A06_Attachment_2_RMP_0001.pdf

Eugene District

RECORD OF DECISION &

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

West Eugene Wetlands

April 2015

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation.

The BLM's m1ss1on 1s to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield. In fiscal year 2013, the BLM generated billion in receipts public lands.

$4.7 from blm.gov/or

Record of Decisionn and Resourcce Managemment Plan

Tablee of Conntents Record off Decision

Decisioon

Management Considderations ‐ Raationale for thhe Decision

Alternaatives Consideered

Mitigattion

Plan M onitoring andd Evaluations

Public I nvolvement

Recommendation

Approvval

Resource Managemennt Plan

Introduuction

Land U se Allocation s/Managemeent Decisions

Prairrie Restoratio n Area

Natuural Maintenaance Area

Resource Programs//Managemennt Actions

Air QQuality/Prescrribed Burningg/Wildfire Supppression

Plantts

Wildlife

Soils and Water

Cultuural Resourcees

Recreation

Visuaal Resources

Speccial Products

Traveel and Transpportation

Mineerals and Ene rgy

Landds and Realty

Hazaardous Mater ials

Reseearch

Administrative Actioons

Glossary

Appendix A ‐ Guidancee for Use of thhe Resource MManagementt Plan .............................................. A‐1

...............................................B‐1

...............................................C‐1

.............................................. D‐1

...............................................E‐1

...............................................F‐1

.............................................. G‐1

Appendix B ‐Monitorinng

Appendix C ‐ Recreatioon Managemeent

Appendix D ‐ Best Mannagement Praactices

Appendix E ‐ Standard Operating Prrocedures forr Herbicide Appplication

Appendix F ‐ Valid Exis ting Rights annd Continuingg Uses

Appendix G ‐ Travel M anagement PPlan

Index

.... 21

....................................... In dex‐1 i

West Eugenee Wetlands

List oof Tablees Table 1. PPopulation reccovery objecttives for plantts

Table E‐1.. Potential efffects of herbi cide use and standard opeerating proceedures to min imize or avoi d effectts. ................. ....................................................................................................................................E‐7

Table F‐1.. Valid existin g rights and ccontinuing usses in the plannning area byy site. ......................................F‐1

Table G‐1. Evaluation oof travel rout es against de signation critteria. .......................................................... G‐3

Table G‐2. Designated routes and p ermitted use s. ..................................................................................... G‐5

List oof Figurees Figure 1. BBLM and Wesst Eugene Weetland partneership adminisstered lands

Figure 2. WWest Eugene Wetlands RMMP Land Use Allocations

Figure 3. BBotanical crit ical habitats wwithin the W est Eugene WWetlands RMPP

Figure 4. WWildlife critical habitats w ithin the Wesst Eugene Weetlands RMP

Figure 5. SSpecial Recreeation Manag ement Areas within the WWest Eugene WWetlands RM P

Figure B‐11. Land Use P lanning, Monnitoring, and AAdaptive Mannagement. ..................................................B‐3

Figure F‐11. Parcel identtifiers for valiid existing rigghts within th e West Eugenne Wetlands RMP. ................F‐4

Figure G‐11. Existing traavel routes wiithin the Wesst Eugene Weetlands Travell Managemennt Area............. G‐4

Figure G‐22. Designatedd travel route s within the WWest Eugene Wetlands Traavel Manage ment Area. ...... G‐6 ii

Record of Decisioon

Record of Deecision

West Eugene Wetlaands

Deecision The decisionn is hereby m ade to appro ve the RMP ffor the West EEugene Wetlaands. This plaan was develooped under the reegulations im plementing t he Federal Laand Policy andd Managemeent Act of 19776 (43 CFR 16 00).

An environmmental impactt statement wwas prepared for this plan in compliancce with regulaations implementinng the Nationnal Environmeental Policy AAct of 1969 (4 0 CFR 1500). This plan is iddentical to thhe one set forthh in the Noveember 2014 PProposed RMPP/Final EIS fo r the West Euugene Wetlannds.

Specific mannagement deccisions and guuidance for WWest Eugene WWetlands pubblic lands admministered byy the

BLM’s Eugenne District aree presented i n the RMP atttached to thi s Record of DDecision. All ddecisions coveered by the Reco rd of Decisionn are either laand use plannning decisionss that were p protestable duuring the

November 221, 2014, to DDecember 22, 2014, protesst period in acccordance wiith the land uuse planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1610), or impplementation decisions thaat may be apppealed in acc cordance withh

Departmentt of the Interi or regulation s at 43 CFR P art 4. The “Immplementatioon Decisions aand

Administrat ive Review” ssection in thiss Record of Deecision identiifies the impl ementation ddecisions thatt are subject to apppeal at this ttime and the appeal proceedures.

What the Plan Will Proviide

The major provisions of tthe RMP will iinclude the foollowing land use plan deccisions:

objeectives for thee managemennt of BLM‐administered laands and resoources;

land and d use allocatioons relative too future uses for the purpooses of achie eving the varioous objective es;

man rest for t nagement dir rictions or re the BLM‐adm ection that id quirements m ministered lan dentifies whe may be placed ds and resou re future acti d on those fu rces.

ions may or m ture actions t may not be al to achieve th lowed and w e objectives s hat set

What the Plan Will Not PProvide

The plan doees not authorrize the impleementation o f on‐the‐grouund projects. Implementattion actions inn the managemennt direction, ssuch as habitaat restorationn and maintennance actionss (including h erbicide use) or recreationall resource acttions, would bbe implementted only afterr additional NNEPA compliaance and deci sion‐ making subssequent to th e approval off the RMP. Thhe BLM’s imp lementation of this managgement direcction would occurr only after addditional deciision‐making subsequent tto the approvval of the RM P. Additional ly, projected haabitat restoraation and maiintenance, inccluding herbi cide use, wouuld typically bbe described in a program of wwork that woould be made available to tthe public. Foor this progra am of work, B BLM would conduct a D eterminationn of NEPA Adeequacy (DNA)) to determin e whether addditional NEP A analysis beeyond the analysis in the RMP/EEIS is necessaary and to evaaluate conformmance with tthe RMP. Wheere site‐speciific conditions ddiffer, or circuumstances ch ange from th ose describedd in the RMP//EIS, or if a D DNA is inappropriatte for other r easons, the BBLM may nee d to conduct additional NEEPA analysis prior to reachhing a decision to implement ann action.

