A06_Attachment_3_DNA_0001.pdf

1790A

DNA-23-0015

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

NORTHWEST OREGON DISTRICT OFFICE

DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY (DNA) WORKSHEET

OFFICE: Siuslaw Field Office, Northwest Oregon District, Bureau of Land Management

TRACKING NUMBER: DOI-BLM-ORWA-N030-2023-0015-DNA

PROJECT NAME: West Eugene Wetlands (WEW) Integrated Herbicide Use and Prairie Restoration DNA 2024-2027

LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Throughout the West Eugene Wetlands. See Attachment A for area overview.

A. Description of Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures The purpose of this Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) is to support restoration efforts at the West Eugene Wetlands (WEW). Due to invasive vegetation encroachment throughout the WEW, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing an integrated prairie restoration and invasive plant management strategy within the WEW footprint. This DNA will outline the general utilization of chemical, manual, and mechanical treatments, thermal vegetation controls, seeding, and prescribed burning in order to meet prairie restoration goals established in The West Eugene Wetlands Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (2015 RMP). The associated 2014 WEW RMP FEIS’s description of site conditions and treatment effects is hereby incorporated by reference. Because this DNA is an overarching strategy plan and encompasses years 2024- 2027, the goal here is to outline effective techniques to maintain, enhance and restore rare native habitats. As such, the BLM will subsequently produce a yearly Annual Treatment Plan (ATP) that will detail locations and mechanisms for treatments in that given year. Invasive vegetation competes with protected threatened and endangered (T&E) plant and animal species present in the wetlands. Vegetation management and invasive species control are inextricably linked with the success of ongoing T&E species restoration, re-introduction, and plant augmentation efforts. For this reason, this strategy provides for the management intent, treatment objectives, and vegetation control actions contained in the 2015 RMP.

This DNA details a suite of potential treatment options which may be employed during the decision period beginning in 2024. However, BLM would not take all treatment options each year. For each action proposed under this management strategy, annual treatment plans (ATP) will outline the treatment areas, treatment objective, and authorizing decision document associated with the actions and are tiered in accordance with the RMP (Attachment C – Table 3, 4 and 5). These annual treatment plans will each be subject to public and Tribal notification. Because the efficacy of proposed treatments may vary year to year due to weather, site conditions, existing vegetation, and previous treatments, the acres treated in the out-years of this decision cannot be confidently quantified. However, BLM has attached the 2024 annual treatment plan as an appendix (Attachment C) to this decision, and subsequent annual treatment plans will follow the same format.

The BLM will prioritize both chemical and non-chemical treatments according to the land use allocations and management direction outlined in the 2015 WEW RMP. Within the Prairie Restoration Area (PRA), high-quality native prairie habitat is present and supports threatened and endangered species. RMP management direction states PRAs will be “restored, enhanced, and maintained for prairie-related species” and managed to support increasing populations of listed species. The BLM prioritizes PRA treatments over Natural Maintenance Areas (NMA) because of the high-quality habitat and presence of listed species, particularly when funding constraints are limiting. Thus, BLM emphasized PRA treatment for invasive vegetation control and are the primary targets for restoration treatments such as T&E species restoration, plant augmentation, and habitat improvement. Because of the presence of federally listed species within the PRA, annual treatment area limits are set for various treatment methods to minimize adverse effects to those species. All https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36361/68742/74938/West_Eugene_Wetlands_Record_of_Decision_and_Resource_Management_Plan_April_2015.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36361/68742/74938/West_Eugene_Wetlands_Record_of_Decision_and_Resource_Management_Plan_April_2015.pdf

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

treatments will have pre-treatment ground clearance or monitoring to ensure appropriate site conditions and avoid unwanted impacts on species and habitat. The BLM will conduct post-treatment monitoring, treatment efficacy and for compliance with applicable law, regulation, and policy.

Within the Natural Maintenance Areas (NMA), sites may support T&E or Bureau sensitive species but generally provide less high-quality habitat. Instead, The WEW RMP directs management in these areas to be “maintained and enhanced for existing plant and animal habitat and provide opportunities for a variety of goods and services” (2015 RMP, pg. 24). Because Bureau sensitive species include non-vascular species, this RMP applies management direction toward non-vascular species as well. Treatments within the NMA tend to be lower priority and focused more on invasive and noxious species control and T&E species habitat maintenance. The NMA does not set a total treatment area limit for any treatment method because all treatments to limit invasive species and maintain habitat are deemed to be entirely beneficial to listed prairie species (BO, 2014).

Under this DNA decision, BLM is authorized to treat the entire WEW habitat area, including associated conservation easements covered in the RMP and its associated BO (see Appendix 1, Figure 1 for a map of the West Eugene Wetlands area). This includes all 556 acres of PRA, given that individual treatment methods remain within the acre limits established by the BO as follows:

• up to 180 acres of manual treatments;

• 153 acres of mechanical treatment (primarily mowing);

• 128 acres of prescribed burn;

• 8 acres of thinning (method unspecified);

• 346 acres of herbicide treatment on average annually.

