record of decision in accordance with federal civil rights law and u.s. department of agriculture...

United States Department of Agriculture

Draft Record of Decision

Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project and Forest Plan Amendments Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Union County, Oregon

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest La Grande Ranger District June 2018


In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations

and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender

identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status,

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies

and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille,

large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800)

877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-

3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the

complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]


i

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Draft Record of Decision .............................................................................................................1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Need for the USFS Action ...............................................................................................................2 Applicant’s Interests and Objectives ....................................................................................................................2 Statutory and Regulatory Background .................................................................................................................3

Decision ......................................................................................................................................................................4 Selected Alternative .............................................................................................................................................4

Special Use Authorization ........................................................................................................................... 10 Forest Plan Amendment .............................................................................................................................. 13

Rationale for the Decision ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Response to USFS Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................ 18 Meeting the Applicant’s Interests and Objectives ............................................................................................. 18 Consideration of the Issues Relevant to USFS’s Decision ................................................................................ 18

Cultural and Historic Resources .................................................................................................................. 19 Oregon National Historic Trail .................................................................................................................... 19 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Anadromous Fish (including fish habitat and riparian resources) ............................................................... 20 Upland Vegetation Resources and Associated Values (including old growth habitat, old growth

dependent species) ................................................................................................................................ 21 Decision Rationale Summary ............................................................................................................................ 21

Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 Other Alternatives Considered on NFS Lands ................................................................................................... 22

No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 23 Applicant’s Proposed Action Alternative in Segment 1 .............................................................................. 23 Applicant’s Proposed Action Alternative in Segment 2 .............................................................................. 24 Timber Canyon Alternative in Segment 3 ................................................................................................... 24

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...................................................................... 25 Environmentally Preferred Alternative .............................................................................................................. 25

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Consultation .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ........................................................................... 26 Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................... 27

Federal ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Tribal Governments ..................................................................................................................................... 27 State ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 County ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Local ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Organizations ............................................................................................................................................... 28

Government-to-Government Tribal Consultation .............................................................................................. 29 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ................................................................................................. 31

National Forest Management Act ...................................................................................................................... 31 Forest Plan Consistency .............................................................................................................................. 31 Management Indicator Species .................................................................................................................... 31 Sensitive Species ......................................................................................................................................... 31

Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................................................................. 31 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................................................................................. 32 Clean Air Act ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Safe Drinking Water Act ................................................................................................................................... 32

Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11988, and Executive Order 11990 ............................................................ 33 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act ...................................................................................................... 33 Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 ................................................................................................. 33

Permits, Licenses, and Authorizations Needed to Implement the Decision ............................................................. 33 Administrative Review - Objection Opportunities ................................................................................................... 33 Project Decision Timing and Implementation .......................................................................................................... 35 Contact Person .......................................................................................................................................................... 35

List of Maps

Map 1. Selected Alternative ................................................................................................................................5 Map 2. USFS Management Area 17 Power Transportation Facility Retention ..................................................7

List of Tables

Table 1. Selected Alternative Route on National Forest System Lands .....................................................................9

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Legal Description of Project on National Forest System Lands

Appendix B: Electric Transmission Line Easement Authorization Form (FS-2700-31)

Appendix C: Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act

Appendix D: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation


iii

List of Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Applicant Idaho Power Company

B2H Project Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

BA Biological Assessment

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BO Biological Opinion

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

BRTG Biological Resources Task Group

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIC Compliance inspection contractor

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

CWA Clean Water Act of 1972

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Forest Plan Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan

FPISC Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan

HRV Historic range of variability

I-84 Interstate 84

IRP Integrated Resource Plan

kV Kilovolt

LOS Late and old structure

LUP Land-use Plan

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHT National Historic Trail

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRHP National Register of Historic Places


iv

PACFISH Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy

POD Plan of Development

PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

PRTP Paleontological Resources Treatment Plan

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

RHCA Riparian habitat conservation area

RMO Riparian management objective

ROD Record of Decision

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SUA Special-use authorization

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VQO Visual Quality Objectives

WWNF Wallowa-Whitman National Forest


1

Introduction to the Draft Record of Decision This draft Record of Decision (ROD) documents my proposed decision and rationale for choosing the Selected

Alternative, approving the issuance of a special-use authorization (SUA) with certain terms and conditions, and

amending the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s (WWNF) 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest

Plan) for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project (B2H Project). My proposed decision will

affect only National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the WWNF, a unit of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service (USFS).

If approved, the B2H Project would cross federal, state, and private lands in five counties in Oregon and one

county in Idaho, including 6.8 miles on NFS lands administered by the WWNF. Idaho Power Company (the

Applicant) would construct, operate, and maintain a 500-kilovolt (kV), overhead, single-circuit, alternating-

current electric transmission line and ancillary facilities. The Applicant would construct the transmission line

within a 250-foot-wide right-of-way to connect the northern terminus, the Longhorn Substation, a substation

planned by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) approximately 4 miles east of the city of Boardman in

Morrow County, Oregon, to the existing Hemingway Substation, west of the city of Melba in Owyhee County,

Idaho.

The proposed transmission line would cross federal lands administered by both the U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USFS and potentially affect lands and assets administered by the

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Department of the Navy. The BLM was the designated lead federal

agency and was responsible for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

My proposed decision considers analyses documented in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement and

Proposed Land Use Amendments for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project” (Final EIS), which

the BLM published in November 2016. The EIS analyzes and discloses the impacts of granting a right-of-way

across federal land to the Applicant for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining a single-circuit

alternating-current, 500- kV transmission line and amending BLM and WWNF land management plans to make

them consistent with the proposed transmission line.

The Final EIS may be viewed on the WWNF project webpage, https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=26709.

The Final EIS and many other relevant documents can be found at the Applicant’s website at

https://www.boardmantohemingway.com/.

Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §218, Subparts A and B, the USFS will provide a

predecisional administrative review process, referred to as an objection process, for the B2H Project. A 45-day

objection filing period will begin the day following publication of a Legal Notice in the Baker City Herald.

Additional information regarding the objection process is included near the end of this draft ROD, under the

heading “Administrative Review – Objection Opportunities.”

Background Idaho Power Company submitted its initial Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on

Federal Lands (Standard Form 299) and a preliminary Plan of Development (POD) for the B2H Project to the

BLM Vale District Office on December 19, 2007, and to the WWNF on March 25, 2008. The BLM, serving as

the lead federal agency, determined that approval of the request would be a major federal action requiring

preparation of an EIS under NEPA. The USFS participated in the preparation of the EIS as a cooperating agency.

The USFS and BLM jointly identified the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=26709

https://www.boardmantohemingway.com/


2

In a letter dated June 20, 2017, the USFS notified BLM of its decision to adopt the EIS and related documents

prepared by the BLM. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also announced USFS’s adoption of BLM’s

EIS in the Federal Register on June 30, 2017 (Vol. 82, No. 125, page 29589). The USFS has prepared this ROD

based on consideration of the information in the Final EIS and related documents.

In a ROD signed November 17, 2017, the BLM identified the selected route for implementation on BLM-

managed federal lands.

Purpose and Need for the USFS Action

The need for USFS action is to respond to the Idaho Power Company’s SUA application to construct, operate, and

maintain the proposed transmission line and associated facilities on federal land administered by the USFS. The

purpose of the USFS’s action is to determine whether to issue an SUA and, if issued, to determine what terms and

conditions should apply. The USFS has legal jurisdiction to manage NFS lands. Title 36 CFR §251, Subpart B,

provides for USFS authority to review and to grant or deny SUAs for occupancy and use of NFS lands for

transmission lines. The purpose and need for this project stems from the overarching policy and direction in the

Multiple-use Sustained-yield Act of 1960 (as amended), which authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture

to develop and administer the renewable resources on NFS lands for multiple use and sustained yield of the

products and services. Additionally, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides the

Secretary of Agriculture (through the USFS) with discretionary authority to grant use of land it administers,

including rights-of-way for electrical transmission (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] §1761).

FLPMA mandates that each right-of way shall contain terms and conditions that will minimize damage to scenic

and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the environment, require compliance with

applicable air and water quality standards (per applicable federal and state law), and require compliance with state

standards for public health and safety, environmental protection, etc., if those standards are more stringent than

applicable federal standards. 43 U.S.C. §1765(a). Terms and conditions must also be included as deemed

necessary to protect public interests. 43 U.S.C. §1765(b). In developing terms and conditions, the USFS must take

into consideration impacts on natural and cultural resources (including historical resources), and in doing so must

endeavor “to minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect

the environment” through avoidance or mitigation.

Applicant’s Interests and Objectives

The Applicant has the following stated B2H Project interests and objectives: to relieve existing transmission

constraints between the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West regions; increase opportunities for the

exchange of energy between these regions; ensure sufficient capacity for the Applicant to meet its forecasted

customer demand requirements; and, improve system reliability as demands on the transmission system continue

to grow.

In its 2017 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), the Applicant indicates the transmission system connecting the Pacific

Northwest and Intermountain West regions is constrained. The Northern Tier Transmission Group—a Western

Electricity Coordinating Council planning group—determined in its 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 Biennial

Transmission Plans that the existing regional transmission system was not adequate to serve the projected regional

needs and that additional transmission system upgrades would be needed to reliably meet the projected regional

needs. The B2H Project was one of the major regional transmission upgrades identified and included in the

Biennial Transmission Plans to meet the future needs of these regions. Adding the B2H Project to the existing

transmission system would create additional redundancy, additional capacity, and would make the transmission

system more robust.


3

The Applicant points out in the 2017 IRP that the B2H Project, when constructed, will add significant reliability,

resilience, and flexibility to the Northwest power grid. As an expanded transmission interconnection to the Pacific

Northwest market, the B2H Project will provide (1) access to a market with capacity for meeting Idaho Power’s

load needs during the summer months, when energy demand from Idaho Power’s customers is at its highest and

(2) more generally, expanded access to reliable, low-cost market energy purchases from the Pacific Northwest

wholesale market and its diverse mix of reliable, low-cost energy resources. The ability to exchange additional

energy between the regions increases efficiencies, possibly helping to avoid the need to construct new power

plants, which helps to keep electricity rates lower and is favorable for the environment.

The Applicant developed the B2H Project to comply with its IRPs dating back to 2006, which describe the

Applicant’s projected need for additional electricity and the resources necessary to meet the needs while

balancing reliability, environmental responsibility, efficiency, and cost. As discussed in the 2017 IRP, the number

of customers in the Applicant’s service area (Idaho and east central Oregon) is expected to increase from

approximately 534,000 in 2016 to more than 756,000 by 2036. Peak-hour energy demand in the Applicant’s

service territory is expected to grow by 1.4 percent per year, and average energy demand is expected to grow by

0.9 percent per year from 2017 to 2036. Further, wind- and solar-resource development has accelerated in recent

years. The B2H Project would help to reliably interconnect these often-remote renewable resources and efficiently

deliver power to local load centers. The B2H Project would help facilitate access to new market tools, such as

energy imbalance markets that could help reduce power supply costs for customers and integrate intermittent

resources such as wind and solar.

The B2H Project is neither required to support any particular new power-generation project nor justified by any

particular existing power-generation project. Rather, the B2H Project would help the Applicant to meet its Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, Oregon Public Utility Commission, and the Idaho Public Utility Commission

requirements to meet growing load needs and provide safe, reliable, and economic power supply.

Statutory and Regulatory Background

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) mandates that resource plans and permits, contracts, and other

instruments for the use and occupancy of NFS lands be consistent with land and resource management plans (16

U.S.C. §1604(i)). The WWNF Forest Plan includes forest management goals for energy (page 4-2). The following

goal is relevant to the B2H Project: “…to provide for energy transmission facilities on National Forest lands.”

Approval of the B2H Project advances this goal.

The B2H Project has been recognized as a nationally important transmission project. In October 2009, the U.S.

Department of Energy entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) (2009 MOU) with eight other federal

entities, including the Department of Agriculture, to improve coordination among project applicants, federal

agencies, states, and tribes involved in the siting and permitting process for electric transmission facilities on

federal land and recognizing that “[e]xpanding and modernizing the transmission grid by siting proposed electric

transmission facilities will help to accommodate additional electrical generation capacity over the next several

decades, including renewable generation as well as improve reliability and reduce congestion” (MOU Regarding

Coordination in Federal Agency Review of Electric Transmission Facilities on Federal Land, October 23, 2009).

The other federal entities signing the MOU include the Council on Environmental Quality; the U.S. Department

of the Interior; the U.S. Department of Commerce; the U.S. Department of Defense; the EPA; the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission; and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The B2H Project was

identified as one of seven priority transmission projects that the Rapid Response Team for Transmission,

comprised of the nine agencies that signed the 2009 MOU, determined, when built, would help increase electric

reliability, integrate new renewable energy into the grid, and save consumers money.


4

In December 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Title 41 of the

FAST Act (“FAST-41”) creates a new entity, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), to

oversee the cross-agency federal permitting and review process. It also expands the scope of projects for which

reviews will be accelerated by adding new agencies (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Nuclear

Regulatory Commission) and infrastructure sectors (conventional energy generation and manufacturing) and

establishes new procedures that standardize interagency consultation and coordination practices. Other FAST Act

provisions addressing the project delivery process and tracking environmental review and permitting milestones

are set out in Title I and Title IX. The B2H Project was established as a “covered project” under the FAST Act by

a September 22, 2016, memorandum from the FPISC.

Decision My decision on the B2H Project includes three parts: (1) which alternative to select; (2) whether to issue an SUA

under FLPMA Title V – Rights-of-Way to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities on NFS lands

managed by the WWNF and, if so, under what terms and conditions; and (3) whether to amend the WWNF Forest

Plan to make it consistent with the proposed Project. Below, I provide information on each of these three parts.

Use of NFS lands for the B2H Project will be authorized following agency regulations for special uses at 36 CFR

Part 251 Subpart B. The USFS will issue an Easement for a term of 30 years.

Selected Alternative

I have selected the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS to be implemented on NFS lands,

where the B2H Project crosses the WWNF (hereinafter referred to as the Selected Alternative). The entire route

for the for the B2H Project is approximately 293.4 miles long in its entirety, of which 6.8 miles (2.4 percent) will

be on the WWNF. The transmission line will cross the WWNF as shown in Map 1 of this ROD (hereinafter

referred to as the “selected route”). This proposed decision is based on my review of the Final EIS and other

documentation in the Agency’s Project record.

The B2H Project area is organized into six segments in the Draft and Final EIS and based generally on similar

geography, natural features, drainages, resources, and land uses (refer to Maps S3(a)-(f) of the Final EIS). The

selected route crosses the WWNF a total of five times in Segment 1 (Morrow-Umatilla) and Segment 2 (Blue

Mountains) of the Project, with short sections on privately owned land and/or state lands in between. On the

WWNF, the selected route is located south of Interstate 84 (I-84), extending from near Kamela on the north end to

Hilgard State Park on the south.

In Segment 1, the Selected Alternative is Variation S1-B1 of the Applicant’s Proposed Action. On NFS lands in

Segment 2, the Selected Alternative is Variation S2-A2 of the Applicant’s Proposed Action. In Segment 2, the

route closely parallels an existing 230-kV transmission line operated by BPA. The route selected on NFS lands is

described further in Table 1 below and shown on Map 2 of this ROD (and Map S5-A of Final EIS). A legal

description of the selected route on NFS lands administered by the WWNF is included as Appendix A of this

ROD.


5

Map 1. Selected Alternative

This page intentionally left blank.


7

Map 2. USFS Management Area 17 Power Transportation Facility Retention


9

Table 1. Selected Alternative Route on National Forest System Lands

Segment

Number Selected Route Description

Length

(miles)

Segment 1 Applicant’s Proposed Action

Variation S1-B1

From the northwest, the Selected Alternative route

enters NFS lands approximately 3 miles south of

Kamela. It continues southeast-ward across NFS

lands between I-84 and the Blue Mountains Forest

State Scenic Corridor in Railroad Canyon for

approximately 3 miles. The route then crosses

state-owned lands within the Blue Mountain

Forest State Scenic Corridor, as well as the

frontage road and railroad, before re-entering NFS

lands. It continues south for another mile, crossing

NFS Road 2100 and joining the existing BPA

230-kV line route.

4.2

Segment 2 Applicant’s Proposed Action

Variation S2-A2

In this segment the route closely parallels the

existing BPA line along its southwest side. It

continues southeast-ward across NFS lands for

approximately 2 miles, crossing privately-owned

lands for a short distance in two places, and

exiting NFS lands west of Hilgard State Park.

2.6

Total Length (approximate) 6.8

The Selected Alternative also includes temporary and permanent access routes, which were estimated through

predictive modeling in the EIS to result in approximately 55 acres of disturbance. All temporary construction

routes will be closed and reclaimed after construction. Final determination of the access route locations and

mileages will be determined as a part of detailed Project engineering facilitated through coordination between the

Applicant and the USFS.

The Selected Alternative was identified using criteria-based key resource concerns and issues, regulation, and

policy. The following criteria were used for selection of a route:

Maximizes use of existing designated utility corridors by locating the right-of-way completely within

Management Area 17 – Power Transportation Facility Retention, identified in the Forest Plan for

transport of oil, gas, or electricity;

Parallels existing linear utility rights-of-way where the benefits of colocation are not offset by

unacceptable impacts on sensitive resources;

Avoids or minimizes impacts on resources, after consideration of Project design features, selective

mitigation measures, agency best management practices, and regulatory requirements resulting from

consultation, including but not limited to federally protected (anadromous) fish and historical and cultural

resources.

My decision applies only to NFS lands utilized by the B2H Project. This decision will achieve the B2H Project’s

purpose while also avoiding, minimizing, or requiring compensation for impacts on sensitive resources along the

route, giving particular consideration to cultural and historic resources, the Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT),

visual resources, anadromous fish, and upland vegetation resources. I considered the WWNF Forest Plan direction

for the Project area and took into account public interests and values. The rationale for my decision is outlined in

greater detail below.


10

Special Use Authorization

I will issue an Electric Transmission Line Easement (Easement) SUA (Form No. FS-2700-31; refer to

Appendix B of this ROD) to the Applicant shortly after I sign the final ROD. The Easement will authorize a non-

exclusive right-of-way for the construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission facilities on NFS lands

managed by the WWNF.

The Easement is made up of requirements that the Applicant must comply with in order to construct, operate, and

maintain the right-of-way. These requirements are described in the Easement itself and the following Appendices

to the Easement.

• Easement Appendix A: Maps, Surveys, Plats, Site Plans (including a Plan or POD, Construction Plan, and

Mitigation Plan) and Engineering Drawings of the Easement Area (including final construction plans

specific to NFS lands)

• Easement Appendix B: List and Location of Access Roads and Trails

• Easement Appendix C: Operating Plan

• Easement Appendix D: List and Location of Ancillary Structures Other Than Roads, Towers, Poles and

Lines

My decision to issue this Easement does not authorize the Applicant to commence construction of any B2H

Project facilities or proceed with other ground-disturbing activities connected with the B2H Project on the

WWNF. Upon issuance of the Easement, however, the Applicant may conduct the required geotechnical work

necessary to complete the engineering design of the Project. Once the Applicant has fulfilled the relevant

Easement terms and completed Appendix A as summarized below to the satisfaction of the agency, the USFS will

provide a letter to the Applicant authorizing them to begin construction of transmission facilities. The Applicant

must complete Appendix B (List and Location of Access Roads and Trails), Appendix C (Operating Plan) and

Appendix D (List and Location of Ancillary Structures Other Than Roads, Towers, Poles and Lines) prior to

operating and maintaining the Project.

A. Easement Terms and Conditions and Easement Appendices Requirements

I. General Easement Terms Section I.F. – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Other Legal

Requirements

A. Oregon Energy Facility Citing Commission certificate is completed and provided to the USFS.

B. Other requirements identified in the agency-approved POD for construction, or otherwise stipulated by

the USFS, are incorporated into final construction plans or otherwise appended to the Easement.

II. Easement Appendix A

A. Final Plan(s) of Development

Section II.B of the Easement requires the Applicant to provide a POD for construction subject to USFS

review and approval. The USFS-approved POD for construction will be attached as Appendix A and

made a part of the Easement.

The purpose of the POD(s) is to detail how the Applicant will layout, construct, operate and maintain

Project transmission facilities on NFS lands as well as mitigate for Project impacts on NFS lands and

resources.

The Applicant submitted a draft POD for purposes of the NEPA analysis and updated it in June 2017

based on information and data carried forward from the Final EIS that the USFS reviewed. Based on this


11

review, the USFS identified that the Applicant must complete at a minimum, the following steps and

incorporate the required information into the construction POD, which must be approved by the USFS

and incorporated into Appendix A of the Easement prior to USFS authorization to begin construction of

transmission facilities.

1. Complete the resource surveys (e.g., for biological, cultural, and paleontological resources) and

submit them to the USFS for review and approval.

2. Submit final design and engineering plans to the USFS for review and approval.

3. Upon USFS approval of the resource surveys and design and engineering plans, revise the draft

POD accordingly. The revised POD must address the requirements described in Appendix A5 of

the draft POD, which are summarized below.

a. Update all the information and protection, mitigation and enhancement measures to reflect

the final design and engineering of the Selected Alternative, including:

i. design features for environmental and resource protection, as described in Chapter 2 of

the Final EIS (refer to Table 2-7) as they relate to NFS lands;

ii. selective mitigation features related to NFS lands described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS

(refer to Table 2-13);

iii. WWNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and standard

operating procedures applicable to transmission line construction, operation and

maintenance as described in the Final EIS;

iv. measures to avoid, minimize, rectify or compensate for impacts on NFS lands and

resources, including (a) monitoring described in Final EIS Chapter 3 (Table 2-13), and

(b) actions identified in Final EIS Appendix C (Mitigation Framework) and development

of Environmental Protection and Mitigation Plans to detail how the Applicant will avoid,

minimize, rectify, and compensate for Project impacts on NFS lands identified by the

USFS. Environmental Protection and Mitigation Plans are subject to USFS review and

approval.

b. Include all required measures identified in the following documents:

i. The Programmatic Agreement for compliance with the National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) (refer to Appendix C of this ROD) signed on February 7, 2017. The

Programmatic Agreement is incorporated into this ROD.

ii. The Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (dated February 28, 2017); the letter of concurrence

issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (dated January 18, 2017); and the

Biological Assessments (BA) that the agencies submitted to NOAA Fisheries and

USFWS (dated November 16, 2016, and December 15, 2016, respectively). The species-

specific conservation measures in these documents will be included in a Biological

Resource Conservation Plan, which will be part of the final POD.

4. The USFS and other agencies will review and comment on the revised POD for construction. The

final agency-approved POD for construction must be consistent with the Selected Alternative, as

analyzed in the Final EIS.


12

If any refinements from the draft POD to final POD for construction cause a substantial change to

the B2H Project or to the potential impacts as analyzed in the Final EIS, those refinements may

be subject to additional NEPA analysis. When the Applicant has addressed comments to the

satisfaction of the USFS and other agencies, the USFS authorized official may approve the final

POD for construction and continue to work with the Applicant to fulfill any remaining

requirements of the Easement.

The USFS authorizing official will review any such proposal and may require updated resource

surveys. Additional NEPA review may be required if the USFS determines the change(s) may be

outside the scope and range of the effects considered in the original analysis (following Forest

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 §18.1). Proposed changes to the agency-approved POD for

construction, or to any terms and conditions outlined in the Easement, must be approved by the

authorized officer. Procedures for requesting variance to the requirements of the agency-approved

POD for construction are spelled out in the Environmental Compliance Management Plan in

Appendix A5 of the draft POD prepared for the NEPA analysis, which will be carried forward to

the construction POD. The USFS will review any proposed changes to the agency-approved POD

for construction or to any terms and conditions outlined in the Easement and determine if NEPA

is required. Upon completion of any required NEPA, the USFS will amend the construction POD.

B. Final Construction Plans

The Applicant will provide to the USFS detailed final Project construction plans specific to construction

on the WWNF (as required in the Easement Section II. B) All WWNF specific construction plans are

subject to USFS authorized officer review and approval prior to implementation.

C. Heritage Programmatic Agreement

The Applicant will satisfy the requirements set forth in the Programmatic Agreement developed in

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, including posting a financial security (i.e., cultural bond, such

as a surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, etc.) with the BLM in an amount sufficient to cover all post-

fieldwork costs associated with implementing the Historic Properties Management Plans (HPMP) or other

mitigation activities and to be required by the Applicant in its contracts for services in support of the

Programmatic Agreement and for reclamation requirements and activities.

D. The Applicant fulfills all of the other requirements of the Easement.

I. Easement Appendix B Trails and Roads

The Applicant will provide a description of all private roads constructed by the Applicant on NFS lands

necessary for ingress and egress from the right-of-way (as required in Easement Section II. B and

attached as Easement Appendix B).

The Applicant shall obtain road use permits from the USFS for NFS roads prior to use.

II. Easement Appendix C Operating Plan

The operating plan provided by the Applicant will cover all operations authorized by the Easement within

the easement area. It will outline steps Idaho Power Company will take to protect public health and safety

and the environment and will include sufficient detail and standards to enable the USFS to monitor the

operations for compliance with the terms and conditions of this Easement. At a minimum, the operating

plan shall address access to and operation and maintenance of the transmission facilities, including dates

for season of operation; activities and procedures to prevent and control the spread of invasive species; a


13

vegetation management plan; any plan for pesticide use (pursuant to restrictions in the SUA); and

restrictions on use, such as fire restrictions, established by the USFS.

The Operating Plan shall be reviewed and updated as necessary by Idaho Power Company and is subject

to review and approval by the USFS authorized officer at least every 5 years.

III. Easement Appendix D List and Location of Ancillary Structures Other Than Roads, Towers, Poles

and Lines.

The Applicant has not proposed ancillary structures to be constructed on NFS lands.

Other Requirements

After final design and engineering on NFS lands, a final USFS-approved POD for construction will be required to

incorporate all of the mitigation measures required by this ROD, including those identified in the draft POD. The

USFS authorized officer may require the grantee to furnish a surety bond or other security for any of the

obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the Easement or any applicable law, regulation, or order

(following Easement Section IV. K).

Additionally, as the lead federal agency for implementing NEPA, the BLM will require the Applicant to post a

financial security (such as a surety bond, letter of credit, etc.) with the BLM in an amount sufficient to cover all

post-fieldwork costs associated with implementing the HPMP (i.e., cultural bond), or other mitigation activities,

to be required by the Applicant when they contract for services in support of the B2H Project’s Programmatic

Agreement for reclamation requirements and activities. The Programmatic Agreement is a legally binding

document that identifies the terms and conditions agree on by the Applicant to fulfill the lead agency’s

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in accordance with 36 CFR §800.16(t).

Through cost recovery for monitoring, the Applicant will provide for an environmental compliance inspection

contractor (CIC). The CIC will be approved by the BLM, as lead federal agency, and the USFS to represent the

BLM and USFS during the construction and reclamation phases of the Project. The CIC will report directly to

each federal agency’s project manager. The primary role and responsibility of the CIC is to ensure the Applicant’s

compliance with all terms, conditions, and stipulations of the Easement; the agency-approved final POD for

construction; and other permits, approvals, and regulatory requirements as described in Section 1.10 of the Final

EIS and committed to by the Applicant in Section 1.5 of the draft POD prepared for purposes of the NEPA

analysis. In addition, the CIC will follow the Environmental Compliance Management Plan, included as

Appendix A5 of the draft POD.

After construction, the Applicant will also be responsible for monitoring the reclamation of the transmission line,

access roads not needed for operation and maintenance and ancillary facilities. Reclamation requirements are

described in Appendix C1 of the draft POD (Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Framework Plan), and

Appendix B2 of the draft POD (Noxious Weed Management Plan).

Forest Plan Amendment

The need for Forest Plan amendment is described in detail in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.3, of the Final EIS, which

includes the environmental analysis relating to proposed amendments as well as an evaluation of non-significance

of the amendments required by the USFS planning rules applicable to this decision.

In accordance with NFMA, instruments for the use and occupancy of NFS lands, including an Easement for the

B2H Project, must be consistent with the approved USFS Forest Plan, in this case the WWNF Forest Plan as

amended. The USFS evaluated the Applicant’s Proposed Action and for the B2H Project and alternative routes

considered in detail in the Final EIS to determine if they are consistent with the approved WWNF Forest Plan. It

was determined that the proposed transmission line and associated facilities require the USFS to amend certain


14

direction in the WWNF Forest Plan for this Project. Therefore, through this decision, the USFS is approving

issuance of an SUA (specifically, an Easement for the B2H Project and amending the WWNF Forest Plan at site-

specific locations for the purposes of implementing the Project). The Forest Plan amendment addresses direction

for visual resources, late and old structure (LOS) stands, and anadromous fish and their habitat. It is described in

Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, which also includes the environmental analysis relating to the proposed direction

changes as well as an evaluation of non-significance of the amendment as required by the USFS 1982 planning

rule and is summarized below.

I have decided to amend the following three components of the 1990 WWNF Forest Plan and subsequent

amendments to make them consistent with the Selected Alternative: (1) visual quality standards for Management

Area 17; (2) direction to protect old forest habitat in the Eastside Screens; and (3) direction to protect anadromous

fish and their habitat in the Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH). Amendment of these components is

required because compliance with at least some aspects of this direction cannot be guaranteed with the avoidances

or minimizations described and analyzed in the Final EIS and presented in the draft POD

This is a site-specific amendment for purposes of constructing and maintaining the B2H Project, applying only to

the B2H Project activities for the life of the B2H Project.

I have elected to use 1982 planning procedures for evaluating and approving this amendment. Under the agency’s

2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR §219) as responsible official I may complete and approve the plan amendment for

the B2H Project in conformance with the provisions of the prior planning regulation, including the transition

provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule, which allow use of the 1982 planning procedures (§219.17).

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs)

Although the route for the Selected Alternative lies within a land allocation established in the WWNF Forest Plan

for the purpose of transport of gas, oil, or electricity, VQOs may not be met in some areas when the Project is

implemented. The WWNF Forest Plan will be amended to make the plan’s objectives for visual resource

management consistent with the Selected Alternative on NFS lands.

For purposes of constructing and maintaining the B2H Project, approximately 6,280 acres of VQO polygons

intersected by the 250-foot-wide right-of-way of in Segments 1 and 2 are reassigned from their current

classification as Retention and Partial Retention (allowing only management activities that are not visually

evident, or are visually subordinate to the characteristic visual landscape) to Maximum Modification. This allows

implementation of vegetation and land form altering management activities associated with the Project that

dominate the characteristic visual landscape in the foreground and middleground, but which have the same visual

characteristics as the surrounding area when seen as background. Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.3 – Visual

Resources, and Map 3-14a (page 3-2455), of the Final EIS for detailed analysis. Rationale for determining that

this change to the Forest Plan is not significant under NFMA is presented later in this section.

Eastside Screens

In order to protect wildlife habitat associated with forests having LOS, as well as to protect old forest abundance,

the Forest Plan was amended in 1995 by Regional Forester Amendment #2, “Revised Interim Standards for

Timber Sales on Eastside Forests” (referred to as Eastside Screens). Eastside Screens provides specific direction

for timber sales under certain circumstances, addressing harvest in some stands with LOS and prohibiting harvest

of trees 21-inches diameter at breast height or greater. Implementation of the Selected Alternative will require the

removal and sale of timber, including trees in LOS stands and large-diameter trees. Thus, it is necessary to amend

the Forest Plan to address inconsistencies with Eastside Screens direction. Regional Forester Amendment #2 is

amended for the 250-foot-wide right-of-way on NFS lands in Segments 1 and 2. This area includes an estimated

209 acres of timber (refer to Table 3), including 20 acres of LOS. The amendment will also apply to areas affected

by the construction, upgrading, and maintenance of access roads that will be located within forest/woodland areas.


15

Rationale for determining that this change to the Forest Plan is not significant under NFMA is presented later in

this section.

Specific language in each of the following sections of Eastside Screens is amended as described:

Interim Ecosystem Standard direction is amended to allow sale of timber associated with the B2H Project to proceed

without characterizing patterns of stand structure and comparing to the historic range of variability (HRV), as required

by the Interim Ecosystem Standards. For purposes of amendment, it is assumed that guidance for Scenario A applies

to the B2H Project area. Conditions in the area are known to represent Scenario A based on HRV analyses performed

for previous projects located near the B2H project area:

Interim Wildlife Standard Scenario A – No Net Loss of LOS direction is amended to allow timber sale

activities associated with the B2H Project to occur within LOS stands such that a net loss of LOS may occur.

Interim Wildlife Standard Scenario A – Treatment outside of LOS – Maintain Large Trees is amended to

allow timber sale activities associated with the B2H Project to remove remnant late and old seral and/or

structural live trees with 21 inches diameter at breast height or greater.

Interim Wildlife Standards Scenario A – Treatment outside of LOS – Move Structure toward LOS and

Maintain Open, Park-Like Stand Conditions is amended to allow timber sale activities associated with the

B2H Project to manipulate vegetative structures in a manner that would not move it toward LOS conditions.

Vegetation management is not required to encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter,

open canopy structures.

Interim Wildlife Standards Scenario A – Maintain Connectivity and Reduce Fragmentation of LOS is

amended to allow timber sale activities associated with construction and maintenance of the B2H Project to

result in a reduction from the current level of connectivity between LOS stands and between all Forest Plan-

designated old-growth habitats and to increase fragmentation of LOS stands from current levels.

Interim Wildlife Standards Scenario A – Specific Prescriptions for Snags, Green Tree Replacements, and

Down Logs is amended so that timber sale activities associated with construction of the B2H Project and

maintenance of the B2H Project are not required to adhere to the specific wildlife prescriptions for snags,

green tree replacements, and down logs.

Interim Wildlife Standards Scenario A – Goshawks is amended to allow timber sale activities associated with

construction and maintenance of the B2H Project to occur within nesting habitat associated with historical

nests, within the 30 acres of the most suitable habitat surrounding all active and historic nest trees, and within

Post Fledging Family Areas without retaining LOS stands or enhancing younger stands towards LOS.

Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.3 - Eastside Screens and Map 3-15a (page 3-2479), of the Final EIS for detailed

analysis.

PACFISH

In 1995, Regional Forester Amendment #3 (“Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California,” referred to as PACFISH)

added direction via amendment to the Forest Plan, providing a strategy for management of anadromous fish-

producing watersheds on NFS lands. PACFISH is to be applied to proposed or new projects and activities to

mitigate their effects on anadromous fish and their habitat. These measures include establishment of riparian

management objectives (RMO) in streams with anadromous fish, delineation of riparian habitat conservation

areas (RHCA) for four categories of streams, and application of project-specific standards and guidelines for

various management activities.


16

PACFISH direction is amended for the 250-foot-wide right-of-way within RHCAs crossed by the Selected

Alternative on NFS lands in Segments 1 and 2 (refer to Table 4). The Amendment also applies to the construction,

upgrading, and maintenance of access roads located within RHCAs. Within the right-of-way, the changes to

PACFISH direction will apply to approximately 28.7 acres of RHCA associated with Category 4 streams

(seasonally flowing, intermittent streams). Rationale for determining that this change to the Forest Plan is not

significant under NFMA is presented later in this section.

Specific PACFISH direction is amended as follows:

Timber Management Standards and Guidelines Standard TM-1 is amended to allow timber harvest in

RHCAs. Felling of trees in RHCAs, and in some cases its removal, associated with the B2H Project is

necessary within the 250-foot-wide right-of-way to provide access needed for the B2H Project.

Lands Standards and Guidelines, Standard LH-3 is amended to allow issuance of an SUA for the B2H

Project, when some activities may retard or prevent attainment of some RMOs and may not fully avoid

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish.

Riparian Management Objectives, particularly those for water temperature, and the requirement that RHCAs

be managed so that activities do not retard attainment of RMOs, are amended to allow construction and

maintenance of the B2H Project.

Refer to Final EIS Section 3.4.2.3, “PACFISH/INFISH”, and Map 3-16a (Final EIS page 3-2495).

Determination that Amendment is Not Significant Under NFMA

Under the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Part 219–Planning) the responsible official may complete and approve

the plan revision in conformance with the provisions of the prior planning regulation, including the transition

provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule (36 CFR Part 219, published at 36 CFR Parts 200 to 299, revised as of

July 1, 2010). The transition provisions allow the use of the 1982 planning procedures (see CFR Parts 200 to 299,

revised as of July 1, 2000). See the following hyperlink for the 1982 planning procedures:

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html.

While the Draft EIS for the B2H Project indicated the USFS was considering using the 2012 planning rule

procedures, I have elected to use the 1982 procedures for the proposed forest plan amendment as allowed under

transition language in the 2012 planning rule (36 CFR §219.17).

Because I have opted to use the plan amendment procedures of the 1982 planning regulations, as allowed under

the prior planning regulations as provided for by 36 CFR §219, I must make a determination of the amendment

being significant or not significant. I have reviewed the Forest Service amendment proposed in the B2H Final EIS

for significance under the NFMA implementing regulation following the 1982 procedures (Final EIS Section

3.4.2.3). The USFS Land and Resource Management Planning Manual (USFS Manual 1920, Section 1926 – Land

Management Planning Using Planning Regulations in Effect Before November 9, 2000) lists the changes to the

land management plan that are non-significant, which can result from the following (Forest Service Manual

[FSM] 1926.51):

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and

resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site

analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple use goals and objectives

for long-term land and resource management.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html


17

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the management

prescription.

Conversely, significant changes to the land management plan may be caused by circumstances indicated in the

following examples (FSM 1926.52):

• Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods

and service originally projected.

• Changes that may have an important effect on the entire lands management plan or affected land and

resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period.

I have reviewed the evaluation of effects of amending the WWNF Forest Plan for the Selected Alternative (refer

to Final EIS at Section 3.4.2.3) and determined that the needed changes to Forest Plan direction are non-

significant, based on consideration of guidance at FSM 1962.52 and 1962.53. The non-significant amendment I

am approving is specific to the activities associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the B2H

Project and will not apply to future projects. The changed direction impacts a relatively small portion of the

WWNF; the context and intensity of the changes are limited due to the small number of acres affected when

compared to the WWNF as a whole. Any resultant change in the level of multiple-use goods and services as

projected for the Forest Plan would be minor. Changes to standards and guidelines are limited in context and

intensity and considered to be minor.

The effects of changes to Forest Plan direction for visual resources would be limited to the changed VQO for

polygons intersected by the 250-foot-wide-right-of-way and access roads, and only for purposes of implementing

the B2H Project. The proposed changes to VQOs in Management Area 17 are consistent with the purposes of this

allocation (i.e., for the transport of gas, oil, or electricity). The corridor in which the B2H Project is located was

designated in the 1990 Forest Plan to “…facilitate authorization of future utility rights-of-way.” (Forest Plan page

4-93 and 4-95.)

Changes to Eastside Screens direction would be limited to acres within the 250-foot-wide-right-of-way and to

access roads, and are not anticipated to significantly alter the multiple-use goals for long-term land and resource

management given the limited magnitude of change. For example, the potential reduction of timber production

resulting from the estimated loss of production from forested stands within the right-of-way (an estimated 209

acres) compared to the projected production resulting from approximately 1.38 million forested acres on the

WWNF would not represent a significant difference from the levels of timber production projected in the Forest

Plan.

Changes to PACFISH direction would apply to less than 35 acres of RHCA within the right-of-way. With the

application of project design features and selective mitigation measures it is anticipated that the actual acres of

RHCA affected, and the magnitude of those impacts, would be reduced and therefore would not significantly alter

the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.

In summary, I have determined that the amendment I am approving authorizes changes to the WWNF Forest Plan

that are non-significant following guidance in the 1982 planning rule. The amendment is project-specific and the

authorized changes apply only to the activities associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the

B2H Project. Therefore, the context and intensity of the changes are limited and will not significantly alter the

long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and service originally projected. The changes will not

affect the entire lands management plan and will not affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the

planning area during the planning period.


18

Rationale for the Decision I selected the Agency Preferred route on NFS lands managed by the WWNF because my review of the

environmental analysis indicates that construction, operation, and maintenance of the B2H Project along this route

will best achieve the B2H Project’s purpose while also avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for impacts on

sensitive resources along the route on NFS lands. Implementation of the Project using the selected route can be

achieved without causing conflicts with WWNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines, with the exceptions

approved by a non-significant project-specific amendment described above.

My consideration of key management and resources issues are addressed in greater detail below.

Response to USFS Purpose and Need

This decision meets the USFS purpose of responding to Idaho Power Company’s request to construct, operate,

and maintain a transmission line on federal lands. The Selected Alternative responds to the policy and direction in

the Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act and FLPMA to develop and administer renewable resources on NFS

lands for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services. The decision also supports the need for

this action to fulfill the USFS responsibility under agency SUA regulations in 36 CFR §251 Subpart B – Land

uses and its implementing policies in USFS manuals and handbooks at FSM 2700 and FSH 2709.11, as well as

related environmental policy and planning direction in FSM 1900 Chapters 1920 (January 31, 2006) and 1950,

and FSH 1909.15.