Appliccation of the Plan to Existting Projects

Devellopment of a RMP necessaarily involves a transition f from the appl lication of preeviously coor dinated management to thhe applicationn of the new RRMP. The pla nning and annalysis of futu re projects suuch as habitaat restorationn projects typpically requirees at least onee year of prepparation befoore a site‐speccific project can b e designed annd a decision reached. Alloowing for a trransition fromm previous maanagement too the new

RMP aavoids disrupption of the mmanagement oof the BLM‐addministered l ands and alloows the BLM to utilize work already beguun on the plannning and anaalysis of projeects. This secttion addressees the applica tion of the

RMP tto three cate gories of futuure projects:

projects foor which site‐specific decissions have be en signed pri or to the effeective date off this Record of Decisionn (ROD), but wwhich have n ot yet been immplemented ;

projects foor which site‐specific decissions have no t yet been siggned, but for which prepa ration of

NEPA docuuments has b egun prior too the effectivee date of this ROD; and projects foor which site‐specific projeect planning aand preparati on of NEPA ddocuments haave not begun prioor to the effecctive date of tthis ROD.

For thhis discussion , “projects” aare consideredd to be on‐thhe‐ground impplementationn actions incluuding, but not limmited to, pre scribed burniing, mowing, haying, thinnning, hand weeeding, shadee cloth, solarizzation, thermmal treatmentts, tilling/diskking, fill removval, raking, grrazing, herbiccide applicatioon, and plantt augmentation.

Impleementation off projects for which a decission has beenn signed priorr to the effecttive date of t his ROD is not afffected by thiis ROD. The e ffects of impllementation oof these projeects were facctored into thhe analysis in thee Final EIS eithher as an ana lytical assum ption about ccurrent land ttreatment typpes and levelss of activity, or weere generally cconsidered ass part of the ccurrent condiition of the afffected enviroonment.

Site‐specific projeccts for which a decision haas not been si gned prior too the effectivee date of this ROD, for whichh preparation of NEPA doccumentation bbegan prior too the effectivve date of thiss ROD, and foor which a decisiion on the prooject is signedd within one year of the efffective date of this ROD mmay be imple emented consisstent with thee manageme nt direction oof either the ppreviously co ordinated maanagement (i .e., the plan developed by the CCity of Eugen e) or the Appproved RMP aattached to thhis ROD, at thhe discretion oof the decisiion maker. In context, the preparation of NEPA docuumentation iss considered to have beguun upon:

public notiification that the BLM will be preparingg a NEPA docuument;

initiation oof external sc oping;

completio n of documenntation of a DDNA; or completio n of documenntation of a CCategorical Exxclusion revie w.

If the decision makker elects to i mplement prrojects for whhich NEPA hass begun cons istent with thhe previoously coordinnated manageement, they mmay include feeatures not cconsistent witth the managgement directtion in the Appproved RMP attached to tthis ROD. Howwever, any diifference in thhe specific efffects resultting from impplementation of such projeects would noot alter the annalysis of effeects in the Finnal EIS because of ttheir limited ggeographic exxtent. Additioonally, any incconsistenciess with the ma nagement direction in the Approvedd RMP attachhed to this ROOD, in almost all cases, are anticipated tto result in le ss change to thhe current co ndition of thee affected envvironment th han if projectss were implemmented consiistent with the Appproved RMP. The primary inconsistencyy with the Appproved RMP that has poteential to occuur would be haabitat restora tion and mannagement proojects, and woould result froom the fact t hat herbicidee application wwas analyzedd through the process to deesign this RMMP and had noot previously been availab ble as a managemeent tool for reestoration annd enhancemeent or for conntrol of invas ive plants andd noxious weeed managemennt.

Projects for which preparration of NEPPA documentaation begins aafter the effe ctive date of this ROD or ffor which a dec ision is signedd more than oone year afteer the effectivve date of thiss ROD must bbe consistent with the manage ment directioon in the App roved RMP.

Valid Existinng Rights

This decisionn does not altter or extinguuish valid exissting rights onn BLM‐administered lands . Valid existinng rights may bbe held by othher Federal, SState, or local governmentt agencies; or by private in ndividuals or companies. Valid existingg rights may ppertain to eneergy leases, leeases, easem ents, permitss, and rights‐oof‐ way (Appen dix F).

Approved C hanges to th e RMP betweeen the Final EIS and the RRecord of Deecision

The followinng changes annd correctionss were made to the West Eugene Wetl ands RMP. Thhese changess were made tto correct errrors and provvide clarificati ons of existinng managemeent direction and objectivees. In addition to tthe items notted here, otheer minor typoographical, ta able, and mappping errors wwere correcteed.

The acres in volved in theese correctionns are small a nd mostly refflect slivers a nd overlaps i n data. The changes andd corrections noted below are relativelyy inconseque ntial and wouuld not subst antially changge the analyticaal conclusion s described inn the Final EISS.

Manageement Directi on for Plants originally reaad: “On sites wwith listed pl ants where s pring mowingg is needed to control ovverwhelming wweed infestattions, maintaain a buffer off 6 feet from the nearest l isted plants iff this will meeet the manageement objecttive. Howeverr, if needed too control seriious infestatioons of weedds that reprodduce mainly bby seed, up too one‐half of tthe listed plannt populationn at a site ma y be mowed in an effort t o reduce see d set by non‐‐native weedss. Set tractor mower deckss at a level higgh enough to avoid killinng listed plan ts but low ennough to remoove weed flowwers.” The la st two sentennces have be en deleted ass unnecessaryy.