Because treatments may overlap on the same piece of ground either simultaneously or across seasons, the total of all treatment area limitations (815 acres) exceeds the total PRA allocation. BLM may treat all 719 habitat-providing acres of NMA with no limitations on the non-chemical method or area treated annually.

Limitations do exist for chemical treatments within the NMA, with each chemical having an annual maximum allowed application rate. All treatments will comply with established best management practices, burn plans, and standard operating procedures outlined within the RMP, including timing restrictions to prevent negative impacts to protected species populations; Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be followed from the West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan 2015 as well as Management Directions (RMP April 2015;

pg. 27 - 30, 32, 33,35, & 36), Standards and Terms and Conditions from the WEW Biological Opinion (2014).

Attachment A details these practices for non-chemical treatment, while Attachment B outlines the chemical-specific practices.

Non-Chemical Vegetation Treatment Definitions

Non-chemical vegetation treatments proposed in this strategy encompass manual, mechanical, and thermal approaches outlined in Table 1. Non-chemical Vegetation Control Treatments and their Targeted Vegetation, Habitats, Objectives, and Authorizing Decisions are outlined in Table 2. The scheduled work would include 1) control of woody vegetation encroachment, 2) control of invasive species, 3) reducing litter/thatch build up, 4) enhancement of native plant populations and species diversity, and 5) enhancement of habitat for wildlife species. The BLM would accomplish project actions using a suite of treatment techniques. Approaches include (but are not limited to): manual treatments including cutting with hand tools or chainsaws, thermal treatment, mechanical treatments including mowing, mastication, tilling or discing, post seeding, and prescribed fire.

Manual treatments encompass all hand powered methods for controlling vegetation, including hand-pulling, digging with shovels or rakes, lopping, hand clipping, weed wrenching, and similar methods. They may also include the use of motorized hand tools such as weed whackers and chainsaws. Manual methods often target individual plants or clusters of plants, and are highly selective, with minimal damage done to non-target species.

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

Mechanical treatments are those which include mechanized equipment such as mowers, masticators, tilling or disking equipment. These tools trim or remove vegetation over a large area or at faster rates, enabling a larger volume of vegetation to be controlled. However, these methods tend to be non-specific and more ground disturbing in their treatment effects relative to manual or thermal methods. BLM specifically times mechanical treatments such that listed species are either pre-emergence or post-senescence.

Thermal treatments are spot treatments on targeted plants that use heat to boil the water in plant cells, top killing the plant and consuming plant material in a highly targeted fashion (RMP allows for thatch reduction for restoration treatments). BLM typically implements thermal treatments by using hand-held propane torches.

BLM implements these treatments in the spring, fall, and may continue into winter under high moisture conditions when vegetation is unable to sustain fire without the continuous application of heat. Under these conditions, heat from the propane torch does not ignite surrounding vegetation and once the BLM removes heat from the propane torch, the treated vegetation does not burn. The propane-torch thermal treatments target individual plants or clusters of plants and can be highly specific. Treatment areas are small;

approximately ¼ - ½ acre. BLM would conduct thermal treatments in accordance with DOI policies and State Office guidance, which may require a burn plan for propane torch use.

Solarization works by a similar mechanism as thermal treatments, using plastic or shade cloth laid on the soil surface to increase the water temperature within plant cells, killing undesired vegetation below. However, these methods require a long duration to be effective, often needing the high sunlight and temperature of summer months to work. They are non-specific to plants and soil organisms under the covering.

The BLM would plan ignitions of prescribed fires in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and regulations designed to meet specific BLM objectives. Prescribed fire treatments covered in this DNA include broadcast burning, underburning, and pile burning. The intent of prescribed fire treatments is to consume vegetative material. Unlike thermal treatments, BLM implements prescribed fire treatments when moisture conditions are dry enough for vegetation to consume and sustain fire without a continued heat source. BLM further differentiates prescribed fire treatments from thermal treatments in their objectives, scale, methods, and treatment effects.

BLM generally refers to the application of prescribed fire treatments as prescribed burning to achieve ecological objectives for each specific unit. Prescribed burning is utilized to treat larger areas and consume vegetative material; in broadcast burns and under-burns, the intent is to apply fire so that it will burn through existing vegetation and across the majority of the treatment area. Prescribed burning cycles nutrients, reduces thatch build-up, and exposes mineral soil for native seed bed. This type of burning carries through vegetation and thatch and has greater habitat-wide effects relative to thermal treatments; BLM selects this type of burning for disturbance-adapted native prairie species while controlling undesired vegetation.

BLM ignites prescribed burns using a variety of tools which include propane torches, drip torches, and fuzees.

