areas of alteration A few large areas of Large areas of No alteration of the Areas of alteration Surface vegetation prevalent. Surface alteration. Surface alteration natural terrain. uncommon. Little surface Evidence of shows wear with some vegetation gone with vegetation absent with prevalent. Some Footprints only vegetation wear observed. Use bare soils. Sounds of compacted soils hardened soils. erosion. observed. Sounds Sounds of people people occasionally observed. Sounds of Sounds of people Constantly hear of people rare. infrequent. llustrated Matrixin

I heard. people regularly heard. frequently heard. people.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas OPERATIONAL – Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural Urban Mountain bikes and Four-wheel drives, all- Two-wheel drive vehicles perhaps other terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, predominant, but also four Ordinary highway Wide variety of street Means of Foot and horse

ed mechanized use, or snowmobiles in addition wheel drives and non- auto and truck traffic vehicles and highway Travel travel. pp but all is non- to non-motorized, motorized, mechanized is characteristic. traffic is ever-present. a

M motorized. mechanized use. use. Information described Information described Basic maps, but Information materials Area brochures and maps, to the left, plus to the left, plus Visitor area personnel describe recreation areas None is plus area personnel experience and benefit regularly scheduled Services (and seldom available to and activities. Area available. occasionally present to descriptions. Area on-site outdoor information) provide on-site personnel are periodically provide on-site assistance. personnel do on-site demonstrations and assistance. available. education. clinics. No visitor Enforcement in Basic user Some regulatory and ethics Rules, regulations, and Regulations and ethics Management regulations or addition to rules to regulations at key signing. Moderate use ethics clearly posted. Use prominent. Use may Controls ethics signing reduce conflicts, access points. Few restrictions. (e.g. camping, restrictions, limitations be limited by permit, on-site. No use hazards, and resource use restrictions. human waste). and/or closures. reservation, etc. llustrated Matrix in

I restrictions. damage.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas C. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity spectrum (ROS) provides the conceptual framework for inventory, planning, and management of the recreation resource. The ROS recognizes that people differ in their needs and in the experience they desire. Also, the resource base is not uniform; it varies in its potential for providing recreation experiences. The ROS provides a way to characterize either the capability of a resource to provide an experience or the demand for an experience in terms of the activity opportunity and setting opportunity provided or demanded. Therefore, recreation opportunities can be expressed in terms of three components: the activities, the setting, and the experience. The possible combinations of these three components are arranged along a continuum, or spectrum.

The ROS is divided into six classes, with each class defined in terms of its combination of activity, setting, and experience opportunities. The six classes are primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. As conceived, the spectrum has application to all land, regardless of ownership or jurisdiction, however, for the Baker RMP, only those acres of the Decision Area are represented with emphasis on RMA area. The classes are described below with the inventoried acreage. (See Map 2.8 ROS.)

1. Primitive This is essentially an unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Use of motorized vehicles is prohibited. There is an extremely high probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and self-reliance on outdoor skills. Activities may include hiking, nature study, fishing, cross-country skiing, and float boating.

2. Semi-primitive Non-motorized This is a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present. Use of motorized vehicles is prohibited. There is a high probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and self- reliance in outdoor skills. Activities may include camping, hunting, snowshoeing, and float boating.

3. Semi-primitive Motorized This is a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. User interaction is low, but there is evidence of other users. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present. Use of motorized vehicles is permitted. There is a moderate probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and self-reliance in outdoor skills. Activities may include boating, motor biking, specialized land craft use, mountain climbing, driving for pleasure, camping, and picnicking.

4. Roaded Natural This is a predominantly natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of humans. Evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Management provides for the use of conventional motorized vehicles. There is an equal probability to experience affiliation with

Appendices 2.7 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas other user groups and for isolation and interaction with the natural environment. Challenge and risk opportunities are not very important, although testing of outdoor skills may be. Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized recreation are available. Activities may include bus touring, water skiing, walking, canoeing, sledding, and driving for pleasure.

5. Rural This is a substantially modified environment. Resource modifications and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Motorized use and parking opportunities are available. The probability of user interaction is moderate to high, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. These factors are generally more important than the physical setting. Wild land challenges and testing of outdoor skills are generally unimportant. Activities may include interpretive services, swimming, bicycling, recreation cabin use, and skiing.

6. Urban This is a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural appearing elements. Renewable resource modernization and urbanization practices are to enhance specific recreation opportunities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Large numbers of users can be expected on-site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor-vehicle use and parking are available. The probability of user interaction is high, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. Experiencing natural environments and uses of outdoor skills are relatively unimportant. Opportunities for competitive and spectator sports and for passive uses are common. Activities may include: resort lodging, ice skating, team sports participation, tour boat use, and picnicking.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-1. SRMA: BURNT RIVER SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities and Baker County Undeveloped River and Upland Recreation Management Zone Burnt River MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight land based recreation opportunities such as fishing, upland bird/big game hunting, camping, driving for pleasure and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day and overnight use, upland bird/big game hunting, horseback riding, camping, rock climbing, driving for pleasure, photography, hiking, wildlife and landscape viewing, and exploration and sightseeing. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, sightseeing, photography, driving for pleasure, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse activities such as upland bird/big game hunting, horseback riding, camping, rock climbing, driving for pleasure, photography, hiking, wildlife and landscape viewing, and exploration and sightseeing. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land based activities in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Experience Opportunities Benefit Opportunities Opportunities & Outcomes & Outcomes • trout fishing • Fishing for pleasure Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and • Upland bird & big game • Being close to nature natural landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with hunting • Pursue upland birds and family & friends. • Hiking challenging big game hunting Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for • Camping during seasons community involvement in public land stewardship. • Driving for pleasure (class I, • Being with family and friends in a river canyon & Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for II, III, and OSV) upland landscape protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased • Horseback riding • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local • Viewing landscapes and participating in a favorite recreation activity. and regional economy. wildlife • Enjoying physical exercise PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River Burnt River Physical Social Administrative River Remoteness: On or near improved gravel roads but at least River Contacts: 7-14 encounters/day off Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all- ½ mile from Highways (FC). travel routes(e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles

Appendices 2.7 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-1. SRMA: BURNT RIVER Upland Remoteness: On or near motorized routes, but at least ½ encounters/ day en route (MC) in addition to non-motorized, mechanized mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight. (MC) Upland Contacts: 3-6 encounters/day off use (MC). River Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 Visitor Services: Basic maps, but area utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural landscape features encounters/day on travel routes.(BC) personnel seldom available to provide on- (FC). Group Size: 4-6 people per group. (BC). site assistance (BC) Upland Naturalness: Naturally-appearing landscape except for Evidence of Use: Small areas of alteration Management Controls: Occasional obvious motorized routes (MC). prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with regulatory signing. Motorized and Facilities: Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead compacted soils observed. Sounds of people mechanized use restrictions. Random developments; improved signs and very basic toilets (MC). regularly heard.(FC) enforcement presence. (MC). RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZ Recreation and Travel Management: Provide public access to river and uplands for fishing, hunting (big game/upland bird), camping, driving for pleasure, horseback riding, hiking, landscape viewing. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, County and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and help maintain existing public access along the Burnt River as appropriate to meet recreation management objectives. Recreation, Travel, OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives, except that under Alternative 1 & 5, the French and Visual Resource Gulch area (5,891 acres) is closed to motorized uses. Management VRM Management: Class vary by alternative Alternative 1 as VRM II with the eastern and western most portions as VRM III Alternative 2 as VRM III Alternative 3 as VRM II for the River Zone and VRM III for the Upland Zone Alternative 4 & 5 VRM II

Appendices 2.7 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-2. SRMA: GRANDE RONDE RIVER SEGMENT 3 (From OR/WA State Line to Highway 129) SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Regional visitors, local communities, Wallowa, and Asotin counties Undeveloped River and Upland Recreation Management Zone Grande Ronde River Segment 3 (from OR/WA state line to Highway 129) MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river and land based recreation opportunities such as steelhead and trout fishing, rafting, horseback riding, canoeing and kayaking, and big game, upland/migratory bird hunting, camping, driving for pleasure and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, exploration and sightseeing. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land and water-based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting (seasonal), hiking, sightseeing, photography, driving for pleasure, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting experiences and landscape viewing. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land and water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES (See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan) Activity Experience Opportunities Benefit Opportunities Opportunities & Outcomes & Outcomes • Steelhead, bass and trout fishing • Fishing for pleasure Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and • non-motorized boating • Being close to nature natural landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with • Motorized boating • Pursue upland birds and family & friends. • Upland bird & big game hunting challenging big game hunting Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for • Hiking during seasons community involvement in public land stewardship. • Camping • Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for • Driving for pleasure landscape protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased • Primary put-in and take-out points • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to for river floaters/boaters participating in a favorite recreation activity. local and regional economy. • Enjoying physical exercise PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: ROADED NATURAL RIVER Grande Ronde River segment 3(from OR/WA state line to Highway 129) Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: On or near improved gravel roads, but at least ½ Contacts: People seem to be generally Mechanized Uses: Ordinary highway auto and mile from highways (FC). Moderate evidence of the sights and everywhere (R). Moderate use occurs and truck traffic is characteristic.(R)

Appendices 2.7 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-2. SRMA: GRANDE RONDE RIVER SEGMENT 3 (From OR/WA State Line to Highway 129) sounds of humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural contact with others is expected and Visitor Services: Area brochures and maps, environment but less expectation of risk. occasionally continual, with some chance for plus area personnel occasional present to Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, isolation. provide onsite assistance (MC). utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural Group Size: 4-6 people per group (BC) Management Controls: Occasional regulatory landscape features.(FC) Evidence of Use: Small areas of alteration signing. Motorized and mechanized use Facilities: Improved yet modest, rustic facilities such as prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with restrictions. Random enforcement presence campsites, restrooms, trails, and interpretive signs (FC). Rustic compacted soils observed. Sounds of people (MC). A few on-site visitor management facilities developed for resource protection and to accommodate regularly heard (FC). Natural ecosystems may controls or regulations may be expected. On- visitor use. Rustic facilities providing some comfort for the user be modified by human use. Human impacts site regimentation and controls are noticeable as well as site protection. Use native materials but with more obvious but subordinate. Sites may be subtly but harmonize with the natural environment. refinement in design. Synthetic materials should not be evident. hardened to accommodate motorized use. Simple information facilities. RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan: Provide public access to river for fishing, hunting (big game/upland bird), camping, driving for pleasure, rafting, kayaking, boating, Recreation, Travel, emphasizing river-related activities consistent with the Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plans. Provide motorized boating opportunities on and Visual Resource the Grande Ronde River in Washington. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, and County federal and State agencies Management to provide stated recreation opportunities and help maintain existing public access along the Grande Ronde rivers as appropriate to meet river management objectives. OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-3. SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River Confluence) SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities in Wallowa and Asotin counties Undeveloped River and Upland Recreation Management Zone Grande Ronde River segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River confluence) MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river based recreation opportunities, primarily rafting/drift boats, canoeing, kayaking, bass, trout and steelhead fishing, big game/upland bird hunting, and camping in a rugged, scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in hiking, big game/upland bird hunting, photography and sightseeing. Visitors value these primitive landscapes and enjoy challenging recreation activities with friends and family. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in year round water-based day use and overnight activities, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, camping, fishing for smallmouth bass and steelhead, wildlife watching, photography, hiking, sightseeing, and swimming experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in activities such as upland bird/big game hunting and hiking experiences. Visitors enjoy and value primitive, unconfined recreation activities with family and friends in a predominately undeveloped and rugged setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES (See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan) Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes • Rafting, canoeing, • River floating through a highly Personal: Improved physical fitness; stronger ties with family and kayaking scenic and rugged primitive basalt friends, improved mental well-being, greater environmental • Bass fishing river canyon awareness for river canyon environment. • Steelhead fishing • Being close to nature Community/Social: Greater family bonding, improved image of • Chukar, deer, elk, bear • Challenging big game hunting land management agencies, enlarged sense of community and big horn sheep • Bass/steelhead fishing for pleasure dependency and value of public lands. hunting, • Being with family and friends in a river canyon and upland Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for protection • Wildlife watching landscape of natural landscapes. • Photography • Enjoying solitude while participating in a favorite recreation Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit. Increased • Swimming activity. contributions to local and regional economy. • Camping • Enjoying physical exercise PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Semi-Primitive Motorized Grande Ronde River segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River confluence) Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: Few road/trailed access sites along the river. Fairly high Contacts: Few contacts with other users, Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, expectation of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of primarily at access points. Very few all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or humans. Fairly high sense of remoteness. Self-reliance through application contacts while on the river (no more than 5- snowmobiles in addition to non-

Appendices 2.7 – p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-3. SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River Confluence) of outdoor skills in an environment that offers a moderate degree of 7). No more than one other party within motorized, mechanized use. (MC) challenge and risk. More than ½ mile from any kind of motorized route/use sight or sound of a campsite. 3-6 Visitor Services: No on-site controls area, but not as distant as 3 miles (BC) encounters/day off travel routes (e.g. or information facilities except at Naturalness: Largely undisturbed natural environment. Little evidence of campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on travel access points. Basic maps, but area development. No impoundments, diversions or channel modifications. routes. (BC) personnel seldom available to provide Naturally-appearing landscape except for obvious motorized routes. (MC) Group Size: Small party size between 4-6 on-site assistance (BC) Facilities: Minimal facility development primarily for resource protection. people (BC). Management Controls: Signs at key Parties on river responsible for human waste disposal and leave no trace Visitor Impacts: Human impacts are access points on basic user ethics. camping practices. No facilities for user comfort. Rustic and rudimentary generally limited to campsites of small to May have back country use facilities for site protection only. Native material only. Maintained and moderate size. Areas of alteration restrictions. Enforcement presence marked trails, simple trailhead developments, improved signs, and very uncommon. Little surface vegetation wear rare.(BC) basic toilets. (MC) observed. Sounds of people infrequent. (BC) Related Management Prescriptions: River and Upland RMZs Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan: Provide primitive, non-motorized and motorized public access to river for hunting, fishing, rafting, kayaking, boating, and camping in river Recreation, Travel, area, emphasizing water based river-related activities consistent with Wallowa/Grande Ronde River Plan and LAC inventories. Seek viable and Visual partnership opportunities with user groups, private landowners, county, federal and State agencies to provide stated recreation Resource opportunities. Monitor river and upland visitor satisfaction based on stated Wallowa/Grande Ronde River Plan and LAC indicators for this Management river segment. OHV: Closed or Limited to designated roads/trails for OHV use under all alternatives. Visual Resource Management: VRM Class II under all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-4. SRMA: LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Regional visitors and Baker County Undeveloped Recreation Management Zone Lookout Mountain MARKET NICHE In the Upland/forested Zone, visitors engage in day use and overnight camping, upland bird and big game hunting, hiking, mechanized biking, horseback riding, motorized and non-motorized use activities in a forested and upland setting. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the Upland/forested Zone, visitors engage in diverse motorized (class I, II, III, and OSV) road, primitive road, trail and route riding experiences and non- motorized activities such as hiking, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, camping, and upland bird/big game hunting. Provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in land based activities in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale; 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes

• Day-use • Explore the landscape Personal: Greater awareness of natural landscapes and • Hunting • Viewing scenic landscapes environmental awareness. • Landscape viewing • Pursue upland bird and big game during hunting Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for • Camping seasons community involvement in public land stewardship. • Hiking • Being with family and friends in a forested Increased involvement in recreation and land use decisions. • Driving for pleasure (class I – ATV mountain and upland landscape Environmental: Increased awareness of ”Leave No Trace” riding, class II – 4X4 driving, class • Finding solitude while participating in a favorite and “Tread Lightly” practices on public lands III-motorcycle riding, and over snow recreation activity Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit, live or vehicle riding (OSV)) • Opportunities for different types of physical retire. Positive contributions to local and regional economy. • Biking (mechanized) exercise

• Horseback riding PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Front Country Lookout Mountain Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: On or near improved gravel roads but Contacts: 3-6 encounters/day off travel Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt at least ½ mile from Highways (FC). routes bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to non-motorized, Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on mechanized use (MC). roads/trails, utility lines, etc., but none travel routes. (BC) Visitor Services: Area brochures and maps, plus area overpower natural landscape features Group Size: 4-6 people per group. (BC). personnel occasional present to provide on-site assistance

Appendices 2.7 – p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-4. SRMA: LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN (FC). Evidence of Use: Small areas of alteration. (MC). Facilities: Maintained and marked trails, simple Surface vegetation showing wear with some Management Controls: Occasional regulatory signing. trailhead developments; improved signs and very bare soils. Sounds of people occasionally Motorized and mechanized use restrictions. Random basic toilets (MC). heard. (MC). enforcement presence. (MC). Related Management Prescriptions: Upland RMZs Recreation, Travel, Recreation and Travel Management: OHV use is limited to designated roads/trails/routes for all alternatives and Visual Resource Visual Resource Management: VRI & VRM Management Class II for all alternatives except alternative 2 where it is VRM Class III. Management

Appendices 2.7 – p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas

TABLE 2.7-5. SRMA: NATIONAL HISTORIC OREGON TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER (NHOTIC) SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Regional visitors, local communities and Baker county Community Recreation Management Zone National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (NHOTIC) MARKET NICHE Visitors engage in day use activities for interpretive viewing, historical education, and historical re-enactments in a modern facility with some developed hiking opportunities. Visitors value this facility and enjoy participating in these interpretive activities with friends and family. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Visitors engage in day use activities for interpretive viewing, historical education, and historical re-enactments in a modern facility with some developed hiking opportunities. Visitors value this facility and enjoy participating in these interpretive activities with friends and family in a predominately developed setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Opportunities Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and local/national history. Greater community and regional awareness with family & friends. • Interpretation/Education Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community involvement in public • Learning about local and national history • Historical re-enactments land stewardship. Improved image of land management agencies, enlarged sense of • Being with family and friends • Hiking community dependency and value of public lands and resources. • Enjoying a favorite recreation activity. • Viewing landscapes Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for protection of historical • Enjoying physical exercise and wildlife resources and natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local and regional economy. PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Rural National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (NHOTIC) Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: On or near paved primary highways, Contacts: People seem to be generally Mechanized Use: Ordinary highway auto, truck, but still within a rural area. (R) everywhere (R) motorcycle and bike traffic is characteristic. (R) Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by Group Size: 7-12 people per group in Visitor Services: Information materials describe recreation roads/trails, utility lines, etc, but none overpower summer months; less people per group in areas and activities plus experience and benefit descriptions. natural landscape features.(FC) offseason (MC) Area personnel are available and do on-site education. (R) Facilities: Modern facilities such as campgrounds, Evidence of Use: Management Controls: Regulations prominent. Total use

Appendices 2.7 – p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-5. SRMA: NATIONAL HISTORIC OREGON TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER (NHOTIC) group A few large areas of alteration. Surface limited by permit, reservation, etc. Routine enforcement shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits. (R) vegetation absent with hardened soils. Sounds presence. (R) of people frequently heard. (R) Related Management Prescriptions: Recreation and Travel Management: As directed by the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center Management Plan to Recreation, Travel, provide public access to interpretive facilities for historical interpretation and education. Seek viable partnership opportunities with and Visual Resource user groups, county, federal and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and help maintain existing facility and Management public access to the NHOTIC as appropriate to meet facility and recreation management objectives. OHV: Closed to OHV use. VRM Management: VRM II for all alternatives

Appendices 2.7 – p. 17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-6. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS - POWDER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER (Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203) SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities in Baker, Union counties Undeveloped River and Upland Recreation Management Zone Powder Wild and Scenic River (from Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203) MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in primarily day or overnight land and water based recreation opportunities such as trout fishing, general water play, horseback riding, canoeing and kayaking, and big game/upland/migratory bird hunting, camping, and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, driving for pleasure, exploration and sightseeing. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land and water-based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, sightseeing, photography, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting, wildlife viewing experiences, driving for pleasure and landscape viewing. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land and water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES (See final BLM Powder WSR Plan) Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes • Fishing for pleasure • Trout fishing Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and natural • Being close to nature • Non-motorized landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with family & • Pursue upland birds and boating friends. • challenging big game hunting • Upland bird & big Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community • during seasons game hunting involvement in public land stewardship. • Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland • Hiking Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for landscape • Camping protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while • Driving for pleasure as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local and regional participating in a favorite recreation activity. economy. • • Enjoying physical exercise PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River Powder Wild and Scenic River (from Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203) Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of Contacts: 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all- humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural environment but (e.g. campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles

Appendices 2.7 – p. 18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-6. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS - POWDER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER (Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203) less expectation of risk. On or near motorized routes, but at least travel routes.(BC) in addition to non-motorized, mechanized ½ mile from all improved roads, though they may be in Group Size: 4-6 people per group (BC). Low to use.(MC) sight.(MC) moderate use occurs and contact with others is Visitor Services: Basic maps, but area Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, expected and occasional, with some chance for personnel seldom available to provide on- utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural landscape features. isolation. Some evidence of other users. site assistance(BC) (FC) Alterations to the landscape are subtle. Natural Moderate to high contact with other users, Management Controls: A few on-site characteristics remain dominant. Moderate evidence of human particularly at access roads. Moderate to low visitor management controls or regulations development. Impoundments, diversions or channel contact on trails. may be expected. Controls are noticeable but modifications may be evident. Evidence of use: Natural ecosystems may be harmonize with the natural environment. Facilities: Rustic facilities developed for resource protection modified by human use. Human impacts Simple information facilities. Signs at key and to accommodate visitor use. Use native materials but with obvious but subordinate. Sites may be subtly access points on basic user ethics. May have more refinement in design. Synthetic materials should not be hardened to accommodate motorized use. Small back country use restrictions. Enforcement evident. Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing presence rare (BC) developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.(MC) wear with some bare soils. Sounds of people occasionally heard.(MC) RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS Powder WSR Plan: Provide public access to river for fishing, hunting (big game/upland bird), camping, driving for pleasure, boating, Recreation, Travel, emphasizing river-related activities consistent with the Powder WSR Plans. Provide non-motorized boating opportunities on the Powder and Visual River. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups and county, and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and Resource help maintain existing public access along the Powder rivers as appropriate to meet river management objectives. Management OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-7. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER BREAKS (BROWNLEE, OXBOW, HELLS CANYON RESERVOIRS) SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Regional visitors and Baker County Undeveloped River and Upland Recreation Management Zone Snake River Breaks (Brownlee, Oxbow, Hells canyon Reservoirs) MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river/reservoir based recreation opportunities such as fishing, boating, day-use, camping, hiking and driving for pleasure in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use and overnight camping, upland bird and big game hunting, hiking, mechanized biking, horseback riding, and seasonal Class I, II and III motorized use activities. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in water-based day use and overnight activities, year-round land based day and overnight uses, boating, camping, fishing, hunting, general water play, and driving for pleasure experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse motorized and non-motorized activities such as hiking, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, camping, upland bird/big game hunting and seasonal motorized trail Class I, II and III road, primitive road, trail and route riding experiences. Provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in land and water based activities in the River Zone, as well as non-motorized and motorized experiences in the Upland Zone in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale; 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes Day-use • Explore the landscape Fishing • Viewing scenic landscapes Personal: Greater awareness of natural landscapes Hunting River • Pursue upland bird and big game and environmental awareness. Landscape viewing RMZ: • during hunting seasons Community/Social: Increased awareness of need

Boating (motorized) • Fishing for pleasure for community involvement in public land Camping • Being with family and friends stewardship. Increased involvement in recreation Hiking • in a river canyon and upland and land use decisions. Driving for pleasure • landscape Environmental: Increased awareness of ”Leave Hiking • Finding solitude while No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices on public Biking (motorized /mechanized) • participating in a favorite lands Upland horseback riding • recreation activity Economic: Increased desirability as a place to RMZ: Upland bird/ big game hunting • Opportunities for different types of physical visit, live or retire. Positive contributions to local • motorized Class I, II, III and OSV primitive exercise and regional economy. road, trail and route riding • General water play PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Front Country Snake River Breaks (Brownlee, Oxbow, Hells canyon Reservoirs)

Appendices 2.7 – p. 20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-7. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER BREAKS (BROWNLEE, OXBOW, HELLS CANYON RESERVOIRS) Physical Social Administrative River Mechanized Use: Two-wheel drive River Remoteness: River Contacts: vehicles predominant, but also four wheel On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 15-29 encounters/day off travel routes(e.g.campgrounds) and 30 drives and non-motorized, mechanized use ½ mile from highways (FC). or more encounters/day in route. (FC). Upland Remoteness: Upland Contacts: Upland Mechanized Use: Four wheel On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or ½ mile from highways (FC) (e.g.campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes. (BC) snowmobiles in addition to non-motorized, River and Upland Naturalness: River and Upland Group Size: mechanized use (MC). Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, 7 -12 people group (MC) River Visitor Services: Area brochures and utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural Upland Group Size: maps, plus area personnel occasional present landscape features.(FC) 4-6 people per group (BC). to provide on-site assistance (MC). River Facilities: River Evidence of Use: Upland Visitor Services: Basic Maps, but Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group Small areas of alteration prevalent. area personnel seldom available for on-site shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibit(R) Surface vegetation gone with compacted soils observed. Sounds assistance (BC). Upland Facilities: of people regularly heard (FC). River and Upland Management Some Maintained and marked trails, simple Upland Evidence of Use: Controls: Occasional regulatory signing. trailhead developments, improved signs, and very Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing wear with Motorized and mechanized use restrictions. basic toilets (MC). some bare soils. Sounds of people occasionally heard (BC). Random enforcement presence (MC). RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS Recreation: Recreation, Travel, One developed and 7 semi-developed campgrounds existing and common to all alternatives. and Visual Resource Travel Management: All OHV use is limited to designated routes under all alternatives. Management Visual Resource Management: VRM Class II in all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-8. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER/MORMON BASIN BACK COUNTRY BYWAY SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities in Baker county Community Snake River / Mormon Basin Back Country Byway Recreation Management Zone MARKET NICHE By driving or biking around the Snake River/Mormon Basin Back Country Byway on State and County roads, visitors and residents enjoy seasonal scenic viewing. By visiting roadside information kiosks at selected locations, visitors learn about its natural history, geology and early settlement history of Baker County. Visitors and local residents see and value the varied landscapes of the Snake River, Mormon Basin, Dooley Mountain and the Baker valley areas. Visitors enjoy driving for pleasure, hunting/fishing opportunities, dispersed hiking on public lands, and learning about local history and natural features. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE The Snake River/Mormon Basin Back Country Byway provides visitors and residents opportunities to enjoy the scenic beauty of the Snake River, Mormon Basin, Dooley Mountain and the Baker valley areas, while also increasing knowledge and appreciation of their natural and early settlement history. Visitors drive or bike on State and County roads and view open scenic landscapes, mountain ranges, rivers, streams, reservoirs, canyons and open valleys, stopping to view information at roadside and community interpretative kiosks along the byway. Visitors enjoy driving for pleasure, hunting/fishing opportunities, dispersed hiking on public lands, and learning about local history and natural features. Visitors realize a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities,( i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes Personal: Increased awareness and appreciation for natural landscapes • Opportunities for learning • Driving for pleasure and formation of geologic features and early history of the Baker early history of Baker County, the Oregon Trail • Photography County area. and natural history • Motorcycle and bike touring Community/Social: Increased community connection to natural • Enjoying a variety of landscapes from open • Dispersed Public land hiking processes and historic community “roots”. spaces to mountain ranges and general scenery • Natural and rural landscape views Environmental: Increased awareness for protecting and interpreting of • Being close to nature • Education and Interpretation of natural landscapes and historic locations. • Sharing experiences with all Geologic, and historic values Economic: Economic development with local communities and other ages of family and friends entities resulting from more visitors to the Byway. RATIONALE FOR PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Front Country/Rural Snake River / Mormon Basin Back Country Byway Recreation Management Zone Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: Byway section range Contacts: 30 or more encounters/day on byway Mechanized Use: Municipal street and roads within towns or cities. (U) On or during summer months. Less encounters in off- Byway section range: Wide variety of street near both paved primary highways and primitive roads in season. (FC) vehicles and highway traffic is ever-present. (U) back country and rural areas. (R) On or near improved Group Size: 7-12 people per group in summer Ordinary highway auto, truck, motorcycle and gravel roads, but at least ½ mile from highways. (FC) months; less people per group in offseason bike traffic is characteristic. (R) Two-wheel drive Naturalness: Byway section range (MC) vehicles predominant, but also four wheel drives

Appendices 2.7 – p. 22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-8. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER/MORMON BASIN BACK COUNTRY BYWAY Naturally-appearing landscape except for obvious motorized Evidence of Use: and non-motorized, mechanized use. (FC) routes. (MC) Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, Byway section range: Small areas of alteration Visitor Services: Basic maps, but area personnel utility lines, etc, but none overpower natural landscape prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with seldom available to provide onsite assistance. features. (FC) Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group impacted soils observed. Sounds of people (BC) shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits. (R) regularly heard. (FC) A few large areas of Management Controls: Occasional regulatory Elaborate full-service facilities such as laundry, restraints, alteration. Surface vegetation absent with signing. Motorized and mechanized use and groceries. (U) hardened soils. Sounds of people frequently restrictions. Random enforcement presence. Facilities: Adjacent or within the vicinity of improved yet heard. (R) Large areas of alteration prevalent. (MC) modest, rustic facilities such as primitive campsites, basic, Some erosion. Constantly hear people. (U) restrooms, trails and interpretative sign. (FC)(R)(U) Related Management Prescriptions Coordinate management with State and County road departments for sustained year a-round and seasonal use on the Byway depending on Recreation, Travel, segment, and identify safe roadside pull-outs for education and interpretative kiosks. Manage recreation use to ensure no cross-country use and Visual occurs off Byway. Pursue partnerships with local, state, federal agencies and organizations, if consistent with RMZ outcome objectives Resource and management for on and off site education and interpretation of geologic resources, historic resources and the explorers and early Management settlers of the Baker County area.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas

TABLE 2.7-9. SRMA: SOUTH FORK OF THE WALLA WALLA RIVER SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities in Umatilla county Undeveloped River and Upland Recreation Management Zone South Fork of the Walla Walla River MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day use land based recreation opportunities such as fishing, horseback riding, hiking, motorized biking (Class III), and mechanized biking in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use horseback riding, photography, hiking, exploration and sightseeing. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land based day use activities year-round such as fishing (seasonal), hiking, horseback riding, motorized (class III) and mechanized biking, sightseeing, photography, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in activities such as hiking, horseback riding, wildlife and landscape viewing experiences. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES (See final South Fork Walla Walla ACEC Management Plan) Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities& Outcomes Benefit Opportunities& Outcomes • Fishing for pleasure • Trout fishing Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and natural • Being close to nature • Non-motorized biking landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with family & friends. • Being with family and friends in a river canyon • Motorized biking Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community & upland landscape • Hiking involvement in public land stewardship. • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery • Horseback riding Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for protection of while participating in a favorite recreation • General day use recreation natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit. activity. (picnicking, walking) Increased contributions to local and regional economy. • Enjoying physical exercise PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River South Fork of the Walla Walla River Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of Social Encounters: Moderate use occurs – Visitor Management: A few on-site visitor humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural environment but contact with others is expected and occasional, management controls or regulations may be less expectation of risk. with some chance for isolation. Some evidence expected. Contact with management Naturalness: Alterations to the landscape are subtle. Natural of other users. Moderate to high contact with personnel is occasional. Visitors perceive a

Appendices 2.7 – p. 24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-9. SRMA: SOUTH FORK OF THE WALLA WALLA RIVER characteristics remain dominant. Moderate evidence of human other users, particularly at trailhead and access moderate to low degree of challenge and development. Roads, primitive roads, trails may be evident. roads. Moderate to low contact on trails. risk. On-site regimentation and controls are Facilities: Rustic facilities developed for resource protection and Visitor Impacts: Natural ecosystems may be noticeable but harmonize with the natural to accommodate visitor use. Rustic facilities providing some modified by human use. Human impacts obvious environment. Simple information facilities. comfort for the user as well as site protection. Use native but subordinate. Sites may be subtly hardened to materials but with more refinement in design. Synthetic materials accommodate motorized use. should not be evident. RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS South Fork Walla Walla River ACEC Management Plan: Provide public access to river for land based activities such as fishing, Recreation, Travel, hiking, biking (motorized/mechanized) and horseback riding emphasizing activities consistent with the ACEC Management Plan. Seek and Visual Resource viable partnership opportunities with user groups, county, and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and help Management maintain existing public access along the South Fork of the Walla Walla River as appropriate to meet ACEC management objectives. OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-10. SRMA: VIRTUE FLAT OHV PLAY AREA SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET local communities and Baker county Community Recreation Management Zone Virtue Flat OHV Play Area MARKET NICHE Visitors engage in day use or overnight activities for casual or concentrated mechanized and motorized (Class I, II, III & OSV) primitive road/trail/route use opportunities, and camping in a sage-brush setting. Visitors value this opportunity and facility and enjoy participating in these activities with friends and family. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Visitors engage in either motorized, shared-use, or non-motorized trail and route experiences within a open sage-brush setting to realize a moderate level of satisfaction for one or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Experience Opportunities Benefit Opportunities Opportunities & Outcomes & Outcomes • Class I – ATV riding • Enjoy Scenery • Class II – 4x4/UTV Personal: Greater environmental awareness with family and friends. • Experience casual trail riding or driving Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community involvement in public land route driving with family and • Class III- Motorcycle stewardship. Increased involvement in recreation and land use decisions. friends riding Environmental: Increased awareness of ”Leave No Trace” and “Treading Lightly” practices • Experience challenging motorized • Mountain bike riding on public lands or non-motorized trail riding. • Over Snow Vehicles Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit, live or retire. Positive contributions to • Opportunities for different types (OSV) local and regional economy. of physical exercise • Camping PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Rural Virtue Flat OHV Play Area Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: Contacts: 7-14 encounters day off On or near paved primary highways, but still travel routes and 15-29 encounters/day Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or within a rural area (R). on routes (MC). snowmobiles in addition to non-motorized, mechanized use (MC). Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by Group Size: 4-6 people per group Visitor Services: Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel roads/trails, utility lines, etc; but none over (BC). occasional present to provide onsite assistance.(MC). power natural landscape features (FC). Evidence of Use: A few large areas of Management Controls: Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized Facilities: Maintained & marked trails, simple alteration. Surface vegetation absent and mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement presence (MC). trailhead developments, improved signs and with hardened soils. Sounds of people

Appendices 2.7 – p. 26 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-10. SRMA: VIRTUE FLAT OHV PLAY AREA very basic toilets (MC). frequently heard. (R). RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: Recreation: Recreation, Travel, Implementation of the Virtue Flat Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) and Visual Resource Travel Management: Management OHV use is not restricted (Open) for all alternatives Visual Resource Management: VRM Class II/III for all alternatives

Appendices 2.7 – p. 27 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-11. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence), Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line) SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities in Union, Wallowa, and Asotin counties Undeveloped Grande Ronde (Segment 1), Wallowa Wild and Scenic Rivers River, and Upland Recreation Management Zone Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence, Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line) MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river and land based recreation opportunities such as steelhead and trout fishing, rafting, horseback riding, canoeing and kayaking, and big game, upland/migratory bird hunting, camping, driving for pleasure and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, exploration and sightseeing. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land and water-based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting (seasonal), hiking, sightseeing, photography, driving for pleasure, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse non- motorized activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting experiences and landscape viewing. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land and water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES (See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde and Powder WSR Plans) Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes • Steelhead, bass and trout fishing • Fishing for pleasure Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and • Non-motorized boating • Being close to nature natural landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with • Motorized boating • Pursue upland birds and family & friends. • Upland bird & big game hunting • Challenging big game hunting during seasons Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for • Hiking • Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland community involvement in public land stewardship. • Camping landscape Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for • Driving for pleasure • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased • Primary put-in and take-out points participating in a favorite recreation activity. desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to for river floaters/boaters • • Enjoying physical exercise local and regional economy. PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence, Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line) Physical Social Administrative

Appendices 2.7 – p. 28 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-11. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence), Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line) Remoteness: Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of Social Encounters: Moderate use occurs – contact humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural environment Visitor Management: A few on-site with others is expected and occasionally continual, but less expectation of risk. visitor management controls or with some chance for isolation. Some evidence of Naturalness: Alterations to the landscape are subtle. Natural regulations may be expected. Contact other users. Moderate to high contact with other users, characteristics remain dominant. Moderate evidence of human with management personnel is frequent. particularly at rapids and access points. Moderate to development. Impoundments, diversions, or channel On guided and non-guided trips, visitors high contact on access roads. Moderate to low contact modifications may be evident. perceive a moderate to low degree of on trails and at developed sites. Facilities: Rustic facilities developed for resource protection challenge and risk. On-site regimentation Visitor Impacts: Natural ecosystems may be and to accommodate visitor use. Rustic facilities providing some and controls are noticeable but modified by human use. Human impacts obvious but comfort for the user as well as site protection. Use native harmonize with the natural environment. subordinate. Sites may be subtly hardened to materials but with more refinement in design. Synthetic Simple information facilities. accommodate motorized use. materials should not be evident. RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan: Provide public access to river for fishing, hunting(big game/upland bird), camping, driving for pleasure, rafting, kayaking, boating, emphasizing river-related activities consistent with the Wallowa/Grande Ronde River and Powder Recreation, Travel, River WSR Plans. Provide motorized boating opportunities above the Wild section boundary on the Grande Ronde and Wallowa rivers. and Visual Resource Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, and County federal and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities Management and help maintain existing public access along the Wallowa/Grande Ronde rivers as appropriate to meet river management objectives. OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 29 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-12. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Grande Ronde River (from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Regional visitors and Union, Wallowa, and Asotin counties Undeveloped Grande Ronde River segment 2, Wild and Scenic River and Joseph Creek Suitable River River and Upland Recreation Management Zone (Grande Ronde River (from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River MARKET NICHE In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river based recreation opportunities such as steelhead and trout fishing, rafting, horseback riding, canoeing and kayaking, and big game, upland/migratory bird hunting in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, and sightseeing. OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Within the River Zone, visitors engage in water-based day use and overnight activities, year-round land-based day uses, boat-in camping, fishing, hunting (seasonal), hiking, sightseeing, photography, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse non-motorized activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting experiences and landscape viewing. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.) TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES (See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan and Joseph Creek Suitable River Interim Guidance) Activity Opportunities Experience Opportunities & Outcomes Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes • Fishing for pleasure Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and natural • Steelhead and trout • Being close to nature landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with family & fishing • Pursue upland birds and friends. • Non-motorized boating • challenging big game hunting during seasons Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community • Upland bird & big • Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland involvement in public land stewardship. • game hunting landscape Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for • Hiking • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability • Camping participating in a favorite recreation activity. as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local and regional • Enjoying physical exercise economy. PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Primitive River Grande Ronde River Segment 2(from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River Physical Social Administrative Remoteness: Primitive (P) – Grande Social Encounters: Few contacts with other users, little, but some Visitor Management: Ronde River evidence of other users. Small party size. Very few contacts while on Few on-site visitor management controls or

Appendices 2.7 – p. 30 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-12. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Grande Ronde River (from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River Back-Country(BC) – Joseph Creek the river (no more than 5) No more than one other party within sight or regulations may be expected. Contact with Naturalness: Primitive (P) – Grande sound of a campsite. management personnel is in-frequent. On non- Ronde River Visitor Impacts: Natural ecosystems operate freely. Human impacts guided or guided trips, visitors perceive a low to Back-Country (BC) – Joseph Creek are generally limited to campsites of small to moderate size. moderate degree of challenge and risk. On-site Facilities: Primitive (P) Unnoticeable impacts, no site hardening or modification of camp regimentation and controls are not noticeable. areas. RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan: Provide primitive, non-motorized public access to river for fishing and rafting, kayaking, boating, camping in river area, emphasizing non-motorized river-related activities consistent with Wallowa/Grande Ronde River Plan and Joseph Recreation, Travel, Creek Suitable rive segment interim guidance. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, private landowners, county, federal and Visual and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities. Monitor river and upland visitor satisfaction based on stated plan monitoring Resource indicators and objectives for physical, social and managerial LAC for this river segment. Management OHV: Closed to motorized use under all Alternatives VRI & VRM: Class I under all alternatives for the Grande Ronde. VRM class I for the Joseph Creek Suitable segment under alternative 1,3,4,5 and VRM class II under Alternative 2.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 31 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-13. SRMA: SHEEP MOUNTAIN, HOMESTEAD, MCGRAW WSAs AND LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET Local communities in Baker, Union, Wallowa, and Asotin counties Undeveloped Sheep Mountain, Homestead, McGraw WSAs and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics River and Upland Recreation Management Zone MARKET NICHE Visitors engage in cross-country hiking and primitive overnight camping, big game and upland hunting, hiking, horseback riding, water activities, boating, photography and educational studies in challenging terrain. Recreation activities within the Sheep Mountain, Homestead, and McGraw Creek WSAs and lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to protect character values and provide primitive, unconfined recreation opportunities listed above. Visitors value these primitive landscapes and enjoy participating in these challenging recreation activities with friends and family OUTCOME OBJECTIVE Visitors engage in cross-country hiking and primitive overnight camping, big game and upland hunting, hiking, horseback riding, water activities, boating, photography and educational studies within WSAs and lands with wilderness characteristics. Visitors enjoy and value challenging primitive, unconfined recreation activities with family and friends in a predominately undeveloped and rugged setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.. TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES Activity Experience Opportunities Benefit Opportunities Opportunities & Outcomes & Outcomes Personal: Improved physical fitness; stronger ties with • Hiking • Enjoying physical exercise family & friends, improved mental well-being, greater • Horseback riding • Being with family and friends environmental awareness. • Big game and upland hunting • Enjoying solitude Community/Social: Greater family and friend bonding, • Fishing • Enjoying challenging hunting and fishing improved image of land management agencies, enlarged • Back-country exploration opportunities sense of community dependency and value of public • Photography of natural • Learning more about natural resources lands. landscapes • Increasing back-country skills in challenging Environmental: Increased awareness and need to • Camping environments protect natural landscapes and greater environmental • Boating/water activities • Increased self-confidence stewardship. • Educational studies • Escaping daily responsibilities Economic: Positive contribution to local economy.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 32 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas TABLE 2.7-13. SRMA: SHEEP MOUNTAIN, HOMESTEAD, MCGRAW WSAs AND LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS RATIONALE FOR PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Back Country/Primitive Physical Social Administrative Mechanized Use: WSA/Lands with Wilderness Remoteness: Middle Country (MC) Contacts: Back -Country (BC) Characteristics Use Range: Naturalness: Back-Country (BC) Group size: Back-Country (BC) Back-Country (BC), Primitive (P), Middle Country (MC) Facilities: None (P) Evidence of Use: Back-Country (BC) Visitor Services: Back-Country (BC) Management Controls: Back-Country (BC) RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS Recreation and Travel Management: Recreation, Travel, Sheep Mountain, Homestead and McGraw WSAs: Closed to OHV use in all alternatives. and Visual Resource Lands with wilderness characteristics: Closed or Limited to roads and trails in all alternatives Management Visual Resource Management: WSAs: VRM I for all Alternatives. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: At VRI and VRM levels I or II for all alternatives.

Appendices 2.7 – p. 33 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.8: ERMAs APPENDIX 2.8: EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA) DIRECTION

Under all alternatives, areas not identified as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) would subsequently be considered as a specific Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) due to amounts of use, conflicts or other resource concerns (see Chapter 2 – Goals and Management Objectives for designations by alternative). The remaining public lands would be referred to as the Baker Field Office ERMA. Recreation use is dispersed in these locations and would generally require limited, or no BLM management. The only exception may be during big game hunting seasons, the time of year when public trespass and regulation violations are most numerous. The BLM would continue to provide basic public information through maps of public lands available at the BLM Baker Field Office and Vale District Office, and provide information regarding recreation opportunities.

Recreation management direction on the lands designated as ERMAs will continue to be to “provide opportunities for land and water based activities” if only at a basic level. Under this direction, specific objectives for the management of ERMAs is to help protect resource values, reduce conflicts with public land users and adjacent private landowners, and provide for public health and safety. If these management actions do not mitigate public safety issues, resource damage concerns, or visitor use conflicts, BLM will develop and tailor specific actions to resolve these concerns.

Table 2.8-1. Recreation Management Areas by Alternative Alternative SRMAs ERMAs • Snake River Breaks • WSA/Lands with Wilderness • Lookout Mountain Characteristics • Virtue Flat OHV Area • Snake River/Mormon Basin Alternative 1 • Wild and Scenic Rivers Backcountry Byway • NHOTIC • Burnt River • South Fork Walla Walla River • Baker Field Office ERMA • Grande Ronde River (Washington) • Snake River Breaks • WSAs/Lands with Wilderness • Virtue Flat OHV Area Characteristics • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Burnt River Alternative 2 • NHOTIC • Lookout Mountain • South Fork Walla Walla River • Grande Ronde River (Washington) • Snake River/Mormon Basin Backcountry Byway • Baker Field Office ERMA • Snake River Breaks • Lookout Mountain • Virtue Flat OHV Area • Wild and Scenic Rivers • NHOTIC Alternative 3 • Baker Field Office ERMA • South Fork Walla Walla River • Grande Ronde River (Washington) • WSA/Lands with Wilderness Characteristics • Snake River/Mormon Basin Backcountry Byway • Burnt River

Appendices 2.8 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.8: ERMAs Table 2.8-1. Recreation Management Areas by Alternative Alternative SRMAs ERMAs • WSAs/Lands with Wilderness • Snake River Breaks Characteristics • Virtue Flat OHV Area • Burnt River Alternative 4, 5, • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Lookout Mountain & 5a • NHOTIC • Grande Ronde River (Washington) • Snake River/Mormon Basin Backcountry Byway • South Fork Walla Walla River • Baker Field Office ERMA

Appendices 2.8 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 2.9: ACEC Monitoring Form APPENDIX 2.9: AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN MONITORING FORM

OBSERVATION RECORD - AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN This form to be completed annually for each ACEC/RNA ACEC (ACEC/RNA) Name: Acres of public land: Relevant and Important Values:

Date: Time: Observer(s): 1. Nature of inspection (e.g. drove, walked): 2. Signs of disturbance/new projects (e.g. vehicle, foot traffic, camps, cattle, sheep, fire) and estimates on when disturbance took place:

3. Physical condition (e.g. weeds, wildlife noted, vegetation health, weather conditions):

4. Overall condition and general observations (Fences maintained, gates closed) :

5. Are relevant and important values being protected? If not, what is happening?

6. Are management actions being implemented? If not, list what is non-compliant:

7. If values are affected and/or management actions are not implemented provide recommendations for becoming compliant:

8. Establish permanent photo monitoring point(s) to document relevant and important values conditions and issues identified in the RMP issues matrix.