Manageement Directi on for Plants originally reaad: “Do not seeed or plant pplugs within 66 feet of natuurally occurrinng federally‐listed plants.” “Seed or” has been deleteed because reecent researcch (Stanley ett al.

2011b; KKaye, T., execc. dir., Institutte for Appliedd Ecology, Corrvallis, OR, peers. comm. too S. Villegas‐MMoore via e‐maail, Decemberr 18, 2013) shhows the ben efit of seedinng annual plannt species aftter herbicide application.

Manageement Directi on for Wildliffe originally reead: “Implemment prescribeed burning onn sites with Fender’ss blue butterffly. The burn unit must be within 100 mmeters of unbburned occup ied habitat too facilitatee recolonizatiion.” The secoond sentencee has been deeleted in favo r of the two ssucceeding Manageement Directi ons.

MManagement DDirection for Wildlife origi nally read: “OOn sites with Fender’s bluee butterflies, do not mmow with tracctor mowers in the spring. Mowing withh hand‐held mmowers may be implemennted during thhe butterfly fllight season ( generally Maay 1 to June 3 0) as long as a buffer of att least 25 feett is mmaintained beetween the m ower and a KKincaid’s lupinne plant. Afteer the butterf ly flight seasoon, but before Kincaid’s lupine seneescence (gen erally June 300 through Au gust 15), tracctor mowing mmay occur no closer than 6 feet from tthe nearest Kincaid’s lupinne plants. Tra ctor mowing may be condducted thhroughout sittes with Fend er’s blue buttterflies after Kincaid’s lupiine senescencce and beforee lupine re‐ emergence (geenerally Auguust 15‐March 1). Set tractoor mower deccks at least 6 iinches above the ground too reduce impaacts to butterrfly larvae.” TThe last sente ence is revisedd to read “Moow to a heighht of at least 6 inches or greeater to reducce impacts too butterfly larvvae,” becausee the microtoopography in the West Euugene Wetlannds would maake the manaagement objeective difficultt to achieve aas it had beenn originally sttated.

MManagement DDirection for Wildlife origi nally read: “RRetain large ssnags and cre ate 2 snags pper acre >14” diameterr breast heighht where avai lable in fores ted plant commmunities (oaak woodland,, ash swwale/ripariann, plantation, and Douglas‐‐fir forest).” AA clarification preceding thhis managemeent direction has bbeen added thhat states “Inn forested pla nt communitties where preescribed burnning would not be used foor maintenancce, retain largge snags…”. S Snag creation in areas wheere prescribedd burning wwould be usedd as a maintennance tool woould present risk to firefig hter safety a nd the abilityy for coontainment.

Impleementation DDecisions and Administrat ive Review

In adddition to land use plan deccisions, this Reecord of Deciision includess some imple mentation deecisions.

Whilee preparing thhe EIS for this RMP, the BL M consideredd various impplementation actions that would be approoved either att the same timme or after thhe RMP decisiions are mad e. The West EEugene Wetlaands RMP includdes implemenntation decisi ons of:

Designation off travel managgement netwworks, includinng identifyingg the specific roads and traails that are avvailable for p ublic use andd the limitatioons on use of roads and traails.

Continued appplication of thhe Final Suppl ementary Ru ules for Publicc Land within the West Euggene

WWetlands, Euggene District, OR, publishedd in the Fede ral Register oon July 28, 20 05, and adopption of the appplication of these rules thhroughout th e planning arrea on BLM‐mmanaged landds.

Any pparty adverse ly affected byy an impleme ntation decission may appeeal within 30 days of publiication of the N otice of Availability of the RMP/ROD inn the Federal Register in acccordance wi th the provis ions of 43

CFR PPart 4.4. The aappeal must i nclude a stat ement of rea asons or file a separate sta tement of re asons withinn 30 days of ffiling the appeeal. The appeeal must statee if a stay of t he decision iss being requeested in accordance with 4 3 CFR 4.21 annd must be filled with the DDistrict Manaager at the folllowing addreess:

Euugene Distric t Office

Bureau of Landd Manageme nt

3106 Pierce Paarkway, Suite E

Sppringfield, Orregon 97477

A copy of th e appeal, stattement of reaasons, and al l other suppoorting documeents should aalso be sent too the

Office of thee Regional So licitor, Pacificc Northwest RRegion; U.S. DDepartment oof the Interiorr; 805 SW

Broadway, SSuite 600; Porrtland, Oregoon 97205. If thhe statement of reasons iss filed separattely, it must bbe sent to the I nterior Boardd of Land Apppeals, Office oof Hearings annd Appeals, 44015 Wilson BBoulevard, Arlington, V irginia 22203 . It is suggestted that any aappeal be sennt certified maail, return recceipt request ed.

Should you wwish to file a motion for sttay pending t he outcome oof an appeal of these impllementation decisions, yoou must showw sufficient juustification baased on the foollowing stan dards under 443 CFR 4.21:

• The reelative harm tto the paritiess if the stay iss granted or ddenied.

• The likkelihood of thhe appellant’ss success on tthe merits.

• The likkelihood of immmediate andd irreparable harm if the sttay is not gra nted.

• Whethher or not thee public intereest favors graanting the sta ay.

As noted ab ove, the mot ion for stay mmust be filed iin the office oof the author rized officer.

Maanagemennt Considderations ‐ Rationaale for thee Decisionn The decisionn to select thee Proposed R MP as the Appproved RMP is based on tthe conclusio n that it best meets the p urpose and nneed and wouuld have favorrable outcommes for variouus resources aand programss and relatively loww adverse environmental impacts in coomparison to the other altternatives.