Broadcast burning and under-burning generally occur from late summer through early October and includes mowing a perimeter around the burned area to help contain the burn. This mowed perimeter is an associated action with the burn, and BLM includes that disturbance in the prescribed burn acreage. All prescribed fire treatments require a burn plan and must be implement by a qualified fire personnel. Burn plans are prepared by qualified personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include criteria for the conditions under which the fire will be conducted (a prescription). If the conditions or requirements of the burn plan are not met, the prescribed burn is deferred until conditions are suitable. In some cases when conditions do not allow for prescribed burn, BLM may assess certain areas for mowing to accomplish the goal of removing competing vegetation in support of native species; however, mowing in lieu of prescribed burns is not suitable in all instances. Mowing when conditions do not allow for prescribed fire is still subject to mechanical treatment area limitations in the PRA and requires site- and condition-specific assessments to ensure site maintenance, restoration, and species protection goals can be met with mechanical means. In PRA areas with Fender’s blue butterfly critical habitat, BLM limits prescribed burns to one fourth or one third of the affected parcel to minimize negative impacts.

These non-chemical vegetation treatments may be used singly, in conjunction with other non-chemical treatments, or in conjunction with chemical treatments. The BLM may use these treatments for controlling invasive vegetation as well as preparing sites for restoration actions such as seeding and out-planting.

Additionally, BLM may complete this work by BLM staff, its partners, or qualified contractors. All treatments will comply with the average annual treatment area limitations established under the RMPs Biological Opinion (BO, pg. 107).

Vegetation treatments would follow management directions (WEW RMP April 2015; pg. 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, & 35) and meet objectives from the RMP directly relating to the following resource programs, (1) Air quality/Prescribed Burning/Wildfire Suppression, (2) Plants (vascular & non-vascular), (3) Wildlife, and (4) Soils and Water. BLM would evaluate and monitor enhancement treatments monitored either annually or every three to five years.

Table 1. Non-chemical Vegetation Control Treatments and their Targeted Vegetation, Habitats, Objectives, and Authorizing Decisions

Non-chemical treatment method

Targeted Vegetation

Associated treatment habitat types

Treatment Objective Average allowable acres treated annually

Manual (including but not limited to hand pulling, weed wrenches, loppers, hand clippers, girdling, and other non-motorized hand tools)

Herbaceous and woody invasive vegetation

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands, woodlands

Prevent invasive vegetation from going to seed; open canopy for native vegetation

PRA: 180 acres;

NMA: no limit

Mowing Non-native grasses and herbaceous vegetation

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands, woodlands (during dry conditions)

Prevent invasive vegetation from going to seed, decrease non-native vegetation cover, cut back woody vegetation; control obnoxious vegetation near roadways within the City limits.

PRA: 153 acres;

NMA: no limit

Manual (with motorized tools, such as Chainsaw use, brush cutters, weed eaters, or girdling)

Aggressive native woody vegetation, non-native woody vegetation; and aggressive non-native herbaceous vegetation

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands, woodlands

Open canopy to support native vegetation; control tenacious invasive vegetation control for species including but not limited to teasel and Queen Anne’s lace

For thinning woody species: PRA: 8 acres (total with mastication); NMA:

no limit;

For non-woody invasive species control: PRA: 180 acres; NMA: no limit

Mastication Aggressive native woody vegetation and non-native woody vegetation

Upland prairie, woodlands, wetlands

Open canopy to support native vegetation and discourage illegal camping

PRA: 8 acres (total with chainsaw use) NMA: no limit

Prescribed burning (broadcast burning and underburning)

Non-native grasses and forbs

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands, woodlands (during dry conditions)

Decrease thatch buildup, create bare ground for seeding/planting, preparation for herbicide treatments, decrease non-native and woody cover

PRA: 128 acres;

NMA: no limit.

Prescribed burning (pile burning)

Aggressive native woody vegetation and non-native

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands, woodlands (during dry conditions)

Decrease non-native and woody cover

Pile burning will only be allowed

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

Non-chemical treatment method

Targeted Vegetation

Associated treatment habitat types

Treatment Objective Average allowable acres treated annually woody vegetation outside the Urban Growth Boundary1

Thermal Treatment (e.g., Propane Torch)

Non-native grasses and forbs

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands

Prevent invasive vegetation from going to seed, decreasing nonnative cover, create bare ground for seeding/planting

No area limit established for PRA or NMA

Solarization Non-native grasses and forbs

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands

Decreasing nonnative cover, create bare ground for seeding/planting

No area limit established for PRA or NMA

Shade Cloth Non-native grasses and forbs

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands

Decreasing nonnative cover, create bare ground for seeding/planting

No area limit established for PRA or NMA

Tilling/Disking Non-native grasses and forbs

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands

Decreasing nonnative cover, depleting weed seed bank

PRA: 153 acres combined with mowing; NMA: no limit

Competitive seeding of native species including TE or Bureau sensitive species.