Appendices 2.9 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams APPENDIX 3.1: 303(D) LISTED STREAMS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA

Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Summer Temperature 1169095450086 Elk Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170117450568 Aspen Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170207448719 East Pine Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170244450629 Big Elk Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Okanogan Summer Temperature 1170647449871 Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Creek Summer Temperature 1170828449534 Beecher Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1171019449931 Trail Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1171430449898 Meadow Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1169095450086 Elk Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170244450629 Big Elk Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1171430449898 Meadow Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1169416450198 Lake Fork Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170207448719 East Pine Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170207448719 East Pine Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1169416450198 Lake Fork Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170299448659 Clear Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year substance, public health advisories and other published Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if appropriate, to set guidance values. . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year substance, public health advisories and other published Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if appropriate, to set guidance values. . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River substance, public health advisories and other published 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if

Appendices 3.1 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area appropriate, to set guidance values. Summer Temperature 1170207448719 East Pine Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Summer Temperature 1170299448659 Clear Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year substance, public health advisories and other published Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if appropriate, to set guidance values. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1181103444227 Camp Creek 17050202 Burnt River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. East Camp Summer Temperature 1181103444228 Rearing: 17.8 C 17050202 Burnt River Creek Summer Temperature 1182170445700 China Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050202 Burnt River Summer Temperature 1182793446403 Trout Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050202 Burnt River The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1182793446403 Trout Creek 17050202 Burnt River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1183905446706 Geiser Creek 17050202 Burnt River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1183291446668 Patrick Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050202 Burnt River The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1183291446668 Patrick Creek 17050202 Burnt River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. North Fork Summer Temperature 1181903445028 Rearing: 17.8 C 17050202 Burnt River Burnt River Reservoir, river, estuary, non-thermally stratified lake: Summer Chlorophyll a 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River 0.015 mg/l

Appendices 3.1 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Reservoir, river, estuary, non-thermally stratified lake: Summer Chlorophyll a 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River 0.015 mg/l . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year substance, public health advisories and other published Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River 17060101 Hells Canyon Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if appropriate, to set guidance values. . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year substance, public health advisories and other published Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River 17060101 Hells Canyon Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if appropriate, to set guidance values. Lightning Summer Temperature 1167558457535 Rearing: 17.8 C 17060102 Imnaha River Creek Summer Temperature 1170649457215 Salmon Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde Summer Temperature 1170858457203 Peavine Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde Summer Temperature 1171526457055 Elk Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1171526457055 Elk Creek 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or Chesnimnus the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1171565457145 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde Creek deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or Grande Ronde the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1169845460718 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or Grande Ronde the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1169845460718 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Fecal Coliform 1177853457255 Wallowa River Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde

Appendices 3.1 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060106 Lower Grande Ronde deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1197507448999 Henry Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Summer Temperature 1199127450306 Stahl Canyon Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Summer Temperature 1204849449499 Sorefoot Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Summer Temperature 1201704445718 Nelson Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Grass Valley Summer Temperature 1204243455973 Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Canyon Summer Temperature 1202100445837 Gable Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Summer Temperature 1202784446777 Bear Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Summer Temperature 1203065447366 Bridge Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Summer Temperature 1203065447366 Bridge Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070204 Lower John Day Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient Biological Undefined 1204472449061 Pine Creek quality to support aquatic species without detrimental 17070204 Lower John Day Criteria changes in the resident biological communities. Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient Biological Undefined 1204472449061 Pine Creek quality to support aquatic species without detrimental 17070204 Lower John Day Criteria changes in the resident biological communities. . . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic Year substance, public health advisories and other published Mercury 1190296461886 Snake River 17060103 Lower Snake-Asotin Around scientific literature may be considered and used, if appropriate, to set guidance values. Summer Temperature 1189691450566 Bridge Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1193071450426 Stalder Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1184504447748 Beaver Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1186439451634 Frazier Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1186964451690 Bowman Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1187654451886 Lane Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1187925451660 Hidaway Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day

Appendices 3.1 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Summer Temperature 1188422451575 Cable Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1192839449723 Mallory Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1194313449697 Skookum Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1183176449098 Baldy Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1184252448079 Bull Run Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1184252448079 Bull Run Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1184777448936 Crane Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17070202 North Fork John Day The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1185615448659 Granite Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1194087449980 Swale Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1194087449980 Swale Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1194607450375 Hog Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1196351449967 Porter Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1184500448213 Clear Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1189608451319 Owens Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day

Appendices 3.1 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Summer Temperature 1189855450726 Fivemile Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1192754449735 Potamus Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1194539450514 Alder Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Rancheria Summer Temperature 1186261451759 Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Creek Bear Wallow Summer Temperature 1187541451837 Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Creek The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1195699449241 Wilson Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Summer Temperature 1195699449241 Wilson Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1186830449604 Big Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day Summer Temperature 1192943449516 Ditch Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17070202 North Fork John Day East Fork Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient Biological Undefined 1194050447763 Cottonwood quality to support aquatic species without detrimental 17070202 North Fork John Day Criteria Creek changes in the resident biological communities. Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient Biological Cottonwood Undefined 1194194448139 quality to support aquatic species without detrimental 17070202 North Fork John Day Criteria Creek changes in the resident biological communities. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1194101448830 Big Wall Creek 17070202 North Fork John Day deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Spring/ East Fork Turbidity 1174338449687 10% increase Nephelometric Turbidity Units 17050203 Powder River Summer Goose Creek Summer Temperature 1181554450189 Indian Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050203 Powder River California Summer Temperature 1179697446686 Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Gulch

Appendices 3.1 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Summer Temperature 1180600450132 Anthony Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1178407447242 Elk Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1180547446808 Dean Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1180600450132 Anthony Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River North Powder Summer Temperature 1178956450385 Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River River Summer Temperature 1182078448087 Silver Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17050203 Powder River Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1170508447455 Powder River 17050203 Powder River more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Fall/Winter Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Fecal Coliform 1170508447455 Powder River 17050203 Powder River / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Summer Temperature 1170508447455 Powder River Rearing: 17.8 C 17050203 Powder River Year Nitrates 1184788457997 Athena Spring Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Around Little Bear Summer Temperature 1175553454853 Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17060105 Wallowa River Creek Summer Temperature 1176996456197 Deer Creek Bull Trout: 10.0 C 17060105 Wallowa River Formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious Undefined Sedimentation 1174900455521 Lostine River 17060105 Wallowa River to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1175411455843 Bear Creek 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Undefined Sedimentation 1175411455843 Bear Creek The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or 17060105 Wallowa River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or Hurricane the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1173021454196 17060105 Wallowa River Creek deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fall/Winter Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Fecal Coliform 1173098454242 Spring Creek 17060105 Wallowa River / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Spring/ Dissolved 1173098454242 Spring Creek Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation 17060105 Wallowa River Summer Oxygen Fall/Winter Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Fecal Coliform 1173098454242 Spring Creek 17060105 Wallowa River / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Spring/ Dissolved 1173098454242 Spring Creek Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation 17060105 Wallowa River Summer Oxygen Fall/Winter Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Fecal Coliform 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Spring/ Dissolved 1172966454199 Prairie Creek Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation 17060105 Wallowa River Summer Oxygen The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fall/Winter Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Fecal Coliform 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Spring/ Dissolved 1172966454199 Prairie Creek Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation 17060105 Wallowa River Summer Oxygen The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fall/Winter Fecal Coliform 1172966454199 Prairie Creek Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no 17060105 Wallowa River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Spring/ Dissolved 1172966454199 Prairie Creek Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation 17060105 Wallowa River Summer Oxygen The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1177211456214 Minam River 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255 Wallowa River The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or 17060105 Wallowa River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fall/Winter Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Fecal Coliform 1173098454242 Spring Creek 17060105 Wallowa River / Spring more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml Spring/ Dissolved 1173098454242 Spring Creek Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation 17060105 Wallowa River Summer Oxygen Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no Summer Fecal Coliform 1195436453461 Balm Fork 17070104 Willow (Morrow Co) more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml

Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1171006446374 Quicksand Creek 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1172197444852 Morgan Creek 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1168539449735 Pine Creek 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1168539449735 Pine Creek 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1168539449735 Pine Creek 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1168539449735 Pine Creek 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Temperature 1168539449735 Pine Creek Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir

Appendices 3.1 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir 15 Oxygen saturation Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1174704445795 Lawrence Creek 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1173304444463 Dixie Creek 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1176633444892 Cottonwood Creek 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1177428444890 Auburn Creek 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1174704445795 Lawrence Creek 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1176920445381 Dark Canyon 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around North Fork Dixie Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1174506444498 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) Creek degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around South Fork Dixie Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1174506444499 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) Creek degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1177276445037 Clarks Creek 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River 15 Oxygen saturation Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River 15 Oxygen saturation Year Around Temperature 1172299443641 Burnt River Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 17050202 Burnt River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River 15 Oxygen saturation Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River 15 Oxygen saturation Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060101 Hells Canyon (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1167917454022 Freezeout Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 Temperature 1168454452317 Crazyman Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1168602455202 Little Sheep Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 Temperature 1168724451806 Gumboot Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 Temperature 1168775451506 Dry Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1168058453281 Grouse Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum January 1 - June Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1168058453281 Grouse Creek 17060102 Imnaha River 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1168347455572 Big Sheep Creek 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 17060102 Imnaha River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum August 1 - June Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060102 Imnaha River 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060102 Imnaha River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum August 1 - June Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1167649458167 Imnaha River 17060102 Imnaha River 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1170059460526 Joseph Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Lower Grande Temperature 1173955459872 Grouse Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1174728458987 Mud Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1174992458487 Wallupa Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1175800458802 Sickfoot Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1174943458963 Wildcat Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1170059460526 Joseph Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1171565457144 Crow Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1174422459325 Courtney Creek 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Temperature 1171565457145 Chesnimnus Creek Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 17060106 Lower Grande

Appendices 3.1 – p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Lower Grande Temperature 1174512459454 Wenaha River 17060106 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Lower Grande Temperature 1174512459454 Wenaha River 17060106 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Ronde August 15 - Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Lower Grande Temperature 1174512459454 Wenaha River 17060106 June 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of Lower Grande 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060106 15 Oxygen saturation Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Lower Grande Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060106 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Ronde 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Lower Grande Summer E Coli 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060106 ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Ronde Lower Grande Summer pH 1177853457255 Wallowa River pH 6.5 to 9.0 17060106 Ronde January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of Lower Grande 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060106 15 Oxygen saturation Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Lower Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060106 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1198759450734 Brown Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1201398449604 Straw Fork 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1203607455057 Hay Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Temperature 1200023447970 Service Creek Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 17070204 Lower John Day

Appendices 3.1 – p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1203607455057 Hay Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1204052455767 Rock Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1204692451626 Thirtymile Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1204052455767 Rock Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1204052455767 Rock Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1200023447970 Service Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1204472449061 Pine Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 Temperature 1206499457318 John Day River 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Temperature 1204472449061 Pine Creek 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 Temperature 1206499457318 John Day River 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 Temperature 1206499457318 John Day River 17070204 Lower John Day (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 Middle Columbia- Temperature 1240483462464 Columbia River 17070101 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Lake Wallula Fall/Winter/Spri Middle Columbia- pH 1240483462464 Columbia River pH 7.0 to 8.5 17070101 ng Lake Wallula Year Around Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 Middle Columbia- Temperature 1240483462464 Columbia River 17070101 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Lake Wallula Fall/Winter/ Middle Columbia- pH 1240483462464 Columbia River pH 7.0 to 8.5 17070101 Spring Lake Wallula Year Around Temperature 1240483462464 Columbia River Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 17070101 Middle Columbia-

Appendices 3.1 – p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Lake Wallula Fall/Winter/ Middle Columbia- pH 1240483462464 Columbia River pH 7.0 to 8.5 17070101 Spring Lake Wallula Fall/Winter/ Middle Columbia- pH 1240483462464 Columbia River pH 7.0 to 8.5 17070101 Spring Lake Wallula Year Around Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0 Middle Columbia- Temperature 1240483462464 Columbia River 17070101 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Lake Wallula Fall/Winter/Spri Middle Columbia- pH 1240483462464 Columbia River pH 7.0 to 8.5 17070101 ng Lake Wallula Middle Columbia- Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070101 Lake Wallula Middle Columbia- Year Around Manganese 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070101 Lake Wallula Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1184946448414 Buck Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1186888448197 17070202 (Non-spawning) Desolation Creek degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1187361448455 Sponge Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around South Fork Cable Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1187587450824 17070202 (Non-spawning) Creek day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1187808448786 Junkens Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1195823447863 Rudio Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1182983449150 Crawfish Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1183896449368 South Trail Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1183896449369 North Trail Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Temperature 1184006449127 Onion Creek Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 17070202 North Fork John

Appendices 3.1 – p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around South Fork Cable Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1187587450824 17070202 (Non-spawning) Creek day-average maximum Day January 1 - June South Fork Cable Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees North Fork John Temperature 1187587450824 17070202 15 Creek Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork Cable Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1187587450825 17070202 (Non-spawning) Creek day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1183176449098 Baldy Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1184063449155 Trail Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1185615448659 Granite Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork Cable Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1187587450825 17070202 (Non-spawning) Creek day-average maximum Day Year Around Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1185615448659 Granite Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1189363449976 Desolation Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Day Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1189961450100 Camas Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1189961450100 Camas Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Day Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1194981449297 Indian Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1195823447863 Rudio Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1189363449976 Desolation Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Day January 1 - June Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees North Fork John Temperature 1189363449976 Desolation Creek 17070202 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Temperature 1189961450100 Camas Creek Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- 17070202 North Fork John

Appendices 3.1 – p. 17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Day September 1 - Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees North Fork John Temperature 1189961450100 Camas Creek 17070202 June 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Middle Fork John Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1193015449167 17070202 (Non-spawning) Day River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1186403449794 Meadow Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1194194448139 Cottonwood Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0 North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River day-average maximum Day January 1 - June North Fork John Day Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 15 River Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River day-average maximum Day September 1 - North Fork John Day Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 June 15 River Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around North Fork John Day Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River day-average maximum Day September 1 - North Fork John Day Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 June 15 River Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1194101448830 Big Wall Creek 17070202 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Temperature 1196393447553 North Fork John Day Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 17070202 North Fork John

Appendices 3.1 – p. 18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day January 1 - May Dissolved North Fork John Day Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of North Fork John 1196393447553 17070202 15 Oxygen River saturation Day Year Around North Fork John Day Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 North Fork John Temperature 1196393447553 17070202 (Non-spawning) River degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Day Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1174261448973 Sawmill Creek 17050203 Powder River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1178285447625 Sutton Creek 17050203 Powder River (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Iron 1188411456684 McKay Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193296457950 Butter Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1188411456684 McKay Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1188411456684 McKay Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1188815456558 Birch Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1188815456558 Birch Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Manganese 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Manganese 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Manganese 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Manganese 1187658456785 Wildhorse Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1188411456684 McKay Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Manganese 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla

Appendices 3.1 – p. 19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Year Around Iron 1193384459144 Umatilla River Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070103 Umatilla Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of Upper Grande 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 15 Oxygen saturation Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River January 1 - May Dissolved Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of Upper Grande 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 15 Oxygen saturation Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0 Upper Grande Temperature 1169845460718 Grande Ronde River 17060104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Ronde River Year Around Iron 1186528460280 Pine Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070102 Walla Walla Year Around Iron 1186528460280 Pine Creek Table 20 Toxic Substances 17070102 Walla Walla August 15 - Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1175411455843 Bear Creek 17060105 Wallowa River June 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Temperature 1177592456645 Fisher Creek Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- 17060105 Wallowa River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177782456881 Howard Creek 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177592456645 Fisher Creek 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum January 1 - June Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1177592456645 Fisher Creek 17060105 Wallowa River 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177782456881 Howard Creek 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum January 1 - June Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1177782456881 Howard Creek 17060105 Wallowa River 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1175411455843 Bear Creek 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172198454178 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1175411455843 Bear Creek 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum August 15 - Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees Temperature 1175411455843 Bear Creek 17060105 Wallowa River June 15 Celsius 7-day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177211456214 Minam River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172966454199 Prairie Creek 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177211456214 Minam River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum Year Around Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- 17060105 Wallowa River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Summer pH 1177853457255 Wallowa River pH 6.5 to 9.0 17060105 Wallowa River Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Summer pH 1177853457255 Wallowa River pH 6.5 to 9.0 17060105 Wallowa River Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Summer pH 1177853457255 Wallowa River pH 6.5 to 9.0 17060105 Wallowa River Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Summer pH 1177853457255 Wallowa River pH 6.5 to 9.0 17060105 Wallowa River Year Around Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7- Temperature 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River (Non-spawning) day-average maximum 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1177853457255 Wallowa River 17060105 Wallowa River ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Summer pH 1177853457255 Wallowa River pH 6.5 to 9.0 17060105 Wallowa River Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Temperature 1176055443389 Basin Creek 17050119 Willow (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Fall/Winter/ 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 E Coli 1172295439862 Willow Creek 17050119 Willow Spring ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 Summer E Coli 1172295439862 Willow Creek 17050119 Willow ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Willow (Morrow Temperature 1200159457949 Willow Creek 17070104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Co)

Appendices 3.1 – p. 22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Willow (Morrow Temperature 1200159457949 Willow Creek 17070104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Co) Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Willow (Morrow Temperature 1200159457949 Willow Creek 17070104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Co) Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Willow (Morrow Temperature 1200159457949 Willow Creek 17070104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Co) Willow (Morrow Summer pH 1200159457949 Willow Creek pH 6.5 to 9.0 17070104 Co) Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Willow (Morrow Temperature 1200159457949 Willow Creek 17070104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Co) Year Around Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0 Willow (Morrow Temperature 1200159457949 Willow Creek 17070104 (Non-spawning) degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum Co) Willow (Morrow Summer pH 1200159457949 Willow Creek pH 6.5 to 9.0 17070104 Co)

Table 3.1-3. Criteria Change or Use Clarification Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area March 1 - June 30 Temperature 1176633444892 Cottonwood Creek Spawning: 12.8 C 17050202 Burnt River March 1 - June 30 Temperature 1174704445795 Lawrence Creek Spawning: 12.8 C 17050202 Burnt River March 1 - June 30 Temperature 1176920445381 Dark Canyon Spawning: 12.8 C 17050202 Burnt River March 1 - June 30 Temperature 1174506444498 North Fork Dixie Creek Spawning: 12.8 C 17050202 Burnt River March 1 - June 30 Temperature 1174506444499 South Fork Dixie Creek Spawning: 12.8 C 17050202 Burnt River Summer Temperature 1176196444807 Pine Creek Rearing: 17.8 C 17050202 Burnt River March 1 - June 30 Temperature 1176196444807 Pine Creek Spawning: 12.8 C 17050202 Burnt River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams

Table 3.1-4. Water Quality Limited not Needing a TMDL Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Undefined Flow Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River See below 17050201 Brownlee Reservoir Undefined Habitat Modification 1181386443244 King Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1182878446504 Camp Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1183174446879 Pinus Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1172795443628 Durbin Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1173702444979 Sisley Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1174105445327 Shirttail Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1174710446846 Sardine Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1174784446009 Alder Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1174929446509 Pritchard Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1176020445670 Hooker Gulch 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1176137445597 Deer Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1176162445537 Cave Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1176704445464 French Gulch 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1179840445200 Cow Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1180954445016 Beaverdam Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181103444226 West Camp Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181103444227 Camp Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181103444228 East Camp Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181636443732 Whiskey Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181903445029 South Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1181903445029 South Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1182170445700 China Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1182793446403 Trout Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1182935446721 Gimlet Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1183905446706 Geiser Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1174704445795 Lawrence Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1176920445381 Dark Canyon 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1180404444936 Water Gulch 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1180404444936 Water Gulch 17050202 Burnt River

Appendices 3.1 – p. 24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams Table 3.1-4. Water Quality Limited not Needing a TMDL Subbasin Within Season Parameter LLID Stream Name Criteria Subbasin Decision Area Undefined Habitat Modification 1182878446504 Camp Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1183174446879 Pinus Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1183291446668 Patrick Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1183291446668 Patrick Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1174506444498 North Fork Dixie Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1174506444499 South Fork Dixie Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1176196444807 Pine Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1177276445037 Clarks Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1177276445037 Clarks Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1179966444891 Big Creek 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181903445028 North Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1181903445028 North Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1182082445197 West Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1181965445059 Middle Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1181965445059 Middle Fork Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Habitat Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Undefined Flow Modification 1172299443641 Burnt River 17050202 Burnt River Criteria is the same for all Streams in this Criteria, which is as follows: The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affect the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed.

Appendices 3.1 – p. 25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.2: Ironside Ecosite Comparison APPENDIX 3.2: COMPARISON BETWEEN RANGELAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND THE IRONSIDE ECOSITE INVENTORY

A. INTRODUCTION

Currently, the Baker Field Office is using Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 to determine rangeland health. However, at this time not all of the Baker Resource Area has been assessed. Therefore, the intent of this white paper is to determine if the 1977 Iron Side Assessment could be used in areas that have not yet been assessed. The rational for using the 1977 Iron Side Assessment is that the methods used to determine vegetation condition are similar to Standard 3 in Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4. In order to use the Iron Side Assessment, Standards 1, 3 and 5 must be correlated and Standard 3 needs to have a statistically significant relationship with the Iron Side Assessment.

B. METHODS

The 1977 Iron Side Assessment used the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) floristic composition by weight method for determining vegetation condition. This method is a similarity index comparing the current vegetation composition to the composition of the potential natural community (PNC). Vegetation patches were categorized as being at climax or at a late, middle or early successional stage. Apparent trend was also recorded at each site. Apparent trend was categorized as being upward, downward or static. Pastures that were converted to a non- native grass-dominated vegetation were automatically categorized as an early succession stage.

In 2001, the Baker Resource Area evaluated rangeland health using the protocol outlined in Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4. This method uses five standards to determine rangeland health. Three of the standards assess upland health and two standards address riparian health. Only the upland standards are applicable to determine vegetation condition. The upland standards from the Rangeland Health Assessment were entered into the statistical program “Systat” and Chi square tests performed to determine if rangeland health standards were correlated to each other.

The data remaining from the 1977 Iron Side Assessment consists of the number of acres in early, mid, late and climax seral stages and apparent trend acres per allotment. To determine the overall vegetation condition of the allotment climax, late and mid succession stages were added together and divided by the total area of the allotment. Everything above 60 percent was considered meeting desired condition and everything below 40 percent was considered not meeting desired condition. Apparent trend was used to determine the status of the allotments that had values between 40 and 60 percent. If the apparent trend was upward for more than 60 percent of the allotment it was considered meeting desired condition and if it was below 60 percent it was considered not meeting desired condition.

Appendices 3.2 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.2: Ironside Ecosite Comparison

The 1977 Iron Side Assessment was scaled down to the pasture level. Each pasture in the allotment was tentatively assigned the overall condition assessment rating. Then historic files, prior to 1977, were used to determine which pastures were converted to non-native grassland/shrubland. Since the 1977 assessment treated all the non-native vegetation sites as early succession, all pastures with more than 50 percent of the total area converted to non-native grasses were considered not meeting desired condition.

C. RESULTS

Statistical analysis shows that all the upland standards in the rangeland heath assessment were correlated to each other. When ecological process was compared to upland watershed function 89 percent of the sampling sites were in agreement, 5 percent of the sites were meeting ecological process and not meeting upland watershed function and 6 percent of the sampling sites were meeting upland watershed function and not meeting ecological process. When ecological process was compared to native, threatened and endangered or locally important species 83 percent of the sampling sites were in agreement, 2 percent of the sites were meeting ecological process and not meeting native, threatened and endangered or locally important species and 15 percent of the sampling sites were meeting native, threatened and endangered or locally important species and not meeting ecological process.

When rangeland health assessment ecological process was compared to the 1977 Iron Side Assessment, a weak statistical relationship existed. However, if the non-native grass seeded pastures were removed from the analysis a strong relationship existed. When ecological process was compared to the Iron Side Assessment 81 percent of the sampling sites were in agreement, 14 percent of the sites were meeting the Iron Side Assessment and not meeting ecological process, and 5 percent of the sites were not meeting the Iron Side Assessment and meeting ecological process.

D. DISCUSSION

Since all of the upland rangeland health standards are correlated to each other, it is appropriate to pick one standard to assess rangeland health. Ecological process standard was used to assess landscape rangeland health as this standard has the highest relationship to the Iron Side Assessment.

The Iron Side Assessment can only be used to fill in the data gap in native and introduced annual grass dominated pastures. The Iron Side Assessment cannot be used in pastures that were seeded to non-native perennial grass.

Appendices 3.2 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species APPENDIX 3.3: SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area Decision Decision G OR S Common Name Scientific Name ISSSSP Status1 Area WA S Rank Area OR2 Rank 3 Rank4 WA Wallowa Ricegrass Achnatherum wallowaensis OR-SEN S G2G3 S2S3 no status Geyer's Onion Allium geyeri var. geyeri OR-SEN S G4G5T4 S1 no status Davis' Milkweed Asclepias cryptoceras ssp. davisii no status S G4TNR no status S1 Green Spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum OR-SEN S G4 S1 no status Laurence's Milk-Vetch Astragalus collinus var. laurentii OR-SEN S G5T1 S1 no status Upward-Lobed Moonwort Botrychium ascendens SEN S S G2G3 S2 S2 Prairie Moonwort Botrychium campestre OR-SEN S S G3G4 S1 no status Crenulate Moonwort Botrychium crenulatum SEN S S G3 S2 S3 Western Moonwort Botrychium hesperium WA-SEN OR-STR S S G3G4 SNR S1 Slender Moonwort Botrychium lineare SEN S S G1 S1 S1 Moonwort Botrychium lunaria OR-SEN S S G5 S2 no status Mountain Grape-Fern Botrychium montanum OR-SEN S G3 S2 no status Twin-Spiked Moonwort Botrychium paradoxum SEN S S G2 S1 S2 Stalked Moonwort Botrychium pedunculosum SEN S G2G3 S1 S2 Broad-Fruit Mariposa-Lily Calochortus nitidus SEN S S G3 S1 S1 Rosy Pussypaws Calyptridium roseum SEN S G5 S1 S1 Abrupt-Beaked Sedge Carex abrupta OR-SEN S G5 S1 no status Blackened Sedge Carex atrosquama OR-SEN WA-STR S G4? S1 S1 Hairlike Sedge Carex capillaris SEN S G5 S2 S1 Cordilleran Sedge Carex cordillerana OR-SEN S GNR S2 no status Yellow Bog Sedge Carex dioica var. gynocrates SEN S G5 S1 S1 Idaho Sedge Carex idahoa OR-SEN S G2 S1 no status Slender Sedge Carex lasiocarpa var. americana OR-SEN S G5T5 S2 no status Intermediate Sedge Carex media SEN S G5 S1 S2 Spikenard Sedge Carex nardina OR-SEN S G4G5 S2? no status New Sedge Carex pelocarpa OR-SEN S G4G5 S1 no status G4G5T4T Pyrenaean Sedge Carex pyrenaica ssp. micropoda OR-SEN S S1 no status 5 Retrorse Sedge Carex retrorsa OR-SEN S G5 S1 no status

Appendices 3.3 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area Decision Decision G OR S Common Name Scientific Name ISSSSP Status1 Area WA S Rank Area OR2 Rank 3 Rank4 WA Dark Alpine Sedge Carex subnigricans OR-SEN S G5 S1 no status Native Sedge Carex vernacula OR-SEN S G5 S2 no status Fraternal Paintbrush Castilleja fraterna OR-SEN S G2 S2 no status Purple Alpine Paintbrush Castilleja rubida OR-SEN S G2 S2 no status Fee's Lip-Fern Cheilanthes feei SEN S D G5 S2 S1 Beaked Cryptantha Cryptantha rostellata WA-SEN S G4 no status S2 Steller's Rockbrake Cryptogramma stelleri SEN S G5 S1 S1S2 Cyperus Cyperus lupulinus ssp. Lupulinus OR-SEN S G5T5? S1 no status Clustered Lady's-Slipper Cypripedium fasciculatum SEN S S G4 S3 S3 Bolander's Spikerush Eleocharis bolanderi OR-SEN S G4 S2 no status White Cushion Erigeron Erigeron disparipilus OR-SEN S G5 S2 no status Engelmann's Daisy Erigeron engelmannii var. Davisii OR-SEN WA-STR S D G5T3 S1 S1 Slender-Stemmed Avens Geum rossii var. turbinatum OR-SEN S G5T4 S2 no status Salt Heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum OR-SEN S G5 S2 no status Three-Flowered Rush Juncus triglumis var. albescens OR-SEN S G5 S1 no status Bellard's Kobresia Kobresia bellardii OR-SEN S G5 S1 no status Simple Kobresia Kobresia simpliciuscula OR-SEN S G5 S1 no status Hazel's Prickly Phlox Leptodactylon pungens ssp. hazeliae no status S G5T2Q S1 no status Aristulate Lipocarpha Lipocarpha aristulata SEN S S G5? S1 S1 Northern Twayblade Listera borealis OR-SEN S G4 S1 no status Red-Fruited Lomatium Lomatium erythrocarpum OR-SEN S G1 S1 no status Ground Cedar Lycopodium complanatum OR-SEN S G5 S2 no status Membrane-Leaved Monkeyflower Mimulus hymenophyllus OR-SEN S G1 S1 no status Adder's-Tongue Ophioglossum pusillum SEN S G5 S1 S1S2 Bridges' Cliff-Brake Pellaea bridgesii OR-SEN S G4 S2 no status Variable Hot-Rock Penstemon Penstemon deustus var. variabilis WA-SEN OR-STR D S G5T1T2 S2 S1S2 Henderson's Phlox Phlox hendersonii OR-SEN S G4 S1 no status Many-Flowered Phlox Phlox multiflora OR-SEN S G4 S1 no status Chambers' Twinpod Physaria chambersii OR-SEN S G4 S2 no status Physaria didymocarpa var. Common Twinpod WA-SEN S G5T4 no status S1 didymocarpa

Appendices 3.3 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area Decision Decision G OR S Common Name Scientific Name ISSSSP Status1 Area WA S Rank Area OR2 Rank 3 Rank4 WA Small Northern Bog-Orchid Platanthera obtusata SEN S G5 S1 S2 Oregon Semaphoregrass Pleuropogon oregonus OR-SEN S G1 S1 no status Idaho Gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. irriguum WA-SEN S G5T3T4 no status S2 Columbia Cress Rorippa columbiae SEN S S G3 S3 S1S2 Farr's Willow Salix farriae OR-SEN S G4 S2 no status Wolf's Willow Salix wolfii OR-SEN S S G5? S2 no status Wedge-Leaf Saxifrage Saxifraga adscendens ssp. oregonensis OR-SEN S S G5T4T5 S1 no status Violet Suksdorfia Suksdorfia violacea OR-SEN S G4 S1 no status Alpine Meadowrue Thalictrum alpinum OR-SEN S G5 S2 no status Arrow-Leaf Thelypody Thelypodium eucosmum OR-SEN S G2 S2 no status Mountain Townsendia Townsendia montana OR-SEN S G4 S1 no status Parry's Townsendia Townsendia parryi OR-SEN S G4? S1 no status Douglas' Clover Trifolium douglasii SEN S G2 S1 no status American Globeflower Trollius laxus var. albiflorus OR-SEN S G4T4 S1 no status Lesser Bladderwort Utricularia minor OR-SEN WA-STR S G5 S2 S2? 1. ISSSSP = Interagency Special Status – Sensitive Species Program: SEN = Sensitive in OR and WA OR-SEN = Sensitive in OR only WA-SEN = Sensitive in WA only STR = Strategic in OR and WA OR-STR = Strategic in OR only WA-STR = Strategic in WA only 2. D = Documented occurrence – A species located on land administered by the BLM or the Forest Service based on historic or current known sites of a species reported by a credible source for which BLM and the Forest Service has knowledge of written, mapped or specimen documentation of the occurrence. S = Suspected occurrence = Species is not documented on land administered by the BLM or the Forest Service, but may occur on the unit because: 1) BLM District or National Forest is considered to be within the species' range and 2) appropriate habitat is present or 3) known occurrence of the species (historic or current) in vicinity such that the species could occur on BLM or FS land. 3. GLOBAL RANK Global Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the element world-wide. Two codes (e.g. G1G2) represent an intermediate rank. G1 = Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer occurrences)

Appendices 3.3 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area Decision Decision G OR S Common Name Scientific Name ISSSSP Status1 Area WA S Rank Area OR2 Rank 3 Rank4 WA G2 = Imperiled globally (6 to 20 occurrences) G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences) G4 = Apparently secure globally G5 = Demonstrably secure globally GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range GU = Possibly in peril range-wide but status uncertain GX = Believed to be extinct throughout former range GNR = Not yet ranked Tn = Rarity of an infraspecific taxon. Numbers and codes similar to those for Gn ranks above. Q = Questionable 4. State Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment within the state of Oregon and Washington. Two codes (e.g. S1S2) represents an intermediate rank. S1 = Critically imperiled (5 or fewer occurrences) S2 = Imperiled (6 to 20 occurrences), very vulnerable to extirpation S3 = Rare or uncommon (21 to 100 occurrences) S4 = Apparently secure, with many occurrences S5 = Demonstrably secure in state SA = Accidental in state SE = An exotic established in state SH = Historical occurrences only but still expected to occur SN = Regularly occurring, usually migratory, nonbreeding animals SU = Unrankable; need more information SX = Apparently extirpated from the state

Appendices 3.3 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS APPENDIX 3.4 - FRAGSTATS ANALYSIS OF THE BAKER SUBPOPULATION OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

Broad-scale (First order) On a broad-scale, sage-grouse historically lived in the sagebrush-steppe regions of southern British Columbia, Canada, and throughout eastern Washington and Oregon (Schroeder et al 2004). However, because of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation available habitat for sage-grouse has declined to nearly half of what was historically documented (Aldridge et al 2008). Habitat loss has affected broad-scale population distribution with some areas experiencing a decline of 45-85 percent and site-specific declines of 17-92 percent (Connelly and Braun 1997, Braun 1998, Connelly et al. 2000, Aldridge and Brigham 2003, Connelly et al. 2004).

Mid-scale (Second order) Stiver et al. (2006) identified seven sage-grouse management zones (MZ) which are considered mid-scale and conform to seven clusters of habitat and populations described in Connelly et al. 2004 from Kuchler (1970) West (1983) and Miller and Eddleman (2001) publications. On a mid- scale analysis level, the Decision Area has two sage-grouse subpopulations (i.e. Baker and East Central). The Baker subpopulation is a part of the Snake River Plain MZ and is separated geographically from other sage-grouse subpopulations by Lookout Mountain topography (Stiever et al 2010). The southern portion of the Decision Area contains the East Central sage- grouse subpopulation. The East Central subpopulation is a part of the Northern Basin MZ (Sriever et al 2010). Lek counts indicate that that the Baker subpopulation is stable to decreasing and the East Central subpopulation is stable to increasing (Nick Myatt ODFW pers. com. 2010). Radio telemetry data was collected in 1993 and in 2009-2010 show no movement between the subpopulations. However, a small sample of wings analyzed by ODFW suggests that there is no significant genetic difference between the Baker and East Central subpopulations; indicating some degree of historic or current gene flow. Although there is speculation of gene flow between the Baker and East Central subpopulations the degree of flow is unknown.

Fine-scale (Third order) Using a fine-scale takes into account seasonal use areas and/or home ranges of sage-grouse associated with a lek or group of leks (Stiver et al 2010). Seasonal habitat availability, connectivity, and anthropogenic disturbances are also described at this scale. The main areas that have been fragmented within Decision Area have occurred on low-elevation private lands; where lands have been converted into non-native annual grasses. The extent of habitat 951fragmentation within the Planning Area has been quantified and reflected in Table XX.

Site-specific (Fourth order) Habitat suitability at the site-scale describes the more detailed vegetation of seasonal habitat characteristics such as canopy cover and height of sagebrush (nesting and wintering) and the associated understory vegetation (nesting, early-brooding), and vegetation associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush (late-

Appendices 3.4 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS brooding/summering) (Stiver et al 2010). No formal data has been quantified to determine the extent of occupied nesting, brooding, and wintering habitat within the Decision Area. However, due to the steepness and vegetation mapping indices demonstrate that are 172,779 acres of key habitat that are capable of supporting the structural needs for optimal to suboptimal life history requirements (BLM 2010).

Sage-grouse habitats and populations in the Planning Area are at the most northern periphery of this species and thought to be spatially isolated from other adjoining Oregon sage-grouse sub- populations (Hagen 2005). Greater sage-grouse breed, nest, rear young, and winter in suitable sagebrush steppe habitats within the Decision Area, specifically within the Keating, Virtue Flat, Richland, Durkee/Pleasant Valley, Huntington, and Denny Flat areas. These populations occur at the northern extent of the species range in northeastern Oregon (ODFW 2005). See Map 3.10 for the location of sage-grouse habitat in both the Decision and Planning areas.

Adult sage-grouse are closely tied to a sagebrush steppe ecosystem and are the only birds that primarily feed on sagebrush leaves throughout the year, with their winter diet being nearly 100 percent sagebrush (Hagen 2005, Bruan et al. 1977; Wallestad and Eng 1975). In the spring/summer months, their diet consists of 60-80 percent sagebrush, with the rest being made up of forbs such as sweet clover (Melilotus spp.), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), phlox (phlox spp.), and salsify (Tragopgon dubius) (Wallestad and Eng 1975; Braun et al.1977). In addition to being a food source, sagebrush is also an important source of thermal and hiding cover for sage-grouse (Braun et al. 1977).

Perennial grass is another important component for greater sage-grouse nests (Drut et al. 1994). Perennial grass provides additional hiding cover and a niche for insects to propagate, providing a food source for growing chicks (Popham and Gutierrez 2003; DeLong et al. 1995; Gregg et al. 1994).

Leks are traditional strutting/breeding grounds where males gather to mate and attract females, and are generally open areas adjacent to dense sagebrush stands (Braun et al 2005). Male sage- grouse display on leks for several hours in the early morning and evening between February and May and are routinely occupied from year to year. Lek sites are imprinted on sage-grouse at birth and may be used by grouse for decades, thus becoming traditional breeding area of congregation (Drut et al 1994). Lek sites that are lost through development/harassment may never be reestablished which may lead to low recruitment numbers (Hagen 2005).

Once the female has mated with a male at the lek site, she will then select a nesting area. Although an appropriate nesting site is typically found within 4 miles of the lek, the female sage- grouse may travel as far as 20 miles for her selected nesting area (ODFW 2005). Ideal nesting and brood rearing habitats for sage-grouse include good complement of deep-rooted perennial grasses plus a variety of annual and perennial forbs (i.e., wildflowers) that provide structure, food, cover, and scent barriers to potential predators (Klebenow 1969). Insects provide important protein sources for early brood rearing. The greatest nesting success occurs in

Appendices 3.4 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS sagebrush stands with 15-25 percent canopy densities, and seven or more inches of grass and forb understory (Popham and Gutierrez 2003; DeLong et al. 1995; Gregg et al. 1994). Winter use areas and late brood-rearing habitats may successfully support sage-grouse use at lower sagebrush canopy cover values of approximately 10 percent (Hagen 2005). Refer to Connelly et al. (2000) and Hagen (2005) for detailed information on sage-grouse life history requirements and risk factors.

Mid-scale (second order) habitat descriptions are linked to sag-grouse dispersal capabilities in population and subpopulation areas. These population areas have been geographically described in a general manner for the Greater (Connelly et al. 2004; Figure 12) and for Gunnison Sage- grouse (GSRSC 2005; Figure 1). A detailed description of the distribution of Greater Sage- grouse populations and subpopulations is described in the Conservation Assessment (Connelly et al. 2004). Second order descriptions are generally appropriate for subpopulations.

The mix of sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush patches on the landscape at the second order also provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse dispersal needs. The configuration of sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover or land use between the habitat patches within a subpopulation defines suitability. Landscape suitability at the mid-scale for subpopulations can generally be described by the following scenarios:

Suitable habitats within landscapes have connected mosaics of sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush that allow for dispersal movements across subpopulations. Anthropogenic disturbances that can disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are generally not wide-spread or are absent.

Marginal habitats within landscapes have patchy, fragmented or low quality sagebrush shrublands (cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) or medusahead (Taeniatherum caput- medusae) in the understory) or grasslands/sagebrush that are not well connected for dispersal between portions of subpopulations. Anthropogenic disturbances that disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are common throughout all or portions of the landscape.

Unsuitable habitat within landscapes are formerly shrubland habitat dominated by shrubs and converted to primarily grass dominated shrubland or shrubland dominated by trees, or perennial grassland dominated with sagebrush converted to other uses. Resulting habitats are predominantly or nearly unoccupied. The area has potential to become occupied in the foreseeable future through succession or restoration.

There are three significant second order habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal and movement across subpopulation areas:

Availability of sagebrush habitat (size and number of habitat patches). Connectivity of habitat patches (vegetation structure characteristics of linkage areas between patches).

Appendices 3.4 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS Landscape matrix in which patches are imbedded and resulting fragmentation (habitat fragmentation - scope of unsuitable and non-habitats and intensity of anthropogenic features between habitat patches).

The threshold metrics for these indicators are not completely known and it is likely that the relationships among indicators confound thresholds. Consistently describing subpopulation areas using these indicators across the range of the species may provide insights important in conservation planning. Comparing changes in mid-scale over time (e.g., between existing conditions and those of an earlier reference period) provides information on habitat trends. These indicators include: A) reference period, B) habitat availability, patch size and connectivity, C) landscape matrix, linkage areas and patch edges, and D) anthropogenic disturbances.

Habitat suitability thresholds are poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004) at the mid-scale of habitat selection (Connelly et al. 2004). Quantifying existing habitat conditions using the four sets of indicators and population monitoring will help reveal habitat and population relationships and comparing existing conditions over time, or reference period, and could be helpful for describing habitat trends associated with second order indicators.

Habitat availability, patch size and connectivity are primary components of suitability in mid- scale analysis. Generally, the larger and more contiguous the sagebrush patches of a subpopulation, the greater the suitability for this indicator. The amount of occupied habitat within the landscape matrix of non-habitat and unsuitable habitat is important to describe. In some areas, the ratio of suitable to marginal to unsuitable habitat would be an important conservation statistic for measuring habitat restoration progress. Whether the available habitat is contained in one large habitat patch or several patches could influence sage-grouse use and dispersal between subpopulations.

Dispersal could be uninterrupted in large habitat patches, whereas movement between patches may be disrupted, depending on the configuration of the patches and landscape matrix in which they are imbedded. The closer the suitable habitat patches are to each other, the more likely sage- grouse can freely move between them.

Habitat linkage and patch edges forming a matrix on the landscape can greatly influence habitat use and dispersal within and between occupied areas. The landscape context in which also on the likelihood that the habitat patches will persist into the future (Morrison et al. 1998). Barriers that compromise sage-grouse movements between habitat patches are not completely understood and are variable (Connelly et al. 1988, Beck et al. 2006, Leonard et al. 2000).

The cover type or land use immediately adjacent to a habitat patch can affect the quality of that patch suitable as sage-grouse habitat. As previously stated, when shrub cover increases and tree cover decreases in adjacent cover types, the likelihood that birds will disperse through those areas increases (Morrison et al. 1998). Adjacent land cover types also differ in: (1) mortality risks posed to birds occupying the habitat patch, (2) influence on existing patch quality and (3)

Appendices 3.4 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS influence on patch and habitat persistence. As the proportion of suitable habitat in contact with adjacent land cover types increases, habitat patch suitability also increases. This is termed positive edge. Edge effects associated with roads and other linear anthropogenic features within habitat patches are discussed later as a component of fragmentation within the habitat patch.

Anthropogenic disturbances influence sage-grouse habitat, numbers and distribution at each order of habitat selection. Anthropogenic features can affect sage-grouse productivity in two significant ways:

Anthropogenic features may directly and indirectly cause mortality, which can then affect the long-term sustainability of the subpopulation. The mortality significance of the features depends on their scope and intensity. However, an increase in anthropogenic features in otherwise suitable habitat increases the probability that the habitat will become a sink rather than a source habitat (Aldridge 2005). Effects of the human footprint may not be readily apparent in the immediate population response, but over time, and if the scope and intensity of these features increase, there will likely be a negative impact on population trend (Connelly et al 2004, Aldridge 2005, Holloran 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005).

Sage-grouse eventually avoid areas with a high density of anthropogenic features even if site- scale conditions are suitable (Connelly et al. 2004). While there is still much to learn about dispersal and home range selection process, there is mounting evidence that sage-grouse are sensitive to human disturbances and will avoid areas they once used if those areas have been altered by anthropogenic features that exceed some threshold (Connelly et al. 2004, Aldridge 2005, Holloran 2005). The anthropogenic feature thresholds that affect these selection processes likely vary depending on type of use, seasons of use, intensity of use, topography, and other factors. However, if these changes occur quickly on the landscape, sage-grouse may not recognize the risks associated with these features and may not show an immediate avoidance response (Aldridge 2005, Aldridge and Boyce 2007). A summary of metric descriptions can be seen on Table 3.14

Table 3.14. Mid-scale habitat indicators and relationship to habitat suitability for sage-grouse habitats according to Stiver et al. (2010) Habitat Indicators Metric Description Relationship to Habitat Suitability The more sagebrush relative to potential habitat 1. Habitat Availability The amount of sagebrush in a habitat area. the greater the area suitability. Generally, the larger and more contiguous the 2. Patch Size and The average size of habitat patches and the habitat patches relative to the area the greater Number number of patches within the area. suitability of the area. As linkage areas between habitat patches The average distance from one habitat increase in shrub cover rather than tree or 3. Patch Connectivity patch to the nearest similar patch within grass/forb cover, habitat suitability increases. the area. Presence of anthropogenic features between patches also decease linkage area suitability. 4. Landscape Matrix The amount of edge in contact with plant As the amount of sagebrush edge in contact with and Edge Effect communities or land uses with positive or plant communities or land uses that positively

Appendices 3.4 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS Table 3.14. Mid-scale habitat indicators and relationship to habitat suitability for sage-grouse habitats according to Stiver et al. (2010) Habitat Indicators Metric Description Relationship to Habitat Suitability negative influence on the habitat patch. influence shrub land patch habitat increases, the landscape matrix and edge suitability increases. The fragmentation of contiguous sagebrush patches in the area through land As the number and intensity of anthropogenic 5. Anthropogenic use changes in infrastructure development. features within the habitat patches in the area Disturbances Measured as the number, length, or area decreases, suitability increases. (or area of influence) of embedded anthropogenic features per unit patch area.

For this analysis, the BLM looked at a mid-scale habitat indicators and the relationship to habitat suitability for sage-grouse using FRAGSTATS 3.3, which is a computer software program designed to compute a wide variety of landscape metrics for categorical map patterns. One way the BLM ran FRAGSTATS was by utilizing a 50 foot buffer and showing the results without differentiation between habitat and non-habitat for sage-grouse, and showing fragmentation as a whole. The results for all habitat types shows that the Planning Area had a lower number of patches per area (10.53) than the Baker and East Central Oregon subpopulations as a whole, which had 13.71 patches per area. This means that within the Planning Area, there is less fragmentation than there is for both subpopulations in their entirety. FRAGSTATS also showed that between the two subpopulations for all habitat types, the Baker subpopulation has less fragmentation (9.73 patches per area) than the East Central Oregon subpopulation (13.81 patches per area).

The second way BLM ran FRAGSTATS was by utilizing a 50 foot buffer and showing the results with differentiation between habitat and non-habitat areas for sage-grouse, and showing fragmentation as a whole. The results for habitat versus non-habitat types showed that the Planning Area had a greater number of patches per area (62,766) than the Baker and East Central Oregon subpopulations as a whole, which had 13,569 patches per area. This means that within the Planning Area, there is greater fragmentation than there is for both subpopulations in their entirety. FRAGSTATS also showed that between the two subpopulations for habitat versus non- habitat the Baker subpopulation had greater fragmentation (9,348 patches per area) than the East Central Oregon subpopulation (5,355 patches per area)

For example, FRAGSTATS computes several simple statistics representing the number or density of patches, the average size of patches, and the variation in patch size at the class and landscape levels. These metrics usually represent landscape configuration, even though the metrics are not spatially explicit measures. Number of patches or patch density of a particular habitat type may affect a variety of ecological processes, depending on the landscape context. For example, the number or density of patches may determine the number of subpopulations in a spatially-dispersed population for species exclusively associated with that habitat type. This program will help show habitat availability and fragmentation by showing patch connectivity, number of patches, and edge effects while considering anthropogenic disturbances.

Appendices 3.4 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS FRAGSTATS can be computed using a number of landscape metric indices. For this analysis the BLM has used the Shannon index, Simpsons evenness or diversity index, and contagion to figure patch connectivity, edge effects, and number of patches. The Shannon indextypically has a value index that ranges from 0 (low species richness and evenness) to 1 (high species evenness and richness)(FRAGSTATS 3.3). Because the Shannon Index gives a measure of both species numbers and the evenness of their abundance, the resulting figure does not give an absolute description of a sites biodiversity.

The Simpsons Evenness or diversity index is a statistic which is intended to measure the local members of a set consisting of various types of objects. This index can be used to assess the diversity of any population in which each member belongs to a unique group, type or species. The last metric that is taken into consideration is contagion. Like the Shannon index a typical value index range for Simpsons Evenness ranges from 0 (uniform in habitat or contiguous) to 1 (diverse habitat or fragmented).