The decisionn regarding thhe Approved RMP is basedd on consideraation and evaaluation of:

howw well the purrpose and neeed is met; andd assoociated enviroonmental connsequences a nd the cost oof implementaation.

The facts fouund through analysis in th e Final EIS pr ovide the bassis for determmining how wwell the purpoose and need is met for cons idering the ennvironmental consequencces and costs of implemen ting the plan . The decision is also based on the conclusioon that the Prroposed RMPP has associatted with it rel atively low adverse envvironmental immpacts and reelatively favoorable outcommes for variouus resources aand programss in comparison to the other alternatives.

Purpose andd Need

The Federal Land Policy aand Managemment Act requuires the BLMM to develop RRMPs to provvide for the usse of public lands . Among otheer requiremennts, the Fede ral Land Policcy and Managgement Act d irects the BLMM to use and obs erve the prin ciples of multtiple use in thhe developmeent of RMPs. There are sp ecific consideratioons in the pla nning area thhat lead the BLM to focus mmanagementt on threateneed and endangered species: the scarcity of thhe listed speciies and their habitat; the i mportance oof the plannin g area to the rrecovery of thhe listed speccies; and the ppurposes for which the BLLM acquired tthe lands in thhe planning areea. Therefore , the purposee and need foor this RMP is more specifi c than the br road mandatee of multiple usee alone.

The purpose of thee action is to manage the pplanning areaa to contributte to the recoovery of speci es listed underr the Endangeered Species AAct, while prooviding otherr benefits, pa rticularly maiintaining the ecological functiion of wetlan ds; habitat foor other plantt and animal ccommunities; and recreat ion and envirronmental educaation opportuunities, to thee extent comppatible with t hreatened annd endangereed species maanagement.

The n eed for the a ction is estabblished by thee U.S. Fish andd Wildlife Serrvice Recoverry Plan for thee Prairie

Speciees of Westernn Oregon andd Southweste rn Washingtoon (Recovery Plan), which describes thee imporrtance of the planning are a to the recovvery of Fendeer’s blue buttterfly, Willam ette daisy, Brradshaw’s lomattium, and Kin caid’s lupine,, and provide s recovery strrategies and objectives re levant to BLMM management (USFFWS 2010). Seection 7(a)(1) of the Endanngered Speciees Act requirees the BLM too use its authoorities to furthher the purpooses of the Enndangered Sppecies Act by implementin g programs foor the conseervation of th reatened andd endangeredd species and the ecosysteems upon whiich they depeend. The

BLM SSpecial Statuss Species Mannagement Maanual explain s, “ways in wwhich the BLMM can carry ouut these respoonsibilities incclude … devel oping and immplementing aagency land uuse plans, impplementationn plans, and actionns in a manneer consistent with conserv ation and/or recovery of l isted species ,” (BLM 20088b). The BLM

Speciaal Status Speccies Managemment Manual further explaains that the “BLM will inccorporate obj ectives and actionns identified in recovery pllans into BLMM documents, , as appropriaate. Exampless of such docuuments includde land use pllans, implemeentation leve l plans, and sspecies conseervation planss or agreemennts,” (BLM

2008bb). The plann ing area emb races some oof the last remmaining rare WWillamette Vaalley prairie hhabitat, of whichh less than 1%% remains in ccomparison too historical exxtent. With soo little habitaat left, and wiith more than oone‐third of tthe planning aarea designatted as critical habitat for t he listed speccies, it is not likely that recovvery of these sspecies can b e achieved inn this recover ry zone witho ut the BLM‐aadministered lands in the

West Eugene Wetllands.

The n eed for the a ction is also eestablished inn the Federal Land Policy aand Managemment Act, whiich directs

BLM tto develop RMMPs to providde for the usee of public lannds. Neither t he 1995 nor 2008 Eugene District

RMPss developed s pecific goals, objectives, oor managemeent direction ffor the plann ing area, otheer than to state that the BLMM–administereed lands wou ld be manageed consistent t with the Weest Eugene W etlands plan developed by the CCity of Eugen e.

Most of the lands wwithin the plaanning area aare acquired l ands that weere attained wwith funds froom the Land and WWater Conservvation Fund. The justificattion for the Laand and Wateer Conservati on Fund acquuisitions typicaally highlighteed the importtance of the laands for thre atened and eendangered s pecies and, foor example, speciffied that that the acquiredd lands will: (11) Provide a mmore natural system for wwater quality enhanncement, sto rm water, an d flood contr ol; (2) Provid e habitat for sensitive pla nt and animaal commmunities, incluuding rare speecies; and (3) Provide neww opportunitiees for the reccreational andd enviroonmental eduucation needss of the commmunity. Almo st all of the reemaining lan ds in the plannning area were also acquiredd to provide, in part, habit at for threateened and enddangered spe cies.

Meeting thee Purpose andd Need, Envirronmental Coonsequencess, and Costs oof Implementtation

The conclus ions that the Proposed RMMP best meetts the purposee and need, hhas relatively low adverse environmenntal impacts, aand has relatiively favorablle outcomes ffor resourcess and programms in compariison to the otherr alternatives are supporteed by the ana lysis and concclusions in th e Final EIS.

The Proposeed RMP provi des directionn that, if impleemented in fuuture actions , would be exxpected to meeet the purposee of managingg the BLM‐admministered la nds to contri bute to the reecovery of sppecies listed uunder the Endangeered Species AAct:

Propposed RMP wwould restore high quality prairie and oaak savanna inn all of the deesignated critiical habitat, and wouuld create thee most well‐coonnected net twork of high quality prairiie and savannna habitat of all alteernatives

Propposed RMP wwould meet al l recovery tarrgets for all li sted plants

Propposed RMP wwould providee for short‐terrm abundanc e of all listed plants wouldd greatly exceeed recoovery targets for abundancce

Propposed RMP wwould meet Feender’s blue bbutterfly recoovery targets for habitat q uality and mannagement

Propposed RMP wwould create 665 acres of goolden paintbrrush and restoore habitat too high qualityy for Tayllor’s checkersspot butterflyy

In accordancce with Sectioon 7(a)(2) of tthe Endangerred Species A Act, the BLM hhas conductedd consultation with the U.SS. Fish and Wiildlife Servicee on the adop tion of the Prroposed RMPP. For the pur poses of anallysis of the impaccts, the Propoosed RMP andd its effects too threatened and endangeered species and their crit ical habitats undder analysis a re most easil y described bby the individ ual componeents within th e Proposed RRMP.