As the Responsible Official, I have discretionary authority to authorize use (i.e., SUA) of land administered by the

WWNF, taking into consideration impacts on natural and cultural resources (including historical resources). I

believe that issuing of an SUA (Easement) for the B2H Project, as described for the Selected Alternative, will

meet both the agency’s purpose and need and the Applicant’s interests and objectives while endeavoring “to

minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the

environment” through avoidance or mitigation (43 U.S.C. §1765(a)).

Additionally, this decision supports the objectives of the signatories to the 2009 MOU between the Department of

Energy and other federal agencies to accommodate additional electrical generation capacity, improve reliability,

and reduce congestion by expanding and modernizing the transmission grid.

Meeting the Applicant’s Interests and Objectives

The Selected Alternative will result in construction of electric transmission facilities to meet Idaho Power

Company’s stated interests and objectives for the B2H Project to relieve existing transmission constraints between

the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West regions, increase opportunities for the exchange of energy between

the regions; ensure sufficient capacity for Idaho Power Company to meet its forecasted customer demand

requirements; and, improve system reliability as demands on the transmission system continue to grow.

Consideration of the Issues Relevant to USFS’s Decision

Several planning issues are critical to my decision for the Selected Alternative. These issues included potential

impacts on cultural and historic resources, including the Oregon NHT, visual resources, upland vegetation and

wildlife habitat (especially values associated with old-growth habitat), and habitat for anadromous fish including

riparian habitat. Considerations related to each of these resources are addressed below.

Environmental documents that were considered in making this decision included the Draft and Final EIS, the BAs

(prepared for NOAA Fisheries and USFWS), and the BO from NOAA Fisheries and letter of concurrence from

USFWS, as well as documents specific to NFS lands. Resources considered in the Final EIS include climate and

air resources; geological, mineral, and paleontological resources; soils; water; vegetation, including special status


19

plant species; wildlife, including special status wildlife species and migratory birds; aquatic resources; cultural

resources and American Indian concerns; visual resources; recreation; land use; special designations;

transportation; social and economic resources; public health and safety; national historic trails; and wildland fire.

This analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS.

The range of issues summarized and analyzed in the Final EIS was derived from the scoping process and public

involvement (described in detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the Final EIS). These issues were used to identify,

refine, and evaluate alternative routes, and to direct the level of detail needed for each of the environmental

resource studies completed for the EIS. A complete list of the issues identified and where each issue is addressed

in the EIS is presented in Section 1.6.3 of the Final EIS.

In addition to helping inform my selection of the Agency-Preferred Alternative on NFS lands managed by the

WWNF in the Final EIS, and the Selected Alternative in this ROD, evaluation of resource impacts was used to

identify all practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm to resources. This ROD requires the

adoption and implementation of these measures as part of the Selected Alternative. The activities described in the

Final EIS (for the Agency Preferred Alternative on NFS lands) and in the draft POD will be refined during

detailed design and engineering and will be reflected in a final POD for construction.

Cultural and Historic Resources

Consistent with the approved Programmatic Agreement for the B2H Project (Appendix C of this ROD), Class III

cultural resources inventory surveys (intensive pedestrian surveys) will be conducted on federal lands and

accessible non-federal lands in the 500-foot-wide study corridor for the Selected Route prior to authorization to

begin construction. The results will be documented in Class III Technical Reports and provided to the BLM and

USFS for review and acceptance.

Prior to construction, all cultural resources identified in the survey will be evaluated for eligibility for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) based on criteria set forth in 36 CFR §60.4. The final Class III

technical reports will be used by the BLM and USFS, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office

(SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), to identify NRHP-eligible properties and make

determinations of eligibility and findings of effect on those properties and to develop HPMPs (one for each state).

The HPMPs will address avoidance of effects of the B2H Project on identified historic properties. Idaho Power

Company will treat eligible cultural resource sites in accordance with the direction in the HPMPs. The Applicant

will implement the HPMPs in consultation with the USFS, BLM, SHPOs, THPOs, other involved agencies, and

consulting parties (including other Tribes). Requirements of the HPMP will be incorporated into the final POD for

construction and reflected as conditions to the Easement.

Oregon National Historic Trail

On NFS lands, the most well-preserved features associated with the Oregon NHT are located north of I-84. The

route for the Selected Alternative remains south of I-84 and avoids direct impacts on particular features in this

area, including those within the WWNF’s Blue Mountains Crossing Interpretive Park. The Selected Alternative

does not cross the congressional alignment for the NHT, which lies north of the interstate, thus avoiding direct

impacts on the NHT itself. Additionally, there are no prominent points within the Blue Mountains Crossing

Interpretive Park from which the transmission line and towers would be seen. Therefore, it is anticipated that the

Selected Alternative would not impact the NHT or the park’s viewshed.

Visual Resources

The Selected Alternative will affect visual resources on NFS lands. While selection of a route south of I-84 will

result in fewer effects on visual resources compared to other route variations, visual impacts of the B2H Project

will result from this decision. The Final EIS identifies several design features of the B2H Project for


20

environmental protection and selective mitigation measures for reducing the extent and magnitude of visual

effects of the B2H Project, including the selection of tower types and structure finish, tower placement, feathering

the vegetation along the right-of-way borders, and revegetation (Refer to Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, Tables 2-7

and 2-13). For example, the use of lattice towers in Segment 1, where it crosses NFS Road 2100 (designated as a

Sensitive route in the Forest Plan) and used by the public to access recreation, wildlife viewing, hunting, and

firewood gathering could affect the public’s attitude and perception of this favored location. To minimize

potential impacts, the use of H-frame towers and the strategic placement within the trees rather than in the

meadow will screen the lower portion of the towers. Additionally, in Segment 2, lattice towers may not

correspond with the existing shorter 230-kV towers and could impact the public’s view from I-84 and other

locations. Matching of spans may best be facilitated using modified (e.g., shorter) tower types. The specific

mitigation measures for reducing visual impacts will be determined by the USFS and the Applicant based on final

design and engineering and will be reflected as conditions to the Easement and documented in the final POD for

construction.

The Selected Alternative will result in fewer impacts on scenic quality on NFS lands than other alternatives and

variations in both Segments 1 and 2. In Segment 1, the route remains south of I-84, diverging from the existing

230-kV transmission line (BPA line) starting south of Kamela to avoid crossing I-84 twice. This route minimizes

Project impacts on views for travelers using I-84 as well as from sensitive viewing platforms (i.e., selected

viewpoints that are important observation points near a project) from the I-84 corridor. In Segment 2, the Selected

Alternative will parallel an existing 230 kV transmission line limiting impacts that would result from alternative

placement identified in the Final EIS

Depending on the visual effects anticipated after final design and engineering, compensatory mitigation may be

required. Potential compensatory mitigation projects may include interpretive signs or kiosks managing motorized

access with gates and reducing user-created access. Compensatory mitigation requirements for visual resources

will be a condition to the Easement and documented in the final POD for construction.

Anadromous Fish (including fish habitat and riparian resources)

The Selected Alternative crosses riparian areas on NFS lands four times, all of which are associated with

intermittently flowing streams. The route crosses Dry Creek on state-owned land in Railroad Canyon, which

supports Snake River Basin Summer Steelhead (an Endangered Species Act [ESA]-listed threatened species), and

includes Designated Critical Habitat for the species. The stream channel contains a partial barrier for upstream

passage of fish near its confluence with California Gulch, reducing the potential for indirect effects on

anadromous fish populations and their habitat on NFS land located above and below the Dry Creek crossing.

I believe that implementation of the Selected Alternative will result in the least impact on anadromous fish and

riparian habitat, relative to other route variations analyzed in Segments 1 and 2. The Selected Alternative avoids

crossing of California Gulch (Variation S1-B2), which contains steelhead and includes habitat designated as

critical under the ESA, as discussed below (see “Other Alternatives”). Several design features of the B2H Project

for environmental protection, as well as selective mitigation measures, are aimed at avoiding or minimizing B2H

Project effects on riparian vegetation and habitat for anadromous fish (refer to Table 2-7 and 2-13 of the Final

EIS). Selective mitigation measures that may be applied to reduce impacts include those that will minimize soil

disturbance, especially at stream crossings. Residual impacts from the B2H project on riparian areas would

include permanent habitat loss in conifer and deciduous forest types while residual impacts on fish may result

from sediment contributions to streams. The requirements of compensatory mitigation for riparian resources and

anadromous fish will be reflected as conditions to the Easement and documented in the final POD for

construction. Possible compensatory mitigations would include placement use of trees removed during clearing

for construction in riparian areas to provide sources of large woody debris.


21

Upland Vegetation Resources and Associated Values (including old-growth habitat, old-growth dependent species)

Implementation of the Selected Alternative will result in removal of vegetation within the 250-foot-wide right-of-

way as well as from areas in and along access roads. The potential for upland vegetation removal among the

various alternatives and variations presented in the Final EIS in Segments 1 and 2 is similar. Loss of a small

amount of LOS, and to a lesser degree the loss of large trees outside of LOS, would have some adverse effects on

wildlife species that are dependent on old-growth stands and snag habitat. However, analysis indicates that the

amount of source habitat available to three representative old-growth dependent wildlife species (i.e., American

marten, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker) will continue to exceed historical amounts available within

affected watersheds. Additionally, snag levels adjacent to the Project will continue to support populations of

primary cavity excavators.

LOS habitat affected by the Selected Alternative is dry old forest multi-stratum, a structure stage that is

adequately represented within watershed affected by the B2H Project. Since the majority of the selected route is

situated either between I-84 and Highway 30, or between I-84 and the existing BPA transmission line, the LOS

habitat that will be affected by the B2H Project is not well-connected to other patches of LOS (i.e., it is isolated

from other LOS stands on both sides). Therefore, the effects on wildlife dependent on LOS stands will be minimal

in the context of the current LOS conditions in the watershed. The B2H Project will retain areas in early seral

condition that may be lacking in some areas, benefitting some species such as pollinators. Revegetation to benefit

pollinator species has been identified in the Final EIS as a mitigation need.

Design features and selective mitigation measures that will reduce disturbance and limit tree and other vegetation

removal are identified in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS (refer to Tables 2-7 and 2-13 of the Final EIS). These include

limiting widening of existing roads in riparian areas, use of existing access, tower placement to avoid sensitive

features, and maximizing transmission line spans at stream crossings.

Permanent habitat loss of forest vegetation warrants compensatory mitigation. Categories of forested habitat

compensatory mitigation activities may include the following actions: (1) acquisition of similar quality forested

habitat, with long-term management funding for restoration and enhancement and (2) funding for enhancement

and associated management of forested habitats on USFS lands to accelerate development of old-growth forest in

the Blue Mountains area. An example of an activity to enhance old-growth forest would be small diameter

thinning. Details regarding compensatory mitigation for forest vegetation and a Forest Vegetation Plan will be

reflected as conditions of the Easement and documented in the final POD for construction.

I believe that the benefits of the reduced amount of riparian vegetation potentially affected by the Selected

Alternative offsets the slightly higher amount of forested habitat affected (including LOS).

Decision Rationale Summary

My decision will enable the Applicant to meet their stated interests and objectives for the B2H Project, as well as

my agency’s stated purpose and need. Implementation of the B2H Project will allow for improved transmission of

power between the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain regions. The Selected Alternative enables realization of

the Project benefits while incorporating actions to either (1) adequately avoid or minimize impacts on key

sensitive resources on NFS lands, or (2) provide compensatory mitigation for any remaining unavoidable effects

for the resources discussed in this section, consistent with agency responsibilities under FLPMA. The B2H

Project will comply with pertinent laws for environmental protection, including the ESA, Clean Water Act

(CWA), and Clean Air Act, as well as those protecting cultural and historic resources including NHPA.

The specific resources I focused on while making my decision are cultural and historic resources, the Oregon

NHT, visual resources, anadromous fish (as well as their habitat and associated riparian habitats), and upland

vegetation (including old growth, old-growth habitat, and old-growth dependent species). Concern surrounding


22

potential impacts on these resources was raised by the public, and the potential for project impacts on these same

resources was identified and analyzed during the NEPA process and documented in the Final EIS.

The selected route maximizes use of an existing designated utility corridor by locating the transmission line and

right-of-way within lands allocated to Management Area 17, which was identified in the WWNF Forest Plan for

transport of oil, gas and electricity. A portion of the route (in Segment 2, Variation S2-A2), also parallels an

existing linear utility right-of-way. I prefer to locate the B2H Project close to the existing 230-kV transmission

line to the extent practicable because it minimizes visual impacts by reducing vegetation removal and the overall

width of the cleared right-of-way), and minimizes surface disturbance by using the existing service roads

associated with the existing line where feasible.

Furthermore, I have selected the Segment 1 route variation that does not parallel the existing transmission line

(Variation S1-B1), as I believe that the benefits of colocation in this section would be offset by adverse impacts

on sensitive resources, including anadromous fish and visuals that would result from implementing other routes

considered on the WWNF. The selected route avoids crossing of California Gulch, an important fish-bearing

stream, thus minimizing potential impacts on anadromous fish and their habitat, which are protected under the

ESA. The selected route also results in the least impacts on visual resources as viewed from I-84 and the USFS’s

Blue Mountain Crossing Interpretive Park, and minimizes impacts on the Oregon NHT on NFS lands.

Design features, selective mitigation measures and best management practices described in Chapter 2 of the Final

EIS will avoid or minimize project effects on these resources, as supported by the analysis presented in Chapter 3.

When combined with environmental protection practices, mitigations measures and monitoring outlined in the

draft POD, and application of regulatory requirements resulting from consultation (including those to protect

anadromous fish and cultural and historical resources), impacts on these resources will be further reduced.

Additionally, as described previously in this section, the Applicant will fund compensatory mitigation activities to

offset residual impacts of the B2H Project on resources on NFS lands.

Of the alternative routes considered in the Final EIS that cross NFS lands, I believe the selected route best

addresses issues related to regulation and policy and best complies with direction in the WWNF Forest Plan.

While I must approve project-specific amendments of certain Forest Plan direction for management of visual, old-

growth, and riparian resources to facilitate construction and maintenance of the B2H Project, implementation of

the Selected Alternative is expected to result in only minor impacts on these resources. Changes to VQOs are

consistent with designated use of Management Area 17 for power transmission. Compensatory mitigation will

offset loss of old-growth and riparian habitat.

I believe my decision represents an acceptable balance of uses on NFS lands, appropriate with the area’s

allocation to use for energy transmission.

Alternatives The Final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative, the Applicant’s Proposed Route, variations to the Applicant’s

Proposed Route that include colocation (i.e., paralleling existing transmission lines by less than 250 feet), and

alternative routes. These are described in Chapter 2 and displayed on Maps 2-2a (northern area) and Map 2-2b

(southern area) of the Final EIS.

Other Alternatives Considered on NFS Lands

The Final EIS addresses proposed routes and local route variations on NFS lands in Segments 1 (Morrow-

Umatilla), 2 (Blue Mountains), and 3 (Baker Valley) of the Project. No NFS lands are crossed by any alternatives

(or their variations) in other segments of the Project.


23

The alternative routes analyzed for the Final EIS include the alternative routes analyzed in the Draft EIS and the

route variations resulting (1) from colocating the alignment of the proposed transmission line closer to existing

transmission lines and (2) from recommendations received in comments on the Draft EIS. The BLM determined

that these route variations were minor, non-substantial changes because they were all within the B2H Project area

analyzed in the Draft EIS and were within the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed. Based on this

determination, the BLM, as Lead Agency, concluded that the addition of these minor route variations did not

require supplementation of the Draft EIS pursuant to 40 CFR §1502.9(c)(1).

In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered the No Action Alternative, the Applicant’s Proposed Action

Alternative and its variations in Segments 1 and 2, and the Timber Canyon Alternative in Segment 3, as these

routes cross NFS lands.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative describes the reasonably foreseeable outcome that would result from denying the

Applicant’s request for an SUA to construct the proposed B2H Project. If no action is taken, the USFS would not

issue an Easement, and other potentially affected federal agencies would not issue applicable authorizations or

permits to cross federal lands, and the transmission line and ancillary facilities would not be constructed on

federal lands. Furthermore, the objectives of the signatories to the 2009 MOU between the Department of Energy

and other federal agencies to accommodate additional electrical generation capacity, improve reliability, and

reduce congestion by expanding and modernizing the transmission grid through the B2H Project would not be

met. The Applicant’s objectives for the B2H Project, which include providing additional capacity to connect the

Pacific Northwest region with the Intermountain region of southern Idaho to alleviate existing transmission

constraints between the two areas and to ensure sufficient capacity so that Idaho Power can meet present and

forecasted load requirements (Section 1.4 of the Final EIS) would not be met.

Applicant’s Proposed Action Alternative in Segment 1

Segment 1 begins at the planned Longhorn Substation in Morrow County and ends west of La Grande in Union

County on the WWNF. Alternative routes and local variations in Segment 1 are shown on Map 2-7a of the Final

EIS. In addition to the Selected Alternative route, one route variation (Variation S1-B2) crosses NFS lands in

Segment 1.

Applicant’s Proposed Action – Variation S1-B2

Variation S1-B2 separates from the Selected Alternative route, south of Kamela, to parallel the existing 230-kV

transmission line. The route would cross I-84 twice before rejoining the Segment 1 alternatives south of the

interstate. While Variation S1-B2 would have resulted in colocation with the existing 230-kV transmission line in

Segment 1, it was felt that the benefits from colocating were more than offset by concerns related to potential

visual impacts, to the Oregon NHT and the Blue Mountain Crossing Interpretive Park, and to fisheries resources.

Variation S1-B2 would have crossed I-84, resulting in unacceptable visual degradation from critical viewpoints

along the freeway corridor. The transmission line would also have crossed the Blue Mountain Crossing

Interpretive Park and its access road. With colocation, it was anticipated that the existing 125-foot-wide clearing

for the existing BPA line would be expanded to accommodate both lines. The resultant impacts on visual

resources would be high and would remain at a high level after application of selective mitigation measures.

Impacts on visual resources would not be compliant with the visual sensitivity level established for the Blue

Mountain Crossing Interpretive Park and the access road to the area (Forest Road No. 1843).

Variation S1-B2 crosses California Gulch and the associated stream that provides spawning and rearing habitat

for Snake River Basin summer steelhead, an ESA-listed species. The crossing of California Gulch would

potentially result in impacts on steelhead and/or their habitat. California Gulch provides generally good quality

habitat, and there are presently no barriers to fish in California Gulch. Colocation of the B2H Project in this


24

variation of the proposed action would result in an increased area of clearing of riparian vegetation where the

existing 230-kV line crosses and parallels California Gulch. Increased riparian vegetation removal would reduce

stream shade and result in higher water temperatures. Loss of streamside vegetation could also remove cover used

by fish as refuge during periods of low flow and to avoid predation. In addition, there are higher than desirable

road densities in the Pelican Creek subwatershed, which is crossed by Variation S1-B2. Adding any additional

roads in this subwatershed, either for temporary access for construction or permanent access, would potentially

affect habitat connectivity, increase erosion and sediment into waterways, and effect hydrologic connectivity that

could impact fish and fish habitat. Variation S1-B2 would also cross Dry Creek downstream of California Gulch.

Applicant’s Proposed Action Alternative in Segment 2

Segment 2 begins west of La Grande in Union County and ends east of North Powder in Union County. The

alternative routes and local route variations in Segment 2 are shown on Map 2-7b of the Final EIS. In addition to

the Selected Alternative, one route variation (Variation S2-A1), crosses NFS lands in Segment 2.

Applicant’s Proposed Action – Variation S2-A1

Variation S2-A1 is the Applicant’s Proposed Action across NFS lands in Segment 2. Variation S2-A1 is located

0.5 mile southeast of I-84, paralleling the interstate for 3 miles to an area west of Hilgard Junction State Park.

While this route would roughly parallel the route for the Selected Alternative, it would remain some distance from

the existing BPA line rather than being colocated with it. I did not select this alternative due to concerns for

wildlife and wildlife habitat. Variation S2-A2 is preferred instead, as it includes colocation with the existing

transmission line. Variation S2-A2 is expected to reduce the need for road construction given that access for the

existing BPA line would meet most known access needs for the proposed B2H transmission line on NFS lands.

This would result in fewer impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat along approximately one-half of the route-

miles crossing NFS lands. Additionally, Variation S2-A1 crosses lands that are forested and mostly undeveloped,

resulting in a geometrically cleared right-of-way and transmission line structures incongruent with the existing

setting.

Timber Canyon Alternative in Segment 3

Segment 3 begins at a point east of North Powder in Union County and ends at a point just south of Dixie in

Baker County. Only one alternative route, the Timber Canyon Alternative, crosses NFS lands in Segment 3 (refer

to Map 2-7c of the Final EIS).

Timber Canyon Alternative

The Timber Canyon Alternative was developed to avoid effects on greater sage-grouse priority habitat

management areas and Oregon NHT segments. The Timber Canyon Alternative does not parallel existing

transmission lines except at the southern end of the route near Weatherby.

The Timber Canyon Alternative would have crossed NFS lands for approximately 19.7 miles, intersecting four

different land allocations (management areas). The proposed activities would not be fully consistent with

direction for any of these management areas, requiring additional amendment of the Forest Plan to reallocate

lands appropriately. It also would require amendment of the same types of components of the Forest Plan as the

Selected Alternative. However, the area affected by the amendment would have been greater. Refer to Chapter 3,

Section 3.4.2.3, of the Final EIS. Implementation of the Timber Canyon Alternative would result in loss of an

estimated 73 acres more LOS than the Selected Alternative, resulting in additional impacts on old-growth

dependent species. The Timber Canyon alternative would require crossing of additional streams, resulting in

impacts on RHCAs, including an estimated 58 acres associated with fish-bearing perennial streams.


25

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Chapter 2 of the Final EIS (at Section 2.5.4) discussed alternatives to the proposed action that were considered but

eliminated from detailed analysis. These address alternative transmission technology options, alternatives to

transmission line construction, and certain alternative transmission line routes. Rationale for their elimination

from detailed analysis is included in the discussion of each alternative.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable action alternative route based on the analysis in the Final EIS is the route

exhibiting the least effects overall on the natural, human, and cultural environment. In addition, the

environmentally preferable action alternative has been designed to maximize the net public benefit. The

combinations of alternative routes and route variations that compose the environmentally preferable action

alternative on NFS lands are the same as the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, now the Selected

Alternative. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in Table S-3 of the Final EIS, and a

summary comparison can be found in Table 2-16 of the Final EIS.

Public Involvement As described in the background, the need for this action arose in March 2008. The Applicant submitted a proposal

to construct, operate, and maintain a 500- kV, overhead, single-circuit, alternating-current electric transmission

line and ancillary facilities. On September 12, 2008, the BLM and USFS jointly published a Notice of Intent to

prepare the B2H Project EIS (BLM and USFS 2008). In addition, the B2H Project appeared in the Schedule of

Proposed Actions for the USFS in 2008. The BLM, USFS, and Oregon Department of Energy hosted six public

scoping meetings in October 2008 to provide information to the public and agencies and to provide an opportunity

for meeting attendees to identify issues and concerns.

Following Applicant-initiated activities, the Applicant (Idaho Power Company 2010a) submitted a revised

application and preliminary POD to BLM, USFS, and Reclamation on June 21, 2010. On July 27, 2010, the BLM

and USFS jointly published in the Federal Register a revised Notice of Intent to prepare the B2H Project EIS

(BLM and USFS 2010). Due to the revised application, the BLM and USFS initiated an additional scoping period

that occurred from July 27 through September 27, 2010, with eight public scoping meetings conducted in Oregon

and Idaho during August 2010. The Revised Scoping Report, published in April 2011 (BLM 2011a), lists the dates

and locations of the public scoping meetings and the issues identified during the two scoping periods. The Revised

Scoping Report also incorporates the comments received during the Applicant-sponsored Community Advisory

Process, which was conducted to consider alternative routes to the initial proposed route and to identify a revised

routing location. This report is available online at http://www.boardmantohemingway.com/documents.aspx.

The BLM published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS and Land-use Plan (LUP) Amendments for public

review and comment in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014 (Volume 79, Issue 244, pages 73834-75836).

The EPA also published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS and LUP Amendments in the Federal Register

on the same day, which initiated a 90-day review and comment period.

During the 90-day review and comment period, the BLM conducted seven open-house meetings to provide the

public with an opportunity to view informational displays on the B2H Project, discuss the B2H Project with BLM

staff and other B2H Project representatives, and provide comments on the Draft EIS and LUP Amendments. The

open-house meetings were conducted from January 5 through 9 and January 12 and 13, 2015. The open-house

meetings were held in Boardman, Pendleton, La Grande, Baker City, Durkee, and Ontario in Oregon and Marsing

in Idaho, respectively. Representatives of USFS and other cooperating agencies participated in these open-house

meetings. A total of 307 people attended the open house meetings. The comment period ended March 19, 2015.

The BLM received 382 submittals containing comments from federal agencies, tribal governments, state and local

http://www.boardmantohemingway.com/documents.aspx


26

agencies, public and private organizations, and individuals. Using the comments from the public and other

agencies, the interdisciplinary team identified several issues regarding the effects of the proposed action. Main

issues of concern included the need to expand impact analysis for wildlife, agriculture, NHTs, land use, and

socioeconomics. In addition, commenters voiced concern regarding the alternatives considered and the

methodology used for identification of environmental consequences. To address these concerns, the USFS worked

closely with the BLM to create the alternative route variations described above and summarized in Table 2-16 of

the Final EIS.

This project first appeared on the WWNF Schedule of Proposed Actions in October of 2008 and has continued to

be published since then. The Schedule of Proposed Actions appears on the worldwide web, at

https://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110616.

Consultation

Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, calls for interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and

designated critical habitats. Pursuant to Section 7, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS, the

NOAA Fisheries (formerly, the National Marine Fisheries Service), or both on all projects that may affect

federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species (including plants, fish, and wildlife and their critical

habitats). In accordance with these regulations, the USFWS has participated in B2H Project-related discussions

and meetings even before the initiation of the EIS.

Preliminary coordination for the B2H Project began with a biological resources and Level 1 Team meeting held in

August 2008.

NOAA Fisheries was invited to B2H Project meetings beginning in July 2012 when it became clear that the

proposed B2H Project may affect species and their critical habitats under its jurisdiction.

The USFWS lists of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and designated critical habitats in

Oregon and Idaho counties where B2H Project activities may occur were periodically reviewed, and B2H Project

data have been updated, as appropriate.

The most recent review of these lists was completed in March 2016. Coordination between the BLM, USFS, other

cooperating agencies, USFWS and NOAA Fisheries continued throughout the development of the EIS and

included meetings, conference calls, letters, and other correspondence. Initial coordination was carried out by the

Biological Resource Work Group, and in July 2014, the BLM established the Biological Resources Task Group

(BRTG) composed of biologists from the BLM, USFS, Reclamation, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and state

wildlife agencies. The BRTG met via conference call once a month to discuss the status of the B2H Project and

key biological resource issues related to the B2H Project, as well as the approach to address these issues.

In early 2016, the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, BLM, USFS, Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

BPA (federal agencies with the authority and responsibility to perform certain actions associated with the B2H

Project) entered into a Consultation Agreement. The Agreement addresses interagency coordination for the

affirmative conservation and recovery of listed species under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. Section 7(a)(1) directs

all federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by “carrying out programs

for the conservation and recovery of listed species.” Pursuant to Section 7(a)(1), the Agreement clarifies agency

roles during consultation under Section 7(a)(2) for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed

Action on listed species, species proposed for listing, and their associated designated or proposed critical habitat.

In coordination with appropriate state natural resource management agencies that have trust authority for non-

https://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110616


27

listed species, the Agreement also speaks to interagency coordination for the conservation of, and assessment of

effects on, candidate species that may be affected by the B2H Project.

Two BAs were prepared to evaluate the effects of the selected transmission line route on species listed under the

ESA—one evaluating the effects on terrestrial and inland aquatic species was submitted to the USFWS, and one

evaluating the effects on anadromous fish species (those species that migrate inland from the ocean to spawn) was

submitted to NOAA Fisheries. Submittal of the BA to NOAA Fisheries initiated the formal Section 7 consultation

process. The BO issued by NOAA Fisheries (dated February 28, 2017) and the letter of concurrence issued by the

USFWS (dated January 18, 2017) have been incorporated into the ROD (Appendix D of this ROD). All

conservation measures for federally listed species identified in the USFWS Final BA (dated December 15, 2016)

and the NOAA Fisheries BO (dated February 28, 2017) will be incorporated into the final POD for construction

and will be a term and condition of any SUA issued.

Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. §306108) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of actions

on historic properties eligible for or listed in the NRHP. The ACHP’s Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800)

define how federal agencies meet their statutory responsibilities as required under the law. The Section 106

process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through

consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on

historic properties (36 CFR §800.1). These parties include the ACHP, SHPOs, Indian tribes, THPOs, state and

other federal agencies, and individuals or organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking due to

their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the effects of

undertakings on historic properties (36 CFR §800.2).

As the lead federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the BLM initiated Section 106

consultation with the following agencies, tribal governments, and organizations:

Federal

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)

Fish and Wildlife Service, Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge

Forest Service

National Park Service

- Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

- Lewis and Clark Trail Office

- National Historic Trails System Office

- National Trust for Historic Preservation

Tribal Governments

Burns Paiute Tribe

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe (including the Joseph Band of the Nez Perce)

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation


28

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation

Yakama Nation

State

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office

Oregon Department of Energy

Oregon Historic Trails Advisory Council

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

Washington State Historic Preservation Office

County

Baker County

Morrow County

Union County

Local

Baker City

Organizations

Halt Idaho Power

Ice Age Floods Institute

Ice Age Floods Institute, Columbia Gorge Chapter

Ice Age Floods Institute, Lake Lewis Chapter

Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, Headquarters and Washington and Oregon Chapters

Lewis and Clark Trust

Malheur County Historical Society

Oregon-California Trail Association Oregon and Idaho Chapters

Poison Creek Neighborhood Group

Parties to Section 106 consultation also include several members of the public who possessed a demonstrable

interest in historic properties located within the B2H Project area and have petitioned the BLM (Lead Agency) in

writing to participate in consultation.

After initiating Section 106 consultation, the BLM invited all consulting parties, including USFS, to attend a 1-

day meeting in La Grande, Oregon, to review the scope and status of the undertaking and apprise parties of the

agency’s ongoing efforts to identify historic properties that may be affected by the B2H Project. The meeting—

held on August 16, 2011, at Eastern Oregon University—involved representatives from USFS, other agencies,

contractors, and consulting parties and resulted in the formation of a consulting party workgroup to collaborate on

development of a Programmatic Agreement to provide for the phased identification, evaluation, and effects

assessment for historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR §800.14(b).

A Programmatic Agreement is a legally binding document that identifies the terms and conditions agreed on to

fulfill the lead federal agency’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, in accordance with 36 CFR

§800.14(b) and 36 CFR §800.16(t). A Programmatic Agreement documents an alternative process to the

procedures set forth in the regulations and can be employed when effects on historic properties are similar and

repetitive or are multistate or regional in scope or when effects cannot be fully determined before approval of an

undertaking.


29

Between September 17, 2011, and September 10, 2014, the consulting party workgroup met via webinar and

teleconference on 34 occasions to develop sections of the B2H Project Programmatic Agreement. The Draft

Programmatic Agreement was included in the Draft EIS (Appendix G) for public review and comments, and the

final Programmatic Agreement was included in the Final EIS in Appendix I. The BLM continued to receive

comments on and refine the Draft B2H Project Programmatic Agreement from consulting parties. The B2H

Project Programmatic Agreement was fully executed on February 7, 2017, and is included in this ROD as

Appendix C. The B2H Project will be implemented in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, satisfying

all NHPA Section 106 responsibilities.

Government-to-Government Tribal Consultation

The United States legal relationship with American Indian tribal governments is set forth in the Constitution of

the United States, treaties, Executive Orders (e.g., Executive Order 13175), federal statutes, federal policy, and

tribal requirements, which establish the interaction that must take place between federal and tribal governments.

As sovereign nations, federally recognized tribal governments retain legal rights and benefits with respect to their

relationship with the U.S. Government. Many of the rights were reserved in treaties, executive orders, or statutes.

This relationship is founded on the U.S. Government’s trust responsibilities to safeguard tribal sovereignty and

self-determination, as well as tribal lands, assets, and resources reserved by treaty and other federally recognized

rights. Federal agencies are required by both statute and regulation to consult with tribal governments on a

government-to-government basis on federal actions or undertakings that may affect “trust assets,” including

cultural and natural resources, of concern to the tribal governments on federal land. These statutes include, but are

not limited to, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of

1979, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NEPA, NHPA, and Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993.

Executive and Secretarial Orders further establish the relationships between federal agencies and tribal

governments. These include Executive Orders 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), 13084 (Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments), and 13175 (Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments); Secretarial Orders

3175 (Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources) and 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights and the

ESA); and executive memoranda issued in September 2004 (Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribal

Governments) and October 2009 (Tribal Consultation). A more complete list of the regulatory requirements is

identified in Section 3.2.14.1 of the Final EIS.

Government-to-government consultation involves the process of seeking, discussing, and considering tribal

governments’ views on policies, undertakings, and decisions such as environmental review of the proposed B2H

Project. Government-to-government consultation is guided by the B2H lead agency BLM’s Manual Handbook

1780 Tribal Relations (BLM 2016); by the provisions of Secretarial Order 3317 (Department of the Interior

Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes); and the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian

Tribes transmitted through BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-062 (BLM 2012) (both now formalized in

BLM Manual 512 DM 4 and 5), which specifies meaningful direct involvement of the agency official with

delegated authority for actions and conduct of consultation within the context of ongoing relationships involving

regularly recurring meetings where appropriate.

In letters dated August 21, 2008, the BLM formally initiated consultation with eight tribal governments that

previously have expressed connection to lands associated with the B2H Project area to inform them of the B2H

Project and to inquire about their interest in continuing government-to-government consultation. The contacted

tribal governments are as follows:

Burns Paiute Tribe

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (including Joseph Band of Nez Perce)


30

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation of Oregon

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation

Subsequently, on May 4, 2011, a revised scoping report was mailed to the aforementioned eight tribal

governments, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and

the following tribal governments:

Yakama Nation

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Klamath Tribe

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians

Coquille Indian Tribe

Puyallup Tribe

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians

Kalispel Tribe

Fort Bidwell Indian Community

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Spokane Tribe

Samish Indian Nation

Consultation generally has involved formal letters and submission of material via U.S. Postal Service Certified

Mail with follow-up telephone contact. The venue for government-to-government consultation for the B2H

Project has followed the established form of contact preferred by each tribe. Appendix A of the Final EIS provides

a record of government-to-government consultation activities for the B2H Project.

Two tribal governments, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and the CTUIR,

indicated regular meetings as their preferred form of consultation on the B2H Project.

Government-to-government consultation has taken place and will continue to take place between the BLM and the

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation through third-party-facilitated ad hoc Wings and

Roots meetings, held at the BLM Boise District Office or BLM Idaho State Office. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of

the Duck Valley Indian Reservation provide their concerns about the B2H Project and comments on work

products (such as the Programmatic Agreement and associated plans, Draft EIS, Final EIS) directly to the BLM

at these meetings. Although the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation have participated

in consultation on the development of the B2H Project Programmatic Agreement, they have indicated that their

concerns about the B2H Project are much broader than the topics under the scope of NHPA consultation. They

expressed concern about the limited definition of “historic properties” under Section 106 and developed a separate

MOU agreement document with the BLM Idaho State Office (signed in 2015) to address their concerns about B2H

Project impacts on cultural resources considered important to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley

Indian Reservation.

The CTUIR have provided comments both through the scoping process and through formal government-to-

government consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA. Consultation with the CTUIR has occurred through

face-to-face and conference-call meetings. Through consultation, the CTUIR provided comments on work

products (such as the Programmatic Agreement and associated plans, Draft EIS, Final EIS) and have expressed

concerns. While no CTUIR lands are crossed, there were concerns with indirect effects on reservation lands. The


31

CTUIR signed the Project Programmatic Agreement on January 22, 2017. Concerns include the level of effort

(pedestrian inventory of 15 percent random sample of lands within the area of potential effects) employed to

identify historic properties, as well as the general time frame for responding to their concerns about B2H Project

communications and the timeliness of response to their comments on documents.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act

Forest Plan Consistency

The NFMA of 1976 is the primary statute governing the USFS administration in the development of a

management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management

plan for each unit of NFS lands. This decision to approve the Selected Alternative is consistent with the intent of

the Forest Plan’s long-term goal for energy resources and power transmission facilities (Forest Plan page 4-32), to

“provide for utility facilities on NFS lands.” This decision is also consistent with the associated standard and

guideline for utility corridors:

1. Utility Corridors. When applications for rights-of-way for utilities are received, the Forest’s first priority

will be to utilize residual capacity in existing rights-of-ways. (Forest Plan page 4-33.)

The Project was designed to be consistent with forest-wide standards and guidelines for effected resources, with

the exceptions for which project-specific amendment is authorized, and with direction specific to Management

Area 17 – Power Transportation Facility Retention (Forest Plan pages 4-93 and 4-94).

The WWNF, together with the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests, are in the process of revising their forest

plans. A decision in response to this effort, known as the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision, has not yet been

made. Regardless of the timing of implementation of the B2H Project, it will be authorized and will be

constructed and operated per guidance of the current (1990) Forest Plan.

Management Indicator Species

The NFMA regulations require that “…fish and wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable populations of

existing…species in the planning area [i.e., the WWNF].” The Forest Plan identified management indicator

species of snag habitat and old-growth forest stands and riparian and aquatic habitats (Forest Plan page 2-9).

Analysis of the B2H Project proposed action, alternatives, and variations was included in Appendix E of the Final

EIS. The analysis concludes that implementing the Selected Alternative will not alter or contribute to existing

forest-wide habitat trends for management indicator species; therefore, adequate habitat will remain and viable

populations of existing species will be maintained across the WWNF.

Sensitive Species

A biological evaluation of species listed as “sensitive” by the USFS Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest

Region is incorporated into Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, specifically Sections 3.2.3 (Plants), 3.2.4 (Wildlife) and

3.2.5 (Fish). Based on this analysis, implementing the Selected Alternative on NFS lands will not contribute to

loss of viability or trends toward federal listing for any Regional Foresters’ list of plant, fish, or wildlife species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712) states it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take,

capture, or kill; attempt to take, capture, or kill; or possess any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product,

manufactured or not. The MBTA provides a framework for state-managed hunting of some species and authorizes


32

the issuance of permits for take of other birds under limited conditions such as for falconry, research,

conservation, and to prevent crop predations.

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, directs federal agencies

to take certain actions to further implement the MBTA. The federal agencies are directed to develop and

implement an MOU with the USFWS to promote conservation of migratory bird populations. As such, FS

Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264 Between the USFS and the USFWS to Promote the Conservation of

Migratory Birds outlines a collaborative approach to promote the conservation and reduce the take of migratory

birds. An Addendum was signed in June 2016, extending the MOU as currently written. Complete analysis of

potential impacts on migratory bird species covered under the MBTA, in addition to further analysis of species

identified as species of conservation priority by the USFWS, is located in Section 3.2.4 of the Final EIS. As

required by the MOU and Executive Order 13186, the BLM and USFS analyzed potential impacts on migratory

birds and their habitat in the Final EIS and considered those potential impacts, as well as the design features for

environmental protection and other mitigation strategies, in reaching this decision. Several design features of the

B2H Project for environmental protection, as well as selective mitigation measures, are aimed at avoiding or

minimizing B2H Project effects on migratory birds, including raptors (refer to Table 2-7 and 2-13 of the Final

EIS).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940 as amended, prohibits, without

a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, anyone from taking eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs.

Several design features and selective mitigation of the B2H Project are aimed at avoiding or minimizing B2H

Project effects on bald and golden eagles and other raptors.

The Migratory Bird Nest Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan developed for the final POD for

construction will outline the steps to be taken by the Applicant and its contractors and subcontractors to avoid or

minimize impacts on nesting birds during construction of the B2H Project. The final plan will be developed in

response to specific requirements of the MBTA and will be consistent with guidelines provided in the Migratory

Bird Conservation Actions for Projects to Reduce the Risk of Take during the Nesting Season (USFWS 2014).

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970 regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. This law authorizes the

EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare

and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. In the absence of more refined analysis, the USFS will

require Tier 3 or better diesel equipment to provide a reasonable assurance that 1-hour nitrogen dioxide impacts

will not exceed that NAAQS.

Construction activities on NFS lands that would generate emissions include land clearing, ground excavation, and

cut and fill operations. Temporary effects on air quality would result from fugitive dust and emissions from

vehicles and equipment during construction. The intermittent and short-term emissions generated by these

activities would include dust from surface disturbance and combustion emissions from the construction

equipment. Emissions associated with construction equipment include PM10 (particulate matter less than 10

microns), PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic

compounds, sulfur oxides, and small amounts of air toxic pollutants. These emissions could result in low, short-

term impacts on air quality in the immediate vicinity of the B2H Project during construction.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 protects public drinking water supplies throughout the nation. Under the

Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and with its partners implements


33

various technical and financial programs to ensure drinking water safety. Potential impacts of the Selected

Alternative on drinking water sources on NFS lands (i.e., wells, springs, and shallow groundwater) were

determined to be low (refer to Section 3.2.2 of the Final EIS).

Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11988, and Executive Order 11990

The CWA of 1972 establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the

United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, pollution control programs

such as wastewater standards for industry and standards for contaminations in surface waters have been identified

by the EPA. The B2H Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 11988

(Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11990 (Wetland Protection), and Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA

(refer to Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.5 of the Final EIS).

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act

Surveys for paleontological resources will be conducted, in accordance with the framework for the

Paleontological Resources Treatment Plan (PRTP) and the survey protocols in Appendix D of the draft POD, to

identify significant paleontological resources in the inventory area. Excavation activities, erosion of fossil beds

exposed due to grading, and unauthorized collection could damage or destroy paleontological resources during

construction.

The PRTP was prepared to comply with the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) and the

requirements of the BLM Manual 8270 and Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for

Paleontological Resource Management, as well as certain state and local government lands. Specific measures to

meet the requirements and conditions of the PRPA, any additional BLM requirements, and the conditions are

included in the PRTP that has been approved by the BLM and the relevant state agencies. The PRTP will be

reflected as condition to the Easement and in the final POD for construction.

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898

Potential environmental justice populations are not expected to be disproportionately affected by impacts

associated with construction of the B2H Project (refer to Section 3.2.17 of the Final EIS).

Permits, Licenses, and Authorizations Needed to Implement the Decision The approved USFS SUA (Easement) will require the Applicant to comply with all present and future federal

laws and regulations and all present and future state, county, and municipal laws, regulations, and other legal

requirements that apply to the Easement area, to the extent they do not conflict with federal law, regulation, or

policy. Road use permits may be required for access across existing National Forest roads. Timber removal will

be approved by the USFS. The value of timber to be removed will be assessed and payment collected through

appropriate permit or contract.

Administrative Review – Objection Opportunities The B2H Project is subject to project-level predecisional administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR §218,

Subparts A and B. This process is also called the “objection process.”


34

Only individuals or organizations that submitted timely, specific written comments during a designated

opportunity for public participation (scoping or the comment period on the Draft EIS or other public involvement

opportunity where written comments are requested by the responsible official) may object (36 CFR §218.5).

Notices of objection must meet the requirements of 36 CFR §218.8. Objections can be submitted in writing, either

electronically or in hard copy, and must be filed with the Reviewing Officer within 45 days from the date of

publication of the legal notice announcing the opportunity to object; the legal notice is published in the newspaper

of record (Baker City Herald, Baker City, Oregon). The legal notice publication date in the newspaper of record is

the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to file an objection to this

decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Mailed objections

must be received before the close of the fifth business day after the objection filing period closes.

Incorporation of documents by reference is not allowed, except for the following list of items that may be

referenced by including date, page, and section of the cited document, along with a description of its content and

applicability to the objection: (1) all or any part of a federal law or regulation; (2) Forest Service directives and

land management plans; (3) documents referenced by the Forest Service in the subject EIS; or (4) comments

previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during public involvement opportunities for the

proposed project, where written comments were requested by the responsible official. All other documents must

be included with the objection.

Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the

proposed project or activity and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose

after the opportunities for comment. The burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with this

requirement for objection issues.

Minimum requirements of an objection are described at 218.8(d). An objection must include a description of

those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed

project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates

the law, regulation or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the

reviewing officer to consider; and a statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written

comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection

concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunities for comment.

Objections may be:

Mailed via US Mail to: Reviewing Officer, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Attn. 1570

Appeals and Objections, PO Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-3623;

E-mailed to: [email protected]. Please put OBJECTION and the project name in

the subject line. Electronic objections must be submitted as part of an actual e-mail message or as an

attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf)

only. E-mails submitted to addresses other than the one listed above or in formats other than those listed

above or containing viruses will be rejected. It is the responsibility of the objector to confirm receipt of

objections submitted by electronic mail. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should normally

receive and automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the

sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of receipt, it is the sender’s responsibility to

ensure timely receipt by other means;

Hand delivered to: Pacific Northwest Regional Office at 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Hand

deliveries can occur between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays; or

Faxed to: Regional Forester, Attn: 1570 Appeals and Objections at (503) 808-2339



35

Project Decision Timing and Implementation The USFS decisions will be implemented through issuance of a final ROD and through subsequent approval of an

Easement as described above. If no objection is filed during predecisional review, a decision (ROD) may be

signed on, but no sooner than the fifth business day following the end of the 45-day objection filing period (36

CFR 218.11). If an objection is filed, a ROD may not be signed until the objection reviewing officer has

responded in writing to pending objections and any concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer

in the objection response have been addressed.

Issuance of an easement will authorize the Applicant ingress/egress to the Project site for purposes of completing

required natural resource and heritage surveys, conducting of geotechnical activities, and other activities

necessary to complete the engineering and design of the Project and subsequent preparation of a final POD for

construction. However, initial issuance of the Easement will not authorize construction activities. Construction on

NFS lands will not proceed until the USFS authorized officer has completed the following actions: reviewed and

accepted a final POD for construction; determined that all requirements of the approved POD, this decision

(ROD), and agency requirements outlined in the Easement have been satisfactorily met and/or are conditioned to

the Easement through an amendment; and, written notice has been provided to the Applicant of authorization to

proceed.

Since the Final EIS was completed, Idaho Power Company issued its 2017 IRP. The company’s interests and

objectives and Project description remain unchanged; however, the in-service date for the transmission line is less

certain. The Applicant states in the IRP: “Given the ongoing permitting requirements, Idaho Power is unable to

accurately determine an approximate in-service data for the line but expects the in-service date would be in 2024

or beyond.” Therefore, rather than an in-service date between 2023 and 2025, as explained in the BLM ROD

(signed November 17, 2017), an in-service date of 2024 or beyond is now anticipated.

Contact Person For additional information concerning this decision and the Final EIS, please contact Dea Nelson, Environmental

Coordinator and Planner, WWNF, by phone: 541-523-1216 or email: [email protected]. Additional

information is also available on the USFS project website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project?project=26709.

[RESERVED FOR FINAL DECISION]

TOM MONTOYA DATE

FOREST SUPERVISOR


https://www.fs.usda.gov/project?project=26709

Appendix A – Legal Description of Project on National Forest

System Lands


A-1

BOARDMAN TO HEMINGWAY

OROR 065375

IDI 036029

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

EXHIBIT A

RIGHT-OF-WAY

USDA FOREST SERVICE

WALLOWA-WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST, OREGON

Willamette Meridian - Oregon

500-kV Transmission Right-of-way

T. 2 S., R. 36 E.,

sec. 7, SW1/4NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4, and E1/2SE1/4;

sec. 8, W1/2SW1/4;

sec. 17, N1/2NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, and W1/2SE1/4;

sec. 20, NE1/4NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4NE1/4, N1/2SE1/4NE1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4;

sec. 21, SW1/4NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4, and S1/2SE1/4;

sec. 26, SW1/4SW1/4;

sec. 27, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4, and SE1/4;

sec. 28, NE1/4NE1/4;

sec. 34, NE1/4NE1/4;

sec. 35, NW1/4, N1/2SE1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4.

T. 3 S., R. 36 E.,

sec. 1, Lots 3 and 4, SE1/4NW1/4.

Off Transmission Right-of-way Access Roads

T. 2 S., R. 36 E.,

sec. 7, SW1/4NE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4;

sec. 8, NW1/4SW1/4 and S1/2SW1/4;

sec. 17, N1/2NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, and W1/2SE1/4;

sec. 20, NE1/4NE1/4 and N1/2SE1/4NE1/4;

sec. 21, S1/2NE1/4, SW1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, and SE1/4;

sec. 26, SW1/4SW1/4;

sec. 27, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NW1/4, N1/2SE1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4;

sec. 28, NE1/4NE1/4;

sec. 35, N1/2NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, N1/2SE1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4.

T. 3 S., R. 36 E.,

sec. 1, Lots 3 and 4.

Permanent Off Transmission Right-of-way Facilities

There are no aliquots for this Grant

Appendix B – Electric Transmission Line Easement Authorization Form

(FS-2700-31)

USDA Forest Service FS-2700-31 (03/17) OMB No. 0596-0082

Authorization ID: #AUTH_ID# Contact ID: #GRANTEE_ID#

Expiration Date: #EXPIRATION_DATE# Use Code: #USE_CODE#

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT

AUTHORITY:

Section 501(a)(4) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4)

<Delete all user notes before printing.>

<Use this form for electric transmission lines that have a capacity of more than 33 kV and that are not

operated by a commercial entity deemed eligible for financing by the Rural Utilities Service under the

Rural Electrification Act.>

This electric transmission line easement for the [capacity and name of transmission line] (hereinafter “easement”), dated ______, is granted by the United States, acting through the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (hereinafter ”grantor”), to [name], [a corporation or other entity] of the State of _______ (hereinafter “grantee”).

The grantor, in consideration of an annual land use fee paid by the grantee, grants to the grantee, subject to existing easements and other valid existing rights, a non-exclusive right-of-way for an electric transmission line (“right-of-way”), consisting of towers, poles, or other structures (including all necessary foundations, footings, cross-arms, and other fixtures), cables, underground and overhead wires, and fiber (including fiber optic cable, conduit space, or space within fiber optic regeneration or amplification sites) for the transmission of electric energy, as well as communications equipment for communications uses (“communications uses”) that directly support the grantee’s operation and maintenance of the electric transmission line, hereinafter collectively referred to as “transmission facilities.” This easement is located across National Forest System lands in the County(ies) of ______, State of ________. This easement is ____feet wide and ___ feet long and covers approximately ____ acres in the #TOWNSHIP_SECT_RANGE# #FIRST_DIVISION# #FIRST_DIV_NAME_NUMBER#, #SECOND_DIVISION# SECOND_DIV_NAME_NUMBER#, #THIRD_DIVISION# #THIRD_DIV_NAME_NUMBER#, as shown on the map attached as Appendix A. This and any other appendices are hereby incorporated into this easement. The right-of-way and access roads and trails, as defined below, shall be referred to collectively as “the easement area.” The grantor further grants to the grantee: 1. The right of ingress to and egress from the right-of-way along private roads and trails that are necessary to access the right-of-way (hereinafter "access roads and trails"), listed in Appendix B, and the right to construct, reconstruct, and maintain the access roads and trails, in accordance with the following provisions:

a. All plans for development, layout, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of access roads and trails, as well as revisions to those plans, must be prepared by a professional engineer (PE) or other qualified professional acceptable to the authorized officer. These plans and plan revisions must have written approval from the authorized officer before they are implemented. The authorized officer may require the grantee to furnish as-built plans, maps, or surveys upon completion of the work. b. The grantor does not have an obligation to maintain the access roads and trails. c. The rights granted in paragraph 1 shall be subordinate to any right to use an access road or trail subsequently granted by the United States to a local public road authority for a public road, provided that the grantee shall continue to have access to that right-of-way to operate and maintain the transmission facilities and to address concerns of public safety in connection with the transmission facilities.

2

2. The right to install, maintain, and use gates and fences in the easement area with the prior written approval of the authorized officer. All gates shall have reflective markings in accordance with Forest Service Engineering Manual EM 7100-15. The following are attached to and incorporated into this easement:

APPENDIX A: Maps, Surveys, Plats, Site Plans, and Engineering Drawings of the Easement Area APPENDIX B: List and Location of Access Roads and Trails APPENDIX C: Operating Plan APPENDIX D: List and Location of Ancillary Structures Other Than Roads, Towers, Poles, and Lines

This easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions.

I. GENERAL TERMS

A. AUTHORITY. This easement is issued pursuant to Section 501(a)(4) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4), and 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B, as amended, and is subject to their provisions. B. AUTHORIZED OFFICER. The authorized officer is the _____________________ or a subordinate official with delegated authority.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSE I.C>

<Include the following clause I.C for electric transmission lines operated under a FERC license. Delete

the remaining clause I.C.>

C. TERM. This easement shall expire at midnight on ______ [insert date grantee’s FERC license expires], the date the grantee’s license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expires.

<Include the following clause I.C for electric transmission lines that are not operated under a FERC

license. Delete the remaining clause I.C.>

C. TERM. This easement shall expire at midnight on [insert date easement expires], [up to 50 years, depending on application of the criteria in 36 CFR 251.56(b)(1)] from the date it is granted.

D. CONTINUATION OF USE AND OCCUPANCY. This easement is not renewable. At least 2 years before expiration of this easement, the grantee may apply for a new easement for the use and occupancy authorized by this easement. Issuance of a new easement is at the sole discretion of the authorized officer. At a minimum, before issuing a new easement, the authorized officer shall ensure that (1) the use and occupancy to be authorized by the new easement are consistent with the standards and guidelines in the applicable land management plan; (2) the type of use and occupancy to be authorized by the new easement is the same as the type of use and occupancy authorized by this easement; and (3) the grantee is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this easement. The authorized officer may prescribe new terms and conditions when a new easement is granted. E. AMENDMENT. The terms and conditions of this easement shall be amended as necessary every [number] years from the date of issuance to reflect changing laws, regulations, directives, and conditions. This easement also may be amended at any time by written agreement of the grantor and the grantee. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. In exercising the rights and privileges granted by this easement, the grantee shall comply with all present and future federal laws and regulations and all present and future state, county, and municipal laws, regulations, and other legal requirements that apply to the easement area, to the extent they do not conflict with federal law, regulation, or policy. The grantor assumes no responsibility for enforcing laws, regulations, and other legal requirements that fall under the jurisdiction of other governmental entities.

3

G. RESERVATIONS. All rights not specifically and exclusively granted to the grantee are reserved to the grantor, including: 1. The right of access to the easement area, including a continuing right of physical entry to the easement area for inspection, monitoring, or any other purpose consistent with any right or obligation of the United States under any law or regulation. 2. The right to use, administer, and dispose of all natural resources and improvements other than the transmission facilities, including the right to use roads and trails and authorize rights-of-way and other uses in the easement area in any way that is not inconsistent with the grantee's rights and privileges under this easement, after consultation with all parties involved. Except for any restrictions that the grantee and the grantor agree are necessary to protect public health and safety, property, and the installation and operation of the transmission facilities, the easement area shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. H. ASSIGNMENT. This easement is fully assignable, subject to the following conditions: 1. The grantee shall be in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this easement. 2. Assignments shall have prior written approval of the authorized officer. 3. The authorized officer may modify the terms and conditions of this easement and the assignee shall agree in writing to comply with the terms and conditions of the easement as modified. 4. Upon change in ownership of the transmission facilities or change in control of the business entity that holds this easement, this easement may be assigned to the new owner or to the party acquiring control, provided that the conditions in clause I.H.1 through I.H.3 are met. a. In the case of a corporation, control is an interest, beneficial or otherwise, of sufficient outstanding voting securities or capital of the business so as to permit the exercise of managerial authority over the actions and operations of the corporation or election of a majority of the board of directors of the corporation. b. In the case of a partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, or individual entrepreneurship, control is a beneficial ownership of or interest in the entity or its capital so as to permit the exercise of managerial authority over the actions and operations of the entity. c. In other circumstances, control is any arrangement under which a third party has the ability to exercise management authority over the actions or operations of the business.

II. IMPROVEMENTS

A. LIMITATIONS ON USE. Nothing in this easement gives or implies permission to build or maintain any structure or facility or to conduct any activity unless specifically provided for in this easement. Any use not specifically authorized by this easement must be proposed in accordance with 36 CFR 251.54. Approval of such a proposal through issuance of a new easement or easement amendment is at the sole discretion of the authorized officer.

B. PLANS. All plans for development, layout, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of improvements in the easement area, as well as revisions to those plans, must be prepared by a PE, architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional acceptable to the authorized officer. These plans and plan revisions must have written approval from the authorized officer before they are implemented. The authorized officer may require the grantee to furnish as-built plans, maps, or surveys upon completion of the work. C. RELOCATION. This easement is granted with the express understanding that should future location of federally owned improvements or road rights-of-way require relocation of the transmission facilities, the relocation will be conducted by and at the expense of the grantee within a reasonable period specified by the authorized officer.

4

III. OPERATIONS

A. OPERATING PLAN 1. Preparation. The grantee shall prepare an operating plan in consultation with the authorized officer or the authorized officer’s designated representative. The operating plan shall be submitted by the grantee and shall be approved by the authorized officer or the authorized officer’s designated representative prior to commencement of operations and shall be attached to this easement as Appendix C. The operating plan shall be reviewed and updated as necessary by the grantee and reapproved by the authorized officer at least every 5 years. 2. Contents. The operating plan shall cover all operations authorized by this easement. The operating plan shall outline steps the grantee will take to protect public health and safety and the environment and shall include sufficient detail and standards to enable the Forest Service to monitor the grantee’s operations for compliance with the terms and conditions of this easement. At a minimum, the operating plan shall address access to and operation and maintenance performed by the grantee or its lessees of all authorized transmission facilities, including dates or season of operations; activities and procedures to prevent and control the spread of invasive species; a vegetation management plan; any plan for pesticide use developed pursuant to clause V.E; and restrictions on use, such as fire restrictions, established by the grantor. 3. Vegetation Management Plan. The vegetation management plan shall enumerate criteria and methods for removal, destruction, and trimming of vegetation that are in conformance with generally accepted practices for vegetation management. The vegetation management plan shall address prevention and control of noxious weeds and exotic plants arising from the authorized use. For purposes of this clause, noxious weeds and exotic plants include those species recognized as such by [name of federal, state, or local authority]. The grantee shall follow prevention and control measures prescribed by [name of federal, state, or local authority]. In addition, the vegetation management plan shall provide for integration of native, non-invasive, low-growing vegetation that does not interfere with the transmission facilities and that promotes their reliability, reduces their maintenance costs, and is compatible with the aesthetics and health of the native plant and animal life in the easement area. B. REMOVAL AND PLANTING OF VEGETATION. Removal of non-hazardous and hazardous trees, brush, shrubs, and other plants (“vegetation”) and planting of vegetation, both inside and outside the right-of-way, must be conducted in accordance with the vegetation management plan in Appendix C and clauses III.B.1 through III.B.3. 1. Removal of Non-Hazardous Vegetation and Planting of Vegetation. Except as provided for hazardous vegetation pursuant to paragraph III.B.2, vegetation may be removed, destroyed, or trimmed only after the authorized officer or the authorized officer's designated representative has marked or otherwise identified what may be removed, destroyed, or trimmed. 2. Removal of Hazardous Vegetation. The grantee may remove, destroy, or trim hazardous vegetation without the hazardous vegetation being marked or otherwise identified by the authorized officer or the authorized officer's designated representative. The grantee shall notify the authorized officer as soon as possible of any removal of hazardous vegetation under this clause. For purposes of this clause: (a) "hazardous vegetation" is defined as "a live or dead standing tree or other vegetation having a defect, singly or combined, in the roots, butt, bole, or limbs or with unreasonable arcing potential and so situated that the tree or other vegetation poses the risk of imminent mechanical failure to all or part of a power line, pole, or tower"; (b) "defect" is defined as "an injury or disease that seriously weakens the stems, roots, or branches of a tree or vegetation, predisposing all or part of it to fall"; (c) "arcing" is defined as "the flow of electricity across a gap through the air from one conductor to another or to a grounded object"; and (d) "imminent mechanical failure" is defined as "damage to a power line, pole, or tower from hazardous vegetation that could occur at any time."

3. Payment and Disposal. Timber cut or destroyed shall be paid for at current stumpage rates for similar timber in the National Forest. The Forest Service reserves the right to dispose of the merchantable timber to

5

those other than the grantee at no stumpage cost to the grantee. Unmerchantable material shall be disposed of as directed by the authorized officer. C. USE OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS AND TRAILS. The grantee’s use of National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails shall comply with applicable requirements in 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart A; 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart A; and orders issued under 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart B. Motor vehicle use shall be consistent with designations made under 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, unless specifically provided otherwise in the operating plan. Over-snow vehicle use shall be consistent with designations made under 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, unless specifically provided otherwise in the operating plan.

D. RESERVATION AND LEASING OF EXCESS CAPACITY

1. Reservation of Excess Capacity. The grantee may reserve transmission facilities authorized by this easement for the grantee’s expansion and may utilize the reserved transmission facilities during the term of this easement without additional approval from the authorized officer. Leasing of transmission facilities by third parties is not authorized by this easement, except as provided in clause III.D.2. 2. Leasing of Transmission Facilities. Leasing of transmission facilities authorized by this easement, other than to those who will be using the leased facilities themselves and not reselling or providing communications services to others for profit, must have prior written approval from the authorized officer. The Forest Service reserves the right to disapprove requests to lease transmission facilities. The grantee shall remain responsible for the lessees’ compliance with all the terms and conditions of this easement. The grantee shall pay a land use fee of $[amount] for the lessees’ use of transmission facilities, provided that the lessees are not exempt from a land use fee. The land use fee for any leased transmission facilities shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the fee schedule in 43 CFR 2806.20. 3. Transmission Facility Map. Upon request, the grantee shall submit to the authorized officer a transmission facility map reflecting ownership of and leases for all authorized transmission facilities, which shall be attached to this easement as an appendix. The transmission facility map must specify the total number of transmission facilities (for fiber optic cable, the total number of installed conduits and fibers); the total number of transmission facilities (for fiber optic cable, the total number of conduits and fibers) in active use; and the type of use (commercial, public purpose, or grantee’s) for transmission facilities (for fiber optic cable, for conduits and fibers) in active use. The authorized officer may request any additional information from the grantee deemed necessary for proper administration of the leased transmission facilities. The grantee shall update the transmission facility map annually as necessary.

E. CONDITION OF OPERATIONS. The grantee shall maintain the transmission facilities and easement area to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the authorized officer and consistent with other provisions of this easement. Standards are subject to periodic change by the authorized officer when deemed necessary to meet statutory, regulatory, or policy requirements or to protect national forest resources. F. GROUND SURFACE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION. The grantee shall prevent and control soil erosion and gullying on National Forest System lands in and adjacent to the easement area resulting from construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of the authorized use. The grantee shall construct authorized improvements so as to avoid accumulation of excessive amounts of water in the easement area and encroachment on streams. The grantee shall revegetate or otherwise stabilize (e.g., by constructing a retaining wall) all ground where the soil has been exposed as a result of the grantee's construction, maintenance, operation, or termination of the authorized use.

G. MONITORING BY THE FOREST SERVICE. The grantor shall monitor the grantee's operations and reserves the right to inspect the easement area and transmission facilities at any time for compliance with the terms of this easement. The grantee shall comply with inspection requirements deemed appropriate by the authorized officer. The grantee’s obligations under this easement are not contingent upon any duty of the grantor to inspect the easement area or transmission facilities. A failure by the grantor or other governmental officials to inspect is not a justification for noncompliance with any of the terms and conditions of this easement. IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES

6

A. VALID EXISTING RIGHTS. This easement is subject to all valid existing rights. Valid existing rights include those derived from mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States. The grantor is not liable to the grantee for the exercise of any such right. B. ABSENCE OF THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY RIGHTS. The parties to this easement do not intend to confer any rights on any third party as a beneficiary under this easement. C. SERVICES NOT PROVIDED. This easement is for the use and occupancy of land for the purposes stated in this easement and does not provide for the furnishing of road maintenance, water, fire protection, or any other such service by a government agency, association, or individual. D. RISK OF LOSS. The grantee assumes all risk of loss to the transmission facilities. Loss to the transmission facilities may result from but is not limited to theft, vandalism, fire and any fire-fighting activities (including prescribed burns), avalanches, rising waters, winds, falling limbs or trees, and other forces of nature. If the transmission facilities are destroyed or substantially damaged, the authorized officer shall, in consultation with the grantee and other affected agencies, conduct an analysis to determine whether the transmission facilities can be safely used in the future and whether rebuilding should be allowed. If rebuilding is not allowed, the easement shall terminate. E. DAMAGE TO UNITED STATES PROPERTY. The grantee has an affirmative duty to protect from damage the land, property, and other interests of the United States. Damage includes but is not limited to fire suppression costs, damage to government-owned improvements covered by this easement.

1. The grantee shall be liable for all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression, prevention and control of the spread of invasive species, or other costs resulting from rehabilitation or restoration of natural resources, associated with the grantee's use and occupancy of the easement area. Compensation shall include but is not limited to the value of resources damaged or destroyed, the costs of restoration, cleanup, or other mitigation, fire suppression or other types of abatement costs, and all associated administrative, legal (including attorney's fees), and other costs. Such costs may be deducted from a performance bond required under clause IV.J. 2. The grantee shall be liable for damage caused by use of the grantee or the grantee's heirs, assigns, agents, employees, contractors, or lessees to all roads and trails of the United States to the same extent as provided under clause IV.E.1, except that liability shall not include reasonable and ordinary wear and tear.

F. HEALTH AND SAFETY. The grantee shall take all measures necessary to protect the health and safety of all persons affected by the use and occupancy authorized by this easement. The grantee shall promptly abate as completely as possible and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations any physical or mechanical procedure, activity, event, or condition existing or occurring in connection with the authorized use and occupancy during the term of this easement that causes or threatens to cause a hazard to the health or safety of the public or the grantee’s employees or agents. The grantee shall as soon as practicable notify the authorized officer of all serious accidents that occur in connection with these procedures, activities, events, or conditions. The grantor has no duty under the terms of this easement to inspect the easement area or operations of the grantee for hazardous conditions or compliance with health and safety standards. G. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

1. For purposes of clause IV.G and section V, "hazardous material" shall mean (a) any hazardous substance under section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601(14); (b) any pollutant or contaminant under section 101(33) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(33); (c) any petroleum product or its derivative, including fuel oil, and waste oils; and (d) any hazardous substance, extremely hazardous substance, toxic substance, hazardous waste, ignitable, reactive or corrosive materials, pollutant, contaminant, element, compound, mixture, solution or substance that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment under any applicable environmental laws. 2. The grantee shall avoid damaging or contaminating the environment, including but not limited to the soil, vegetation (such as trees, shrubs, and grass), surface water, and groundwater, during the grantee's use and occupancy of the easement area. Environmental damage includes but is not limited to all costs and damages associated with or resulting from the release or threatened release of a hazardous material occurring during or as a result of activities of the grantee or the grantee's heirs, assigns, agents, employees, contractors, or lessees on,

7

or related to, the lands, property, and other interests covered by this easement. If the environment or any government property covered by this easement becomes damaged in connection with the grantee's use and occupancy, the grantee shall as soon as practicable repair the damage or replace the damaged items to the satisfaction of the authorized officer and at no expense to the United States. 3. The grantee shall as soon as practicable, as completely as possible, and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations abate any physical or mechanical procedure, activity, event, or condition existing or occurring in connection with the authorized use and occupancy during or after the term of this easement that causes or threatens to cause harm to the environment, including areas of vegetation or timber, fish or other wildlife populations, their habitats, or any other natural resources.

H. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES. The grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the United States for any costs, damages, claims, liabilities, and judgments arising from past, present, and future acts or omissions of the grantee in connection with the use and occupancy authorized by this easement. This indemnification and hold harmless provision includes but is not limited to acts and omissions of the grantee or the grantee’s heirs, assigns, agents, employees, contractors, or lessees in connection with the use and occupancy authorized by this easement which result in (1) violations of any laws and regulations which are now or which may in the future become applicable; (2) judgments, claims, demands, penalties, or fees assessed against the United States; (3) costs, expenses, and damages incurred by the United States; or (4) the release or threatened release of any hazardous material into the environment. The authorized officer may prescribe terms that allow the grantee to replace, repair, restore, or otherwise undertake necessary curative actions to mitigate damages in addition to or as an alternative to monetary indemnification.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSE IV.I> <The amount of strict liability in tort must be determined by a risk assessment and may not exceed $1

million. Insurance may be appropriate to cover strict liability in tort, as well as liability based on

negligence.>

I. STRICT LIABILITY. The grantee shall be strictly liable (liable without proof of negligence) to the United States for $[amount up to $1 million] per occurrence for any injury, loss, or damage arising in tort under this easement. Liability in tort for injury, loss, or damage to the United States exceeding the prescribed amount of strict liability in tort shall be determined under the law of negligence.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSE IV.J>

<If the grantee is a state or a political subdivision of a state that has shown that state law limits its

liability or obligation to indemnify, follow the direction in FSH 2709.11, Chapter 50.>

J. INSURANCE. The grantee shall furnish proof of insurance, such as a certificate of insurance, to the authorized officer prior to issuance of this easement and each year thereafter that this easement is in effect. The grantor reserves the right to review the insurance policy and require any changes needed to ensure adequate coverage of the United States in connection with the authorized use and occupancy. The grantee shall send an authenticated copy of any insurance policy obtained pursuant to this clause to the authorized officer immediately upon issuance of the policy. Any insurance policies obtained by the grantee pursuant to this clause shall name the United States as an additional insured, and the additional insured provision shall provide for insurance coverage for the United States as required under this clause and to the extent of the full limits of insurance available to the grantee. The grantee shall give 30 days prior written notice to the authorized officer of cancellation of or any modification to the insurance policy. The certificate of insurance, the authenticated copy of the insurance policy, and written notice of cancellation or modification of insurance policies should be sent to [mailing address of administering office]. Minimum amounts of coverage and other insurance requirements are subject to change at the sole discretion of the authorized officer on the anniversary date of this easement.

<Select the following clause IV.J.1 for insurance policies with separate limits of coverage for

personal injury or death and third-party property damage, and delete the remaining clause IV.J.1.>

1. The grantee shall have in force liability insurance covering losses associated with the use and occupancy authorized by this easement arising from personal injury or death and third-party property damage in the minimum amount of:

$[amount] for injury or death to one person per occurrence;

8

$[amount] for injury or death to more than one person per occurrence; and

$[amount] for third-party property damage per occurrence.

<Select the following clause IV.J.1 for insurance policies with combined single limits of coverage for

personal injury or death and third-party property damage, and delete the remaining clause IV.J.1.>

1. The grantee shall have in force liability insurance covering losses associated with the use and occupancy authorized by this easement arising from personal injury or death and third-party property damage in the minimum amount of $[amount] as a combined single limit per occurrence. 2. Depending on the grantee's operations, the Forest Service may require the grantee to demonstrate the availability of funds to address any release or threatened release of hazardous materials that may occur in connection with the grantee's use and occupancy. Any requirements imposed would be established case by case by the authorized officer based on the degree of environmental risk from the grantee's operations. The use and storage of normal maintenance supplies in nominal amounts generally would not trigger financial assurance requirements.

K. BONDING. The authorized officer may require the grantee to furnish a surety bond or other security for any of the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of this easement or any applicable law, regulation, or order.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSES IV.K.1 THROUGH IV.K.3>

<Delete clauses IV.K.1 through IV.K.3 when a bond is not required.>

1. As a further guarantee of compliance with the terms and conditions of this easement, the grantee shall deliver and maintain a surety bond or other acceptable security, such as cash deposited and maintained in a federal depository or negotiable securities of the United States, in the amount of bond amount for specify obligations covered. The authorized officer may periodically evaluate the adequacy of the bond or other security and increase or decrease the amount as appropriate. If the bond or other security becomes unsatisfactory to the authorized officer, the grantee shall within 30 days of demand furnish a new bond or other security issued by a surety that is solvent and satisfactory to the authorized officer. If the grantee fails to meet any of the requirements secured under this clause, money deposited pursuant to this clause shall be retained by the United States to the extent necessary to satisfy the obligations secured under this clause, without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the United States. 2. The bond shall be released or other security returned 30 days after (a) the authorized officer certifies that the obligations covered by the bond or other security are met and (b) the grantee establishes to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that all claims for labor and material for the secured obligations have been paid or released. 3. Prior to undertaking additional construction or alteration not covered by the bond or other security, or when the transmission facilities are to be removed and the easement area restored, the grantee may be required to obtain additional bonding or security.

V. RESOURCE PROTECTION

A. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. The grantee shall in connection with the use and occupancy authorized by this easement comply with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including but not limited to those established pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the Oil Pollution Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., CERCLA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., and the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. B. WATER POLLUTION. No waste or by-product shall be discharged into water if it contains any substance in concentrations which will result in harm to fish and wildlife, or to human water supplies. Storage facilities for

9

materials capable of causing water pollution, if accidentally discharged, shall be located so as to prevent any spillage into waters or channels leading into water that would result in harm to fish and wildlife or to human water supplies.

C. ESTHETICS. The grantee shall protect the scenic esthetic values of the easement area and the adjacent land to the greatest extent possible during construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission facilities. D. VANDALISM. The grantee shall take reasonable measures to prevent and discourage vandalism or disorderly conduct and when necessary shall contact the appropriate law enforcement officer to address these problems. E. PESTICIDE USE 1. Authorized Officer Concurrence. Pesticides may not be used outside of buildings in the easement area to control pests, including undesirable woody and herbaceous vegetation (including aquatic plants), insects, birds, rodents, or fish without prior written concurrence of the authorized officer. Only those products registered or otherwise authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate State authority for the specific purpose planned shall be authorized for use within areas on National Forest System lands. 2. Pesticide-Use Proposal. Requests for concurrence of any planned uses of pesticides shall be provided in advance using the Pesticide-Use Proposal (form FS-2100-2). Annually the grantee shall, on the due date established by the authorized officer, submit requests for any new, or continued, pesticide usage. The Pesticide-Use Proposal shall cover a 12-month period of planned use. The Pesticide-Use Proposal shall be submitted at least 60 days in advance of pesticide application. Information essential for review shall be provided in the form specified. Exceptions to this schedule may be allowed, subject to emergency request and approval, only when unexpected outbreaks of pests require control measures which were not anticipated at the time a Pesticide-Use Proposal was submitted. 3. Labeling, Laws, and Regulations. Label instructions and all applicable laws and regulations shall be strictly followed in the application of pesticides and disposal of excess materials and containers. No pesticide waste, excess materials, or containers shall be disposed of in any area administered by the Forest Service.

F. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES. The grantee shall immediately notify the authorized officer of all antiquities or other objects of historic or scientific interest, including but not limited to historic or prehistoric ruins, fossils, or artifacts discovered in connection with the use and occupancy authorized by this easement. The grantee shall follow the applicable inadvertent discovery protocols for the undertaking provided in an agreement executed pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108; if there are no such agreed-upon protocols, the grantee shall leave these discoveries intact and in place until consultation has occurred, as informed, if applicable, by any programmatic agreement with tribes. Protective and mitigation measures developed under this clause shall be the responsibility of the grantee. However, the grantee shall give the authorized officer written notice before implementing these measures and shall coordinate with the authorized officer for proximate and contextual discoveries extending beyond the easement area. G. NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT (NAGPRA). In accordance with 25 U.S.C. 3002(d) and 43 CFR 10.4, if the grantee inadvertently discovers human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony on National Forest System lands, the grantee shall immediately cease work in the area of the discovery and shall make a reasonable effort to protect and secure the items. The grantee shall follow the applicable NAGPRA protocols for the undertaking provided in the NAGPRA plan of action or the NAGPRA comprehensive agreement; if there are no such agreed-upon protocols, the grantee shall as soon as practicable notify the authorized officer of the discovery and shall follow up with written confirmation of the discovery. The activity that resulted in the inadvertent discovery may not resume until 30 days after the forest archaeologist certifies receipt of the written confirmation, if resumption of the activity is otherwise lawful, or at any time if a binding written agreement has been executed between the grantor and the affiliated Indian tribes that adopts a recovery plan for the human remains and objects. H. PROTECTION OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED SPECIES, SENSITIVE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF

CONSERVATION CONCERN AND THEIR HABITAT 1. Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitat. The location of sites within the easement area

10

needing special measures for protection of plants or animals listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as amended, or within designated critical habitat shall be shown on a map in an appendix to this easement and may be shown on the ground. The grantee shall take any protective and mitigation measures specified by the authorized officer as necessary and appropriate to avoid or reduce effects on listed species or designated critical habitat affected by the authorized use and occupancy. Discovery by the grantee or the grantor of other sites within the easement area containing threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat not shown on the map in the appendix shall be promptly reported to the other party and shall be added to the map. 2. Sensitive Species and Species of Conservation Concern and Their Habitat. The location of sites within the easement area needing special measures for protection of plants or animals designated by the Regional Forester as sensitive species or as species of conservation concern pursuant to FSM 2670 shall be shown on a map in an appendix to this easement and may be shown on the ground. The grantee shall take any protective and mitigation measures specified by the authorized officer as necessary and appropriate to avoid or reduce effects on sensitive species or species of conservation concern or their habitat affected by the authorized use and occupancy. Discovery by the grantee or the Forest Service of other sites within the easement area containing sensitive species or species of conservation concern or their habitat not shown on the map in the appendix shall be promptly reported to the other party and shall be added to the map.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSE V.I>

<Include clause V.I in easements covering NFS lands subject to the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan

amendments to land and resource management plans in western Oregon and Washington and northern

California, as amended by the January 2001 Record of Decision. Otherwise, omit clause V.I, and re-letter

the remaining clauses in section V.>

I. SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT. The location of sites within the easement area occupied by survey and manage species or their habitat shall be shown on a map in an appendix to this easement and may be shown on the ground. The survey and manage species and survey and manage standards and guidelines were established in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan amendments to all Forest Service land and resource management plans in western Oregon and Washington and northern California, as amended by the January 2001 Record of Decision (2001 ROD). The list of survey and manage species in the 2001 ROD has been amended and is subject to periodic amendment by the Forest Service. Per the 2001 ROD, before conducting habitat-disturbing activities in the easement area, the grantee shall perform a survey and shall implement appropriate survey and manage standards and guidelines identified by the authorized officer to provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence. Discovery by the grantee or the Forest Service of other sites within the easement area containing survey and manage species or their habitat not shown on the map in the appendix shall be promptly reported to the other party and shall be added to the map. J. CONSENT TO STORE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The grantee shall not store any hazardous materials in the easement area without prior written approval from the authorized officer. This approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the authorized officer provides approval, this easement shall include, or in the case of approval provided after this easement is issued, shall be amended to include specific terms addressing the storage of hazardous materials, including the specific type of materials to be stored, the volume, the type of storage, and a spill plan. Such terms shall be proposed by the grantee and are subject to approval by the authorized officer.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSES V.J.1 THROUGH V.J.3>

<Add clauses V.J.1 through V.J.3 when consenting to store hazardous materials.

Otherwise, omit them.>

1. The grantee shall identify to the authorized officer any hazardous material to be stored in the easement area. This identifying information shall be consistent with column (1) of the table of hazardous materials and special provisions enumerated at 49 CFR 172.101 whenever the hazardous material appears in that table. For hazard communication purposes, the grantee shall maintain Material Safety Data Sheets for any stored hazardous chemicals, consistent with 29 CFR 1910.1200(c) and (g). In addition, all hazardous materials stored by the grantee shall be used, labeled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

11

2. The grantee shall not release any hazardous material as defined in clause IV.G onto land or into rivers, streams, impoundments, or natural or man-made channels leading to them. All prudent and safe attempts must be made to contain any release of these materials. The authorized officer may specify conditions that must be met, including conditions more stringent than federal, state, and local regulations, to prevent releases and protect natural resources

3. If the grantee uses or stores hazardous materials at the site, upon revocation or termination of this easement the grantee shall provide the Forest Service with a report certified by a professional or professionals acceptable to the Forest Service that the easement area is uncontaminated by the presence of hazardous materials and that there has not been a release or discharge of hazardous materials upon the easement area, into surface water at or near the easement area, or into groundwater below the easement area during the term of the easement. If a release or discharge has occurred, the professional or professionals shall document and certify that the release or discharge has been fully remediated and that the easement area is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

K. CLEANUP AND REMEDIATION

1. The grantee shall immediately notify all appropriate response authorities, including the National Response Center and the authorized officer, of any oil discharge or of the release of a hazardous material in the easement area in an amount greater than or equal to its reportable quantity, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 153, Subpart B, and 40 CFR Part 302. For the purposes of this requirement, “oil” is defined by section 311(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(1). The grantee shall immediately notify the authorized officer upon knowledge of any release or threatened release of any hazardous material at or in the vicinity of the easement area which may be harmful to public health or welfare or which may adversely affect natural resources under the management of the United States. 2. Except with respect to any federally permitted release as that term is defined under Section 101(10) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10), the grantee shall clean up or otherwise remediate any release, threat of release, or discharge of hazardous materials that occurs either in the easement area or in connection with the grantee’s activities, whether or not those activities are authorized under this easement. The grantee shall perform cleanup or remediation immediately upon discovery of the release, threat of release, or discharge of hazardous materials. The grantee shall perform the cleanup or remediation to the satisfaction of the authorized officer and at no expense to the United States. Upon revocation or termination of this easement, the grantee shall deliver the easement area to the grantor free and clear of contamination.

VI. LAND USE FEE AND DEBT COLLECTION

<Calculate the land use fees using the linear right-of-way fee schedule in FSH 2709.11, section 36.41,

exhibits 01 and 02.>

A. LAND USE FEE. The grantee shall pay an initial annual land use fee of $ for the period from

to , and thereafter on , shall pay an annual land use fee of $

. The land use fee shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the fee schedule in 43 CFR 2806.20.