Contagion refers to the tendency of patch types to be spatially aggregated; that is, to occur in large, aggregated or “contiguous” distributions. Contagion ignores patches and measures the extent to which cells of similar class are aggregated. Interspersion, on the other hand, refers to the intermixing of patches of different types and is based entirely on patch (as opposed to cell) adjacencies. There are several different approaches for measuring contagion and interspersion. This index increases in value as a landscape is dominated by a few large (i.e., contiguous) patches and decreases in value with increasing subdivision and interspersion of patch types. This index summarizes the aggregation of all classes and thereby provides a measure of overall connectivity of the landscape.

Appendices 3.4 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments APPENDIX 3.5: CURRENT LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS

Three selective management categories for allotments are shown: Custodial (C), Maintain (M), and Improve (I). All allotments were grouped into these categories according to management needs, resource conflicts, potential for improvement, and BLM funding and staffing constraints. The criteria below were used, starting in 1982, to classify the allotments.

Custodial (C) category allotments: In the Planning Area, these allotments consist of small parcels of public land intermingled with larger tracts of private and/or state land. Due to the small amounts of public land involved in these allotments, often with limited public access, custodial management is followed as long as resource conditions and values are protected. Other criteria for “C” Category allotments are: Limited resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. Opportunities for positive economic return on public investment do not exist or are constrained by technological or economic factors. Present management appears satisfactory or is the only logical practice under existing resource conditions. Present range condition is not a factor. Allotments have low forage production potential and are producing near their potential

Maintain (M) category allotments: The BLM actively manages “M” category allotments to maintain current satisfactory resource conditions and to ensure that resource values do not decline. In these allotments, current conditions are termed satisfactory or the allotment contains few if any sensitive resources. Although some investment in time or money would be justified in these allotments, they are not as high a priority as “I” category allotments. Criteria for “M” category allotments include: No serious resource-use conflicts/controversies exist. Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investments. Present management appears satisfactory. Present range condition is satisfactory. Allotments have moderate or high forage production potential and are producing near their potential (or trend is moving in that direction).

Improve (I) category allotments: The BLM manages allotments in the “I” category to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and grant them the highest priority for funding and management actions. These allotments are either in unsatisfactory condition or contain significant sensitive resources, making them the BLM’s highest priority for monitoring and range improvements. Criteria for “I” category allotments include: Serious resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. Opportunities exist for positive economic return from public investments.

Appendices 3.5 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Present management appears unsatisfactory. Present range condition is unsatisfactory. Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential and are producing at low to moderate levels.

In 2009, Washington Office Instruction Memo No. 2009-018 provided new guidance by specifying that the criteria for selective management categories must now be modified to be consistent with rangeland health standards (see Rangeland Health Standards in Appendix 3.6). The new criteria, to be applied along with the criteria listed above, are:

Category C: Allotments where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the forage in the allotment or are less than 10 percent of the land area. An allotment should generally not be designated Category C if the public land in the allotment contains: 1) critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species, 2) wetlands negatively affected by livestock grazing.

Category M: Allotments where land health standards are met or where livestock grazing on public land is not a significant causal factor for not meeting the standards and current livestock management is in conformance with guidelines. Allotments where an evaluation of land health standards has not been completed, but existing monitoring data indicates that resource conditions are satisfactory.

Category I: Allotments where current livestock grazing management or level of use on public land is, or is expected to be, a significant causal factor in the non-achievement of land health standards, or where a change in mandatory terms and conditions in the grazing authorization is or may be necessary. When identifying Category I allotments, review condition of critical habitat, conflicts with sage-grouse, and whether projects have been proposed specifically for implementing the Healthy Lands Initiative.

Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 00057 Lobo (Usfs) C 10 0 160 15,611 01003 Cave Creek I 789 314 4837 1048 01004 Durkee I 1031 1244 9597 1657 01005 Woods Gulch M 28 42 291 304 01006 Huntington I 1980 90 9942 2223 01007 School Section I 63 0 587 0 01008 Lime Plant C 48 0 287 1546 01009 Slaughterhouse Mountain M 110 0 779 23 01010 West Highway C 30 0 174 1909 01011 South Durbin Creek I 168 0 794 3 01012 Cavanaugh Creek C 16 0 125 4101 01013 Benson Creek I 858 0 3255 105 01014 Freeway M 122 0 518 253 01015 East Table Mountain M 168 20 1266 655

Appendices 3.5 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 01016 Table Mountain I 2197 0 6992 280 01017 Burned I 343 0 1292 58 01018 Upper Durbin Creek I 197 0 938 464 01019 Marshall Creek I 23 31 194 1877 01020 Dixie Creek I 404 236 2748 1331 01021 Pedro Mountain M 552 272 2655 8801 01022 Bowman Flat I 65 0 292 94 01023 Rattlesnake Gulch I 92 0 405 298 01024 Upper Shirttail Creek M 111 33 488 247 01025 Baldy Mountain C 10 0 89 495 01026 North Dixie Creek I 193 0 1140 2106 01027 Lost Basin C 282 0 1564 6348 01028 Upper Cave Creek C 27 0 64 885 01029 True Blue Gulch C 14 0 46 2072 01030 Hollowfield Canyon M 42 0 271 364 01031 Shirttail Creek M 152 4 803 848 01032 French Creek I 143 0 969 1113 01033 Fur Mountain C 48 22 323 1317 01034 Clough Gulch C 2 0 20 412 01035 Upper Clough Gulch C 35 0 92 506 01036 Weatherby Mountain C 28 0 221 1777 01037 Rye Valley I 263 0 1850 140 01038 Beaver Creek M 47 0 366 644 01039 Turner Gulch I 485 190 3526 469 01040 Little Valley I 695 0 3181 1607 01041 Cinder Butte M 243 0 1503 1358 01043 Whiskey Gulch C 27 27 75 420 01044 Juniper Mountain I 316 0 2085 505 01045 Jordan Creek C 91 0 695 818 01046 Durkee Timber M 122 0 861 1290 01048 Nodine Creek I 684 373 2882 6171 01049 Lower Manning Creek C 40 0 525 3186 01050 North Swayze Creek M 24 46 323 77 01051 Alder Creek C 13 0 164 395 01052 Vandecar C 107 0 683 3684 01053 Spring Gulch C 7 0 41 198 01054 Pipeline C 12 0 117 110 01055 North Manning Creek M 50 58 528 503 01056 Horseshoe M 7 43 167 19 01057 Hibbard Creek C 24 0 100 232 01058 Plano School C 6 0 38 107 01059 Iron Gulch C 16 0 167 1631 01062 Powell Creek C 39 0 439 3282 01063 Bayhorse C 36 0 289 1134 01064 Gold Creek I 41 0 329 3832 01065 Pearce Gulch C 6 0 65 583 01066 Farewell Bend M 162 0 679 304

Appendices 3.5 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 01067 Tunnel C 4 0 19 55 01068 Morgan Mountain I 846 927 4897 56 01069 Sisley Creek I 832 920 5372 413 01070 Wells Basin I 331 448 1387 0 01071 Homestead Meadows C 11 0 142 797 01072 Summit Spring I 358 232 975 0 01318 Mormon Basin M 857 1003 9874 2605 01320 Mill Gulch M 70 130 1046 640 01326 Brinker Creek C 2 0 52 513 01327 Meyer Gulch C 17 13 284 2889 01329 Devil's Canyon C 60 20 498 1501 01330 Juniper Hill C 22 0 234 2195 01333 Marble Creek C 8 0 65 1132 02001 Miller Creek C 12 0 125 248 02002 Sunnyslope C 51 54 472 2159 02003 Powder River C 35 0 210 0 02004 Five Mile M 150 135 1210 67 02005 Second Creek M 450 0 2918 44 02006 Crystal Palace C 19 0 151 790 02007 Sardine Creek C 104 20 554 2305 02008 River Individual C 66 11 287 1867 02010 Bone Gulch C 5 0 201 900 02011 Beagle Creek C 7 10 120 739 02012 Big Creek M 282 264 3133 16 02013 Highway #203 C 4 8 119 743 02015 Magpie Peak M 448 308 2178 896 02016 East Tucker Creek C 2 0 45 487 02017 West Magpie Peak C 123 57 758 1297 02019 Salt Creek I 343 26 1964 2366 02020 Crews Creek M 420 169 2867 958 02021 Seeding M 150 0 397 0 02023 Upper Pittsburg I 36 0 334 6 02024 Table Rock I 286 237 1791 150 02025 Upper Spring Creek I 80 55 520 0 02026 East Spring Creek C 12 0 98 240 02027 West Balm Creek M 25 17 186 6 02028 Sawmill Creek I 35 5 183 0 02030 Lower Powder M 78 0 569 39 02031 Bulldozer M 1332 0 3965 342 02032 Goose Creek I 268 84 2204 348 02033 Lower Salt Creek C 26 0 260 475 02034 Love Creek M 180 212 1805 87 02035 Waterspout I 374 232 1842 0 02036 Table Mountain I 52 47 602 0 02037 Balm Creek I 262 334 3926 25 02038 West Goose Creek C 4 0 131 14 02040 Spring Creek I 94 99 1470 0

Appendices 3.5 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 02041 Lower Sawmill I 41 0 262 292 02042 Lower Houghton Creek M 117 0 315 0 02043 Upper Big Creek C 2 25 118 485 02044 North Table Mountain C 2 26 120 1512 02048 Upper Clover Creek I 116 22 934 272 02049 Lower Spring Creek I 78 0 1139 127 02050 Upper Ritter Creek M 525 0 2901 4 02051 Gale Place C 11 0 45 717 02055 Clover Creek I 105 37 965 202 02060 Farley Hills C 45 75 483 3030 02062 Magpie Creek C 9 31 157 3209 02063 Upper Crews Creek C 16 24 201 2595 02064 North Sparta C 2 0 19 1 02065 Town Gulch C 2 0 27 443 02067 Ranch Creek C 36 19 225 872 02068 Rosebud Mine C 6 0 124 509 02069 Lone Pine Mountain C 30 27 293 3064 02070 Summit Pasture M 110 92 1336 419 02071 Mccann Springs I 450 0 1771 0 02073 Oregon Trail C 40 25 403 1720 02074 Pritchard Creek I 1665 1304 13539 922 02075 Unity Creek C 89 4 565 1474 02076 Pritchard Flat C 47 20 433 6459 02077 Ritter Creek M 154 12 781 382 02078 North Flagstaff M 175 0 1370 0 02079 South Flagstaff C 8 0 164 631 02080 Flagstaff C 6 0 75 802 02081 Upper Houghton Creek M 87 0 332 35 02083 Big Rattlesnake C 16 5 176 1303 02084 Powder River Canyon I 102 95 1132 152 02085 West Clover Creek M 95 61 534 0 02086 White Swan Mine C 65 40 467 161 02087 First Creek C 66 17 681 4007 02092 Canyon Creek C 8 34 198 1514 02094 North Bacher C 33 0 139 0 02095 Homesite C 11 0 80 304 02096 Virtue Flat C 40 37 229 2310 02097 Dry Gulch C 6 0 41 1080 02099 Virtue Hills M 450 200 4106 3913 02100 Encina C 2 0 42 554 02101 Quartz Creek C 4 0 42 1027 02102 North Sardine Creek C 19 18 178 322 02103 Lawrence Creek C 9 1 55 730 02105 Love Pasture M 400 0 1251 28 02106 Christy Springs C 31 0 199 508 02108 Keating Highway M 600 0 4348 0 02109 Ruckles Creek M 900 0 5885 397

Appendices 3.5 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 02111 Bacher Creek I 116 0 735 1062 02112 Maiden Gulch C 99 0 1088 2197 02114 Little Lookout C 77 17 929 10727 02115 Tucker Creek I 260 0 1452 571 02116 East Balm Creek I 100 158 1100 4 02118 Fruit Springs C 30 0 480 1316 02120 Pleasant Valley C 28 0 189 1423 02121 East Pleasant Valley M 88 0 380 81 02127 Kelly Creek M 220 0 1714 16 02128 Risley Butte M 380 50 2540 572 02129 Chalk Bluff M 90 0 665 334 02130 Lyle Creek C 24 0 290 5168 02132 Kuykendahl Creek C 4 0 40 294 02139 West Crews C 13 0 83 563 02142 North Ridley Creek C 4 0 40 474 02347 Indian Country C 43 0 117 0 03001 Pine Valley I 1969 2196 25143 7268 03002 Immigrant Gulch M 472 154 6968 48 03003 Ruth Gulch M 662 840 9416 387 03004 Doyle Gulch I 136 136 1920 236 03005 Hunsaker Creek I 136 44 3106 520 03006 Homestead M 310 260 5691 1817 03007 Copperfield I 52 103 2625 875 03008 Bear Wallow C 64 37 680 71 03009 Hooker Flat C 56 0 547 47 03010 Sunset C 4 0 39 198 03011 Park C 33 0 316 652 03012 Squaw Creek I 302 100 4092 184 03014 Timber Canyon M 500 230 5622 191 03015 Daly Creek I 160 145 1610 1956 03016 Burnside C 36 0 358 4695 03017 Sheep Mountain C 10 0 99 7724 03018 Road Gulch M 168 82 1652 68 03019 Deer Gulch C 3 0 40 0 03021 Crow Reservior C 112 0 1136 4063 03022 Foster Gulch I 150 150 1656 2827 03024 Horseshoe C 10 9 93 206 03025 Maiden Gulch C 22 11 354 949 03026 Soda Creek I 930 420 10211 8700 03027 Canyon Creek C 4 0 39 752 03028 Keystone Mine C 30 12 150 83 03029 Dry Gulch I 184 171 2015 556 03030 Lower Timber Canyon C 18 0 179 774 03031 Upper Dry Gulch C 35 0 447 2135 03033 Lookout Mountain C 12 0 195 4419 03037 Daly Creek Individual C 70 60 842 5905 03040 Bear Wallow Ridge C 2 0 20 130

Appendices 3.5 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 03041 West Fork C 4 0 40 40 03042 Greener C 4 0 40 285 03043 Longbranch C 5 0 54 737 03045 Mclean Gulch C 14 11 132 1594 03047 New Bridge C 14 0 125 686 03048 Sag Creek C 8 0 63 0 03049 Barnard Creek M 100 100 1811 121 05080 Thief Valley C 18 0 125 2215 05133 Riverdale Hill C 13 0 137 7122 05138 Bulger Flat C 4 0 41 1602 05210 Beaverdam Creek C 3 0 34 354 05220 Whitted Ditch C 8 4 78 737 05222 Meadow Creek C 4 6 39 0 05225 Job Creek C 7 0 77 194 05226 Cow Creek C 12 0 180 604 05227 Copper Creek C 28 22 317 2048 05228 Sunflower Flat C 16 9 160 0 05230 Middle Fork C 12 0 121 0 05233 Bullrun C 4 0 26 223 05234 Reed Creek C 34 0 325 0 05235 North Fork C 40 20 388 456 05236 Cottonwood Creek C 32 0 193 1864 05238 Short Creek C 8 0 38 836 05304 Titus C 29 0 123 196 05311 Elk Creek M 225 20 1764 4370 05312 Juniper Gulch C 40 7 354 991 05313 Poker Gulch C 130 0 1308 1252 05315 Willow Creek C 4 0 40 152 05319 Trail Creek M 72 38 565 1332 05321 Auburn C 136 0 2801 3985 05332 Hill Creek C 15 0 147 0 05334 Old Auburn C 7 0 60 593 05335 Blue Canyon C 32 0 159 160 05336 Upper Hill Creek C 2 0 62 1273 05337 Koontz Creek C 3 0 31 860 05339 South Fork Burnt River C 20 0 119 0 05340 Little Field C 4 0 41 0 05342 Log Creek C 16 0 65 389 06501 Potters Creek C 20 0 38 1186 06502 Imnaha River C 2 0 38 8424 06503 Grande Ronde Rm39 M 3 12 181 1052 06504 Joseph Creek C 28 0 609 2351 06505 Sickfoot Creek M 3 0 83 320 06506 Grande Ronde Rm27 C 40 0 113 2652 06508 Battle Mountain C 5 0 40 768 06509 Grande Ronde Rm50 C 35 0 361 8672 06514 Grande Ronde Rm23 M 9 2 198 3283

Appendices 3.5 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 06515 Wenaha East C 5 0 37 149 06516 Grande Ronde Rm28 M 39 0 270 1427 06517 Grande Ronde Rm30 I 10 20 1085 42 06518 Grande Ronde Rm58 M 72 0 434 701 06521 Cold Springs C 6 0 40 0 06522 Gurdane C 2 0 15 5079 06523 Telocaset Road C 6 0 80 854 06524 Grande Ronde Rm183 M 24 0 247 3378 06528 Starkey C 8 0 40 2160 06530 Johnson Creek C 10 0 92 1952 06531 Butter & Snipe Creek C 24 0 236 25209 06534 Five Points (Usfs) C 18 0 206 21017 06536 Grande Ronde Rm34 M 9 0 54 7657 06537 Catherine Creek (Usfs) C 7 0 81 22381 06538 Rock Creek Road C 22 0 163 2445 06540 High Valley C 12 0 109 749 06542 Grande Ronde Rm53 M 43 0 381 6827 06543 Grande Ronde Rm61 C 72 0 626 1418 06544 Grande Ronde Rm25 I 345 1 4722 20312 06546 Shaw Mountain C 16 0 331 4661 06548 Courtney Creek C 19 0 526 1483 06550 Fisk Reservoir C 7 0 120 3363 06551 Wallupa Creek East M 48 0 466 1291 06554 Fisher Gulch M 45 0 525 3050 06556 Downey Lake C 42 0 165 2084 06557 Wallupa Creek West M 19 0 282 845 06558 Light Ridge C 67 0 713 523 06559 Joseph Canyon C 30 0 361 4270 06561 Box Canyon C 27 0 250 0 06564 Precious Lands C 389 0 978 11404 06568 Carney Butte C 16 0 80 560 06569 Cable Creek I 283 0 1444 8173 06572 Grande Ronde Rm35 M 26 0 1593 2612 06574 Courtney Butte I 83 0 524 1462 06575 Little Catherine Creek M 28 0 276 11220 06578 Grande Ronde Rm59 M 42 0 446 586 06579 Ward Butte C 12 0 281 10983 06582 Wenaha West C 9 0 79 597 06583 Grande Ronde Rm42 M 9 0 81 417 06587 Rattlesnake Hill C 20 0 173 4673 06588 Ukiah Dale Wayside C 13 0 119 4369 06589 Seven Diamond C 40 0 210 21727 06593 Grande Ronde R41mr C 7 0 47 1819 06594 Grande Ronde Rm411 M 9 0 478 422 06597 Medical Springs C 8 0 80 325 06598 Tamarack Mountain M 34 0 700 10397 06599 Charlestown C 5 0 81 0

Appendices 3.5 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 06600 Albee C 5 0 40 643 06602 Grande Ronde Rm20 C 16 0 234 2696 06607 Juniper Canyon C 287 0 3653 14192 06608 Vansycle Canyon C 8 0 41 205 06611 Elkanah C 6 0 40 1473 06613 Tucker Flat C 3 0 39 777 06614 Wallowa River Rm6 M 21 0 195 837 06616 Horse Creek C 100 0 802 8483 06617 Flora I 118 0 865 2131 06618 Ladd Canyon C 12 0 80 4480 06619 Barlow Butte C 6 0 40 8220 06620 Orion C 6 0 40 2105 06629 Pondosa C 22 0 149 1000 06631 Upper Courtney Creek M 27 0 164 1064 11001 Snake River I 661 956 10954 2376 11002 Iron Mountain I 867 192 4746 273 11061 Weatherby Station C 17 0 55 1549 11301 South Bridgeport I 938 1472 16291 1405 11302 North Bridgeport I 626 320 11150 12263 15001 Coyote Point C 45 0 359 2827 15201 Brannon Gulch I 195 135 3240 3283 15202 Brown Rocks C 72 10 1333 4030 15203 Big Creek C 8 0 78 411 15204 Hawry Flat I 54 67 1008 1674 15205 North Hereford C 35 15 345 0 15206 Whipple Gulch M 121 0 1228 9203 15207 Hereford Valley C 8 0 80 709 15208 Camp Ditch C 8 0 78 163 15209 Camp Creek M 140 92 2723 32 15211 King Mountain C 28 37 578 2509 15212 Rock Creek C 10 0 110 188 15213 Tiger C 7 0 68 0 15214 Cornet Creek C 24 0 227 0 15215 Denny Flat I 376 660 7244 302 15217 Elms Reservior C 12 0 117 1632 15218 Junction C 112 0 157 483 15219 Ripley Gulch C 32 18 336 1521 15223 Upper Meadow Creek C 14 0 194 5171 15224 China Creek C 8 0 64 0 15303 Lindsay Mountain M 100 56 975 468 15305 Hooker Gulch C 7 0 42 663 15306 Dogtown Creek C 10 10 95 2239 15307 Ebell Creek C 20 0 120 1633 15310 South Baker C 28 12 280 611 15317 Rancheria Creek C 8 0 70 423 15322 Stack Creek C 5 0 58 724 15323 Wendt Butte C 84 88 833 0

Appendices 3.5 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments Allotment Mgmt. Permitted Suspended Other Allotment Name BLM Acres Number Category AUMs AUMs Acres 15324 West Fork Burnt River C 8 0 68 0 15325 Towne Gulch C 32 0 160 1213 15326 First Road C 20 0 199 0 15327 Mahogany C 8 0 135 0 15328 French Gulch C 4 0 40 238 15329 North Fork Burnt River C 4 0 30 0 15330 King Ranch C 4 0 40 0 15331 Jingles Canyon C 4 0 40 0 15332 Denny Creek C 4 0 20 0 TOTALS 47,000 21,160 392,801 667,541

Appendices 3.5 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides APPENDIX 3.6: STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

Table of Contents

A. Introduction ...... 1

B. Fundamentals of Rangeland Health ...... 1

C. Standards for Rangeland Health ...... 2

D. Standards and Guidelines in Relation to the Planning Process ...... 3 1. Indicators of Rangeland Health ...... 3 2. Assessments and Monitoring ...... 4 3. Measurability ...... 5 4. Implementation ...... 5

E. Standards for Rangeland Health ...... 6 Standard 1: Watershed Function – Uplands ...... 6 Standard 2: Watershed Function – Riparian/Wetland Areas ...... 7 Standard 3: Ecological Processes ...... 8 Standard 4: Water Quality ...... 10 Standard 5: Native, Threatened and Endangered, and Locally Important Species ...... 10

F. Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management ...... 11 1. General Guidelines ...... 11 2. Livestock Grazing Management ...... 11 3. Facilitating the Management of Livestock Grazing ...... 12 4. Accelerating Rangeland Recovery ...... 13

G. Rangelands Glossary ...... 13

Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides APPENDIX 3.6: STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

A. INTRODUCTION

These Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington were developed in consultation with resource advisory councils and provincial advisory committees, tribes, and others. These standards and guidelines meet the requirements and intent of 43 CFR, Subpart 4180, Rangeland Health, and are to be used as presented, in their entirety. These standards and guidelines are intended to provide a clear statement of agency policy and direction for those who use public land for livestock grazing, and for those who are responsible for their management and accountable for their condition. Nothing in this document should be interpreted as an abrogation of Federal trust responsibilities in protection of treaty rights of Indian tribes or any other statutory responsibilities including, but not limited to, the Taylor Grazing Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.

B. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

The objectives of the rangeland health regulations referred to above are: “…to promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to properly functioning conditions . . . and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands.”

To help meet these objectives, the regulations on rangeland health identify fundamental principles providing direction to the states, districts, and on-the-ground public land managers and users in the management and use of rangeland ecosystems.

A hierarchy, or order, of ecological function and process exists within each ecosystem. The rangeland ecosystem consists of four primary, interactive components: a physical component, a biological component, a social component, and an economic component. This perspective implies that the physical function of an ecosystem supports the biological health, diversity and productivity of that system. In turn, the interaction of the physical and biological components of the ecosystem provides the basic needs of society and supports economic use and potential.

The fundamentals of rangeland health stated in 43 CFR 4180 are: 1. Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage and the release of water that are in

Appendices 3.6 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity and the timing and duration of flow. 2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow, are maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy biotic populations and communities. 3. Water quality complies with state water quality standards and achieves, or is making significant progress toward achieving, established BLM objectives such as meeting wildlife needs. 4. Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for Federal threatened and endangered species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal candidates, and other special status species.

The fundamentals of rangeland health combine the basic precepts of physical function and biological health with elements of law relating to water quality, and plant and animal populations and communities. They provide direction in the development and implementation of the standards for rangeland health.

C. STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH

The standards for rangeland health (standards), based on the above fundamentals, are expressions of the physical and biological condition or degree of function necessary to sustain healthy rangeland ecosystems. Although the focus of these standards is on domestic livestock grazing on BLM-administered land, on-the-ground decisions must consider the effects and impacts of all uses.

Standards that address the physical components of rangeland ecosystems focus on the roles and interactions of geology and landform, soil, climate, and water as they govern watershed function and soil stability. The biological components addressed in the standards focus on the roles and interactions of plants, animals, and microbes (producers, consumers, and decomposers), and their habitats in the ecosystem. The biological component of rangeland ecosystems is supported by physical function of the system, and it is recognized that biological activity also influences and supports many of the ecosystem’s physical functions. Guidance contained in 43 CFR 4180 of the regulations directs management toward the maintenance or restoration of the physical function and biological health of rangeland ecosystems. Focusing on the basic ecological health and function of rangelands is expected to provide for the maintenance, enhancement, or creation of future social and economic options.

The standards are based on the ecological potential and capability of each site. In assessing a site’s condition or degree of function, it must be understood that the evaluation compares each site to its own potential or capability. Potential and capability are defined as follows: Potential ~ the highest level of condition or degree of function a site can attain given no political, social or economic constraints.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides Capability ~ the highest level of condition or degree of function a site can attain given certain political, social or economic constraints. For example, these constraints might include riparian areas permanently occupied by a highway or railroad bed that prevent the stream’s full access to its original floodplain. If such constraints are removed, the site may be able to move toward its potential.

In designing and implementing management strategies to meet the standards of rangeland health, the potential of the site must be identified, and any constraints recognized, in order that plan goals and objectives are realistic and physically and economically achievable.

D. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN RELATION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS

The standards apply to the goals of land use plans, activity plans, and project plans (AMP’s), annual operating plans, habitat management plans, etc. They establish the physical and biological conditions or degree of function toward which management of publicly-owned rangeland is to be directed. In the development of a plan, direction provided by the standards and the social and economic needs expressed by local communities and individuals are brought together in formulating the goal(s) of that plan.

When the standards and the social and economic goals of the planning participants are woven together in the plan goal(s), the quantifiable, time-specific objective(s) of the plan are then developed. Objectives describe and quantify the desired future conditions to be achieved within a specified timeframe. Each plan objective should address the physical, biological, social, and economic elements identified in the plan goal.

Standards apply to all ecological sites and landforms on public rangelands throughout Oregon and Washington. The standards require site-specific information for full on-the-ground usability.

For each standard, a set of indicators is identified for use in tailoring the standards to site-specific situations. These indicators are used for rangeland ecosystem assessments and monitoring and for developing terms and conditions for permits and leases that achieve the plan goal. Guidelines for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving the plan goal and objectives. The guidelines outline practices, methods, techniques and considerations used to ensure that progress is achieved in a way, and at a rate, that meets the plan goal and objectives.

1. INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

The condition or degree of function of a site, in relation to the standards and its trend toward or away from any standard, is determined through the use of reliable and scientifically sound indicators. The consistent application of such indicators can provide an objective view of the condition and trend of a site when used by trained observers.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides For example, the amount and distribution of ground cover can be used to indicate that infiltration at the soil surface can take place as described in the standard relating to upland watershed function. In applying this indicator, the specific levels of plant cover necessary to support infiltration in a particular soil should be identified using currently available information from reference areas, if they exist; from technical sources like soil survey reports, ecological site inventories, and ecological site descriptions, or from other existing reference materials. Reference areas are land that best represent the potential of a specific ecological site in both physical function and biological health. In many instances potential reference areas are identified in ecological site descriptions and are referred to as “type locations.” In the absence of suitable reference areas, the selection of indicators to be used in measuring or judging condition or function should be made by an interdisciplinary team of experienced professionals and other trained individuals.

Not all indicators identified for each standard are expected to be employed in every situation. Criteria for selecting appropriate indicators and methods of measurement and observation include, but are not limited to (1) the relationship between the attribute(s) being measured or observed and the desired outcome; (2) the relationship between the activity (such as livestock grazing) and the attribute(s) being measured or observed; and (3) funds and workforce available to conduct the measurements or observations.

2. ASSESSMENTS AND MONITORING

The standards are the basis for assessing and monitoring rangeland condition and trend. Carrying out well-designed assessment and monitoring is critical to restoring or maintaining healthy rangelands and determining trends and conditions.

Assessments are a cursory form of evaluation based on the standards that can be used at different landscape scales. Assessments, conducted by qualified interdisciplinary teams (which may include but are not limited to physical, biological and social specialists, and interagency personnel) with participation from permittees and other interested parties, are appropriate at the watershed and subwatershed levels, at the allotment and pasture levels and on individual ecological sites or groups of sites. Assessments identify the condition or degree of function within the rangeland ecosystem and indicate resource problems and issues that should be monitored or studied in more detail. The results of assessments are a valuable tool for managers in assigning priorities within an administrative area and the subsequent allocation of personnel, money, and time in resource monitoring and treatment. The results of assessments may also be used in making management decisions where an obvious problem exists.

Monitoring, which is the well-documented and orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data, serves as the basis for determining trends in the condition or degree of function of rangeland resources and for making management decisions.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides Monitoring should be designed and carried out to identify trends in resource conditions, to point out resource problems, to help indicate the cause of such problems, to point out solutions, and/or to contribute to adaptive management decisions. In cases where monitoring data do not exist, professional judgment, supported by interdisciplinary team recommendation, may be relied upon by the authorized officer in order to take necessary action. Review and evaluation of new information must be an ongoing activity.

To be effective, monitoring must be consistent over time, throughout administrative areas, and in the methods of measurement and observation of selected indicators. Those doing the monitoring must have the knowledge and skill required by the level or intensity of the monitoring being done, as well as the experience to properly interpret the results. Technical support for training must be made available.

3. MEASURABILITY

It is recognized that not every area will immediately meet the standards and that it will sometimes be a long-term process to restore some rangelands to properly functioning condition. It is intended that in cases where standards are not being met, measurable progress should be made toward achieving those standards, and significant progress should be made toward fulfilling the fundamentals of rangeland health. Measurability is defined on a case-specific basis based upon the stated planning objectives (such as quantifiable, timespecific), taking into account economic and social goals along with the biological and ecological capability of the area. To the extent that a rate of recovery conforms with the planning objectives, the area is allowed the time to meet the standard under the selected management regime.

4. IMPLEMENTATION

The material contained in this document will be incorporated into existing land use plans and used in the development of new land use plans. According to 43 CFR 4130.3-1, permits and leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that ensure conformance with 43 CFR 4180. Terms and conditions of existing permits and leases will be modified to reflect standards and guidelines at the earliest possible date, with priority for modification being at the discretion of the authorized officer. Terms and conditions of new permits and leases will reflect standards and guidelines in their development.

Indicators identified in this document will serve as a focus of interpretation of existing monitoring data and will provide the basis of design for monitoring and assessment techniques, and in the development of monitoring and assessment plans.

The authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year upon determining, through assessment or monitoring by experienced professionals and interdisciplinary teams, that a standard is not being achieved and

Appendices 3.6 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides that livestock are a significant contributing factor to the failure to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines.

E. STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH

STANDARD 1: WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS

Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.

Rationale and intent: This standard focuses on the basic physical functions of upland soils that support plant growth, the maintenance or development of plant populations and communities, and promote dependable flows of quality water from the watershed.

To achieve and sustain rangeland health, watersheds must function properly. Watersheds consist of three principle components: the uplands, riparian/wetland areas, and the aquatic zone. This standard addresses the upland component of the watershed. When functioning properly, within its potential, a watershed captures, stores, and safely releases the moisture associated with normal precipitation events (equal to or less than the 25-year, 5-hour event) that falls within its boundaries. Uplands make up the largest part of the watershed and are where most of the moisture received during precipitation events is captured and stored. While all watersheds consist of similar components and processes, each is unique in its individual makeup. Each watershed displays its own pattern of landform and soil, its unique climate and weather patterns, and its own history of use and current condition. In directing management toward achieving this standard, it is essential to treat each unit of the landscape (soil, ecological site, and watershed) according to its own capability and how it fits with both smaller and larger units of the landscape.

A set of potential indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if this standard is being met. The appropriate indicators to be used in determining attainment of the standard should be drawn from the following list.

Potential indicators: Protection of the soil surface from raindrop impact; detention of overland flow; maintenance of infiltration and permeability, and protection of the soil surface from erosion, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by the:

amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover); amount and distribution of plant litter; accumulation/incorporation of organic matter; amount and distribution of bare ground; amount and distribution of rock, stone, and gravel; plant composition and community structure; thickness and continuity of the “A” horizon;

Appendices 3.6 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides character of microrelief; presence and integrity of biotic crusts; root occupancy of the soil profile; biological activity (plant, animal, and insect); and absence of accelerated erosion and overland flow.

Soil and plant conditions promote moisture storage as evidenced by:

amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover); amount and distribution of plant litter; plant composition and community structure; and accumulation/incorporation of organic matter.

STANDARD 2: WATERSHED FUNCTION – RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS

Riparian/wetland areas are in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.

Rationale and intent: Riparian/wetland areas are grouped into two major categories (1) lentic, or standing water systems such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows; and (2) lotic, or moving water systems such as rivers, streams, and springs. Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Riparian areas commonly occupy the transition zone between the uplands and surface water bodies (the aquatic zone) or permanently saturated wetlands.

Properly functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas describes the degree of physical function of these components of the watershed. Their functionality is important to water quality in the capture and retention of sediment and debris, the detention and detoxification of pollutants, and in moderating seasonal extremes of water temperature. Properly functioning riparian areas and wetlands enhance the timing and duration of streamflow through dissipation of flood energy, improved bank storage, and ground water recharge. Properly functioning condition should not be confused with the desired plant community or the desired future condition since, in most cases, it is the precursor to these levels of resource condition and is required for their attainment.

A set of indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if this standard is being met. The criteria are based upon the potential (or upon the capability where potential cannot be achieved) of individual sites or landforms.

Potential indicators: Hydrologic, vegetation, and erosional/depositional processes interact in supporting physical function, consistent with the potential or capability of the site, as evidenced by: frequency of floodplain/wetland inundation;

Appendices 3.6 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides plant composition, age class distribution, and community structure; root mass; point bars revegetating; streambank/shoreline stability; riparian area width; sediment deposition; active/stable beaver dams; coarse/large woody debris; upland watershed conditions; frequency/duration of soil saturation; and water table fluctuation.

Stream channel characteristics are appropriate for landscape position as evidenced by: channel width/depth ratio; channel sinuosity; gradient; rocks and coarse and/or large woody debris; overhanging banks; pool/riffle ratio; pool size and frequency; and stream embeddedness.

STANDARD 3: ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES

Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate, and landform are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle.

Rationale and intent: This standard addresses the ecological processes of energy flow and nutrient cycling as influenced by existing and desired plant and animal communities without establishing the kinds, amounts or proportions of plant and animal community compositions. While emphasis may be on native species, an ecological site may be capable of supporting a number of different native and introduced plant and animal populations and communities while meeting this standard. This standard also addresses the hydrologic cycle which is essential for plant growth and appropriate levels of energy flow and nutrient cycling. Standards 1 and 2 address the watershed aspects of the hydrologic cycle.

With few exceptions, all life on earth is supported by the energy supplied by the sun and captured by plants in the process of photosynthesis. This energy enters the food chain when plants are consumed by insects and herbivores and passes upward through the food chain to the carnivores. Eventually, the energy reaches the decomposers and is released as the thermal output of decomposition or through oxidation.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides

The ability of plants to capture sunlight energy, to grow and develop, to play a role in soil development and watershed function, to provide habitat for wildlife, and to support economic uses depends on the availability of nutrients and moisture. Nutrients necessary for plant growth are made available to plants through the decomposition and metabolization of organic matter by insects, bacteria and fungi, the weathering of rocks, and extraction from the atmosphere. Nutrients are transported through the soil by plant uptake, leaching, and by rodent, insect, and microbial activity. They follow cyclical patterns as they are used and reused by living organisms.

The ability of rangelands to supply resources and satisfy social and economic needs depends on the buildup and cycling of nutrients over time. Interrupting or slowing nutrient cycling can lead to site degradation, as this land becomes increasingly deficient in the nutrients plants require.

Some plant communities, because of past use, frequent fire or other histories of extreme or continued disturbance, are incapable of meeting this standard. For example, shallow-rooted winter-annual grasses that completely dominate some sites do not fully occupy the potential rooting depth of some soils, thereby reducing nutrient cycling well below optimum levels. In addition, these plants have a relatively short growth period and thus capture less sunlight than more diverse plant communities. Plant communities like those cited in this example are considered to have crossed the threshold of recovery and often require great expense to be recovered. The cost of recovery must be weighed against the site’s potential ecological/ economic value in establishing treatment priorities.

The role of fire in natural ecosystems should be considered, whether or not it acts as a primary driver or only as one of many factors. It may play a significant role in both nutrient cycling and energy flows.

A set of indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if this standard is being met.

Potential indicators: Photosynthesis is effectively occurring throughout the potential growing season, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by plant composition and community structure.

Nutrient cycling is occurring effectively, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by: plant composition and community structure; accumulation, distribution, incorporation of plant litter and organic matter into the soil; animal community structure and composition; root occupancy in the soil profile; and biological activity including plant growth, herbivory, and rodent, insect and microbial activity.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides STANDARD 4: WATER QUALITY

Surface water and ground water quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with state water quality standards.

Rationale and intent: The quality of the water yielded by a watershed is determined by the physical and chemical properties of the geology and soils unique to the watershed, the prevailing climate and weather patterns, current resource conditions, the uses to which the land is put and the quality of the management of those uses. Standards 1, 2, and 3 contribute to attaining this standard.

States are legally required to establish water quality standards and Federal land management agencies are to comply with those standards. In mixed ownership watersheds, agencies, like any other landowners, have limited influence on the quality of the water yielded by the watershed. The actions taken by the agency will contribute to meeting state water quality standards during the period that water crosses agency administered holdings.

Potential indicators: Water quality meets applicable water quality standards as evidenced by: water temperature; dissolved oxygen; fecal coliform; turbidity; pH; populations of aquatic organisms; and effects on beneficial uses (such as effects of management activities on beneficial uses as defined under the CWA and state implementing regulations).

STANDARD 5: NATIVE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED, AND LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES

Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.

Rationale and intent: Federal agencies are mandated to protect threatened and endangered species and will take appropriate action to avoid the listing of any species. This standard focuses on retaining and restoring native plant and animal (including fish) species, populations, and communities (including threatened, endangered and other special status species and species of local importance). In meeting the standard, native plant communities and animal habitats would be spatially distributed across the landscape with a density and frequency of species suitable to ensure reproductive capability and sustainability. Plant populations and communities would exhibit a range of age classes necessary to sustain recruitment and mortality fluctuations.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides Potential indicators: Essential habitat elements for species, populations, and communities are present and available, consistent with the potential/capability of the landscape, as evidenced by: plant community composition, age class distribution, productivity; animal community composition, productivity; habitat elements; spatial distribution of habitat; habitat connectivity; and population stability/resilience.

F. GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Guidelines for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving plan goals, meeting standards for rangeland health, and fulfilling the fundamentals of rangeland health. Guidelines are applied in accordance with the capabilities of the resource in consultation, cooperation, and coordination with permittees/lessees and the interested public. Guidelines enable managers to adjust grazing management on public land to meet current and anticipated climatic and biological conditions.

1. GENERAL GUIDELINES

1. Involve diverse interests in rangeland assessment, planning, and monitoring. 2. Assessment and monitoring are essential to the management of rangelands, especially in areas where resource problems exist or issues arise. Monitoring should proceed using a qualitative method of assessment to identify critical, site-specific problems or issues using interdisciplinary teams of specialists, managers, and knowledgeable land users. Once identified, critical, site-specific problems or issues should be targeted for more intensive, quantitative monitoring or investigation. Priority for monitoring and treatment should be given to those areas that are ecologically at-risk where benefits can be maximized given existing budgets and other resources.

2. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

1. The season, timing, frequency, duration, and intensity of livestock grazing use should be based on the physical and biological characteristics of the site and the management unit in order to: a. provide adequate cover (live plants, plant litter, and residue) to promote infiltration, conserve soil moisture, and to maintain soil stability in upland areas; b. provide adequate cover and plant community structure to promote streambank stability, debris and sediment capture, and floodwater energy dissipation in riparian areas; c. promote soil surface conditions that support infiltration; d. avoid subsurface soil compaction that retards the movement of water in the soil profile;

Appendices 3.6 – p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides e. help prevent the increase and spread of noxious weeds; f. maintain or restore diverse plant populations and communities that fully occupy the potential rooting volume of the soil; g. maintain or restore plant communities to promote photosynthesis throughout the potential growing season; h. promote soil and site conditions that provide the opportunity for the establishment of desirable plants; i. protect or restore water quality; and j. provide for the life cycle requirements, and maintain or restore the habitat elements of native (including threatened and endangered, special status, and locally important species) and desired plants and animals. 2. Grazing management plans should be tailored to site-specific conditions and plan objectives. Livestock grazing should be coordinated with the timing of precipitation, plant growth, and plant form. Soil moisture, plant growth stage, and the timing of peak streamflows are key factors in determining when to graze. Response to different grazing strategies varies with differing ecological sites. 3. Grazing management systems should consider nutritional and herd health requirements of the livestock. 4. Integrate grazing management systems into the year-round management strategy and resources of the permittee(s) or lessee(s). Consider the use of collaborative approaches (such as coordinated resource management, work groups) in this integration. 5. Consider competition for forage and browse among livestock, big game animals, and wild horses in designing and implementing a grazing plan. 6. Provide periodic rest from grazing for rangeland vegetation during critical growth periods to promote plant vigor, reproduction, and productivity. 7. Range improvement practices should be prioritized to promote rehabilitation and resolve grazing concerns on transitory grazing land. 8. Consider the potential for conflict between grazing use on public land and adjoining land uses in the design and implementation of a grazing management plan.

3. FACILITATING THE MANAGEMENT OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING

1. The use of practices to facilitate the implementation of grazing systems should consider the kind and class of animals managed, indigenous wildlife, wild horses, the terrain and the availability of water. Practices such as fencing, herding, water development, and the placement of salt and supplements (where authorized) are used where appropriate to: a. promote livestock distribution; b. encourage a uniform level of proper grazing use throughout the grazing unit; c. avoid unwanted or damaging concentrations of livestock on streambanks, in riparian areas and other sensitive areas such as highly erodible soils, unique wildlife habitats, and plant communities; and d. protect water quality.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides 2. Roads and trails used to facilitate livestock grazing are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes the effects on landscape hydrology; concentration of overland flow, erosion and sediment transport are prevented; and subsurface flows are retained.

4. ACCELERATING RANGELAND RECOVERY

1. Upland treatments that alter the vegetation composition of a site, such as prescribed burning, western juniper management, and seedings or plantings must be based on the potential of the site and should: a. retain or promote infiltration, permeability, and soil moisture storage; b. contribute to nutrient cycling and energy flow; c. protect water quality; d. help prevent the increase and spread of noxious weeds; e. contribute to the diversity of plant communities, and plant community composition and structure; f. support the conservation of threatened and endangered, other special status species and species of local importance; and g. be followed up with grazing management and other treatments that extend the life of the treatment and address the cause of the original treatment need. 2. Seedings and plantings of nonnative vegetation should only be used in those cases where native species are not available in sufficient quantities; where native species are incapable of maintaining or achieving the standards; or where nonnative species are essential to the functional integrity of the site. 3. Structural and vegetation treatments and animal introductions in riparian and wetland areas must be compatible with the capability of the site, including the system’s hydrologic regime, and contribute to the maintenance or restoration of properly functioning condition.