Additionallyy, rationales foor making detterminations ‐of‐effects difffer by comp onent. Howe ver, the appaarent individualityy of those commponents doees not overridde the fact th hat each is parrt of the singlle action und er review: ado ption of the PProposed RM P.

In determiniing what the effects of a pproposed actioon are likely tto be, agenciees are subjec t to the definnition of “effects oof the action” found in the regulations i mplementingg the Endangeered Species Act. The regulations define “effec ts of the actioon” to refer t o “The directt and indirect effects of ann action on th e species or crritical habitatt, together wi th the effectss of other acttivities that arre interrelateed or interdependdent with thatt action that wwill be addedd to the enviroonmental basseline. The ennvironmentall baseline inc ludes the passt and presen t impacts of aall Federal, Sttate, or privatte actions andd other humaan activities in tthe action areea, the antici pated impactts of all propoosed Federal projects in thhe action areaa that have alreadyy undergone formal or earrly section 7 cconsultation, and the impaact of State o r private acti ons which are coontemporaneeous with the consultationn in process. I ndirect effectts are those tthat are causeed by the proposeed action and are later in tiime, but still are reasonabbly certain to occur,” (50 C FR § 402.2).

While “direcct effects” aree not defined in the regulaations, they a re commonlyy understood to be the immediate eeffects on a li sted species oor critical habbitat that will result from tthe carrying oout by the Fedderal agency of thhe proposed aaction itself oor from the caarrying out byy third partiess of the activi ties authorizeed or funded by thhe Federal aggency. If the aagency does wwhat it is propposing to do, the “direct e ffects” are thhe f y effectts that are thee immediate and natural cconsequencess of taking th e proposed aaction. In otheer words, “direcct effects” aree effects that will inevitablly occur if thee action is takken and are n ot dependen t upon the occurrrence of any additional inttervening acttions for the i mpact to listeed species orr critical habittat to occur.

Like ““direct effectss”, indirect effects must bee “caused by”” the proposeed action. Ind irect effects aare distinguished fromm direct effectts, however, iin that they tyypically occurr after the takking of actionns other than tthe proposedd Federal actioon, and as su ch, they are nnot necessari ly inevitable.

The BBiological Asseessment of thhe Proposed RResource Mannagement Plaan for the Weest Eugene WWetlands in

Lane CCounty, Oreggon (2014) de termined thaat, in its entireety, the prop osed action mmay affect, annd is likely to advversely affectt, Bradshaw’s lomatium, WWillamette da isy, Kincaid’s lupine, Fend er’s blue buttterfly, Taylor’s checkersppot butterfly, and streaked horned lark; would harm Fender’s blu e butterfly annd streaked horneed lark; and mmay affect, buut is not likely to adversely affect goldenn paintbrush or the critica l habitats addreessed.

The BBLM received a Biological OOpinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conc luding that thhe proposed actionn, in its entireety, is not likeely to jeopard ize the continnued existencce of the Will amette daisyy, Bradsshaw’s lomati um, Kincaid’ss lupine, gold en paintbrus h, Fender’s b lue butterfly,, Taylor’s che ckerspot butterfly, or the st reaked horneed lark; and a re not likely tto adversely mmodify the crritical habitat s for

Willammette daisy, KKincaid’s lupi ne, and Fend er’s blue buttterfly. This coonclusion wass reached beccause the propoosed action wwas determineed likely to apppreciably inccrease the efffectiveness off the conservvation program establisheed under the Recovery Plaan and critica l habitat desi gnations to pprotect these Willamette valleyy species and their habitat on federal la nds within thheir range inccluding designnated critical habitats.

Additionally, no knnown cumulattive impacts cchanged the ddeterminatioons made undder the effect s of the propoosed action, aas the vast maajority of adjaacent non‐fedderal lands arre managed bby wetland coonservation partners who workk in unison w ith the BLM aand U.S. Fish aand Wildlife SService.

The BBiological Opinnion from thee U.S. Fish andd Wildlife Serrvice includedd an Incidentaal Take Statemment for

Fendeer’s blue butt erfly. Detection of incidenntal take on inndividuals of tthis species iss recognized tto be difficuult to determ ine within thee project areaa. As such, evven though inncidental takee is expected to occur from managementt actions undeer the Propossed RMP, dat a are not suffficiently avail able to enab le the U.S.

Fish aand Wildlife S ervice to esti mate an exacct number of individuals. FFor this reasoon, the amounnt or extent of inc idental take wwas issued ussing the maxi mum acres o f habitat areaa that could bbe treated on an annual basis as a surrogatte. These acrees are identifi ed by managgement activitty and are listted in detail i n the

Biologgical Opinion (pp. 109‐10),, which is herreby incorpor rated by referrence. The Bioological Opin ion deferred issuance of an Incidenntal Take Stateement on thee streaked hoorned lark. Occcupancy withhin the planning area by thhis species waas only verifieed a short timme ago (durin ng 2013), and little data is aavailable on the paatterns of habbitat use. Bassed on the efffects analysis of managemment actions uunder the Prooposed

RMP, there is curreently insufficiient informattion available to determinee if take of thhe streaked hoorned lark is likely to occur. Thee BLM shall suubmit all needded informat tion to the U.SS. Fish and WWildlife Servicee to for assesssment of inci dental take oof streaked hoorned lark if t hey are encoountered. Pro vided that th e reported actionn is consisten t with the an alysis describbed in the Bioological Opinioon, a project((s) specific Inccidental

Take Statemment/take exeemption (as a ppropriate) wwill be provid ed to the BLMM as an amenndment to thee

Biological O pinion.