B. MODIFICATION OF THE LAND USE FEE. The land use fee may be revised whenever necessary to reflect the market value of the authorized use or when the fee system used to calculate the land use fee is modified or replaced. C. FEE PAYMENT ISSUES

1. Crediting of Payments. Payments shall be credited on the date received by the deposit facility, except that if a payment is received on a non-workday, the payment shall not be credited until the next workday. 2. Disputed Fees. Fees are due and payable by the due date. Disputed fees must be paid in full. Adjustments will be made if dictated by an administrative appeal decision, a court decision, or settlement terms.

12

3. Late Payments (a) Interest. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717 et seq., interest shall be charged on any fee amount not paid within 30 days from the date it became due. The rate of interest assessed shall be the higher of the Prompt Payment Act rate or the rate of the current value of funds to the Treasury (i.e., the Treasury tax and loan account rate), as prescribed and published annually or quarterly by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Federal Register and the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins. Interest on the principal shall accrue from the date the fee amount is due. (b) Administrative Costs. If the account becomes delinquent, administrative costs to cover processing and handling the delinquency shall be assessed. (c) Penalties. A penalty of 6% per annum shall be assessed on the total amount that is more than 90 days delinquent and shall accrue from the same date on which interest charges begin to accrue. 4. Administrative Offset and Credit Reporting. Delinquent fees and other charges associated with the easement shall be subject to all rights and remedies afforded the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711 et seq. and common law. Delinquencies are subject to any or all of the following: (a) Administrative offset of payments due the grantee from the grantor. (b) If in excess of 60 days, referral to the United States Department of the Treasury for appropriate collection action as provided by 31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(1). (c) Offset by the Secretary of the Treasury of any amount due the grantee, as provided by 31 U.S.C. 3720 et seq. (d) Disclosure to consumer or commercial credit reporting agencies.

D. NONPAYMENT. Failure of the grantee to make timely payments, pay interest charges, or any other charges when due shall be grounds for revocation of this easement.

VII. REVOCATION, SUSPENSION, AND TERMINATION

A. REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION. The authorized officer may revoke or suspend this easement in whole or in part:

1. For noncompliance with applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations. 2. For noncompliance with the terms of this easement. 3. For abandonment of the easement. Failure of the grantee to use the easement area for a continuous 5-year period shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of abandonment of the easement.

Prior to revocation or suspension under clause VII.A, other than immediate suspension under clause VII.B, the authorized officer shall give the grantee written notice of the grounds for revocation or suspension and, in the case of revocation of suspension under clause VII.A.1 or VII.A.2, a reasonable period, not to exceed 90 days, to cure any noncompliance. B. IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION. The authorized officer may immediately suspend this easement in whole or in part when necessary to protect public health or safety or the environment. The suspension decision shall be in writing. The grantee may request an onsite review with the authorized officer’s supervisor of the adverse conditions prompting the suspension. The authorized officer’s supervisor shall grant this request within 48 hours. Following the onsite review, the authorized officer’s supervisor shall promptly affirm, modify, or cancel the suspension. C. APPEALS AND REMEDIES. Written decisions by the authorized officer relating to administration of this easement, other than revocation or suspension decisions, are subject to administrative appeal pursuant to

13

36 CFR Part 214, as amended. Revocation and suspension of this easement are subject to administrative appeal pursuant to 7 CFR Part 1, Subpart H, as amended. Revocation or suspension of this easement shall not give rise to any claim for damages by the grantee against the grantor. D. TERMINATION. This easement shall terminate when by its terms a fixed or agreed upon condition, event, or time occurs without any action by the authorized officer. For example, this easement terminates upon expiration or upon the written agreement of the grantor and the grantee. Termination of this easement shall not require notice, a decision document, or any environmental analysis or other documentation. Termination of this easement is not subject to administrative appeal and shall not give rise to any claim for damages by the grantee against the grantor. E. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UPON REVOCATION OR TERMINATION WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF A

NEW EASEMENT. Upon revocation of this easement or termination of this easement without issuance of a new easement, the authorized officer, after consultation with other affected agencies, has the discretion to require the grantee to sell or remove all structures and improvements in the easement area, except those owned by the United States, within a reasonable period prescribed by the authorized officer and to restore the easement area to the satisfaction of the authorized officer. If the grantee fails to sell or remove all structures or improvements in the easement area within the prescribed period, they shall become the property of the United States and may be sold, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of without any liability to the United States. However, the grantee shall remain liable for all costs associated with their removal, including costs of sale and impoundment, cleanup, and restoration of the easement area.

F. CONTINUATION OF OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES BEYOND TERMINATION OR REVOCATION. Notwithstanding the termination or revocation of this easement, its terms and conditions shall remain in effect and shall be binding on the grantee and the grantee’s personal representative, successors, and assignees until all the grantee’s obligations and liabilities accruing before or as a result of termination or revocation of this easement have been satisfied.

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

A. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. No member of or delegate to Congress or resident commissioner shall benefit from this easement either directly or indirectly, except to the extent the authorized use provides a general benefit to a corporation.

B. CURRENT ADDRESSES. The grantor and the grantee shall keep each other informed of current mailing addresses, including those necessary for payment of land use fees.

<USER NOTES FOR CLAUSE VIII.C>

<Include the following clause VIII.C for easements that are superseding an authorization. Delete the

remaining clause VIII.C.>

C. SUPERSEDED AUTHORIZATION. This easement supersedes an authorization designated [name or authorization ID], dated ______.

<Include the following clause VIII.C when the transmission facilities have been severed from a FERC

license. Delete the remaining clause VIII.C.>

C. SEVERENCE FROM A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE. Per a decision issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the transmission facilities have been severed from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license [license number], dated ______.

D. SUPERIOR CLAUSES. If there is any conflict between any of the preceding printed clauses and any of the following clauses, the preceding printed clauses shall control.

<If necessary, add clauses to address site-specific circumstances.>

THIS EASEMENT IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ALL ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

14

BEFORE ANY EASEMENT IS GRANTED TO AN ENTITY, DOCUMENTATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE

AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SIGNATORY FOR THE ENTITY TO BIND IT TO THE

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE EASEMENT.

On [date], I, the grantee, have read, understood, and accepted the terms and conditions of the easement.

GRANTEE NAME, PRECEDED BY NAME AND TITLE SIGNATURE DATE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OF GRANTEE, IF GRANTEE IS AN ENTITY STATE OF [_________] [__________] COUNTY On [date], the United States, through the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, has executed the easement pursuant to delegations of authority in 7 CFR 2.60(a)(2), 36 CFR 251.52, and FSM.2733.04a and 2733.04b, paragraph 1.

UNITED STATES

___________________________________________________________________________________________

NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER SIGNATURE DATE

STATE OF [_________] [_________] COUNTY On [date], before me, a notary public in the State of [________], personally appeared [name of grantor], known to me to be the person who signed the easement as the grantor. ______________________________________ Notary Public for the State of [___________] My commission expires [__________]

<Attach operating plan, maps, and other appendices.>

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0596-0082. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 975-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) govern the confidentiality to be provided for information received by the Forest Service.

Appendix C – Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA)

Boardman to Hemingway Programmatic Agreement

SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 1 of 28

FINAL 1

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 2

AMONG 3

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 4

THE U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE 5

THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 6

THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 8

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 9

THE OREGON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 10

THE IDAHO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 11

THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION (SHPO) 12

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, 13

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 14

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 15

IDAHO POWER COMPANY 16

REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 17

THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 18

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 19

BOARDMAN TO HEMINGWAY 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 20

WHEREAS, Idaho Power Company (Proponent) has proposed to construct, operate, maintain and 21

eventually decommission the Boardman to Hemingway 500 kV Transmission Line Project (Undertaking), 22

an approximately 300-mile-long transmission line stretching from near Boardman, Oregon to near 23

Melba, Idaho across multiple federal, state and local jurisdictions and across the ancestral lands of 24

several Indian tribes, requiring permits from multiple federal agencies; and 25

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in consultation with the State Historic Preservation 26

Officers (SHPOs) / Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), determined that a phased process for 27

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (54 USC 28

§306108), through a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is appropriate, as specifically permitted under 36 29

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 800.4(b)(2), such that the identification and evaluation of historic 30

properties, determinations of specific effects on historic properties, and consultation concerning 31

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects will be carried out in phases as part of 32

planning for and prior to the issuance of any Notices to Proceed (NTP) as detailed in stipulation XII; and 33

WHEREAS, the Proponent intends to construct, operate and maintain and eventually decommission the 34

Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project according to general parameters contained in the 35

project Plan of Development (POD) for the Undertaking which shall be appended to and made a part of 36

the Record of Decision (ROD) authorizing the right of way (ROW) grant; and 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 2 of 28

WHEREAS, the BLM is considering the issuance of a ROW grant for the construction, operation and 1

maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the Undertaking, and the ROW grant will incorporate 2

this PA by reference; and 3

WHEREAS, this PA, and the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) that will be developed 4

pursuant to this PA, will be incorporated into the approved project POD; and 5

WHEREAS, the BLM is a multiple use agency responsible for permitting and issuing a ROW grant and the 6

protection of cultural resources on federal public lands as authorized under the Federal Lands Policy and 7

Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 USC §1701) and the Proponent has requested a 30-year, 8

renewable ROW grant from the BLM for the Undertaking; and 9

WHEREAS, portions of this Undertaking will occur on lands managed by the United States Department 10

of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), and USFS has designated that the BLM will serve as lead federal 11

agency for Section 106 of the NHPA compliance pursuant to 36 CFR 800, the regulations implementing 12

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (54 USC §306108) and is a Signatory to this PA; and 13

WHEREAS, portions of this Undertaking will occur on lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation 14

(Reclamation) and the Reclamation has designated that the BLM will serve as lead federal agency for 15

Section 106 of the NHPA compliance pursuant to 36 CFR 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 16

of the NHPA and is a Signatory to this PA; and 17

WHEREAS, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), owner of the Boardman to Ione transmission 18

line and proposed Longhorn substation, may market and distribute power transmitted by the 19

Undertaking, has agreed to fund a portion of the environmental and cultural compliance and permitting 20

of the line, may participate in the construction of the line, has designated the BLM to serve as lead 21

federal agency to serve as the agency official who shall act on its behalf, fulfilling any BPA 22

responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA regarding the Undertaking, and is a Signatory to this PA; 23

and 24

WHEREAS, the Portland and Walla Walla Districts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with the 25

Portland District serving as the lead district per a Memorandum of Agreement with the Walla Walla 26

District, will evaluate a permit application for the Undertaking to place structures in, under, or over 27

navigable waters of the U.S. pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC §403) 28

and for the placement of dredged or filled material in the Waters of the U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of 29

the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1344; 33 CFR 323) and the issuance of a permit under either statute will 30

be a federal action associated with the Undertaking that requires compliance with Section 106 of the 31

NHPA, and USACE has designated that the BLM will serve as lead federal agency for Section 106 of the 32

NHPA compliance pursuant to 36 CFR 800, and is a Signatory to this PA; and 33

WHEREAS, the BLM has determined the Undertaking may have direct, indirect and cumulative effects 34

on properties listed in, or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and 35


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 3 of 28

WHEREAS, the BLM has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) pursuant to 1

Section 106 of the NHPA and the implementing regulations (36 CFR 800.6(a)(1)) and the ACHP has 2

elected to participate in consultations and is a Signatory to this PA; and 3

WHEREAS, the Undertaking crosses both Oregon and Idaho, and the SHPOs for each state are 4

participating in this consultation and are Signatories to this PA; and 5

WHEREAS, the Undertaking does not physically cross into Washington but the Area of Potential Effect 6

(APE) for indirect effects on one of the alternatives extends into Washington and the Department of 7

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is a Signatory to this PA; and; 8

WHEREAS, the APE for indirect effects extends onto the Umatilla Indian Reservation (UIR), and the 9

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) THPO is a Signatory to this PA; 10

WHEREAS, the National Park Service (NPS) has been invited to participate in this consultation in its 11

capacity as administrator of the Oregon National Historic Trail and the Lewis and Clark National Historic 12

Trail, as this Undertaking may affect segments of the Oregon National Historic Trail and the Lewis and 13

Clark National Historic Trail, and is an Invited Signatory to this PA; and 14

WHEREAS, the Proponent has participated in consultation per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4), agrees to carry out 15

the terms of this agreement under BLM oversight, and is an Invited Signatory to this PA; and 16

WHEREAS, the Undertaking may have an adverse effect under NHPA Section 106 on the Oregon 17

National Historic Trail, the Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA) is committed to protect emigrant 18

trails by working with government agencies and private interests, OCTA has been invited to participate 19

in consultation and is a Concurring Party to this PA; and 20

WHEREAS, the Undertaking may have an adverse effect under NHPA Section 106 on some of Oregon’s 21

16 legislatively designated historic trails, as well as some National Historic Trails (NHT) in Oregon; and 22

the Governor’s Oregon Historic Trails Advisory Council (OHTAC) is committed to evaluating and 23

recording trail conditions and making recommendations for marking, interpretation, education, and 24

protection for Oregon's Historic Trails; and OHTAC has been invited to participate in consultation and is 25

a Concurring Party to this PA; and 26

WHEREAS, the Undertaking does not physically cross into Washington but the APE for indirect effects on 27

one of the alternatives extends into Washington and the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge and the US 28

Fish and Wildlife Service has been invited to participate in consultation and may be a Concurring Party 29

to this PA; and 30

WHEREAS, the BLM has initiated government-to-government consultation with the following Indian 31

tribes that may be affected by the proposed Undertaking and invited them to be concurring parties to 32

this PA: The CTUIR; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation; Nez Perce Tribe; 33

Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Burns Paiute Tribe; Fort McDermitt 34


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 4 of 28

Paiute and Shoshone Tribe; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and the 1

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. These Tribes understand that, 2

notwithstanding any decision by these tribes, the BLM will continue to consult with them throughout 3

the implementation of this PA pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c); and 4

WHEREAS, the BLM recognizes that historic properties may also include Traditional Cultural Properties 5

(TCPs). Per NPS Bulletin 38, a TCP is defined as a type of historic property that is eligible for inclusion in 6

the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community 7

that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural 8

identity of the community. A community may include a Native American tribe, a local ethnic group, or 9

the people of the nation as a whole. TCPs may include historic properties that Native American 10

communities consider to be traditional ecological knowledge properties or of traditional religious and 11

cultural importance; and 12

WHEREAS, the CTUIR, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, the Burns Paiute, 13

the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation have 14

expressed interest in the Undertaking and desire to review studies conducted on their ancestral lands; 15

and 16

WHEREAS, it is the position of Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) that the execution of this PA can 17

assist the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC), to which ODOE serves as technical staff, in determining 18

whether the Undertaking complies with EFSC‘s Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Standard at OAR 19

345-022-0090 during its review of the site certificate application for the Undertaking; and ODOE is a 20

Concurring Party to this PA; and 21

WHEREAS, the project does not physically cross into Washington but the APE for indirect effects on one 22

of the alternatives extends into Washington and the Undertaking may be visible from Lewis and Clark 23

Historic Trail in both Oregon and Washington and the Lewis and Clark Heritage Trail Foundation 24

Washington and Oregon state chapters have been invited to consult on this PA and are Concurring 25

Parties to this PA; and 26

WHEREAS, the Navy was invited to be a Concurring Party to this PA and has opted not to sign this 27

PA, and should any portion of the undertaking be proposed to occur on Naval Weapons Systems 28

Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman in Morrow County, Oregon, the U.S. Navy will serve as the lead 29

federal agency for that portion of the Undertaking for Section 106 of the NHPA compliance pursuant to 30

36 CFR 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA; and 31

WHEREAS, reference to “parties to this agreement” shall be taken to include the Signatories to this PA, 32

Invited Signatories, and Concurring Parties. Tribes and other parties consulting under Section 106 of the 33

NHPA may decline to sign this document; however, the decision not to sign shall not preclude their 34

continued or future participation as consulting parties to this Undertaking; and 35


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 5 of 28

WHEREAS, all parties agree that the PA will serve as the definitive document delineating Section 106 1

procedures to be followed for the undertaking, if actual or construed discrepancies arise between the 2

PA's requirements and direction found in other documents, or appendices to the PA, the requirements 3

set forth in the main body of the PA will be followed; plans/documents completed prior to execution of 4

the PA will not necessarily require revision due to these circumstances; and 5

NOW, THEREFORE, the Signatories to this PA agree that the proposed Undertaking will be implemented 6

in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the Undertaking 7

on historic properties and to satisfy all NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all aspects of the 8

Undertaking. 9

STIPULATIONS 10

The BLM will ensure that the following stipulations are carried out: 11

I. Area of Potential Effects (APE) 12

A. Defining the APE 13

The BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, has defined and documented the 14

APE based on potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The APE will apply to all lands 15

regardless of management status that may be affected by the transmission line corridor, 16

staging areas, access roads, borrow areas, transmission substations, or other related 17

transmission infrastructures for this Undertaking. The APE, as defined and documented, is a 18

baseline for survey and inventory. 19

1. Direct Effects—The following definition of direct effects APE takes into account ground-20

disturbing activities associated with the Undertaking: 21

a. The direct effects APE for the above ground transmission line will be 250 feet on either 22

side of centerline (500 feet total) for the ROW and extend the length of the 23

Undertaking, approximately 300 miles. 24

b. The direct effects APE for new or improved access roads will be 100 feet on either side 25

of centerline (200 feet total). Existing crowned and ditched or paved roads will be 26

excluded from inventory. 27

c. The direct effects APE for existing unimproved service roads will be 50 feet on either 28

side of centerline (100 feet total). 29

d. The direct effects APE for the staging areas, borrow areas, substations and other 30

ancillary areas of effects will include the footprint of the facility and a buffer of 200 feet 31

around the footprint of the proposed activity. 32

e. The direct effects APE for pulling/tensioning sites that fall outside the ROW will be a 250 33

foot radius around these points. 34


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 6 of 28

f. The direct effects APE for borehole locations needed for geotechnical studies conducted 1

as part of detailed engineering will include a 250 foot radius area centered on the 2

borehole location if outside the transmission line direct effects APE. 3

g. The direct effects APE for operation and maintenance activities will be the same as the 4

APEs described in a.-f. above and within the area of the ROW grant. 5

2. Indirect Effects 6

a. The APE for indirect effects on historic properties will include, but not be limited to, the 7

visual, audible and atmospheric elements that could adversely affect NRHP listed or 8

eligible properties. Consideration will be given to all qualifying characteristics of a 9

historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the 10

original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP. 11

b. The indirect effects APE for the Undertaking will extend generally for five miles or to the 12

visual horizon, whichever is closer, on either side of the centerline of the proposed 13

alignment and alternative routes. 14

c. Studies for previous 500 kV lines have identified noise created by corona and 15

electromagnetic fields as possible indirect effects for transmission lines. These same 16

studies indicate that these effects are greatest immediately under the line and within 17

the APE for direct effects. Although they may on occasion be measured as far as 300 18

feet from the centerline of a 500 kV line, data gathered for this Undertaking indicate 19

that the noise created by corona and electromagnetic fields will be limited to within the 20

inventoried indirect effects APE. 21

d. Where the indirect APE includes TCPs, NHTs, and other classes of visually-sensitive 22

historic properties, additional analyses may be required and the indirect APE may need 23

to be modified accordingly. These areas will require analysis on a case by case basis. 24

3. Cumulative Effects 25

a. The identification of the APEs will consider cumulative effects to historic properties as 26

referenced in 36 CFR 800.5. Cumulative effects may be direct and/or indirect, or 27

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the Undertaking that may occur over time, be 28

farther removed in distance or be cumulative. 29

B. Modifications to the APE 30

1. An APE may be modified where tribal consideration, additional field research or literature 31

review, consultation with parties to this agreement, or other factors indicate that the 32

qualities and values of historic properties that lie outside the boundaries of the APEs may 33

be affected directly, indirectly and/or cumulatively. 34

2. Any party to this agreement may propose that the APEs be modified by submitting a 35

written request to the BLM providing a description of the area to be included, justification 36

for modifying the APE(s), and map of the area to be included. The BLM will notify the 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 7 of 28

parties to this agreement of the proposal with a written description of the modification 1

requested within 15 days of receipt of such a request. From the date of notification, the 2

BLM will consult with the parties to this agreement for no more than 30 days to reach 3

consensus on the proposal. 4

3. If the parties to this agreement cannot agree to a proposal for the modification of the APEs, 5

then the BLM will consider their concerns and will render a final decision within 30 days 6

after the consultation period closes. 7

4. For all modifications to the APE(s) the BLM will provide a written record of the decision to 8

the parties to this agreement. 9

5. Amending the APEs will not require an amendment to the PA. 10

6. Minor changes to the APE during construction of the Undertaking that may require 11

additional fieldwork, regardless of land ownership, may be handled through the BLM ROW 12

grant variance process in accordance with stipulation VII.C.4.c. 13

II. Identification of Cultural Resources 14

A. For the purposes of this document cultural resources are defined as archaeological, historical 15

or architectural sites, structures or places that may exhibit human activity or occupation 16

and/or may be sites of religious and cultural significance to tribes (excerpted from BLM 17

Manual 8100). 18

B. All cultural resources within the APEs that will have achieved 50 years of age or more at the 19

time of the completion of construction, defined as “the cessation of all construction activities 20

associated with the Undertaking”, or shall have achieved “exceptional significance” (National 21

Register Bulletin 15, Criteria Consideration G) shall be identified and evaluated. 22

C. The BLM will ensure that work undertaken to satisfy the terms of this PA and to adequately 23

identify and document cultural resources that may be affected by this Undertaking and as 24

described herein, will be consistent with ACHP and NPS guidance. The BLM will also ensure 25

that all identification, evaluation, assessment and treatment of cultural resources will be 26

conducted by, or under the direct supervision of, persons with applicable professional 27

qualifications standards set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology 28

and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716 Federal Register, September 29, 1983) and the federal 29

agency or SHPOs/THPO guidance or permitting requirements. 30

D. The Proponent will directly fund all fieldwork, analysis, reporting, treatment and curation. 31

Fieldwork will be conducted only after the Proponent has obtained the appropriate federal, 32

tribal and state permits for such fieldwork. Depending on land ownership, the appropriate 33

federal or state agency will require fieldwork authorizations to conduct inventories on public 34

lands upon receipt of an application from the Proponent and within the timeframes stipulated 35

in the land-managing agency’s procedures. The CTUIR THPO will require fieldwork 36

authorizations to conduct inventories on tribal lands. 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 8 of 28

E. The Proponent will conduct the identification effort and inventory of cultural resources in 1

order to identify historic properties for this Undertaking through the following series of steps 2

including a literature review and phased field surveys. Details on these surveys are found in 3

the Archaeological Survey Plan (Appendix A) and the Visual Assessment of Historic Properties 4

(VAHP) Study Plan (Appendix B). 5

Class I Literature Review—The Proponent will conduct a literature review/record search 6

and include a review of cultural resource investigations and all cultural resources previously 7

identified within a corridor two miles wide on either side of the transmission centerline 8

(four miles total) and will include the proposed and alternative routes to be considered for 9

detailed analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 10

The Proponent will also conduct a literature review and record search for the indirect APE, 11

which will comprise a corridor five miles wide on either side of the transmission centerline 12

(10 miles total) and will include the proposed and alternative routes to be considered for 13

detailed analysis in the DEIS. The literature review for the indirect APE will at minimum 14

consist of review of ethnographic literature, General Land Office (GLO) and other available 15

historic maps, an electronic search of the National Register Information System (NRIS), the 16

Oregon Historic Sites Database, Archaeological Survey of Idaho Database, the Idaho Historic 17

Sites Inventory forms, the Washington Information System for Architectural and 18

Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD), the CTUIR THPO site database, local landmarks 19

and registers, and an investigation of historic and contemporary aerial photography. 20

Information on cultural resources existing in the indirect APE that may require further 21

analysis will also be sought from parties to this agreement. 22

1. Class II Sample Inventory—The Proponent will undertake a Class II pedestrian inventory to 23

document cultural resources within the 15 percent sample area of the direct effects APE for 24

the Proponent’s proposed alignment and analyzed DEIS alternatives. The 15 percent 25

sample survey will consist of a series of one-mile long by 500-feet-wide units, centered on 26

the centerline of the Proponent’s proposed alignment and DEIS alternatives. The Class II 27

survey will also record the location of areas judged to have high potential for buried 28

cultural resources which may require further subsurface probing, as discussed under 29

stipulation II.E.7. 30

2. Indirect Effects APE Inventory—The Proponent will identify cultural resources, within the 31

indirect APE that may be affected by the visual, atmospheric and audible elements of the 32

Undertaking. 33

The visual elements of the indirect APE will be identified using Geographic Information 34

Systems (GIS) viewshed analysis and field verification. Details regarding the process for 35

indirect visual effects are provided in the VAHP Study Plan (Appendix B). The BLM will 36

consult with tribes to identify TCPs and properties of religious and cultural significance 37

within the APE as described in stipulation VI. 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 9 of 28

A reconnaissance level survey will be conducted to identify potential historic properties, 1

including cultural landscapes. The preliminary results report will be distributed to the 2

federal agencies that are parties to this agreement, SHPOs, THPO and tribes for 3

consultation on eligibility as per stipulations V. and VIII. At their discretion, any federal 4

agency may decline receipt and review of the report by notifying the BLM in writing prior 5

to report distribution. Intensive level surveys (VAHP) will be conducted on select properties 6

upon consultation with the appropriate parties to this agreement (the BLM to determine 7

based on location, state and/or jurisdiction, property ownership, etc.). The reconnaissance 8

and intensive level surveys (VAHP) will be documented in reports. 9

Once historic properties are identified, the BLM will seek additional information from 10

relevant technical studies (such as the noise and electromagnetic field studies) as well as 11

consult with parties to this agreement to assess indirect effects from atmospheric or 12

audible elements that may diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic 13

features (36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(v)). 14

3. Initial Class III Intensive Level Inventory—The Proponent will complete a 100 percent Class 15

III inventory to document cultural resources within the direct effects APE of the BLM-final 16

selected alternative(s) and all roads and facilities related to the Undertaking on lands 17

where access has been granted, including all federal, state, and private lands. Previously 18

surveyed areas from the Class II inventory will count toward the 100 percent inventory. This 19

survey will also record the location of areas judged to have high potential for buried 20

cultural resources which may require further subsurface probing, as discussed under 21

stipulation II.E.7. 22

4. Class III Intensive Level Inventory of Geotechnical Testing APE—The Proponent will 23

complete Class III surveys around each proposed borehole location for areas outside the 24

direct effects APE. See stipulation I.A.1.f. 25

5. Preconstruction Class III Intensive Level Inventory—The BLM shall ensure that Class III 26

inventory is completed by the Proponent for areas within the direct effects APE that have 27

not been subject to previous Class III inventories. See stipulation XII. These will include any 28

areas where access was previously denied or where there are modifications to the 29

Undertaking, such as modified access roads or lay-down yards that are identified after the 30

ROD has been issued. Prior to conducting this Class III inventory, a record search will be 31

conducted to obtain currently available data. 32

6. Subsurface Investigations for Purposes of Identifying Cultural Resources—The BLM will 33

employ reasonable and good faith efforts to identify historic properties, in accordance with 34

ACHP guidance titled Meeting the “Reasonable and Good Faith” Identification Standard in 35

Section 106 Review. There will be neither collection of artifacts nor disturbance of ground 36

during initial Class II and Class III intensive level pedestrian cultural resources surveys. 37

Wherever possible, existing information and professional judgment will prevail in an effort 38

to be efficient, pragmatic and protect the resources during the identification of historic 39

properties. A sampling strategy model, including a provision for reporting the results and 40


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 10 of 28

validity of the methods, may be employed. The sampling strategy will be tailored to 1

account for results of previous strategies employed in the region. 2

Areas identified as possessing a high potential for buried cultural resources located within 3

the direct APE may be subjected to subsurface probing to determine the presence or 4

absence of cultural resources, where ground disturbing activities will occur. Selection of 5

areas with a high potential for buried deposits, which include factors such as proximity to 6

water, deep soils, geological features, etc. which may be coupled with low surface visibility, 7

will be based on professional judgment, in consultation with the consulting parties , and 8

comparison with existing site context in the area. 9

The BLM will develop a research design and sampling strategy for the subsurface 10

investigation, in consultation with the Proponent, and parties to this agreement, prior to 11

undertaking any such investigation. The details of the research design and sampling 12

strategy for the subsurface investigation will be encompassed within the HPMP. The BLM 13

will consult with Indian tribes and parties to this agreement regarding the potential areas 14

proposed for this testing. 15

7. Subsurface Investigations Alternatives—For certain classes of resources, less invasive 16

technologies, such as remote sensing, may be appropriate. Such methods may be 17

considered as an alternative to subsurface testing. 18

F. The BLM will make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify properties of religious and 19

cultural significance to Indian tribes, through tribal participation. Identification of historic 20

properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes will occur through 21

government-to-government consultation and ethnographic studies. 22

The BLM will make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify TCPs as discussed in National 23

Register Bulletin #38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 24

Properties, of the NPS guidance, through the consultation and/or through ethnographic 25

studies. Reports identifying such historic properties will be prepared with the participation of 26

the associated group. 27

G. The BLM will ensure that the Proponent completes draft and final reports for the steps of 28

stipulation II. The BLM will send the reports out to the parties to this agreement for review as 29

described in stipulation V. Review times will be 30 days unless otherwise agreed to. 30

III. Evaluation and Determination of Eligibility 31

A. The BLM, in consultation with the appropriate parties to this agreement in each state, will 32

determine the NRHP eligibility of cultural resources within the APEs, pursuant to 36 CFR 33

800.4(c)(1), and 36 CFR 60.4 NRHP evaluations may be conducted in phases as project plans 34

are refined. Initial evaluations may be followed by more thorough evaluations using NRHP 35

Criteria A-D and NPS Bulletin 15 as the APEs become better defined. Cultural resources may 36

remain unevaluated if there is no potential for effect from the Undertaking. Cultural resources 37

that possess some or all of the characteristics of both archaeological and built environment 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 11 of 28

resources, such as cultural landscapes and trails, shall be evaluated according to the provisions 1

of stipulations C. through G. of this section. 2

B. Determinations of eligibility will be consistent with applicable SHPO/THPO guidelines in each 3

respective jurisdiction, in effect at the time of the signing of this PA. Determinations of 4

eligibility require concurrence by the SHPO/THPO as detailed in stipulation III.H. 5

C. Archaeological Resources 6

1. Initial evaluations for archaeological resources may rely on surface observations, 7

additional research or remote sensing. If a site is recommended as “eligible” during the 8

initial evaluation and will be affected by the Undertaking, subsurface investigations (i.e. 9

archaeological testing) may be required to make a final determination of NRHP eligibility, 10

but shall be undertaken only after consultation with affected tribes. 11

2. Determinations of eligibility will be based on reasonable and good faith efforts using 12

available knowledge and data such as existing surface manifestations of the site and 13

cultural context from other site investigations, as well as the environmental and 14

paleoenvironmental setting. Subsurface investigation may be considered as a tool to 15

determine eligibility on an as needed basis but must be prudent and minimize disturbance 16

of cultural deposits. The research design and sampling strategy outlined under stipulation 17

II.E.7 will include provisions for the determinations of eligibility. Such testing will only 18

occur in areas that cannot be avoided and will be directly impacted by the Undertaking. 19

3. In cases where surface observations, additional research or remote sensing are not 20

sufficient to provide an initial recommendation of NRHP eligibility, the recorder will 21

recommend the resource as requiring further investigation to assess eligibility. Further 22

subsurface investigations will be undertaken in the event that final design will directly 23

impact the resource, per stipulation II.E.7. 24

Subsurface investigation strategy shall include an assessment of the depositional 25

environment and objectives for subsurface testing; methods to be employed for 26

subsurface testing and probing; proposed disposition of materials associated with 27

subsurface testing and probing; provisions for reporting and consultation on results of 28

testing. If the site is found ineligible, the evaluation will be reported per the procedures 29

established in stipulation III.G. If the site is found to be eligible, then effects will be 30

assessed as outlined in stipulation IV, and a mitigation plan will be prepared, as applicable 31

per stipulation VII.C.2. 32

Subsurface investigation strategy shall be subject to review and consultation per the 33

terms of stipulations V. and VI. of this agreement. 34

4. In cases where surface observations are adequate to support a recommendation that the 35

resource is “not eligible” for listing in the NRHP, this evaluation will be reported per the 36

procedures established in stipulation III.G. 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 12 of 28

D. Built Environment 1

The BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, will determine NRHP eligibility of 2

built environment resources (e.g., buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites with above 3

ground components), pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(1). 4

1. Initial assessment of eligibility for built environment resources will take into account the 5

resources’ age and integrity (location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and 6

association) per the guidance provided in NRHP Bulletin 16A, and per other applicable NPS 7

and state guidance. 8

2. Resources determined NRHP eligible per initial assessment and assessed as affected by the 9

Undertaking per the procedures established in stipulation IV. of this PA will be reassessed 10

to verify their eligibility in terms of the resources’ association with the NRHP criteria of 11

significance. This secondary assessment may involve additional research into the history, 12

events and people associated with the resource, as well as more detailed recordation of the 13

resources’ physical attributes and character-defining features. 14

E. Historic Trails 15

The BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, will determine the National 16

Register eligibility of historic trails, trail segments and associated sites pursuant to 36 CFR 17

800.4(c)(1). Historic trails will be evaluated for eligibility as historic properties including linear 18

resources along with associated trail sites such as camps, associated markers, glyphs or other 19

trail elements. For designated National Historic Trails, such as the Oregon Trail, the trail 20

elements, as well as trail segments, will be evaluated as contributing or non-contributing in 21

terms of National Register eligibility based on their integrity (primarily for feeling, association, 22

location and setting). 23

BLM may seek input and utilize existing information and strategies from other agencies and 24

groups, such as the NPS and trail associations, as well as consulting parties in determining the 25

National Register eligibility of sites and trail segments. 26

F. Traditional Cultural Properties 27

Like all historic properties, to be considered eligible a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) must 28

be a district, site, building, structure, or object that meets at least one of the four criteria 29

established by the NRHP. It must also be associated with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 30

community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in 31

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. TCPs apply to groups of every 32

ethnic origin that have properties to which they ascribe traditional cultural value (NRHP 33

Bulletin 38). 34

To identify TCPs, the BLM will rely on NRHP Bulletin 38 and other NPS guidance, and 35

consultation with Indian tribes, ethnic groups or communities ascribing traditional significance 36

to an area. The BLM will make its determinations of eligibility based on consultation and 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 13 of 28

information from literature reviews, ethnographies, traditional use studies, field inventories, 1

oral histories, interviews, and other forms of research. 2

G. Properties of Religious and Cultural Significance to Indian Tribes 3

Federal agencies are required to consult with Indian tribes to identify properties of religious 4

and cultural significance and to determine if they are eligible for the NRHP (NHPA Section 5

101(d)(6)(B) and 38 CFR 800.2(c)(2)). The BLM acknowledges that Indian tribes possess special 6

expertise in assessing the eligibility of properties that may possess religious and cultural 7

significance to them (NHPA Section 101(d)(6)(A) and 36 CFR 800.4(c)(1)). Unlike TCPs, the 8

determinations of NRHP eligibility of such properties are not tied to continual or physical use 9

of the property (ACHP Handbook on Consultation with Indian Tribes, 2012). 10

To identify properties of religious and cultural significance, the BLM will rely on consultation 11

with Indian tribes. The BLM will make its determinations of eligibility based on consultation 12

and information from literature reviews, ethnographies, traditional use studies, field 13

inventories, oral histories, interviews, and/or other forms of research. 14

H. Reporting on Initial and Final Recommendations of NRHP Eligibility 15

1. The BLM will distribute recommendations of initial NRHP eligibility to the appropriate 16

parties to this agreement in each state for review and comment following 36 CFR 800.4(c). 17

After a 30 day review period, the BLM will consider all comments and consult with parties 18

to this agreement before submitting its determinations of eligibility, with all comments and 19

responses, to the applicable SHPOs/THPO for concurrence. The BLM will then seek 20

consensus on its determinations of eligibility with the appropriate SHPOs/THPO for all 21

properties regardless of ownership. 22

a. If the applicable SHPOs/THPO, tribes, and BLM agree that the cultural resource is 23

eligible, an assessment of effects will be completed in accordance with stipulation IV. 24

b. If the applicable SHPOs/THPO, tribes, and BLM agree that the cultural resource is 25

ineligible, then the resource will receive no further consideration under this PA. 26

c. If the applicable SHPOs/THPO, tribes, and BLM do not agree on eligibility, the BLM will 27

discuss issues of eligibility with the parties to this agreement and continue to consult to 28

reach consensus. If agreement cannot be reached within 30 days, then the BLM will 29

obtain a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the NRHP pursuant to 36 CFR 30

800.4(c)(2) and 36 CFR 63. The Keeper’s determination will be final. The BLM will 31

distribute the Keeper’s comments to the appropriate parties to this agreement in each 32

state. 33

2. The BLM will distribute the results of the final evaluations to parties to this agreement for 34

review and comment following 36 CFR 800.4(c). After a 30 day review period, the BLM will 35

submit the final determinations of eligibility, with all comments to the applicable 36

SHPOs/THPO for concurrence. The BLM will then seek consensus on the final determination 37

of eligibility with the appropriate SHPOs/THPO for all properties regardless of ownership. 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 14 of 28

IV. Assessment of Effects 1

A. The BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, will assess the direct, indirect and 2

cumulative effects of this Undertaking on historic properties consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(d) 3

and identify effects on each historic property within the APEs in accordance with the criteria 4

established in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)-(2), and provide the parties to this agreement with the 5

results of the finding following 36 CFR 800.11(e)(4)-(6), as outlined under stipulation V. The 6

assessment of effects will serve as the basis for the development of the Historic Properties 7

Management Plan (HPMP) for those properties determined to have the potential to be 8

adversely affected by the Undertaking. 9

B. The BLM will consult with the parties to this agreement to seek ways to avoid or minimize 10

adverse effects to historic properties. If historic properties cannot be avoided, subsurface 11

investigation may be necessary for archaeological sites within the direct effects APE which 12

may be adversely affected. Determination of the site boundaries in relation to the direct effect 13

APE, and actual area of ground disturbance, may be undertaken through subsurface 14

investigation to aid in developing alternative design and/or mitigation strategies. If adverse 15

effects cannot be avoided, the BLM will consult with the parties to this agreement to 16

determine appropriate mitigation measures to be detailed in the HPMP. 17

C. The Proponent has developed a VAHP Study Plan, (Appendix B) in consultation with federal 18

agencies party to this agreement, SHPOs, THPO and tribes, to assess whether the Undertaking 19

will introduce visual effects that may alter the characteristics that qualify the historic property 20

for the NRHP or that may diminish the integrity of the property’s setting, feeling and/or 21

association. The guidelines for conducting the assessment of visual effects of the Undertaking 22

are located in the VAHP. The inventory will focus on indirect visual effects. Other potential 23

indirect effects, including but not limited to atmospheric and audible elements, will be 24

addressed as per stipulation IV.A. above. 25

D. The Proponent will prepare maps indicating the extent of electromagnetic fields, corona and 26

noise generated by the proposed Undertaking as well as the distribution of identified historic 27

properties in the APE. The BLM will employ these maps in the agency’s assessment of effects 28

and will consult with parties to this agreement per the procedures outlined in stipulation V. 29

E. The BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, will broadly assess cumulative 30

effects under Section 106 in order to identify all reasonably foreseeable, potentially adverse 31

effects, such as effects due to increased access, as a result of the Undertaking (36 CFR 800.5 32

(a)(1)). Potential cumulative or reasonably foreseeable effects will be based on the APEs for 33

direct and indirect effect and be addressed in the HPMP. 34

F. The BLM will provide all assessments of effect to historic properties in writing to the parties to 35

this agreement. Review will proceed according to the procedures and timeframes established 36

in stipulation V. 37

G. Disagreement regarding assessments of effect will be handled according to the procedures 38

established in stipulation XIV. 39


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 15 of 28

V. Reporting and Review of Documentation 1

A. Consistent with the terms and conditions of this PA, the Proponent will prepare reports of 2

cultural resource activities (inventory, evaluation, mitigation/treatment, monitoring and 3

related cultural resource actions) including associated site records and organize them for 4

distribution and review following these general guidelines: 5

1. Organization of reports by geographic/administrative boundaries: The Proponent will 6

prepare separate reports, as applicable, for those cultural resource inventories and 7

evaluations involving cultural resources and/or historic properties and the built 8

environment (a) within the state of Oregon (excluding lands within the Umatilla Indian 9

Reservation); (b) within the state of Idaho; and (c) on lands within the Umatilla Indian 10