G. RANGELANDS GLOSSARY

Appropriate action ~ implementing actions pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130 and 4160 of the regulations that will result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward conformance with the guidelines (see Significant progress). Assessment ~ a form of evaluation based on the standards of rangeland health, conducted by an interdisciplinary team at the appropriate landscape scale (pasture, allotment, subwatershed, watershed, etc.) to determine conditions relative to standards. Compaction layer ~ a layer within the soil profile in which the soil particles have been rearranged to decrease void space, thereby increasing soil bulk density and often reducing permeability. Crust, abiotic ~ (physical crust) a surface layer on soils, ranging in thickness from a few millimeters to a few centimeters, that is much more compact, hard and brittle, when dry, than the material immediately beneath it.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides Crust, biotic ~ (microbiotic or cryptogamic crust) a layer of living organisms (mosses, lichens, liverworts, algae, fungi, bacteria, and/or cyanobacteria) occurring on, or near the soil surface. Degree of function ~ a level of physical function relative to properly functioning condition commonly expressed as: properly functioning, functioning-at-risk, or nonfunctional. Diversity ~ the aggregate of species assemblages (communities), individual species, and the genetic variation within species and the processes by which these components interact within and among themselves. The elements of diversity are: (1) community diversity (habitat, ecosystem); (2) species diversity; and (3) genetic diversity within a species; all three of which change over time. Energy flow ~ the processes in which solar energy is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis and passed through the food chain until it is eventually dispersed through respiration and decomposition. Ground water ~ water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation; water in the ground that exists at, or below the water table. Guideline ~ practices, methods, techniques, and considerations used to ensure that progress is made in a way and at a rate that achieves the standard(s). Gully ~ a channel resulting from erosion and caused by the concentrated but intermittent flow of water usually during and immediately following heavy rains. Hydrologic cycle ~ the process in which water enters the atmosphere through evaporation, transpiration, or sublimation from the oceans, other surface water bodies, or from the land and vegetation, and through condensation and precipitation returns to the earth’s surface. The precipitation then occurring as overland flow, streamflow, or percolating underground flow to the oceans or other surface water bodies or to other sites of evapotranspiration and recirculation to the atmosphere. Indicators ~ parameters of ecosystem function that are observed, assessed, measured, or monitored to directly or indirectly determine attainment of a standard(s). Infiltration ~ the downward entry of water into the soil. Infiltration rate ~ the rate at which water enters the soil. Nutrient cycling ~ the movement of essential elements and inorganic compounds between the reservoir pool (soil, for example) and the cycling pool (organisms) in the rapid exchange (such as moving back and forth) between organisms and their immediate environment. Organic matter ~ plant and animal residues accumulated or deposited at the soil surface; the organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and animal residues at various stages of decomposition; cells and tissues of soil organisms, and the substances synthesized by the soil population. Permeability ~ the ease with which gases, liquids or plant roots penetrate or pass through a bulk mass of soil or a layer of soil. Properly functioning condition ~ Riparian/wetland: adequate vegetation, landform, or large (coarse) woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and ground water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse channel and ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and water depth, duration and temperature

Appendices 3.6 – p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. The result of interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. Uplands: soil and plant conditions support the physical processes of infiltration and moisture storage and promote soil stability (as appropriate to site potential); includes the production of plant cover and the accumulation of plant residue that protect the soil surface from raindrop impact, moderate soil temperature in minimizing frozen soil conditions (frequency, depth, and duration), and the loss of soil moisture to evaporation; root growth and development in the support of permeability and soil aeration. The result of interaction among geology, climate, landform, soil, and organisms. Proper grazing use ~ grazing that, through the control of timing, frequency, intensity, and duration of use, meets the physiological needs of the desirable vegetation, provides for the establishment of desirable plants and is in accord with the physical function and stability of soil and landform (properly functioning condition). Reference area ~ sites that, because of their condition and degree of function, represent the ecological potential or capability of similar sites in an area or region (ecological province); serve as a benchmark in determining the ecological potential of sites with similar soil, climatic, and landscape characteristics. Rill ~ a small, intermittent water course with steep sides; usually only a few inches deep. Riparian area ~ a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Land along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and stream, glacial potholes, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. Includes, but is not limited to, jurisdictional wetlands. Significant progress ~ when used in reference to achieving a standard: (actions), the necessary land treatments, practices and/or changes to management have been applied or are in effect; (rate), a rate of progress that is consistent with the anticipated recovery rate described in plan objectives, with due recognition of the effects of climatic extremes (drought, flooding, etc.), fire, and other unforeseen naturally occurring events or disturbances. Monitoring reference areas that are ungrazed and properly grazed may provide evidence of appropriate recovery rates (see Proper grazing use). Soil density (bulk density) ~ -the mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume. Soil moisture ~ water contained in the soil; commonly used to describe water in the soil above the water table. Special Status species ~ species proposed for listing, officially listed (threatened/endangered), or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of the ESA; those listed or proposed for listing by the State in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction; those designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive. Species of local importance ~ species of significant importance to American Indian populations (such as medicinal and food plants). Standard ~ an expression of the physical and biological condition or degree of function necessary to sustain healthy rangeland ecosystems.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides Uplands ~ land that exists above the riparian/wetland area, or active floodplains of rivers and streams; those lands not influenced by the water table or by free or unbound water; commonly represented by toe slopes, alluvial fans, and side slopes, shoulders, and ridges of mountains and hills. Watershed ~ an area of land that contributes to the surface flow of water past a given point. The watershed dimensions are determined by the point past, or through which, runoff flows. Watershed function ~ the principal functions of a watershed include the capture of moisture contributed by precipitation; the storage of moisture within the soil profile, and the release of moisture through subsurface flow, deep percolation to ground water, evaporation from the soil, and transpiration by live vegetation. Wetland ~ areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Appendices 3.6 – p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations APPENDIX 3.7: 2010 PROGRESS REPORT ON EVALUATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS OF RANGELAND HEALTH BY ALLOTMENT AND MANAGEMENT CATEGORY

Table 3.7-1: Allotments Where All Standards Are Met Allotment # BLM Acres Allotment # BLM Acres Allotment # BLM Acres C - Category Allotments 00057 160 02067 225 05080 125 01008 287 02068 124 05133 137 01010 174 02073 403 05138 41 01012 125 02075 565 05210 34 01025 89 02076 433 05220 78 01028 64 02079 164 05222 39 01029 46 02080 75 05225 77 01033 323 02083 176 05226 180 01034 20 02086 467 05227 317 01035 92 02087 681 05228 160 01036 221 02092 198 05230 121 01043 75 02095 80 05233 26 01049 525 02096 229 05234 325 01051 164 02097 41 05235 388 01053 41 02100 42 05236 193 01054 117 02101 42 05238 38 01057 100 02102 178 05304 123 01058 38 02103 55 05312 354 01063 289 02106 199 05313 1,308 01065 65 02112 1,088 05315 40 01067 19 02118 480 05321 2,801 01071 142 02130 290 05332 147 01326 52 02142 40 05334 60 01327 284 03008 680 05335 159 01329 498 03009 547 05336 62 01330 234 03010 39 05337 31 01333 65 03011 316 05339 119 02001 125 03016 358 05340 41 02002 472 03017 99 05342 65 02003 210 03019 40 06501 38 02006 151 03021 1136 06504 609 02007 554 03024 93 06508 40 02008 287 03025 354 06515 37 02011 120 03027 39 06522 15 02017 758 03028 150 06523 80 02026 98 03030 179 06530 92 02033 260 03031 447 06540 109 02038 131 03033 195 06543 626 02043 118 03037 842 06546 331 02044 120 03040 20 06548 526 02051 45 03041 40 06556 165 02060 483 03042 40 06558 713 02062 157 03043 54 06564 978 02063 201 03045 132 06568 80 02064 19 03047 125 06579 281

Appendices 3.7 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations Table 3.7-1: Allotments Where All Standards Are Met - cont. Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres C - Category Allotments 02065 27 03048 63 06582 79 06587 173 15207 80 15310 280 06588 119 15208 78 15317 70 06589 210 15211 578 15322 58 06593 47 15212 110 15323 833 06597 81 15213 68 15324 68 06599 81 15214 227 15325 160 06600 40 15217 117 15326 199 06613 39 15218 157 15327 135 06618 80 15219 336 15328 40 06619 40 15223 194 15329 30 11061 55 15224 64 15330 40 15001 359 15305 42 15331 40 15202 1,333 15306 95 15332 20 15203 78 15307 120 06559 361 15205 345 Total number of C-Category allotments where standards are met:181 Total acres of public lands: 40,976 I - Category Allotments 03022 1656 06617 865 Total number of I-Category allotments where standards are met: 2 Total acres of public lands: 2,521 M - Category Allotments 01318 9,874 01041 1,503 03003 9,416 03014 5,622 01050 323 03006 5,691 03018 1,652 01055 528 05311 1,764 03049 1,811 01056 167 05319 565 15206 1,228 01066 679 06574 524 15209 2,723 01320 1,046 06575 276 15303 975 02070 1,336 06598 700 01005 291 02077 781 06631 164 01021 2,655 03002 6,968 Total number of M-Category allotments where standards are met: 26 Total acres of public lands: 59,262 Total number of allotments where standards are met: 209 Total acres of public lands: 102,759

Appendices 3.7 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations Table 3.7-2: Allotments Where Standards Were Not Fully Met Resulting in Livestock Management Changes Being Implemented Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres C - Category Allotments 01027 1,564 Total number of C-Category allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management changes being implemented:1 Total acres of public lands: 1,564 I - Category Allotments 01003 4,837 01064 329 03015 1610 01004 9,597 01070 1387 03026 1,0211 01020 2,748 01072 975 06517 1,085 01022 292 02074 13539 06544 4,722 01023 405 03001 25143 11001 10,954 01026 1,140 03004 1920 11301 16,291 01032 969 03005 3106 11302 11,150 01037 1,850 03007 2625 15204 1,008 Total number of I-Category allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management changes being implemented:24 Total acres of public lands: 127,893 M - Category Allotments 01024 488 01030 271 Total number of M-Category allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management changes being implemented:2 Total acres of public lands: 759 Total number of allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management changes being implemented: 27 Total acres of public lands: 130,216

Table 3.7-3: Allotments Where Standards Were Not Fully Met, Causes Other Than Existing Livestock Management Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres C - Category Allotments 01045 695 06509 361 06602 234 06506 113 Total number of C-Category allotments where standards were not fully met, causes other than existing livestock management:4 Total acres of public lands: 1,403 I - Category Allotments Total number of I-Category allotments where standards were not fully met, causes other than existing livestock management: 0 Total acres of public lands: 0 M - Category Allotments 01031 803 06536 54 06557 282 01038 366 06542 381 06578 446 06514 198 06551 466 06594 478 06516 270 06554 525 06572 1,593 06518 434 Total number of M-Category allotments where standards not fully met, causes other than existing livestock management:13

Appendices 3.7 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations Table 3.7-3: Allotments Where Standards Were Not Fully Met, Causes Other Than Existing Livestock Management Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres Total acres of public lands: 6,296 Total number of allotments where standards were not fully met, causes other than existing livestock management: 17 Total acres of public lands: 7,699

Appendices 3.7 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations

Table 3.7-4: Allotments Where Evaluations and Determinations Not Completed Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Allotment Public Land Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres C - Category Allotments 01052 683 02132 40 06538 163 01059 167 02139 83 06550 120 01062 439 02347 117 06561 250 02010 201 06502 38 06607 3,653 02013 119 06521 40 06608 41 02016 45 06528 40 06611 40 02069 293 06531 236 06616 802 02094 139 06534 206 06620 40 02114 929 06537 81 06629 149 02120 189 Total number of C-Category allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed:28 Total acres of public lands: 9,343 I - Category Allotments 01006 9,942 02019 1,964 02055 965 01007 587 02023 334 02071 1,771 01011 794 02024 1,791 02084 1,132 01013 3,255 02025 520 02111 735 01016 6,992 02028 183 02115 1,452 01017 1,292 02032 2,204 02116 1,100 01018 938 02035 1,842 03012 4,092 01019 194 02036 602 03029 2,015 01039 3,526 02037 3,926 06569 1,444 01040 3,181 02040 1,470 06583 81 01044 2,085 02041 262 11002 4,746 01048 2,882 02048 934 15201 3,240 01068 4,897 02049 1,139 15215 7,244 01069 5,372 Total number of I-category allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed: 40 Total acres of public lands: 93,125 M - Category Allotments 01009 779 02030 569 02108 4,348 01014 518 02031 3,965 02109 5,885 01015 1,266 02034 1,805 02121 380 01046 861 02042 315 02127 1,714 02004 1,210 02050 2,901 02128 2,540 02005 2,918 02078 1,370 02129 665 02012 3,133 02081 332 06503 181 02015 2,178 02085 534 06505 83 02020 2,867 02099 4,106 06524 247 02021 397 02105 1,251 06614 195 02027 186 Total number of M-category allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed: 31 Total acres of public lands: 49,699 Total number of allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed: 99 Total acres of public lands: 152,167

Appendices 3.7 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites APPENDIX 3.8: DETAILS ON THE COMMUNICATION SITES CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE DECISION AREA

Table of Contents

A. Indicator ...... 1 B. Authority ...... 2 C. Trends ...... 3 D. Current Conditions ...... 4 1. Lime Hill Communication Site ...... 4 2. Gold Hill Communication Site ...... 5 3. Big Lookout Mountain - Fire lookout and communications site ...... 6 4. Halfway/Richland Hill Communication Site ...... 7 5. Sheep Mountain Radio Site ...... 8 6. Hermiston Butte Communication Site ...... 8 E. Forecast ...... 9 F. Key Features ...... 10

Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites APPENDIX 3.8: DETAILS ON THE COMMUNICATION SITES CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE DECISION AREA A. INDICATOR

Overall management direction for the administration of communications sites is outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Handbook and applicable BLM Instructional Memoranda. Specific direction for site management planning on designated communications sites is contained in BLM Handbook 2860-1. Primary regulations and policy pertaining to issuance of right-of-way (ROW) authorizations by the BLM are found in Title 43 CFR Sections 2801- 2808 and BLM Handbook 2860-1.

The terms used in communications site management plans conform to the definitions listed in the April 22, 2005, Federal Register notice “Rights-of-Way, Principles and Procedures: Rights-of- Way under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Mineral Leasing Act.” Further clarification is provided in BLM Handbook 2860-1 and 43 CFR 2800. In the event of a conflict, between the plan and these sources, the Federal Register notice and the BLM Handbook will govern. The words “lease” and “lessee” as used in communication site plans refer to the relationship between the BLM and the communications use lease lessee, or ROW holder. The words “customer” and “tenant” refer to the relationship between the lessee or holder and the occupants in the lessee’s facilities.

LEASE OR ROW – A use authorization issued to a communication Facility Owner or Facility Manager allowing for the use of public land to construct and or operate a communications facility and, unless specifically prohibited, to sublease to occupants in that facility. LESSEE, LEASE HOLDER, OR ROW HOLDER – A Facility Owner or Facility Manager CUSTOMER – A facility occupant who is paying a facility manager, facility owner, or tenant for using all or any part of the space in the facility, or for communication services, and is not selling communication services or broadcasting to others. TENANT – A facility occupant who is paying a facility manager, facility owner, or other entity for occupying and using all or part of a facility. A tenant operates communication equipment in the facility for profit by broadcasting to others or selling communication services. COMMUNICATIONS SITE – An area of BLM-managed public land designated through the land and resource management planning process as being used or is suitable for communications uses. A communications site may be limited to a single communications facility, but most often encompasses more than one. Each site is identified by name; usually a local prominent landmark, such as Lime Hill Communications Site.

Appendices 3.8 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites FACILITY – The building, tower, and related incidental structures or improvements authorized under the terms of the grant or lease. FACILITY MANAGER – The holder of a BLM communications use authorization who leases space for other communication users. A facility manager does not own or operate communications equipment in the facility for personal or commercial purposes. FACILITY OWNER – Individuals, commercial entities, organizations, or agencies, that own a communications facility on Federal land; own and operate their own communications equipment; and hold a communications use authorization. Facility owners may or may not lease space in the facility to other communications users. NON-BROADCAST – This category includes Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), Facility Managers, Cellular Telephone, Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS), Microwave, Local Exchange Network, and Passive Reflector. BROADCAST – This category includes Television Broadcast, AM and FM Radio Broadcast, Cable Television, Broadcast Translator, Low Power Television, and Low Power FM Radio. RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) – The public land authorized to be used or occupied pursuant to a ROW grant. RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT – A use authorization issued pursuant to Title V of FLPMA of October 21, 1976 (43 USC. 1701 et seq.) or issued on or before October 21, 1976, pursuant to then existing statutory authority, authorizing the use of a ROW over, upon, under or through public land for construction, operation, maintenance and termination of a project. HOLDER – Any applicant who has received a ROW grant, lease or temporary use permit. USERS – All ROW and lease holders, lessees, customers, and tenants that own or operate a facility or communication equipment at the communication site. SENIOR USE – Any use whose implementation date is prior to the implementation date of the use in question. RANALLY METRO AREA (RMA) – A series of nine population zone areas, the highest of which is greater than 5 million and the lowest being 25,000 or less. These zones are determined annually and published in the Ranally Metro Area Population Ranking, an independent publication from Rand McNally, and are used in rent determination.

B. AUTHORITY

The BLM has authority to authorize communications uses on public land (administered by the BLM) is granted by FLPMA of 1976, 90 Stat. 2776 (43 U.S. C. 1761-1771) and is reflected in Title 43, CFR, Sections 2801- 2808 and various BLM Washington Office Information Bulletins and Instruction Memoranda.

Bureau of Land Management authority for communications site management planning is

Appendices 3.8 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites contained in BLM Handbook 2801-1, Plan of Development. Direction on and policy for communication use authorizations is contained in BLM Manual Section 2860.

Authority for the issuance of authorizations and/or licenses for the transmission and reception of electronic radiation for communication purposes is granted by Congress and administered by the Federal Communication Commission and/or the National Telecommunication and Information Administration – Interagency Radio Advisory Committee.

The Baker Resource Management Plan, dated July 12, 1989, states that “Public Lands are available for local ROWs, including multiple use and single use utility/ transportation corridors following existing routes, communication sites and roads, unless within the exclusion/avoidance. The ROW avoidance areas include wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, scenic and recreation river segments, while ROW exclusion areas include wilderness areas and wild river segments. All ROW applications should follow existing corridors wherever practical and will avoid proliferation of separate ROWs.”

C. TRENDS

Planning for communication sites is ongoing. Rights-of-ways for land access for communications sites are conducted on an as-needed basis. With the increasing public demand for communications coverage throughout the country, the probability of communications companies applying for communication use leases on public lands within the Planning Area is high. Telecommunication companies are looking to expand communications coverage along the I-84 Corridor along with other areas in the resource area. Expansion will require siting new facilities on mountaintops and other structures to attain maximum coverage to meet the need for reliable telecommunications service for federal, state, and local government as well as the general public.

Telecommunications is the transmission, emission, or reception of radio signals, digital images, sound bytes, or other information via wires and cables; or space, through radio frequencies, satellites, microwaves, or other electromagnetic systems. Telecommunications includes the transmission of voice, video, data, broadband, wireless, and satellite technologies.

One-way communication for radio and television utilizes a combination of antennas and receivers to transmit signals from the broadcast station to an antenna or group of antennas located on a broadcast tower, which then transmits the radio signal to the receiving devices found in a radio or television. Traditional landline telephone service utilizes an extensive network of copper interconnecting lines to transmit and receive a phone call between parties. Fiber optic cable increases the capabilities by delivering not only traditional telephone, but high speed internet and cable television.

Wireless telephony, also known as wireless communications, included mobile phones, pagers, and two-way enhanced radio systems and relies on the combination of landlines, cable, and an

Appendices 3.8 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites extensive network of elevated antennas, typically found on communication towers, to transmit voice and data information. This technology is known as the first and second generation of wireless deployment. Future generation of wireless communications will include the ability to provide instant access to e-mail, the internet, radio, video, mobile commerce, and Global Positioning Satellites, in one hand-held, palm pilot type wireless telephone unit. Successful use of this technology will require the deployment of a significant amount of infrastructure such as elevated antennas on above ground structures such as towers, rooftops, and light poles. Antenna support structures can be camouflaged in some circumstances to visually blend in with the surrounding landscape.

Base stations are the wireless service provider’s specific electronic equipment used to transmit and receive radio signals, and is usually mounted within a facility including, but not limited to cabinets, shelters, pedestals, or other similar enclosures generally used to contain electronic equipment.

D. CURRENT CONDITIONS

1. LIME HILL COMMUNICATION SITE

A Communications Site Management Plan was prepared for Lime Hill in 2001. This Site Management Plan updates the original plan, provides applicable guidance, and adds current policy and updated technical standards for better management of the Lime Hill Communications Site. The Lime Hill Site Management Plan governs development and management of Lime Hill. Any future such uses must be designed, installed, operated, and maintained to be compatible and not interfere with the senior uses. This site-specific plan is administrative in nature and is Categorically Excluded from further review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 516.DM 2, Appendix 1, item 1.10, which states “Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” Any additional development of the site will be addressed in a site- specific NEPA document.

Site Description

The site is located approximately 37 miles southeast of Baker City and 3.8 miles northeast of Lime, Oregon, on a mountain ridge overlooking Brownlee Reservoir. Baker Field Office manages the area. The site is specifically located in the SE¼SE¼ of section 18 and the NE¼NE¼ of section 19, T.13S., R.45E., Willamette Meridian, Baker County, Oregon at approximately 44º 25’15” North Latitude and 117º 15’1.3” West Longitude. One holder (IPA’s facility) is located in section 13. The elevation at the Lime Hill Communications Site is approximately 9,188 feet above mean sea level.

Appendices 3.8 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites Site History and Development

The first development of the Lime Hill site was initiated by Idaho Power Company in July, 1957. Idaho Power constructed their communication site, built the access road, and provided power to the site (BLM serial number ORORE 5473). They remained the only user until 1965, when Union Pacific RR (ORORE 16256) constructed their site. Oregon Public Broadcasting (OROR 18551) constructed their microwave relay facility in 1978. The Oregon State Police (OROR 20021) established their communications equipment on the site in Idaho Power’s building in 1979, then moved to Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) facility (OROR 35536) when it was constructed in 1983. The MCI Worldcom facility (OROR 34929) was authorized in November 1982 and constructed the following year. Chambers Cable Co. (OROR 35953) built their facility in 1983, assigned their interest to Cable 1 Corp. in 2001, and Cable 1 assigned their interest to RCC Holdings (Rural Cellular Corp.) in 2001. Boise State University (OROR 52085) constructed a seismograph telemetry and repeater station on the site in 1995; located just off the northeast top of the hill. US Cellular (OROR 53860) built their facility in 1998. Triton Communications (OROR 55217) built their cellular facility in 1999, assigned it to RCC Holdings, and it is now held by RCC Atlantic; a division of RCC Holdings. Eagle Telephone Systems (OROR 56643) constructed their cellular facility in 2001. The BLM constructed their radio site in 2007; the site includes a tower, building, and fenced area under authorization (OROR 55766). In 2008, the BLM authorized T-Mobile to co-locate within US Cellular’s compound under communications use lease OR65250.

Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan

Manage the Lime Hill Site for two-way radio, microwave, cellular, cable television receive, and other low power broadcast uses. All uses must be designed, operated, and maintained so as not to materially or electronically interfere with the senior uses. This site is to be used for low power communications uses only. Systematically develop the site to maximize the number of compatible uses while ensuring safety and protection of resources. Help fulfill the public need for adequate communications sites.

2. GOLD HILL COMMUNICATION SITE

Site Description

A Communication Site Management Plan was developed in 2001 for the Gold Hill Communication Site. The site is located about 26 miles southeast of Baker City, Oregon in mountainous country overlooking Interstate Highway 84. The site is used exclusively to provide cellular phone service to Interstate 84 and the immediate vicinity. Baker Field Office manages the area. It is specifically located in the NE¼NW¼ of section 12, T.20S., R.43E., Willamette Meridian, in Baker County, Oregon at approximately 44º 32’ 40.7” North Latitude and 117º 23’ 58” West Longitude. The elevation at the Gold Hill Communications Site is approximately 4,070 feet above mean sea level.

Appendices 3.8 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites Site History and Development

The first communications use lease at Gold Hill was issued to Oregon RSA#3, LLC (BLM serial number OROR 52580) on December 5, 1996, for a cellular phone site. In January of 2004, RSA#3 assigned their interest to Oregon RSA#2, LLC (US Cellular), who today holds the interest in the facility. In September 2004, the BLM issued a second communications use lease to RRC Atlantic, Inc., for a second building on the site. RRC Atlantic uses the US Cellular tower on the site. In 2008, the BLM authorized T-Mobile to co-locate within US Cellular’s compound under communication use lease OR65251.

Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan

Manage the Gold Hill Site for two-way radio, microwave, cellular, cable television receive and other low power broadcast uses with emphasis on the protection of the two existing cellular uses. This site has been systematically developed to maximize the number of compatible uses and is about at capacity; while ensuring safety and protection of resources. Help fulfill the public need for adequate communications sites.

3. BIG LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN - FIRE LOOKOUT AND COMMUNICATIONS SITE

Site Description

The site is located approximately 12 miles South Southwest of Richland, Oregon in mountainous country. The site is a natural peak and is used as a fire lookout and a radio communication’s site. Baker Field Office manages the area. It is specifically located in the S½SE¼NW¼, N½NE¼SW¼, Section 13, T. 11S., R. 44E., Willamette Meridian, in Baker County, Oregon at approximately 44 36′ 33” North Latitude and 117 16′ 43” West Longitude. The elevation of the fire lookout is approximately 7100 feet above mean sea level.

Site History and Development

Recordation and appropriation of the BLM Lookout was done under the authority of 44 L.D. 513 and approved by the Oregon BLM State Director on November 30, 1962. The lookout is a permanent installation used for fire detection over a major portion of the planning area. In November of 1962, the BLM authorized a ROW for the lookout under 44 LD 513 (OR- 013018). BLM’s communication site is also authorized under (OR-013018). In April of 1965, the BLM authorized a road ROW under 44 LD 513 (OR-016072) for ingress and egress to the lookout. In September of 1989, a tri-party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the BLM, Baker County Sheriff’s Office, and the State of Oregon acting by and through the Oregon Commission on Public Broadcasting, was authorized to provide for the establishment of a communications site under the authorities of BLM- Section 307 (b) of FLPMA of 1976, P.L. 94- 579, (90 State. 2766; 43 U.S.C. 1731), OCPB-Oregon Revised Statutes 354.105 through 354.215, and Baker County Sheriff-Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 190. In June of 1994,

Appendices 3.8 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites communication use lease (OR-49832) was issued to Boise State University, Department of Geology for a Seismograph Telemetry Station for earthquake monitoring in Oregon. In October of 2001, OCPB FM and TV translator facilities were removed from the Lookout Mountain communications site and relocated to a site on Summit Ridge. The MOU for OCPB was terminated at that time.

Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan

Manage the Lookout Mountain fire lookout and communication’s site for two-way radio communications, future cellular use and as a seismograph telemetry site. Development of the site may be limited due to the peak area; however, co-locators with compatible uses may be accommodated on existing towers. Help fulfill the public and the governments need for adequate communications sites.

4. HALFWAY/RICHLAND HILL COMMUNICATION SITE

Site Description

The site is located a short distance off Oregon State Highway 86 at the summit between the towns of Richland and Halfway, Oregon. State Highway 86 goes through the area connecting the towns or communities of Oxbow, Halfway, Richland, and Baker City. Baker Field Office manages the site. It is specifically located in the SW¼NW¼in Section 32, T. 8S., R.46 E., of the Willamette Meridian in Baker County, Oregon at approximately 44 53’ 27” North Latitude and117 06′ 49” West Longitude at an elevation of 3760 feet above mean sea level.

Site History and Development

The site was developed and operated by the Forest Service in the early 1960’s, under grant from the BLM by 44LD513. The Forest Service relinquished this facility to the Idaho Power Company who was issued a ROW grant (OR-14735) on March 13, 1975, for a two-way radio site and a powerline to the site. Eagle Telephone System Incorporated (ETSI) applied for a communications use lease to build a new cellular facility at the Richland/Halfway site in 2001. A ROW/communications use lease was issued to ETSI on 6 July 2001, under serial number OR- 56644, for a cellular site.

Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan

Manage the Richland/Halfway communication’s site for two-way radio communications, microwave, and cellular use. Systematically develop the site to maximize the number of compatible uses while ensuring safety and protection of resources. Help fulfill the public and the governments need for adequate communications sites.

Appendices 3.8 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites 5. SHEEP MOUNTAIN RADIO SITE

Site Description

The site is located approximately 47 air miles from Baker City, Oregon, and is specifically located in T.7S., R.47E., Section 36; in the SE¼SE¼SE¼, of the Willamette Meridian in Baker County, Oregon, at approximately 44 54.23’ North Latitude and 116 54.09 West Latitude at an elevation of 4841 feet above mean sea level. Baker Field Office manages the site.

Site History and Development

The site was developed in the early 1970’s by the United States Forest Service -Wallowa- Whitman National Forest. The BLM granted a perpetual ROW to the United States Forest Service under 44LD513, and assigned serial number OR-006539. The site is known as the Sheep Mountain Radio site. The ROW authorized a 6’x8’ steel building and a 30’ steel antenna tower for radio communication. Solar panels power the site. The Foster Gulch Fire burned over the area in 2006 and destroyed the building that the equipment was housed. The Whitman District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest replaced the building and equipment in 2007, using a helicopter, as there are no access roads to the site. This site is important to the Forest Service for communications coverage in the Oxbow Canyon and Halfway, Oregon area.

Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan

Manage the Sheep Mountain communication’s site for two-way radio communications. Help fulfill the United States government’s need for adequate communication sites.

6. HERMISTON BUTTE COMMUNICATION SITE

Site Description

The site is located on Hermiston Butte, off of Butte Drive, within the city limits of Hermiston, Oregon, and is specifically located in T. 4N., R.28E., Section 10 of the NE¼NW¼, of the Willamette Meridian in Umatilla County, Oregon, at approximately 45 50’ 50” North Latitude and 119 18’ 11” West Longitude at an elevation of 640 feet above mean sea level. Baker Field Office manages the site.

Site History and Development

Prior to 1924-1926, a reservoir was built on top of Hermiston Butte to store water for the City of Hermiston. In the 1960’s, the City of Hermiston proposed that the BLM transfer these public lands to the city under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), for “historic and public park purposes.” This land was patented to the city in 1969 with several limitations. One of the limitations stated that pre-existing rights on the parcel were protected, and the patent was issued “subject to” those rights, which included a communications site and tower. At the time of the

Appendices 3.8 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites patent, the communications site then came under the control and management of the City of Hermiston and thus was no longer managed by the BLM. In the early 1990s, the City of Hermiston requested relinquishment of the old reservoir ROW (LG-09708). The City of Hermiston applied for a ROW to build a new storage tank in the 1990’s. Because the project did not comply with the R&PP, which the land was under at the time for a community park, the BLM lacked the authority to grant a ROW on the patented land. Therefore, the City Quit-Claimed 3.44 acres back to the United States in May of 1998, because the reservoir was outside the scope of the regulations that govern the R&PP Act, the communications site, being within the 3.44 acres, also came back under the jurisdiction of the BLM. A new ROW was to be established for the communications site. In June of 1998, ROW OR-54156 was granted to the City of Hermiston to build a new water storage tank on the butte. Currently, the City of Hermiston’s Water Department has a water storage tank on the top of Hermiston Butte. The Water Department monitors and controls the water storage facility located at the butte. The old communications site was demolished in 2005 and a new communications facility was installed. The site today is a ground level vault that contains equipment utilized by EZ Wireless, a City of Hermiston Franchise. EZ Wireless currently provides broadband services to the Chemical Emergency Stockpile Preparedness Program (CSEPP) first providers in case on an emergency at the Umatilla Army Chemical Depot.

Goals and Objectives

Manage the Hermiston Butte communication site for two-way radio use for the City of Hermiston under Communications Use Lease OR-58540. The City of Hermiston and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) requested the BLM limit the number of users and uses on the butte. The site will be managed accordingly.

E. FORECAST

The need to locate more radio, cellular, and microwave facilities on mountaintops, hills, ridges, and structures to meet the public’s demand for telecommunications coverage is increasing. As we see population growth from the cities to urban growth areas, there will be an increase in the usage of telecommunications devices that will require more applications for ROWs on public lands to accommodate the ever-increasing demand for reliable network coverage. High speed data connection’s technology that will change the way we live will be a standard in everyone’s life in the future. The Baker Field Office must identify areas where telecommunications companies can locate new communication sites within the Planning Area, as the existing sites fill to capacity.

Each year, we will see commercial launchings of new broadband technology that will be easy to install with relatively low cost to consumers. Public lands play an important role in providing this technology to all consumers. We can expect to see more applications for communications sites in the Planning Area.

Appendices 3.8 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites F. KEY FEATURES

The location of communications sites is critical to attaining an optimum functioning telecommunications network. The communications wireless market is very competitive with speed to market and location being important to all generation providers. Telecommunication companies locate their facilities on mountaintops, buildings, etc., at elevations that attain the most coverage for the consumers of digital products. The BLM plays an important role in meeting consumer demands for broadband coverage by permitting telecommunication companies to locate their communication sites on mountaintops, ridges, and in and on other locations on public lands.

BLM encourages and prefers collocation at existing sites when possible and many sites have multiple users who are compatible with other users at the sites. However, there will be an increase in applications for new sites on public lands as these existing sites fill to capacity; and as more consumers utilize new and existing technology. As new mandates from the State of Oregon and Homeland Security for emergency telecommunications coverage to rural areas come out; and as the communication’s ring slowly expands out to rural areas, new sites will be necessary.

New equipment to support data services over the wireless interface is being deployed and in certain cases where signals only cover about half the distance of the existing system, more wireless facility locations will be required to meet coverage and network capacity objectives.

Appendices 3.8 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review

FINAL REPORT

VALE DISTRICT OFFICE INVENTORY

OF POTENTIAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN THE

BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

PLANNING AREA

Prepared for:

Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918

Prepared by:

Jonas Consulting PO Box 2153/1020 Greenview Drive Cave Junction, Oregon 97523

March 1, 2010

Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction ...... 1 B. Public Involvement And Coordination ...... 1

C. Process ...... 1

D. Steps 1 And 2: Wild And Scenic Rivers Eligibility Criteria Review And Tentative Classification...... 2 1. Eligibility Criteria ...... 2 2. Tentative Classification ...... 4 3. Results of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Inventory for the Baker Resource Management Plan Planning Area ...... 5

D. Step 3: Wild and Scenic River Suitability Review ...... 9 1. Suitability Factors ...... 9 2. Results of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Review for the Baker RMP Planning Area ...... 10

E. Step 4: Management of Rivers Determined Suitable ...... 11

Attachment A: Initial Eligibility Determination For The South Fork Walla Walla River Made In This Study ...... 13 1. Jonas Consulting Initial Eligibility Determination ...... 13 2. U.S. Forest Service Eligibility Determination ...... 16 3. Classification...... 22 Attachment B: Outstandingly Remarkable Values Summary Table ...... 23 Attachment C: River Segment Narrative Table ...... 30 Attachment D: Wild And Scenic Rivers Suitability Review: Baker Resource Management Plan Planning Area...... 38 A. Public Involvement During the Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Review ...... 38 B. Results of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Review of Public Lands Along Waterways in the Baker Resource Management Plan Planning Area ...... 38 1. Grande Ronde River, Lower Section ...... 38 Attachment E: Management of Waterways Within the Baker Resource Management Plan Planning Area That Meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Criteria ...... 42 A. Wild And Scenic Rivers Review Process ...... 42 B. Management Objective ...... 42 1. Joseph Creek ...... 43 Attachment F: Literature Cited ...... 45

Appendices 3.9 – p. i Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review APPENDIX 3.9: VALE DISTRICT OFFICE INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN THE BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA

A. INTRODUCTION

The Baker Field Office (FO) of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Vale District is in the process of writing the Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a revision of the current Baker RMP (BLM 1989). As part of the planning effort, the BLM interdisciplinary (ID) team initiated a wild and scenic river (WSR) inventory of all rivers and streams (perennial, annual, or ephemeral) within the Baker RMP planning area. Initially, this inventory was to determine if any of these waterways that flow through BLM- administered public lands (public lands) meet the WSR eligibility criteria identified in the WSR Act of 1968, as amended. After eligibility determination, a second study was initiated to determine if any of the waterways determined eligible also meet the WSR suitability criteria.

B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION

While public participation in the WSR review process often occurs at the suitability phase of the process, the Baker FO determined that it would be more efficient to conduct the suitability review and allow the public to comment on both the eligibility and suitability determinations made in this report during public review of the draft RMP. Following stipulation, the results of this WSR eligibility inventory and suitability determination will be included in the Baker RMP planning effort. The public will thus be given the opportunity to comment on the WSR review results throughout the environmental analysis and planning process for the RMP planning effort. Reports and recommendations to Congress for inclusion of public lands in the National WSR System will be based on waterways meeting established eligibility criteria and suitability factors; professional judgment; and broad participation via public education, sentiment, and involvement. Public involvement is required by law, regulations, and as deemed necessary by the BLM.

C. PROCESS

The following definitions apply to key terms used in the WSR review process:

River (or waterway): A flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes. For purposes of this review, a river is not required to have water in it year-round as long as flows are regular and predictable, even though intermittent, seasonal, or interrupted (BLM 2004).

Public lands: The BLM-administered public land surface along waterways within a planning area. Those "split estate lands," where the land surface is state or privately owned and the federal mineral estate is administered by the BLM, are not involved with these reviews. This

Appendices 3.9 – p. 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review study involves the review of public lands: data on segments, parcels, corridors, rivers, and waterways were collected on public lands only and are the basis for this review.

This WSR inventory of waterways in the Baker RMP planning area entails a four-step process:

1. Evaluate each waterway segment in the study area to determine if it is eligible for inclusion into the National WSR System. 2. Tentatively classify each segment determined eligible as wild, scenic, or recreational. 3. Identify and make recommendations for interim protection for those waterways determined suitable. 4. Determine if any of those waterway segment that meet the eligibility criteria also meet the WSR suitability factors.

D. STEPS 1 AND 2: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA REVIEW AND TENTATIVE CLASSIFICATION

1. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

To meet the eligibility criteria, a waterway must be "free-flowing" and, along with its adjacent land area, must possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" values. Only those portions of waterways flowing through public lands are to be considered. The following are the guidelines used in applying the eligibility criteria:

Free-flowing: As applied to any river or section of a river, free-flowing means existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the National WSR System shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion; provided, that this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the National WSR System (WSR Act Sec. 16(b)).

A river need not be “boatable or floatable” in order to be eligible as long as the volume of flow is sufficient enough to maintain the outstandingly remarkable values identified within the segment (BLM 1993). In addition, flows need not to be permanent but can be intermittent, seasonal, or interrupted, as long as they are regular and predictable and derived from naturally occurring circumstances (BLM 2004).

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The public lands along waterways must also possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values to be eligible for further consideration. Outstandingly remarkable values relate to scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar resource values. In order to be assessed as outstandingly remarkable, a river related value must be “a unique, rare or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale,” that is, such

Appendices 3.9 – p. 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review a value “would be one that is a conspicuous example from among a number of similar values that are themselves uncommon or extraordinary” (USFS and NPS 1999, p. 13). In addition, all such values should be directly river related. That is, they should be located in the river or on its immediate shorelands (generally within one-quarter mile on either side of the river); contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; and/or owe their location or existence to the presence of the river. The following criteria for outstandingly remarkable values were used in assessing waterways in the Baker RMP planning area:

Scenic: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions within the geographic region. When analyzing scenic values, additional factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed may be considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment and not common to other rivers in the geographic region.

Recreational: Recreational opportunities are or have the potential to be unusual enough to attract visitors to the geographic region. Visitors are willing to travel long distances to use the river resources for recreational purposes. River related opportunities could include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating. Interpretive opportunities may be exceptional and attract or have the potential to attract visitors from outside the geographic region. The river may provide or have the potential to provide settings for national or regional commercial usage or competitive events. In addition, the river may be eligible if it is determined to provide a critically important regional recreation opportunity, or be a significant component of a regional recreation opportunity spectrum setting.

Geologic: The river or the area within the river corridor contains one or more example(s) of a geologic feature, process, or phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison. The feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of development, represent a “textbook” example, and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, volcanic, glacial, or other geologic structures).

Fish: Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat, or a combination of these river related conditions: Populations: The river is nationally or regionally one of the top producers of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species. Of particular significance may be the presence of wild stocks or unique stocks, or populations of state, federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species. Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the region. Of particular significance is habitat for state, federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species.

Wildlife: Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either wildlife populations or habitat, or a combination of these conditions:

Appendices 3.9 – p. 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Populations: The river or area within the river corridor contains nationally or regionally important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species dependent on the river environment. Of particular significance may be species considered to be unique or populations of state, federally listed, or candidate threatened or endangered species. Habitat: The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for state, federally listed, or candidate threatened or endangered species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the species are met.

Cultural: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains a site(s) where there is evidence of occupation or use by Native Americans. Sites must be rare, have unusual characteristics, or exceptional human interest value(s). Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting prehistory; may be rare; may represent an area where a culture or cultural period was first identified and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or may have been used by cultural groups for rare sacred purposes.

Historic: The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) associated with a significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the region. A historic site(s) and/or features(s) in most cases is 50 years old or older. Sites or features listed in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places, may be of particular significance.

Other Similar Values: While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the “other similar values” category, additional values deemed relevant to the eligibility of the river segment should be considered in a manner consistent with the foregoing guidance -- including, but not limited to, hydrology, ecologic/biologic diversity, paleontology, botanic, and scientific study opportunities.

2. TENTATIVE CLASSIFICATION

At the same time that eligibility determinations are made, rivers that meet the eligibility criteria are also given a tentative classification (either wild, scenic, or recreational), as required by the WSR Act. Tentative classification is based on the type and degree of human developments associated with waterway and adjacent lands as they exist at the time of the review. This classification, however, is a planning recommendation and is tentative to Congressional legislative determination. The tentative classifications are further defined as follows:

Wild River Area: Wild river areas are those where the rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. Wild means undeveloped; roads, dams, or diversion works are generally absent from a one- quarter mile corridor on both sides of the river.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review

Scenic River Area: Scenic river areas are those where the rivers or sections of rivers that are generally free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Scenic does not necessarily mean the river corridor has to have scenery as an outstandingly remarkable value; however, it means the waterway or waterway segment may contain more development (except for major dams or diversion works) than a wild segment and less development than a recreational segment. For example, roads may cross the river in places but generally do not run parallel to it. In certain cases, if a parallel road is unpaved and well-screened from the river by vegetation, a hill, etc., it could qualify for scenic river area classification.

Recreational River Area: Recreational river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Parallel roads or railroads or the existence of small dams or diversions can be allowed in this classification. A recreational river area classification does not imply that the river or section of river will be managed or have priority for recreational use or development.

3. RESULTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY INVENTORY FOR THE BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA

Members of the BLM ID Team, consisting of resource specialists from the Baker Resource Area, met on June 22, 2005 to review Resource-wide maps of all of perennial, ephemeral, and intermittent waterways within the Baker RMP planning area. Existing designated WSRs were not re-evaluated. The ID Team were given the opportunity to review the maps for several weeks in late June through mid July of 2005 and to identify any streams that their experience/knowledge indicated possessed “unique, rare, or exemplary” values. The ID Team met again on July 21, 2005 to review their findings and to finalize the list of waterways that potentially possessed outstandingly remarkable values. Out of waterways reviewed, the ID Team identified eight waterways totaling approximately 43.7 miles had potential to possess outstandingly remarkable values and thus required further review. These waterways include two sections of the Grande Ronde River (upper and lower), Burnt River, Snake River, South Fork Walla Walla River, Conner Creek, Fox Creek, and Joseph Creek. The remaining waterways were dropped from further consideration due to lacking the potential to possess outstandingly remarkable values.

The eight waterways (five rivers and three creeks) suspected to possess outstandingly remarkable values were contracted out for further review. The locations of these waterways are presented in Figure 1. Each of these waterways was visited to document their free-flowing nature and to identify existing outstandingly remarkable values, where possible. Data were only gathered on the waterway segments that cross public lands: no private, state, or other federal lands were reviewed. Fieldwork was conducted between April 30 and June 4, 2006. Digital photos were taken and GPS referenced as part of the documentation process. Existing pertinent data from

Appendices 3.9 – p. 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review state, federal, and local sources were also reviewed to substantiate or refute the existence of outstandingly remarkable values. Finally, BLM staff at the Baker FO was further consulted for their expertise on specific river-related values along the eight studied waterways.

Four of the eight waterways with potential to possess outstandingly remarkable values (Burnt River, Connor Creek, Fox Creek, and upper Grande Ronde) were found not to meet the WSR eligibility criteria and dropped from further consideration. The South Fork Walla Walla River was initially determined to possess outstandingly remarkable values by this study, but was later dropped due to the reasons described below. Three remaining waterways (Joseph Creek, lower Grande Ronde River, and Snake River) were identified as possessing outstandingly remarkable values and were thus determined eligible. Table 1 below summarizes these findings.

Table 1. Summary of the Baker RMP Planning Area WSR Eligibility Review River/Stream Free- Outstandingly Remarkable Public Lands (Waterway) Reviewed flowing Values on Public Lands Eligible? South Fork Walla Walla River Yes None No Grande Ronde River (Upper Section) Yes None No Scenic Recreational Grande Ronde River (Lower Section) Yes Fish Yes Geologic Cultural Snake River Yes Cultural Yes Scenic Joseph Creek Yes Yes Geologic Fox Creek Yes None No Connor Creek (Segment 1) No None No Connor Creek (Segments 2 & 3) Yes None No Burnt River Yes None No

The South Fork Walla Walla River was initially identified as possessing outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, fish, and ecological values during the inventory process; however, subsequent consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) led to dropping the eligibility determination. The USFS (Umatilla National Forest) manages a 15.7-mile segment of the South Fork Walla Walla River directly above the 3.6-mile segment evaluated in this report. The USFS segment includes the headwaters, near Deduct Spring, to the Umatilla National Forest and BLM boundary. The USFS had conducted an earlier WSR eligibility review of the South Fork Walla Walla River and determined that it did not possess outstandingly remarkable values. Because the USFS manages a much longer stretch of the South Fork of the Walla Walla River, the BLM has made a decision to defer the final resource assessment of the entire river to the USFS. The initial WSR eligibility determination made in this study for the South Fork Walla Walla River and the USFS determination that is being accepted for this study are presented in Attachment A.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review The specific values identified as outstandingly remarkable for the three waterways determined eligible are discussed in depth below. Attachment B (WSR Outstandingly Remarkable Value Summary Table) provides details on scenic, fisheries, recreation, wildlife, historical, geologic, cultural, and similar values for all eight waterways, and identifies why such values were or were not considered outstandingly remarkable. Attachment C (River Segment Narrative Table) provides details for each segment of the eight waterways reviewed and shows the tentative classification (either scenic or recreational) suggested for each of the segments that meet the eligibility criteria. Attachment C also includes maps illustrating all segments of the Grande Ronde River (lower section), Snake River, and Joseph Creek determined eligible for inclusion into the National WSR system.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the Grande Ronde River, Lower Section

The lower section of the Grande Ronde River reviewed is 38.5 miles long. It begins near the confluence with the Snake River in the SE¼ of Section 13, T. 7 N., R. 46 E, in Asotin County, Washington and ends in the SE¼ of Section 14, T. 6 N., R. 43 E, in Asotin County, Washington. Within this section, the river flows through 15 parcels of public land for a total of 17 miles, which is 44 percent of the river section reviewed. These 15 segments of the lower Grande Ronde River possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish, and cultural values. These values have already been recognized as significant and warranting special protection through the designation of the Grande Ronde River ACEC (BLM 1989) and inclusion in the Wallowa & Grande Ronde Rivers Final Management Plan (BLM et al. 1993).

Scenic Values: The scenic values of the river corridor is of high quality and includes views of steep rock terraces, sheer basalt cliffs, and overhanging bluffs along portions of the river, as well as grassy slopes, isolated strands of ponderosa pine, and views of forested mountaintops. This section of the river flows through the Grande Ronde Goosenecks National Natural Landmark, which provide viewers an excellent example of lateral entrenched meanders and exposed layers of Columbia River Basalt. The scenery changes at every meander in the river, revealing a variety of shapes and colors in the canyon walls and a wide variety of vegetation types. This mix of landform, vegetation, water, and color results in notable visual features within the geographic region, making the scenic values outstandingly remarkable.

Recreational Values: Public lands on the lower Grande Ronde River offer a variety of recreational activities, including boating and steelhead fishing. Visitors are willing to travel long distances to boat this section of river, which allows for a 2- to 4-day, primitive to semi-primitive float experiences for individuals of beginning and moderate skill levels. Recreationists float through spectacular scenery, including the Grande Ronde Goosenecks National Natural Landmark, and are offered a sense of solitude. Many recreationists float the river specifically for the steelhead angling opportunities, which is considered to be among the best in the Pacific Northwest. As such, recreational values along the lower segment of the Grande Ronde River can be considered outstandingly remarkable.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Geologic Values: Portions of the Goosenecks National Natural Landmark falls within public lands along the lower section of the Grande Ronde River. This landmark was designated in 1980 and illustrates regional uplift and forced entrenchment of a stream. By definition, a national natural landmark is a nationally significant natural area that has been designated by the Secretary of the Interior. Significance is defined as one of the “best” examples of a type of geological feature in its physiographic province. “Best” is gauged primarily on illustrativeness and condition of the resource. Following this, geologic values along the lower Grande Ronde River can be considered outstandingly remarkable.

Fish Values: The lower Grande Ronde River supports bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook. All four species are listed as threatened. It is the only section of the river currently used by fall-run Chinook and comprises a significant percentage of the species available habitat. This section of river is also an important migration corridor and provides rearing habitat for Snake River Steelhead and Spring Run Chinook. Approximately 44 miles of the Grande Ronde River upstream from the currently reviewed sections lands are part of the National WSR System, partially due to the possession of outstandingly remarkable fisheries values. This upstream protection adds to the integrity of the fisheries in the review section. Due to the existing population of four threatened fish species, the specific importance of the river section to Snake River fall-run Chinook, and connectivity to upstream populations of the other three fish species currently provided protection under the National WSR System, the lower Grande Ronde River contains outstandingly remarkable fishery values.

Cultural Values: Native American occupation sites of regional importance are located on public lands within the study section of the lower Grande Ronde River. Some sites are rare and most would be considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As such, the cultural values along the lower Grande Ronde River are outstandingly remarkable.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the Snake River:

The section of the Snake River reviewed is 6.87 miles long. It begins in Section 19, T. 7 N., R. 47 E., in Asotin County, Washington and ends the SE¼ of Section 9, T. 6 N., R. 47 E., in Asotin County, Washington. Within this section, the river flows through one parcel of public land for a total of 6.87 miles, which is the entire length of the river section reviewed. This segment of the Snake River possesses outstandingly cultural values.