Non-native grasses and forbs

Upland prairie, wetlands, riparian/seasonal wetlands, woodlands

Improve proliferation of native species while increasing competition for non-native species

No area limit established for PRA or NMA (see pg. 28 of RMP for target populations for listed plants)

Chemical Treatment Definitions

Chemical treatments (herbicide use) are more heavily restricted under the RMP with limits established on how much herbicide the BLM can use annually, where the BLM may apply herbicides, which chemicals are allowed, and for what purposes each herbicide can be applied. A Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) will be prepared by NWOD District staff authorizing herbicide application for a 3-year period, covering treatments described in this

DNA.

The BLM, in conjunction with its partners and contractors, would utilize terrestrial herbicides previously approved in the WEW RMP to treat undesired vegetation which threatens habitat for threatened and endangered plants, insects, and birds. Potential application methods include spot spray and broadcast treatments using hand-held or boom sprayers attached to vehicle-mounted trucks, utility vehicles (UTVs), tractors, or backpack. Other treatment methods may include wipers, cut & frill, basal bark, hack and squirt, and injection. In conformance with Agency policy, recipient’s contractors may use ATVs, but not by BLM employees. However, both BLM and its contractors are able to use UTVs. BLM would only apply herbicide treatments where non-chemical vegetation treatments have been shown insufficient to control undesired vegetation at the level prescribed by management direction. BLM does not cover herbicides approved only for research and demonstration use under this DNA.

Herbicide treatments will occur on both WEW land use allocations but will treat different number of acres under each allocation.

Within the PRA, BLM would utilize herbicides for the following objectives: 1) control noxious weeds, 2) control non-native invasive species, 3) control invasive native species, and 4) prepare sites for T&E species establishment or enhancement. BLM limits all PRA land use allocations, and herbicide application to 346 acres annually (up to 1,038 acres over the life of this decision) (BO, 2014). While BLM may treat all PRAs under this

1 Pile burning would be allowed inside the Urban Growth Boundary in accordance with City of Eugene regulations and LRAPA permits.

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

decision, high-priority treatment sites for herbicide application in support of restoration efforts include Hansen, Fir Butte, Balboa, Vinci, Oak Hill, Greenhill, Long Tom.

Herbicide treatment objectives in the NMA are as follows: 1) control noxious weeds, 2) control non-native invasive species, 3) control invasive native species, emphasizing areas around T&E species or other special status species populations. Unlike the PRA, the BLM herbicide application within the NMA is not limited to a set number of annual acres. Under this decision, the BLM may treat all NMAs, high priority NMA treatment sites include the Stewart Pond disc golf course take priority.

As previously stated, BLM would not utilize all herbicides or treatment methods described each year. For each year under this decision, BLM would create an annual treatment plan (ATP) which will specify the treatment sites, chemicals, application method, timing, and objectives which will occur that year. Attachment C to this document contains the 2024 annual treatment plan which provides details for the initial treatment season.

Best Management Practices, standard operating procedures, and resource protection measures (including provisions for protecting native and T&E species populations) is outlined in Attachment B at the end of this document.

Table 2 Proposed Herbicides with Relevant Planning Documents, Treatment Objectives, Application Landscapes, and Application Rates

Herbicide Active Ingredient

Target Plant type

Proposed WEW Herbicide Application (2021-2024)

Areas Where Registered Use is Appropriate

Typical Application Rate (lbs per acre per year)

Clopyralid Broadleaf (knapweed, hawkweed, thistles)

Noxious weed and non-native invasive plant control; Invasive native plant control in support of restoration

Woodland, prairie upland, riparian/seasonal wetland

0.35

Glyphosate Non-selective Noxious weed and non-native invasive plant control; Invasive native plant control in support of restoration

Woodland, prairie upland, riparian/seasonal wetland, wetlands

Triclopyr Broadleaf, woody plants

Noxious weed and non-native invasive plant control; Invasive native plant control in support of restoration

Woodland, prairie upland, riparian/seasonal wetland, wetlands

B. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance LUP Name: The West Eugene Wetlands Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (2015 ROD/RMP).

Date Approved: April 2015.

The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP decisions:

WEW RMP ROD, pg. 2:

“Implementation actions in the management direction, such as habitat restoration and maintenance actions (including herbicide use) or recreation resource actions, would be implemented only after additional NEPA compliance and decision making subsequent to the approval of the RMP.”

WEW RMP ROD, pg. 24 Management Direction for the Prairie Restoration Area:

“Apply vegetation management treatments, including prescribed burning, native plant seeding, mowing, and manual control, as needed to restore and maintain high quality habitat for prairie-related species.”

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36361/68742/74938/West_Eugene_Wetlands_Record_of_Decision_and_Resource_Management_Plan_April_2015.pdf

“Apply herbicides for vegetation control where prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, and other non-chemical vegetation treatments do not provide sufficient vegetation control for restoration and maintenance of high-quality habitat for prairie-related species. Herbicides may be used for control of noxious weeds, invasive non-native plants, and invasive native plants. Use standard operating procedures for herbicide application.”