Reservation, utilizing the guidelines in the respective jurisdictions in effect at the time of 11

the signing of this PA. 12

a. The Proponent will prepare reports (including report revisions) of activities within the 13

state of Oregon (excluding the Umatilla Indian Reservation) for the BLM’s distribution to 14

the Oregon SHPO, federal agencies, applicable parties to this agreement and tribes. 15

b. The Proponent will prepare reports (including report revisions) of activities within the 16

state of Idaho for the BLM’s distribution to the Idaho SHPO, federal agencies party to 17

this agreement and tribes. 18

c. The Proponent will prepare reports (including report revisions) of activities, cultural 19

resources and/or historic properties on CTUIR tribal lands for the BLM’s distribution to 20

both the THPO and Chairman of the CTUIR. 21

2. Reports shall clearly identify land ownership and administrative jurisdiction for both (a) 22

lands covered by the report and (b) cultural resources/historic properties discussed in the 23

report(s). 24

B. At the conclusion of the phases of fieldwork described under stipulation II.E, as well as any 25

variances undertaken, as described in stipulation VII.C.4.c, the Proponent will submit the draft 26

report for the phases to the lead BLM office for distribution to the appropriate parties to this 27

agreement in each state. 28

C. Each report will follow appropriate state guidelines and formats including recommendations 29

of eligibility and effect that are in effect at the time of the signing of this PA. Reports will 30

include appropriate site inventory forms and recommendations on the NRHP eligibility of 31

cultural resources (36 CFR 800.4(c)). 32

D. The BLM will consolidate comments received from parties to this agreement on the reports 33

and submit comments to the Proponent within 60 days of receipt of all comments. The 34

Proponent will produce a revised report addressing these comments within 30 days of receipt. 35

Additional time may be necessary depending on the extent of the revisions. 36

E. Comments received by the BLM within 30 calendar days of receipt of the report will be 37

considered. Comments may address issues such as the adequacy of inventory, methods of 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 16 of 28

assessment and reporting, the eligibility of historic properties identified during each phase (36 1

CFR 800.4(c)), and the effects of the Undertaking on any historic properties (36 CFR 800.4(d) 2

and 36 CFR 800.5). Reviewers will notify the lead BLM office if the 30 day review time frame 3

cannot be met and request an extension from the BLM. Within 10 days of receipt of a request 4

for an extension, the BLM will determine if the request will be granted and send written 5

notification to the requesting party. After 30 days, provided there is no request for extension, 6

the BLM will submit all comments to the Proponent for the Proponent to address per the 7

process outlined in stipulation V.D. 8

F. For reports that are not time sensitive or are in excess of 200 pages, the BLM may expand 9

review times beyond 30 calendar days. 10

G. The BLM will submit revised reports to the appropriate agencies, SHPOs/THPO, tribes and 11

parties to this agreement for their records. 12

H. Versions of reports redacted (see stipulation VIII.) by the BLM for sensitive information, such 13

as site-specific locations and names, may also be distributed to other parties to this 14

agreement, who do not fall under the applicable professional qualifications standards set 15

forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 16

FR 44716 Federal Register, September 29, 1983) for review and comment. 17

I. The BLM will prepare a HPMP per the terms specified in stipulation VII. 18

J. Prior to any eventual decommissioning of the Undertaking, the Proponent will prepare a plan 19

for protecting historic properties per the terms in stipulation VII.C.5. 20

K. The Proponent will provide a state specific, final summary report for each respective 21

SHPO/THPO documenting all changes to previous report findings and additional cultural 22

resources-related work not included in the pre-construction reports. The report format will be 23

identified in the HPMP. A summary report may also be provided to parties to this agreement 24

in accordance with stipulation VIII. The summary report will be produced no later than three 25

years after the final surveys and will be considered the final Class III inventory report(s). 26

VI. Consultation 27

A. Through government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes, based on the U.S. 28

Constitution and Federal treaties, statutes, executive orders and policies, the BLM, in 29

consultation with appropriate federal agencies, will make a good faith effort to identify 30

properties that have traditional religious and cultural importance to Indian tribes and to 31

determine whether they are historic properties. Discussion of these properties may be 32

submitted as a separate report, such as an ethnographic study. Ethnographic studies are not 33

required, but may be requested by tribes. Confidentiality concerns expressed by tribes for 34

properties that have traditional religious and cultural importance will be respected and will be 35

protected to the extent allowed by law. See stipulation VIII. 36


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 17 of 28

B. BLM will ensure that tribes and parties to this agreement will be kept informed as to the 1

development of the Undertaking and engaged in review and comment on all pertinent 2

documents associated. The BLM will seek, discuss and consider the views of the consulting 3

parties throughout the Section 106 process. Such consultation may take a variety of forms in 4

order to accommodate the consultation process with different tribes and parties to this 5

agreement. The consultation will occur through previously established protocols, Memoranda 6

of Understanding and/or forums established for the Undertaking. BLM will consult with tribes 7

and parties to this agreement during the identification of cultural resources, the 8

determination of NRHP eligibility, determination of effect and avoidance and mitigation steps 9

of the process. While the nature of consultation is fluid and the input may vary from tribes 10

and parties to this agreement, in general, the procedures and schedule for review of 11

documents outlined in stipulation V. will be followed. 12

VII. Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) 13

A. The BLM will begin to draft an outline of the HPMP in consultation with the parties to this 14

agreement following execution of the PA that includes mitigation options for anticipated 15

general classes of historic properties that may be affected by the Undertaking. This outline 16

may include options for treatment of specific properties, as discussed under stipulation 17

VII.C.2, if the details of the historic property are available and the exact effects have been 18

determined. The final HPMP, including protection measures, property-specific mitigation 19

plans, and monitoring plans will be finalized prior to the NTP. 20

B. The draft HPMP will characterize historic properties identified within the APE and will be used 21

as a guide to address pre-construction and post-construction treatment measures to avoid, 22

minimize and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties identified through subsequent 23

phases of the Undertaking. The draft HPMP will also broadly identify classes of historic 24

properties, relevant research, and potential data gaps in research for classes of properties 25

present in the APE. A range of resource-specific (e.g. historic trails) strategies, will include but 26

not be limited to, mitigation and monitoring, to address reasonably foreseeable direct, 27

indirect and/or cumulative adverse effects that may be caused by the Undertaking. The 28

mitigation measures will be commensurate with the nature of the effect and the significance 29

of the resource, and shall take into account the views of the parties to this agreement and the 30

public. The BLM will consult with the parties to this agreement to obtain written comments 31

and recommendations for proposed treatment measures to be included in the HPMP per the 32

procedures established in stipulations V. and VI. BLM, in consultation with the parties to this 33

agreement, will develop a process for review and acceptance of mitigation to be outlined in 34

the HPMP. 35

C. Wherever feasible, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment for 36

historic properties located within the APE. Avoidance may include design changes or 37

relocation of specific components of the Undertaking and/or use of fencing or barricades to 38

limit access to identified historic properties. For historic properties that cannot be avoided the 39


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 18 of 28

HPMP will include the following plans and provisions to minimize or mitigate direct, indirect 1

and/or cumulative adverse effects to historic properties that may result at any time during the 2

Undertaking. 3

1. Protection Measures 4

The HPMP shall include measures to protect identified historic properties from adverse effects 5

that may result from the Undertaking. These measures may include but not be limited to 6

placement of barricades and fencing, notices to law enforcement, seasonal restrictions, and 7

other appropriate measures. 8

2. Mitigation Plans 9

a. All historic properties adversely affected by the Undertaking will be subject to property-10

specific mitigation plans to be drafted after issuance of the ROD to resolve adverse 11

effects as determinations of effect for these properties are made pursuant to stipulation 12

IV. The mitigation plans will be included in the final HPMP. 13

b. Mitigation plans shall include appropriate measures to resolve adverse effects to the 14

qualities of the historic property that make it eligible for listing in the NRHP. All 15

mitigation plans will be consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for 16

archaeological, historical and architectural documentation; the ACHP Section 106 17

archaeology guidance and other guidance from the appropriate SHPOs/THPO. 18

c. For effects to archaeological sites that will be mitigated through data recovery, 19

mitigation plans shall include but not be limited to a research design that articulates 20

research questions; data needed to address research questions; methods to be 21

employed to collect data; laboratory methods employed to examine collected materials; 22

and proposed disposition and curation of collected materials and records. 23

d. Mitigation plans for direct effects to historic properties eligible for listing in the NRHP 24

under criteria other than or in addition to criterion D shall articulate the context for 25

assessing the properties’ significance, an assessment of the character-defining features 26

that make the property eligible for listing in the NRHP, and an assessment of how the 27

proposed mitigation measures will resolve the effects to the property. 28

e. Mitigation plans for indirect effects to historic properties eligible under any NRHP 29

criteria shall include an assessment of the character-defining features that make the 30

property eligible for listing in the NRHP; the nature of the indirect effect; an evaluation 31

of the need for long-term monitoring; and an assessment of how the proposed 32

mitigation measure(s) will resolve the effects to the property. 33

f. Mitigation plans for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to historic properties may 34

include, but will not be limited to: 35

1) Completion of NRHP nomination forms 36

2) Conservation easements 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 19 of 28

3) Purchase of land for long-term protection of historic properties 1

4) Partnerships and funding for public archaeology projects 2

5) Partnerships and funding for Historic Properties interpretation 3

6) Print or media publication 4

3. Monitoring Plan 5

A Monitoring Plan will be developed as a subsection of the HPMP for implementation 6

during construction, operation, and maintenance. 7

a. This plan will address monitoring for compliance with stipulations of the HPMP, as well 8

as a potential strategy to avoid, minimize, or mitigate direct, indirect and/or cumulative 9

adverse effects to historic properties at any time during the Undertaking. 10

b. All monitoring plans shall identify monitoring objectives and the methods necessary to 11

attain these objectives, and in particular address those areas determined under the 12

inventory to show a high probability for buried cultural deposits. 13

Monitoring shall, as appropriate, include archaeological inspection of construction 14

activities by personnel either meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification 15

standards or working under the direct supervision of a person meeting the standards. 16

Provisions for tribal monitors will meet the above qualifications as well, per the 17

discretion of consulting tribes. 18

c. Any cultural resources, human remains or funerary objects discovered at any time 19

during construction, construction monitoring, or operation and maintenance activities 20

will be treated in accordance with the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) contained within 21

the HPMP. 22

4. Operations and Maintenance 23

The HPMP shall include operations and maintenance to address all activities related to the 24

functioning of the Undertaking after construction and reclamation are completed and prior 25

to decommissioning. During operations and maintenance, the ROW grant holder will be 26

required to follow all the terms, conditions, and stipulations concerning historic properties 27

which are included in the POD as part of the ROW grant. 28

a. The HPMP will identify those stipulations necessary to ensure the consideration of 29

historic properties throughout the life of the ROW grant. 30

b. The BLM will be responsible for ensuring that the stipulations in the BLM ROW grant are 31

enforced for the life of the ROW grant. Federal or state agencies issuing a permit for the 32

Undertaking will take responsibility for permit enforcement under their jurisdiction. 33


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 20 of 28

c. The HPMP will identify a variance review process for construction, operations and 1

maintenance, to address any changes in procedures that could have an adverse effect 2

on historic properties in the ROW. The Proponent will submit a request for variance 3

review to the BLM through BLM’s third party Compliance Inspection Contractor for any 4

proposed changes in use of equipment, additional work areas, access roads, ancillary 5

features, reroutes or other changes that may result in ground disturbing activities 6

outside of the previously surveyed APE. At a minimum the variance area will be checked 7

to ensure that it falls within an area where the following have been completed: 8

Class I literature review in accordance with stipulation II.E.1. 9

Class III inventory in accordance with stipulation II.E.4 10

Determinations of Eligibility in accordance with stipulation III.G. 11

Assessment of Effects in accordance with stipulation IV. 12

Protection, Mitigation and Monitoring plans in accordance with stipulation 13

VII.C.1-3. 14

Where BLM determines that additional inventory is needed through the variance 15

request process, no ground disturbance will be authorized in the variance area until the 16

above items and any mitigation measures are completed, in consultation with parties to 17

this agreement, and BLM approves the variance. 18

Additional inventory and evaluation undertaken for these variances will be reported as 19

soon as feasible and sent to the BLM for review in accordance with stipulation V.B, as 20

part of the Class III inventory. Any variance reports will also be included in the 21

comprehensive report outlined in stipulation V.L. Such documentation will tier to the 22

previous background context in the existing reports so that only new information such 23

as site forms, eligibility determinations, etc. will be included. 24

The BLM will develop a list of operation and maintenance activities in consultation with 25

parties to this agreement that will NOT be subject to additional Section 106 review, and 26

will identify the types of activities that will require additional Section 106 review. 27

BLM administration of the ROW grant shall include appropriate BLM cultural resource 28

specialists to participate in ROW grant review and to review compliance with 29

stipulations or changes in procedures that may affect historic properties in the ROW. 30

5. Decommissioning 31

The POD will contain a stipulation to develop a decommissioning plan to address the 32

potential effects of decommissioning on historic properties. Prior to decommissioning, the 33

BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, will assess the direct, indirect and 34

cumulative effects of decommissioning this transmission line and associated facilities on 35

historic properties and to seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects under 36

the plan. 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 21 of 28

B. Reporting 1

The HPMP shall provide for the preparation of reports as called for during the implementation 2

of plan activities, including but not limited to monitoring reports, Historic American Buildings 3

Survey / Historic American Engineering Record / Historic American Landscapes documentation, 4

and archaeological data recovery documentation, if applicable. 5

The BLM will ensure that the Proponent completes draft and final reports as called for under 6

the implementation of the HPMP. The BLM will send the reports out to the parties to this 7

agreement for review as described in stipulation V. Review times will be 30 days unless 8

otherwise noted. 9

C. HPMP and Mitigation Plans Review 10

1. The BLM shall submit the draft HPMP to the consulting parties for review. Distribution and 11

review of the HPMP and associated documents shall proceed according to the terms 12

outlined in stipulation V. of this agreement. 13

2. After consultation with the parties to this agreement to address comments and/or 14

objections, and acceptance by the SHPOs/THPO, the BLM will finalize the HPMP. 15

3. Any party to this PA may object at any time to any actions proposed or the manner in which 16

the terms of the HPMP are implemented. The objecting party must submit in writing to the 17

BLM the reasons for, and a justification of, its objections. The BLM will consult with the 18

party and the parties to this agreement to resolve the objection within 30 days. If the BLM 19

determines that such objection cannot be resolved, the BLM will follow the procedures 20

defined in this PA under stipulation XIV. 21

D. The HPMP will be finalized prior to the NTP to resolve adverse direct, indirect and/or 22

cumulative effects to historic properties that may result from this Undertaking. 23

E. The Proponent, in consultation with the Signatories, will conduct a formal review of the HPMP 24

and associated mitigation plans annually during the period of construction and every five (5) 25

years thereafter throughout the life of this agreement. 26

F. Any party to this agreement may suggest an amendment to the HPMP and should submit the 27

contents of the amendment in writing to the BLM. The BLM will consider the amendment 28

within 30 days of receipt and consult with the parties on the amendment. An amendment to 29

the HPMP will not require an amendment to the PA. After consultation with the parties to the 30

agreement, the BLM will determine if an amendment will be incorporated into the HPMP by 31

the Proponent. 32

VIII. Confidentiality of Cultural Resources Information 33

A. The parties to this agreement acknowledge that certain information about cultural resources 34

may be protected from public disclosure under NHPA (54 USC §307103), ARPA (43 CFR 7.18), 35

Idaho state law (Idaho Code § 9-340E(1),(2) and Oregon state law (ORS 192.501(11)). Parties 36

to this agreement will ensure that all actions and documentation prescribed by this PA are 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 22 of 28

consistent with the non-disclosure requirements of these laws. BLM will ensure that reports 1

sent to parties to this agreement who do not have staff meeting the Secretary of Interior 2

Professional Qualifications have certain confidential information such as place names, 3

location, etc. redacted, unless the party receiving the documents has an executed data sharing 4

agreement with BLM. Due to the potential for inadvertent discoveries, incomplete prior 5

evaluations or the passage of time resulting in changing perceptions of significance (36 CFR 6

800.4(c)(1)), cultural resources that have not been evaluated for eligibility or that have been 7

determined Not Eligible will be afforded the same level of confidentiality under this 8

agreement. The BLM may require data sharing agreements with parties interested in 9

obtaining confidential information. The data sharing agreements will be written in 10

consultation with the tribes and other parties which so request. 11

B. The Proponent will not retain sensitive information that tribes and interested parties 12

authorize them to collect, including but not limited to ethnographic data and similar 13

information beyond the time that it is needed to inform the decision-makers and complete 14

compliance with the terms of the PA. The Proponent will return sensitive information to the 15

BLM, or destroy it and provide written documentation of such action to the BLM. 16

IX. Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources and Human Remains on Non-Federal Lands 17

The BLM in consultation with federal agencies that are a party to this agreement, SHPOs, THPO 18

and tribes has prepared an IDP for the HPMP to include cultural resources and human remains, 19

that establishes procedures for immediate work stoppage and site protection to be followed in 20

the event that previously unreported and unanticipated cultural resources or human remains are 21

found on state or private lands during the Undertaking in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(a)(2)(b) 22

and appropriate state laws. 23

X. Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects or Objects of 24

Cultural Patrimony (NAGPRA) on Federal Lands 25

A. The BLM in consultation with federal agencies party to this agreement, SHPOs, THPO and 26

tribes has prepared an IDP for the HPMP, to include cultural resources and human remains, 27

that establishes procedures for immediate work stoppage and site protection to be followed 28

in the event that previously unreported and unanticipated cultural resources or human 29

remains are found on federal lands during the Undertaking. 30

B. Discovery of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of 31

cultural patrimony on federal lands shall be subject to 25 USC §3001 et seq., the Native 32

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and its implementing 33

regulations, 43 CFR 10 et. seq. The BLM will prepare a NAGPRA Plan of Action (POA) in 34

consultation with federal agencies party to this agreement and in consultation with Native 35

American tribes party to this agreement. The POA will describe the procedures for the 36

treatment and disposition of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred 37

objects or objects of cultural patrimony for intentionally excavated and inadvertent 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 23 of 28

discoveries during construction and planned, if any, excavation of sites located within the 1

Project APE on federal lands. The POA will be completed prior to any ground disturbing 2

activities associated with the Undertaking. 3

XI. Curation 4

A. The BLM will ensure curation and other disposition of cultural materials and associated 5

records not subject to the provisions of NAGPRA resulting from implementation of this PA on 6

federal land is completed in accordance with 36 CFR 79. Documentation of the curation of 7

these materials will be provided to the BLM and the appropriate SHPOs/THPO within 30 days 8

of acceptance of the final cultural resource report for the Undertaking. Cultural materials not 9

subject to the provisions of NAGPRA found on BLM and USFS lands will remain federal 10

property when curated. Curation will be undertaken in a manner consistent with and 11

respectful of cultural sensitivities. Materials found on federal land in Oregon will be curated at 12

the federally approved Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History (OMNCH). Materials 13

found on federal land in Idaho will be curated at the Archaeological Survey of Idaho-Western 14

Repository in Boise at the Archaeological Survey of Idaho–Western Repository federally 15

approved curation facility. 16

B. Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural 17

patrimony recovered from federal lands shall be subject to the provisions of NAGPRA, and 18

shall be treated in accordance with protocol developed between the BLM, USFS, and 19

consulting tribes and memorialized in the approved NAGPRA Plan of Action for the 20

Undertaking. This protocol shall be consistent with 43 CFR 10.3-10.7, the regulations 21

implementing NAGPRA. 22

C. Collections made on state land in the State of Oregon, will comply with ORS 390.235 and ORS 23

97.745. Collections on state land in Idaho will be curated at the Archaeological Survey of 24

Idaho-Western Repository in accordance with Idaho Statute Title 33, Chapter 39, Idaho 25

Archaeological Survey, Sections 3901-3905. 26

D. For collections recovered from private lands in Oregon, the Proponent will work with 27

landowners and parties to this agreement, through applicable state permits, to arrange for the 28

disposition of cultural resources collections. In Oregon, private landowners will be encouraged 29

to rebury or donate cultural resources collections to the OMNCH and will be informed that 30

Oregon state law (ORS 97.745) excludes retention of Native American human remains, 31

funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony and requires the return of such objects to 32

the appropriate tribe. Collections from private lands to be returned to the landowner will be 33

maintained in accordance with 36 CFR 79 until any specified analysis is complete. The 34

Proponent will provide documentation of the transfer of the collection to the landowner as 35

well as to the BLM and the appropriate parties to this agreement within 30 days of acceptance 36

of the final cultural resource reports for the Undertaking. In the event a landowner chooses to 37

retain a collection they will be notified by the BLM or Proponent that tribes may prefer 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 24 of 28

collected items be reburied. Any arrangements for reburial will be negotiated with the tribe(s) 1

outside of the Section 106 process. 2

E. Collections recovered from private lands in Idaho remain the property of the landowner. The 3

landowner will be encouraged to donate the collections to the Archaeological Survey of Idaho-4

Western Repository. Collections from private lands to be returned to the landowner will be 5

maintained in accordance with 36 CFR 79 until any specified analysis is complete. 6

F. The Proponent will assume the cost of curation including the preparation of materials for 7

curation in perpetuity. 8

XII. Initiation of Construction Activities 9

A. Construction will only occur after issuance of a federal ROW grant, Special Use Authorization 10

and specific NTP or any other federal or state authorization to the Proponent which will occur 11

after the ROD. 12

B. The BLM will ensure that mitigation for adversely affected historic properties is implemented 13

to the degree required in the mitigation plans prior to issuance of NTPs. The BLM will 14

authorize construction to begin once the parties to this agreement have been provided with 15

documentation of mitigation activities and consultation has occurred pursuant to stipulation 16

V. Disagreements regarding the adequacy of the implementation of mitigation plans are 17

subject to resolution as described in stipulation XIV. NTPs may be issued to the Proponent for 18

individual construction segments under the following conditions: 19

1. Construction of the segment will not restrict subsequent rerouting of the ROW corridor or 20

affiliated ancillary feature locations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the Undertaking’s 21

adverse effects on historic properties; and 22

2. The permitting agencies, in consultation with parties to this agreement, determine that all 23

surveys have been completed and no cultural resources have been identified through Class 24

III inventories and there are no historic properties within the APEs for the construction 25

segment; or 26

3. The permitting agencies, in consultation with the SHPOs/THPO, have implemented the 27

procedures described in the HPMP within the construction segment; and 28

a. The fieldwork phase of the treatment option has been completed; 29

b. The federal agencies that are a party to this agreement have accepted a summary 30

description from the Proponent of the fieldwork performed and a reporting schedule for 31

that work; 32

c. The permitting agencies have provided the parties to this agreement with a summary 33

description of the fieldwork performed and a reporting schedule for that work; and 34

d. The permitting agencies, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, have 35

determined that all preconstruction fieldwork is complete and adequate. 36


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 25 of 28

C. Changes in Ancillary Areas/Construction ROW 1

1. The BLM will notify the parties to this agreement of proposed changes in ancillary areas or 2

the ROW. The BLM will ensure that the APE of the new ancillary area or reroute is 3

inventoried and evaluated in accordance with stipulation II, and will consult with the 4

parties to this agreement on the proposed APE and the determination of eligibility and 5

effect in accordance with stipulations III. and IV. The reports addressing these areas will be 6

reviewed in accordance with stipulation V. of this PA. 7

2. The BLM will provide the tribes, and parties to this agreement with the revised addendum 8

reports and findings on eligibility and effects for a 30 day review and comment period. The 9

BLM will seek consensus determinations of eligibility for all properties identified in the 10

APEs. If consensus cannot be reached, the process articulated in stipulation III. for seeking a 11

determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the NRHP will be followed. 12

XIII. PA Evaluation 13

A. The BLM will evaluate the implementation and operation of this PA annually until all 14

construction and reclamation activities and mitigation reports are complete. The annual 15

evaluation will include a written report submitted by the BLM to the parties to this agreement 16

and may include in-person meetings among the BLM and parties to this agreement to discuss 17

any potential PA modifications or amendments. 18

B. The BLM‘s written report will describe all activities pertaining to the Undertaking for that year 19

and will be sent to all parties to this agreement by December 31st of each year. Parties to this 20

agreement may provide comments on reports to the BLM within 30 days of receipt. The BLM 21

will collate and distribute comments to the parties to this agreement, revise the report, as 22

necessary, and explain why particular revisions were or were not made. If there are significant 23

revisions needed, and if the parties to this agreement agree, the BLM may hold a meeting or 24

conference call to discuss any needed revisions. 25

XIV. Dispute Resolution 26

A. Any party to this agreement may object at any time to any actions proposed or the manner in 27

which the terms of this PA are implemented. The objecting party must submit in writing to the 28

BLM the reasons for, and a justification of, its objections. The BLM will consult with the 29

objecting party and all parties to this agreement to resolve the objection within 30 days. If the 30

BLM determines that such objection cannot be resolved, the BLM will: 31

1. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including the BLM’s proposed 32

resolution, to the ACHP within 30 days after the BLM’s initial determination that the 33

objection cannot be resolved. The ACHP will provide the BLM with its advice on the 34

resolution of the objection within 30 days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to 35

reaching a final determination on the dispute, the BLM will prepare a written response that 36

takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the ACHP 37


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 26 of 28

and parties to this agreement, and provide them with a copy of this written response 1

within 30 days of receiving advice from the ACHP. The BLM will then proceed according to 2

its final determination. 3

2. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the 30 day time period, 4

the BLM may make a final determination on the dispute and proceed accordingly. Prior to 5

reaching such a final determination, the BLM will prepare a written response that takes 6

into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the parties to this 7

agreement to the PA, and provide to all parties to this agreement with a copy of such 8

written response within 30 days. 9

3. The BLM's responsibilities to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of this PA that 10

are not the subject of the dispute remain unchanged. 11

XV. Review of Public Objection 12

At any time during implementation of the measures stipulated in this PA, should an objection to 13

any such measure or its manner of implementation be raised by a member of the public, the BLM 14

will take the objection into account, consult as needed with the objecting party and the parties to 15

this agreement to resolve the objection. The BLM will determine the final resolution. 16

XVI. Amendment 17

Signatories and Invited Signatories of this PA may request an amendment to the PA by providing 18

proposed changes in writing. The BLM will notify all parties to this agreement of the proposed 19

amendment and consult with them for no more than 30 days to reach agreement. The 20

amendment will be effective on the date the amendment is signed by all Signatories. If the 21

amendment is not signed within 60 days of receipt the BLM will reinitiate consultation for another 22

30 days. If all the signatories do not agree to the amendment, BLM will determine that the PA will 23

stand as is. 24

XVII. Termination 25

A. If any Signatory or Invited Signatory to this PA determines that its terms will not or cannot be 26

carried out, that party will immediately provide written notice to the BLM and the other 27

Signatories and Invited Signatories stating the reasons for the determination. BLM will 28

then consult with all parties to this agreement to attempt to develop an amendment per 29

stipulation XVI, above. If within 60 days (or another time period agreed to by all Signatories) 30

an amendment cannot be reached, any Signatory or Invited Signatory may terminate the PA 31

upon written notification to the other parties to the agreement. 32

B. If an individual SHPO/THPO terminates their participation in this PA, that termination will 33

apply only within the jurisdiction of the SHPO/THPO electing to terminate 34

C. An individual SHPO/THPO may withdraw from the PA upon written notice to all Signatories 35

and Invited Signatories after having consulted with them for at least 30 days to attempt to find 36


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 27 of 28

a way to avoid the withdrawal. Upon withdrawal, the BLM and the withdrawing SHPO/THPO 1

will comply with Section 106 in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 or the execution 2

of an agreement in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b). Such Section 106 compliance will be 3

limited to consideration of effects of the Undertaking solely within the jurisdiction of the 4

withdrawing SHPO/THPO. This PA will still remain in effect with regard to the portions of the 5

Undertaking located in the jurisdiction of the SHPO that have not withdrawn from the PA. If 6

both SHPOs/THPO withdraw from the PA, the PA will be considered to be terminated. In the 7

event this PA is terminated, and prior to work continuing on the Undertaking, the BLM will 8

comply with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(8) and will take reasonable steps to avoid adverse effects to 9

historic properties until another PA has been executed or will request, take into account, and 10

respond to ACHP comments, in accordance with 800.7 BLM must either (a) execute a PA 11

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6 or (b) request, take into account, and respond to the comments of 12

the ACHP under 36 CFR 800.7. If a withdrawal occurs, the BLM will notify all parties to this 13

agreement as to the course of action it will pursue for Section 106 compliance for the 14

Undertaking. 15

XVIII. Duration of This PA 16

A. Until the Undertaking has been initiated, the BLM shall convene a meeting of the Signatories 17

and Invited Signatories five years after execution of the PA, and every five years following, to 18

review the status of the Undertaking and the ROW, and to determine whether any 19

amendments to the agreement are needed. This PA will expire if the Undertaking has not 20

been initiated within 15 years of the execution of this PA, or the BLM ROW grant is terminated 21

or is withdrawn. At that time, the BLM will notify, in writing, the parties to this agreement of 22

this determination, whereupon this PA will be null and void. 23

B. Unless this PA is terminated pursuant to stipulation XVII. above, another agreement executed 24

for the Undertaking supersedes it, or the Undertaking itself has been terminated, this PA will 25

remain in effect until the BLM, in consultation with the parties to this agreement, determines 26

that construction of all aspects of the Undertaking has been completed and that all terms of 27

this PA and any subsequent agreements have been fulfilled in a satisfactory manner, not to 28

exceed 15 years. Upon a determination by BLM that implementation of all aspects of the 29

Undertaking have been completed and that all terms of this Agreement and any subsequent 30

tiered agreements have been fulfilled in a satisfactory manner, BLM will notify the parties to 31

this agreement in writing of the agency’s determination. The duration of the PA may be 32

extended through an amendment as per stipulation XVI, through consultation with the parties 33

to this agreement. 34

C. Parties to this agreement shall meet at least one year prior to the expiration of the PA to 35

determine if the conditions of this PA have been met. At that time, the parties to this 36

agreement may agree to amend or terminate the PA or to meet again within an agreed-upon 37

period of time to consider the status of the PA. 38


SEPT. 30, 2016 Page 28 of 28

D. Upon termination of the PA, the instrument for addressing cultural resource concerns will be 1

the POD within the ROW grant. The POD will contain the HPMP which outlines the 2

management of historic properties through construction as well as operations and 3

maintenance and decommissioning. The BLM will retain responsibility for administering the 4

terms and conditions of the ROW grant pertaining to historic properties for the life of the 5

grant. 6

XIX. Financial Security 7

The proponent will post a financial instrument approved under the ROW regulations (43 CFR 8

2800) with the BLM in an amount sufficient to cover all post-fieldwork costs associated with 9

implementing the HPMP, or other mitigative activities such as data recovery, curation, and report 10

completion, as negotiated by the Proponent where they contract for services in support of this 11

PA. Details regarding the instrument will be developed in the HPMP and posted prior to issuance 12

of any NTP. 13

XX. Failure to Carry Out the Terms of this PA 14

In the event that the Proponent fails to follow the terms of this PA, the BLM will comply with 36 15

CFR 800.4 through 800.6 with regard to individual actions pertaining to this Undertaking. 16

EXECUTION of this PA by the BLM, USFS, BPA, USACE, Reclamation, OR SHPO, ID SHPO, WA SHPO, and 17

CTUIR THPO, as Signatories to this PA, and implementation of its terms evidence that the BLM has taken 18

into account the effects of this Undertaking on historic properties and afforded the ACHP an opportunity 19

to comment. 20

This PA may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all 21

of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The BLM may consolidate the original 22

signature pages to produce the final copies. The BLM will distribute copies of all pages to all Consulting 23

Parties once the PA is signed.24

S-1

Boardman to H~mingway Programmatic Agreement

SIGNATURE PAGES- REQUIRED SIGNATORIES

SEPT. 30, 2016

S-2



upervisor

SEPT. 30, 2016

S-3



BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Signature: t?· ~ ~?o.-y~~ /fc.:r;~ Ei>~ Date: /p7;$.o/? F. Lorraine Bodi, Vice President, Environment, Fish and Wildlife /

SEPT.30,2016

S-4


SEPT.30,2016

S-5



BUREAU OF REClA

SEPT.30,2016

S-6


SIGNATURE PAGES - REQUIRED SIGNATORIES

1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2 Signature: Date:

3 Dona ld Gonzalez, Authorized Officer

4 U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE

5 Signature: Date:

6 Tom Montoya, Wa llowa W hitman Nat ional Forest Supervisor

7 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

8 Signature: Date:

9 F. Lorraine Bodi, Vice President, Environment , Fish and W ildlife

10 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

11 Signature: Dat e:

12 Jose L. Aguilar, Colonel, District Commander

13 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

14 Signature:. _____________________ Date: _____ _

15 Jerrold D. Gregg, Area Manager

16

17 Signature:~~~~~~~...&~~~~-------Date: /( • 2/. / (p 18 Chr istine Curran, Deputy SHPO

19 IDAHO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

20 Signature: ___ __________________ Date:. _____ _

21 Janet Gallimore, SHPO

22 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION (SHPO)

23 Signature: ______ _______________ Date: ____ _ _

24 Allyson Brooks, SHPO

SEPT.30,2016 Page 29 of 34

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-1]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-2]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-3]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-4]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-5]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-7]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-8]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

S-7



SEPT.30,2016

S-8

1

2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24



BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Signature: Date:

Donald Gonzalez, Authorized Officer

U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE

Signature : Date:

Tom Montoya, Wallowa Whitman National Forest Supervisor

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Signature: Date:

F. Lorraine Bodi, Vice President, Environment, Fish and Wildlife

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Signature: Date:

Jose L. Aguilar, Colonel, District Commander

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Signature: Date:

Jerrold D. Gregg, Area Manager

OREGON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

Signatu re: Date:

Christine Curran, Deputy SHPO

IDAHO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

Signature: . _____________________ Date: _____ _

Janet Gallimore, SHPO

Signature:

A CHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION (SHPO)

-----+--?t~'----H-~~----Date: (?,/! UJ j/& Allyson BrooR , SHPO

SEPT.30,2016 Page 29 of 34

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-1]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-2]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-3]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-4]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-5]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-6]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-7]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

S-9



CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

SEPT.30,2016

Boardman to Hemingway Programmatic A eement


ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 7 VATION

Signature: -(~ ~ .. ~~ r John M. Fowler, Executive Director

SEPT.30, 2016

S-11


SIGNATURE PAGES -INVITED SIGNATORIES

IDAHOPOWERC~~

Signature: ~ ""

Date: 1/ _. 7 - ) b Adam Richins, General Manager of Customer Operations, Engineering and Construction

SEPT.30,2016

S-12


. SIGNATURE PAGES -INVITED SIGNATORIES

NATIONALP~ERVI

Signature: Date: Aaron Mahr,su;;erintendentorNationalrraHs, Intermountain Region

SEPT.30,2016

S-13


SIGNATURE PAGES -CONCURRING PARTIES

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Signatureo ~ Michael Kapl;{ Direcor

SEPT.30,2016

Date: / 2 . /(' · /G

S-14


SIGNATURE PAGES- CONCURRING PARTIES

1 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

2 Signature: _____________________ Date: _____ _

3 Michael Kaplan, Director

4 SHOSHONE-PAIUTE TRIBES OF THE DUCK VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

5 Signature :. _ ____________________ Date: _____ _

6 Lindsey Manning, Chairman

7 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

8 Signature: _____________________ Date: _____ _

9 Gary Burke, Chair, Board of Trustees

10 SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION

11 Signature: _____________ ________ Date: _____ _

12 Blaine Edmo, Chairman

13 NEZ PERCE TRIBE

14 Signature: _____________________ Date: _ ____ _

15 Mary Jane Mills, Chairman

16 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

17 Signature: _ ____________________ Date: _____ _

18 Dr. M ichael E. Marchand, Chairman

19

20 21

BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE ~

Signature: ~ ~ Jose DelaRosa Jr., Chairperson

22 FORT MCDERMID PAIUTE AND SHOSHONE TRIBE

Date: 1-rz-;-7

23 Signature: _____________________ Date: _____ _

24 Brad Crutcher, Chairperson

25 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS INDIAN RESERVATION

26 Signat ure: _____________________ Date: _____ _

27 Eugene Austin Greene Jr., Chair

SEPT.30,2016 Page 32 of 34

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-13]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-15]

S-15



FORT MCDEZ.ZIUTE AND SHOSHONE TRIBE

Signature: · ~ Brad Crutcher, Chairperson

SEPT.30, 2016

S-16



OREGON-cAUFORNIA TRAILS ASSOCIATION

S~ature: lt}.:JJ;,.,._ ~~ William Symms, NW Chapter Preserv~er

Date: It> )~t/ ~1?

SEPT. 30,2016

S-17



1 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE YAKAMA NATION

2 Signature: Date:

3 JaDe L. Goudy, Chairman

4 OREGON AND CALIFORNIA TRAILS ASSOCIATION

5 Signature: Date:

6 William Symms, NW Chapter Preservation Officer

7 OREGON HISTORIC TRAILS ADVISORY COUNOL

8 Signature: .~ ~.L..~e_., Date: Lt2h;;.J l~ 9 Glenn Harrison, Oregon Historic Trails Advisory Council representative

• I I

10 U.S. FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE

11 Signature: Date:

12 Lamont Glass, Manager, USFWS Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge

13 LEWIS AND CLARK HERITAGE TRAIL FOUNDATION

14 Signature: Date:

15 Robert Heacock, Director Washington State Chapter

SEPT. 30,2.016 Page 33 of 34

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-16]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-18]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

[See page S-19]

bwineman

Typewritten Text

bwineman

Typewritten Text

S-18



Signature:_--1---¥-'~---------------Date: __ f:..:.' L../.::...;1 1:....~1"--J(~o~...-_ Lamont Glass, nager, USFWS Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge

SEPT.30,2016

S-19



LEWIS AND CLARK HERITAGE TRAIL FOUNDATION

Signature: ~~-~· I<{~ Robert Heacock, Director Washington State Chapter

SEPT. 30, 2016

Date: 1~ / ·) t/t4· ~ I


APPENDICES

SEPT. 30, 2016

Appendix A: Archaeological Survey Plan 1

Appendix B: Visual Assessment of Historic Properties Study Plan 2

Archaeological Survey Plan

Prepared by Tetra Tech 3380 Americana Terrace Suite 201 Boise, ID 83706

Prepared for Idaho Power Company 1221 W Idaho Street Boise, ID 83702

January 2013

Archaeological Survey Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND GOAL ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 TECHNICAL STUDIES ................................................................................................... 3

2.1 File Search and Literature Review ............................................................................ 3 2.2 Archaeological Inventory Methods ............................................................................ 4

2.2.1 Intensive Field Survey .................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 Sample Field Surveys .................................................................................. 5 2.2.3 Subsurface Probing ...................................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Discoveries of Human Remains ................................................................... 6

2.3 Site Documentation and Reporting ........................................................................... 7

3.0 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 8

4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Proposed and Alternative Routes for NEPA Analysis ........................................ 2


Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND GOAL Idaho Power Company (IPC) is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain approximately 300 miles of 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, known as the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project (Project; IPC 2011). Figure 1 shows the proposed and alternative routes. The Project is complex, located in both Idaho and Oregon and involving multiple federal and state agencies, and the cultural resource work will occur in phases. For these reasons, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) process will be developed pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.4(b)(2) and 36 CFR 800.14(b). The PA for this project is an agreement between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), Idaho and Oregon State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (CTUIR THPO), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and other parties, such as Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), Tribes, and IPC, as appropriate. The PA outlines the general process for completion of all phases of the Section 106 process, i.e., how the lead government agency will define the Areas of Potential Effect (APE), how historic resources will be identified and evaluated, how effects will be assessed, and how effects to historic properties will be resolved. The PA will be in place prior to the BLM’s Record of Decision (ROD), but was not completed prior to the start of archaeological field work. IPC acknowledges that additional fieldwork may be necessary if work completed prior to signing the PA is not consistent with the terms of the PA.

This Archaeological Survey Plan (Plan) describes the processes for the file search and literature review and Class II and Class III pedestrian archaeological inventories, which will complete the identification efforts required by Section 106 of the NHPA and provide information for the ODOE Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC), subject to laws requiring confidentiality. Within the parameters of laws requiring confidentiality, information collected through application of this plan will be used in support of IPC’s Application for Site Certificate to EFSC and will be provided to the BLM to assist with the preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document for the Project. This Plan is not intended to address the entire cultural resources identification process; rather it is intended only to describe IPC’s plan to conduct archaeological inventories and outlines the methods and protocols for file searches and literature reviews and the conduct of Class II and Class III archaeological inventories. Evaluations of visual impacts to historic structures, trails, and other aboveground resources will also occur for the Project. The methodology for those studies is presented in a separate Visual Assessment of Historic Properties Study Plan (VAHP; Tetra Tech 2012). Ethnographic studies are in progress; these studies will be conducted to identify both properties of religious and cultural significance and Traditional Cultural Properties. As defined in NRHP Bulletin 38 (NPS 1998), a traditional cultural property can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Religious and cultural significance have been added to this definition to reflect that BLM will also identify and assess impacts to properties of significance to tribes that may not meet the NRHP criteria as a TCP.