Cultural Values: The review segment of the Snake River is located within the Snake River National Register District. Native American occupation sites of regional importance are located on public lands within the study section of the lower Snake River. As such, the cultural values along the Snake River are outstandingly remarkable.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Outstandingly Remarkable Values along Joseph Creek:

The section of the Joseph Creek reviewed is 26.8 miles long. It begins in the NE¼ of Section 8, T. 6 N., 46 E. in Asotin County, Washington and ends in SW¼ of Section 31, T. 5 N., 45 E. in Wallowa County, Oregon. Within this section, the creek flows through seven parcels of public land for a total of 5.7miles, which is 21.3 percent the river section reviewed. The shortest segment is 0.06 mile and the longest is 2.59 miles. All seven segments of Joseph Creek possess outstandingly scenic and geologic values. These values have already been recognized as significant and warranting special protection through the designation of the Joseph Creek Outstanding Natural Area (ONA)/ACEC (BLM 1989). As to date, a management plan has not yet been prepared for the ONA/ACEC.

Scenic Values: Joseph Creek lies within a deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. While primarily comprised of arid, steppe vegetation, stringers of trees can be found in side drainages and the narrow riparian zone along the Creek is a greenbelt of vegetation, even in the driest months, offering great contrast to the arid slopes. In the spring, the slopes are colored by lush green grass. From the rim of the canyon, visitors are offered views into the rugged, meandering canyon with the creek roughly 2,000 feet below, contrasted by the forested rim and tall mountains in the background.

Geologic Values: Joseph Creek is an excellent example of northeastern Oregon geology typified by Columbia River basalt canyons, exposed by the down cutting of the creek. Because of erosion and down cutting of the creek, the depth and layers of basalt are evident, revealing stacked layers of basalt lava flows and columnar basalt 10-200 feet thick. The basalt canyon also includes textbook examples of gooseneck meanders. Overall, the canyon is virtually unmodified and all its geologic details can be easily viewed from the canyon rim.

D. STEP 3: WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SUITABILITY REVIEW

1. SUITABILITY FACTORS

All of the public lands in the Baker RMP planning area found to meet the eligibility criteria and tentatively classified (i.e., wild, scenic, or recreational) were further reviewed to determine if they meet the WSR suitability factors. Some factors considered in the suitability determinations included, but were not limited to:

Factor 1: Characteristics which do or do not make the public lands involved a worthy addition to the National WSR System.

Factor 2: Current status of landownership (including mineral ownership) and land and resource uses in the area, including the amount of private land involved, and any associated or incompatible land uses.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Factor 3: Reasonable foreseeable potential uses of the public lands involved and related waters that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National WSR System, and the values that may be foreclosed or diminished if the public lands are not protected as part of the National WSR System.

Factor 4: Public, state, local, tribal, or federal interests in designation or non-designation of any part or all of the waterway involved, including the extent to which the administration of any or all of the waterway, including the costs thereof, may be shared by state, local, or other agencies and individuals.

Factor 5: Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the area if it is added to the National WSR System. Section 6 of the National WSR System outlines policies and limitations for acquiring lands or interests in land by donation, exchange, consent of owners, easement, transfer, assignment of rights, or condemnation within and outside established river boundaries.

Factor 6: Ability of the BLM to manage and/or protect the public lands involved as part of the National WSR System, or by other mechanism (existing and potential) to protect identified values other than WSR designation.

Factor 7: Historical or existing rights, which could be adversely affected. In the suitability review, adequate consideration will be given to rights held by other landowners and applicants, lessees, claimants, or authorized users of the public lands involved.

Factor 8: Other issues and concerns if any.

2. RESULTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REVIEW FOR THE BAKER RMP PLANNING AREA

The WSR suitability determinations for the Baker RMP planning area were derived by screening the public lands determined to meet the WSR eligibility criteria against the above eight suitability factors. This screening was first conducted by Jonas Consulting and then presented to BLM planning team members for the Baker RMP on October 26, 2009. The BLM planning team made modifications to the suitability review and came up with the following determination:

The public lands along the upstream-most reviewed segment (Segment 5.7) of Joseph Creek previously determined to meet the eligibility criteria were also determined to meet the suitability factors.

All other public land parcels determined to meet the eligibility criteria did not meet the suitability factors and were dropped from further consideration. The primary suitability factors involved in the non-suitability determination are Factors 2, and 6, which indicated (1) the public lands involved are land-locked by private lands and are inaccessible to the public, and obtaining

Appendices 3.9 – p. 10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review public access to the public lands via private property would not be likely; (2) the public lands cannot be managed as part of the National WSR System if designation were to occur because of potential management conflicts with the interspersed (up and downstream) and adjacent private lands; and/or (3) a WSR designation is deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as existing mechanisms sufficiently protect identified scenic and historical values (i.e., a WSR designation would provide no foreseeable additional protection).

Attachment D (Wild and Scenic Suitability Review) is a detailed summary of the suitability review of the waterway segments containing public lands determined to meet the eligibility criteria and the suitability determinations made for the public lands involved.

E. STEP 4: MANAGEMENT OF RIVERS DETERMINED SUITABLE

Eligible waterways determined suitable and given a tentative classification as wild, scenic, and/or recreational require protective measures necessary to preserve their free-flowing nature, protect their identified outstandingly remarkable values, and maintain their tentative classification. Waterways determined eligible but not suitable do not require such management because they would not be considered for inclusion in the National WSR System. Following this, specific management prescriptions for suitable river segments provide protection in the following ways (BLM 1993):

Free-Flowing Values: The free-flowing characteristics of suitable river segments cannot be modified to allow stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, and/or riprapping to the extent the BLM is authorized under law.

River-Related Values: Each segment shall be managed to protect identified outstandingly remarkable values (subject to valid existing rights) and, to the extent practicable, such values shall be enhanced.

Classification Impact: Management and development of the suitable river and its corridor cannot be modified, subject to valid existing rights, to the degree that its eligibility or tentative classification would be affected (i.e., its tentative river area classification cannot be changed from wild to scenic, or from scenic to recreational). Should a suitable determination be rejected in the RMP process, the river shall then be managed in accordance with management objectives as outlined in the RMP document.

This report includes interim protection measures for each of the outstandingly remarkable values identified for the suitable segment of Joseph Creek. These recommendations are presented in Attachment E (Management of Waterways in the Baker RMP Planning Area that Meet the WSR Suitability Factors). Comprehensive protective management as identified in BLM Manual 8351 include management objectives, management actions, and appropriate allocations of land and resource uses that would maintain or enhance the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative WSR classification identified on the public lands involved. If the Baker FO decides to apply

Appendices 3.9 – p. 11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review interim protective measures to suitable waterways, such protective measures would be subject to valid existing rights and would remain in effect until determinations are superseded.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review ATTACHMENT A: INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION FOR THE SOUTH FORK WALLA WALLA RIVER MADE IN THIS STUDY

1. JONAS CONSULTING INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION

Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the South Fork Walla Walla River

The section of the South Fork Walla Walla River reviewed is approximately 3.6 miles long. It begins upstream of Harris Park in the W½ of Section 7, T. 4 N., R 38 E., in Umatilla County, Oregon and ends in the SE¼ of Section 10, T. 4 N., R 37 E., in Umatilla County, Oregon. Within this section, the river flows through one parcel of public land for a total of 3.6 miles. The determination documented here is exclusively for this 3.6-mile portion of the South Fork Walla Walla that flows through BLM-administered lands. These conclusions for the section of the river flowing through BLM administered lands are preliminary. The overall determination for the entire South Fork of the Walla Walla is deferred to the Forest Service as described at the end of this report.

The preliminary conclusion of this study for the BLM portion of the river is that this segment of South Fork Walla Walla River possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, fish, and ecological values. The values recognized in the present study have also already been recognized as significant and warranting special protection through the designation of the South Fork Walla Walla River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the development of a management plan (BLM 1992).

Scenic Values: The scenery along the river includes lush riparian areas intermingled with thick conifer forest enclosed in a steep canyon with thick forested slopes, grassy hillsides, and rock outcroppings. Such features are a sharp contrast to the semiarid desert grasslands outside the canyon. The rating of the visual resource factors resulted in “A” scenic quality, the highest rating category containing outstanding visual resource characteristics based on the high vertical relief in the prominent cliffs, the variety of vegetative types, the clean cascading water, and rich color combinations (BLM 1992). The preliminary conclusion is that scenic values are outstandingly remarkable due a variety of landforms, vegetation, water, and color.

Recreation Values: The river provides a number of recreational opportunities, including hiking, motorcycle riding, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and horseback riding, in a near pristine river environment. While the trail is mainly used by people from within the geographic region (e.g., Pendleton and Milton-Freewater, Oregon, and Walla Walla Washington), it provides a “critically important regional recreation opportunity” as it is one of the few accesses into a heavily forested mountain area otherwise surrounded by high desert. The preliminary conclusion is that recreation values are outstandingly remarkable.

Fish Values: The South Fork Walla Walla above Harris Park can be defined as an unspoiled habitat capable of supporting stronghold salmonid populations (Saul et. al. 2001). This

Appendices 3.9 – p. 13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review assessment is based on ten habitat features, including stream flow, temperature, water quality, passage condition, channel conditions, instream habitat diversity, substrate quality, and riparian condition. The South Fork Walla Walla above Harris Park ranked "excellent" in all ten features, which denotes that these habitat features are pristine or nearly pristine, the section of river is a stronghold area that is key to the survival and recovery of salmonids, and that the river should be protected from further impacts. The salmonid species of particular importance in the South Fork Walla Walla River are the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and the Middle Columbia summer steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

The South Fork Walla Walla River is a top producer of bull trout in the Walla Walla River Basin. The river is located in the Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit of the Columbia River population, which encompasses the entire drainages of the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers. In the Walla Walla Basin, the South Fork Walla Walla River accounts for 30 percent of the runoff but only 4 percent of the drainage area. While the main channel consists mainly of swift water over a gravel-boulder substrate, the river also contains a diversity of habitats for bull trout, including extensive side channeling, backwaters, abundant vegetation cover, and deep pools. One of the most important features of the South Fork for bull trout is that water temperatures do not exceed 59 degrees, even during the warm summer months. This is a unique characteristic for streams in the Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit of the Columbia River population, and is an important factor in the viability of the species. As such, the bull trout population status in the South Fork is described as “low risk.” In comparison, the bull trout population in the North Fork Walla Walla River is at “high risk” of extinction and the population in Mill Creek is “of special concern.” The status of the Umatilla bull trout populations was also categorized as “of special concern” in the North Fork Umatilla River, and as at “high risk” of extirpation in the South Fork Umatilla River and North Fork Meacham Creek (Buchanan et al. 1997). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife considers the status of Mill Creek bull trout as “healthy” and Touchet River bull trout as “unknown” (WDFW 1997).

The South Fork Walla Walla River is also a top producer of threatened Middle Columbia summer steelhead trout and provides high quality habitat for the species. The Walla Walla River population of the Mid Columbia Summer Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is classified as an “intermediate” sized population. Such a population has a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 natural spawners with a sufficient intrinsic productivity (greater than 1.4 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance level) to achieve a 5 percent or less risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe (Carmichael 2006). Current production in the Walla Walla River population is concentrated in the North and South Fork Walla Walla rivers and Couse and Mill creeks.

In addition to bull trout and Middle Columbia summer steelhead trout, the South Fork Walla Walla also contains populations of native redband trout, which are resident (i.e., non- anadromous) Oncorhynchus mykiss. As of April 20, 2000, redband trout were listed as a sensitive species in Oregon and managed similarly as steelhead when occurring in anadromous

Appendices 3.9 – p. 14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review waters (Saul et. al. 2001). Unfortunately, very little is known about redband in the Walla Walla River Basin due to the difficulty in distinguishing them from juvenile or residual steelhead.

Finally, at least 20 miles (RM 0-20) of the South Fork Walla Walla contains suitable spawning and rearing habitat for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Although historically abundant, there are no native populations of this species in the Walla Walla River Basin as it was extirpated in the mid 1900s. Spring chinook, however, are in initial stages of reintroduction. Much of the reintroduction efforts are being placed on the South Fork Walla Walla River (above Harris Park), which appears to possess water temperatures, flows, and habitat of equal or higher quality than the best chinook habitat in the Umatilla River where spring chinook are successfully reproducing naturally (Saul et. al. 2001). Beginning in 2000, adult spring chinook salmon were out-planted into the Oregon portions of the South Fork Walla Walla River and were successful to spawn naturally. Continued monitoring will determine the success of the out-planting project at the parr, smolt, and returning adult life-history stages

As mentioned earlier, this assessment of outstandingly remarkable fish values pertains only to the 3.6-mile portion of the South Fork Walla Walla River that flows through public lands. This segment of river contains pristine habitat features that are key to the survival and recovery of indigenous salmonids, with much of the review segment being designated as critical habitat for bull trout (50 CFR 17). Of special note, the review segment contains exceptionally high quality habitat for bull trout, especially in terms of low temperatures, compared to that found along other waterways in the region. While this habitat condition pertains to the entire length of the river upstream from Harris Park (of which the BLM-managed portion makes up less than 20 percent), the review section is vital in sustaining the river as a top producer in the Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit of the Columbia River population of bull trout. The review segment of the South Fork Walla Walla River also contains high quality habitat for Middle Columbia summer steelhead and redband trout and "excellent" habitat for the survival and growth of reintroduced spring Chinook salmon (Saul et. al. 2001). Based on the exceptionally high quality habitat along the review segment of river for fish species indigenous to the region (including two threatened salmonid species) and its importance to bull trout populations, the preliminary conclusion is that the fishery values of the South Fork Walla Walla River are outstandingly remarkable.

Ecological Values: The ecology of the river is unique as the riparian habitat consists of three separate, but interrelated, plant communities. The sheer rock faces and outcroppings, along with their seeps and springs, create a moist microclimate for mosses and ferns. The springs create bogs and marshy areas along the toe of the slopes providing habitat for sedges, rushes, and grasses. Along the edges of the river, a highly diverse and well-developed shrub and tree community exists. Species found along the river are ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, grand fir, white fir, alder, willow, paper birch, water birch, pacific yew, black cottonwood, mock orange, ninebark, serviceberry, western mugwort, red osier dogwood, elderberry, and snowberry. Western paper birch has not been previously reported in Oregon, although it is found in southeastern Washington. Therefore, the birch is of regional importance due to its uniqueness. Consequently, the preliminary conclusion is that ecological values are outstandingly remarkable.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review 2. U.S. FOREST SERVICE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION

WSR Summary Information Documentation Name of River: SOUTH FORK OF THE WALLA WALLA RIVER

BLM and US Forest Service Coordination

Both Federal agencies agree that a coordinated inventory is appropriate for this river as it flows across our joint jurisdictional boundary and has no physical characteristic that would make segmentation practical. Because the USFS manages a much longer stretch of the South Fork of the Walla Walla River, the BLM and USFS have mutually agreed to use the USFS, Region 6 Wild and Scenic River eligibility inventory protocols to make the final interpretation of eligibility for the entire 19.3 miles of river flowing through federal lands. The results of the joint, interagency eligibility inventory and evaluation will be used in the BLM's subsequent planning process and in the USFS land management plan revision process.

Study Area Summary

Location: The South Fork of the Walla Walla River is located in the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon, near Walla Walla, Washington. The headwaters of this river are near Deduct Spring, approximately two miles south of the Oregon-Washington boundary. This tributary stream generally flows southwest toward the main stem of the Walla Walla River.

The study area ranges from the headwaters, near Deduct Spring and ends in the SE% of Section 10, T. 4 N., R 37 E., in Umatilla County, Oregon. The general focus for inventory extended 1/4- mile from either side of the ordinary high water mark. Attributes common to the general area were noted. The Umatilla National Forest manages 15.7-miles of the South Fork Walla Walla River from the headwaters, near Deduct Spring, downstream to the Umatilla National Forest/BLM boundary. From that point, downstream 3.6 miles is administered by the BLM.

As part of their ongoing Land and Resource Management Plan revision process, the Umatilla National Forest conducted an inventory and assessment of potentially eligible wild and scenic rivers; including the entire South Fork Walla Walla River. The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) places most of the study corridor under the Walla Walla River Watershed Management allocation. This allocation (F4) emphasizes providing a high quantity and quality of water in the National Forest portion of the Walla Walla River watershed, and elk habitat. Four areas have been dedicated to old-growth management within, or adjacent to the study corridor. Road 65 parallels the uppermost mile of the South Fork Walla Walla to Deduct Spring. This road is located on a ridgetop, dividing the Walla Walla watershed from the Mill Creek watershed, a municipal water source for the city of Walla Walla. The narrow visual corridor of the road separates the two management areas.

The BLM is currently undergoing a review of all potentially eligible Wild and Scenic rivers. During this process they reviewed the 3.6 mile section of river administered by them. The

Appendices 3.9 – p. 16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review section of river is partially accessed by a Umatilla County administered road (County Road 600). This road serves as one of the few access points for the federally owned portion of the South Fork Walla Walla River. This road also access Harris Park, a popular Umatilla County administered recreation area.

River Mileage: Studied: 19.3 Eligible: 0

Eligibility Determination of Free-flow: Two trail bridges are suspended above the channel in the South Fork Walla Walla River study corridor. One is located at the intersection of trails #3225 and #3226, and the other is near the mouth of Reser Creek. Neither bridge inhibits free-flow within the channel. Near the forest boundary and close to cabin sites, rock gabions have been placed in the stream in an attempt to secure a primitive road directly adjacent to the stream. High water events have moved several of these structures away from the bank and into the channel. These simple structures are collapsing, spilling cobble into the streambed. Evidence of numerous low water fords can be seen along the lower three miles of the stream. They appear to receive fairly consistent use by off-road-vehicles.

Finding: The South Fork of the Walla Walla River meets the free-flowing criteria described in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Any modifications in the natural flow of the stream have been very slight and have not impacted the riverine qualities of the river.

Scenery Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The scenery of the South Fork Walla Walla River is representative of areas where only ecological change has taken place, with the exception of trails needed for access. On the lower portion of the river, braided trails and old jeep routes have impacted the immediate area above the west side of the stream. One of the more interesting features of this study corridor is the presence of a trail paralleling the river along the entire length. This provides direct access to the river. Trail users almost always have opportunities to see flowing water.

Visual diversity is moderate. Visitors are provided a mixture of foreground, middle ground and background views. Near Table Creek, several interesting pinnacle rock formations rise above ground level in narrow, pointed columns; the tallest approximately 60-70 feet. The valley is slightly U-shaped on the lower end, becoming more V-shaped toward the headwaters. Occasional open rock bluffs arc directly down to the stream course, but the riparian corridor is mostly shaded by large overstory trees and a healthy assortment of common riparian vegetation. Small, intermittent grassy openings peek through the canopy to provide some visual texture and relief from the constraints of the closed forest and rock canyon walls.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Finding: The scenic qualities of the South Fork Walla Walla study corridor are interesting to many as they are easily accessible and frequently viewed. However they are not unique or regionally outstanding. More exemplary scenery of similar conditions is available on the Wenaha River and lower Lookingglass Creek. These other rivers provide a broader spectrum of visual diversity, more illustrative examples, and provide better opportunities to get a visual impression of how the watershed fits into the total landscape. Scenery is not an outstandingly remarkable value.

Recreation Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The South Walla Walla River study corridor is located almost completely within an unroaded area. However, good road access is available to trailheads on both the north and south ends. The area is minutes away from Milton- Freewater, Oregon, and Walla Walla, Washington. This makes the area appealing and popular to the residents of these communities for day and overnight use. Harris Park, a county camping and picnicking facility, is located on the threshold of a Bureau of Land Management trailhead that provides access to the South Fork corridor.

Limited vehicle access is available on the extreme lower end of the corridor via a primitive 4- wheel-drive road. The road terminates about one mile above several resident cabins, located near the Forest boundary. Public travel is restricted to trail use by a locked gate near the BLM trailhead.

Recreation within the corridor is directly related to the available trail network along the river. The most popular trail closely parallels the stream along the entire length of the corridor, beginning at the South Fork Walla Walla trailhead and terminating near Deduct Spring at the headwaters. The southern portion of this trail is accessible to visitors about nine months of the year, making it one of the first available in the spring, and the last to be limited by winter weather. This trail is commonly used by foot, motorbike, horse, and mountain bike traffic. Day use fishing is very popular near Deduct Spring trailhead, though use diminishes substantially above Table Creek (approximately five miles above the trailhead). Numerous dispersed sites are located along the trail. These sites and the areas of braided or short user-made tributary trails indicate extensive recreation use. Overnight camping is allowed in the general forest area but not permitted at the South Fork trailhead or on BLM land along the trail.

Maximum trail capacity is often achieved during the peak use season. Concern for user conflicts and trail degradation is increasing. System trails that extend from the primary trail paralleling the river (Le., Bear Creek, Mottet Spring, and Target Meadows trails) are more difficult and rugged, and receive much less use. The entire area is frequented by hunters during big game seasons, most of whom use the river trail as their primary access. Both day use and camping occur during hunting season on Forest Service lands.

Deduct Spring Trailhead on the northern end of the corridor is accessed by Forest Road 65. Though this road does not cross the headwaters, it parallels the stream for about one mile,

Appendices 3.9 – p. 18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review causing the configuration of the corridor boundary to cross to the north of the road. The trailhead is lightly used by local residents and serves as a jumping off point for entry into the roaded fringe around the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness area as well as access to the South Fork Walla Walla trail. Road standards decline about one mile east of the trailhead.

South Fork Walla Walla Trailhead is accessed by Umatilla County Road 600. It is mainly used by individuals from within the geographic area.

The north end of the study corridor reflects the same traditional use patterns as found on the south. Outside of the trailheads, recreation use is driven by the trail along the river. Along most of the upper reaches, the floodplain is narrower and so the impact of trail braiding and user-made side trails is reduced. No public right-of-way exists through the private land outside the Forest boundary.

Finding: The recreation values within the South Fork Walla Walla River corridor are not identified as an outstandingly remarkable value. Similar recreational opportunities are found throughout much of the Blue Mountain area. There is a current diversity in mode of travel along a single trail. The area is popular, accessible, and often used to capacity by a local public. Very few opportunities to absorb additional use are available within the corridor because of the limitations of topography.

Wildlife Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: No threatened, endangered or sensitive animal species have been identified as residing in the South Fork Walla Walla study corridor. Stands identified as Dedicated Old Growth are located within the riparian corridor of the stream and up small draws in the southern and central portions of the corridor. Directly adjacent to the stream, a healthy riparian ecosystem with lush, shrubby vegetation lines a large portion of the stream bank (i.e., alder, willow, mock orange, current, and dogwood). These two wildlife habitat types are important due to their limited supply or availability. Riparian habitats are particularly valuable because of their disparate proportion of use. Comprising about 4% of the forest, riparian areas are heavily used by nearly 75 percent of the wildlife species. Canada lynx habitat is available in the upper reaches but not known to be occupied.

In the case of this stream, the riparian area is also attractive to wildlife because of the reduced levels of disturbance caused by roaded conditions. Some amount of disturbance is recognized as a result of frequent and/or motorized trail use in the vicinity of the South Fork trail. In general, the area exhibits a healthy and diverse population of wildlife, neither particularly unique in species present or, abundant in population. Intensity of use by individual species such as elk, mule deer, and a variety of birds could be influenced by seasonal variations. However, there are no identified migratory routes within the corridor.

Finding: The wildlife resource within the South Fork Walla Walla River study corridor is not an outstandingly remarkable value. The corridor does not contain nationally or regionally

Appendices 3.9 – p. 19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review important populations of wildlife species. No threatened, endangered, or sensitive species have been identified as residing or foraging within the study area. The diversity of species is not unique to the region, nor is habitat exceptional, unique, or unusually diverse.

Fisheries Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The South Fork of the Walla Walla River supports healthy populations of redband/rainbow trout, bull trout, and anadromous steelhead and Chinook salmon (re-introduced). This is a strong flowing stream with an excellent aquatic habitat and cold, clear water, which remains very cool year-round. It is widely recognized as an important bull trout stream as evidence by intensive studies of the species presently underway by several research groups.

It contains wild stocks of ESA-listed and threatened mid-Columbia steelhead, "threatened" Columbia River bull trout, as well as redband trout, which are listed as "sensitive" in USFS Region Six. It also provides excellent aquatic habitat for native fish species with good amount of woody debris, pools, spawning gravel, cover, and good quantities of cool, clean water. The study area is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as critical bull trout habitat.

Previous withdrawals of water for irrigation had reduced downstream flows to the point of making many reaches uninhabitable to native salmonids, but recent agreements with irrigators have partially restored downstream summer flows. The last two years, flows have persisted through the summer.

Access to privately owned cabins at the Forest boundary allows for fording of the river by passenger vehicle (4-wheel-drive) several times. These fords have moderately impacted the aquatic habitat in the South Fork Walla Walla.

A recreational trail parallels the river for almost its full length, but does not ford the stream, and is not closely adjacent to the water for most of its length. Two bridges cross the river at connecting trails. The trail has insignificant impact on the aquatic habitat in the South Fork Walla Walla.

Finding: Although it contains two stocks of federally listed (ESA) species and provides quality habitat for indigenous fish species, and is designated critical habitat for bull trout, the fisheries resource is not an outstandingly remarkable value. Better examples of fisheries habitat can be found on the Wenaha River and Bear Creek.

Heritage Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Cultural resource surveys have been conducted in high probability areas within the corridor. Several sites have been recorded and are considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ethnographic and historic sources indicate that the corridor has been used for hunting, fishing, and camping by both historic and prehistoric people,

Appendices 3.9 – p. 20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review

Finding: Some of the cultural resources identified within the SF Walla Walla River corridor are considered potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), however, these sites are similar to others found in the region and are not considered rare or unusual. Based upon existing knowledge and data, the corridor does not exhibit outstandingly remarkable cultural resource values.

Geology Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The geologic materials that form the South Fork Walla Walla canyon are not diverse. They are typically dark-gray or black flows of Grande Ronde basalt. These flows covered a large portion of the northern Blue Mountains during the middle and lower Miocene. Wanapum basalt is evident in several small, isolated pockets. These basalt deposits generally exhibit platy jointing and are lighter in color.

Tall rock pillars near Table Creek were determined to be visually interesting, but not geologically interesting. They are made of the same parent materials as the surrounding area, but were surrounded by softer materials that have eroded away, leaving isolated columnar structures.

No unusual hydrologic features were noted. Small springs and seeps periodically drain from the corridor toward the stream course providing for an interesting microclimate of mosses and ferns. No outstanding falls or exceptionally large springs were identified.

Finding: Geologic values of the South Fork of the Walla Walla are not identified as an outstandingly remarkable value.

Botany Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The north end of the South Fork Walla Walla corridor reaches over 5,000 feet in elevation. Beyond the riparian influence zone, subalpine plant communities dominate the study area in this portion of the corridor. Subalpine fir with Douglas fir, larch, and Engelmann spruce as contributors are found in the timbered overstory. Forest canopy is generally closed, although small grassy openings periodically peek through and ridge tops are generally bare or lightly covered with grasses.

In the central and southern portions of the corridor, above the riparian zone, alternate fingers of mixed conifers (white fir-dominant) extend toward the stream between rocky slopes covered in light grasses. A few stands of Douglas fir settle in isolated pockets along the stream course. As the stream turns east/west, south-facing slopes below Skiphorton Creek exhibit drier conditions and contrast more sharply with the north-slope plant communities. Ponderosa pine becomes more prevalent on the south side of the canyon.

Riparian vegetation is thick where rock slopes do not crowd the stream course and recreation use has not disturbed growth. Alder, Pacific yew, dogwood, ocean spray, thimbleberry and other shrubs are common. Small, wet, grassy meadows occasionally occur within the floodplain. Near

Appendices 3.9 – p. 21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review the forest boundary a small stand of large, mature paper birch trees shadow riparian shrubs and grasses, providing an interesting contrast in botanic features. Western paper birch is considered unique to the area.

Headwater regions include a few populations of regionally sensitive moonworts (Botrychium lanceolatum, B. minganense, and B. pinnaturm). The formerly listed male fern (Dyopteris filix- mas) is present on the upper reaches of the South Fork. The sheer rock faces and outcroppings, along with their seeps and springs, create a moist microclimate for ferns and mosses.

Finding: A variety of vegetation and ecologic land units typical of the Blue Mountains is present. The riparian vegetation complex is noteworthy, but not rare or unique, and does not exhibit outstandingly remarkable botanical values.

Water Quality Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The water quality within the South Fork Walla Walla study corridor is good to excellent. Recreation activities might have increased stream sediment very slightly; however, the general condition of the water is clear and cold. The South Fork Walla Walla River is one of the two biggest water producers within the Umatilla Forest, producing more than 3 acre-feet per acre per year. This is affected by characteristics of the watershed such as; steep slopes, shallow soils, and high amounts of yearly precipitation.

Finding: Water quality values of are not identified as an outstandingly remarkable value.

3. CLASSIFICATION

Eligibility Determination: The South Fork Walla Walla River does not meet the minimum eligibility requirements as specified by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It is found to be free- flowing, but current information supports the findings that outstandingly remarkable values are not present in the river corridor.

This section of river has the following attributes and eligibility: Water Resources Development: Free of Impoundment. Water Quality: Water unpolluted. WSR Eligibility: Does not meet requirements.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review ATTACHMENT B: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE

TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE 01 South Fork Walla Walla River Scenic: While the river corridor contains exceptional scenery in a variety of landforms, vegetation, water, and color that offer a sharp contrast to the arid landscape above, they are not considered outstandingly remarkable.

Recreation: While the river provides important regional recreation opportunities in the form of hiking, motorcycle riding, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and horseback riding, they are not considered outstandingly remarkable.

Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the river.

Fish: While the river is a top producer of threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Middle Columbia summer steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and contains exceptionally high quality due to extensive side channeling, backwaters, abundant vegetation cover, deep pools, and, most importantly, cool water temperatures that do not exceed 59 F (unique for the area and important for bull trout), fishery values can are not considered outstandingly remarkable.

Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the river is relatively high due to riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. Wildlife include mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, beaver, otter, raccoons, dozens of species of waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, raptors, and upland game birds. However, this characteristic is not unique to the South Fork Walla Walla River as it is common along rivers and creeks in the area and is thus not outstandingly remarkable.

Cultural: The river is culturally important to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation as a treaty and traditional subsistence fishing and hunting area. Cultural sites are present but cultural values are currently not considered rare or unusual in the area.

Historical: Two historic structures (a chimney from a circa 1930s cabin and a collapsed building) occur within the review segment on public lands. These structures lack integrity and are not known to be associated with a significant event, person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.

Similar Values (Ecological Values): The ecology of the river is unique as the riparian habitat consists of three separate, but interrelated, plant communities. One of the species present is western paper birch, which has not been previously reported in Oregon, and is thus of regional importance due to its uniqueness. However, ecological values are not considered outstandingly remarkable. 02 Grande Ronde River (Upper Section) Scenic: While the upper section of the Grande Ronde offers visitors views of a swift-water river flowing through heavily forested hillsides, the scenic qualities are not unique and similar to a number of other rivers in the area (e.g., Wallowa River, Minam River, and upper reaches of the Grande Ronde). The scenic qualities are also not exemplary or pristine, with the existing railroad grade partially degrading the scenic values.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE Recreation: While a number of recreation opportunities are provided along this stretch of river, including rafting and fishing, use is limited compared to the Wallowa River and downstream-segments of the Grande Ronde River (all part of the National WSR system). The recreation opportunities on the review segment of the upper Grande Ronde River are not important at a regional level due to the proximity of designated WSRs that offer higher quality recreation experiences. As such, the recreation values along the review section of the upper Grande Ronde River as not outstandingly remarkable Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the river. Fish: While the upper segment of the Grande Ronde River supports bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, and Snake River spring-run Chinook (all threatened species), it is not a major contributor or top producer of these species. The steelhead populations are currently experiencing low productivity and are influenced by hatchery fish, while the Snake River spring-run Chinook is currently experiencing low abundance and productivity (ODFW 2005). Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity is relatively high due to the riverine environment. However, this characteristic is not unique to the upper Grande Ronde River as it is common along other portions of the river as well as other rivers in the area, such as the Wallowa and Minam rivers. Cultural. No formal cultural inventories have been conducted and early railroad construction and historic disturbance of former private lands may have obliterated potential cultural site locations, reducing the likelihood that intact significant or unusual sites would be identified. Historical: Although no inventories have been conducted, the public lands are not known to contain any sites or features associated with a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area. Similar Values: The upper section of the Grande Ronde River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related. 03 Grande Ronde River (Lower Section) Scenic: The river corridor is of high scenic quality, including cliffs, terraces, grassy knolls, and the Grande Ronde Goosenecks National Natural Landmark. This mix of landform, vegetation, water, and color results in notable visual features within the geographic region, making the scenic values outstandingly remarkable.

Recreational: Public lands on the lower Grande Ronde River offer a variety of recreational activities, most notable of which are boating and steelhead fishing. Visitors are willing to travel long distances to recreate along this section of river, making recreational values outstandingly remarkable.

Geologic: Portions of the gooseneck meanders within the review segment are part of the Goosenecks National Natural Landmark: these entrenched meanders represent one of the “best” examples of a type of geological feature in its physiographic province. As such, geologic values along the lower Grande Ronde River can be considered outstandingly remarkable.

Fish: The review section of river supports bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all of which are threatened species. It is the only section of the river currently used by fall-run Chinook and comprises a significant percentage of the species available habitat. The importance of the river to all four threatened fish species qualifies fish values as outstandingly remarkable.

Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity is relatively high due to the riverine environment. However, this characteristic is not unique to the lower Grande Ronde River as it is common along other portions of the river as well as other rivers in the area, such as the Wallowa and Minam rivers.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE

Cultural: Native American occupation sites of regional importance are located on public lands within the study section of the lower Grande Ronde River, many of which could be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. As such, the cultural values along the lower Grande Ronde River are outstandingly remarkable.

Historical: While a number of historic (i.e., 50 years older or older) structures occur within the ½-mile boundary of the river on public lands, these are not known to be tied to a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.

Similar Values: The lower Grande Ronde River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related. 04 Snake River Scenic: While the river corridor includes a variety of scenic views, including canyon walls and steep hillsides with rock outcroppings, the scenic values are typical for many portions of the Snake River and not as a high quality compared to that found upstream in Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area.

Recreational: While heavy recreation use occurs within the review segment of the Snake River, the section of river through public lands under review is not the primary destination as most visitors are either on their way to or from Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The destination for the majority of recreationists on Jet Boats is Hells Canyon. The rafters are generally returning from a trip through Hells Canyon. These people are thus not drawn to the section of river through public lands to recreate but are merely using it as a corridor to recreate in Hells Canyon. Consequently, recreation values within the review segment of the Snake River are not outstandingly remarkable.

Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located within a ½-mile corridor along the creek.

Fish: While the review section of the Snake River is part of the central travel corridor used by several threatened fish species, including Snake River summer steelhead trout and Snake River spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon, the roughly 6.5 miles through public lands are not unique to these populations of fish when compared to the remainder of the river.

Wildlife: While the river corridor provides habitat for a number of animal species, including deer, bighorn sheep, bears, otters, ospreys, eagles, chukar, and partridge, the public lands do not contain nationally or regionally important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species important to the area. Cultural: The review segment of the Snake River is located within the Snake River National Register District. This makes the cultural values along the Snake River outstandingly remarkable.

Historical: While a number of historic (i.e., 50 years older or older) structures occur within the ½-mile boundary of the river on public lands, these are not known to be tied to a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.

Similar Values: The review segment of the Snake River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources

Appendices 3.9 – p. 25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE that are waterway related. 05 Joseph Creek Scenic: Joseph Creek lies within a deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy slopes, and benches, contrasted by the lush riparian area along the creek at the bottom of the canyon. This mix of landform, vegetation, water, and color results in notable visual features within the geographic region, making the scenic values outstandingly remarkable

Recreation: While there is potential for hiking, fishing, dispersed camping, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing along Joseph Creek, the heavy brush at the bottom of the canyon makes access difficult. In addition, other similar opportunities are available in the region, including upstream portions of Joseph Creek and the Grande Ronde River.

Geologic: Joseph Canyon is a “textbook” example of northeastern Oregon geology typified by Columbia River basalt canyon, exposed by the down cutting of the creek and including gooseneck meanders. These features qualify geologic values along Joseph Creek as outstandingly remarkable.

Fish: While Joseph Creek supports Snake River Basin steelhead, it is not a top producer/contributor of the species.

Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the varied habitat, including dry, upland slopes and contrasting riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. Animals include Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, river otter, black bear, cougar, peregrine falcons, and bald eagles. However, the public lands do not contain nationally or regionally important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species important to the area.

Cultural/Historic: Joseph Creek is included within the ceded boundaries of the Nez Perce Tribe and is important as a treaty and traditional subsistence fishing and hunting area for the Tribe. It is a vital part of Nez Perce Tribal history and includes the winter homeland of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, and possibly his birthplace. However, the exact location is uncertain and needs to be determined through historic research and consultation with the Nez Perce. In fact, due to a lack of extensive cultural resource inventory or tribal consultation, no known sites or features associated with Chief Joseph have been identified. In addition, although TCPs associated with the Nez Perce Tribe or Joseph Band of the Nez Perce are likely to occur on public lands along Joseph Creek, these have not been identified due to a lack of in-depth Tribal Consultation. The lack of such information and no known site or feature associated with an important aspect of Tribal history, the cultural/historic values of Joseph Creek cannot be considered outstandingly remarkable at this time.

Historical: While some historic (i.e., 50 years older or older) structures occur within the ½-mile boundary of the creek on public lands, these are not known to be tied to a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.

Similar Values: Joseph Creek contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related. 06 Conner Creek (Segments 2 & 3 only, Segment 1 is not Free Flowing due to extensive dredging) Scenic: The scenery along the creek is common to that found along other creeks in the geographic region, and it does not appear to be of a quality that would

Appendices 3.9 – p. 26 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE attract visitors from outside the area.

Recreational: Recreational opportunities are limited (driving for pleasure, nature viewing, hiking) and not unique enough to attract visitors from outside the region.

Geologic: Part of the BLM segment of Connor Creek flows underground during dryer months due to a geologic event; however, this “sunken” stream phenomenon is not rare.

Fish: The creek is not a top producer of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species, nor does it provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the region.

Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. However, this characteristic is not unique to Conner Creek as it is common along waterways within the geographic area.

Cultural: Comprehensive inventories of the upper creek corridor have not been conducted. One previously recorded archaeological site had been impacted by a road probably built during the early mining era and by unauthorized excavation in the 1950s. Its current integrity and eligibility to the NRHP has not been determined. At present, the site is not considered rare or unusual in the area.

Historical: Historic placer mining was carried out continuously along the creek from the 1870s into the 1940s. A mining community was established near the historic Connor Creek patented mine. On lower Connor Creek, historic structures consist of old road remnants and deteriorated miner’s dwellings that appear to date from the 1930s to 1940s. These features are not rare or unusual in the area.

Similar Values: Connor Creek contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related. 07 Burnt River Scenic: The scenery along the river is common to that found along other waterways in the geographic region, and it does not appear to be of a quality that would attract visitors from outside the area.

Recreational: Recreational opportunities are limited (driving for pleasure, nature viewing, hiking) and not unique enough to attract visitors from outside the region.

Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the creek.

Fisheries: The river is not a top producer of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species, nor does it provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish

Appendices 3.9 – p. 27 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE species indigenous to the region.

Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. However, this characteristic is not unique to Burnt River as it is common along waterways within the geographic area.

Cultural: Archaeological sites occur in inventoried portions of the river corridor. Although there have been no formal determinations of eligibility, the recorded sites are not rare or unusual in the area.

Historical: Historic area resources in the river corridor include remnants of historic irrigation and road features, and the remains of placer mining sites. No formal determinations of eligibility have been made for the features, which are common in the area.

Similar Values: Burnt River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related.

08 Fox Creek Scenic: The scenery along the creek is common to that found along other creeks in the geographic region, and it does not appear to be of a quality that would attract visitors from outside the area.

Recreational: Recreational opportunities are limited (driving for pleasure, nature viewing, hiking) and not unique enough to attract visitors from outside the region.

Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the creek.

Fish: The creek is not a top producer of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species, nor does it provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the region.

Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. However, this characteristic is not unique to Fox Creek as it is common along waterways within the geographic area.

Cultural: Archaeological sites are present along inventoried portions of the creek corridor. Also present are the remnants of a former cabin location. Although there have been no formal determinations of eligibility, the recorded sites are not rare or unusual in the area.

Historical: Historic era resources in the corridor include one late historic mine dwelling site, which lacks structural integrity. Aspen trees in the river corridor have carved names, initials, and dates from about the 1920s to present time. These historic resources are not rare or unusual in the area.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 28 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE

Similar Values: While Fox Creek is located within the only Rocky Mountain aspen ecosystem within the state of Oregon - being unique within a 300-400 mile radius - this ecosystem is not waterway dependent or entirely located within the ¼-mile boundary on both sides of the creek as it expands outside the creek corridor and along other side drainages and north-facing slopes in the Lookout Mountain area.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 29 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review ATTACHMENT C: RIVER SEGMENT NARRATIVE TABLE

Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID T4N, R37E, Sects. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15; S. Fork Walla T4N, R38E, Sect. 1.01 171.1 174.5 3.58 YES NO N/A N/A Walla River 7; Blalock Mountain, Tollgate Grand Ronde T3N, R40E, Sect. 2.01 81.5 81.6 0.07 YES NO N/A N/A River (Upper) 23; Rondowa T3N, R40E, Sects. Grand Ronde 2.02 20, 21, 22, 28; 82.2 84.2 2.06 YES NO N/A N/A River (Upper) Rondowa Grand Ronde T3N, R40E, Sect. 2.03 84.5 85.0 0.57 YES NO N/A N/A River (Upper) 29; Rondowa Grand Ronde T3N, R40E, Sects. 2.04 85.4 86.5 1.02 YES NO N/A N/A River (Upper) 31, 32; Rondowa Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and well- traveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic land forms. High quality boating and fishing T7N, R46E, Sect. Recreation Grand Ronde opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.01 13; Limekiln 0.1 0.7 0.6 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Rapids Fishery River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 30 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines and parallel road receives little use and is generally well screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide Scenic variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms. T7N, R46E, Sects. Recreation Grand Ronde High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the 3.02 27, 28, 34; Black 7.5 8.8 1.3 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important Butte Fishery contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Cultural Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines and parallel road receives little use and is generally well screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide Scenic variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms. Recreation Grand Ronde T7N, R46E, Sect. High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the 3.03 10.3 10.5 0.2 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 29; Black Butte best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important Fishery contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Cultural Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines with limited access via jeep trail. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic land forms. High quality boating and fishing Recreation Grand Ronde T7N, R46E, Sect. opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.04 10.9 11.2 0.3 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 32; Black Butte goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Fishery River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 31 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines with limited access via jeep trail. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic land forms. High quality boating and fishing Recreation Grand Ronde T7N, R45E, Sect. opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.05 16.3 16.5 0.2 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 35; Fields Spring goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Fishery River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines with limited access via jeep trail. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic T7N, R45E, Sect. land forms. High quality boating and fishing Recreation Grand Ronde 35; T6N, R45E, opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.06 16.8 17.3 0.5 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) Sect. 2; Fields goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Fishery Spring River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines and parallel road receives little use and is generally well screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide Scenic variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms. Recreation Grand Ronde T6N, R45E, Sect. High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the 3.07 17.6 18.2 0.6 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 3; Fields Spring best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important Fishery contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Cultural Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 32 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines and parallel road receives little use and is generally well screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide Scenic variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms. Recreation Grand Ronde T6N, R45E, Sects. High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the 3.08 18.6 20.2 1.6 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 3, 4; Fields Spring best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important Fishery contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Cultural Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Wild River Area due to essentially primitive shorelines with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, Scenic T7N, R45E, Sects. and interesting land forms. High quality boating and Recreation Grand Ronde 31, 32; T6N, fishing opportunities. One of the best examples of 3.09 21.2 23.0 1.8 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) R45E, Sect. 5; meandering goosenecks. Important contributor to bull Fishery Fields Spring trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Cultural Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Wild River Area due to essentially primitive shorelines with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, Scenic and interesting land forms. High quality boating and Recreation Grand Ronde T7N, R45E, Sect. fishing opportunities. One of the best examples of 3.10 23.1 24.1 1.0 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 31; Fields Spring meandering goosenecks. Important contributor to bull Fishery trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Cultural Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 33 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID Wild River Area due to essentially primitive shorelines with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, Scenic and interesting land forms. High quality boating and T7N, R44E, Sects. Recreation Grand Ronde fishing opportunities. One of the best examples of 3.11 33, 34, 35; 27.1 29.4 2.3 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) meandering goosenecks. Important contributor to bull Mountain View Fishery trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Cultural Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and well- traveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic land forms. High quality boating and fishing Recreation Grand Ronde T6N, R44E, Sect. opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.12 29.7 30.3 0.6 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 4; Mountain View goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Fishery River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and well- traveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic land forms. High quality boating and fishing Recreation Grand Ronde T6N, R44E, Sect. opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.13 31.2 31.7 0.5 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) 5; Mountain View goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Fishery River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 34 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and well- traveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting T6N, R44E, Sects. Scenic land forms. High quality boating and fishing 6, 7; T6N, R43E, Recreation Grand Ronde opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.14 Sects. 1,12, 13, 32.4 37.4 5.0 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake 18; Mountain Fishery River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and View, Flora Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and well- traveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting Scenic T6N, R43E, Sects. land forms. High quality boating and fishing Recreation Grand Ronde 11, 12, 14; Troy, opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering 3.15 38.1 38.6 0.5 YES YES Geologic River (Lower) Mountain View, goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake Fishery Saddle Butte River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Cultural Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native American occupation sites of regional importance. T7N, R47E, Sects. Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines 18, 19, 20, 29, 32 and parallel road receives little use and is generally well 4.01 Snake River 33; T6N, R47E, 168.8 175.7 6.87 YES YES Cultural screened from river. Located within the Snake River Sects. 4, 5, 9; National Register District, containing Native American Limekiln Rapids occupation sites of regional importance. Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no T6N, R46E, Sects. Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised 5.01 Joseph Creek 5.8 7.7 1.89 YES YES 7, 8; Black Butte Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 35 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no T6N, R46E, Sect. Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised 5.02 Joseph Creek 8.2 8.8 0.61 YES YES 17; Teepee Butte Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no T5N, R45E, Sect. Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised 5.03 Joseph Creek 19.7 19.8 0.08 YES YES 10; Paradise Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no T5N, R45E, Sect. Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised 5.04 Joseph Creek 19.8 20.2 0.35 YES YES 10; Paradise Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised T5N, R45E, Sect. Scenic 5.05 Joseph Creek 24.0 24.1 0.12 YES YES and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, 21; Paradise Cultural grassy open slopes, and benches. Vital part of Nez Perce Tribal history Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no T5N, R45E, Sect. Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised 5.06 Joseph Creek 26.6 26.7 0.06 YES YES 29; Paradise Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. T5N, R45E, Sects. Scenic River Area due to primitive road accessing creek Scenic 5.07 Joseph Creek 30, 31; Paradise, 30.0 32.6 2.59 YES YES bottom. Deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with Cultural Table Mountain gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. T12S, R45E, 6.01 Conner Creek Sects. 3, 10, 11, 0 2.4 2.41 YES NO N/A N/A 14; Connor Creek T11S, R45E, 6.02 Conner Creek Sects. 28, 33, 34; 2.7 4.9 2.20 YES NO N/A N/A Connor Creek

Appendices 3.9 – p. 36 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table River Township Range Start End Segment Length Free BLM List of Tentative Classification/ River Name and Sect. and River River Unique (Miles) Flowing Eligible ORVs ORV Description Quad Name Mile Mile ID T11S, R45E, Sect. 6.03 Conner Creek 5.2 5.5 0.26 YES NO N/A N/A 29; Connor Creek T11S, R42E, 7.01 Burnt River Sects. 26, 27, 28; 30.0 33.0 3.01 YES NO N/A N/A Lost Basin T11S, R42E, Sect. 7.02 Burnt River 33.9 40.2 0.30 YES NO N/A N/A 32; Lost Basin T12S, R42E, Sect. 6; T12S, R41E, 7.03 Burnt River Sects. 1, 2, 3, 4, 41.2 46.3 5.06 YES NO N/A N/A 10; Lost Basin, French Gulf T12S, R41E, 7.04 Burnt River Sects. 9, 16; 47.3 48.4 1.06 YES NO N/A N/A French Gulf T12S, R41E, 7.05 Burnt River Sects. 20, 21; 49.1 49.7 0.59 YES NO N/A N/A French Gulf T12S, R45E, Sects. 4, 5; T11S, 8.01 Fox Creek 3.2 4.2 0.96 YES NO N/A N/A R45E, Sect. 32; Connor Creek T11S, R45E, Sects. 30, 31, 32; 8.02 Fox Creek 4.3 6.0 1.68 YES NO N/A N/A Connor Creek, Big Lookout Mountain

Appendices 3.9 – p. 37 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review ATTACHMENT D: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REVIEW: BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA

Of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered public land surfaces (public lands) along the three waterways in the Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP) planning area determined to meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) eligibility criteria (see Table C1), public lands along the Grande Ronde and Snake rivers were found not to meet the suitability factors and were dropped from further consideration. Public lands along the downstream-most segments of Joseph Creek were also not considered suitable, while public lands along the upstream-most segment of Joseph Creek was found to meet the suitability factors. Summaries of the suitability determinations of all three waterways are presented below in Section II.