WEW RMP ROD, pg. 25 Management Direction for the Natural Maintenance Area:

“Apply vegetation management treatments, including prescribed burning, mowing, and manual control as needed to control noxious weeds and invasive native and non-native plant species.”

“Apply herbicides for vegetation control where prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, and other non-chemical vegetation treatments do not provide sufficient vegetation control for maintenance and enhancement of existing plant and animal habitats. Herbicides may be used for control of noxious weeds, invasive non-native plants, and invasive native plants to achieve habitat goals identified as a part of recovery or delisting or for conservation management of special status species. Use standard operating procedures for herbicide application.”

WEW RMP ROD, pg. 29 Management Direction for Plant resources:

“Apply the following management tools as needed to restore, enhance, and maintain habitat: prescribed burning, mowing, haying, thinning, hand weeding, shade cloth, solarization, thermal treatments, tilling/disking, fill removal, raking, grazing, and plant augmentation.” See the continuation of this section for greater specification and detail on individual treatment method implementation.

C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other related documents that cover the proposed action.

Applicable NEPA documents covering the prosed actions:

Environmental Impact Statement for project analysis:

Final Environmental Impact Statement West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan (DOI-BLM-ORWA- E000-2012-0001-RMP-EIS). Finding Of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision Signed 2015.

ESA Consultation Covering this Project:

• Biological Opinion (BO) for the West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan (2014) (01EOFW00-2014-F-0139). The 2014 BO addresses the impacts of herbicide application on T&E species and provides management standards to protect them. It specifically provides provisions related to herbicide treatment around Kincaid’s lupine and Fender’s blue butterfly populations in the

WEW.

o The 2014 BO outlines acres of allowed annual and decadal treatment for chemical and non-chemical treatments within both WEW land use allocations (BO table 7). It also allows for treatment of both invasive species as well as undesired native species as it supports restoration of threatened and endangered species. For these reasons, most treatment types proposed are authorized under the RMP, along with effects determinations for threatened and endangered species.

On December 16, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) amended regulations governing interagency consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 50 CFR 402). The amended regulations became effective January 15, 2009. The new rule changed three definitions, better identified situations where consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS is required, and established time frames for the informal consultation process. The “Applicability” section (§402.03) states that federal agencies are not required to consult on an action when the direct and indirect effects are not anticipated to result in take, and the action has no effect on a listed species or critical habitat. The proposed action meets the “Applicability” section (§402.03) criteria since the effects of the action have no effect on listed fish species or critical habitat within the action area. Therefore, the National Marine Fisheries Service does not require written concurrence.

In the event that USFWS lists a new species occurring within the WEW during the implementation period of this DNA, additional consultation would occur for any remaining treatment actions which may affect that species. For example, should a species get listed following signature of this DNA (such as western pond turtle, which is currently proposed for listing), additional consultation would be required prior to implementing treatments planned after the date of listing.

D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria

1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in the existing

NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can you explain why they are not substantial?

Yes, the proposed action area (see Figure 1) is a feature of the Final Environmental Impact Statement West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan (DOI-BLM-ORWA-E000-2012-0001-RMP-EIS), which includes both chemical and non-chemical treatment options for managing native prairie habitats. The RMP specifically authorizes the use of a wide variety of non-chemical and chemical treatment and explores the associated environmental effects in detail. BLM specifically analyzed several herbicides (glyphosate, clopyralid, and triclopyr) and provided for under the RMP across the entire WEW and both the PRA and NMA land use allocations for controlling both invasive non-native species, as well as invasive native species. It authorizes herbicide use in support of restoration efforts within the PRA.

BLM authorizes the actions in this DNA in their entirety from the WEW RMP, additional BMPs and project design features were also incorporated from other recent NEPA analyses, described in the paragraphs below. These Northwest Oregon District (NWOD) EAs also encompass the WEW and analyze the same treatment objectives, treatment types, and resource conditions as described in this DNA.

The proposed action area (see Figure 1) is a feature of the Proposed Action Alternative 3 in the Integrated Invasive Plan Management for the NWOD EA (IIPM) (DOI-BLM-ORWA-N000-2018-0002-EA), FONSI, and Decision Record (DR) signed December 2019. Alternative 3 of the 2018 EA analyzed invasive plant treatments within the Northwest Oregon District BLM, including the WEW (pg. 6), estimating an annual average of 3,000 gross treatment acres across the district (IIPM pg. 21), and allowed for a wide range of treatment methods, including manual, mechanical treatments, targeted grazing, competitive revegetation and a specified list of herbicides, or a combination of treatment methods. While the DR allows for the integrated invasive plant management for aquatic infestations, BLM proposed no aquatic treatments under this DNA.