Figure 1. Proposed and Alternative Routes for NEPA Analysis

HARNEY

Location Map

Boardman to Hemingway 500kV Transmission Line Project Oregon - Idaho

February 2013

PENDLETON •

National Historic Oregon * Trail Interpretive Center

Existing Substation

&, Proposed Substation

.& Alternative Substation

e Reference Node

- Proposed Rebuild

- Proposed Corridor

- Alternate Corridor

• - Existing Transmission Line

cou

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Defense

Indian Reservation

Private

State

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

0 0 10 20 ---Mites



2.0 TECHNICAL STUDIES This section outlines the scope of field investigations and the site National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility evaluation methodology for the Project archaeological inventory. Field investigations will focus on three inter-related tasks: surface survey, subsurface testing, and resource recordation. To meet Project needs, these tasks will be conducted in two stages. The initial survey will consist of a 100 percent (BLM Class III) inventory of the proposed route segments and all currently identified Project facilities, including access roads and ancillary facilities, as well as a 15 percent (BLM Class II) survey of alternative routes (see Figure 1). The findings of the inventory will be compiled into a formal report and submitted to consulting parties for review as well as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Additional surveys will focus on completion of 100 percent inventory of any modifications to route access roads, laydown areas, or other Project surface modifications identified subsequent to the initial survey. Subsurface probing to assist in resource identification, boundary determination, or NRHP eligibility may be conducted as part of the survey effort, as determined by the agencies and consulting parties. In addition, in the event that an alternative corridor is selected as an element of the preferred route, all portions of this corridor segment not previously surveyed as part of the 15 percent sample will be subject to a complete 100 percent inventory. The inventory will be completed prior to initiation of construction activities, and findings will be presented in the Final EIS. All technical studies will comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, as well as follow applicable Idaho and Oregon SHPO standards.

2.1 File Search and Literature Review Archaeological records searches and literature reviews were conducted for both the Oregon and Idaho portions of the Project. In Oregon, Tetra Tech initially conducted a file search and literature review at the Oregon SHPO for an area extending one mile on either side of the centerline of the proposed route and all alternatives; at the Idaho SHPO, a file search and literature review of an area 0.5 mile on either side of the centerline was conducted. This study area was later expanded through additional records searches to 2 miles on either side of the center line of the proposed route and alternatives in both Oregon and Idaho. Supplemental file searches at appropriate agency offices were also conducted to ensure that updated information from inventories and previously recorded cultural resources were considered prior to completion of field work. These offices included the Baker and Vale District Offices of the BLM, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and the CTUIR THPO.

In addition to agency records, the file searches and literature reviews included examination of archaeological and historical literature of the region; General Land Office (GLO) plats and survey notes; a variety of modern and historic maps, including Oregon Trail maps provided by the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center in Baker City, Oregon; aerial photographs; and abandoned mine data from the BLM. Records were collected on all available resources, inclusive of archaeological sites and historic features and structures. Additional inventory and review of historic resources are addressed in the VAHP (Tetra Tech 2012). Examination of the data from the file searches and literature reviews indicates that 111 previously recorded sites are present within the study area. Previously recorded precontact sites are dominated by lithic scatters, but also include quarry sites, camps, cairns, and rock alignments. Historic sites include several segments of the Oregon Trail, other historic trails, stage stops, structures, and railroad grades.

An additional 143 potential historic sites were identified within the 2-mile study area from the examination of GLO plats, historic maps, etc. These locations are dominated by mining sites, but also include canals and ditches, cemeteries, trails, and wagon roads.



2.2 Archaeological Inventory Methods As discussed above, the cultural resources inventory will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of an intensive pedestrian inventory (BLM Class III) of the proposed corridor segments and all currently identified Project facilities, as well as a sample (BLM Class II) survey of alternative corridors. Any additional survey required to complete a 100 percent inventory of the selected route, as well as any necessary subsurface inventory or evaluation efforts, will be conducted during Phase 2. Methods to be employed during these phases are presented below. All inventory and recordation efforts, regardless of land ownership, will be conducted under the direct supervision of archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines and appropriate state requirements.

2.2.1 Intensive Field Survey The intensive Class III survey will focus on the Project’s direct APE, identified as areas on the centerline of the right-of-way as well as proposed ancillary facilities such as substations, access roads, laydown areas, fly yards, and pulling and tensioning sites as identified in IPC’s Plan of Development (POD; IPC 2011). The APE is applicable to the entire Project, regardless of land ownership. The APE is for direct project impacts to archaeological sites and other cultural resources, and may change with modifications to the Project or revisions to the APE by the consulting parties.

The APE identified for the initial Class III pedestrian inventory includes the following:

• 250 feet each side of the centerline of the Proposed Route. This area is twice the width of the final right-of-way grant that is being requested for the Project, and provides sufficient margin to allow realignment of the line as necessary.

• 50 feet on either side of the centerline of existing access and service roads. This width will allow for any minor alignment changes needed and provide adequate clearance for any new disturbance associated with road repair.

• 100 feet on either side of the centerline of new access and service roads. This width will allow margin for changes to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road and for any cut and fill requirements.

• 200 feet beyond the boundary of the planned areas of disturbance of ancillary Project features such as staging areas, fly yards, and pulling and tensioning sites.

• 250 feet beyond the boundary of pulling/tensioning sites and borehole locations that fall outside the right-of-way.

The survey will be conducted using pedestrian transect intervals of 20 meters or less. Control will be maintained through the use of 1:24,000 scale maps and Global Positioning System units with sub-meter accuracy with the Project centerline or ancillary facility footprint programmed into the unit.

An intensive BLM Class III level inventory will be conducted of the entire survey area, as defined above. Areas with very steep slopes (in excess of 25 percent) may be excluded; however, if the file search and literature review indicate a potential for certain types of sites typically found on steep slopes (such as mines, talus pits, etc.) to occur in the area, these slopes will be examined. The examination of steep slopes will take into account the safety of the crew, and transect intervals may be increased. Areas not surveyed, or surveyed at a reduced level, will be clearly identified in the report, with the rationale behind their exclusion or reduced survey effort spelled out.



2.2.2 Sample Field Surveys For purposes of providing a comparative analysis of the proposed and alternative routes, an archaeological inventory of a 15 percent random sample will be conducted of all route alternatives subject to study in the Draft EIS. Combined with the results of the records search, literature review, and ethnographic study, application of this approach is designed to aid in characterizing the probable density, diversity, and distribution of cultural resources along the alternative routes, particularly in areas where no previous inventories have been conducted. This information is being collected for use in the EIS analysis. Within the sample survey units, methods used are identical to those applied in a Class III intensive survey, and all pedestrian survey and site recording and reporting for a Class II survey will meet Class III standards. An intensive cultural resource inventory will be completed along the preferred route after selection and before initiation of construction. Data collected during the sample inventory will be provided to the BLM in the form of a technical report prepared in compliance with laws requiring confidentiality and will contribute to but will not replace complete inventory of the selected route.

The sampling plan developed for the Project employs random selection of sampling units. Inventory will be conducted using 1-mile-long by 500-foot-wide survey blocks. The 1-mile length is used as an arbitrary measure, while the 500-foot width corresponds to the width of the comprehensive inventory being conducted along the proposed Project corridor. Following this procedure, all completed sample units will directly contribute to completion of the comprehensive inventory, once a final route is selected.

Individual survey units will be selected based on the following sampling strategy. First, for each alternative route, 1-mile-long parcels will be designated with a unique survey unit number (e.g., sampling units along a 50-mile-long segment will be designated 1-50). A table of random numbers will then be used to select specific units for inventory within a route segment. Sufficient numbers of units will be selected to account for inventory of 15 percent of each route segment. To ensure adequate representation of each route segment, units will be selected regardless of land ownership and will likely include a mix of private, state, and federally managed lands. It is anticipated that access constraints will affect the ability to complete survey of units selected on private lands. To account for this and to ensure completion of a 15 percent sample, additional units will be selected at random and held in reserve for use in case of denied access or other access issues. Following these procedures, it is anticipated that sufficient information will be collected to allow for assessment and comparison of cultural resources by proposed and alternative route segment.

For alternatives that are being analyzed in the Draft EIS, revised maps showing sample locations will be prepared and submitted for agency review. A complete 100 percent survey of the preferred route will be completed in accordance with this inventory plan.

2.2.3 Subsurface Probing Subsurface probing will be conducted for sites for which SHPO and THPO consultation has indicated that Phase 2 efforts are necessary to determine NRHP eligibility under Criterion D. Subsurface survey methods (e.g., shovel probes) will be employed to assist with the discovery of buried deposits, definition of archaeological site boundaries, and determinations of site eligibility, as stipulated in the PA. Site identification shovel probes may be particularly useful in forested areas containing dense undergrowth and accumulations of surface litter and duff/humus, especially within zones where there is probability for the presence of cultural materials or features. Shovel probes may also prove useful for locating sites in zones of active sediment accumulation, where recent sediment deposition (i.e., fluvial, alluvial, colluvial, or aeolian) has concealed earlier cultural deposits. Shovel probes will measure 50 by 50



centimeters square and will be used to assist in 1) the identification of cultural resources during surface survey (site discovery probes) and 2) site boundary definition (site boundary probes). Identifying site boundaries during a survey is important because a site’s location relative to the proposed project is critical to assessing Project effects and developing appropriate mitigation measures. When site boundaries cannot be defined based on surface evidence alone, such as in densely wooded montane areas, subsurface probing has the potential to provide crucial data to guide Project design and resource management decisions. As specified in the PA, neither collection of artifacts nor disturbance of ground will occur during initial Class II and Class III intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources surveys. Upon issuance of the ROD, areas identified as possessing a high potential for buried cultural resources located within the direct APE will be subjected to subsurface probing to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources, where ground-disturbing activities will occur. All identification surveys will follow the methodology presented in this Archaeological Survey Plan. Indian tribes and consulting parties to this agreement will be consulted prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing or collection activity and appropriate federal and state permits will be obtained.

During initial survey efforts, Tetra Tech crews will track the location of areas of high site potential and low surface visibility where subsurface probing may be determined appropriate during a subsequent phase of archaeological investigations. These areas of high site potential will be clearly indicated on tables and maps in the resulting survey reports and will be subject to consultation with Native American tribes. High probability areas will be determined by taking into account relevant environmental variables such as slope, distance to water, locations near stream confluences, vegetation, and potential tool stone sources, as well as areas with tribal place names, which often have correlations with archaeological sites. Low surface visibility is defined as thick vegetative cover or other material preventing adequate examination of the ground surface. Maps indicating high site potential will be considered confidential and subject to laws regarding confidentiality of cultural resources.

Prior to excavation of any shovel probes, a probing plan detailing the approach to subsurface survey will be submitted to state and federal agencies for consultation and approval, and all appropriate federal and state permits will be obtained. Excavation or removal (collection) of archaeological resources from any federally managed land (e.g., BLM, USFS, or other federal agencies) necessitates an ARPA permit from the federal land manager. In Idaho, State excavation permits are required within a known site on state land in accordance with Idaho Code 67-4120; no permits are required on private lands. In Oregon, state law (Oregon Revised Statutes [ORS] 358.905-955, 390.235, Oregon Administrative Rules 051-360-080 to 090) requires that all field investigations conducted on non-federal public lands requiring ground disturbance, and all investigations of known sites on private lands, require a State of Oregon Archaeological Excavation Permit (Oregon SHPO 2007:34). Archaeological permits are required for any surface collections or subsurface field investigation that has the potential to disturb, destroy, or otherwise alter a site or sensitive area. Permits are not required for non-ground-disturbing research activities.

2.2.4 Discoveries of Human Remains If human remains are discovered during any phase of the Project, work will cease within 200 feet of the location of the discovery and the remains will be protected. If the find is on federally administered lands in either state, the appropriate agency field official will be notified in accordance with the agency obligations under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other laws.

For discoveries on non-federal lands, the applicable law enforcement agency or other entity will be contacted in accordance with appropriate state statutes. In Idaho, Tetra Tech will comply



with Idaho Code §27 501–504 and notify the Idaho State Historical Society and the BLM cultural resources lead who will commence notification of the appropriate tribes, which consist of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation, Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Burns Paiute Tribe.

In Oregon, Tetra Tech will comply with ORS 97.745(4) and will notify the Oregon State Police, the Oregon SHPO, the Commission on Indian Services (CIS), and the BLM cultural resources lead. The BLM cultural resources lead will then commence notification of the appropriate tribes, which may consist of the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Burns Paiute Tribe, and other tribes.

2.3 Site Documentation and Reporting The results of the file search, literature review, and Class II and Class III inventories will be incorporated into technical reports that will be submitted to BLM to assist in NHPA and NEPA compliance. Separate stand-alone technical reports will be provided for each state; a separate report will be prepared for the USFS documenting inventory on USFS-managed lands. Reports will be prepared in accordance with BLM and USFS permit requirements and applicable SHPO guidelines for each state.

Reports will include full documentation of all archaeological and cultural sites and resources identified during inventory efforts, recorded per appropriate state requirements as described below, but within the parameters of and subject to laws requiring confidentiality:

• Oregon. All archaeological resources encountered will be recorded on Oregon Archaeological Site Forms or Oregon State Cultural Resource Isolate Forms (http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/ARCH/docs/Online_Site_Form_Manual_ Dec2009.pdf). Field surveys will be conducted and results reported in accordance with the Guidelines for Conducting Field Archaeology in Oregon (http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/ARCH/ docs/draft_field_guidelines.pdf) and State of Oregon Archaeological Reporting Guidelines (http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/ARCH/docs/State_of_Oregon_Archaeological_ Survey_and_Reporting_Standards.pdf) issued by the Oregon SHPO. Definitions of sites and isolates will be those provided in the Guidelines for Conducting Field Archaeology in Oregon unless permit stipulations require otherwise. For aboveground historic resources, data will be entered into the Oregon SHPO Historic database.

• Idaho. All archaeological resources encountered will be recorded on Archaeological Survey of Idaho Site Inventory Forms. Treatment of historic buildings, structures, and facilities, as discussed in a separate inventory plan addressing aboveground resources, will be recorded on Idaho Historic Sites Inventory Forms (both forms available at http://history.idaho.gov/shpo.html). Field inventories will be conducted and results will be reported in accordance with Guidelines for Documenting Archaeological and Historical Inventories (http://www.history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/ SurveyGuidelines.4.5.2012.pdf).

If survey is conducted on tribal lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, additional forms required by, and provided by, the THPO will also be completed.

http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/ARCH/�

http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/ARCH/docs/State_of_Oregon_�



3.0 DEFINITIONS Area of Potential Effects (APE) means the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (see 36 CFR 800.16[d]). The APE includes all lands regardless of ownership in the survey area, as well as any associated area of potential impact associated with ancillary facilities. The effects may be direct, indirect, or cumulative.

Class I Inventory (Record Search and Literature Review) is a compilation of all reasonably available cultural resources data and literature and a management-focused, interpretive narrative overview and synthesis of the data. Existing cultural resource data are obtained from published and unpublished documents, BLM cultural resource inventory records, institutional site files, state and national registers, and other information sources.

Class II Inventory (Probabilistic Field Survey) is a sample survey designed to aid in characterizing the probable density, diversity, and distribution of cultural resources in an area. Within sample units, methods used are the same as those applied in Class III intensive survey. While Class II surveys are generally not appropriate for determining specific effects of a proposed land use, they are useful when comparing alternative locations for proposed undertakings (per BLM Manual 8110).

Class III Inventory (Intensive Field Inventory), also referred to as survey, is a professionally conducted, thorough pedestrian inventory of an entire target area (except for any subareas exempted), intended to locate and record all cultural resources. It describes the distribution of properties in an area; determines the number, location, and condition of properties; determines the types of properties actually present within the area; permits classification of individual properties; and records the physical extent of specific properties. It is conducted in accordance with standards in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 Federal Register 44716, September 29, 1983) per BLM Manual 8110.

Consultation refers to the general process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the section 106 process. The Secretary's “Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Preservation Programs pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act” provides further guidance on consultation (36 CFR 800.16 [f]). See also the ACHP (2008) Consultations with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook.

Cultural Resources include archaeological, historical, or architectural sites, structures, or places that may exhibit human activity or occupation, or may be sites of religious or cultural significance to tribes. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, natural resources and landforms, grave sites, buildings, and structures. The term “cultural resources” encompasses properties of traditional religious significance that may or may not be eligible for listing in the NRHP but are of critical significance for tribes. The current plan is designed primarily to address the identification of archaeological resources.

Effect means alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16[i]).

Historic property refers to a district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes



properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the National Register criteria (36 CFR 800.16[1][1]).

Programmatic Agreement (PA) refers to a legally binding document that memorializes the terms and conditions agreed upon to fulfill the lead federal agency’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b) and 36 CFR 800.16(t). Programmatic Agreements are undertaken as alternatives to Section 106 procedures, and are often used when effects on historic properties are similar and repetitive; are multi-state or regional in scope; when effects cannot be fully determined prior to approval of an undertaking; or when non-federal parties are delegated major decision making responsibilities.

Proposed Route is the route proposed by IPC in the November 2011 POD. This route is subject to change with new data, but will not be inventoried until the POD is officially changed.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) means the official appointed or designated pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the NHPA to administer the State historic preservation program or a representative designated to act for the State historic preservation officer (36 CFR 800.16[v]).

Study Area is the area subject to a complete record search and literature review for the purpose of compiling information on previously recorded cultural resources and previous cultural resource surveys. The study area measures 2 miles on either side of the centerline, for a total study area corridor width of 4 miles.

Survey Area is the area that will be examined on foot by archaeologists to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources. For purposes of the current document, this term is synonymous with the APE.

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are a class of National Register-eligible properties that possess association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. (See National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties).

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer refers to the tribal official appointed by the tribe’s chief governing authority or designated by a tribal ordinance or preservation program who has assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO for the purposes of Section 106 compliance on tribal lands in accordance with section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800.2.

Undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval (36 CFR 800.16[y]).

4.0 REFERENCES ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2008. Consultation with Indian Tribes in the

Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook. Washington, D.C.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2004a. Manual 8100: The Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources. Available online at http://blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/ policy/blm_manual.Par.71969.File.dat/8100.pdf



BLM. 2004b. Manual 8110: Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources. Available on line at http://blm.gov/heritage/docum/manual/Binder2-2.pdf.

IPC (Idaho Power Company). 2011. Plan of Development: Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project. Idaho Power Company, Boise.

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and Archaeological Survey of Idaho. n.d. Guidelines for Documenting Archaeological and Historical Inventories, Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, Boise.

Oregon SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office). 2007. Guidelines for Conducting Field Archaeology in Oregon. Oregon SHPO, Salem.

Oregon SHPO. 2011. State of Oregon Archaeological Reporting Guidelines. Oregon SHPO, Salem

National Park Service. 1998. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Tetra Tech. 2012. Draft Visual Assessment of Historic Properties Study Plan. Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project. Prepared for Idaho Power. August.

Visual Assessment of Historic Properties Study Plan

Prepared by

Tetra Tech

An IDACORP company

3380 Americana Terrace Suite 201 Boise, ID 83 706

Prepared for Idaho Power Company 1221 W Idaho Street Boise, ID 83 702

January ~013

Visual Assessment of Historic Properties Study Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Purpose .......... ................................................................................................ 3

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 4

2.1 State Requirements .................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Federal Requirements ................................................ .................. .. ........ ....... ........... 4

2.2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Historic Properties .... .. .. .... ......... .. ........ ..... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. 5 2.2.2 Assessing Project Effects ............................................................................. 6

3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT ..................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Anticipated Historic Resources ................................................................................. 6 3.1.1 Historic Period Themes, Ethnohistoric Occupation, and Associated

Resource Types .......................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Multi-Component Historic Resources With Important Visual Contexts .......... 8

4.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... &

4.1 Area of Potential Effects and Project Setting ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2 Pre-Field Research Methods ... ............................................................................ ... 10 4.3 Standards for Conducting Fieldwork ....................................................................... 11 4.4 Field Survey Methods .................................................................................... ......... 11

4.4.1 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) ......................................................... 11 4.4.2 Intensive Level Survey (ILS) ............................................................. ... ...... 12 4.4.3 National Historic Trails and Associated Resources Survey .............. ........ .. 13

4.5 Analysis of Indirect Effects to Historic Properties and Trails ................................... 14 4.5.1 Viewshed and Setting ..................... .............. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.5.2 Integrity of Historic Properties and Trails .................................................... 15 4.5.3 Indirect Effect Criteria: Distance, Contrast, Obstruction and

Fragmentation ....... .. ....... .. ...... .. .. ........................................................... .... 15 4.6 Level of Effects to Historic Properties and Trails ................................................ .. ... 18

5.0 DOCUMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Schedule ................................................................................................................ 21 5.2 Description of Study Deliverables ........................................................................... 21

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 22

Tetra Tech January 2013 Pagei


Table 3-1. Table 4-1. Table 4-2. Table 4-3. Table 4-4. Table 4-5. Table 4-6. Table 4-7. Table 5-1.

Figure 1-1. Figure 4-1.

Appendix A

Tetra Tech

LIST OF TABLES

Historic Themes and Anticipated Resource Types ...................... ...................... 7 Existing Transmission Line Corridors Within the APE ....................................... 9 Trail Terminology ... .............. .. .. ............................... ... ............. ................... ..... 13 Trail Classification Categories .................................... ..................................... 14 Distance Zones .. ............................................................................................. 16 Degree of Contrast. ......................................................................................... 17 Level of Obstruction ........................................................................................ 17 Level of Fragmentation ..................................................................... .. ....... ..... 18 Project Reports and Consultation Phases ................ ... ..................... ............... 21

LIST OF FIGURES

Proposed and Alternative Routes ......................................... .............. ............... 2 Lattice Transmission-Structure Potential-Visibility Comparison ....................... 20

LIST OF APPENDICES

Visual Assessment of Historic Properties Form

January 2013 Page ii


ACHP

APE

ASC

BLM

BPA

CFR

CTUIR

EFSC

EIS

GIS

GLO

GPS

IHSI

ILS

IPC

KOP

kV

MET

NEPA

NHPA

NHT

NPS

NRHP

OAR

OCTA

ODOE

OHSD

PA

Project

RLS

ROW

SHPO

THPO

usc USFS

VAHP

VCR

Tetra Tech

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Area of Potential Effects

Application for Site Certificate

Bureau of Land Management

Bonneville Power Administration

Code of Federal Regulations

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Energy Facility Siting Council

Environmental Impact Statement

geographic information system

General Land Office

global positioning system

Idaho Historic Sites Inventory

Intensive Level Survey

Idaho Power Company

key observation point

kilovolt

Mapping Emigrant Trails

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

national historic trail

National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places

Oregon Administrative Rules

Oregon-California Trails Association

Oregon Department of Energy

Oregon Historic Sites Database

Programmatic Agreement


Reconnaissance Level Survey

right-of-way

State Historic Preservation Office

Tribal Historic Preservation Office

United States Code

United States Forest Service

Visual Assessment of Historic Properties

visual contrast rating

January 2013 Page iii


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary

Idaho Power Company (IPC) proposes to construct, operate, and maintain the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project (Project), a 305 mile-long, single-circuit 500-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and related facilities. The Project will begin at the proposed Grassland Substation near Boardman, Oregon, and terminate at the existing Hemingway Substation near Melba, Idaho (Figure 1-1). In addition, 5.3 miles of 138-kV and 69-kV transmission lines will be relocated and/or rebuilt. IPC's proposed Project provides additional capacity connecting the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain regions of southwestern Idaho to alleviate existing transmission constraints and ensure sufficient capacity to meet present and forecasted load requirements. The proposed Project route crosses federal, state, and private lands.

IPC has applied to the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant and to the United States Forest Service (USFS) for a special-use permit for the use of public lands along portions of the Project. These entities are or will be conducting an independent environmental review of the proposed Project as part of their respective evaluations of the IPC applications for Project permits. The BLM and USFS will be preparing a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to document the environmental review of the Project. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will be providing some of the funding for the Project. The Project is also subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code [USC] 470) and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800).

IPC will submit an Application for Site Certificate (ASC) for the Project to the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) through the state's Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC). To receive a Site Certificate, the Project must satisfy the regulatory requirements contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 345-021-0010(s) [Contents of An Application, ExhibitS] and OAR 345-022-0090 [General Standards for Siting Facilities: Historic, Cultural and Archaeological].

IPC and its environmental consultant, Tetra Tech, are assisting the BLM and USFS and the cooperating federal and state agencies and tribes in meeting NEPA, NHPA, and EFSC requirements. Tetra Tech, on behalf of IPC, retained URS Corporation to conduct a Visual Effects on Historic Properties study according to the methods and standards required by Section 106 of the NHPA, the BLM, the BPA, the USFS, the Oregon and Idaho State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), as well the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Tetra Tech may elect to engage other firms as necessary to complete this work.

The federal government, the State of Oregon, and other affected government agencies all require the proposed Project be adequately analyzed to determine environmental effects associated with the Project's implementation, including effects to historic properties and their visual settings.

Tetra Tech January 2013 1


HARNEY COUNT Y

Proposed and Alternative Routes for NEPA Analysis

J uly 2012

_,__ .... ...__ - IPC--- Aetn<Y-·---

,_S.Ntce -,.,. ... -Figure 1-1. Proposed and Alternative Routes

Tetra Tech January 2013

0 0 10 20 HEM

t.6loto

2


The Project, including road construction (i.e., new roads in addition to widening and improving existing roads), staging areas, substations, and the installation of large overhead transmission towers and conductors, may directly or indirectly affect built environment historic properties (e.g., ranches, homesteads, or mines). The Project may also directly or indirectly affect National Historic Trails (NHT), NHT variants from the original trail, other historic trails, and associated resources (e.g., stage stations and/or grave sites). Many of the routes manifest the westward emigration that dominated the mid-nineteenth century, while other historic routes document the evolution of trails and variants to other forms of transportation, including wagon and automobile roads, from the late nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries. While some historic trails have been recognized as a part of the National Historic Trail program by the National Park Service (NPS), other historic trails affected by the Project may also be classified as historic properties under the NRHP criteria. Trail segments that lack integrity will be considered non-contributing elements to the trail, and will not be subject to further study.

The Project may also directly or indirectly affect prehistoric sites eligible under criteria other than D only, as well as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) and properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes. Eligibility, effect, and treatment of these types of properties will be addressed through consultation between the BLM and the appropriate tribe or interested party.

1.2 Study Purpose

The purpose of this Visual Assessment of Historic Properties (VAHP) Study Plan is to outline the methods proposed to:

1) conduct a reconnaissance and intensive level inventory of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of above ground resources inclusive of the proposed route and alternatives being evaluated for NEPA and EFSC;

2) identify NHTs, NHT variants from the original trail, other historic trails 1 and associated resources (e.g., stage stations and/or graves sites), other historic transportation related sites and features, TCPs, properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes, historic structures, canals and ditches, home- and ranchsteads, and historic structures;

3) evaluate the historic resources by applying the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation;

4) conduct a visual assessment of historic properties, in addition to historic trails, identified during the resource inventory, and analyze potential Project effects.

The preliminary results of the study will be distributed to the BLM, BPA, USFS, tribes, and other consulting parties for consultation on eligibility and effect. The final results of this study will be documented as a report submitted to the BLM and USFS to assist in the preparation of the NEPA EIS and Section 106 of the NHPA compliance documents. The report will also be filed as a part of Exhibit S of the ASC to satisfy the regulatory requirements of the ODOE. Recommendations from this study will contribute to the development of the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). This Plan is being developed pursuant to the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Project which will include measures to avoid, minimize, or resolve adverse effects to historic properties identified and evaluated in the VAHP study.

1 "Other historic trails" may include trails that are designated at the state level and that are administered by the Oregon Historic Trails Advisory Council (OHTAC).


Visual Assessment of Historic Properlies Study Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

The VAHP study is part of a series of studies to consider the Project's impacts to various types of historic properties and/or visual resources that may also have cultural values, recreational values, and archaeological and historical significance. The study, therefore, is designed to be coordinated with, and complementary to these other studies including:

• Literature Review

• Visual Resources Assessment Study

• Archaeological Survey Plan

• Ethnographic Studies

It should be noted that this study does not identify or evaluate archaeological sites, but will identify those previously recorded sites (either by this project or during previous investigations) that have the potential to be visually affected by the Project and that are eligible under National Register criteria other than or in addition to Criterion D. These resources include, but are not limited to rock cairns, petroglyphs, stone circles, and other historic properties of religious and cultural significance. Due to the sensitive nature of these sites, it is anticipated that the BLM and USFS will undertake tribal consultation to identify and evaluate these resources, and assess potential impacts to these resources.

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1 State Requirements It is anticipated that IPC will submit an ASC for the Project to the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) through the state's EFSC. To receive a Site Certificate, the Project must satisfy the regulatory requirements contained in OAR 345-021-0010(s) [Contents of An Application, Exhibit S] and OAR 345-022-0090 [General Standards for Siting Facilities: Historic, Cultural and Archaeological]. EFSC relies on the Oregon SHPO as the state reviewing agency to assist EFSC with determining whether standards under OAR 345-022-0090 are met. The Project could affect historic, cultural and archaeological resources within the Project area; therefore, the Project's EIS and the EFSC ASC must include an assessment of the potential impacts.

It is also anticipated that the state and federal regulatory processes will be coordinated between the applicable federal and state agencies. The BLM and USFS are developing a PA with the Oregon and Idaho SHPOs, CTUIR THPO, BPA, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in addition to other consulting parties to allow the Project to move forward under the NEPA and NHPA processes. ODOE-EFSC is also an invited signatory to this agreement.

2.2 Federal Requirements The BLM is the designated lead federal agency for the Project under NEPA and for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and will coordinate the preparation of an EIS for the Project. Tetra Tech will prepare a VAHP report for the BLM that will analyze the potential for the project to impact historic properties and NHTs and to provide supporting documentation to comply with NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and Oregon EFSC.

The Section 106 process stipulates that the responsible lead federal agency, in this case the BLM, establishes the undertaking (permitting of the Project), identifies consulting parties, identifies historic properties, and assesses Project effects on those historic properties. Section 106 requires the BLM to consider the effect the Project might have on historic properties before approving the Project and granting a ROW or special-use permit. Historic properties are defined at 36 CFR 800.16(1)(1) as "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object



included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior." The BLM develops appropriate measures to resolve adverse effects to those historic properties in consultation with the Oregon and Idaho SHPOs, CTUIR THPO, the ACHP, the BPA, the USFS, American Indian tribes, I PC, and other consulting parties. When completed, the NHPA process will provide mitigation measures applicable to the route and associated facilities, such as access roads and staging areas. A PAis currently in preparation. Once the PAis signed by the applicable signatory parties, the Section 106 process, with the stipulated consultation requirements, resource identification efforts, and any mitigation measures contained or anticipated in the agreement, would be implemented.

In accordance with the National Trails System Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543, as amended 2009), the BLM and NPS have developed management plans to identify and protect the NHTs and associated sites and resources (BLM 1986a; NPS 1998). It is the responsibility of the BLM to protect and interpret trail resources under its jurisdiction (BLM 1986a). Implementing these responsibilities includes, but is not limited to, regular monitoring of the resource, keeping the NPS informed, defining boundaries, erecting and maintaining trail markers, providing and maintaining facilities, issuing and enforcing regulations, maintaining the scenic/historic integrity, avoiding the destruction of segments, and mitigating unavoidable effects (BLM 1986a).

2.2. 1 Criteria for Evaluating Historic Properties

In order to be eligible for or listed in the NRHP, a resource must maintain integrity and be judged significant under one or more of the four National Register Criteria. More specifically, and as noted in 36 CFR 60.4, the resource must

1) possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association: and

2) possess at least one of the following National Register Criteria which includes:

A) an association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B) an association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C) embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Additional criteria considerations may also apply in special instances to properties that have been moved, religious properties, cemeteries, individual graves or birthplaces, reconstructed or commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. Due to the Project's extended construction timeframes all previously recorded resources that are 50 years old, or will have achieved 50 years of age at the time of the completion of the construction, will be assessed for their eligibility to the NRHP.

All resources may be eligible under any one or more of these criteria. For example, a historic building that has sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations may be eligible under Criterion B for its association with a significant person and Criterion C as an excellent example of a particular style of architecture. Guidelines for applying the criteria are provided in How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, Bulletin 15 (NPS 1997a) and Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties, National Register Bulletin 36 (NPS 2000).



During implementation of the VAHP study, archaeological resources, commonly determined eligible solely under Criterion D for their data potential, will not be evaluated.

2.2.2 Assessing Project Effects

For those properties that are determined as eligible, federal agencies are required to apply the "criteria of adverse effect" to determine whether the project will affect historic properties (36 CFR 800.5). Adverse effects are found when an undertaking alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects that are caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5(1 )).

This Project differs from some other types of projects as it introduces conspicuous features (e.g. transmission line towers) on the landscape that can indirectly affect certain elements of a historic property's integrity such as setting, feeling, and association. This study plan provides the methodology by which these indirect effects to historic properties will be analyzed.

3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT This chapter provides a brief overview to an approach for developing the applicable historic contexts for the Project APEs. A historic context typically consists of prevailing historic themes and chronological periods of development within a given geographic area to assist in understanding cultural resources within the APEs (see section 4.1) of the Proposed Project and Alternatives. When the VAHP Study is prepared, the historic context will use the identified historic resources in addition to published ethnographic data, historic documents, previously recorded oral histories, and secondary sources to develop a more complete history of the resources within the Project APEs.

In order to assess the significance of a historic property and formally evaluate it for listing in the NRHP, a historic context must first be established to demonstrate how a particular resource relates to a local or regional history. The historic context will focus on American Indian and European American land use within the vicinity of the Project APEs. Although the majority of built environment resources are likely to date to the twentieth century, a few mid to latenineteenth century resources, such as farms and ranches, the Oregon Trail, and the route of the forced march of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes to Fort Simcoe, do exist within the APEs. The historic context reaches farther back than the dates of anticipated resources to provide information on trends and themes that influenced development patterns found today. It should be noted that this research, for the purposes of the study plan, will be organized by geographic area and then topically subdivided into chronological period and then historical theme consistent with the NPS approach to historic contexts (NPS 1997a; NPS 1997b).

3.1 Anticipated Historic Properties

3. 1. 1 Historic Period Themes, Ethnohistoric Occupation, and Associated Resource Types

From the period of early historic contact through the 1960s, the landscape in the vicinity of the Project has been shaped by a number of broad historic themes. These themes include, but are not limited to; American Indian land use, early historic contact between American Indian tribes and Euro-American settlers, the fur trade, tribal and Euro-American relations, trails and



transportation, community growth and town building, rural electrification, railroads and highways, mining, agriculture and timber, homesteading, ranching, and irrigation.

In addition to these broad historic themes, the Project crosses an area that is layered with a number of cultural and ethnic patterns of occupation. The Project, for instance, crosses the aboriginal and ethnohistoric ranges of the Northern Paiute, Bannock, Nez Perce, Cayuse, Umatilla, Shoshone, and Walla Walla people. Also, the Project occurs in an area that retains important cultural associations with Basque, Chinese, and Latino settlers and workers. All of these groups, in addition to Euro-American settlers, have shaped the historic landscape and will be discussed in the historic context.

Resources constructed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and associated with the aforementioned themes are listed in Table 3-1. This table is not inclusive of all resources that may be encountered during the survey but provide preliminary indication of resource types in the Project APEs.

Table 3-1. Historic Themes and Anticipated Resource Types Theme Resource Category Resource Type

Agriculture: Ranching, Homesteads and Barns, granaries, poultry houses, root Farming, and Forest Ranches, (Agricultural cellars, cool houses, stock sheds, water Management Uses) towers, smokehouses, chicken coops,

irrigation networks and canals, historic rock alignments/sheep fences, cisterns, wells, corrals, dendroglyphs, cairns, stock driveways, and line shacks.

Homesteads and Residences (Rural Gothic, Queen Anne, Ranches (Domestic Colonial Revival, Bungalow, English Uses) Cottage, Craftsman, vernacular), migrant

houses and camps, sheepherder cabins Forest Management Ranger's Station/Cabins, Warehouses,

Recreational Cabins, bunkhouses, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) era resources, fire lookouts, and communication sites

Trails and Transportation Road Networks culverts, bridges, viaducts, retaining walls, road cuts, right-of-ways, CCC-era buildings and features, road projects, and diversion canals, .

Trail Networks Trails, stagecoach stations Railroads Culverts, bridges, viaducts,

embankments, railbeds, stations, and construction camps

Aviation Airports--runways, taxiways, hangars, control towers, warm up pads. Airways-beacons, radio ranQes

Industry and Commerce Mining Adits, ditches, open pits, headframes, tailings, assay, generator house, power plant, rock cairns, tailings, mills, and cam_Q_s

Manufacturing Concrete plant, hydroelectric plant, electrical transmission/distribution lines

Commercial hubs Stores, warehouses, hotels, stables, gas stations

Timber Sawmills, water impoundments, log flumes, camps, and springboard stumps



Theme Resource Category Resource Type Ethnohistoric Resources Assorted TCPs, cambium peeled trees,

Basque/Greek sheepherder cabins and camps, dendroglyphs, tribal allotment homesteads, Chinese sites, work camps

Theme Resource Category Resource Type Settlement and Community Cities, towns and Houses, residential subdivision, grid plan

crossroads town, schools, courthouse, jail, churches, communities office buildi11Qs

Prehistoric Resources Assorted Petroglyphs, rock circles, cairns, prehistoric trails

3. 1.2 Multi-Component Resources with Important Visual Contexts

It is anticipated that some historic properties that have been previously recorded as archaeological resources may maintain characteristics that also make them eligible under National Register Criteria A, B, and/or C. With many of these properties containing multiple occupations or uses through time, historic contexts will play a critical role in identifying and assessing the importance of each component.

It is also anticipated that these resources may have visual settings that contribute to their overall significance. Resources such as rock cairns, rock circles, and petroglyphs, for instance, often occur in areas where their physical context or setting is an important character-defining feature. The historic (or prehistoric} context surrounding these resources, however, is often known only to Tribes with associations to the area. Tribal consultation by the BLM and other federal agencies for this project will play a role in developing a better understanding of the contexts (physical, cultural, and historical} behind these resources. Ethnographic and traditional use studies conducted by/for the applicable tribes would also assist in developing the context for these resources.

4.0 METHODS

4.1 Area of Potential Effects and Project Setting

In consultation with the other agencies and consulting parties and through the PA, the BLM has established an APE for indirect visual effects as five miles or to the visual horizon, whichever is closer, on either side of the centerline of the proposed alignment and alternative routes. In rare instances, the indirect visual effects APE may extend beyond the file-mile convention to encompass properties that have visually sensitive resources. For the purposes of this Project, indirect effects include, but are not limited to, effects that change the characteristics that make the property eligible for inclusion in the National Register, as well as the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that alter any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the property's integrity. This study is, however, specifically directed towards visual effects. Other indirect effects outside of visual will be analyzed through the Project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement or evaluated through Section 106 consultation. Those aspects of integrity that are most likely to be indirectly affected by visual effects include setting, feeling, and association. The Project's potential to contribute to cumulative effects will also be analyzed consistent with 36 CFR 800.5(1 }. In several areas, for instance, the Project will be placed immediately beside existing transmission lines and may affect historic properties in a cumulative manner. The instances in which this occurs are listed in Table 4-1.



Table 4-1. Existing Transmission Line Corridors Within the APEs Existing

Approximate Transmission Line Route/Alternative Name MP Range County Voltage Proposed Route 0-6.5 Morrow County 500kV Proposed Route 96.4-98.9 Union County 230kV Proposed Route 103.0-111 .6 Union County 230kV Proposed Route 124.0-125.8 Union County 230kV Proposed Route 128.0-150.0 Union County/Baker 230kV

County Flagstaff Alternative (and 0-5.0 Baker County 230kV 230kV Rebuild) Flagstaff Alternative 7.5-11.0 Baker County 230kV FlaQstaff Alternative 11.0-14.4 Baker County 138kV Proposed Route 162.2-164.9 Baker County 69kV/138kV Corridor Proposed Route 164.9-167.5 Baker County 138kV Proposed Route 170.0-173.7 Baker County_ 138kV Proposed Route and DC 187.0-191.1 Baker County 69kV/138kV Corridor Rebuild Proposed Route 191 .1-197.0 Baker County 138kV Malheur A Alternative 20.0-33.2 Malheur County 500kV Malheur S Alternative 25.9-33.6 Malheur County 500kV Proposed Route 271 .6-280.0 Malheur 500kV

County/Owyhee County

Proposeo Route 283.0-299.7 Owyhee County 500kV

The APE for indirect effects includes approximately 3,400 square miles located in Umatilla, Union, Baker, Morrow, and Malheur Counties of Oregon and Owyhee County in Idaho. The APE consists of terrain with varying degrees of visibility, vegetation density, and accessibility and contains large parcels of private, state, tribal, and federal land. Some of the Proposed Corridor is collocated with existing transmission lines and near the major transportation corridor of Interstate 84. It will also cross near the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center. The APE is relatively undeveloped and there are few population centers. Communities within or near the indirect APE include Adrian, Boardman, Pilot Rock, La Grande, North Powder, Baker City, Vale, Willowcreek, Brogan, and Ontario, Oregon as well as Marsing, Idaho. While none of the Project's proposed or alternative routes go through the Umatilla Indian Reservation (UIR), the Project's indirect APE will include portions of the UIR. In addition to being consulted on resources of importance to the tribe off the reservation, the CTUIR THPO will be consulted on any resources identified on the Reservation that have the potential to be indirectly affected by the Project. A permit will be secured from the tribe to access to the Reservation.