The Proposeed RMP provi des directionn that, if impleemented in fuuture actions , meets the ppurpose of providing otther benefits to the extentt compatible wwith threatenned and endaangered speciies managemment;

particularly, maintaining the ecologicaal function of wetlands, m aintaining ha abitat for otheer plant and animal commmunities, andd providing reecreation and environmen tal educationn opportunitiees:

In thhe short‐termm, populationss of all vascul ar sensitive pplants would meet restoraation targets uunder the Proposed RMMP

Undder the Propo sed RMP longg‐term increaases in populaations of BLMM sensitive va scular plant speccies would coontribute to a chieving the habitat qualitty recovery taarget for listeed plants

Habbitat for animaal species thaat are associatted with highh quality prairrie and savan na, such as

Oreggon vesper spparrow and WWestern pondd turtle, wouldd increase unnder the Propposed RMP

Herbbicide use un der the Propoosed RMP in the Natural MMaintenance Area would bbe coordinateed to not impede and eenhance opp ortunities andd populationss for traditionnal use plant gathering

Stewwart Pond un der the Propoosed RMP woould have subbstantially inccreased recre ation opportunities

The Proposeed RMP respoonds to the neeed for actionn, because it provides a fraamework thaat is consistennt with the Reccovery Plan foor the Prairie Species of WWestern Oregoon and South western Wasshington; critiical habitat for KKincaid’s lupinne, Willamettte daisy, and Fender’s bluee butterfly; annd other speccies listed as threatened or endangereed under the Endangered SSpecies Act.

The Final EISS identified elleven issues ffor analysis, s ome of whichh provided thhe analysis to how well thee alternatives meet the pu rpose and neeed for action :

Howw would BLM managemen t actions affeect the restoraation of nativve plant commmunities?

Howw would BLM managemen t actions conttribute to meeeting the reccovery object ives describeed in the recovery plann for ESA‐listeed species?

Howw would BLM managemen t actions affeect BLM sensittive and strattegic plant annd animal speecies?

Howw would herb icide use affeect soil, waterr, plants, and animals?

Howw would presccribed burninng affect air q uality?

Howw would chan ging climate conditions altter the effectt of BLM man nagement act ions on resouurces?

Howw would BLM managemen t actions affeect greenhousse gas emissioons and carboon storage?

Howw would BLM managemen t actions affeect archaeologgical, historiccal, and tradittional use resoources?

Howw would BLM managemen t actions affeect access to tthe planning aarea, authori zations over tthe plannning area, annd authorizat ions for extraactive uses in the planningg area?

Howw would BLM managemen t actions affeect recreation n opportunitiees?

Howw much wouldd it cost to immplement the alternatives??

The environ mental impacct with regardd to the identtified issues oof future actioons implemennted in accordance with the Propposed RMP a re summarizeed below.

Future actions impplemented in accordance wwith the Propposed RMP arre anticipatedd to contributte to the recovvery of threateened and enddangered speecies:

All recoverry targets for all listed plannts are anticippated to be mmet.

Habitat quuality and mannagement reccovery targetts for Fender’ ’s blue butterrfly are anticippated to be met.

An estimatted 22 acres oof high qualitty habitat for Taylor’s checckerspot butt erfly would bbe restored.

Future actions impplemented in accordance wwith the goalss of the Propoosed RMP aree expected too provide a mix o f recreationa l opportunitiees and experiiences are ex pected to be substantiallyy increased thhrough the designnation of Stewwart Pond as a Special Reccreation Man nagement Areea.

The P roposed RMPP provides dirrection that, iif implementeed in future aactions, addreesses the off‐highway vehiclle managemeent by establi shing plans thhat will limit ooff‐highway vvehicle activitty to designatted roads and iss expected to improve pro tection of othher resourcess compared too the No Actiion Alternativve.

The F inal EIS analyyzed other po tential enviroonmental imppacts and outtcomes for re sources and pprograms beyonnd those desccribed above.. Future actio ns taken in acccordance wiith the Propoosed RMP are expected to havve favorable ooutcomes forr various resoources and proograms and rrelatively loww adverse env ironmental impaccts in comparrison to the otther alternatiives. Under thhe managem ent direction of the Propoosed RMP:

Without h erbicide use, prairie and s avanna habittats would noot be restoredd to meet highh quality habitat co nditions. Conncentration off herbicides inn the soil wouuld be extremmely low becaause of the limited ap plication metthods, low rattes of applica ation, and thee typical appli cation timingg. Off‐site transport oof herbicides by runoff, seedimentation,, leaching, or drift would bbe extremely unlikely.

Herbicide application wwould result inn some mortaality of non‐taarget plants, but mortalityy would be highly locaalized. Herbic ide applicatioon would resuult in very limmited exposur e and low ris k to most animals.

Particulatee emissions u nder the Propposed RMP wwould constituute 1% or lesss of emission s from BLM‐administered landds in western Oregon.

Listed plannt species wo uld not experrience changees in abundannce or range as a result of changing climate co nditions undeer a moderat e climate chaange scenarioo. Fender’s bluue butterfly wwould be moderatelly vulnerable to changing cclimate condiitions under aa moderate c limate chang ge scenario.

The Propo sed RMP wouuld reduce th e vulnerabilitty of Fender’ss blue butterffly to climate change more thann the other altternatives by creating greaater connecti ivity of high qquality habita t and greater poopulations of Kincaid’s lupi ne.

Greenhousse gas emissioons would vaary annually uunder the Prooposed RMP aas a result of tthe amount of prescribbed burning aand the conveersion of fore sted plant co ommunities too prairie and savanna plant commmunities, ranging from 1,0000 to 2,000 ttonnes per yeear.