A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DURING THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REVIEW

A preliminary suitability report on waterways determined eligible in the Baker RMP planning area was prepared for the Baker RMP planning team. On October 26, 2009, the planning team reviewed and modified the report. That modified version is presented in this document. At this time, these determinations have not been submitted to the public for review. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the suitability review results during the normal scoping process and throughout the environmental analysis and planning process for the Baker RMP planning effort. Any comments made by the public concerning the determinations made in this review will be taken into consideration and documented in the RMP planning process. This WSR suitability review may be modified if deemed necessary as a result of public comment.

B. RESULTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REVIEW OF PUBLIC LANDS ALONG WATERWAYS IN THE BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA

1. GRANDE RONDE RIVER, LOWER SECTION

It was determined that the 15 public land parcels along the lower Grande Ronde review segment do not meet the WSR suitability factors and will be given no further consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. The non-suitable determination is based on the following:

The public land parcels involved are isolated and oftentimes encompass only one side of the river. In addition, of the entire length of the Grande Ronde River within the study area (from near the confluence with the Snake River to the Washington/Oregon Stateline), only 44 percent occurs on public lands. Due to these factors, management of public lands along the lower Grande Ronde River as part of the National WSR System would be nearly impossible.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 38 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review

A WSR designation is deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as the waterway segments are currently managed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and Special Recreation Management Area under the Baker RMP (BLM 1989). The entire length of the Grande Ronde River in the study area is also protected under the Washington State (Asotin County) Shoreline Program and managed under the Wallowa & Grande Ronde Rivers RMP (BLM et al. 1993). The management prescriptions afforded by these special designations and plans sufficiently protect identified scenic, recreation, geologic, fish, and cultural values found on public lands along the lower Grande Ronde River that were identified in this study. A WSR designation would thus provide no foreseeable additional protection.

The land and resource values on public lands involved can and will continue to be appropriately managed under all other applicable BLM mandates and regulations for multiple use, sustained yield, and environmental integrity and should suffer no adverse effects for lack of a WSR designation.

Snake River

It was determined that the single public land parcel along the Snake River does not meet the WSR suitability factors and will be given no further consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. The non-suitable determination is based on the following:

The public land parcels involved encompass only one side of the river, which would make management of public lands along the Snake River as part of the National WSR System nearly impossible.

Uses incompatible with the National WSR System occur on both public lands and private land adjacent to the public lands, including sand and gravel mining, levee construction/modification, and streambed stabilization.

It is expected that there would be opposition from private land owners caused by potential restrictions on both private and public land use practices that may occur under WSR designation. The activities that would be restricted are those that would have a direct and adverse effect on the free-flowing nature of the waterway and the related outstandingly remarkable values. Examples of projects that would likely be subject to this standard include, but are not limited to: dams; water diversion projects; fishery habitat and watershed restoration/enhancement projects; bridge and other roadway construction/reconstruction projects; bank stabilization projects; channelization projects; levee construction; recreation facilities such as boat ramps and fishing piers; and, activities that require a Section 404 permit from the Army Core of Engineers (e.g., sand and gravel mining).

The land and resource values on the public lands involved can and will continue to be appropriately managed under all other applicable BLM mandates and regulations for multiple

Appendices 3.9 – p. 39 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review use, sustained yield, and environmental integrity and should suffer no adverse effects for lack of a WSR designation.

Joseph Creek

It was determined that the one upstream-most public land parcel along the Joseph Creek review segment (Segment 5.7) meets the WSR suitability factors and should be managed to maintain or enhance its outstandingly remarkable values for any possible future consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. The suitable determination is based on the uniqueness of the diverse public land resources and their regional and national significance, making them worthy of future consideration for addition to the National WSR System.

The outstanding scenic and geologic values associated with the public lands involved make this a uniquely diverse waterway segment in the region. Within this portion of the review segment, the scenic values are of particular high value and include a deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches, with a brilliant green riparian area that contrasts the often-dry grassy slopes. The geologic values are also notable as they provide an excellent example of northeastern Oregon geology typified by Columbia River basalt canyons, exposed by the down cutting of the creek.

Making up 100 percent of the lands along this portion of the review segment, the 2.6 miles of public land along Joseph Creek are manageable by the BLM as a WSR under the provisions of the WSR Act. In addition, 8.6 miles of Joseph Creek directly upstream from the BLM review segment is already within the National WSR System, which makes upstream uses and management extremely compatible with the suitability determination. The BLM planning team did not identify any significant factors that would prevent them from managing the reviewed waterway segment as part of the National WSR System.

It was determined that the remaining six downstream public land parcels along the Joseph Creek review segment (Segments 5.1 - 5.6) do not meet the WSR suitability factors and will be given no further consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. The non-suitable determination is based on the following:

The BLM would be unable to manage the small, isolated parcels of public lands in the context of a WSR. The six public land parcels, ranging from 0.06 to 1.89 miles in length, are interspersed among larger parcels of private and state land and only make up 11 percent of the total length of Joseph Creek in the study area (excluding the suitable segment). Due to these factors, management of public lands along Joseph Creek as part of the National WSR System would be nearly impossible.

A WSR designation is deemed unnecessary for the two downstream-most segments of Joseph Creek (Segments 5.01 and 5.02) as they are currently managed as an ACEC and assigned to Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II. The management prescriptions

Appendices 3.9 – p. 40 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review afforded by these designations sufficiently protect identified scenic and geologic values found on public lands along the downstream-most two segments of Joseph Creek that were identified in this study. A WSR designation would thus provide no foreseeable additional protection.

The land and resource values on public lands involved can and will continue to be appropriately managed under all other applicable BLM mandates and regulations for multiple use, sustained yield, and environmental integrity and should suffer no adverse effects for lack of a WSR designation.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 41 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review ATTACHMENT E: MANAGEMENT OF WATERWAYS WITHIN THE BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA THAT MEET THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The recommendations for interim protection measures described in this document are meant to provide temporary or interim protection of the wild and scenic river (WSR) values on all suitable waterway areas, which would be integrated into the Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP). Included are management objectives, management actions, and appropriate allocations of land and resource uses that would maintain the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative classifications identified for one segment of Joseph Creek. Pursuant to the WSR Act of 1968, as amended, until the public reviews are completed and final decisions are made on WSR eligibility and suitability determinations, no uses of the reviewed Bureau of Land Management (BLM)- administered public land surfaces (public lands) will be authorized that could impair any outstandingly remarkable value they may contain, or would otherwise reduce or destroy their potential eligibility classification or suitability for consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. In general, management requirements for river or river segments that are found suitable for consideration as components of the National WSR System are the same that apply to designated and study rivers (BLM 1993).

A. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REVIEW PROCESS

In conducting the WSR review process, applying the WSR eligibility criteria and suitability factors and determining the tentative WSR classifications focused on the public lands within a one-half mile wide corridor along the reviewed river segment (i.e., approximately one-quarter mile wide along each bank of the waterway along the length of the review segments). The public lands within and adjacent to this corridor will be considered in future site-specific activity or management implementation planning to fulfill the stated management objective.

The public lands along the one upstream-most review segment of Joseph Creek (Segment 5.7) were found to meet the WSR suitability factors to be given further consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System and thus require interim protection. The public lands along the reviewed segments of Burnt River, Conner Creek, Fox Creek, the Grande Ronde River (upper section), and the South Fork Walla Walla River were determined not to meet the WSR eligibility criteria and are dropped from further consideration. Public lands along the reviewed segments of the Grande Ronde River (lower section), Snake River, and Joseph Creek (Segments 5.1 - 5.6) were found to meet the WSR eligibility criteria, but were not considered suitable for inclusion in the National WSR System and thus, by definition, do not require interim protection.

B. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE

The management objective for the waterways that meet the WSR suitability factors is to maintain or enhance their outstandingly remarkable values and WSR classification until Congress considers them for possible designation. The interim protection measures for suitable waterways

Appendices 3.9 – p. 42 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review in the Baker RMP planning area apply only to the waterway corridor which extends the length of the identified waterway segments and includes the waterway area, its immediate environment, and an average of no more than one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) from the ordinary high water mark on both sides of the waterway. This boundary is preliminary and, by Section 3(b) of the WSR Act, may vary on either side of the waterway and be narrower or wider as long as the total corridor width averages no more than 320 acres (half of a mile or 2,640 feet wide) per river mile, and can be delineated by legally identifiable lines (e.g., survey or property lines) or some form of on-the-ground physical feature (e.g., canyon rims, roads, etc.) which provide the basis for protecting the waterway’s outstandingly remarkable values. Final boundary delineation will be made if and when Congress decides to designate the waterway segments under review.

1. JOSEPH CREEK

One upstream-most public land parcel along the Joseph Creek review segment (involving 2.9 miles of the creek) was found to meet the WSR suitability factors to be given further consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. This segment of Joseph Creek is tentatively classified as scenic.

Management of public lands along Joseph Creek in the review section is currently covered under the Baker Resource Management Plan (BLM 1989), which is consistent with the protection of outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values identified along the creek.

Interim protective measures aimed at protecting outstandingly remarkable scenic values:

While the downstream-most segments of Joseph Creek (Segments 5.1 and 5.2) determined eligible but not suitable are located within Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC and assigned to Visual Resource Management (VRM) II, thus receiving adequate protection for its scenic values, the suitable upstream segment of Joseph Creek (Segment 5.7) currently receives no such protection.

Areas of high scenic quality are often designated as VRM Class II. Any project work within a Class II area cannot be visual to a casual visitor from any travel route. Any activities that would result in significant, long-term adverse effects are not permitted Class II areas. Such protective measures are consistent with the protection of outstandingly scenic values along the suitable of Joseph Creek. It is recommended that the upstream suitable segment of Joseph Canyon be inventoried and classified appropriately for the protection of high scenic values (i.e., VRM Class II)

The outstandingly remarkable scenic values found in the downstream eligible but not suitable sections of Joseph Creek are currently protected by management actions covering the Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC. This is partially accomplished through the maintenance of natural riparian and upland plant vegetation in the canyon, closing off land immediately adjacent to Joseph Creek to vehicle use, applying a “no surface occupancy” restriction for all gas exploration and development, excluding timber harvesting, and restricting livestock grazing (BLM 1989). It is recommended that similar protective measures outlined in the BLM RMP (1989) covering

Appendices 3.9 – p. 43 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review management of Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC that protect the area’s scenic qualities should also be applied to the upstream segment of Joseph Creek determined suitable for inclusion into the National WSR system.

Interim protective measures aimed at protecting outstandingly remarkable geologic values:

Outstandingly remarkable geologic values on public lands along the two downstream-most eligible but not suitable segments of Joseph Creek (Segments 5.01 and 5.02) are adequately protected by the Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC designation due to restrictions placed on motorized vehicle travel, recreation, and grazing, and from “no surface occupancy” restrictions. It is recommended that similar protective measures be applied to the upstream suitable segment of Joseph Creek (Segments 5. 7) to sustain outstandingly remarkable geologic values.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 44 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Wild and Scenic River Review ATTACHMENT F: LITERATURE CITED

Buchanan, D. V., M. L. Hanson, and R. M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout: Distribution, Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status. Portland: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Baker Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. Vale, Oregon.

Bureau of Land Management. 1992. South Fork of the Walla Walla River Area Plan Amendment. Vale, Oregon.

Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Manual 8351 – Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management. Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management. 2004. “Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual Section 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers, with Respect to Eligibility Criteria and Protective Management,” Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-196, Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Washington State Shoreline Program, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 1993. Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers Final Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. Vale, Oregon.

Carmichael, R. W. 2006. Draft Recovery Plan for Oregon’s Middle Columbia River Steelhead. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, La Grande, OR.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004 Initial Assessment of NMFS’ Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams (CHARTs) for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and O. mykiss (November 2004), including Appendix K: Initial CHART Assessment for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005a. Oregon’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005b. Oregon Native Fish Status Report 2005 Public Draft: Volume I – Species Management Unit Summaries. Salem, Oregon.

Saul, D., C. Rabe, A. Davidson, and D. Rollins. 2001. Draft Walla Walla Subbasin Summary. Report prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council.

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. 2005. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for South Eastern Washington. Report prepared for Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 45 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Appendix 3.8: Wild and Scenic River Review

U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service. 1999. “The Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process,” Technical Report Prepared for the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. Portland, Oregon and Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 9, Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit, Oregon and Washington. 153 p., In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 11, Grande Ronde River Recovery Unit, Oregon and Washington. 95 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.

Appendices 3.9 – p. 46 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited LITERATURE CITED

Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdfp

Adams, Michael J., Christopher A. Pearl, Brome McCreary, Stephanie K. Galvan, Stephanie J. Wessell, Wendy H. Wente, Chauncey W. Anderson, and Allison B. Kuehl. 2009. Short-Term Effect of Cattle Exclosures on Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Populations and Habitat in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Herpetology. 43(1): 132–138.

Aikens, C.M., 1986 Second Edition. Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office.

Alder, P., D. Raff, and W. Lauenroth. 2001. The Effect of Grazing on the Spatial Heterogeneity of Vegetation. Oecologia. 128: 465-479.

Aldridge, L. Cameron, and R. Mark Brigham. 2001. Nesting and Reproductive Activities of Greater Sage- Grouse in a Declining Northern Fringe Population. The Condor. 103(3): 537-543.

Aldridge, Cameron L., Scott E. Nielsen, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Mark S. Boyce, John W. Connelly, Steven T. Knick, and Michael A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2008) 14, 983–994

Allen, Edith B. 1995. Restoration ecology: limits and possibilities in arid and semiarid lands. In: Proceedings of the Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium. USDA Forest Service INT GTR-315, pp. 7-15.

American Wind Energy Association, 2009. Accessed on June 9, 2009. http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Oregon

Amman, Gene D., and Richard F. Schmitz. 1988. Mountain Pine Beetle: Lodgepole Pine Interactions and Strategies for Reducing Tree Losses. Ambio. 17(1): 62-68.

Anderson, Jay E. and Richards S. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in plant species abundance and biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over 45 years. Ecological Monographs. 71: 531–556.

Anderson, William E. and Richard J. Scherzinger. 1975. Source Improving Quality of Winter Forage for Elk by Cattle Grazing. Journal of Range Management. 28(2): 120-125.

Angell, R. 1997. Crested Wheatgrass and Shrub Response to Continuous or Rotational Grazing. Journal of Range Management. 50: 160-164.

Ashe, B., K. Concannon, D.B. Johnson, R.L. Zollman, D. Bryson, G. Alley. 2000. Northeast Oregon hatchery spring Chinook master plan. Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 198805305, April 2000. DOE/BP-3267.

LC-1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Bacon, M., P. Brouha, M. Rode, and C. Staley. 1980. Redband Trout (Salmo sp.): USFS Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California, comprehensive habitat management plan. U.S. Forest Service, Redding, California.

Bailey, Vernon. 1936. The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. Washington [U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] Series: North American fauna, no. 55.

Baker, William L. 2006. Fire and Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34(1): 177-185.

Barrett, S.C., and J.R. Kohn,. 1991. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds D.A. Falk & K.E. Holsinger).-, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 3–30.

Bates, Jonathan D., Edward C. Rhodes, Kirk W. Davies, and Robert Sharp. 2009. Postfire Succession in Big Sagebrush Steppe with Livestock Grazing. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 62(1): 98- 110.

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Battz, and H. Imaki. 2006. Projected impact of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104: 6720-6727.

Bautista, Shawna L. April 2005. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. DRAFT Summary of Herbicide Effects to Wildlife. DRAFT Invasive Plant EIS US Forest Service, Region 6 Regional Office, Portland, OR.

Beck, Jeffrey L. and Dean L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of Livestock Grazing on Sage Grouse Habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(4): 993-1002.

Becker, J.M., C.A. Duberstien, J.D. Tagestade, and J.L. Downs. 2009. Sage-grouse and Wind Energy: Biology, habitats, and Potential Effects from development. Department of Energy. US Department of Commerce. Springfield VA

Bedell, T., L. Eddleman, T. Deboodt, and C. Jacks. 1993. Western Juniper its Impact and Management in Oregon Rangelands. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.

Beier, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications. 7: 564-571.

Belnap, J., J. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2, BLM National Science and Technology Center. Denver CO.

Benda, L., N.L. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. Pollock. 2004. The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience. 54: 413– 427. LC-2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Bengston, S.A. 1972. Breeding Ecology of the Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus (L.) in Iceland. Ornis Scandinavica. 3(1): 1-19.

Betts, B.J. 1990. Geographic Distribution and Habitat Preferences of Washington Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus washingtoni). Northwestern Naturalist. 71(2): 27-37.

Betts, B.J. 1999. Current status of Washington ground squirrels in Oregon and Washington. Northwestern Naturalist. 80: 35-38.

Billings, W.D. 1994. Ecological Impacts of Cheatgrass and Resultant Fire on Ecosystems in the Western Great Basin. In S. B. Monsen and S. G. Kitchen [COMPILERS]. Proceedings—ecology and management of annual rangelands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INTGTR 313. Pages 22-30.

Birdsey, R., K.Pregitzer, and A. Lucier. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600- 2100. Journal of Environmental Quality. 35: 1461-1469.

Bishop, E. 2003. In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Timber Press: Portland, OR.

Björk, Curtis R. 2010. Personal communication. January 20, 2010. E-mail to Roger Ferriel regarding presence of special status plants and Hells Canyon Mountain snail at Lime Hill.

Björk, Curtis R. 2010a. Additions to the Lichen Flora of Washington State, United States. I. Evansia, 27(1): 18–20.

Björk, Curtis R. 2010b. Personal communication via email on June 20, to Roger Ferriel.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. W. R. Meehan, ed. Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society. Special Publication 19: 83-138.

Bock, C. E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis' woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). Univ. California Pub. Zool. No. 92.

Boeker, L. Erwin, and Paul R. Nickerson. 1975. Raptor Electrocutions. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 3(2): 79- 81.

Boyer, Robin and Christian E. Grue. 1995. The Need for Water Quality Criteria for Frogs. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Fisheries .

Brandt, J.P., T.A. Morgan, T. Dillion, G.J. Lettman, C.E. Keegan, and D.L. Azuma. 2006. Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2003. PNW-GTR 681. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

LC-3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for Maintenance of Sage Grouse Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 5(3): 99-106.

Braun, C. E., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2005. Seasonal Habitat Requirements for Sage- Grouse: Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. In: Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Symposium Proceedings. N. L. Shaw, M. Pellant and S. B. Monsen. RMRS-P-38. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 130pp.

Brennan, L. A., W. M. Block, and R. J. Gutierrez. 1987. Habitat Use by Mountain Quail in Northern California. The Condor. 89(1): 66-74.

Brewer, Tracy K., Jeffrey C. Mosley, Daniel E. Lucas, Lisa R. Schmidt. 2007. Bluebunch Wheatgrass Response to Spring Defoliation on Foothill Rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 60(5): 498-507.

Broich, S.L. and L.A. Morrison. 1995. The taxonomic Status of Lupinus cusickii (Fabaceae). Madrono. 42(4): 490-500.

Brittell, J. D., R. J. Poelker, S. J. Sweeney, and G. M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington. Section III: Lynx. Unpublished Report, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia. 169 pp.

Brooks, H. 1979. Plate Tectonics and the Geologic History of the Blue Mountains. Oregon Geology. 41(5): 71-79.

Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science. 2(1): 40-57.

Brown, T.J., B.H. Hall, and A.L. Westerling. 2004. The Impact of Twenty-First Century Climate Change on Wildland Fire Danger in the Western United States: An Application Perspective. Climate Change. 62: 364-388.

Buchanan, D. V., M. L. Hanson, and R. M. Hooten. 1997. Status of Oregon’s bull trout. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland.

Bull, Evelyn L. and Marc P. Hayes. 2000. Livestock Effects on Reproduction of the Columbia Spotted Frog. Journal of Range Management. 53(3): 291-294.

Bull, Evelyn. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia Spotted Frog in Northeastern Oregon. USFS General Technical Report PNW-GTR-640.

Bunting, S.C., B.M. Kilgore, and C.L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for Prescribed Burning in Sagebrush- Grass Rangelands in the Northern Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-23 1. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,..

Bunting, S. C., J. L. Kingery, M. A. Hemstrom, M. A. Schroeder, R. A. Gravenmier, and W. J. Hann. 2002. Altered Rangeland Ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-553. USDA Forest Service.

LC-4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Regional Economic Information System. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005a. Regional Economic Information System. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005b. Regional Economic Information System, Table CA30, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Ironside Draft Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, OR: Oregon State Office.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Ecosite Inventory cited in Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Ironside Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon State Office.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1981. Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) Record of Decision Ironside EIS Area. Baker Resource Area.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1985. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon State Office: Portland, Oregon.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. Baker Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Vale District Office: Vale, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon State Office: Portland, Oregon.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1989. Baker Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision. BLM-OR-PT-89-10-1792. Vale District Office: Vale, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989a. Vale District Weed Control Plan EA OR-030-89-19. (and as extended 1994, 1999, 2006, 2009).

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Vegetation Treatment on BLM lands in Thirteen Western States Final Environmental Impact Statement. BLM-WY-ES-91-022-4320. Wyoming State Office: Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. South Fork of the Walla Walla River Area Plan Amendment. BLM Vale District Office: Vale, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Powder River Final Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. BLM Vale District Office: Vale, Oregon.

LC-5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-010. Oregon/Washington State Office. Portland, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines or Livestock Grazing Management of Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington. BLM Oregon State Office: Portland, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 1737- 15. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Recreation: A Strategic Plan.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Biological Soil Crust: Ecology and Management, Interagency Technical Reference. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. pp65-69.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior, 2001a. Manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management. 39 p.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Lookout Mountain Forest and Rangeland Health Project and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Vale District, Baker Field Office: Baker City, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Oregon/Washington (OR/WA) Special Status Species (SSS) policy. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-054.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. 1.4.1 Guidance for the Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-Grouse Conservation. November 2004. 33 pgs.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. Volumes 1-4.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005a. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H 1601-1). 477 pages plus appendices.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006. Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetlands Areas, Interagency Technical Reference 1737-20. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006a. Chemical Pest Control Handbook 9011. Washington D.C.

LC-6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006b. Use of Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands. Handbook 9014. Washington D.C.

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2006c. Integrated Weed Management. Handbook 9015. Washington D.C.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. “Healthy Lands Initiative – National” (factsheet). Bureau of Land Management. 2pp.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007a. BLM Monitoring Report for the Columbia River and Snake River Basins. BLM Vale District Office: Vale, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007b. Instructional Memorandum OR- 2007-072. Update to State Director’s Special Status Species List. BLM Washington and Oregon.4 pages plus attachments.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007c. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Nevada State Office: Reno, NV.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 2007d. Draft Butte Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Butte Field Office, Butte, MT.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Instructional Memorandum OR- 2008-038. Final State Director’s Special Status Species List. BLM Washington and Oregon. 4 pp. plus attachments. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008a. BLM Special Status Species Manual (6840). 48 pages.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008b. BLM’s National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H1790-1). 128 pages plus appendices.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008c. Integrated Vegetation Management Manual. Manual Section 1740-2. Washington D.C.

Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior. 2008d. Range Administration System. http://www.blm.gov/ras/authorized.htm

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Baker Resource Management Plan Revision Analysis of the Management Situation. Vale District Office, Baker Resource Area. Baker City, OR. March 2009.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009a. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment/Record of Decision (ROD) for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western States. USDI Bureau of Land Management.

LC-7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Oregon State Office: Portland, OR.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010a. Water Quality Law Summary - Oregon 2. BLM National Science and Technology Center Website. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/oregon2.html (last accessed March 30, 2010).

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2007. Departmental Manual 517 DM 1. Integrated Pest Management. http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/IPM/DOI517DM1.pdf website accessed on 2/19/2010.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Washington State Shoreline Program; and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 1993. Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers Final Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. Vale, Oregon.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of State Lands. 2000. Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems Management Guidelines. Interagency Sage-grouse Planning Team: Portland, OR, 21p.

Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, vol. 1, 675 p.

Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin. Version 5.0/April 2008. Boise, ID: Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office and US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150.

Bush L. Krista, Christopher K. Dyte, Brendan J. Moynahan, Cameron L. Aldridge, Heather S. Sauls, Angela M. Battazzo, Brett L. Walker, Kevin E. Doherty, Jason Tack, John Carlson, Dale Eslinger, Joel Nicholson, Mark S. Boyce, David E. Naugle, Cynthia A. Paszkowski, David W. Coltman, Conserv Genet. 2010. Population structure and genetic diversity of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in fragmented landscapes at the northern edge of their range. DOI 10.1007/s10592-010-0159-8

Campbell, M.H. and F.G. Swain. 1973. Factors Causing Losses during the Establishment of Surface- Sown Pastures. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 355-359.

Carmichael, R.W., G.C. Grant, and T.L. Hoffnagle. 2006. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan: Oregon evaluation studies. Work Statement submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Contract Number 1411-07-J009. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office, Boise, ID.

LC-8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Chamberlain, D.E., M.M. Rehfisch, A.D. Fox, M. Desholm, and S.J. Anthony. 2006. The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis. 148: 198-202.

Chambers, Jeanne C. and Mike Pellant. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on Northwestern and Intermountain United States Rangelands. Rangelands. 30(3): 29-33.

Chapin, T. G., D. J. Harrison, and P. D. M. 1997. Seasonal Habitat Selection by Marten in an Untrapped Forest Preserve. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3): 707-717.

Christiansen T. 2009. Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Collisions and Mortality near Farson, Wyoming – Summary of Interim Results. Wyoming Game & Fish Dept.

Clark, D. and W. Hunter. 1992. The Impact of Economic Opportunity, Amenities and Fiscal Factors on Age-Specific Migration Rates. Journal of Regional Science. 32(3): 349-365.

Clark, Patrick E., William C. Krueger, Larry D. Bryant and David R. Thomas. 2000. Livestock Grazing Effects on Forage Quality of Elk Winter Range. Journal of Range Management. 53(1): 97-105.

Clark, Larry, Jeffrey Hall, Robert McLean, Michael Dunbar, Kaci Klenk, Richard Bowen, and Cynthia A. Smeraski. 2006. Susceptibility of Greater Sage-Grouse to Experimental Infection with West Nile Virus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 42(1): 14–22

Clary, W. P. 1999. Stream Channel and Vegetation Responses to Late Spring Cattle Grazing. Journal of Range Management. 52(3): 218-227.

Clary, W. P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian Grazing Guidelines for the Intermountain Region. Rangelands. 12(4), August1990.

Clary, Warren P. and Wayne C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble Height as a Tool for Management of Riparian Areas. Journal of Range Management. 53: 562-573.

Climate Change Impacts Group, University of Washington. 2010. About Pacific Northwest Climate: Climate Change.

Cochran, P.H. and James W. Barrett, 1999. Growth of Ponderosa Pine thinned to different stocking levels in central Oregon: 30 year results. PNW-RP-508. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Coddington, K.E., 2008. An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Livestock Trampling on an Obsidian Lithic Scatter. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. Thesis.

Collins, William B. and Philip J. Urness. 1983. Feeding Behavior and Habitat Selection of Mule Deer and Elk on Northern Utah Summer Range. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 646-663.

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. 2008. Tribal Pacific Lamprey Restoration Plan for the Columbia River Basin. Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakima and Warm Springs Tribes. LC-9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Connelly, J. W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28: 967-985.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, , P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. The Condor. 106(2): 363-376.

Connor F. Edward, Aaron C. Courtney, and James M. Yoder. 2000. Individuals – Area Relationships: The Relationship Between Animal Population Density and Area. Ecology. 81(3): 734–748.

Amundson, Courtney L. and Steven T. Knick. No Date. Influences of Environmental and Anthropogenic Features on Greater Sage-Grouse Populations, 1997-2007. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 204 Hodson Hall 1980 Folwell Ave.

Cook, John G., Terry J. Hershey, and Larry L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative Response to Burning on Wyoming Mountain-Shrub Big Game Ranges. Journal of Range Management. 47(4): 296-302.

Cook, John G., Thomas W. Stutzman, Clinton W. Bowers, Kathryn A. Brenner, and Larry L. Irwin. 1995. Spherical Densiometers Produce Biased Estimates of Forest Canopy Cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(4) 711-717.

Cook, John G., Bruce K. Johnson, Rachel C. Cook, Robert A. Riggs, Tim Delcurto, Larry D. Bryant, and Larry L. Irwin. 2004. Effects Of Summer-Autumn Nutrition And Parturition Date On Reproduction And Survival Of Elk. Wildlife Monographs. January 2004, Number 155.

Copeland, Jeffrey P. 1996. Biology of the Wolverine in Central Idaho Moscow ID: University of Idaho. Thesis.

Copeland, Jeffrey P., James M. Peek, Craig R. Groves, Wayne E. Melquist, Kevin S. Mckelvey, Gregory W. McDaniel, Clinton D. Long, and Charles E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal Habitat Associations of the Wolverine in Central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7).

Cordell, H. 2005. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Asheville, NC: U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Courtois, Danielle R., Barry L. Perryman and Hussein S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation Change after 65 Years of Grazing and Grazing Exclusion. Journal of Range Management. 57(6): 574-582.

Cox G.W. and J. Hunt. 1990. Nature and Origin of Stone Stripes on the Columbia Plateau. Landscape Ecology. 5: 53-64.

Cox, Robert D. and Val Jo Anderson. 2004. Increasing Native Diversity of Cheatgrass-Dominated Rangeland through Assisted Succession. Journal of Range Management. 57(2): 203-210.

LC-10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Crawford, J. A. and R. S. Lutz. 1985. Sage Grouse Population Trends in Oregon, 1941-1983. The Murrelet. 66(3): 69-74

Crawford, John A., Rich A. Olson, Neil E. West, Jeffrey C. Mosley, Michael A. Schroeder, Tom D. Whitson, Richard F. Miller, Michael A. Gregg, and Chad S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management. 57: 2-19.

Cronquist, A., A. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora. Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol 4. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, N.Y. pages 484-485.

Crozier, L.G. and R.W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75: 1100-1109.

Crozier, L.G., R.W. Zabel, and A.F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global Change Biology. 14: 236-249.

Currens, K. P. 1991. Allozyme and morphological characteristics of rainbow trout in the Burnt and Powder Rivers and McGraw Creek, Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

D’Antonio, C.M and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass/Fire Cycle and Global Change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 23: 63-87.

Danvir, R. E. 2002. Sage Grouse ecology and management in a northern Utah sagebrush-steppe. Woodroff, UT: Deseret Land and Livestock, Inc.; Wildlife Research Report.

Daszak, P., A. Strieby, A. Cunningham, and others. 2004. Experimental Evidence That the Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Is a Potential Carrier of Chytridiomycosis, an Emerging Fungal Disease of Amphibians. Herpetological Journal. 14: 201-207.

Dauble, D.D., R.L. Johnson, and A.P. Garcia. 1999. Fall Chinook spawning in the tailraces of lower Snake River hydroelectric projects. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128(4): 672– 679.

Davies, Kirk W., Johnathon D. Bates, and Richard F. Miller. 2007. Short-Term Effects of Burning Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe in Southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 60(5): 512-522.

Davies, K.W., A.J. Svejcar, J.D. Bates. 2009. Grazing History Influences the Response of Sagebrush Plant communities to Fire. p. 44-49. In: Range Field Day 2009: Progress Report. Oregon State University Special Report 1092. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center.

DeBano, L.F.1999. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a review. Journal of Hydrology. 231–232 (2000) 195–206.

LC-11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, and others. 1999. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Ferruginous Hawk. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center: Jamestown, ND, 23pp.

DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford and D. C. DeLong, Jr. 1995. Relationships between Vegetational Structure and Predation of Artificial Sage Grouse Nests. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(1): 88- 92.

Demarchi, A. Raymond. 1968. Chemical Composition of Bighorn Winter Forages. Journal of Range Management. 21(6): 385-388.

Denman et al, 2007. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biochemistry, In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Fourth Assessment Report IPCC, p 512.

Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM and US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE/GO-102003-1704. February 2003.

Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. Technical Guidelines: Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1605[b]) Program.Office of Policy and International Affairs. http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/documents/January2007_1605bTechnicalGuid elines.pdf (accessed March 2008).

Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. National Renewable Energy Lab, Job and Economic Development Impact Model for Wind. Release Number: W1.09.03e. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/ Accessed on October 8th, 2009.

Derner, J.D. and G.E. Schuman. 2007. Carbon sequestration and rangelands: A synthesis of land management and precipitation effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 62(2).

Desimone, S.M. and D.W. Hays. 2004. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Vol. IV. Birds. Washington Dep. Fish and Wildlife. 17 pp

DiTomaso, Joseph M. 2000. Invasive Weeds in Rangelands: Species, Impacts, and Management. Weed Science. 2000, 48(2): 255-265. Weed Science Society of America.

Dixon R.D. 1995a. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. Thesis. 148 p.

Dixon, R. D. 1995b. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Nongame Project Number 93-3-01. 71 + p.

Dobkin, D.S. and J.D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe Landscapes in Jeopardy. Distributions, Abundances, and the Uncertain Future of Birds and Small Mammals in the Intermountain West. Bend, OR: High Desert Ecological Research Instititue. 194pp.

LC-12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Dobler, Freddrick and Kenneth Dixon. 1990. Rabbits hares and pikas: status survey and conservation plan. Google book [website] access: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q994k86i0zYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA111&dq=Dobler +and+Dixon+Pygmy+rabbit&ots=RotsRoWvOZ&sig=tVJrmKpqTX3R7JoqPqMBRUSjNrQ#v= onepage&q=Dobler%20and%20Dixon%20Pygmy%20rabbit&f=false

Doherty M.K. 2007. Mosquito Populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: A Comparison of Natural, Agriculture and Effluent Coal Bed Natural Gas Aquatic Habitats. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. Thesis.

Dohm, Arlene. 2005. Farming in the 21st Century, A Modern Business in a Modern World. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston. 2006. Assessing the Impacts of Wind Farms on Birds. Ibis. 148: 29- 42.

Drut, M.S., W.H. Pyle, and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Diets and Food Selection of Sage Grouse Chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 47(1): 90-93.

Duffus, A.L., B.D. Pauli, K. Wozney, C.R. Brunetti, and M. Berrill. 2008. Frog virus 3-like infections in aquatic amphibian communities. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 44: 109-120.

Dunn O. Peter and Clait E. Braun. 1986. Summer Habitat Use by Adult Female and Juvenile Sage Grouse. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(2): 228-235

Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949. Condition and Management of Rangeland Based on Quantitative Ecology. Journal of Range Management. 2: 104-115.

Economic Profile System. 2007. Headwaters Economics, BLM, and the Sonoran Institute, 2007 Version. Version date 1/29/2008. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org

Elliot, William J., Ina Sue Miller, and Lisa Audin. Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Ellis, James E. and Michael Travis. 1975. Comparative Aspects of Foraging Behaviour of Pronghorn Antelope and Cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology. 12(2): 411-420.

Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management. Rangelands. 9(6): 260- 265. (Dec., 1987). Published by: Allen Press and Society for Range Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4000413

Ellstrand N.C., and D.R, Elam... 1993. Population genetic consequences of small population size: implications for plant conservation. Annual Review Ecological Sytematics. 2(4): 217- 242.

Emmerich, F.L., F.H. Tipton, and J.A. Young. 1993. Cheatgrass: Changing Perspectives and Management Strategies. Rangelands. 15(1): 37-40.

LC-13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Engle, Janice C. and James C. Munger. 2003. Population Fragmentation of Spotted Frogs in the Owyhee Mountains. Department of Biology, Boise State University, Technical Bulletin No. 03 8, Idaho Bureau of Land Management.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks : 1990-2007.

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson and D.P. Young, Jr. 2005. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. In: Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the third International Partners in Flight conference. C. J. Ralph and T. Rich. General Technical Report, GTR-PSW-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 1029- 1042pp.

Ersch A. Erica. 2009. Effects of Plant Community Characteristics on Insect Abundance: Implications for Sage-grouse Brood-rearing Habitat. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Thesis.

Estes-Zumpf, Wendy A., Janet L. Rachlow, Lisette P. Waits, and Kenneth I. Warheit. 2010. Dispersal, gene flow, and population genetic structure in the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). Journal of Mammalogy. 91(1): 208–219.

Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience. 52: 483-498.

FEAST 2009. Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Database Version 4.0 6/10/2009). http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/economic_center/FEAST_EconomicAnalysisTool.html

Feist, Laura J. and David R. Parker. 2001. Ecotypic variation in selenium accumulation in populations of Stanleya pinnata. New Phytologist. 149(1): 61-69.

Ferguson, Sue A. 1999. Climatology of the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR- 445. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 31 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Fettig, Christopher J., Kier D. Klepzig, Ronald F. Billings, A. Steven Munson, T. Evan Nebeker, Jose F. Negro´n, John T. Nowak. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238: 24–53.

Fike, M. 2011. Shrub-Stepp Series: What about Cyptogamic Crust. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. http://science-ed.pnl.gov/pals/resource/cards/cryptogamic_crust.stm

LC-14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Finch, D.M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements, and Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. General Technical Report, GTR-RM-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26p.

Fink, T., Michael and Paul S. Zietz. 1996. Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome and Field Archaeology: Guidelines for Risk Reduction. Journal of Field archaeology. 23(4): 471-476.

Finney, M.A., C.W. McHugh, and I.C. Grenfell. 2005. Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: 1714–1722.

Fischer, Richard A., Kerry P. Reese, and John W. Connelly. 1996. Influence of Vegetal Moisture Content and Nest Fate on Timing of Female Sage Grouse Migration. The Condor. 98(4): 868-872.

Fischer, Richard A., Kerry P. Reese, and John W. Connelly. 1996a. An Investigation on Fire Effects within Xeric Sage Grouse Brood Habitat. Journal of Range Management. 49(3): 194-198.

Fischer, Richard A., Wayne L. Wakkinen, Kerry P. Reese, and John W. Connelly. 1997. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Movements of Female Sage Grouse from Breeding to Summer Ranges. The Wilson Bulletin. 109(1): 82-91.

Fischer, G. 2001. Communities of Interest: Learning through the Interaction of Multiple Knowledge Systems. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for Life Long Learning and Design. 13 pp.

Fisher, S.G. 1997. Creativity, idea generation, and the functional morphology of streams.Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 16: 305-318.

Flather, Curtis H., and Michael Bevers. 2002. Patchy Reaction-Diffusion and Population Abundance: The Relative Importance of Habitat Amount and Arrangement. The American Naturalist. 159(1): 40- 56.

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological Cost of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology. 8(3).

Flinders, Jerran T. and Richard M. Hansen. 1975. Spring Population Responses of Cottontails and Jackrabbits to Cattle Grazing Shortgrass Prairie. Journal of Range Management. 28(4): 290-293.

Foden, W.B., G.M. Mace, J.-C. Vié, A. Angulo, S.H.M. Butchart, L. De Vantier, H.T. Dublin, A. Gutsche,S.N. Stuart, and E. Turak. 2008. Species susceptibility to climate change impacts. In: J.- C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S.N. Stuart (eds), The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect.

France, Kevin A., Dave C. Ganskopp, and Chad S. Boyd. 2008. Interspace/Undercanopy Foraging Patterns of Beef Cattle in Sagebrush Habitats. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 61(4): 389- 393.

LC-15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Frankham, R. 1999. Quantitative genetics in conservation biology. Genetic Research. 74: 237- 244.

Frederick, G.P. and T.L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of white-headed woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus) in west-central Idaho. Boise, ID: Idaho Dept. Fish & Game. 32pp.

Frenzel, R.W. 2002. Nest-sites, nesting success, and turnover-rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2002. Unpublished report prepared for Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center.

Frest, Terrence J. and Edward J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special Concern - Final Report. Prepared for Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 East Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA, 99362. January 15, 1995.

Frid, A. and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11.

Frischnecht, N. 1963. Effects of Big Sagebrush and Rubber Rabbitbrush on Production of Crested Wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management. 16: 70-74.

Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management. 10: 199-214.

Frost, R. and K. Launchbaugh. 2003. Prescription Grazing for Rangeland Weed Management: A New Look at an Old Tool. Rangelands. 25: 43-47.

Frost, W., L. Smith, and P. Ogden. 1994. Utilization Guidelines. Rangelands. 16: 256-259.

Fulton, L. A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the Columbia River basin—past and present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Spec. Sci. Rep., Fish. 571.

Funk, W. Chris, Michael S. Blouin, Paul Stephen Corn, Bryce A. Maxell, David S. Pilliod, Stephen Amish, and Fred W. Allendorf. 2005. Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Molecular Ecology. 14(2): 483 – 496.

Furniss M.J., S.A. Flanagan, and B. McFadden, 1991. Hydrologically Connected Roads: An Indicator of the Influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, Surface Water Hydrology and Exposure to Toxic Chemicals. Streams System Technology Center.

Furniss, M.J. and C.J. Colby. 2005. Draft Annotated bibliography of small and intermittent streams and related topics. Corvallis, OR: USFS-PNW Research Station Aquatic and Land Interactions Program. 218 p.

Gabler, Kate I., John W. Laundré, and Laura T. Heady. 2000. Predicting the Suitability of Habitat in Southeast Idaho for Pygmy Rabbits. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3): 759-764.

LC-16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Ganskopp, David. 1998. Thurber Needlegrass: Seasonal Defoliation Effects on Forage Quantity and Quality. Journal of Range Management. 51(3): 276-281.

Ganskopp, David and Martin Vavra. 1987. Slope Use by Cattle, Feral Horses, Deer, and Bighorn Sheep. Northwest Science. 61(2).

Gast, William R., Donald W. Scott, Craig Schmitt, and Charles G. Johnson Jr. 1991. Blue Mountain forest health report-new perspectives in forest health. Baker City, OR: Pacific Northwest Region; Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, USDA Forest Service.

Gates, J. E. and N. R. Giffen. 1991. Neotropical Migrant Birds and Edge Effects at a Forest-Stream Ecotone. The Wilson Bulletin. 103(2): 204-217.

Gelbard, J.L. and Jayne Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. Conservation Biology. 17(2): 420-432.

Giesen, K.M. and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Guidelines for Management of Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21(3): 325-333.

Gitzendanner, M.A. and P.S. Soltis. 2000. Patterns of genetic variation in rare and widespread plant congeners. American Journal of Botany. 87: 783–792..

Goldman, E.A. 1937. The wolves of North America. Journal of Mammalogy. 18: 37-45.

Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater streams. BioScience. 52: 905-916.

Gomi, T., R.D. Moore, and M.A. Hassan. 2005. Journal of American Water Resource Association. August 2005.

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. NMFS-NWFSC-66. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Techical Memorandum. 598 pp.

Gray, Karen, Janice Hill, and Michael Mancuso. 2005. Updated Palouse Goldenweed (Pyrrocoma liatriformis) Occurrences on BLM Land, Craig Mountain, Idaho. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management Coeur d’Alene District Cottonwood Field Office. 15 pp.

Greene, Eric, Robert G. Anthony, Vern Marr, and Russ Morgan. 2009. Abundance and Habitat Associations of Washington Ground Squirrels in the Columbian Basin, Oregon. American Midland Naturalist. 162(1): 29-42.

Greenwald, Noah D., Coleman Crocker-Bedford, Len Broberg, Kieran F. Suckling, and Timothy Tibbitts. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(1): 120-129.

LC-17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Gregg, Michael A., John A. Crawford, Martin S. Drut, and Anita K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational Cover and Predation of Sage Grouse Nests in Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(1): 162- 166.

Griffith, Brad and James M. Peek. 1989. Mule Deer Use of Seral Stage and Habitat Type in Bitterbrush Communities. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3): 636-642.

Groves, C.R., B. Butterfield, G. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s wildlife. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 372 pp.

Haferkamp, M.R., D.C. Ganskopp, R.F. Miller and F.A. Sneva. 1987. Drilling Versus Imprinting for Establishing Crested Wheatgrass in the Sagebrush-Bunchgrass Steppe. Journal of Range Management. 40:524-530.

Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Hagen, personal communication, 2009.

Halfa, J.A., A.R. Gongloff, R.D. Blew, J.P. Shive, and A.D. Forman. 2008. Ecological Evaluation of Fire Fighting Efforts Associated with the Twin Butte/Moonshiner and Highway 20 Wildland fires. Stoller-ESER-115.

Hamilton, W.J., III. 1998. Tricolored Blackbird Itinerant Breeding in California. The Condor. 100(2): 218-226.

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of Temperature and Precipitation Variability on Snowpack Trends in the Western United States. American Meteorological Society. 18: 4545-4561.

Hann, W., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2008. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 1.3.0. U.S. Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management. Hanselmann, R., A. Rodríguez, M. Lampo, and others. 2004. Presence of an Emerging Pathogen of Amphibians in Introduced Bullfrogs Rana catesbeiana in Venezuela. Biological Conservation. 120(1): 115-119.

Hanson, Neilson, Dale, Flather, Iverson, Currie, Shafer, Cook, and Bartllein. 2001. Global Change in Forests: Responses of Species, Communities, and Biomes. BioScience. 51(9): 765-779.

Harmon, M.E. 2001. Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the scale question. Journal of Forestry. 99(4): 24-29.

Hawkins, B., S. Sharrock, and K. Havens. 2008. Plants and climate change: which future? Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK. 96 pages. LC-18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Hayes, M.P. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa sensu stricto) in the Deschutes Basin and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a rangewide synopsis of the species' status. Final report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under contract to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 57p.

Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott. 2007. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Hendricks, P. 2000. Preliminary bat inventory of caves and abandoned mines on BLM lands, Judith Mountains, Montana. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 21 pp.

Hendricks, P., D. L. Genter, and S. Martinez. 2000. Bats of Azure Cave and the Little Rocky Mountains, Montana. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 114: 89-97.

Hendricks, P., and D. Kampwerth. 2001. Roost environments for bats using abandoned mines in southwestern Montana: a preliminary assessment. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 19 pp.

Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample and R. E. Warner. 1996. Management of Midwestern Grassland Landscapes for the Conservation of Migratory Birds. In: Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. F. R. Thompson, III. General Technical Report, GTR-NC-187. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 89-116p.

Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. pages 49, 152, 186, 215, 224, 321, 392, 518, and 526.

Hoffmann, R. S., P. L. Wright and F. E. Newby. 1969. Distribution of some mammals in Montana. I. Mammals other than bats. Journal of Mammalogy. 50(3): 579-604.

Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. 2007. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Holechek, J.L. 1988. An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate. Rangelands. 10:10-14.

Holechek, Jerry L., Hilton Gomez, Francisco Molinar, and Dee Galt. 1999. Grazing Studies: What We've Learned. Rangelands. 21(2): 12-16.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4: 1-23.