Geographic Information System (GIS) "bare earth" modeling will be used to assess areas that will not be visually affected by Project elements. This modeling consists of establishing Project heights and using ground elevation data to determine whether an area would have views of the Project or whether intervening landforms would block views. This analysis will be completed as part of the visual resources analysis prepared for the overall Project. These areas will be mapped and used during the field survey to verify that resources situated within these zones would not be visually affected by the Project.

Other mapping overlays will be used from the Visual Resources Assessment to identify areas that have been previously inventoried for visual/aesthetic qualities. Particular attention will be



paid to places that included visible cultural resources (historic barns, hay derricks, fence lines, canals, etc.) that complement the scenic quality of that particular area. These mapping overlays will assist field crews to better anticipate and assess the integrity of a resource's setting and ensure consistency between the visual and historic property studies.

4.2 Pre-Field Research Methods

A literature review was conducted for this Project to identify potential historic properties within the Project direct APE. Consistent with BLM Manual 8110 (BLM 2004) and 36 CFR 800.4(2), a literature review consists of a reasonable compilation of existing information assembled from a review of previously recorded historic resources and any associated studies. For this Project, information was retrieved from the Oregon Historic Sites Database (OHSD), Oregon SHPO archaeological records, Idaho Historic Sites Inventory (IHSI), Archaeological Survey of Idaho (ASI), BLM and USFS site files (including the Oregon Heritage Information Management System), CTUIR site database, and available historical and ethnographic literature. The study area for the literature review was two miles wide on either side of the centerline of the proposed and alternative routes. This APE was established to aid route-siting efforts, to accommodate shifts in the proposed route, and to cover areas where access roads, substations, and other construction or operation facilities may occur outside the 500-foot-wide intensive survey corridor (direct effect APE).

Due to the scale of the Project and the relatively rural setting for much of the corridor, the identification efforts for the indirect visual APE, which is out to five miles on either side of the Project centerline, will consist of a reconnaissance level survey (RLS) (known in Oregon as a selective RLS) and an intensive level survey (ILS) of resources that:

• have been previously identified through historic resource investigations and that appear in the OHSD, IHSI, or ASI;

• are listed on the NRHP;

• are participants in the Oregon and Idaho Century Farms and Ranches Program;

• appear in State and local registers and landmarks lists;

• are considered by the county as a Statewide Planning Goal 5 Resource (Oregon only);

• have been identified by federal or state agencies;

• have been identified by consulting parties, tribes, local historical societies or private individuals as potentially important historical resources that warrant identification and evaluation;

• are on General Land Office (GLO) plat maps or Ogle and Metsker maps dating to before 1965;and

• Current published and unpublished literature, emigrant diaries, journals, letters, newspaper accounts, Army topographical engineer maps describing trails, older USGS topographic maps and folios, published trail descriptions, chronologies, cultural and historical contexts, ethnographic reports, and information provided by the BLM, USFS, local counties, and National Park Service (NPS) National Trails Office (e.g., historic survey records, maps, etc.).

Research on NHTs and associated resources, such as camps sites, glyphs, and graves, will begin with a review of GLO maps to identify additional trails and establish a record of the historic route of each trail (BLM 2011a). The site records for each resource will also be reviewed to determine the extent of the resource, recording history, and current NRHP status. A summary



of this information, spatially organized west to east, will be included in the overview sections for each trail resource in the Project APEs.

A variety of digital data sources will be used to spatially assemble the network of trails within the Project APEs. These data sources include NPS and BLM shapefiles, as well as digitized trail information from the Idaho Chapter of the Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA) (Eichhorst 2010) and the Northwest Chapter of OCTA, in addition to trail resources identified in Emigrant Trails of Southern Idaho (Hutchison and Jones 1993), and from Powerful Rockey: The Blue Mountains and the Oregon Trail (Evans 1991 ). The Oregon Historic Trails Advisory Council (OHTAC) would also be consulted to identify potential historic trail locations in Oregon. Collectively, these data sources will be used to produce a list of legal locations (township, range, and quarter-quarter section) for each trail resource, inclusive of primary routes, alternates, and cut-offs. The pre-field research combined with the digital data effort will assist with cross referencing historic accounts, mapping, and documentary evidence of historic trail(s) locations.

4.3 Standards for Conducting Fieldwork

The field methods to be employed for the VAHP will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (NPS 1983, as amended) in addition to the Oregon SHPO Guidelines for Historic Resource Surveys in Oregon (OPRD2011 ), How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS 1997a), How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (NPS 1997b), Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes (NPS 1999), Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (NPS 1985), and other applicable state and federal standards, guidelines, and white papers that may be consulted as field efforts proceed. These documents may include, but not be limited to Guidelines for Historic Resources Surveys in Oregon (OPRD 2011) and Idaho's Architectural and Historic Sites Survey and Inventory or Guidelines for Documenting Archaeological and Historical Inventories, as appropriate (ISH PO 2011 ). The level of effort for fieldwork to identify historic properties will be consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1) as well as "Meeting the "Reasonable and Good Faith" Identification Standard in Section 106 Review" (ACHP 2011 ). In addition to taking into account the previously discussed background research and consultation, the field survey methodology also considers the magnitude and nature of the Project and the nature and extent of potential Project effects on historic properties. An architectural historian and/or an archaeologist (as appropriate) that meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 61) will supervise each crew (each crew will have two staff members) that conducts the field survey. Field staff will have an established familiarity with the OHSD as well as the IHSI, methodologies explained in the most recent survey guidance published by the Oregon and Idaho SHPOs, as well as the methods explained in this Study Plan. Field crew members will have experience in history, architectural history, archaeology, and/or the role of landscape in the significance of historic resources. Having multidisciplinary field teams will be particularly beneficial when assessing the integrity of a multicomponent resource's setting and how setting contributes to the significance of that resource.

4.4 Field Survey Methods

4.4.1 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS)

A RLS is designed to be a "first look" at a broad group of historic resources and records basic information. Fieldwork for the RLS will be conducted by teams of two field crew members, who will drive publicly accessible rights-of-way and record resources in a systematic manner. For those resources inventoried in the APEs, specific information will be collected, at least two or



more photographs taken, and each resource noted on a field map with latitude, longitude, and UTM coordinates recorded. The information collected in the field will include the address, historic name, original use (when readily evident), preliminary eligibility recommendations, construction date, materials, style, plan type, and number of contributing and non-contributing resources, and any additional location information, as well as comments that make note of any loss of historic integrity. Data collected in the field will be entered into the appropriate OHSD, IHSI, or ASI forms. While there are some differences in the types of data needed to complete respective data entry into the OHSD, IHSI, or ASI forms, field crews will ensure that the appropriate information is collected in the field and entered into the appropriate database. The data collected and entered into the database will be consistent with the respective state's requirements for conducting built environment and archaeological surveys.

For a resource identified during the RLS that retains integrity (including integrity of the setting), is 45 years old or older-2, may be eligible under any of the NRHP criteria for evaluation, and that has the potential to be indirectly affected by the Project, the resource3 will be subject to additional analysis so that NRHP eligibility can be ascertained during the ILS. Prior to the finalization of the RLS, the preliminary results of the survey will be shared with the BLM, BPA, USFS, appropriate SHPOs/THPO, and consulting parties as an interim summary report so that the relative effectiveness of the methodologies can be gauged and adjusted.

4.4.2 Intensive Level Survey (ILS)

The ILS is a detailed look at each individual resource, and records in-depth information collected from a physical examination of the resource and includes research about the resource's property and ownership history. It identifies the resource's potential eligibility for the NRHP, either individually or as a contributing resource to a historic or archaeological district. Field crews conducting the ILS will record information about each resource that is consistent with the survey guidelines of Oregon and Idaho. This will include sufficient photographs to record the characteristics that potentially make the resource eligible for the NRHP. A site plan that records the physical layout of the property and its relationship to the Project also will be prepared.

To complement this more intensive field recordation, additional research will be undertaken to better understand the resource's history. This will include SHPO/USFS/BLM files, historic maps (such as GLO, Metsker's, and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps), newspapers, and other applicable resources such as census records, genealogical records, biographical encyclopedias, city directories, oral histories, family histories, or tribal consultation. The ILS also will contain a list of literature cited that will include any primary and secondary sources consulted for the specific history of the resource as well as the resource's historic context. After taking into account the overall integrity and historical significance of the resource, a final recommendation concerning a resource's eligibility for the NRHP will be made. This information will be entered into the OHSD or onto I HSI.

Once the ILS is completed, an interim summary report with recommendations concerning the eligibility of resources for the NRHP will be forwarded to the BLM, SHPOs/THPO, and consulting parties for review. The SHPOs/THPO would then review the findings and either

2 The 45 year criterion was chosen to take into account the effects that could be present during the full Project construction period. 3 It should be noted that the RLS and ILS will be coordinated with the archaeological investigations to ensure that multi-component resources (see Section 3.1.2) are correctly identified and evaluated.



concur or not concur with the BLM's determinations of eligibility. Resources determined to be eligible for the NRHP would then be subject to an assessment of Project effects. If an adverse effect to a specific property is found, then mitigation or other treatment will completed under the terms of the Project Programmatic Agreement and associated Historic Properties Management Plan.

4.4.3 National Historic Trails and Associated Resources Survey

Historic trail segments within the APEs of the proposed route and alternatives will be identified and recorded during the RLS and ILS for the Project. A table will be created for each resource that includes the crossing location, a photo of the trail, the trail condition including the integrity of the setting, and the NRHP status. Each field crew will be equipped with a Trimble© GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit. These GPS units will be loaded with digital maps, allowing field crews to navigate to the proposed route and alternative centerlines and record the trail segment.

When potential trail locations and/or actual trails have been identified, the crew will define the class of trail consistent with the standards and examine the condition of the trail consistent with the OCTA classification and examine the setting and condition of the trail (see Table 4-3 Trail Classification Categories), and document the trail and any associated features or artifacts. These classification strategies will be dovetailed with an assessment of the trail's physical integrity, as well as the integrity of its setting, that will utilize the applicable National Register guidance as well as guidance published in recent BLM and NPS historic trails management plans (Management and Use Plan Update/Final Environmental Impact Statement Oregon National Historic Trail/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, NPS 1999; BLM 2011b). Digital photographs will be taken of each trail, and photos facing each cardinal direction will be taken to document the current setting condition. Photos looking at and from along the path of the trail will be taken so that a proper assessment of the trail's setting can be conducted. Existing Oregon survey forms and Idaho ASI forms will be used to record historic trails. Addendum sheets may be used to include additional mapping and other trail data as needed.

The 5-part MET classification of trail categories for overland emigrant trails and roads is designed to assess the condition of trails at the time of mapping. These five categories are OCT A's standard classification for all emigrant trail mapping (OCTA 2002) and will be used to guide judgments concerning the historical integrity of historic trails. Trail condition and integrity will be classified and assessed using the terminology and classification system as defined in the OCTA publication Mapping Emigrant Trails (MET) (OCTA 2002). The system will be used for the NHTs and other historic trails. The terms and classifications are provided in Table 4-2 (Trail Terminology) and Table 4-3 (Trail Classification Categories). These classifications are one aspect of evaluation for NRHP eligibility and can aid in determining the level of integrity of trail segments, but do not replace NRHP significance assessments.

Table 4-2. Trail Terminology Term Description Trace A general term for any original trail segment. Swale A depression, but of deeper dimensions and with sloping sides. Depression A shallow dip in the surface, often very faint and difficult to see. Rut A deep depression without a center mound and with steep sides. Erosion feature A trace of any sort that has been deepened and altered by subsequent wind and/or

water action; sides are often irregular. Track A visible trace caused by the compacting of surface or discoloration due to salt

evaporation on alkali flats; little or no depression. Often seen as streaks across an alkali flat.



Term Description Two-track Parallel wheel tracks separated by a center mound. Typically an unimproved ranch

road currently used by motorized vehicles. Usually a Class 2 trail. Scarring An irregularly wide flat surface devoid of vegetation that no longer shows any

wagon depressions or swales. Often seen trailing through sagebrush flats in an uneven pattern.

Improved road or Bladed, graded, crowned, graveled, oiled, or blacktop roads usually having side secondary road berms, curbs, or gutters. Source: OCTA 2002.

Table 4-3. Trail Classification Categories Term Type Description

Class 1 Unaltered The trail route remains representative of its original condition, not having Original Trail been used by motor vehicles or altered by road improvements. There is

clear physical evidence of the original trail in the form of depressions, ruts, swales, or tracks, some of which may be eroded and/or visible only intermittently.

Class 2 Used The trail route retains its original character although it has been used by Original Trail motor vehicles. The road has not been bladed, graded, crowned, or

otherwise improved and typically remains as a two-track road traversing the original wagon trail. In some forested areas, the trail may have been used for logging but still retains its original character.

Class 3 Verified The trail route is accurately located and verified from written, cartographic, Original Trail artifact, wagon ruts, evidence of wheel impact such as grooves, polish or

rust on rocks, and/or topographic evidence, but due to subsequent weathering, erosion, or development (e.g., paved roads, agricultural use, logging, etc.), physical remains of the trail will be non-existent or insignificant. Typically, this would include trails that once traversed through forests or meadows, across excessively hard surfaces or bedrock, over alkali flats, through soft or sandy soils, alongside streams or rivers, on ridge, or through ravines.

Class 4 Impacted The trail route is located and verified accurately, but the trail has Original Trail permanently lost its original physical and environmental integrity due to the

impact of development. Most often, this impact takes the form of light-duty or secondary roads overlaying the trail {bladed, graded, crowned, graveled, oiled, or blacktop roads). In other cases, residential, industrial, pipeline, agricultural, or recreational development have altered or destroyed the trail remains and its natural environment, though the trail location is still known.

Class 5 Approximate The trail route is no longer verifiable or accurately located. In some cases, Original Trail there is not enough historical or topographic evidence by which to

accurately locate the trail. In many cases, it has been destroyed entirely by highway, urban, agricultural, industrial, or utility corridor development. In other cases, it has been submerged under reservoirs or raised lakes. Thus only the approximate route is known.

Source: OCTA 2002.

4.5 Analysis of Indirect Visual Effects to Historic Properties and Trails

The ultimate goal of this analysis will be to identify those indirect visual Project effects, in particular the indirect visual effects, that diminish the integrity and thus the characteristics that make the historic property eligible for the NRHP. While the Project may have indirect visual effects upon historic properties within the APEs, this analysis will help determine whether these effects are adverse. The Visual Assessment of Historic Properties (VAHP) analysis will be



conducted in the field after resources have been determined eligible for the National Register. To provide recommendations on Project visual effects to the BLM, the visual effects analysis will utilize the VAHP Form (Appendix A) which consists of four different parts. This includes:

1) types of indirect visual effects on historic property;

2) integrity of historic property;

3) viewshed and setting; and

4) distance, contrast, obstruction, and fragmentation.

These four components of the analysis will include information observed during fieldwork in addition to GIS viewshed modeling. The modeling will help in understanding the geographic extent of Project visibility from the historic property. Project visual simulations will also be used to estimate the placement of Project elements and its impact upon the setting.

4.5.1 Viewshed and Setting

For the purposes of this study, a viewshed is defined as the geographic area visible from a historic property that includes the spatial extent of potential views of the Project within the APEs. Individualized viewshed analyses will be conducted for those historic properties with views of the Project. The viewshed will estimate the extent of the Project's visibility through fieldwork and/or GIS modeling

The viewshed will be determined first by reviewing a GIS viewshed model that illustrates the geographic extent of Project visibility. For the purposes of this analysis, input parameters will include:

• Maximum tower heights are estimated for 500-kV towers to be 195 feet tall, 138/69-kV rebuild towers to be 100 feet tall, and 138-kV relocation towers to be 100 feet tall.

• Digital Elevation Modeling that illustrates the role topography plays in Project visibility.

If, after a review of the model, it is determined that the historic property would not be visually affected by the Project (i.e., would have no views of the Project), then a "no effect" (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1 )) recommendation will be made for the specific historic property, and no additional information will be collected . Field visits to each historic property will confirm the veracity of the GIS model. For those historic properties with views of the Project, the VAHP form will be used to document the estimated extent of Project visibility from key contributing elements of the historic property.

The bare earth model viewshed will define the geographic area considered in the analysis of setting. This analysis will identify and map significant features of the landscape tied to the historic setting of the historic property, such as historic circulation patterns, land divisions, land uses, presence or absence of buildings and structures, current vegetation composition and patterns, and topography. This analysis will provide descriptive data on the settings of historic properties.

4.5.2 Integrity of Historic Properties and Trails

Due to the nature of the Project's indirect visual effects, only three of the seven aspects of integrity will be evaluated for each historic property during the visual assessment. These aspects include:

• setting - the physical environment of a historic property;



• feeling - a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and

• association -the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property (NPS 1997a).

The constituent parts of the setting include aspects such as surrounding vegetation, topography, the presence of other forms of land use and manmade buildings, structures, or features. Field crews will record and attempt to ascertain whether these features within the larger setting were present during the property's period of significance and thus evaluate whether they collectively contribute to a Property's integrity of feeling. Field crews will record whether the historic property retains its integrity of association by assessing whether it is sufficiently intact to convey its links to important historic events or people (NPS 1997a).

For those properties whose integrity of setting, feeling, and association have already been significantly compromised or where those aspects of integrity do not contribute to the resource's significance, no additional information will be collected beyond the RLS stage and a "no effect" recommendation will be made consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1). It should also be noted that the integrity of historic trails will also be assessed using the MET classification categories noted in Table 4-3.

Additional consultation between the BLM and tribes or other interested parties will occur for the assessment of integrity of properties of religious and cultural significance or Traditional Cultural Properties.

4.5.3 Indirect Effect Criteria: Distance, Contrast, Obstruction, and Fragmentation

For the purposes of this visual assessment, there will be four indicators used to inform the effects assessment for historic properties. They include distance, contrast, obstruction, and fragmentation (BLM 1984, 1986b), and will be addressed on the VAHP form. Distance plays an important role in analyzing indirect visual effects upon the landscape that surround historic properties. Typically, as distance between the Project and the property increases, the perception of visual contrast of the Project with the surrounding landscape decreases. At greater distances, for example, atmospheric haze often makes colors become paler and reduces the strength of lines (BLM 1986b) (See also Figure 4-1 ). For the purpose of this analysis distance will be measured from visible Project elements to the historic property, and classified into the following distance zones: foreground (less than 2 miles), middleground (between 2 and 5 miles) and background (more than 5 miles) (See Table 4-4).

Table 4-4. VRM Distance Zones Distance Zone Distance Parameter

ForeQround Less than 2 miles Middleground Between 2 and 5 miles Background More than 5 miles

Distance plays an important role in determining Project visibility and thus the extent of Project contrast. Contrast is linked to the degree to which the Project "stands out" amidst the landscape in which it exists either through line, form, color, reflectivity, texture, scale, or space. For transmission lines, for instance, a strong contrast can often occur when a transmission structure is "skylined"; where the transmission structure is easily recognized as rising above the surrounding topography and observable against the sky. Likewise, a strong contrast can also



result from clearing a linear swath through forested areas. A weak contrast would occur for Project features that are in the middle to background zones and set against a landscape of low hills that inhibit skylining and that obscure Project components. Observations made in the field will be guided by the following matrix in order to best characterize the Project's potential to contrast in a landscape that is visible from a historic property (See Table 4-5).

Table 4-5. Degree of Contrast Degree of Contrast Criteria None The Project element contrast is not visible or perceived. Weak The Project element contrast can be seen but does not attract attention.

Moderate The Project element contrast begins to attract attention and begins to dominate the characteristic landscaQe.

Strong The Project element contrast demands attention, will not be overlooked, and is dominant in the landscape.

While distance and contrast play a role in understanding the degree to which a Project affects a particular historic property, they do not entirely describe how the Project may affect the physical inter-relationships of the historic property with other historic properties in the surrounding landscape. For instance, the Project may obstruct the sightlines between the historic property and prominent natural or manmade features that are integral to the property's significance. Obstruction, therefore, is another important component of effect and will assist in identifying specific instances where the Project has the potential to interfere with landscape interrelationships. Levels of obstruction will be estimated in the field by noting "obstruction", "partial obstruction", or "no obstruction" (See Table 4-6). In some instances simulations will be used to estimate the level of obstruction in addition to contrast, in order to give the Project engineers the opportunity to develop more sensitive Project siting options.

Table 4-6. Level of Obstruction Level of

Obstruction Criteria A visible Project element does not visually obstruct a landscape component and

None thus does not diminish the integrity of a historic property's setting, association, and/or feeling. The Project element partially obscures a landscape component that contributes to

Partial Obstruction the property's overall significance and thus may diminish the integrity of a historic property's setting, association, and/or feeling. The Project element noticeably obscures a landscape component that contributes

Obstruction to the property's overall significance and clearly diminishes the integrity of a historic property's settinQ, association, and/or feelinQ.

Field observations and simulations may also provide indications of how the Project interacts with open spaces present within a particular viewshed. Project components, for instance, may result in the fragmentation of open spaces that are character-defining features within a particular historic landscape by introducing new vertical or horizontal elements or by clearing linear strips of vegetation through forested areas. Fragmentation of open space will be gauged as "fragmentation of open space," "moderate fragmentation," and "little to no fragmentation" depending upon the Project's routing and interaction with open spaces.



Table 4-7. Level of Fragmentation

Degree of Contrast Criteria

Little to no The Project element contrast is at most minimally visible from the historic property

fragmentation and does not subdivide open spaces that contribute to the integrity of a historic property.

Moderate The Project element is visible from the historic property and contributes to the

fragmentation fragmentation of open space, but the division is not complete due to intervening land forms and a moderate Project contrast with the surrounding landscape.

Fragmentation of The Project element is plainly visible from the historic property and clearly

Open Space fragments open space that is a character defining feature of the historic landscape that surrounds the historic property.

4.6 Level of Effects to Historic Properties and Trails

Although it is anticipated that the overall Project effect will have an adverse effect on historic properties, the purpose of this plan is to assess the visual effects to individual properties. This will be done to aid in the development of mitigation strategies and the HPMP. When taken together, the visual assessment of a historic property's setting, association, and feeling, the property's role in the larger landscape, and the propensity for the Project to diminish the characteristics that make that property eligible for the NRHP provides a rough basis for effect recommendations. So assuming that the resource retains its historic integrity, when Project features are in the background distance zone, exhibit little contrast to their surroundings, do not obstruct landscape inter-relationships and/or fragment open spaces, then a "no adverse effect" (36 CFR 800.5(b)) finding would be appropriate for the individual property. Whereas, a potential "adverse effect" (36 CFR 800.5(d)(2)) would occur for a property when the Project is in the foreground distance zone, presents a high contrast, obstructs views to important landscape elements, or fragments open space that contribute to a property's historic integrity.

Due to the complex interplay of a particular property's integrity and significance in addition to the range in effects that a property may be exposed to, the Project team will make every effort to identify similar situations to ensure consistency in the effect recommendations. To facilitate a qualitative approach and consistency, recommendations of no adverse effect and adverse effect will be based upon the information (including photographs) collected in the VAHP field form (Appendix A) in addition to the selective use of viewshed modeling and simulations particularly when a property may be adversely affected by a Project element.

Table 4-8. Level of Fragmentation

Distance Degree of Level of Level of Project Obstruction Fragmentation Contrast

Level of Integrity (Setting)

High Background None or Weak None Little to None

Middleground Moderate or Partial or Full Moderate or Full Strong Obstruction Fragmentation



Foreground Moderate or Partial or Full Moderate or Full Strong Fragmentation

Obstruction

Medium Background None, Weak, or None, Partial Little to None, Moderate Obstruction Moderate

Middleground Weak Partial Moderate Obstruction

Foreground Strong, Obstruction Fragmentation Moderate

Low Background None None Little to None

Middleground Weak, Moderate Partial Moderate Obstruction

Foreground Strong Obstruction Fragmentation

Shaded cells: Indicates that the level of Project impacts, when combined with other factors in the table, would diminish the integrity of the historic property's setting and thus adversely affect the characteristics that make the property eligible for the NRHP.


Vis

ual A

sses

smen

t of H

isto

ric P

rope

rties

Stu

dy P

lan

Boa

rdm

an t

o H

emin

gway

Tra

nsm

issi

on L

ine

Pro

ject

Fig

ure

4-1

. La

ttice

Tra

nsm

issi

on-

Str

uct

ure

Pot

entia

l-Vis

ibili

ty C

om

paris

on

Tetra

Tec

h Ja

nuar

y 20

13

20


5.0 DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Schedule

Over the course of this study, the components of this study will be reported through interim summaries (one each for the RLS and ILS) and a draft and final report. Table 5-1 provides the reporting and consultation phases.

Table 5-1. Project Reports and Consultation Phases Phase Report 1 Completion of RLS Interim Summary 1a SLM/USFS review of RLS Interim Summary 1b IPC/TT address comments 2 SLM/USFS Request for Review and Comment from SPA, Tribes, SHPOs/THPO, and

consulting parties on RLS Interim Summary 3 Completion of ILS Interim Summary and Effect Assessment 3a SLM/USFS review of RLS Interim Summary 3b IPC/TT address comments 4 SLM/USFS Request for Review and Comment from SPA, Tribes, SHPOs/THPO, and

consultin_g Qarties on ILS Interim Summary and Effect Assessment 5 Draft VAHP Report Sa Completion of ILS Interim Summary and Effect Assessment Sb SLM/USFS review of RLS Interim Summary 6 SLM/USFS Request for Review and Comment from SPA, Tribes, SHPOs/THPO, and

consulting parties on Draft VAHP Report 7 Final VAHP Report

5.2 Description of Study Deliverables

As noted in Table 5-1, each Interim Summary and the Draft VAHP Report will be made available by the BLM and USFS for an initial review and comment. After the initial comments are addressed, the revised draft will be distributed to the BPA, Tribes, SHPOs/THPO, and the consulting parties. At the conclusion of each review and comment period, the BLM and USFS will take into account the views of these parties and provide direction on subsequent study to be conducted.

The RLS Interim Summary will include summary data on the number of resources that were identified through the literature review and background research, the number of resources that were re-located and/or identified during the field investigation, and which resources will be carried forward for study into the ILS and effect analysis. The RLS Interim Summary will include location information, whether the resource potentially meets the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, level of integrity, age, and a photograph. The intent of the summary is to provide the BLM, BPA, USFS, Tribes, SHPOs/THPO, and the consulting parties with information, including NRHP eligibility recommendations, about the resources encountered in the field and to obtain direction on moving forward with the next phase of study.

The ILS Interim Summary and Initial Effect Assessment will include brief paragraphs on the history of each resource that was studied at the intensive level in addition to the resource's level of integrity, and a recommendation of potential Project effects. Photographs and a map of each resource and its relationship to the Project will be provided. Representative viewshed mapping and Project simulations may also be included to illustrate the extent and nature of effects to historic properties during fieldwork. The intent of the summary is to provide the BLM, BPA,

Tetra Tech January 2013 Page 21


USFS, Tribes, SHPOsrrHPO, and the consulting parties with preliminary information about the integrity of resources and the potential extent of Project effects. The BLM and USFS will review the documents and distribute to other agencies, tribes, and consulting parties in accordance with the PA to determine the eligibility of resources for the NRHP and the effects upon historic properties.

Once the BLM and USFS have taken into account the views of the BPA, Tribes, SHPOsrrHPO and consulting parties, a Draft VAHP Report will be prepared. The Report will include the full results of the RLS and ILS Interim Summaries and the Effect Assessment for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and to also satisfy the requirements of Oregon's EFSC. The Draft Report will at a minimum include the following:

• Literature review, Background Research, and Historic Context

• Regulatory Background

• Methods of Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties and Effect Analysis

• RLS Results

• ILS Results and NRHP Eligibility Recommendations

• Visual Effect Assessment and Effect Recommendations

• Recommendations for Avoidance, Effect Minimization, and/or Resolution of Adverse Effects

• An appendix that includes VAHP field forms for all applicable properties

The completed Draft VAHP Report will be reviewed by the BLM and USFS prior to submission to the BPA, respective Tribes, SHPOsrrHPO and consulting parties. Once the BLM and USFS has reviewed and approved the report, it will be submitted to the respective SHPOsrrHPO for concurrence and to the Tribes and consulting parties for comment in accordance with the PA.

6.0 REFERENCES ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2011. "Meeting the 'Reasonable and Good

Faith" Identification Standard in Section 106 Review. ACHP, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.achp.gov/docs

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1984. Manual 8400 -Visual Resource Management. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/ lnformation_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manuai.Par.34032.File.dat/8400.pdf

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1986a. Oregon/Mormon Pioneer Historic Trails Management Plan. U.S. Department of Interior.

BLM. 1986b. Handbook H-8431 , Visual Resource Contrast Rating, 1980, updated 1986. Available online at http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/seis/BLM%20VRM%20manual%208431.pdf (accessed July 2012).

BLM. 2004. Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources. Manual8110. U.S. Department of the Interior. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/lnformation_Resources_Management/po licy/blm_manuai.Par.231 01.File.dat/811 O.pdf



BLM. 2011 a. GLO & BLM Survey Plats & Field Notes. [Web page.] Available online at: http://www .wy .blm .gov/cadastral/surveydocs.htm

BLM. 2011 b. National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan. Available on line at http://www. blm .gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Law _Enforcement/nics/trails. Par. 71 054. File.dat/NSHTSWfinaiSig.pdf.

Eichhorst, Jerry. 2010. Idaho Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA) volunteer maps.

Evans, J .W. 1991. Powerful Rockey: The Blue Mountains the Oregon Trail, 1811-1883. Eastern Oregon State College. La Grande, Oregon.

Haines, A.L. 1981. Historic Sites along the Oregon Trail. The Patrice Press, Gerald, Missouri.

Hutchinson, D.J., and L.R. Jones, tech. eds. 1993. Emigrant Trails of Southern Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Land Management.

ISHPO (Idaho State Historic Preservation Office). 2011. Architectural and Historic Sites Survey and Inventory. Idaho Historic Sites Inventory (IHSI) Requirements and Standards for Documentation. Compiled by Belinda Davis, Historic Sites Registrar, Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, for the Idaho State Historical Society. Boise, Idaho.

NPS (National Park Service). 1983. Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, Washington, D.C.

NPS. 1985. Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

NPS. 1997a. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

NPS. 1997b. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

NPS. 1998. Oregon and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails: Management and Use Plan Update. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

NPS. 1999. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

NPS. 2000. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. National Register Bulletin 36. Available online at: http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/index.htm

OCTA (Oregon-California Trails Association). 2002. Mapping Emigrant Trails, MET Manual. Fourth edition. July. Available online at: http://www.octatrails.org/preserve/pdf/MET _2008.pdf

OPRD (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department )._2011. Guidelines for Historic Resource Surveys in Oregon. State Historic Preservation Office.



Tetra Tech

APPENDIX A VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES FORM

January 2013

VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES FORM Boardman to Hemingway Project

Property Name and#: -------------------------------

Property Eligibility (NRHP Criteria A, B, C, or D): ____ Pcriod(s) of Significance: -------

Date of Form: Recorder: ---------- -------------------------------------TYPES OF EFFECT

View of Project? YIN (if no, then no additional information is necessary: "No Historic Properties Affected")

Trans. Tower(# & type): 0 ___________ Access road: 0 Veg. clearing: 0 Substation: 0 Laydown/Staging: 0

VIEWSHED & LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

Breadth ofVicwshcd from Historic Property Affected: 90° 180° 270° 360° " _"

Is Property part of larger cultural landscape? YIN

lf"ycs", then docs the property contribute to the significance of that landscape or is the landscape part of the property's overall setting?

In box to right sketch breadth of viewshed from historic property towards Project (note background and intervening topography, historic circulation patterns, land divisions, land uses, buildings and structures, and prevailing vegetation type and patterns, & prominent open spaces; include North ~~. ,, EXISTING INTEGRITY OF HISTORIC PROPERTY/ TRAIL

Aspect of Historic Integrity ) Existing Retention or Loss of Integrity '--.

Setting- physical environment

~- / of a historic property

Feeling - a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time Association - the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property

BLM Draft Form

INDIRECT VISUAL EFFECT CRITERIA: DISTANCE, CONTRAST, OBSTRUCTION, AND FRAGMENTATION

Distance to Project: Foreground(< 2 mi.) _____ Middleground (l-5 mi.) _____ Background (> 5 mi.) ___ _

Expected Degree of Project Contrast: None Weak Moderate Strong

Describe Project features and how they will contrast with landscape (line, form, color, texture, scale, or space):

Level of Obstruction: (Obstruction of views of important landscape components): None Partial Obstruction Obstruction

Describe Project features and how they obstruct landscape components that contribute to the property's integrity/significance:

Level of Fragmentation (Open Space): Little to No Fragmentation Moderate Fragmentation Fragmentation of Open Space

Describe how open space is/is not fragmented by Project clements:

Photograph

Include representative view of Project as seen from historic property. Include direction of view. If necessary, provide additional photos and/or simulations on addenda sheets.

Direction of view:

Date of photo:

Description:

LEVEL OF EFFECT

Effect Recommendation YIN Adverse Effect 36 CFR 800.5(d)(2)

No Adverse Effect 36 CFR 800.5(b)

BLM Draft Form

Adverse Effect An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

No Adverse Effect: The undertaking's effects do not meet the criteria of adverse effect (as found in 36 CFR 800.5(a)( I) or the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed so that adverse effects are avoided.

2

Appendix D – Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Preparation of a Plan of Development ........................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Biological Resource Surveys ......................................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Geotechnical Investigations ........................................................................................... 8 1.3.4 Construction or Upgrades of Access Routes ................................................................. 8

1.3.4.1 Existing Roads ........................................................................................................ 9 1.3.4.2 New Roads ............................................................................................................ 10 1.3.4.3 Stream Crossings in Waterways Not Supporting ESA-listed Fish or Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 11

1.3.5 Vegetation Clearing ..................................................................................................... 11 1.3.6 Transmission Line Construction .................................................................................. 13

1.3.6.1. Structure Installation ............................................................................................ 13 1.3.6.2 Transmission Line Stringing ................................................................................. 16 1.3.6.3 Multi-Use Areas .................................................................................................... 16

1.3.7 Transmission Line Relocation ..................................................................................... 17 1.3.8 Reclamation ................................................................................................................. 17 1.3.9 Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................................... 18

1.3.9.1 Vegetation Management ....................................................................................... 18 1.3.10 Conservation Measures .............................................................................................. 21

1.3.10.1 General Conservation Measures ......................................................................... 22 1.3.10.2 Construction Conservation Measures ................................................................. 23 1.3.10.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Conservation Measures ..................................... 25 1.3.10.4 Road Conservation Measures ............................................................................. 26 1.3.10.5 Herbicide Application Conservation Measures .................................................. 28 1.3.10.6 Blasting/Implosive Splicing Conservation Measures ......................................... 30 1.3.10.7 Drilling Conservation Measures ......................................................................... 30

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 31

2.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 31 2.2 RANGEWIDE STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT............................................ 32

2.2.1 Status of the Species .................................................................................................... 33 2.2.1.1 Middle Columbia River Steelhead ........................................................................ 35 2.2.1.2 Snake River Basin Steelhead ................................................................................ 38 2.2.1.3 Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units .................................................................................................................................. 42

2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat .............................................................................................. 47 2.3 ACTION AREA ...................................................................................................................... 50 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................................................................ 54

2.4.1 Umatilla/Willow Subbasin ........................................................................................... 55 2.4.1.1 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 57 2.4.1.2 Habitat Elements ................................................................................................... 60

ii

2.4.1.3 Watershed Conditions ........................................................................................... 58 2.4.2 Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin .................................................................................... 58

2.4.2.1 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 59 2.4.2.2 Habitat Elements ................................................................................................... 59 2.4.2.3 Watershed Conditions ........................................................................................... 59

2.5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ...................................................................................................... 60 2.5.1 Effects on Designated Critical Habitat ........................................................................ 61

2.5.1.1 Water Quality—Temperature ............................................................................... 61 2.5.1.2 Water Quality—Sediment/Turbidity .................................................................... 63 2.5.1.3 Water Quality—Chemical Contamination. ........................................................... 64 2.5.1.4 Habitat Elements—Substrate ................................................................................ 80 2.5.1.5 Habitat Elements—Large Woody Debris ............................................................. 81 2.5.1.6 Habitat Elements—Refugia .................................................................................. 81 2.5.1.7 Watershed Conditions—Road Density/Location .................................................. 81 2.5.1.8 Watershed Conditions—Riparian Reserves .......................................................... 82 2.5.1.9 Summary of Effects to Critical Habitat ................................................................ 82

2.5.2 Effects to ESA-Listed Species ..................................................................................... 83 2.5.2.1 Sediment Production and Turbidity ...................................................................... 83 2.5.2.2 Chemical Contamination ...................................................................................... 85 2.5.2.3 Subsurface Blasting and Implosive Splicing ........................................................ 86 2.5.2.4 Relevance of Fish Effects to Population/Major Population Groups/Evolutionarily Significant Units Viability ................................................................................................ 87

2.6 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................................................................... 88 2.7 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS ............................................................................................. 89

2.7.1 Species ......................................................................................................................... 89 2.7.2 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 90

2.8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 90 2.9 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 90

2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take ........................................................................................... 91 2.9.1.1 Turbidity ............................................................................................................... 91 2.9.1.2 Herbicide ............................................................................................................... 92 2.9.1.3 Blasting ................................................................................................................. 92

2.9.2 Effect of the Take ......................................................................................................... 92 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ............................................................................... 92 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................. 93

2.10 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 96 2.11 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION ...................................................................................... 96

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT RESPONSE ................................................................................ 96

3.1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT ........................................................ 97 3.2 ADVERSE EFFECTS ON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ................................................................ 97 3.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 97 3.4 STATUTORY RESPONSE REQUIREMENT ................................................................................ 98 3.5 SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTATION .......................................................................................... 99

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW ... 99 4.1 UTILITY ................................................................................................................................ 99

iii

4.2 INTEGRITY ......................................................................................................................... 100 4.3 OBJECTIVITY ...................................................................................................................... 100

5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 101

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the B2H Project area. ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Map of the B2H Project ROW through the MCR basin. .......................................... 52 Figure 3. Map of the B2H Project ROW through the Grande Ronde basin. ............................ 53

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. Implementation Plans that will be included in the B2H Project POD. ....................... 7 Table 2. Streams supporting ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat that are adjacent to

roads or bridges that are anticipated to receive upgrades as part of the B2H Project. .. ................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 3. Miles of new access roads in Segments 1 and 2. ...................................................... 11 Table 4. Potential impacts to vegetation with RHCAs along waterways supporting ESA-listed

anadromous fish and/or designated critical habitat. .................................................. 13 Table 5. Minimum setback distances, based on charge weight, from streams supporting ESA-

listed anadromous fish or designated critical habitat for blasting activities. ............ 15 Table 6. Identified work windows for streams supporting ESA-listed anadromous fish and/or

designated critical habitat that are crossed or paralleled by the B2H Project. .......... 15 Table 7. Herbicides approved for use by land management jurisdiction. ............................... 20 Table 8. No-application buffer widths for herbicide applications by stream type and

application method. ................................................................................................... 21 Table 9. Federal Register notices for final rules that list threatened and endangered species,

designated critical habitat, or apply protective regulations to listed species considered in this consultation. ................................................................................. 33

Table 10. Summary of the MCR steelhead population status and ICTRT viability criteria (NWFSC 2015). ........................................................................................................ 37

Table 11. Summary of VSP parameter risks and overall current status for each population in the Snake River Basin steelhead DPS (NWFSC 2015). ........................................... 41

Table 12. Summary of VSP parameter risks and overall current status for each population in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU (NWFSC 2015). ................. 46

Table 13. Types of sites, essential PBFs, and the species life stage each PBF supports. ......... 48 Table 14. Geographical extent of designated critical habitat in Idaho for ESA-listed

anadromous species. ................................................................................................. 49 Table 15. Watersheds (5th level HUC) traversed by the B2H Project within the Action Area. 51 Table 16. Streams that intersect the action area and that are occupied by ESA-listed fish,

designated critical habitat, and/or designated EFH. .................................................. 54

iv

Table 17. Environmental baseline conditions within the Umatilla/Willow and UGR subbasins. ................................................................................................................................... 56

Table 18. Estimated RHCA disturbance from the B2H Project. .............................................. 62 Table 19. Existing and post-project watershed road densities. ................................................. 82

ACRONYMS

A/P Abundance/Productivity ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game Agreement Consultation Agreement ARBO II Aquatic Restorations Activities Biological Opinion II ATVs All-Terrain Vehicles BA Biological Assessment B2H Project Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project BEE Butoxyethyl ester BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices BOR Bureau of Reclamation BPA Bonneville Power Administration COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation CWA Clean Water Act DPS Distinct Population Segment DQA Data Quality Act EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPG Environmental Planning Group, LLC ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit EUP End Use Product FA Functioning Appropriately FAR Functioning at Risk ft2 square feet FUR Functioning at Unacceptable Risk GIS Geographic Information System HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern HQ Hazard Quotient HUC Hydrologic Unit Code ICTRT Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team IPA Isopropylamine IPC Idaho Power Company

v

ips inches per second ITS Incidental Take Statement kV Kilovolt lbs pounds LGD Lower Granite Dam LWD Large Woody Debris MCR Middle Columbia River mg a.e./L milligrams acid equivalent per liter mg/L milligrams per liter mi2 square mile mi/mi2 mile/square mile MPG Major Population Groups mph miles per hour MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOEC No Observable Effect Concentration NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units NWSTF Boardman Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark Opinion Biological Opinion PBF Physical or biological feature PCE Primary Constituent Element PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council POD Plan of Development POEA Polyethoxylated Tallow Amine psi pounds per square inch R/S Recruits per Spawner RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-Way RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measures SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SRB Snake River Basin SS/D Spatial Structure/Diversity TCP Trichloropyridinol TEA Triethylamine salt µg/L micrograms per liter UGR Upper Grande Ronde USFS U.S. Forest Service

vi

VSP Viable Salmonid Population WCR Water Contamination Rate

1

1. INTRODUCTION This introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 1.1 Background The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement (ITS) portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (codified at 50 C.F.R. § 402). NMFS also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (codified at 50 C.F.R. § 600). We completed pre-dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (DQA) Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 1(a)(3) [Title V, § 515], 114 Stat. 2763 (2000) (codified at 44 U.S.C. § 3516)). The document will be available through NMFS’s Public Consultation Tracking System (https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pcts-web/homepage.pcts). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Snake Basin Office in Boise, Idaho. 1.2 Consultation History Preliminary coordination for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project (B2H Project) began with a biological resources and Level 1 Team meeting held August 22, 2008. NMFS provided technical assistance throughout the development of the biological assessment (BA). Coordination included meetings, conference calls, letters, and other correspondence. There are five Federal action agencies that have ESA consultation obligations in regard to the B2H Project: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Pre-consultation meetings between NMFS, BLM, USFS, BOR, COE, and BPA occurred on January 13, 2016, and March 30, 2016. A consultation agreement (Agreement), dated February 11, 2016, was signed by NMFS, BLM, USFS, BOR, COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and BPA. The Agreement identified the BLM as the lead action agency and clarified agency roles during consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and section 305(b) of the MSA. In addition, the Agreement addressed interagency coordination for the conservation and recovery of listed species under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. On January 15, 2016, the BLM recognized the Idaho Power Company (IPC) as an applicant for the Section 7 consultation. The BLM has worked directly with the IPC to address NMFS’s comments regarding the proposed action and conservation measures described in the draft BA.