The proposed action area (see Figure 1) is also within the same analysis area of the Invasive Plant Management and Habitat Restoration Environmental Analysis (IPMHR) (DOI-BLM-ORWA-N000-2022- 0003-EA), which updates the Integrated Invasive Plan Management for the Northwest Oregon District EA (IIPM) (DOI-BLM-ORWA-N000-2018-0002-EA), FONSI, and DR signed December 2019. All treatments described in this DNA are compatible with this IPMHR; however due to the Wetlands having a separate RMP, BLM would require additional consultation with FWS to utilize herbicides specific to the IPMHR.

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values?

Yes, the range of alternatives analyzed under the WEW RMP FEIS (2015) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action under current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values. The WEW RMP included examination of a No Action alternative which would not allow for any treatment of native or non-native invasive plant species in the WEW. The WEW RMP also examined alternatives which provided for non-chemical invasive-species treatment only (mowing, pulling, burning, shade-cloth, etc.) while disallowing herbicide treatments (Alternatives 3B, 3C).

The proposed project incorporates all best management practices, standard operating procedures, and special provisions outlined in the RMP and its BO (01EOFW00-2014-F-0139). See Attachments A and B for a complete list of best management practices.

3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as, rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists of BLM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action?

Yes, the OR/WA State Director signed and updated list of BLM Special Status Species on August 3, 2021.

The total number of federally listed and BLM Sensitive species (fish, wildlife, plants, and fungi) suspected or documented within the district increased from 196 to 204. The BLM added two plant species occurring withing the West Eugene Wetlands to the list: Oregon delphinium was listed as sensitive, and one moss species (Pseudephemerum nitidum) was listed as sensitive. The BLM also listed the monarch butterfly as sensitive which may occur within the West Eugene Wetlands. However, all these species are adapted to native woodland and prairie habitats and would benefit from the prairie enhancement and invasive species control actions described in the WEW RMP and in this DNA. Because BLM expects these treatment actions to improve, rather than harm, these sensitive species and their habitats, their listing does not substantially change the analysis of the proposed actions.

Sand dune phacelia, which occurs within the Siuslaw field office, was listed as Threatened on September 21, 2023 (FWS–R1–ES–2021–0070). However, this listing does not impact the analysis because it is a coastal species that does not occur within the WEW.

The western pond turtle (Actinemys mamorata) is currently a bureau sensitive species that USFWS has recently proposed to be listed as federally threatened (USDI-FWS 2023). This DNA has included best management practices to minimize impacts to aquatic species (Attachments A and B), including the western pond turtles, and should the species be listed under the endangered species act, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service would be completed prior to implementation. As stated in the consultation section, in the event western pond turtle is listed during the implementation period of this DNA, additional consultation would be required prior to implementing treatments planned after the date of listing.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service reclassified Fender’s blue butterfly from Endangered to Threatened on February 13, 2023 (FWS-R1-ES-2020-0082) due to the species no longer being at risk of extinction. While this down-listing also amended the proposed 4(d) rule to allow manual removal of invasive and/or nonnative plant species during Fender's blue butterfly's flight period (April 15 to June 30), treatments authorized under this DNA will adhere to the practices outlined in the 2015 WEW RMP, which maintain manual treatment window limitations. Because the WEW RMP analyzed actions designed to preserve and improve critical habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly when it was Endangered, and no changes in management strategy have been approved in light of downlisting, the RMP analysis remains adequate, and this downlisting does not substantially change the analysis of the proposed actions.

Golden paintbrush, previously classified as Threatened, was delisted August 18, 2023 (FWS-R1-ES-2020- 0060), as the species no longer meets the requirements of either an Endangered or Threatened Species.

At the time of this DNA, no golden paintbrush is present within the WEW. However, this DNA does provide for site-preparation and prairie restoration actions for sites that may support golden paintbrush within the authorization period of this DNA (2024-2027). Because the BLM designed the actions outlined in the DNA to preserve and improve prairie habitat suitable for golden paintbrush and no changes in management strategy have been approved considering downlisting, the WEW RMP analysis (which provided management direction to prepare sites for golden paintbrush reintroduction) remains adequate.

This delisting does not substantially change the analysis of the proposed actions.

The USFWS proposed Bradshaw’s lomatium for delisting on November 26, 2019, and the BLM agreed to a post-delisting Monitoring Plan developed in June 2020. BLM reflected this change in the 2021 WEW Integrated Herbicide Use and Prairie Restoration Strategy, and provisions associated with delisting continue to apply to treatments and operations within the WEW. The West Eugene Wetlands document Bradshaw’s lomatium and the RMP and associated BO outline provisions specific to its management and recovery as a federally listed species. However, in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, federal land management agencies have agreed that “signatory parties are committed to continuing habitat management activities required for the conservation of Bradshaw’s lomatium, regardless of the species’ legal protections under the [Endangered Species] Act”. The BLM specifically agrees to “Manage wet prairie habitats supporting Bradshaw’s lomatium across BLM’s ownership within the range of the species with a goal of maintaining habitat condition targets as described in the Recovery Plan, to the extent practicable, in order to support the persistence of Bradshaw’s lomatium.” (MOU 2020, pg. 7). For these reasons, management of Bradshaw’s lomatium populations and habitat will continue as outlined under the RMP even in the event of its delisting, and thus the RMP analysis remains adequate.