Nearly all eeffects to arc haeological aand historic si ites would bee reduced or eeliminated byy conducting pre‐disturbbance inventoories to identtify sites and avoiding or pprotecting ideentified sites. Habitat restorationn would geneerally benefit traditional usse plants, butt the use of h erbicides couuld affect traditionall use plant ga thering.

There would be nno reasonablyy foreseeablee effects of fu uture rights‐off‐way. There would be no reassonably fores eeable effectts of locatablee or leaseablee mineral devvelopment. Thhere would b e no effects of future saleable mineeral developmment.

Totaal annual costts for implemmentation wouuld be approxximately $4966,000 for the Proposed RMMP, the third highest of the altern atives.

The cost of iimplementatiion will be lowwer under thee Proposed RRMP than the No Action Al lternative andd will be lower thaan current maanagement coosts. The use of herbicidess and the conncomitant deccrease in the acres of other treaatments (mowwing and oth er manual treeatments) woould reduce t he costs for hhabitat managemennt.

New Informmation

The analysiss in the Final EEIS was basedd on the best available infoormation at t the time the aanalysis was conducted. SSome data, s uch as Geogr aphic Inform ation System (GIS) data is continually bbeing refined and adjusted, annd it is expectted that refineements and aadjustments i in GIS data w ill occur durinng Plan implementaation. Plan evaaluations rev iew the land use plan to d etermine if pplan decisionss are implemeented as expected , and whetheer the associa ted NEPA anaalysis are still valid. Chang es that do noot expand thee scope of ressource uses o r restrictions or change th e terms, condditions, and ddecisions of thhe Approved RMP would be acccomplished tthrough Plan maintenancee. Changes thaat would exp and the scop e of resourcee uses or restrictio ns or change the terms, coonditions, andd decisions inn the Approveed RMP wouldd be accompllished through Plann amendment or revision.

Since the re lease of the FFinal EIS, neww information has arisen reelevant to soi ls analysis co nducted in designing thhe RMP. Rece nt (2014) soill chemistry reesearch resultts have confirrmed that graay clay withinn the

West Eugen e Wetlands iss smectitic m ontmorillinitee clay. When conducting GGLEAMS mod eling analysiss for the EIS, the specific type of gray clay wwas unknownn. Smectitic mmontmorillinitte clay was ussed in the modeling beecause it posssesses high shhrink/swell chharacteristics,, which had bbeen observe d characteris tics of the gray cclay in the Weest Eugene WWetlands. As t his new inforrmation confi rms the accu racy of the assumptionss made whenn using the GLLEAMS modell, it does not result in effeccts outside thhe range anal yzed in the Final EEIS and, thereefore, does noot require su pplementatioon of the Finaal EIS.

Altternativees Consideered Seven alternnatives for thee BLM‐adminnistered landss and resourcees were analyyzed in the Fiinal EIS: the NNo

Action Alter native, Alternnative 1, the PProposed RMMP, Alternativ e 2B, and Alteernatives 3A,, 3B, and 3C. TThe

Final EIS (Chhapter 2) provvides a detaileed descriptio n of the land use allocatioons, Area of C ritical

Environmenntal Concern ddesignation, aand managemment objectiv es and direct tion of each a lternative.

All alternativves considereed two land u se allocation s, the Prairie Restoration AArea and the Natural

Maintenancce Area. Varia tion in the deesign of the a lternatives reesulted from variations in the extent annd location of tthe land use aallocations annd managemeent direction tto resolve thee planning isssues. In addit ion to the two laand use allocaations, some alternatives included alloccation of the Long Tom ACCEC. The managemennt needed to protect the reelevant and i mportant val ues of the Loong Tom ACECC would be consistent wwith the manaagement objeectives and mmanagement ddirection idenntified in the Prairie

Restooration Area. In alternativees that would include the LLong Tom sitee in the Prairi e Restorationn Area, such as thee Proposed RMMP, there woould be no neeed for any sppecial manageement other tthan the mannagement applieed throughouut the Prairie Restoration AArea land use e allocation. TTherefore, thee Proposed RMMP and alternnatives that inncluded the Long Tom sitee in the Prairiee Restorationn Area would not designatee the Long

Tom ssite as an ACEEC. The key feeatures (alloc ations, designnations, and managementt direction) off the alternnatives are summarized annd compared in Table 1 in the Final EIS. The key imp acts of the al ternatives are suummarized annd compared in Table 3 in the Final EIS.. The Final EISS is hereby in corporated bby refereence.

As a rresult of the innformation g ained in the aanalysis in thee Draft EIS, thhe Proposed RMP was dessigned so that t he Proposed RMP would bbetter meet tthe purpose aand need, andd that future actions takenn in accordance with thhe Proposed RMP would bbe anticipatedd to avoid or reduce adverrse environm ental impaccts and have ffavorable outtcomes for vaarious resourcces and progrrams, compa red to other aalternatives.

Becauuse all the acttion alternativves were des igned to addrress the purppose and needd for the actioon, they share a relative co mmonality inn their objectiives. Howeve er, the land usse allocationss and manageement directtion by which the objectivees would be aachieved throough future a ctions varies among the a lternatives.

All altternatives adddress threateened and endaangered speccies habitat reestoration an d provision oof other beneffits.

Objecctives for hab itat restoratioon and mana gement weree addressed inn the No Acti on Alternativve, Alternnative 1, and Alternatives 3B and 3C thrrough a mix oof managemeent direction tthat excludedd the use of herbiccides. Alternaative 2B, Alte rnative 3A, annd the Propo sed RMP adddressed habitaat restorationn and management thro ugh the samee mix of manaagement dire ection but alsoo included th e use of herbbicides.