LC-19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Holloran, Matthew J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response to Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD, Department of Zoology and Physiology

Holloran, M. J., B. J. Heath, A. G. Lyon, and others. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat Selection and Success in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(2): 638-649.

Holmes, A. L., G. A. Green, R. L. Morgan, and others. 2003. Burrowing Owl Nest Success and Burrow Longevity in North Central Oregon. Western North Naturalist. 63(2): 244-250.

Holmgren, Noel H., P. K. Holmgren, and A. Cronquist. 2005. Intermountain Flora. Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol 2 Part B. Subclass Dillenidae. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, N.Y. page 196.

Howard, R. P. and M. L. Wolfe. 1976. Range improvement practices and ferruginous hawks. Journal of Range Management. 29: 33-37.

Howard, Amy and James C. Munger. 2000. Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Invertebrate Prey Base and on the Survival and Growth of Larvae of the Columbia Spotted Frog, Rana luteiventris. Final Report on research funded by Challenge Cost-share Agreements between U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Boise State University, Department of Biology.

Howe, R. W., W. Evans and A. T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric Company, 83p.

Hudson A. Edward and Dale W. Jorgenson. 1974. U. S. Energy Policy and Economic Growth, 1975- 2000. The Bell. Journal of Economics and Management Science. 5(2): 461-514.

Huntsinger, Lynn and Peter Hopkinson. 1996. Viewpoint: Sustaining Rangeland Landscapes: A Social and Ecological Process. Journal of Range Management. 49: 167-173.

Huppop, O., J. Dierschke, K.-M. Exo, and others. 2006. Bird Migration Studies and Potential Collision Risk with Offshore Wind Turbines. Ibis. 148: 90-109.

Hutto, R.L. 1985. Habitat selection by nonbreeding migratory land birds. In: Habitat Selection in Birds, ed. M.L. Cody, pp. 455-76. Orlando, FL. Academic. 558 pp.

Hyder, D.H. and Sneva F.A. 1956. Herbage Response to Sagebrush Spraying. Journal of Range Management. 9(1): 34-38.

Hydric Soils - NASIS Database Selection Criteria [Online]. (1999). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/criteria.html [2010, November 12].

Idaho Conservation Data Center (IDCDC). 2008. Idaho’s Special Status Plant List. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/plants/ Accessed on 3/25/2008.

LC-20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Idaho Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game,Idaho Conservation Data Center.

IMPLAN. 2006. Minnesota Impact Analysis For Planning Group 2006.

INFISH. 1995. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). Coeur d’Alene, ID: Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.

Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB 2007-2. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon. 146 pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning,Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Working Group I - Technical Summary

Irving J. S., and T. Bjornn. 1981. A forecast of abundance of Snake River fall Chinook salmon. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Contract No. 82-ABC-00042. (Available from Idaho Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.)

Isaacs, F.B. and B. Anthony. 2006. Results of peregrine falcon breeding area monitoring in Oregon, 2003-2006: Final Report. 5 Feb 2007. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

James, Kent and Associates, Global Cultural Analysts (JKA). 2006. Community Reports in Support of the Planning Effort in BLM’s Baker Resource Area. Prepared for Nancy Lull, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management Baker Resource Area Office, Baker City, Oregon. November 24, 2006.

Johnson, Douglas H., Matthew J. Holloran, John W. Connelly, Steven E. Hanser, and Lenore Fahrig. 2002. Effect of Habitat Fragmentation on the Extinction Threshold: A Synthesis. Ecological Applications. 12(2): 346-353.

Johnson, Gregory D., Wallace P. Erickson, M. Dale Strickland, Maria F. Shepherd and Douglas A. Shepherd. 1999. Mortality of Bats at a Large-scale Wind Power Development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist. 150: 332–342.

Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, and others. 2002. Collision Mortality of Local and Migrant Birds at a Large-Scale Wind-Power Development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30(3): 879-887.

LC-21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Johnson, D.D. and R.F. Miller. 2006. Structure and Development of Expanding Western Juniper Woodlands as Influenced by two Topographic Variables. Forest Ecology and Management. 229: 7-15.

Jones, Tom A. 1998. Viewpoint: The Present Status and Future Prospects of Squirreltail Research. Journal of Range Management. 28(1): 326-331.

Kagan, J. S., J. C. Hak, B. Csuti, C. W. Kiilsgaard, and E. P. Gaines. 1999. Oregon Gap Analysis Final Report: A geographic approach to planning for biological diversity. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR.

Karron, J.D. 1987. A comparison of levels of genetic polymorphism and self-compatibility in geographically restricted and widespread plant congeners. Evolutionary Ecology. 1: 47–58.

Kauffman, J. B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management Implications. A Review. Journal of Range Management. 37(5).

Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L.A. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. In: Johnson, D.H., O'Neil, T.A. (Eds.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. pp. 361-388.

Kaye, Thomas N. 1998. Demography and Effects of Fencing on Lupinus cusickii. Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, OR. Unpublished report prepared for BLM Vale District. 32 pp.

Kaye, Thomas, N. 2002. Effects of Cattle Grazing, Insect Interactions and Population Ecology of Snake River Goldenweed (Haplopappus radiatus). Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, OR. Unpublished report prepared for BLM Vale District. 32 pp.

Kaye, Thomas, N. and Steve Gisler. 2003. Population Monitoring of Cusick’s Lupine (Lupinus cusickii) on the Vale District, BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, OR. Unpublished report prepared for BLM Vale District. 9 pp.

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Keinath, Douglas A. and Matthew McGee. 2004. Species Assessment for Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) In Wyoming. Prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 2004.

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Klebenow, D. A. 1969. Sage Grouse Nesting and Brood Habitat in Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(3): 649-662.

Klebenow, D.A. 1985. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Association Journal. 10: 34-46.

LC-22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Klemmedson, James O. and Justin G. Smith. 1964. Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum L.). Botanical Review. 30(2): 226-262.

Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global Environmental Change. 6: 37–52.

Knapp, T.A., and P.E. Graves. 1989. On the Role of Amenities in Models of Migration and Regional Development. Journal of Regional Science. 29(1): 71-87.

Knick, S. T. 1999. Requiem for a sagebrush ecosystem? Northwest Science. 73: 53–57.

Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, and others. 2003. Teetering on the Edge or Too Late? Conservation and Research Issues for Avifauna of Sagebrush Habitats. The Condor. 105(4): 611- 634.

Knight, L. and K. Skagen. 1988. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. In: Proceedings of Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Sci. Tech. Ser. No. 11. National Wildlife Federation, Institute of Wildlife Research. p. 355-359.

Koehler, Gary M. and Maurice G. Hornocker. 1991. Seasonal Resource Use among Mountain Lions, Bobcats, and Coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy. 72(2): 391-396.

Koehler, G. M., B.T. Maletzke, J.A. Von Kienast, and others. 2008. Habitat Fragmentation and the Persistence of Lynx Populations in Washington State. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(7): 1518-1524.

Kolbe, J. A., J. R. Squires, D.H. Pletscher, and others. 2007. The Effect of Snowmobile Trails on Coyote Movements within Lynx Home Ranges. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5): 1409-1418.

Kostow, K. 2003. The biological implications of nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in Columbia Basin steelhead ESUs. Report to NOAA Fisheries and ODFW, 13 January 2003. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112).

Kovalchik, Bernard L. and Wayne Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In: Proceedings Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: pp.111- 119.

Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, B.A. Cooper, W.I.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M.L. Morrison, J.D. Strickland, and J.M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2449–2486.

Kuvlesky, W.P., Jr., L.A. Brennan, M.L. Morrison, K.K. Boydston, B.M. Ballard, and F.C. Bryant. 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2487–2498.

LC-23 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Laca, Emilio A., Lisa A. Shipley, and Edward D. Reid. 2001. Structural anti-quality characteristics of range and pasture plants. Journal of Range Management. 54(4): 413-419.

Lacey, J., C. Marlow, and J. Lane. 1989. Influence of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on Surface Water Runoff and Sediment Yield. Weed Technology. 3: 627-631.

Laird, W. 1997. Soil Survey of Baker County Area, Oregon. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Larson, L., M. McInnis, and G. Kiemnec. 1997. Rangeland Weed Invasion. Rangelands. 19(3).

Larsen, J.K. & P. Clausen. 2002. Potential wind park impacts on Whooper Swans in winter: the risk of collision. Waterbirds. 25: 327–330.

Larson, Diane L. 2003. Native Weeds and Exotic Plants: Relationships to Disturbance in Mixed-Grass Prairie. Plant Ecology. 169(2): 317-333.

Larsson, S., R. Oren, R. H. Waring, and J. W. Barrett. 1983. Attacks of Mountain Pine Beetle as Related to Tree Vigor of Ponderosa Pine. Forest Science. 29 (2): 395-402.

Leary, A. W., R. Mazaika, and M. J. Bechard. 1998. Factors affecting the size of Ferruginous Hawk home ranges. Wilson Bulletin. 110: 198-205.

Lehtonen, A., R.Makipaa, J.Heikkinen, R.Sievanen, and J.Liski. 2004. Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 188: 211-224.

Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, and S.Swanson. 1997. Riparian area management: Grazing management for riparian areas. Technical Report 1737-14. Denver, CO: U.S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center. 63 pp.

Lewis, D., G.L. Hunt, and A.J. Plantinga. 2002. Public Conservation Land and Employment Growth in the Northern Forest Region. Land Economics. 78(2): 245-259.

Lile, David F., Kenneth W. Tate, Donald L. Lancaster, and Betsy M. Karle. 2003. Stubble height standards for Sierra Nevada meadows can be difficult to meet. California Agriculture. 57(2).

Lima S. L. and L. M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68: 619-640.

Lima, Steven L. 1998. Nonlethal Effects in the Ecology of Predator-Prey Interactions. BioScience. 48(1): 25-34.

Lindenmayer, B. David and Henry A. Nix. 1993. Ecological Principles for the Design of Wildlife Corridors. Conservation Biology. 7(3): 627-630.

Lindstrom, T. 1989. Finch flock size and risk of hawk predation at a migratory stopover site. Auk. 106: 225-232. LC-24 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Lippke, Bruce, J. Perez-Garcia, I. Eastin, A. Erickson, 2006. University of Washington press. The Future of Washington’s Forests and Forestry Industries. Third Progress Report: October 2006. Prepared for the Washington Department of Natural Resources by the College of Forest Resources, University of Washington.

Litton, C.M., J.W. Raich, and M.G. Ryan. 2007. Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology. 13: 2089–2109.

Loft, Eric R., John W. Menke, and John G. Kie. 1991. Habitat Shifts by Mule Deer: The Influence of Cattle. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(1): 16-26.

Lucas, M. de, G.F.E Janss, and M. Ferrer. 2004. The effects of a wind farm on birds in a migration point: the Strait of Gibraltar. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13: 395-407.

Luce, C. H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment production. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25 to 29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Inter-agency Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation: V-67 - V-74.

Lyneis, M., D.L. Weide, E. von Till Warren, 1980. Impacts: Damage to Cultural Resources in the California Desert. United States Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.

Lyon, G. Alison and Stanley H. Anderson. 2003. Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse Nest Initiation and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31(2): 486-491.

Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems. 7: 145–165.

Mack, R. N. and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hooved mammals. American Naturalist. 119: 757-773.

Magis, Kristen. 2007. Indicator 38 – Community Resilience, Literature and Practice Review. Submitted to the US Roundtable on Sustainable Forests. Pp 46.

Maletzke, B. T., G. M. Koehler, R. B. Wielgus, and others. 2008. Habitat Conditions Associated with Lynx Hunting Behavior During Winter in Northern Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(7): 1473-1478.

Mancuso, Michael and Beth Colket. 2006. Monitoring Malheur Prince’s plume (Stanleya confertiflora) on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Southwestern Idaho: Baseline results, 2005. Prepared for Boise District BLM. 32 pp.

Marra, Peter P., Sean Griffing, Carolee Caffrey, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Robert McLean, Christopher Brand, Emi Saito, Alan P. Dupuis, Laura Kramer, and Robert Novak. 2004. West Nile Virus and Wildlife. BioScience. 54(5): 393-402.

LC-25 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Marshall, D B. 1996. American marten. In: Marshall DB, Chilcote MW, Weeks H. Species at risk: sensitive, threatened, and endangered vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Irregular pagination.

Martell, Mark and Ted Dick. 1996. Nesting habitat characteristics of the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Nongame Wildlife Program Project No. 9407382 The Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota 1920 Fitch Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Martin J. and P. Glick. 2008. Great Wave Rising: Solutions for Columbia and Snake River Salmon in the Age of Global Warming. Seattle, WA: Save Our Wild Salmon – Light in the River Project.

Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dryrness. 1981. Natural History of Oregon Coast Mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 496 p.

Maser, C., J. Thomas, and R. Anderson. 1984. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands-The Great Basins of Southeastern Oregon: The Relationship of Terrestrial Vertebrates to Plant Communities and Structural Conditions. General Technical Report PNW-172. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Massatti, R.T., A.S. Thorpe, and T.N. Kaye. 2009. Lupinus lepidus var. cusickii population monitoring in Denny Flat, Baker County, Oregon. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Vale District. iv + 16 pp.

Mathisen, J. E. 1968. Effects of Human Disturbance on Nesting of Bald Eagles. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(1): 1-6.

McAdoo, Kent and James A. Young. 1980. Jackrabbits. Rangelands. 2(4): 135-138.

McAdoo, J., W. Longland, and R. Evans. 1989. Nongame Bird Community Responses to Sagebrush Invasion of Crested Wheatgrass Seedings. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 494-502.

McGarigal, K., SA Cushman, MC Neel, and E Ene. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

McGranahan, D. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Population Change. USDA Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economics, Report #781.

McKinney L. Michael. 2005. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation. 12.72 7 –2 6 0

Mech, L. David. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. American Midland Naturalist. 12(1): 387-389.

LC-26 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Meeuwig, Richard O. 1970. Infiltration and Soil Erosion as Influenced by Vegetation and Soil in Northern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 23(3): 185-188.

Meinke, Robert J. 2009. Conservation ecology and life history observations for the Malheur prince’s plume (Stanleya confertiflora: Brassicaceae) 2008 demographic field work summary (Final report). Prepared for the Burns and Vale BLM Districts, OR. 27 pp.

Meinke, Robert J., Steven L Broich, and Keli Kuykendall. 1992. Lupinus cusickii on the Vale District: inventory and natural history observations. Prepared for the BLM Vale District, OR. 12 pp.

Mendel, G., V. Naef, and D. Karl. 1999. Assessment of Salmonid Fishes and their Habitat Conditions in the Walla Walla River Basin – 1998 Annual Report. Report to BPA. Project 98-20. Report # FPA 99-01. 94 pp.

Metcalfe, N.B. and R.W. Furness. 1984. Changing priorities: the effect of pre-migratory fattening on the trade-off between foraging and vigilance. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 15: 203-206.

Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. In: Press, M.C.; Huntley, N.J.; Levins, S., eds. Ecology: achievement and challenge. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific: 295-317.

Meyer, J.L., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Srayer, D.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin, and P.H. Zedler. 2003. Where rivers are born: The scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands. Sierra Club and American Rivers. 24 pp.

Miller, R. and P. E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene Changes in Semiarid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. Bioscience. 44(7): 465-474.

Miller, Richard F., Tony J. Svejcar, and Jeffrey A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on Plant Community Composition and Structure. Journal of Range Management. 53 (6): 574-585.

Miller, R. and R Tausch. 2001. The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands: A Descriptive Analysis. Pages 15-30 in K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson (eds), Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station: Tallahassee, FL.

Miller, J.R., J.A. Wiens, N.T. Hobbs, and D.M. Theobald. 2003. Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications. 13: 1041– 1059.

Miller, R., J. Bates, T. Svejcar, F. Pierson, and L. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper. Technical Bulletin 152. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 77p.

LC-27 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch, E.D. McArthur, D.D. Johnson, and S.C. Sanderson. 2008. Age Structure and Expansion of Piñon-Juniper Woodlands: A Regional Perspective in the Intermountain West. Research Paper Report RMRS-RP-69. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Milne, K. A. and S. J. Hejl. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:50-55.

Monsen, S.B. and S.G. Kitchen. 1994. Proceedings Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Tausch R.J., R.S. Nowak, A.D. Bruner and J.Smithson. Effects of Simulated Fall and Early Spring Grazing on Cheatgrass and Perennial Grass in Western Nevada. INT-GTR-313. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountatin Research Station. Pp113-119.

Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes, classification, and response, in River Ecology and Management, edited by R. Naiman and R. Bilby, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 13-42.

Moore, F. R. 1990. Evidence for redetermination of migratory direction following wind displacement. Auk. 107: 425- 428.

Moore, F. R. and P. H. Kerlinger. 1987. Stopover and fat deposition by North American Wood-warblers (Parulinae) following spring migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Oecologia. 74: 47-54.

Morgan, T.A., C. Keegan, and J.P. Brandt, 2006. Employment and Labor Income Direct Response Coefficients for the U.S. Forest Products Industry. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, The University of Montana-Missoula

Moreau, Joe. 2009. Personal communication (email). October 5. OR/WA State Office Fisheries Biologist [retired]. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Mosley, J.C. 1996. Prescribed Sheep Grazing to Suppress cheatgrass; A review. Sheep and Goat Research Journal. In: Sheley, R.L and Petroff J.K. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Pp182-183

Mote, P. W. 2003a. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the twentieth century. Northwest Science. 77(4): 271-282.

Mote, P. W. 2003b. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(12), 1601. doi:10.1029/2003GL017258, 2003.

Mote, Phillip, E. Salathe, V. Duliere, and E. Jump. 2008. Scenarios of future climate for the Pacific Northwest. 14pp.

Moynahan, Brendan J., Mark S. Lindberg, Jay J. Rotella, and Jack Ward Thomas. 2007. Factors Affecting Nest Survival of Greater Sage-Grouse in Northcentral Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(6): 1773-1783.

Mueser, P.R., and P.E. Graves. 1995. Examining the Role of Economic Opportunity and Amenities in Explaining Population Redistribution. Journal of Urban Economics. 37(2): 176-200. LC-28 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Murray, R. B., and J. O. Klemmedson. 1968. Cheatgrass range in southern Idaho: seasonal cattle gains and grazing capacities. Journal of Range Management. 21: 308-313.

Myatt, personal communication. 2008.

Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, B. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NWFSC-35. U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Naugle, David E, Cameron L. Aldridge, Brett L. Walker, Kevin E. Doherty, Marc R. Matchett, Jock McIntosh, Todd E. Cornish, Mark S. Boyce. 2005. West Nile Virus and Sage-Grouse: What More Have We Learned? Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(2): 616-623.

Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Derg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. O’Connor, P. L. Olson, and E. A. Steel. 1992a. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. Pages 127–188.

Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.B. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D. O’Connor, P.L. Olson, and E.A. Steel. 1992b. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

Naiman, R.J., J.J. Magnuson, D.M. McKnight, J.A. Stanford and J.R. Karr. 1995. Freshwater ecosystems and management: A national initiative. Science. 270, 584-585.

Naiman, R.J. 1998. Biotic stream classification. In: R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby (Editors). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Pages 97-119.

National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996a. Endangered and threatened species: Proposed endangered status for five ESUs of steelhead and proposed threatened status for five ESUs of steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Federal Register [Docket No. 960730210-6210-01, 9 August 1996] 61(155):41558.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996b. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA technical memo. NMFS–NWFSC–27. 260 pp.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006a. NRCS Powder River-17050203 profile

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Historic Climax Community Descriptions. LC-29 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009-

NatureServe. 2010. Rubus nigerrimus files. NatureServe Explorer Website. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. Website accessed on 9/2/2010

Naugle, D. 2010. Personal Communication. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University, Wildlife Professor.

Nawa, R.K., J.E. Vaile, P. Lind, Nadananda, T. McKay, C. Elkins, B.Bakke, J. Miller, W. Wood, K. Beardslee, and D. Wales. 2003. A petition for rules to list: Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata); River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi); Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni); and Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. January 23, 2003.

Ngugi, R. Kinuthia, Jeff Powell, Frank C. Hinds, and Richard A. Olson. 1992. Range Animal Diet Composition in Southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. 45(6): 542-545.

Nielsen, R. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its Tributaries. Part V. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ii + 41 pp.

Norton, J.B., T.A. Monaco, J.M. Norton, D.A. Johnson, and T.A. Jones. 2004. Soil morphology and organic matter dynamics under cheatgrass and sagebrush-steppe plant communities. Journal of Arid Environments. 57: 445–466.

Norton, J.B., U. Norton, and T.A. Monaco. 2007. Mediterranean annual grasses in western North America: kids in a candy store. Plant and Soil. 298: 1–5.

Nowak, M. C. 2004a. The Burnt River Subbasin Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Nowak, M. C. 2004b. The Powder River Subbasin Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. The relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Reno, NV: Nevada Dept. Fish and Game; Final Report, Project W-48-2, Jobs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3.

Opdam, Paul, Ruud Foppen and Claire Vos. 2002. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology. 16: 767–779.

Ouborg, N.J., P. Vergeer, C. Mix. 2006. The rough edges of the conservation genetics paradigm for plants. Journal of Ecology. 94: 1233–1248.

Olson, B.E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. In: Sheley, R., J. Petroff eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press. Pgs 4-18.

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2010. Oregon Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System. Salem, Oregon. LC-30 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE). 2008. Revision and Update to Oregon Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2008.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2009. Industrial Annual Emissions (MTCO2e), 2009.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1987. Grande Ronde River Basin fish habitat improvement plan. Portland, OR. 29 pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Oregon's Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat Management Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 56pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003b. Oregon's Mule Deer Management Plan. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 116pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Recommendations for greater sage-grouse habitat classification under Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's fish and wildlife habitat mitigation policy. OAR 635-415-0000. Wildlife Division.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Getting started upland game bird hunting. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2005. Oregon Department of Forestry Annual Timber Harvest Report, by County and ownership.

Oregon Employment Department. 2007. Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation: 2006 – 2016, Oregon and Regional Summary. Oregon Employment Department - Workforce and Economic Research.

Oregon Forest Industry Directory, 2011. Copyright 2011 Oregon State University. The Oregon Forest Industry Directory is a joint effort of the Forestry Extension team at Oregon State University, the Oregon Small Woodlands Association, and the Northwest Wood Products Association. Directory available at http://www.orforestdirectory.com/ Accessed on March 25, 2011.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2007. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon State University, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 100 pp.

Oregon Water Resources Department. 2008. Other Water Rights. http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/PUBS/aquabook_other.shtml (last visited October 26, 2008).

Oregonian. 2009. Oregon's cattle country is on the ropes. Published July 11, 2009.

Orr, E. and W. Orr 1999. Geology of Oregon. Kendall/Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA.

LC-31 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Osborn, Alan, S. Vetter, R. Hartley, L. Walsh and J. Brown. 1987. Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No. 20.

Osborn, R. G. and K. F. Higgins. 2000. Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist. 143: 41-52.

Page-Dumroese, D.S. and M.F. Jurgensen. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen pools in mid- to late- successional forest stands of the northwestern United States: potential impact of fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 2270-2284.

Paige, C. and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird Communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group: Boise, ID, 32pp.

Papouchis, Christopher M., Francis J. Singer and William B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human Recreation. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3): 573-582.

Parker, K. L., C. S. Robbins and T. A. Hanley. 1984. Energy Expenditures for Locomotion by Mule Deer and Elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(2): 474-488.

Parker L.P. and T.F. King, 1990; REVISED 1992; 1998. National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Parks, C.G., M. Wisdom, and J.G. Kie. 2005. The Influence of Ungulates on Non-Native Plant Invasions in Forests and Rangelands: A Review. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Parsons, Cory T., Patrick A. Momont, Timothy Delcurto, Michael McInnis, Marni L. Porath. 2003. Cattle Distribution Patterns and Vegetation Use in Mountain Riparian Areas. Journal of Range Management. 56(4): 334-341.

Passey H. and V. Hugie. 1962. Sagebrush on Relict Ranges in the Snake River and Plains and Northern Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 15: 273-278.

Patla, Debra A. and Douglas A. Keinath (with support from Mathew McGee and David S. Pilliod). 2005. Species Assessment for Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in Wyoming. Cheyenne, Wyoming: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office.

Patten, Michael A., Donald H. Wolfe, Eyal Shochat, and Steve K. Sherrod. 2005. Habitat fragmentation, rapid evolution and population persistence. Evolutionary Ecology Research. 7: 235–249

Payer, D. and B. E. Coblentz. 1997. Seasonal Variation in California Bighorn Ram (Ovis canadensis californiana) Habitat Use and Group Size. Northwest Science. 71(4): 281-288.

Pearcy, W. G. 1997. Salmon production in changing ocean domains. In: D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future LC-32 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited options. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. Pages 331-352.

Peek, Robert A., James M. Riggs, and Jerry L. Lauer. 1979. Evaluation of Fall Burning on Bighorn Sheep Winter Range. Journal of Range Management. 32(6): 430-432.

Petersen, S. L., and T. K. Stringham. 2008. Infiltration, runoff, and sediment yield in response to western juniper encroachment in southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61: 74-81.

Peterson, R. O. and R. E. Page. 1988. The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975-1986. Journal of Mammalogy. 69: 89-99.

Petit, L. J., D. R. Petit and T. E. Martin. 1995. Landscape-Level Management of Migratory Birds: Looking Past the Trees to See the Forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(3): 420-429.

Pierson, F.B., W.H. Blackburn, S.S.V. Vactor, and J.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning small scale spatial variability of runoff and erosion on sagebrush rangeland. Water Resources Bulletin. 30: 1081– 1089.

Pierson, F., J. Bates, T. Svejcar, and S. Hardegee. 2007. Runoff and Erosion after Cutting Western Juniper. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 60: 285-292.

Pilliod, D. S., R. B. Bury, E. J. Hyde, C. A. Pearl, and P. S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North America. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 163–181.

Ponce, V. M. and D. Lindquest. 1990. Management of Baseflow Augmentation: A Review. Water Resources Bulletin. 26(2): 259-268.

Ponzetti, Jeanne M. and Bruce P. McCune. 2001. Biotic Soil Crusts of Oregon's Shrub Steppe: Community Composition in Relation to Soil Chemistry, Climate, and Livestock Activity. The Bryologist. 104(2): 212-225.

Popham, G.P. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2003. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nesting success and habitat use in northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Biology. 9: 327-334.

Porter, M. personal communication, October 2008.

Portland State University. 2004. Forecasts of Oregon’s County Populations. Portland, OR: Portland State University, Population Research Center. Available from State of Oregon, Office of Economic Analysis. Powell, R.A. 1993. The Fisher: Life History, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 237 pp.

Powell, Roger A. and William J. Zielinski. 1994. Chapter 3 Fisher. Arcata, California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Pritchard, Vernon. BLM engineer, personal communication October 2009.

Pyke, D.A., Jeffrey E. Herrick, Patrick Shaver, and Mike Pellant. 2002. Rangeland Health Attributes and Indicators for Qualitative Assessment. Journal of Range Management. 55(6): 584-597. LC-33 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Quintela, John. 2010. Unpublished data. Vale District/Baker Field Office Fisheries Biologist. Baker City, OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Baker Field Office.

Raish, Carol and Alice M. McSweeney. 2003. Economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock ranching on the Española and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests: a pilot study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-113. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 89 pp.

Ramakka, J. M., and R. T. Woyewodzic. 1993. Nesting ecology of ferruginous hawk in northwestern New Mexico. Journal of Raptor Research. 27: 97-101.

Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity using birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs. 86: 1-66.

Rashin, E.B., C.J. Clishe, A.T. Loch, and J.M. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of American Water Resource Association. 42: 1307–1327.

Reaser, Jamie K. 2000. Demographic analysis of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): case study in spatiotemporal variation. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78(7): 1158–1167. Canadian access to full text made available through the Depository Services Program.

Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan: an assessment after ten years. General technical report PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest and J.D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between redside shiners (Richardsonius balteatus) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the influence of water temperature. Canadian Journal of Fishiries and Aquatics Science. 43: 1521-1533.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A Disturbance-Based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation, J.L. Nielsen (Editor). American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 334-349.

Relyea, A. Rick. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications. 15(2): 618–627.

REMIS. 2008. Recreation Management Information System. Report number 23b for the Baker Field Office.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp.

LC-34 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Reynolds, R. T. and S. M. Joy. 1998. Distribution, Territory Occupancy, Dispersal, and Demography of Northern Goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Final Report, Arizona Game and Fish Heritage Project 194045. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.: 76pp.

Rich, T. 1986. Habitat and Nest-Site Selection by Burrowing Owls in the Sagebrush Steppe of Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(4): 548-555.

Rich, Adam C., David S. Dobkin and Lawrence J. Niles. 1994. Defining Forest Fragmentation by Corridor Width: The Influence of Narrow Forest-Dividing Corridors on Forest-Nesting Birds in Southern New Jersey. Conservation Biology. 8(4): 1109-1121.

Richards, J., and M. Caldwell. 1984. Soluble Carbohydrates, Concurrent Photosynthesis and Efficiency in Regrowth Following Defoliation: A Field Study with Agropyron Species. Journal of Applied Ecology. 22: 907-920.

Rieman, B.E., J.T. Peterson, and D.L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout displaced bull trout along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 63: 63-78.

Rinks, Tim, personal communication, 2010.

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and others. 1989. Population Declines in North American Birds That Migrate to the Neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 86(19): 7658-7662.

Rosentreter R. 1994. Displacement of rare plants by exotic grasses. Pages 170-175 in Monsen SB, Kitchen SG, eds. Proceedings-Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Washington (DC): US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlife Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.

Rost, G. R. and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 634-641.

Rowan, R. C., and J. Richard Conner, 1995. Small-acreage Livestock Operators and Resource Management, Society for Rangeland Management. 17(5): 167-171.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and others. 2000. Elk Distribution and Modeling in Relation to Roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3): 672-684.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, L. H. Suring, and others. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse as an Umbrella Species for Sagebrush-Associated Vertebrates. Biological Conservation. 129: 323-335.

Ruddell, S., R.Sampson, M.Smith, R.Giffen, J.Cathcart, J.Hagan, D.Sosland, J.Godbee, J.Heissenbuttel, S.Lovett, J.Helms, W.Price and R.Simpson. 2007. The role for sustainability managed forests in climate change mitigation. Journal of Forestry. 105(6): 314-319.

LC-35 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Rudzitis G. and R. Johnson. 2000. The Impact of Wilderness and Other Wildlands on Local Economies and Regional Development Trends. RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. USDA Forest Service Proceedings.

Ruediger, B., et al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy, 2nd edition. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, Montana: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. 142 pp.

Ruggiero, L. F. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General technical report RMRS, GTR-30WWW. Niwot, Colorado. University Press of Colorado.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (eds). 1994. The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service. 184 pp.

Ruggiero, Leonard F., Michael K. Schwartz, Keith B. Aubry, Charles J. Krebs, Amanda Stanley, and Steven W. Buskirk. 1999. Species Conservation and Natural Variation Among Populations. In: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (eds.) Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pp. 101-116.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. S. McKelvery, K. B. Aubry, and others. 2007. Wolverine Conservation and Management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7): 2145-2146.

Ryan, M.G. and S.R. Archer with contributing authors: R.A. Birdsey, C.N. Dahm, L.S. Heath, J.A. Hicke, D.Y. Hollinger, T.E. Huxman, G.S. Okin, R. Oren, J.T. Randerson, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2008. Land Resources: Forests and Arid lands. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North America. In: Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds (T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, New York. pp. 311–353.

Saab, V. A. and T. Rich. 1997. Large-Scale Conservation Assessment for Neotropical Migratory Land Birds in the Interior Columbia Basin. In: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment. T. M. Quigley. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-399: Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.56p.

Saab, V. A. and J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fore and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Research Paper RMRS-RP-11. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Samson, Fred. 1998. Habitat Estimates For Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher. USFS Nez Perce National Forest. LC-36 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2000. Version 2001. 2. Laurel, MD: U.S. Geologic Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.

Savage, D. E. 1969. The relationship of sagegrouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Trans. Annu. Meet. California-Nevada Sect., TWS. 16:8-17.

Schloegel, L. M., A. M. Picco, A. M. Kilpatrick, and others. 2009. Magnitude of the US Trade in Amphibians and Presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Ranavirus Infection in Imported North American Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biological Conservation. 142(7): 1420- 1426.

Schmitt, Craig L., and Donald W. Scott, 1993. Catastrophic stand conditions in the Blue Mountains: discussion, guidelines and rating system. BMZ-93-05. La Grande, OR: USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone. . p 1.

Schmidt, K., J. Menakis, C. Hardy, W. Hann, and D. Bunnell. 2002. Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Schmutz, J. K. 1987. The effect of agriculture on ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. Journal of Range Management. 40(5): 438-440.

Schmutz, J. K. 1999. Status of the Ferriginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association. Wildlife Status Report No. 18, Edmonton, AB. 18 pp.

Schroeder A. Michael, Cameron L. Aldridge, Anthony D. Apa, Joseph R. Bohne,Clait E. Braun, S. Dwight Bunnell, John W. Connelly, Pat A. Deibert, Scott C. Gardner, Mark A. Hilliard, Gerald D. Kobriger, Susan M. McAdam, Clinton W. McCarthy, John J. McCarthy,L. Mitchell, Eric V. Rickerson, San J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. The Condor. 106(2): 363-376.

Schroeder, Mike, Mike Atamian, Howard Ferguson, Mike Finch, and Derek Stinson. 2009. Re- Introduction of Greater Sage-Grouse to Lincoln County, Washington: Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Sharp, L., K. Sanders, and N. Rimbey. 1994. Management Decisions Based on Utilization - Is it Really Management? Rangelands. 16: 38-40.

Sheehy, D. P. and M. Vavra. 1996. Ungulate Foraging Areas on Seasonal Rangeland in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 49(1): 16-23.

Sheley R., B. Svejcar, B., Maxwell, and J. Jacobs. 1996. Successional Rangeland Weed Management. Rangelands. 18:155-159.

LC-37 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Sheley, R. and J. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR. Pp 69-72.Sheley, Roger L., Jane M. Mangold, and Jennifer L. Anderson. 2006. Potential for Successional Theory to Guide Restoration of Invasive-Plant- Dominated Rangeland. Ecological Monographs. 76(3): 365-379.

Short, L. L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the world. Monograph Series Number 4, Delaware Museum of Natural History, Greenville, DE.

Sibold, Jason S., Thomas T. Veblen, Kathryn Chipko, Lauren Lawson, Emily Mathis, Jared Scott. 2007. Influences of Secondary Disturbances on Lodgepole Pine Stand Development in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ecological Applications. 17(6): 1638-1655.

Sidle R.C., Y. Tsuboyama, S. Noguchi, I. Hosoda, M. Fujieda, and T. Shimizu. 2000. Streamflow generation in steep headwaters: A linked hydro-geomorphic paradigm. Hydrological Processes, 14: 369-385.

Silver, Gregory S., Christina W. Luzier, and Timothy A. Whitesel, 2009. Detection and Longevity of Uncured and Cured Visible Implant Elastomer Tags in Larval Pacific Lampreys. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 29(5): 1496-1501.

Simberloff Daniel, James A. Farr, James Cox, David W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments? Conservation Biology. 6(4): 493-504.

Sisler, J., W. Malm, and K. Gebhart. 1996. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere.

Skog, K.E.and G.A.Nicholson. 2000. Carbon sequestration in wood and paper products. In: L.A.Joyce and R.Birdsey, tech.eds. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: a technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-59. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service. pp.79-88.

Smallwood, S. K., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and others. 2007. Burrowing Owl Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5): 1513-1524.

Smith, J. E., L.S. Heath, K.E. Skog, and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 216 pp.

Smithwick, E.A.H., M.E. Harmon, S.M. Remillard, S.A. Acker and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon stores in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Application. 12(5): 1303- 1317.

Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce and H. A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Washington, D.C., U.S. Geological Survey: 71 pp.

LC-38 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Songer, Melissa A., Mark V. Lomolino, and David R. Perault. 1997. Niche Dynamics of Deer Mice in a Fragmented, Old-Growth-Forest Landscape. Journal of Mammalogy. 78(4): 1027-1039.

Spiegel, Lia H. 2008. Correspondence with Baker Field Office Manager: results of recent forest health assessment on select BLM forested lands, October. La Grande, OR: USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone. p 3.

Stalmaster, Mark V. and James R. Newman. 1979. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human Activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3): 506-513.

Stalmaster. Mark V. and James L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of Recreational Activity on Wintering Bald on Wintering Bald Eagles. Wildlife Monographs. 137: 3-46.

Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments: Recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance. In: R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Pages 91-124.

State of Oregon, 2007. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - 2006 Oregon Air Quality Summaries.

State of Oregon, 2008. Oregon Department of State Lands’ website http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/LW/rangeland.shtml accessed July 7, 2008

State of Washington 2007. State of Washington Office of Financial Management. Historical and projected population for growth and other purposes. Can be accessed at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/gmamedproj.xls

Stevens, R. 2004. Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects. In Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands. S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens and N. L. Shaw. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-136. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 155-174p.

Stewart, Iris T., Daniel R Cayan, and Michael D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate. 18(8): 1136-1155.

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. Bohne, and others. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Cheyenne, WY, 88pp.

Stoddart L.A., Smith A.D., 1955. Range Management. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York. pp180.

Stokowski, Patricia A., Ph.D. and Christopher B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. Burlington Vermont, University of Vermont, School of Natural Resources.

Storch, Ilse. 2007. Conservation Status of Grouse Worldwide: An Update. Wildlife Biology. 13(sp1): 5- 12.

LC-39 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Stynes, D.J. and E. White 2005. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year Report. Report to USDA Forest Service. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources.

Sveum, Colin M., W. Daniel Edge, and John A. Crawford. 1998. Nesting Habitat Selection by Sage Grouse in South-Central Washington. Journal of Range Management. 51(3): 265-269.

Swanson, David K., Craig L. Schmitt, Diane M. Shirley, Vicky Erickson, Kenneth J. Schuetz, Michael L. Tatum and David C. Powell. 2010. Aspen Biology, Community Classification, and Management in the Blue Mountains. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-806. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 p.

Swenson, J. E. and G. F. Shanks, Jr. 1979. Noteworthy records of bats from northeastern Montana. Journal of Mammalogy. 60: 650-652.

Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. DeLuca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and Impacts of Road Removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2(1): 21-28.

Tanaka, John A., Neil R. Rimbey, L. Allen Torell, David “Tex” Taylor, Derek Bailey, Timothy DelCurto, Kenric Walburger, and Bob Welling. 2007. Grazing Distribution: The Quest for the Silver Bullet. Society of Range Management. pp. 38-44.

Tashiro-Vierling, Yoshiko. 1994. Population trends and ecology of the Lewis woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in southeastern Colorado. University of Colorado, 1994. Thesis. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [69]-73).

Tate, J., Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds. 40: 227-236.

Tate, J. Jr. and D.J. Tate. 1982. The blue list for 1982. American Birds. 36: 3-10.

Taylor, Audrey R. and Richard L. Knight. 2003. Behavioral Responses of Wildlife to Human Activity: Terminology and Methods. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31(4): 1263-1271.

TCWMA. 2009. Personal communication with Greg Wissenand. Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area. Tri-County CWMA, Baker City, Oregon.

Temple, A. Stanley and John R. Cary. 1988. Modeling Dynamics of Habitat-Interior Bird Populations in Fragmented Landscapes. Conservation Biology. 2(4): 340-347.

Thatcher A. 1959. Distribution of Sagebrush as Related to Site Differences in Albany County, Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. 12: 55-61.

Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist. 113: 404-407.

Thines, Nicole, J. Siegel, Lisa A. Shipley, and Rodney D. Sayler. 2004. Effects of cattle grazing on ecology and habitat of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Biological Conservation. 119: 525–534. LC-40 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited

Thomas, J. and C. Maser, C. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 pp. Wildlife Management Institute: Washington D.C.

Thompson, R.N., and Haas, J.B. 1960. Environmental survey report pertaining to salmon and steelhead in certain rivers of eastern Oregon and the Willamette River and its tributaries. Part I.Survey reports of Eastern Oregon rivers. Fish Commission of Oregon, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Contract Number Project Appraisal 14-17-001-178. Portland, OR: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Stream Net Library.

Tobalske, B. W. 1997. Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In: The Birds of North America, No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 28 pp.

Tomasi, T. E. and R. S. Hoffman. 1984. Sorex preblei in Utah and Wyoming. Journal of Mammalogy. 65: 708.

Treyz, G.I., D.S. Rickman, G.L. Hunt, and M.J. Greenwood. 1993. The Dynamics of U.S. Internal Migration. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 75(2): 209-214.

Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 14: 18-30.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Census 2000. SF3 Table P5.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007a. National Agricultural Statistical Service, Census of Agriculture 2007. Table 8. Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Land and Buildings, and Land Use: 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007b. National Agricultural Statistical Service, Census of Agriculture 2007. Quick Stats 1.0 U.S. & States Data - Prices.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Payments in Lieu of Taxes and acres of entitlement acreage per agency data base.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 160pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Division. 119pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Notice of finding on petition to list the Ferruginous Hawk. Federal Register 57 (161): 37507-37513.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000a. Determination of threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and related rule. Federal Register 65 (58): 16052-16086.

LC-41 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Revised Recovery Plan for MacFarlane's Four-O’Clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 46 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Arlington, Virginia: Division of Migratory Bird Management. 99 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Recovery Plan for Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 47 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Biological Technical Publication BTP-R6001-2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Chapter 10, Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit, Oregon and Washington. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 148p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Briefing Paper Prairie Grouse Leks and Wind Turbines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Justification for a 5-Mile Buffer from Leks; Additional Grassland Songbird Recommendations. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Protection of Eagles and Authorizations Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for Take of Eagles; Final Rule and Proposed Rule Protection of Eagles and National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines; Notices. Department of the Interior. June 5, 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Xiii + 187 pages

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Bull Trout Recovery: Monitoring and Evaluation Guidance. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Bull Trout Recovery and Monitoring Technical Group (RMEG). Portland, Oregon. 74 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. 12 month finding for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Proposed Rules. Federal Register, Vol. 75 (9): 2270-2431.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 pp.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1985. Bald Eagle Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Unity Ranger District: Unity, OR.

LC-42 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. Wallowa- Whitman National Forest. P. 4-1.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1993. Region 6, Interim Old Growth Definition, USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, (June, 1993).

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1996. Status of the Interior Columbia Basin: Summary of Scientific Findings. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-385. November. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. (online) http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/sum1.pdf

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River basin DEIS.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2000. Harris, C., W. Mclaughlin, G. Brown, D.R. Becker. 2000. Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest: An Assessment of Small Rural Communities in the Interior and Upper Columbia River Basins. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific AssessmentPNW-GTR-477. October 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2009a. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Schedule of Proposed Action for 07/01/2009 to 09/30/2009.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2009b. Umatilla National Forest, Schedule of Proposed Activities, Summer 2009.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). February. Washington, DC.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1997. Eastside Draft EIS. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). May 1(2): 663. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR.

U.S. Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Protocol for Addressing Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) Listed Waters. May 1999. Version 2.0. Portland Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/reports.html last accessed August 6, 2010.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Scientific Findings. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). March. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR.

LC-43 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. August 2001. 21 pp.

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, pgs. 27-52

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans. Notices. Federal Register, Vol. 74 (188): 50165-50172.

University of Idaho. 2004. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. Contribution No. 986, pp. 3-35.

Unsworth, J. W., L. Kuck, E. O. Garton, and others. 1998. Elk Habitat Selection on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(4): 1255-1263.

Vale, Thomas R.1975. Presettlement Vegetation in the Sagebrush-Grass Area of the Intermountain West. Journal of Range Management. 51(3): 32-36.

Valentine, K. 1947. Distance from Water as a Factor in Grazing Capacity of Rangelands. Journal of Forestry. 45: 749-754.

Van Cleve, R. and R. Ting. 1960. The condition of salmon stocks in the John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers as reported by various fisheries agencies.

Vander Haegen, Matthew, Nancy A. Mahony, Brett L. Walker, and Pamela G. Krannitz. 2001a. Male Incubation and Multiple Brooding in Sagebrush Brewer's Sparrows. The Wilson Bulletin. 113(4): 441-444.

Vander Haegen, W.M., S.M. Mccorquodale, C.R. Peterson, G.A. Green, and E. Yensen. 2001b. Wildlife communities of eastside shrubland and grassland habitats. In: D.H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil [Managing Directors], Wildlife habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. University of Oregon Press, Corvallis, OR. p. 292–316.

Verts, B. J. 1975. New Records for Three Uncommon Mammals in Oregon. The Murrelet. 56(3): 22-23.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. 668 pp.

Wagner, W.H., Jr. and F.S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee [eds.], Flora of North America, vol. 2, 84–106. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

LC-44 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Wakeley, J. S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor. 80: 316- 326.

Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese and J.W. Connelly. 1992. Sage Grouse Nest Locations in Relation to Leks. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(2): 381-383.

Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle and K.E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Energy Development and Habitat Loss. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(8): 2644-2654.

Walker B. and Naugle, D. 2009. West Nile Virus Ecology in Sagebrush Habitat and Implication on Greater Sage-Grouse Populations. The Cooper Ornithological Society, and the University of California Press.

Walker, B. 2010. Personal Communication. Grand Junction, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Avian Research Program.

Walker, D, M McGrady, A McCluskie, M Madders and D. R. A. McLeod. 2005. Resident Golden Eagle ranging behaviour before and after construction of a windfarm, Argyll Scottish Birds. 25: 24–40.

Wallestad, Richard and Robert L. Eng. 1975. Foods of Adult Sage Grouse in Central Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(3): 628-630.

Walter, W. D., D. M. Leslie, Jr. and J. Jenks. 2006. Response of Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) to Wind-Power Development. American Midland Naturalist. 156(2): 363-375.

Wambolt, C. L. 1996. Mule Deer and Elk Foraging Preference for 4 Sagebrush Taxa. Journal of Range Management. 49(6): 499-503.

Waples, R. S., J. Robert, P. Jones, B. R. Beckman, and G. A. Swan. 1991b. Status review for Snake River fall Chinook salmon. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-201. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Ward, S.A. 1987. Optimal Habitat Selection in Time-Limited Dispersers. The American Naturalist. 129(4): 568-579.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Washington Pygmy Rabbit 2003 Recovery Plan Update Addendum to Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit (1995). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2002. Washington State Timber Harvest Summary from 1965 to 2002.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WNHP). 2007. Natural Heritage Plan. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 97pp.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WNHP). 2009. Natural Heritage Plan Update. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 97pp.

LC-45 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WANHP), 2008a. Washington Natural Heritage Program Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants.

Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WANHP), 2008b. List of Plants Tracked by Washington Natural Heritage Program.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethseda, Maryland.

Watson, J.W. 2003. Migration and Winter Ranges of Ferruginous Hawks from Washington. Final Report. : Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 63pp.

Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and fisher in the western United States. Research assessment and agenda for the Interagency Lynx-Wolverine-Fisher Working Group. Intermountain Research Station Contract No. 43-0353-2-0598. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative.

Webb R.H., H.C. Ragland, W.H. Godwin, and Dennis Jenkins. 1978. Environmental Effects of Soil Property Changes With Off-Road Vehicle Use. Environmental Management. 2(3): 219-233. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Weir, R.D. and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-Dependent Habitat Selectivity by Fishers in South-Central British Columbia. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 67(1): 73-82.

Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones, 2001. Forest Roads and Geomorphic Process Interactions Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth System Processes and Landforms. 26: 191-204 (2001). John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

West, Neil E., Frederick D. Provenza, Patricia S. Johnson, and Keith M. Owens. 1984. Vegetation Change after 13 years of Livestock grazing Exclusion on Sagebrush Semidesert in West Central Utah. Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 262-264.

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 2007. Western Bark Beetle Assessment: A Framework for Cooperative Forest Stewardship. Lakewood, CO: Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 13pp.

Wiens, J.A., J.T. Rotenberry, and B. Van Horne. 1987. Habitat Occupancy Patterns of North American Shrubsteppe Birds: The Effects of Spatial Scale. Oikos. 48(2): 132-147.