BLM excludes cultural resource inventories from case-by-case review (i.e. field inventory) under Stipulation VI.A (1), Appendix E of the State Protocol between the Oregon-Washington Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. However, this does not include actions such as prescribed burning (broadcast, underburning, and pile) and mechanical tilling and disking. Cultural Resources BMPs in Attachments A and B address how activities under this DNA must be handled to ensure protection of cultural sites. The BLM is unaware of any new information or change in circumstances regarding cultural resources which would change the analysis of the proposed actions.

4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document?

Yes. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of herbicide application and non-chemical treatments proposed under this project are quantitatively and qualitatively alike to those analyzed in the WEW RMP and the IIPM.

The RMP describes the impacts to target invasive plants, Special Status species, as well as the impacts on soil and water resources, recreation, wildlife, as well as other resource impacts associated both with chemical and non-chemical treatment methods within the WEW. It also analyzed the effects of no treatment and demonstrated the need for active management to attain the prairie restoration and listed species management goals required by law. This outlines the special provisions related to the site’s wetland character, presence of listed species and their habitat, as well as the urban location and uses unique to the WEW.

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequate for the current proposed action?

Yes, the BLM has completed public involvement and interagency review for the NEPA documents that this DNA is in conformance with.

BLM conducted a public comment opportunity for the West Eugene Wetlands (WEW) Integrated Herbicide Use and Prairie Restoration Strategy DNA. This consisted of the DNA and its associated attachments, including the annual treatment plan. The original draft documents were available for a 30-day period from March 5, 2021, to April 5, 2021. BLM received one comment from the Oregon Hunters Association, which was supportive of the project. The current renewal DNA was available for a 30-day public comment period form November 22, 2023, to December 22, 2023, and the BLM received one comment from Oregon Wild. The BLM response to their comment is located in Attachment E at the end of this DNA.

The process that developed the WEW RMP included full opportunity for public involvement. The WEW RMP conducted formal public scoping June-July 2011 and a 3-month formal comment period from October 2012 to January 2013 and received 84 comment letters. Agency comments came from the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division, the Long Tom Watershed Council, the North American Butterfly Association, the Institute for Applied Ecology, the Nature Conservancy, Oregon Wild, and Friends of Eugene. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division, and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde were formal cooperators on the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also contributed their Biological Opinion (BO) in 2014. This public involvement remains adequate to reflect public concerns and information regarding herbicide treatment at the WEW.

BLM invited the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde; and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians to comment on the proposed Integrated Herbicide Use and Prairie Restoration DNA (2024-2027). The BLM sent invitation to the tribes on November 27, 2023, requesting input on tribal issues or concerns relative to the project; BLM received no responses.

E. Persons/Agencies /BLM Staff Consulted Name Title Resource Charity Glade BLM District Weed Management Coordinator Botany Sally Villegas-Moore BLM West Eugene Wetlands Restoration Project Lead Wildlife and Botany Amber Lamet BLM Environmental Specialist NEPA Megan McGinnis BLM Natural Resource Specialist (Soils) Soils Colin Sayre BLM West Eugene Wetlands Technical Specialist Botany and Weeds Christine Calhoun BLM West Eugene Wetlands Monitoring Specialist Botany and Weeds Spencer Ware BLM Deputy Fire and Fuels Specialist Fuels Ben Watts BLM Recreation Planner Recreation Terry Godin BLM Archaeologist Cultural Andrea Lawrence BLM Natural Resource Specialist Botany and Weeds

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

DNA 2024-2027

Conclusion Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitute BLM’s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.

Signature of Project Lead:

Megan McGinnis Natural Resource Specialist

Signature of NEPA Coordinator:

Amber Lamet Environmental Specialist

Signature of the Responsible Official:

Sarah B. Bickford Siuslaw Field Office – Field Manager

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

NORTHWEST OREOGN DISTRICT OFFICE

DECISION RECORD

DOI-BLM-ORWA-NO30-2023-0015-DNA

West Eugene Wetlands (WEW) integrated Herbicide Use and Prairie Restoration Strategy

DECISION

It is my decision to implement this action as described in the Determination of NEPA Adequacy documentation

DOI-BLM-ORWA-NO30-2023-0015-DNA.

DECISION RATIONALE

BLM staff has reviewed the proposed action. The Proposed Action is in conformance with the 2015 West Eugene Wetlands Record of Decision. Based on the Determination of NEPA Adequacy, I have determined that the existing NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes BLM’s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Any person adversely affected by this decision may appeal it to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), within the Office of the Secretary, Office of Hearings and Appeals, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4.