Analyysis in the Finaal EIS determ ined that, witthout herbici de use, prairiie and savannna habitats w ould not be restorred to meet hhigh quality h abitat condit ions. As a ressult, the No AAction alterna tive and Alte rnatives 3B and 3 C would restoore no high qquality prairie or oak savannna. Alternati ive 1 would reestore high q uality prairie and oak savvanna in mostt of the plannning area. Thee Proposed R MP and Alterrnative 2B woould restore high qquality prairiee and oak sav anna in mostt of the designnated critical habitat. Alte ernative 2B annd the

Propoosed RMP would create th e most well‐cconnected neetwork of highh quality prai rie and savannna habitat of all alternatives. Alternative 33A would resttore high qua lity prairie in most sites cuurrently occuppied by listed species.

The planning area currently proovides recreattion opportunnities for bicyycling, hiking, bird watchinng, and educaational activitties. The Fern Ridge Path t hrough the p lanning area receives conssistently heavvy bicycle and ppedestrian usee. The quantitty of recreati on opportuniities would reemain unchannged under a ll alternnatives for all sites in the pplanning area except Stewaart Pond und er Alternativee 3C and the Proposed

RMP, which wouldd have substa ntially increa sed recreatioon opportunitties. Under thhe Proposed RRMP and

Alternnative 3C, Steewart Pond wwould be desiggnated as a Sppecial Recreaation Manageement Area foor the development of a disc golf courrse. Overwhe lming public support for aa disc golf couurse was rece ived during the 300‐day commeent period on the Draft EISS.

Alternativess 1, 2B, 3A, annd 3B would ffail to coordinnate managemment for opp ortunities of traditional usse plant collecttion throughoout the Naturral Maintenannce Area if immplemented inn future actioons. The

Confederateed Tribes of GGrand Ronde hhave express ed interest inn collecting trraditional usee plant materiials in the planningg area, includ ing but not li mited to; cammas, tarweed,, rushes, willoows, and hazeel. Habitat restoration wwould generaally benefit trraditional usee plants, but t he use of herrbicides couldd adversely afffect traditional uuse plant gathhering. Herbiccide use woulld not be allo wed under A Alternatives 2BB and 3A on tthe

Stewart Ponnd and Easter n Gateway sittes, which Thhe Confederatted Tribes of Grand Rondee tribe identiffied as potential sites for tradditional use pllant gatheringg. Herbicide mmanagement in the Naturaal Maintenannce

Area under tthe Proposedd RMP would be coordinatted with The CConfederatedd Tribes of Grrand Ronde too identify app lication locat ions, timings,, rotations, annd target spe ecies to meet weeds and innvasive plantss managemennt needs and enhancing oppportunities ffor traditiona l use plants wwhere possiblle. Additional ly, an agreement wwith the tribee the option f or excluding herbicide usee in some Nattural Maintennance Area paarcels can be dete rmined at a laater date undder a signed MMemorandumm of Understaanding.

As describedd in Chapter 22 of the Final EIS, the No AAction Alternaative would n ot meet the ppurpose and need for the actioon. The analyssis in the Finaal EIS indicatees that the maanagement d irection prov ided in Alternnative

1, Alternativve 2B, and Altternatives 3A,, 3B, and 3C wwould fail to mmeet some a spect of the ppurpose and need and, if impleemented in fuuture actions,, would have resulted in suubstantive addverse impactts or relativel y low favorable ouutcomes for vvarious resou rces and proggrams. For exxample, Alternnatives 1, 3B,, and 3C wou ld each fail to rrestore high qquality savan na habitats iff implemente d in future acctions. Altern atives 3B andd 3C would fail too increase po pulations of BBLM sensitivee vascular pla nt species to contribute too recovery ta rgets if implemen ted in future actions; wouuld fail to meeet all recoveryy targets for aall listed plan ts if implemeented in future acttions; would ffail to meet reecovery targeets for Fenderr’s blue butteerfly habitat qquality and managemennt if impleme nted in futuree actions; andd would lead to eventual ddeclines in poopulations of all listed plantss if implementted in future actions.

Of all the altternatives connsidered, the Proposed RMMP best meetts the purposse and need wwhile anticipaated to have rela tively low advverse environnmental impaacts and favorrable outcommes for resourrces and proggrams as a result of future actioons taken con sistent with tthe Plan.

Environmenntally Preferaable Alternatiive

Environmenntal preferencce is judged b ased on the ccriteria expre ssed in the reegulations immplementing tthe

National Envvironmental PPolicy Act. Th e Council of EEnvironmentaal Quality hass stated, “Thee environmenntally preferable aalternative is tthe alternativve that will prromote the naational enviroonmental pollicy as expresssed in NEPA’s Seection 101. Orrdinarily, this means the a lternative thaat causes the least damag e to the bioloogical and physica l environmennt; it also meaans the alternnative that be est protects, ppreserves, andd enhances historic, culttural, and nattural resourcees,” (Questionn 6s. Council on Environm ental Qualityy, Forty Most

Asked Questtions Concernning CEQ’s NEEPA Regulatioons, March 233, 1981).

Title I, Sectioon 101(b) of tthe National EEnvironmentaal Policy Act eestablishes thhe following ggoals:

fulfill the rresponsibilitiees of each genneration as trrustee of the environmentt for succeedi ing generationns;

assure for all Americanss safe, healthhful, productivve, and estheetically and cuulturally pleassing surroundinngs;

attain the widest rangee of beneficiall uses of the eenvironment without degrradation, risk k to health or safety, oor other undeesirable and uunintended c onsequencess;

preserve immportant histtoric, culturall, and naturall aspects of o ur national h eritage; and mmaintain, whenever possible, an eenvironment which suppoorts diversity and variety oof individual cchoice;

achieve a bbalance betwween populati on and resouurce use whicch will permit high standarrds of living and wide ssharing of lifee’s amenities; and enhance thhe quality of renewable reesources and approach thee maximum aattainable reccycling of depletablee resources.