Wiggins, D. A. 2005. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Wikeem, Brian M. and Michael D. Pitt. 1979. Interpreting Diet Preference of California Bighorn Sheep on Native Rangeland in South- Central British Columbia. Rangelands. 1(5): 200-202.

Wilcox, A. Bruce and Dennis D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation Strategy: The Effects of Fragmentation on Extinction. The American Naturalist. 125(6): 879-887.

LC-46 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Wipfli, M.S., J.S. Richardson, and R.J.Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43: 72–85.

Wisdom, M., R. Holthausen, B. Wales, C. Hargis, V. Saab, D. Lee, W. Hann, TT. Rich, M. Rowland, W. Murphy, and M. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broadscale Trends and Management Implications. Volume 1—Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. 3 vols. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, B.K. Johnson, and B. Dick. 2004. Overview of the Starkey Project: Mule deer and elk research for management benefits. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 69 pp. In press.

Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal of Geology. 68: 54-74.

Wolverine Foundation. 2001. Species Assessment for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Wyoming. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office by: Dr. Gary P. Beauvais and Lain Johnson. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.

Woodbridge, B. and C. D. Hargis. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide. General Technical Report, WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80p.

Woodbury, P.B., J.E. Smith, and L.S. Heath. 2006. Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Forest Ecology and Management. 241:14-27.

Wright, Henry A. and Arthur W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Willey & Sons. New York. In: Welch, B.L., and C. Criddle. 2003. Counting Misinformation Concerning Big Sagebrush. RMSC-RP-40. USDA Forest Service. p. 1-28.

Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. 105 pp.

Yeo, J. J., J. M. Peek, W. T. Wittinger, and others. 1993. Influence of Rest-Rotation Cattle Grazing on Mule Deer and Elk Habitat Use in East-Central Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 46(3): 245-250.

Yocom, C. F. 1974. Recent Wolverine Records in Washington and Oregon. The Murrelet. 55(2): 15-18.

Young, James A. and Raymond A. Evans. 1970. Invasion of Medusahead into the Great Basin. Weed Science. 18(1): 89-97.

LC-47 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Literature Cited Youtz, James A., Russell T. Graham, Richard T. Reynolds, and Jerry Simon. 2008. Implementing Northern Goshawk Habitat Management in Southwestern Forests: A Template for Restoring Fire- Adapted Forest Ecosystems. This paper was published in: Deal, R.L., tech. ed. 2008. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multiresource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 pp.

Ypsilantis, W.G. 2003. Risk of Cheatgrass invasion After Fire in Selected Sagebrush Community Types. BLM Resource Notes Issue 63:1-4.

LC-48 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary GLOSSARY

- A - Abatement – Suppression or termination. Access – The ability of public land visitors to reach the areas they wish to visit. Acquired lands – Lands acquired for BLM administration in various ways, such as but not limited to: (1) any lands purchased by congressionally appropriated funds, (2) land donations, (3) land exchanges, (4) Land and Water Conservation Fund acquisitions, (5) land withdrawals returned to public land status through withdrawal revocations and/or relinquishments, etc., (6) split estate acquisitions, (7) Federal agency jurisdictional transfers, (8) easement acquisitions, and/or (9) lands acquired by any other means. Acre – A unit of area used in land measurement, equal to 43,560 square feet. There are 640 acres in one square mile. Active preference – That portion of the total grazing preference for which grazing use may be authorized. Activity planning – Site-specific planning which precedes actual development. This is the most detailed level of BLM planning (for example Habitat Management Plan, Allotment Management Plan). Actual use – The amount of animal unit months (AUMs) consumed by livestock based on numbers of livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator, confirmed by periodic field checks by the BLM. Adjustments – Changes in animal numbers, periods of use, kinds or classes of animals, or management practices as warranted by specific conditions. Allotment – An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may also include other federal managed, state owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. Allotment categorization – Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing are assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar groups for purposes of developing multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts, and determining trade-offs. (See Selective management categories). Allotment Management Plan (AMP) – A written program of livestock grazing management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific management goals on a specific unit of rangeland (usually a grazing allotment). The AMP considers livestock grazing in relation to the renewable resources such as watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP establishes the season of use, the number of livestock to be permitted on the range, and the range improvements needed. Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) – The quantity of timber that may be sold from suitable land and that has been included in the yield projections for the timber period specified by the land use plan. Usually expressed on an annual basis as the average annual allowable sale quantity.

G-1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Alluvium – Well sorted soil and rock debris deposited by water. Amendment (plan amendment) – The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions of approved RMP’s or management framework plans using the prescribed provisions for resource management planning appropriate to the proposed action or circumstances. Usually only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area. Anadromous fish – Fish that migrate from the ocean to breed in fresh water. Their offspring return to the ocean. Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) – Step 4 of the BLM’s land use planning process; it is a comprehensive documentation of the present conditions of the resources, current management guidance, and opportunities for change. Animal unit – One cow, one mature cow and calf under six months, or one equivalent (one bull or steer, one horse, five domestic sheep, or six bighorn sheep). Animal Unit Month (AUM) – A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or cow/calf pair (or equivalent – see Animal Unit above) for 1 month (approximately 800 pounds of forage). Also a unit of measurement of grazing privilege that represents the privilege of grazing one animal for one month Appropriate action – Implementing actions pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of the regulations that will result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward conformance with the guidelines. (See Significant progress.) Appropriate Management Response (AMR) – Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement protection and fire use objectives. Aquatic – Living or growing in or on the water. Area Of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) – Area where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect humans from natural hazards. Aspect – The direction a slope faces. Assessment – A form of evaluation based on the standards of rangeland health, conducted by an interdisciplinary team at the appropriate landscape scale (pasture, allotment, sub-watershed, watershed, etc.) to determine conditions relative to standards. Avoidance areas – Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and Section 302 permits, leases, and easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not be otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. - B - Back country byways – Vehicle routes that traverse scenic corridors utilizing secondary or back country road systems. National back country byways are designated by the type of road and vehicle needed to travel the byway. (From Lakeview Glossary… if not applicable to Baker, delete this definition.) Badlands – Steep or very steep, commonly non-stony, barren land dissected by many intermittent drainage channels, most common in semiarid and arid regions where streams are

G-2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary entrenched in soft geologic material. Local relief generally ranges from 25 to 500 feet. Runoff potential is very high, and geologic erosion is active. Basalt – A dark, heavy, fine-grained silica poor igneous rock composed largely of iron and magnesium minerals and calcium rich plagioclase feldspars. Beneficial use – Any of various uses of a water source in an area. The primary beneficial uses of surface water are domestic water supply, salmonid and resident fish habitat, irrigation, livestock watering, wildlife and hunting, fishing, water contact recreation, and aesthetic quality. Best Management Practices (BMPs) – A set of practices which, when applied during implementation of management actions, ensures that negative impacts to natural resources are minimized. BMP’s are applied based on site-specific evaluation and represent the most effective and practical means to achieve management goals for a given site. Big game animals – Limited to elk, mule deer, bear, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep in Baker Resource Area in this document. Biomass – Vegetative material resulting from or leftover from stand treatments. This term usually refers to such material that can be gathered and transported to cogeneration plants, and there utilized for production of electricity. Board foot – A unit of solid wood, one foot square and one inch thick. Browse – To browse (verb) is to graze a plant; also, browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs, and leaves of shrubs often used as food by cattle, deer, elk, and other animals. Buffer strip – A protective area adjacent to an area of concern that requires special attention or protection. In contrast to riparian zones, which are ecological units, buffer strips can be designed to meet varying management concerns. Bunchgrass – Individual grasses that have the characteristic growth habit of forming a “bunch” as opposed to having stolens or rhizomes or single annual habit. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – Government agency with the mandate to manage Federal lands under its jurisdiction for multiple uses. Bureau sensitive species – Species eligible as federally listed or candidate, state listed, or state candidate (plant) status, or on List 1 in the Oregon Natural Heritage Database, or otherwise approved for this category by the State Director. - C - C Category – As in C category allotment, see Custodial management. Cairn – A heap of stones set up as a landmark, monument, tombstone, and so forth. Candidate species – Species designated as candidates (categories 1 and 2) in the Federal Register notice of review that are being considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Carbon sequestration – The processes that remove carbon dioxide from the air. Carrying capacity – In livestock grazing, it is the maximum stocking rate possible without damaging vegetation or related resources. Carrying capacity may vary from year to year on the same area due to fluctuating forage production. Catchment – A structure built to collect and retain water. Climax plant community – The vegetative community that emerges after a series of successive vegetational stages and perpetuates itself indefinitely unless disturbed by outside forces. The

G-3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary culminating stage in plant succession for a given site where vegetation has reached a highly stable condition. Closed area designation – See Off-Road Vehicle Designation. Commercial forestlands – Forestland capable of producing merchantable timber at rates of at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year and is currently or prospectively accessible and not withdrawn from such use. Commercial thinning – A cutting made in a forest stand to remove excess merchantable timber in order to accelerate growth or improve the health of the remaining trees. Commercial tree species – Tree species whose yields are reflected in the allowable cut: pines, firs, spruce, Douglas fir, cedar, and larch. Compaction – The process of packing firmly and closely together: the state of being so packed (e.g., mechanical compaction 01 soil by livestock or vehicular activity). Soil compaction results from particles being pressed together so that the volume of soil is reduced. It is influenced by the physical properties of the soil, moisture content and the type and amount of compactive effort. Compaction layer – A layer within the soil profile in which the soil particles have been rearranged to decrease void space, thereby increasing soil bulk density and often reducing permeability. Conformance – Means that a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the approved land use plan. Conservation agreement – A formal signed agreement between the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or programs designed to conserve the species by reducing threats to the species, stabilizing the species’ populations, and maintaining its ecosystem. The primary purpose of the agreement is to conserve this species through interim conservation measures under the 1973 “Endangered Species Act,” as amended. These agreements can be developed at a State, regional, or national level and generally include multiple agencies, as well as Tribes. Conservation strategy – A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service to be Federal candidates under the “Endangered Species Act.” Consistency – Means that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved plans, programs, and policies of Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state, and local governments to the extent practical within Federal law, regulation, and policy. Critical habitat – Any habitat that, if lost, would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a threatened or endangered species or a distinct segment of its population. Critical habitat may represent any portion of the present habitat of a listed species and may include additional areas for reasonable population expansion. Critical habitat must be

G-4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary officially designated as such by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Crust, abiotic (physical crust) – A surface layer on soils, ranging in thickness from a few millimeters to a few centimeters, that is much more compact, hard and brittle, when dry, than the material immediately beneath it Crust, biotic (microbiotic or cryptogamic crust) – A layer of living organisms (mosses, lichens, liverworts, algae, fungi, bacteria, and/or cyanobacteria) occurring on, or near the soil surface. Cultural resources – Fragile and nonrenewable elements of the environment including archaeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally utilized raw materials, etc.). Cultural site – Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use or that has important sociocultural value. Custodial management – Management of a group of similar allotments with minimal expenditure of appropriated funds to continue protecting existing resource values. (See Selective management categories.) - D - Decision area – Covers only those lands administered by the BLM. Deferment – The withholding of livestock grazing on an area until a certain stage of plant growth is reached. Degree of function – A level of physical function relative to properly functioning condition commonly expressed as properly functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non-functional. Designated habitat – (See Critical Habitat.) Direct sale – A sale at fair market value to a designated purchaser without competitive bidding. Discretionary closures – Areas where the BLM has determined that energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or disposal, even with the most restrictive stipulations or conditions would not be in the public interest. Dispersed/extensive recreation – Recreation activities of an unstructured type that are not confined to specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. Minimal management actions related to the Bureau’s stewardship responsibilities are considered adequate in the areas where extensive recreation takes place and explicit recreation management is not required. Distribution – The uniformity of livestock grazing over a range area. Distribution is affected by the availability of water, topography, and type and palatability of vegetation as well as other factors. Disposal – Any BLM authority that transfers title of lands or minerals out of public ownership. Distribution – The uniformity of livestock grazing over a range area. Distribution is affected by the availability of water, topography, and type and palatability of vegetation as well as other factors. Diversity – A measure of the variety of species and habitats in an area that takes into account the relative abundance of each species or habitat. The elements of diversity are (1) community diversity (habitat, ecosystem), (2) species diversity, and (3) genetic diversity within a species, all three of which change over time.

G-5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary - E - Early seral – Ecological condition class that corresponds to 0 to 25 percent of the plant composition found in the potential climax plant community. It could be considered synonymous with poor range condition. (See Ecological status.) Early Detection-Rapid Response (EDRR) – An approach to invasive species management that focuses on surveying and monitoring at-risk areas to find infestations at their earliest stages of invasion and acting rapidly to control them before they can spread. Easement – A right held by one person to make use of the land of another for a limited purpose. Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) – The basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands. Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of significant differences in kind, proportion, or amount of plant species present in the plant community. Ecological site inventory utilizes soils, the existing plant community, and ecological site data to determine the appropriate ecological site for a specific area of rangeland and to assign the appropriate ecological status. Ecological status – Ecological status is the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential natural community for that site. It is an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the potential natural plant community for the site. Four classes are used to express the degree to which the production or composition of the present plant community reflects that of the potential natural community (climax). Departures from climax can enhance or depreciate the value of the resultant plant community for various uses. These departures (seral or successional stages) are defined as the percentage of present plant community that is climax for a particular range site: Potential Natural Community (PNC) = 76-100% Late Seral = 51-75% Middle Seral = 26-50% Early Seral = 0-25% Ecosystem – An ecological unit consisting of both living and nonliving components that interact to produce a natural, stable system. Endangered species – A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior and as is further defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Energy flow – The processes in which solar energy is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis and passed through the food chain until it is eventually dispersed through respiration and decomposition. Environmental assessment – One type of document prepared by Federal agencies in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that portrays the environmental consequences of proposed Federal actions which are not expected to have significant impacts on the human environment. Environmental impact – The positive or negative effect 01 any action upon a given area or resource. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A formal document to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency that considers significant environmental impacts expected from implementation of a major Federal action.

G-6 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Ephemeral stream – A stream that flows only after rain or during snow melt. Erosion – Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. Escaped fire – A fire that has exceeded initial attack capabilities. Evaluation (plan evaluation) – The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid and whether the plan is being implemented. Exchange of use – Grazing authorization issued to a permittee free of charge for unfenced, intermingled private lands within an allotment. Exclosure – An area fenced to exclude livestock. Exclusion area – Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and 302 permits, leases, and easements would not be authorized. Existing management situation – A component of the analysis of the management situation; a description of the existing management direction governing resource management programs of a planning area. Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) – Area where recreation management is less structured (than within an SRMA) and recreation use more dispersed with minimal regulatory constraints and where minimal recreation related investments are required. Extirpated – Population destroyed in that geographical location. - F - F – As in “degrees Fahrenheit” – a measurement of temperature Federal Land Policy and Management Act Of 1976 (FLPMA) – Public Law 94-579. October 21, 1976, often referred to as the BLM’s “Organic Act” which provides the majority of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction, policy, and basic management guidance. Fire effects – The physical, biological, and ecological impact of fire on the environment. Fire intensity –The product of the available heat of combustion per unit area of ground and the rate of spread of the fire. Fire management area – One or more parcels of land having a common set of fire management objectives. Fire management plan – A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the plan is supplemented by operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. Fire preparedness – Activities that lead to a safe, efficient, and cost-effective fire management program in support of land and resource management objectives through appropriate planning and coordination. Fire regime – Periodicity and pattern of naturally occurring fire in a particular area or vegetative type, described in terms of frequency, biological severity, and area extent (Society of American Foresters, 1996). Fire suppression – All the work activities connected with fire extinguishing operations, beginning with the discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. Floodplain – The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining a body of standing or flowing water which has been or might be covered by floodwater.

G-7 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Forage – All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals including wildlife and domestic livestock. Forb – A broad-leafed herb that is not a grass, sedge, or rush. Forest health – The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, resiliency, and productivity while providing for human needs and values. Forest land – Land which is now, or is capable of being, at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees, and is not currently developed for non-timber use. Forest management – All commercial forestland that is part of the timber lands production base for allowable cut calculation. Fuel type – An identification association of fuel elements of distinctive species, form, size, arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of spread or resistance to control under specific weather conditions. - G - GeoBOB – Geographic Biotic Observations Database Geographic Information System (GIS) – A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and displaying data and describing places on the Earth’s surface. Geographic unit - Boundaries based mostly on the location of grazing allotments to differentiate geographic areas for management purposes. Geothermal – Of, or pertaining to, the internal heat of the earth. Gravel – Rounded or angular fragments of rock as much as 3 inches (2 millimeters–7.6 centimeters) in diameter. An individual piece is a pebble. Grazing preference – The total number (active and suspended nonuse) of animal unit months of livestock grazing on public land apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee. Grazing system – The manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result. Greenhouse gases – Those gases in the atmosphere that contribute to global warming and other changes in climate conditions. Primary gases of concern are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Ground cover – Vegetation, mulch, litter, rock and so forth. Groundwater – Subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation. Growing season – Generally, the period of the year during which the temperature of cultivated vegetation remains sufficiently high to allow plant growth. Guidelines – Practices, methods, techniques, and considerations used to ensure that progress is made in a way and at a rate that achieves the standard(s). Gully – A channel resulting from erosion and caused by the concentrated but intermittent flow of water usually during and immediately following heavy rains. - H - Habitat – A specific set of physical conditions that surround a species group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major constituents of habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and living space. Habitat diversity – The relative degree or abundance of plant species, communities, habitats, or habitat features (e.g. topography, canopy layers) per unit of area. Habitat management plan – A plan for the management of wildlife habitat.

G-8 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Habitat type – The collective area which one plant association occupies or will come to occupy as succession advances. Habitat types are defined and described on the basis of the vegetation and associated environment. Historic – Refers to period wherein nonnative cultural activities took place, based primarily upon European roots, having no origin in the traditional Native American culture(s). Hydrologic cycle – The process in which water enters the atmosphere through evaporation, transpiration, or sublimation from the oceans, other surface water bodies, or from the land and vegetation, and through condensation and precipitation returns to the earth’s surface. The precipitation then occurring as overland flow, stream flow, or percolating underground flow to the oceans or other surface water bodies or to other sites of evapotranspiration and recirculation to the atmosphere.

- I - I Category – See Improve category allotment. (See also Selective management categories.) Impact – A spatial or temporal change in the human environment caused by man. The change should be (1) perceptible, (2) measurable, and (3) relatable through a change agent to a management activity or alternative. Improve (I) category allotment – These are grazing allotments that have a potential for resource improvements where BLM controls enough land to implement changes. Indicators – Parameters of ecosystem function that are observed, assessed, measured, or monitored to directly or indirectly determine attainment of a standard(s). Infiltration – The gradual downward flow of water from the surface into the soil profile. Infiltration rate – The rate at which water penetrates the surface of the soil at any given instant, usually expressed in inches per hour. The rate can be limited by the infiltration capacity of the soil or the rate at which water is applied at the surface. INFISH – Inland Fish Strategy Integrated weed management – A sustainable approach to managing vegetation by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. An interdisciplinary weed management approach for selecting methods for preventing, containing, and controlling noxious weeds in coordination with other resource management activities to achieve optimum management goals and objectives. Interdisciplinary – Involving more than one discipline or resource management program; promotes resource management at a plant community, landscape, or ecosystem level. Interim Management Policy (IMP) – Policy for managing public lands under wilderness review. Section 603 (c) of FLPMA states: “During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Act and other applicable law in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness, subject, however, to the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and degree in which the same was being conducted on the date of approval of this Act: Provided, that, in managing the public lands the Secretary shall by regulation or otherwise take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources or to afford environmental protection.

G-9 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) – A planning effort that examined the large-scale or regional effects of past and present land use activities in the Interior Columbia River Basin ecosystem and a small part of the Great Basin ecosystem. Interior drainage – Streams with no outlet to the sea. Intermittent stream – A stream that flows most of the time but occasionally is dry or reduced to pools. Issue – A subject or question of widespread public discussion or interest regarding management of public lands within the Baker Resource Area of the Vale District and identified through public participation. - J - Juniper Phases – Used to describe the condition of juniper woodland habitat. Phases are described as follows: Phase I - trees are present but shrubs and herbs comprise the dominant vegetation that influences ecological processes 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 influencing ecological processes on the site - L - Lacustrine deposit (Geology) – Material deposited in lake water and exposed when the water level is lowered or the elevation of the land is raised. Landing – A location where timber is gathered for further transport. LANDFIRE – Landscape fire and resource management planning tools project Land treatment – All methods of range development and soil stabilization such as reseeding, sagebrush control (burning and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water spreading, etc. Late seral – Ecological condition class corresponding to 51 to 75 percent of the plant composition found in the potential natural plant community. Synonymous with good range condition. (See Ecological status.) Leasable minerals – Minerals that may be leased to private interests by the federal government, including oil, gas, and coal. Lease – An instrument through which interests are transferred from on party to another, subject to certain obligations and considerations. Lek – A site to which sage grouse return annually for purposes of sexual display and courtship. The following are lek status definitions: Annual status: Lek status based on the following definitions of annual activity. Active lek: A lek attended by greater or equal to 1 male sage-grouse during the breeding season. Acceptable documentation of grouse presence includes observation of birds using the site or recent signs of lek attendance (e.g. fresh droppings, feathers). New leks found during ground counts or surveys are given an annual status of active. Inactive lek: A lek with sufficient data suggests that there was no male attendance throughout a breeding season. Absence of male grouse during a single visit is insufficient documentation to establish that a lek is inactive. This designation requires documentation of either: 1) an absence of birds on the lek during at least two ground surveys separated by at

G-10 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary least 7 days. These surveys must be conducted under acceptable weather conditions (clear to partly cloudy and winds <15 kph) and in the absence of obvious disturbance or, 2) a ground check of the exact known lek site late in the strutting season that fails to find any sign (fresh droppings/feathers) of attendance. Data collected by aerial surveys alone may not be used to designate inactive status. Unknown lek: Lek status has not been documented during the course of a breeding season. New leks found during aerial surveys in the current year are given an annual status of unknown unless they are confirmed on the ground or observed > 1 time by air. Conservation status: Based on its annual status, a lek is assigned to one of the following categories for conservation or mitigation actions: Occupied lek: A regularly visited lek that has had > or = 1 male counted in the last 7 years. Designate and protect surrounding area as Category I habitat (see Hagen 2005 for lek count protocols). Occupied-pending: A lek not counted regularly in the last 7 years, but birds were present at last visit. Designate and protect surrounding area as Category I habitat. These leks should be resurveyed at a minimum of 2 additional years to confirm activity. Unoccupied lek: A lek that has been counted annually and has had 0 birds for 8 or more consecutive years. Mitigation category based on habitat type and condition. Unoccupied-pending: A lek not counted regularly in a 7-year period, but birds were NOT present at last visit. Designate and protect surrounding area as Category I habitat. These leks should be resurveyed at a minimum of 2 additional years to confirm activity. Historic lek: A lek that has been unoccupied prior to 1980 and remains so. Mitigation category based on habitat type and condition. 1980 serves as the baseline for evaluating population objectives under ODFW's Conservation Strategy, thus leks unoccupied prior to 1980 are not included in the baseline for population abundance and distribution Licensed use – Active use AUMs that a permittee has paid for during a given grazing period. Lieu – Public lands that a patentee has a right to locate and select in place of lands within the limits of a previous grant that are occupied by persons given special protection by the law. Life form – A group of wildlife species whose requirements for habitat are satisfied by similar successional stages within a given plant communities. Limestone – A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium carbonate. Limits Of Acceptable Change – For recreation management, a nine step process used to define the desired resource conditions for an area and to determine acceptable levels of resource change due to recreation use. The process helps to develop management actions to avoid exceeding standards. Limited area designation – See Off-Road Vehicle Designation. Lithic scatter – A prehistoric site characterized by a scatter of stone tools and flakes that may indicate a number of functions. Litter – A surface layer of loose, organic debris, consisting of freshly fallen or slightly decomposed organic materials.

G-11 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Loam – A rich, friable (crumbly) soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and sin and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay. Locatable minerals – Minerals or materials subject to disposal and development through the Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). Generally includes metallic minerals such as gold and silver and other materials not subject to lease or sale (some bentonites, limestone, talc, some zeolites, and so on). Long-Term – A point in time 10 years following the beginning of the implementation phase for the RMP. - M - M Category – See Maintain category allotment. (See also Selective management categories.) Maintain (M) category allotment – These are grazing allotments where satisfactory resource conditions have already been achieved. Mechanical treatment – Use of mechanical equipment for seeding, brush management, and other management practices. Metamorphosed – Rock that has been altered in composition, texture, or structure by heat and/or pressure. Mid seral – Ecological condition class that corresponds to 26 to 50 percent of the composition found in the potential natural plant community. It could be considered synonymous with fair range condition. (See Ecological status.) Mineral entry – The locating and filing of mining claims by an individual to protect his right to a valuable mineral. Mineral estate – The ownership of the minerals on the land. Mitigation measures – Methods or procedures committed to by BLM for the purpose of reducing or lessening the impacts of an action. Monitoring – The periodic and systematic collection of resource data to measure progress toward achieving objectives. Multiple use – Balanced management of various surface and subsurface resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands that will best meet present and future needs. - N - NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Register of Historic Places – The official list, established by the Preservation Act of 1966, of the Nation’s cultural resources worthy of preservation. The Register lists archaeological, historic, and architectural properties (such as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) nominated for their local, State, or National significances by State and/or Federal agencies and approved by the National Register staff. The Register is maintained by the National Park Service. Naturalness (a primary wilderness value) – Refers to an area which “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable” (from section 2[c], “Wilderness Act”). Natural area – A physical and biological area which either retains or has reestablished its natural character, although it need not be completely undisturbed, and which typifies native

G-12 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary vegetation and associated biological and geological features or provides habitat for rare or endangered animal or plant species or includes geologic or other natural features of scientific or educational value. Noxious weeds – According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-629), a weed that causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment, and, therefore, is detrimental to agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the public health. Nutrient cycling – The movement of essential elements and inorganic compounds between the reservoir pool (soil, for example) and the cycling pool (organisms) in the rapid exchange (such as moving back and forth) between organisms and their immediate environment. - O - Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) – Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any non-amphibious registered motorboat, (2) emergency vehicles, and (3) vehicles in official use. Off-Road vehicle designation – OPEN: Designated areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be operated (subject to operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in BLM Manuals 6341 and 8343). LIMITED: Designated areas and trails where the use of off-road vehicles is subject to restrictions, such as limiting the number or types of vehicles allowed, dates, and times of use (seasonal restrictions); limiting use to existing roads and trails; or limiting use to designated roads and traits. Under the designated roads and trails designation, use would be allowed only on roads and trails that are signed for use. Combinations of restrictions are possible, such as limiting use to certain types of vehicles during certain times of the year. CLOSED: Designated areas and trails where the use of off-road vehicles is permanently or temporarily prohibited. Emergency use of vehicles is allowed. Old growth groves – A stand of trees that is past maturity, usually 200 years or older, and showing signs of decadence, large trees, snags and down logs, multilayered canopy, many species. Organic matter – Plant and animal residues accumulated or deposited at the soil surface; the organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and animal residues at various stages of decomposition; cells and tissues of soil organisms, and the substances synthesized by the soil population.

Outstanding Natural Area (ONA) – An area of unusual natural characteristics where management of recreation activities is necessary to preserve those characteristics. Overstory – The trees in a forest that form the upper crown cover. - P - PACFISH – Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy Paleontology – A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from fossil remains. Perennial (Permanent) Stream – A stream that ordinarily has running water on a year round basis.

G-13 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Period of use – The time of livestock grazing on a range area based on the type of vegetation or stage of vegetative growth. Permeability (Soil) – The quality of a soil horizon that enables water or air to move through it; may be limited by the presence of one nearly impermeable horizon even though the others are permeable. Permittee – One who holds a permit to graze livestock on public land. Holder of a license or permit for grazing on an allotment. pH value – A numerical designation of acidity or alkalinity Physiographic province – A geographic region with similar climatic, land form, and geologic features, and which is significantly different from adjacent regions. Planning Area – The Planning Area includes all land within the planning boundary regardless of jurisdiction Plant community – An association of plants of various species found growing together in different areas with similar site characteristics. PM10 – Particulate Matter 10 Microns in diameter or smaller PM2.5 – Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns in diameter or smaller Pre-fire suppression forest structure – A forest structure that commonly occurred prior to the effects of fire suppression, logging, and livestock grazing that arrived with European settlement. Characteristics of this forest structure included large, widely spaced, fire adapted trees with a sparsely populated understory. Prehistoric – Refers to a period wherein Native American cultural activities took place, which were not yet influenced by contact with historic non-native culture(s). Prescribed burning – Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state, under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and at the same time to produce the fire line intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives. Prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met, prior to ignition. Prescription – Written statement defining objectives to be attained, as well as measurable criteria, which guide the selection of appropriate management actions. Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, environmental, geographic, administrative, social, and legal considerations under which the fire will be allowed to burn. Proper grazing use – Grazing that, through the control of timing, frequency, intensity and duration of use, meets the physiological needs of the desirable vegetation, provides for the establishment of desirable plants and is in accord with the physical function and stability of soil and landform (properly functioning condition). Properly functioning condition – Riparian-wetland: adequate vegetation, landform, or large (coarse) woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in flood plain development; improve flood-water retention and ground water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse channel and ponding

G-14 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary characteristics to provide the habitat and water depth, duration and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. The result of interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. Uplands: soil and plant conditions support the physical processes of infiltration and moisture storage and promote soil stability (as appropriate to site potential); includes the production of plant cover and the accumulation of plant residue that protect the soil surface from raindrop impact, moderate soil temperature in minimizing frozen soil conditions (frequency, depth, and duration), and the loss of soil moisture to evaporation; root growth and development in the support of permeability and soil aeration. The result of interaction among geology, climate, landform, soil, and organisms. Proposed species – Species that have been officially proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior. A proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register. Public lands – Any land and interest in land (such as mineral estate) owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management. May include public domain or acquired lands in any combination. Public resource values – Lands with public resource values are considered to be any public lands located outside SMA’s, and high resource areas that do not have the caliber of resources to qualify them for inclusion in SMA’s and high resource areas. For these types of lands, the BLM would maintain its land tenure adjustments options within Zone 1, 2, and 3 areas. Any land tenure adjustments involving public lands having “public resource values” must be determined to be in the public interest and must meet the requirements of NEPA and the General Management. - R - Range site – A type of rangeland with inherently different soil characteristics that produce a significantly different kind or amount of potential vegetation. (Also referred to as Ecological site.) Rangeland – Land on which the potential natural vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing. It includes natural grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, tundras, and areas that support certain forb and shrub communities. Rangeland health – The degree to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained. Raptors – Bird species that have adapted to seize prey, such as eagles and hawks. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A means of characterizing recreation opportunities in terms of setting, activity, and experience opportunities. Recreation And Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) – This act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey public lands for recreational and public purposes under specified conditions to states or their political subdivisions and to nonprofit corporations and associations. Recreational river – A river or section of a river that is readily accessible by road or railroad. It may have had some development along the shorelines and may have undergone some impoundments or diversions in the past. Reference area – Sites that, because of their condition and degree of function, represent the ecological potential or capability of similar sites in an area or region (ecological province); serve

G-15 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary as a benchmark in determining the ecological potential of sites with similar soil, climatic, and landscape characteristics. (See also Relict site.) Regeneration – The renewal of a commercial tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means; also, the young crop itself. Rehabilitation – The activities necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildfire or the fire suppression activity. Relict site - A plant association of an earlier time surviving in an environment that has undergone considerable change. In rangelands, relict sites are typically found in areas that have not been grazed by livestock and in forested communities where logging has not occurred. (See also Reference area.) Resource Area – The field office management administrative unit comprised of the BLM- administered lands within a specific geographic area Research Natural Area (RNA) – An area where natural processes predominate and which is preserved for research and education. Under current BLM policy, these areas must meet the relevance and importance criteria of ACEC’s and are designated as ACEC’s. Resource Management Plan (RMP) – A land use plan as described by the FLPMA. Restoration – Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning conditions and processes. Rhyolite – A fine-grained light-colored silica rich igneous rock composed largely of potash feldspars and quartz. Right-Of-Way (ROW) – A permit or an easement which authorizes the USB of public lands for certain specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, and so on; also, the lands covered by such an easement or permit. Right-Of-Way Corridor – A parcel of land identified by law, Secretarial order, through a land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more rights- of-way that are similar, identical or compatible. Rill – A small, intermittent water course with steep sides; usually only a few inches deep. Riparian area – A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels area typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. Includes, but is not limited to, jurisdictional wetlands. Runoff – That part of precipitation, as well as any other flow contributions, which appears in surface streams, either perennial or intermittent. - S - Salable minerals – High volume, low value mineral resources including common varieties of rock, clay, decorative stone, sand, and gravel. Sand (geology) – A rock fragment or detrital particle between 0.0025 and 0.08 inches in diameter.

G-16 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Scenic river – A river or section of a river that is free of impoundments and whose shorelines are largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads. Schist – A metamorphic rock characterized by coarse-grained minerals oriented approximately parallel. Section 3 Lands – Public lands within a grazing district administered by the BLM under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The BLM authorizes livestock grazing on these lands by issuing permits to permittees. Section 3 lands make up the vast majority of BLM-administered lands. Section 15 Lands – Public lands outside a grazing district administered by the BLM under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The BLM authorizes livestock grazing on these lands by issuing licenses to licensees. Section 15 lands tend to be parcels that are more isolated and can be more difficult to manage than Section 3 lands. Section 202 Lands – Lands being considered for wilderness designation under section 202 of FLPMA. Sediment – Soil, rock particles and organic or other debris carried from one place to another by wind, water, or gravity. Selective management categories – Three categories broadly defining rangeland characteristics, potential, opportunities, and needs. The three categories are maintain, improve and custodial. (Refer to Appendix 3.4 for explanation of the criteria for each category.) Sensitive species – Species designated by a State Director, usually in cooperation with the State agency responsible for managing the species, as sensitive. They are those species that are: (1) under status review by the FWS/NMFS; or (2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that Federal listing may become necessary; or (3) with typically small and widely dispersed copulations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. Seral community – A successional plant community that differs in species composition from the climax or potential natural community. Seral stage – The series of relatively transitory communities, including plants and animals, which develop during ecological succession from the Pioneer State (such as beginning with bare ground) to the Climax Stage or Potential Natural Community. (See Ecological status.) Shrub – A low woody plant, usually with several stems, that may provide food and/or cover for animals. Short-term – The period of time needed to implement management decisions following the completion of the RMP approximately 5 to 7 years. Significant progress – When used in reference to achieving a standard: (actions), the necessary land treatments, practices and/or changes to management have been applied or are in effect; (rate), a rate of progress that is consistent with the anticipated recovery rate described in plan objectives, with due recognition of the effects of climatic extremes (drought, flooding, etc.), fire, and other unforeseen naturally occurring events or disturbances. Monitoring reference areas that are ungrazed and properly grazed may provide evidence of appropriate recovery rates. (See Proper grazing use.) Silt (geology) – A rock fragment or detrital particle smaller than very fine sand and larger then coarse clay, ranging from 0.0024 to 0.00016 inches in diameter and commonly having a high content of clay minerals. As a soil separate: Individual mineral particles ranging in diameter

G-17 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary from the upper limit of clay (0.002 millimeter) to the lower limit of very fine sand (0.05 millimeter). As a soil textural class: Soil that is 80 percent or more silt and less than 12 percent clay. Site preparation – Any action taken in conjunction with a reforestation effort (natural or artificial) to create an environment that is favorable for survival of suitable trees during the first growing season. This environment can be created by altering ground cover, soil or microsite conditions, using biological, mechanical, or manual clearing, prescribed burning, herbicide, or a combination of methods. Site class – A forest management term denoting site productivity and measured in six productivity classes (i.e. Site Class I = highest productivity, Site Class VI = lowest productivity). Slope – The inclination of the land surface from the horizontal. Percentage of slope is the vertical distance divided by horizontal distance, and then multiplied by 100. For example, a slope of 20 percent is a drop of 20 feet in 100 feet of horizontal distance. Snag – A standing dead tree. Sodic (alkali) soil – A soil having so high a degree of alkalinity (pH 8.5 or higher) or so high a percentage of exchangeable sodium (15 percent or more of the total exchangeable bases), or both, that plant growth is restricted. Soil – The unconsolidated mineral material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. Soil density (bulk density) – The mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume. Soil moisture – Water held in the root zone by capillary action. Pan of the soil moisture is available to plants, part is held too tightly by capillary or molecular forces to be removed by plants. Soil productivity – Capacity of a soil, in its normal environment, for producing specified plants under specified management systems. Soil profile – A vertical section of the soil extending through all its horizons and into the parent material. Soil survey – A field investigation resulting in a soil map showing the geographic distribution of various kinds of soil and an accompanying report that describes the soil types and interprets the findings. Soil structure – The arrangement of primary soil particles into compound particles or aggregates. Soil texture – The relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay particles in a mass of soil. Special concern – Those plants that are considered rare within Oregon, but may be common in occurrence within other states and/or there is at present insufficient justification for these plant species to be included on the Sensitive Plant Species list, or newly discovered species which are in the process of being described. Solitude (a primary wilderness value) - The state of being alone or remote from habitations. A lonely, unfrequented, or secluded place. The intent is to evaluate the opportunity for solitude in comparison to habitations of people. Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) – An area where recreation is one of the principal management objectives, where intensive recreation management is needed, and where more than minimal recreation-related investments are required.

G-18 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Special Status Species – Species proposed for listing, officially listed (T/E), or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act; those listed or proposed for listing by the State in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction; those designated by each Bureau of Land Management State Director as sensitive (known or suspected to be limited in distribution, rare or uncommon within a specific area, and/or vulnerable to activities that may affect their survival). Lists of special status species are prepared by knowledgeable specialists throughout the State of Oregon. BLM prepares a list of State sensitive species predominantly based on the lists prepared biennially by ONHP. Species of local importance – Species of significant importance to American Indian populations (such as medicinal and food plants). Split-estate – An area of land where the surface is privately owned and the subsurface mineral resources are federally owned. Stand – A community of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in species, age, spacial arrangement, and condition as to be distinguishable from trees on surrounding lands. Standard – An expression of the physical and biological condition or degree of function necessary to sustain healthy rangeland ecosystems. Stream channel – The hollow bed where a natural stream of surface water flows or may flow in the deepest or central part of the bed, formed by the main current and covered more or less continuously by water. Succession – The orderly process of plant community change. The process by which one plant or animal community will succeed another over time given the same climatic conditions. - T - Talus – Rock fragments of any size or shape, commonly coarse and angular, derived from and lying at the base of a cliff or very steep rock slope. The accumulated mass of such loose, broken rock formed chiefly by falling, rolling, or sliding. Terrace (geologic) – An old alluvial plain, ordinarily flat or undulating, bordering a river, a lake, or the sea. Terrane – A suite of similar rocks transported by crustal movements into a position where they are separated from dissimilar rocks by faults. Thermal cover – Vegetation or topography that prevents radiational heat loss, reduces wind chill during cold weather and intercepts solar radiation during warm weather. Thinning – A cutting made in a forest stand to remove or kill excess timber in order to accelerate growth or improve the health of the trees that remain. Threatened species – A plant or animal species that the Secretary of the Interior had determined to be likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or most of its range. Topography – The exact physical features and configuration of a place or region; the detailed and accurate description of a place or region. Trend – The direction of change in range condition over a period of time, expressed as upward, static, or downward. Tuff – Volcanic ash or rock composed of compacted ash. - U -

G-19 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary Uplands – Lands that exist above the riparian/wetland area, or active flood plains of rivers and streams; those lands not influenced by the water table or by free or unbound water; commonly represented by toe slopes, alluvial fans, and side slopes, shoulders and ridges of mountains and hills. Utilization – The proportion or degree of the current year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects) may refer either to a single plant species, a group of species, or to the vegetation as a whole synonymous with use. - V - Vegetative (ground) cover – The percent of land surface covered by all living vegetation (and remnant vegetation yet to decompose) within 20 feet of the ground. Vegetative manipulation – Alteration of present vegetation by using fire, plowing, or other means. Vegetation type – A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based upon and named after the apparent dominant plant species. Visit – A unit of measure for evaluating the amount of recreational activity on public land equivalent to one person spending any part of a day recreating on public land. Visitor day – Twelve hours of recreational use by one person. Visual resources – The land, water, vegetation, and animals that comprise the scenery of an area. Visual Resource Management (VRM) – The planning, design, and implementation of management objectives to provide acceptable levels of visual impacts. Visual Resource Management Classes - The degree of acceptable visual change within a characteristic landscape. A class is based upon the physical and sociological characteristics of any given homogeneous area and serves as a management objective. CLASS I (preservation) provide for natural ecological charges only. This class includes primitive areas (HDB), some natural areas, some wild and scenic rivers, and other similar sites where landscape modification activities should be restricted. CLASS II (retention of the landscape character) includes areas where changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color or texture) caused by management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. CLASS Ill (partial retention of the landscape character) includes areas where changes in the basic elements (form, line, color, or texture) caused by management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape. However, the changes should remain subordinate to tie visual strength of the existing character. CLASS IV (modification of the landscape character) includes areas where changes may subordinate the original composition and character; however, they should reflect what could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic landscape. CLASS V (rehabilitation or enhancement of the landscape character) includes areas where change is needed. This class applies to areas where the landscape character has been so disturbed that rehabilitation is needed. This class would apply to areas where the quality class has been reduced because of unacceptable intrusions. It should be considered an interim short-term classification until one of the other classes could be reached through rehabilitation or enhancement.

G-20 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary - W - Water quality – The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular use. Watershed – All lands that are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lie upslope from a specified point on a stream. Watershed function – The principal functions of a watershed include the capture of moisture contributed by precipitation; the storage of moisture within the soil profile, and the release of moisture through subsurface flow, deep percolation to groundwater, evaporation from the soil, and transpiration by live vegetation. Watershed values – Soil productivity and erosional stability and the storage, yield, quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface waters. Wetlands or wetland habitat – Permanently wet or intermittently flooded areas where the water table (fresh, saline, or brackish) is at, near, or above the soil surface for extended intervals, where hydric (wet) soil conditions are normally exhibited, and where depths generally do not exceed two meters. Vegetation generally consists of emergent water loving forms (hydrophytes) which require at least a periodically saturated soil condition for growth and reproduction in certain instances, vegetation may be completely lacking. Wilderness inventory – A written description of resource information and data, and a map of those public lands that meet the wilderness criteria as established under Section 603 (a) of FLPMA and Section 2 (c) of “The Wilderness Act. Wilderness Study Area (WSA) – An area determined to have wilderness characteristics. Study areas will be subject to interdisciplinary analysis and public comment to determine wilderness suitability. Suitable areas will be recommended to the President and Congress for wilderness designation. Wild river – A river or section of a river that is free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds and shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. Wildfire – Any fire occurring on wildland that is not meeting management objectives and thus requires a suppression response. An unwanted wildland fire. Wildland fire – Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland. Winter range – That area where all individuals of the species of interest are located for over an average of five winters out of ten during the period 15 December to 15 March. Withdrawals – Actions that restrict the use of public lands and segregate the lands from the operation of some or all of the public land or mineral laws. Woodlands – Forestland not included in the commercial forestland sustainable harvest level. Includes all noncommercial and non-suitable forestland. Woodlands, Non-suitable - Forestland not capable of sustaining a harvest level of forest products. Woodlands, Suitable - Non-commercial forestland and commercial forestland that is non- suitable (not included in the sustainable harvest level) because of the fragile site and/or requires longer than 15 years to reforest after harvest. - Z - Zeolite - A group of hydrated silicates of aluminum with alkali metals. They contain a porous molecular structure that allows them to selectively trap individual molecules within that

G-21 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Glossary structure. Zeolites are used in water purification and decontamination systems, animal feed supplements, drying agents, and for soil improvement.

G-22 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Abbreviations and Acronyms ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy AMP Allotment Management Plan AMS Analysis of the Management Situation APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ARMS Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity ATV All Terrain Vehicle AUM Animal Unit Month BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BEMA Bald Eagle Management Area BEMP Bald Eagle Management Plan BGMU Big Game Management Units BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BOR Bureau of Reclamation BpS Project Biophysical Settings C Custodial (Category of Livestock grazing allotment) CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 Carbon Dioxide dbh Diameter Breast Height DO Dissolved Oxygen DOE Department of Energy DOI Department of the Interior DPC Desired Plant Communities EA Environmental Assessment EDRR Early Detection Rapid Response

AA - 1 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Abbreviations and Acronyms EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area ESA Endangered Species Act ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit F Fahrenheit FEAST Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act FMP Fire Management Plan FMU Fire Management Unit FO Field Office FRCC Fire Regime Condition Classification GeoBOB Geographic Biotic Observations Database GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System GTR Green Tree Retention GU Geographic Unit HMP Habitat Management Plan HMRRP Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program HUC Hydrologic Unit Code I Improve (Category of Livestock grazing allotment) IAE Institute for Applied Ecology ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project ID Interdisciplinary IDCDC Idaho Conservation Data Center IM Instruction Memorandum

AA - 2 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Abbreviations and Acronyms IMP Interim Management Policy IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning (a company) IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments INFISH Inland Fish Strategy IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IWM Integrated Weed Management JKA James, Kent, and Associates LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project LWC Lands with Wilderness Character LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund M Maintain (Category of Livestock grazing allotment) MBF Thousand-Board Feet MET Meteorological MIM Multiple Indicator Monitoring MIST Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics MMBF Million Board Feet MOU Memorandum of Understanding MW Megawatt N/A Not applicable NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAS National Academy of Science NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO Non-Governmental Organization NHOTIC National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretation Center NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOA Notice of Availability NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPS National Park Service

AA - 3 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Abbreviations and Acronyms NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NSO No Surface Occupancy- Minerals NRHP National Register of Historic Places NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODF Oregon Department of Forestry ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OHV Off-highway Vehicle ONA Outstanding Natural Area ONHP Oregon Natural Heritage Program OPRD Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department ORV Off-road Vehicle OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department PACFISH Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy PCPI Per Capita Personal Income PCT Pre-Commercial Thinning PFC Proper Functioning Condition pH Potential of Hydrogen PILT Payment In Lieu of Taxes PL Public Law

PM10 Particulate Matter 10 Microns in diameter or smaller PNC Potential Natural Community PoO Plan of Operations - Minerals PSQ Proposed Sale Quantity RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan RCA Riparian Conservation Areas RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

AA - 4 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Abbreviations and Acronyms R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act RMA Riparian Management Area RMIS Recreation Management Information System RMP Resource Management Plan RMZ Recreation Management Zone RNA Research Natural Area ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-Way SFP Special Forest Product SMA Special Management Areas SMP Smoke Management Plan SO State Office SOP Standard Operating Procedure SRMA Special Recreation Management Area SRP Special Recreation Permit TCWMA Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Association T&E Threatened and Endangered TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TMP Travel Management Plan TPI Total Personal Income USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UFSG Unhealthy For Sensitive Groups VRI Visual Resource Inventory VRM Visual Resource Management WANHP Washington State Natural Heritage Program WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

AA - 5 Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Abbreviations and Acronyms WMA Wildlife Management Area WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WO Washington Office WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WQRP Water Quality Restoration Plan WSA Wilderness Study Area WSR Wild and Scenic River WUI Wildland-Urban Interface Z Zone (Category of Land Tenure)

AA - 6 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management First Class U.S. Postage And Fees Paid Bureau of Land Management Baker Office Permit No. G-76 3285 11th Street P.O. Box 947 Baker City, OR 97814 ______

OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 BLM/OR/WA/AE-12/004+1792 (11-305) BLM/OR/WA/AE-12/004+1792