To appeal this decision, the appellant or designated representative (see 43 CFR § 1.3) must file a notice of appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this decision in this office, addressed to the deciding official, Sarah B.

Bickford to BLM Siuslaw Field Office at 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite E, Springfield, OR 97477. Written appeals that are electronically transmitted (e.g., email, facsimile, or social media) will not be accepted. It is the responsibility of the deciding official to promptly transmit a notice of appeal to IBLA. If the notice of appeal does not include a statement of reasons, any written arguments, and any briefs must also be filed with the Office of the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, 601 SW 2nd Ave, Suite 1950, Portland, OR 97204-3172.

An appellant has the right to petition the Board to stay implementation of the decision. A petition for stay, if any, must accompany the notice of appeal, and be served upon the deciding official and the Office of the Regional Solicitor.

Signature of the Responsible Official:

Sarah B. Bickford, Field Manager Siuslaw Field Office – Northwest Oregon District

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest. Strategy Attachment A

Figure 1:

Overview map of West Eugene Wetland project area.

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

Strategy

Attachment A: WEW Non-Chemical Vegetation Management Best Management Practices (BMP) The BLM would implement the following practices to reduce the potential for negative effects and encourage positive outcomes to the West Eugene Wetland habitats. The BLM sourced the following practices directly from the 2015 West Eugene Wetlands RMP (RMP), the 2019 Integrated Invasive Plant Management EA for the Northwest Oregon District (IIPM), the 2007 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS (USDI 2007), and the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon EIS (Oregon EIS). Source documents included practices specific to aquatic application; BLM omitted those practices here because the BLM does not propose aquatic herbicide applications in this project. BLM has defined mechanical treatments as those which include mechanized equipment such as mowers, masticators, tilling or disking equipment. The following BMPs from both the WEW RMP and the IIPM EA specify the type of mechanical treatment, e.g., mowing, or heavy equipment. For implementation through this DNA, the BLM would follow these BMPs for all mechanical treatment.

General Stipulations

• Clean OHVs to remove plant material.

• Clean all vehicles and heavy equipment to remove mud, debris, and vegetation prior to entering the project area to reduce the spread of noxious weeds and non-native plants. (RMP)

• Conduct post-treatment monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the project. (USDI 2016, Oregon

EIS)

Land Use Fire Use

• Carefully plan fires to avoid or minimize loss of structures and property.

Mechanical/Manual

• Collaborate on project development with nearby landowners and agencies.

Air Quality Fire Use

• Have clear smoke management objectives.

• Evaluate weather conditions, including wind speed and atmospheric stability, to predict effects of burn and impacts from smoke.

• Burn when weather conditions favor rapid combustion and dispersion.

• Burn under favorable moisture conditions.

• Burn small vegetation blocks, when appropriate.

• Manage smoke to prevent air quality violations and minimize impacts to smoke-sensitive areas.

• Coordinate with air pollution and fire control officials and obtain all applicable smoke management permits to ensure that burn plans comply with Federal, State, and local regulations.

• Implement prescribed burns in compliance with Lane Regional Air Protection Agency and unit specific

Prescribed Fire Burn Plans.

Mechanical

• Maintain equipment in optimal working order.

• Use heavy equipment under adequate soil moisture conditions to minimize soil erosion.

• Minimize vehicle speeds on unpaved roads.

• Minimize dust impacts to the extent practicable.

Manual

• Maintain equipment in optimal working order.

Soil Resources General

WEW Integrated Herb. and Rest.

• To minimize compaction, use low-ground-pressure equipment such as rubber-tired or rubber-tracked equipment, use a mat of organic debris or wood under equipment, or limit heavy equipment to one pass.

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

• Maintain wet prairie micro‐topography on treatment areas.

• Retain topsoil on site, if possible. Where feasible, salvage disturbed soil, segregate during storage, compost, and reuse in a similar location and depth. Where feasible, salvage and reuse wetland soils in wetland areas.

Fire Use

• Prescribe burns that are consistent with soil management objectives.

• Plan burns to minimize damage to soil resources.

• Conduct pile burns when moisture content of large fuels, surface organic matter, and soil is high to limit the amount of heat penetration into lower soil surfaces and protect surface organic matter.

• Time treatments to encourage rapid recovery of vegetation.

• Further facilitate revegetation by seeding or planting following treatment.

• When appropriate, reseed following burning to re- introduce species, or to convert a site to a less flammable plant association, rather than to specifically minimize erosion.

Mechanical

• Time treatments to avoid intense rainstorms.

• Time treatments to encourage rapid recovery of vegetation.

• Further facilitate revegetation by seeding or planting following treatment.

• Use equipment that minimizes soil disturbance and compaction.

• Minimize use of heavy…