2

The Environmental Planning Group, LLC (EPG) prepared a draft BA under the guidance and supervision of the action agencies, working through the lead agency. The BA concluded the B2H Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead (O. mykiss), Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and designated critical habitat for all three of these species. The BA also concluded the B2H Project may adversely affect EFH for Chinook salmon and coho salmon (O. kisutch). A draft BA was sent to NMFS on May 27, 2016, and NMFS provided comments to the BLM and EPG on June 27, 2016. A conference call among staff from NMFS, BLM, and EPG was held on July 11, 2016, to further discuss resolutions for a subset of NMFS’s comments. During the summer of 2016, changes to the agency-preferred route and proposed access roads were made. EPG revised the BA to incorporate these changes, and the BLM submitted a preliminary final BA to NMFS on November 7, 2016. NMFS provided the BLM and EPG with limited comments and indicated the BA could be submitted as final along with a request to initiate consultation. On November 16, 2016, NMFS received the BLM’s request to initiate consultation, which included a copy of the final BA. On December 2, 2016, NMFS received a letter from the BPA requesting initiation of consultation, with reference to the final BA submitted by the BLM the prior month. On February 21, 2017, NMFS received emails from both the COE and USFS confirming their role as partner agencies in the B2H Project and requesting inclusion in the consultation process. Although the BOR was a signatory to the Agreement, the B2H Project does not cross lands administered by the BOR within the action area. The BOR did not submit a request for consultation. In early December, NMFS received a request from the BLM to complete consultation by January 6, 2017. NMFS was unable to commit to this delivery date; however, we agreed to provide a final Opinion by February 28, 2017, which is approximately one month earlier than the regulatory deadline specified in the Agreement. On December 14, 2016, NMFS sent a letter to the five Federal action agencies acknowledging receipt of the consultation initiation package, identifying November 16, 2016, as the initiation date for consultation, and committing to delivering a final Opinion by February 28, 2017. In making our determination regarding the effects of this proposed action, NMFS relied upon a variety of information sources, including but not limited to: the final BA, Geographic Information System (GIS) data for the B2H Project; NMFS recovery plans; and literature (both primary and grey) regarding land management action impacts on aquatic habitats and fisheries. The BLM has coordinated their ESA consultation efforts with the following four tribes: Burns Paiute, Shoshone Paiute Tribes, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). A copy of the proposed action and terms and condition sections of the draft Opinion were provided to these four tribes on January 31, 2017. NMFS did not receive comments from any of the tribes. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Snake Basin Area Office in Boise, Idaho.

3

1.3 Proposed Federal Action “Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Under the MSA, a Federal action also includes any action proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken by a Federal agency (50 C.F.R. § 600.910). “Interrelated actions” are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. “Interdependent actions” are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). NMFS is not aware of any interrelated or interdependent actions associated with the proposed action. There are five Federal action agencies involved in the B2H Project: BLM; USFS; BOR; COE; and BPA. Their roles in the B2H Project are listed below.

The BLM will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on whether to grant the IPC a right-of-way (ROW) for the B2H Project on land administered by the BLM. The BLM will make its decision in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and its implementation regulations.

The USFS will issue a ROD on whether to issue the IPC a special use authorization to cross the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The USFS will make its decision in accordance with its Land and Resources Management Plan.

The BOR will issue a ROD on whether to grant the IPC a use authorization to cross

BOR-administered lands. The BOR’s regulations set forth a process for application and agency consideration of use authorizations under 43 C.F.R. Part 429 (Use of BOR Land, Facilities, and Waterbodies). Lands administered by the BOR are outside of the action area defined for this Opinion.

The BPA may participate (e.g., provide funding) in future construction of the B2H

Project.

The COE will issue Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permits to the BLM or IPC for any fill material that is placed in waters of the U.S. as a result of the B2H Project.

The B2H Project involves construction of a new single-circuit, alternating current, 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and will include the relocation of portions of existing 69-kV and 230-kV transmission lines. The purpose of the project is to provide additional electrical load capacity between the Pacific Northwest region and the Intermountain region of southwestern Idaho. The B2H Project will alleviate existing transmission constraints and ensure sufficient electrical capacity to meet present and forecasted customer needs. The transmission line will be constructed within a ROW that is 250 feet wide. The new line will be approximately 294 miles long, extending from near the city of Boardman, Oregon to near the city of Melba, Idaho (Figure 1). The B2H Project will cross Federal, state, and private lands in five Oregon counties (Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Baker, and Malheur) and one Idaho County

4

(Owyhee). As illustrated in Figure 1, the proposed route is divided into the following six segments:

Segment 1 – Morrow-Umatilla Segment;

Segment 2 – Blue Mountains Segment;

Segment 3 – Baker Valley Segment;

Segment 4 – Brogan Segment;

Segment 5 – Malheur Segment; and

Segment 6 – Treasure Valley Segment. Of the six segments that compose the proposed route, only Segments 1 and 2 of the B2H Project area are within watersheds that support ESA-listed anadromous species, their designated critical habitat, and/or EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. Because actions that occur outside of these watersheds (which include the relocation of portions of an existing 230-kV transmission line) will not have any geographic overlap with anadromous species, designated critical habitat, or EFH (see explanation in the Effects section) these components of the proposed action are not described in any detail here. The B2H Project includes implementation of the following activities: (1) Preparation and implementation of a Plan of Development (POD); (2) biological resource surveys; (3) geotechnical investigations; (4) construction or upgrades of access routes; (5) vegetation clearing; (6) transmission line construction; (7) transmission line relocation; (8) reclamation; and (9) operation and maintenance. Each of these activities is described in Sections 1.3.1 through 1.3.9 of this Opinion. Section 1.3.10 describes the conservation measures that were included in the proposed action and will be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse effects to ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitats. The overall construction period of the B2H Project will be approximately 3 years from receipt of a Notice to Proceed, depending on a number of factors such as weather, seasonal restrictions, and availability of labor and materials. Maintenance and operation activities will occur over the life of the B2H Project, which is anticipated to be approximately 50 years. At the end of the useful life of the transmission line, the transmission line and associated facilities will be decommissioned if they are no longer needed. At that time, a plan for decommissioning the structures and access routes (as appropriate), along with restoring the ROW will be developed. A separate consultation for decommissioning of the transmission line will occur if the activities may affect ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitat.

5

Figure 1. Map of the B2H Project area.

6

1.3.1 Preparation of a Plan of Development The BLM is requiring IPC to prepare a POD to guide implementation and maintenance of the B2H Project. Reflecting an agreement between the action agencies, the BLM will be responsible for approving the POD. BLM approval of the POD is required before other Federal action agencies can sign decisions regarding this project. The POD will be incorporated by reference into Federal ROW grants, special-use permits, license agreements, and other technical documents as needed. Thereby, IPC will be bound by all terms and conditions, stipulations, and mitigation prescribed in the POD. The POD will provide direction to the IPC’s construction personnel, construction contractor(s) and crews, compliance inspection contractors, environmental monitors, and agency personnel regarding specifications of construction, operation, and maintenance (e.g., exact approved locations of transmission line structures and other facilities and measures that must be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts of the B2H Project). The content of the POD will consist of: (1) Background information, direction, and implementation plans; and (2) detailed mapping to facilitate execution of environmental protection and selective mitigation measures. Background information and direction sections of the POD will include the B2H Project description, including an explanation of IPC’s and Federal agencies’ roles and responsibilities; description of construction, operation, and maintenance activities; specification of land use and access; and description of design features and other measures for environmental protection to avoid sensitive environmental resources. Implementation plans that will be included in the POD include, but are not limited to, those included in Table 1. 1.3.2 Biological Resource Surveys Biological resource surveys are necessary for the identification, flagging, and avoidance of sensitive resources. Prior to B2H Project construction, surveys will be conducted for plants and wildlife that could be affected by the B2H Project and are designated as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing under the ESA, as well as species listed as sensitive by the USFS, BLM, or by the States of Oregon or Idaho. If not already conducted, biological resource surveys will be conducted at the geotechnical sites, along the access routes, along the ROW, and around ancillary facilities. Detailed information regarding biological surveys will be outlined in a Biological Resources Survey Plan developed a contractor hired by IPC for the B2H Project. Examples of biological surveys that the BLM may require of IPC include additional surveys to identify wetlands and other waters of the U.S., noxious weeds, cultural resources, and paleontological resources. Site-specific surveys to identify potential wetlands or other waters of the U.S. are required to facilitate avoidance measures, and if necessary, obtain permits from the COE. Survey results and information gathered will inform application of conservation measures (e.g., seasonal restrictions, design considerations, and spatial avoidance). The results of all survey efforts pertaining to ESA-listed species will be provided by IPC to the applicable agencies.

7

Table 1. Implementation Plans that will be included in the B2H Project POD. Plan Description

Environmental Compliance Management Plan

The principal guidance document intended to affirm how B2H Project participants will uphold, document, and manage

compliance with Federal authorizations (e.g., ROW, easements, special use permits, etc.), landowner agreements, and applicable

Federal, state, and local permits.

Biological Resources Conservation Plan

Assists the affected Federal land management agencies and B2H Project personnel in meeting their obligations to protect biological resources during the planning, design, and implementation of the

B2H Project. This plan will include all the conservation measures included in the proposed action and all terms and conditions

specified in the Incidental Take Statement section of this Opinion.

Water Resources Protection Plan Provides measures to protect water resources from potential impacts during construction, operation, and maintenance activities.

Noxious Weed Management Plan Provides the plan purpose, goals, and objectives of the noxious

weed inventory, management practices, monitoring, and the use of herbicides.

Erosion, Dust Control, and Air Quality Plan

Addresses regulatory compliance, environmental concerns, mitigation recommendations, and monitoring to ensure impacts

associated with construction activities are minimized as they relate to soil conservation and air quality.

Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Plan Framework

Provides a framework for reclamation treatments to be applied to prevent unnecessary degradation of the environment during

construction, to rehabilitate temporary use areas, and to reclaim disturbed areas so that these areas are ecologically functional and

visually compatible with the surrounding environment to the greatest extent practicable.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Framework

Describes how erosion and sediment transport to adjacent water will be minimized.

As part of the BA preparation, the BLM and EPG conducted an office-based survey to identify ESA-listed aquatic species and designated critical habitat within the B2H Project area. Several sources of GIS data and local agency knowledge were used to identify known current and historically occupied habitat within the B2H Project area. The StreamNet hydrographic base layer (StreamNet 2016) served as the primary base layer for both stream location and fish distribution. The StreamNet fish distribution data for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead was included in this dataset. Chinook salmon distribution was used as a surrogate for coho salmon distribution and EFH in the Grande Ronde River (Pacific Fisheries Management Council [PFMC] and NMFS 2014) and Rock Creek. Staff biologists reviewed the GIS layers and made additions based on stream characteristics (e.g., gradient, water quantity, fish barriers, etc.) and proximity to streams known to be occupied by ESA-listed anadromous species. Fish distribution was then further refined through review by Federal, state, and tribal biologists who provided additional information about current and historical fish distribution. Federal agency reviewers include Richard Pastor, June Galloway, and Jason Sutter of the BLM. State agency reviewers included Tim Bailey and Nigel Seidel of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Information from other documents,

8

including environmental reviews, BAs, biological opinions, and peer-reviewed literature was also gathered and incorporated into this assessment. As such, the BLM does not anticipate additional fish resource inventories (e.g., field surveys involving electrofishing to document presence or absence) to be conducted. Rather, ESA-listed and other special status fish species will be assumed to be present in streams that have been documented (using methods described above) to contain these species. 1.3.3 Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical investigations will be conducted by IPC at various locations along the transmission line ROW to collect information regarding subsurface stability. This information will be used by IPC in the final design of each transmission line structure and foundation. Geotechnical investigations will not be performed within a riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA1). The geotechnical investigations will consist of the drilling and sampling of soils to a typical depth of 50 to 60 feet below the ground’s surface; however, borehole depth may exceed 60 feet, depending on soil conditions. The following vehicles and equipment may be used as part of the geotechnical investigations: two-wheel-drive and four-wheel drive trucks, utility vehicles, tracked vehicles, oversized-tire all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), platform rigs, water trucks, and large air compressors. The boreholes will have a diameter of approximately 8 inches and will typically be backfilled with auger cuttings, on-site soils, and bentonite clay if necessary. Water used during drilling activities will be obtained from existing municipal sources and will not be required to be recycled. Only a minor amount of water is anticipated to be used during drilling because the boreholes are expected to be shallow. As such, the quantity of drilling fluids will be minimal and will generally be absorbed by the soil. A minor amount of water may be expressed at the surface of the borehole, but not in sufficient quantities to warrant collection. The conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects from geotechnical investigations are outlined in Section 1.3.10. 1.3.4 Construction or Upgrades of Access Routes As described more thoroughly below, existing or new access roads will be used for geotechnical investigations, construction, operation, and maintenance of the B2H Project. This may require constructing new road-stream crossings (hereinafter referred to as stream crossings) and upgrading existing stream crossings. All road work will be performed in accordance with IPC’s standards for road construction or according to BLM, USFS, state, and/or local requirements for road construction, or private landowner agreements. The standards will be contingent on the land that the particular segment of road is crossing. Specific plans for the construction, rehabilitation, and/or maintenance of roads, including the locations of access roads, will be documented in the Construction POD. A general description of the type of construction work

1 The BA uses the phrase riparian conservation area, which is synonymous with the phrase RHCA.

9

that will occur on existing roads and new roads, including work done at stream crossings, is provided in Sections 1.3.4.1 and 1.3.4.2. It is anticipated that the new and existing permanent access roads will be used for the life of the B2H Project; however, use will predominantly occur during construction. Minimal maintenance will be required on the B2H Project structures; therefore, after construction, access roads are expected to be used sparingly. As a result, long-term maintenance will include routine inspections as necessary along the transmission line ROW and associated access roads. These inspections will inform the IPC of potential areas in which sediment input into waterways require maintenance. The IPC will implement appropriate actions to stabilize the area. If a significant road maintenance activity is required in the future, and if the activity will potentially affect ESA-listed species, then the activity will be consulted on as a separate action. However, due to the low level of use that will occur subsequent to construction and the provisions for long-term road maintenance, it is unlikely that significant road maintenance will be required in the future. During the construction and upgrade of access roads, BLM, USFS, state, or local road construction standards will be followed and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 1200-C permit stormwater and erosion control best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented. Based on ODEQ guidelines, turbidity standards and monitoring will be required 300 feet downstream of site of disturbance in waterways with ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat. Therefore, if a visible increase in turbidity occurs within a nearby waterway during construction or operation activities, turbidity monitoring will begin (i.e., 100 feet upstream and 300 feet downstream from the point of turbidity causing actions). In addition, appropriate BMPs will be implemented to minimize or eliminate the source of sedimentation/siltation. Turbidity within the waterway will continue to be monitored until permit standards are met. Furthermore, all disturbed sites will be stabilized in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction stormwater runoff standards. The BMPs and additional conservation measures to avoid or minimize impacts from road construction are detailed in Section 1.3.10 and Section 6 of the BA. 1.3.4.1 Existing Roads Existing roads that will be used for access may need extensive or moderate improvements prior to their use. Extensive improvements may require one or more of the following activities: (1) Increase the width of the road prism; (2) alter the road alignment; (3) use materials inconsistent with the existing road surface (e.g., place aggregate on the road surface); (4) change the existing road profile; or (5) repair more than 20% of the road surface area (defined by road prism width and longitudinal distance over a defined road segment). Moderate improvements will be limited to repair of the road prism to: (1) Produce a stable operating surface; (2) ensure proper drainage and erosion control; and (3) establish horizontal clearance. Upgrades to existing access routes within the RHCA may occur along four streams that support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. In addition, modifications to existing bridges on four streams that support ESA-listed anadromous salmonids and/or designated critical habitat

10

are anticipated to occur. All modifications will occur above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and will involve upgrading the bridge with new decking or a pre-cast overlay. Streams supporting ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat that may be affected by nearby road or bridge upgrades are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Streams supporting ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat that are

adjacent to roads or bridges that are anticipated to receive upgrades as part of the B2H Project.

Stream Length of Road to be Upgraded

within RHCA (miles) Bridge Upgrade

Meacham Cr. 0.02 N/A Graves Cr. 0.1 N/A

Unnamed Tributary to Rock Cr. 0.5 N/A Sheep Cr. 0.1 N/A

West Birch Cr. N/A Yes California Gulch N/A Yes

East Birch Cr. N/A Yes Rock Cr. N/A Yes

No work below the OHWM for road or stream crossing upgrades will be performed on waterways that support ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat. Furthermore, no work below the OHWM will occur on streams within 1,000 feet upstream of waterways that support ESA-listed fish or are designated as critical habitat. This includes work on tributaries to these streams. 1.3.4.2 New Roads New access roads may be built for temporary or permanent use. Until final engineering is completed, it is unknown which roads will be required to be permanent; therefore, for the purposes of this Opinion, NMFS assumes all new access roads will be permanent. Approximately 70 and 15 miles of new access roads will be required in Segments 1 and 2, respectively (Table 3). All access roads will be built with a travel-surface width of at least 14 feet, with the final size depending on site-specific conditions. Curves will require a wider surface (e.g., 16 to 22 feet wide). New bladed access roads will be wider than new primitive access roads and will be used for larger vehicles, such as construction equipment. New primitive access roads will be used for smaller vehicles, such as ATVs. The road travel surface typically will be an unpaved, native surface.

11

Table 3. Miles of new access roads in Segments 1 and 2. Segment Bladed Primitive Total

All New Access Roads 1 6.5 62.4 68.9 2 9.5 5.7 15.2

New Access Roads within RHCAs1 1 0.5 0.3 0.8 2 0.2 0.5 0.7

1Adjacent to waterways that do not support ESA-listed anadromous fish or designated critical habitat. No new access roads will be constructed within the RHCA of a waterway that supports ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. However, short segments of new access roads will be constructed within RHCAs of waterways that do not support ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat. As summarized in Table 3, approximately 0.8 and 0.7 miles of new access roads will be constructed in RHCAs within Segments 1 and 2, respectively. No new stream crossings will occur in waterways that support ESA-listed fish or waterways that are designated as critical habitat. Furthermore, no new stream crossings will be constructed within 1,000 feet upstream of waterways that support ESA-listed fish or are designated as critical habitat. 1.3.4.3 Stream Crossings in Waterways Not Supporting ESA-listed Fish or Critical Habitat For perennial fish-bearing waterways that do not support ESA-listed fish or waterways that are not designated critical habitat, existing channel-spanning structures will be used when feasible; however, new or modified channel-spanning structures may be used where required. All proposed channel spanning structure designs or modifications for fish-bearing streams will be implemented with approval by the ODFW. For seasonal/ephemeral streams, new or modified channel-spanning structures or existing fords will be used. Some existing fords may require minor modifications (e.g., portable mats or minimal amount of coarse fill) to stabilize the crossing. No new culverts will be installed and no existing culverts will be replaced as part of the B2H Project. 1.3.5 Vegetation Clearing Clearing of natural vegetation will be required for construction purposes (e.g., access roads, multi-use areas, and structure sites), electrical safety, long-term maintenance, and reliability of the transmission line. In the 250-foot ROW, mature vegetation will be removed as needed under or near the conductors to provide adequate electrical clearance as required by the National Electrical Safety Code and the U. S. Department of Energy. At each structure site, work areas are required to facilitate the safe operation of equipment and construction operations. In typical work areas in flat terrain, an area of temporary disturbance

12

will be required for equipment and construction tasks. The temporary disturbance may encompass up to 62,500 square feet (ft2) (1.5 acres) for the 500-kV lines and up to 18,750 ft2 (0.5 acres) for the 230-kV lines. The permanent disturbance associated with the structure footings will be up to 2,500 ft2 (0.06 acres) for the 500-kV lines and 750 ft2 (0.02 acres) for the 230-kV lines. A bulldozer will clear individual structure sites by blading the required area. Work areas around structures will be kept clear of vegetation and the height of vegetation will be limited along the ROW. The method for vegetation management is called the wire-border zone method. This method results in two zones of clearing and revegetation. The wire zone is the linear area along the ROW under the wires and extending 10 feet outside of the outermost phase conductor. The border zone is the linear area along each side of the ROW extending from the wire zone to the edge of the ROW. The majority of the trees will be permanently removed within the wire zone except for low-growing trees and shrubs as well as trees in valley bottoms. After initial clearing, vegetation in the wire zone will be maintained for vegetation up to 25 feet tall at maturity (e.g., native grasses, legumes, herbs, ferns and shrubs). Vegetation in the border zone will be maintained for tall shrubs or short trees (up to 34 feet high at maturity), grasses, and forbs. No clearing will be conducted in either the border or wire zones at locations where the distance between the wires and expected height of mature trees exceeds the minimum clearance distance (e.g., a spanning of a forested ravine). Minimum clearance distances vary by several factors, including terrain, circuit voltage, structure parameters, and tensioning. Vegetation removal in RHCAs generally will occur in the transmission line ROW and on access roads. RHCAs will be spanned to the greatest extent practicable. Nine waterways that support ESA-listed fish or critical habitat, or both, will be crossed by the transmission line ROW. Although the designated RHCA width for fish-bearing streams established for the B2H Project is 300 feet on either side of the streams (600 feet combined), this does not represent the existing riparian vegetation width within the RHCA at each crossing. Using aerial photo interpretation, the average vegetated width (combined width for both sides of the waterway) for these nine streams ranges between 25 and 600 feet. The vegetation consists of both riparian and upland communities (e.g., willows, pines, firs, etc.). Table 4 summarizes the potential impacts to vegetation within RHCAs of waterways supporting ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat as a result of implementing the B2H Project as proposed. Assuming that full clearance of vegetation in the ROW will be required, removal of riparian vegetation along waterways with ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat will be between about 6,250 ft2 (0.1 acre) and 150,000 ft2 (3.4 acres). Upgrades of access roads that are located within the RHCA may also result in removal of vegetation. Potential impacts to vegetation in the RHCA were estimated by multiplying the width of the roadway by the estimated length of road within the RHCA that will be upgraded. Estimated areas of impacts associated with access road upgrades are between 7,392 ft2 (0.17 acres) and 53,578 ft2 (1.23 acres). The type of vegetation management control method used for initial clearing will vary depending on site conditions. In areas with steep terrain or within RHCAs, manual control methods (i.e., workers using hand tools) may be used in place of mechanical control methods (i.e., use of machinery).

13

Table 4. Potential impacts to vegetation within RHCAs along waterways supporting ESA-listed anadromous fish and/or designated critical habitat.

Segment Stream Name

Transmission Line ROW Impacts1

Access Road Impacts2 Total

Impact Area

Vegetated RHCA Width

Impact Area Impact Area

(ft) (ft2) (acres) (ft2) (acres) (acres)

1

Bear Cr. 25 6,250 0.1 N/A N/A 0.1 West Birch Cr.3 75 18,750 0.4 27,443 0.63 1.03

California Gulch3 50 12,500 0.3 53,578 1.23 1.53 East Birch Cr. 3 85 21,500 0.5 35,283 0.81 1.31 Meacham Cr.4 0 0 0 1,484 0.3 0.3

2

Dry Cr. 140 35,000 0.8 N/A N/A 0.8 Grande Ronde R. 250 62,500 1.4 N/A N/A 1.4

Graves Cr. 4 600 150,000 3.4 7,392 0.17 3.57 Rock Cr. 3 350 87,500 2.0 29,568 0.68 2.68

Unnamed Tributary to Rock Cr. 4 550 137,500 3.2 39,960 0.85 4.05

Sheep Cr. 4 0 0 0 7,392 0.17 0.17 1The ROW is 250 feet wide. 2Impact area is based on the width of the roadway multiplied by estimated length within the RHCA. 3The access road improvements are from upgrading stream crossings. 4The access road improvements are from upgrading road within the RHCA. 1.3.6 Transmission Line Construction The primary transmission line structure type will be single-circuit, self-supporting, steel lattice structure. This structure type is expected to be between 75 to 195 feet tall and structures will be spaced between 1,200 to 1,800 feet apart. Where potential impacts may require shorter structure heights, an alternate tubular steel H-frame single-circuit structure will be used. Structure heights and spans for the alternate structure type are expected to range between 85 to 165 feet in height and 450 to 1,300 feet between structures. The heights of the structure will vary depending on the terrain and the requirement to maintain minimum conductor clearances from the ground. Considering the range of distances that could exist between structures (i.e., 450 to 1,800 feet), there will be anywhere from three to 12 structures per mile. 1.3.6.1. Structure Installation Installation of structures will require excavation (which may include upland blasting) and installation of foundations. The steel-lattice structures will require four foundations, one at each corner, with the foundation size and dimensions varying depending on terrain and site conditions. The alternate tubular steel H-frame structures will require two foundations. Where the transmission line dead-ends or has an angle, a three-pole structure will be required, necessitating a third foundation. The foundations will typically be comprised of drilled concrete piers. Foundation holes will range from 4 to 8 feet in diameter with a depth of 15 to 40 feet.

14

The 500-kV structures will be assembled on-site, where possible, and will be lifted into place using a large crane. Specific structure sites and work areas will be identified during engineering design of the B2H Project. Each site will be approved by the agencies and will be identified in the Construction POD. Structure foundations will not be constructed within the RHCA of waterways with ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Blasting. Subsurface blasting may be required during construction of the B2H Project. No inwater blasting and no blasting within 300 feet of perennial waterways or waterways that support ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat will occur. The locations of blasting activities will not be known until final construction plans for the B2H Project are complete. The range of charges for ground blasting will vary greatly with type, depth, strength, and other physical properties of the rock to be blasted; therefore, without known locations of potential blasting, and without geotechnical or foundation design data, specific information regarding ground blasting will not be available until construction begins. Table 5 outlines the minimum setback distances from streams supporting ESA-listed fish for blasting activities based on charge weight. If blasting needs to occur within these setback distances, then blasting will occur within the work windows identified by the ODFW (2008) in Table 6. Blasting outside of the inwater work window and within the setback distances is anticipated to only occur under unavoidable circumstances, which are anticipated to be very rare. If such circumstances occur, then NMFS and the ODFW will be contacted to develop additional mitigation measures. These measures may include ensuring fish are not in the stream near the blasting site and/or monitoring for inwater pressure changes resulting from blasting. Additional conservation measures aimed at minimizing impacts from blasting are summarized in Section 1.3.10.

15

Table 5. Minimum setback distances, based on charge weight, from streams supporting ESA-listed anadromous fish or designated critical habitat for blasting activities.

Substrate Explosive Charge Weight in Pounds

0.5 1 2 5 10 25 100 500 1,000 Minimum Setback Distances (feet)1,2

Rock 30 50 80 120 170 270 530 1,180 1,670 Frozen Material 40 50 70 110 160 250 500 1,120 1,580

Stiff Clay, Gravel, Ice 30 40 60 100 140 220 440 990 1,400 Clay Silt, Dense Sand 30 40 50 80 120 180 370 820 1,160

Medium to Dense Sand 20 30 50 70 100 160 320 720 1,020 Medium Organic Clay –

Spawning/Rearing 15 20 30 50 70 100 210 460 660

Medium Organic Clay – Incubation 19 27 38 60 85 135 270 600 850

Soft Organic Clay – Spawning/Rearing 15 20 30 40 60 100 190 440 620

Soft Organic Clay - Incubation 19 27 38 60 85 135 270 600 850

1Shaded cells represent setback distances that will be superseded by the prohibition of blasting within 300 feet of a perennial waterway or a waterway that supports ESA-listed fish. 2Described combinations of charge weight and setbacks, by substrate, will produce up to 2 pounds per square inch (psi) hydrostatic overpressure on the swim bladder of fish, or 0.5 inches per second (ips) vibration velocity. Both values are the known thresholds for adverse effects to individual fish (hydrostatic overpressure) and for incubating eggs (vibration velocity) (Firth 2002; Wright and Hopky 1998; and ADFG 1991). Table 6. Identified work windows for streams supporting ESA-listed anadromous fish

and/or designated critical habitat that are crossed or paralleled by the B2H Project.1

Stream Name Inwater Work Window

Bear Cr.

July 1 – October 31 West Birch Cr. California Gulch

East Birch Cr. Dry Cr.

July 1 – October 15

Grande Ronde R. Graves Cr. Rock Cr.

Unnamed Tributary to Rock Cr. Sheep Cr. Ladd Cr.

1ODFW 2008 Batch Plants. Concrete used to install structure foundations will be obtained from commercial concrete plants or from portable concrete batch plants. Due to the remote nature of much of the B2H Project, concrete will generally be dispensed from portable concrete batch plants located at the multi-use areas (described in Section 1.3.6.3) when local commercial concrete plants are not available. Each batch plant will occupy 3 to 5 acres within the multi-use areas. Concrete will be delivered to structure sites in concrete trucks with a hauling capacity of up to 10 cubic yards. In

16

the more developed areas of the B2H Project, the contractor may use local concrete providers to deliver concrete to the structure sites, if feasible. Water used for construction will be procured from existing municipal sources or from commercial sources; therefore, no surface water withdrawals will be required. Batch plants will not be located within 300 feet (extent of the RHCA) of waterways with ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat. 1.3.6.2 Transmission Line Stringing Conductors, insulators, hardware, and stringing sheaves will be delivered to each tower site and will be installed on-site. A pilot line will be pulled (strung) from structure to structure (or pole to pole) by helicopter, truck, or four-wheel-drive vehicle and will be threaded through the stringing sheaves at each structure. A stronger line that is larger in diameter (pulling line) then will be attached to the pilot line and strung. This process will be repeated until the shield wire and conductor are pulled through all sheaves. Shield wire and conductor will be strung using powered pulling equipment at one end and powered braking or tensioning equipment at the other end. Sites for pulling-and-tensioning equipment and working space will require 5 acres. Two pulling-and-tensioning sites will be located every 3 to 4 miles and splicing sites (roughly 100 feet by 100 feet in size) will be located approximately every 9,000 feet, which is the length of a standard reel of conductor. Compression or implosive devices are used to make connections between conductors when transmission lines are strung together, through a process in which implosive fittings use explosives to compress the metal together. It is anticipated that the net explosive content of an implosive splice will be approximately 0.5 pounds of pentaerythritol tetranitrate in the form of a detonation cord. Use of implosive devices will vary depending on what segment of the transmission line is under construction and the number of conductors per bundle. Each phase of the 500-kV three-phrase circuit will be composed of three subconductors in a triple bundle configuration. At each single-circuit 500-kV dead-end structure, 18 implosive dead-end sleeves (six per phase, one for each of the three subconductors on each side of the structure) will be required. Additionally, 18 compression or implosive sleeves will be required to fabricate and install the jumpers that connect the conductors from one side of the dead-end structure to the other, for a total of 36 sleeves for each single-circuit, dead-end structure. At in-line sections where reel ends are connected, nine compression or implosive sleeves will be needed. 1.3.6.3 Multi-Use Areas Multi-use areas are temporary disturbances or temporary land uses for storing construction materials and assembling tower structures. They may also include conductor pulling yards, helicopter landing areas, vehicle washing yards, and other construction support activities. Additionally, fueling trucks, maintenance trucks, and operations crews will be based in the multi-use yards during B2H Project construction. Temporary multi-use areas on Federal lands will be incorporated into a ROW grant. Temporary uses on nonfederal lands will be subject to landowner approval.

17

The locations for both access roads and multi-use areas will be refined during the detailed B2H Project design phase and will be addressed in the Construction POD. Multi-use areas will be located approximately every 15 miles along the route and will be about 30 acres each for the 500-kV transmission line. In some areas, the multi-use area may need to be scraped by a bulldozer and a temporary layer of rock may need to be laid to provide an all-weather surface. Any rock needed for the B2H Project will be obtained from commercial sources. Unless otherwise directed by the landowner, the rock will be removed from the multi-use area on completion of construction and the area will be restored. Multi-use areas will not be located within RHCAs adjacent to waterways with ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat. 1.3.7 Transmission Line Relocation Construction of the agency-preferred route will require the removal and relocation of an existing 69-kV transmission line2 within Segment 1 to allow the proposed route to occupy the ROW and maintain minimum clearance distances. This transmission line is located on the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman (NWSTF Boardman), which is owned by the U.S. Navy. Relocation of the existing transmission lines will require structure removal and subsequent rebuilding. Relocation of the existing 69-kV transmission line on the NWSTF Boardman will be conducted according to one of three design options and will require partial to complete removal of the transmission line from the NWSTF Boardman. Cranes and trucks will remove the conductors and structures along the majority of the existing transmission line, but some structures may be sectioned and removed by hand crews to limit ground disturbance. All design options will require the construction of a new 230-kV transmission line east of the NWSTF Boardman to accommodate the displaced 69-kV transmission line. No RHCAs with ESA-listed fish or critical habitat will be crossed in the locations where the existing transmission lines would be removed and relocated. All areas of disturbance associated with relocating existing transmission lines will be reclaimed in accordance with the Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Framework Plan established in the Construction POD or as prescribed by the Department of Defense in their land use authorization on the NWSTF Boardman property. 1.3.8 Reclamation Areas disturbed (e.g., temporary use areas, temporary access roads, transmission line ROW, etc.) during implementation of the B2H Project will be rehabilitated to prevent unnecessary degradation of the environment. The ROW will be reclaimed through methods described in the

2 The B2H Project also includes relocation of a 230-kV transmission line within Segment 3, in the vicinity of Baker City, Oregon. This relocation is outside of anadromous watersheds and does not have the potential to affect ESA-listed anadromous species or designated critical habitat. As such, it is not described in this Opinion, even though a description is included in the BA.

18

Reclamation, Revegetation, and Monitoring Framework Plan established in the Construction POD. All practical means will be made to reclaim the land to its original contour and natural drainage patterns, except those facilities needed for future operations and maintenance activities. Revegetation activities along the ROW will conform to the Proponent’s vegetation management standards as approved by the BLM and USFS. Reclamation seed mixtures will conform to land-managing agency requirements and approval. Specific seed mixes and reclamation techniques will be outlined in the Construction POD. 1.3.9 Operation and Maintenance Operation and maintenance activities of the B2H Project will include transmission line patrols, climbing inspections, structure and conductor inspection and maintenance, insulator washing in selected areas as needed, access-road repairs, and vegetation management. Inspection of the entire transmission line system will be conducted two times annually. An annual aerial inspection will be conducted by helicopter and will require two or three crew members, including the pilot. Detailed ground inspections will take place on a semiannual basis using existing access roads to each structure. Ground inspection will use four-wheel-drive trucks or four-wheel-drive ATVs. Periodic inspection and maintenance of each of the substations and communications facilities also is a key part of operating and maintaining the electrical system. System operation and maintenance activities will be conducted as specified in the Construction POD to meet system safety and reliability requirements. The IPC will coordinate with the respective Federal land-managing agencies prior to initiating maintenance (including vegetation management) and/or repair activities unless emergency maintenance activities are required. In the event of an emergency, within 24 hours of the action occurring, the IPC will contact the appropriate land management agency offices. During emergency maintenance activities, the IPC will adhere to the same conservation measures outlined in the Construction POD, to the extent feasible; however, adherence to some conservation measures, particularly those specific to seasonal timing restrictions, may not be possible in order to complete the necessary emergency maintenance activities. Where emergency actions may affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat, the relevant land-managing agency will notify NMFS and initiate emergency consultation. 1.3.9.1 Vegetation Management Long-term vegetation management for the B2H Project will entail ongoing vegetative clearing and noxious weed control along the transmission line ROW and permanent access roads. The type of vegetation management control methods used for long-term vegetation management will vary depending on site conditions. In areas with steep terrain or within RHCAs, manual control methods (i.e., workers using hand tools) may be used in place of mechanical control methods (i.e., use of machinery). Much of the B2H Project traverses areas characterized by low-growing vegetation. In these areas, long-term vegetation management will be minimal compared to areas at higher elevations that receive more precipitation and exhibit taller vegetation.

19

Noxious weeds are a subset of aggressive, non-native invasive plants that have been designated as detrimental to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property. The IPC expects only to be required to control designated noxious weeds. The IPC will be responsible for ensuring that noxious weeds are identified and controlled during construction, operation, and maintenance of B2H Project facilities and that all Federal, state, county, and other local requirements are satisfied. The IPC will not be responsible for removing aquatic plants; therefore, no inwater herbicide applications will occur. The management of noxious weeds will be considered throughout all stages of the B2H Project. A Noxious Weed Management Plan will be developed based on the principles and procedures outlined in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended in 1990, and the aquatic restoration activities biological opinion (ARBO II) in the states of Oregon and Washington (NMFS 2013a). Construction personnel will be educated regarding identified problem areas, the importance of preventive measures, and treatment methods. Specific preventive measures will be implemented to counteract the spread of noxious weeds during construction, operation, and maintenance activities. Noxious weed treatment will occur in areas where noxious weeds are present due to construction activities. Noxious weed control will be conducted for 3 years following the completion of B2H Project construction and will target noxious weed populations identified as occurring due to construction activities. Weed control may extend past the 3-year period if: (1) Disturbed areas are not meeting preconstruction conditions as determined during preconstruction surveys and adjacent land uses are consistent with the objective of managing weed populations; and/or (2) B2H Project maintenance activities have caused or contributed to the spread or establishment of noxious weeds. Disturbed areas are considered to include reclamation areas, which will be revegetated following ground disturbance. Monitoring of these reclamation areas will include completing noxious weed surveys, as well as assessing the success of revegetation efforts. Similar to other disturbed areas, noxious weed control will be conducted if these reclamation areas are not meeting preconstruction conditions as determined by preconstruction weed surveys. Noxious weed control typically will employ herbicide application. Noxious weed control methods and buffers will be implemented as described below, and all conservation measures described in Section 1.3.10.5 will be applied. Chemical control of vegetation or noxious weeds will use BLM- or USFS-approved herbicides on all federally, state, or privately owned lands. Table 7 lists the herbicides approved for IPC use by land management jurisdiction. All noxious weed control activities will follow applicable BLM or USFS guidelines on federally managed lands. Additional measures to reduce the spread of noxious weeds, including avoidance, topsoil separation, and vehicle washing, will be followed. Where adjuvants are recommended for use, an approved aquatic surfactant will be used to improve uptake by the weeds. The surfactants R-11 and Polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) will not be used. In addition, herbicides that contain POEA (e.g., Roundup) will not be used. Only water or specifically labeled vegetable oil will be used as herbicide carriers (solvents).

20

Table 7. Herbicides approved for use by land management jurisdiction.

Herbicide1 BLM-

Administered Land USFS-

Administered Land Other Lands

2,4-D √ √ Aminopyralid √ √ Chlorsulfuron √ √ √

Clopyralid √ √ √ Dicamba √ √

Diflufenzopyr + Dicamba √ √ Fluroxypyr √ √ Glyphosate √ √ √ Hexazinone √ √

Imazapic √ √ √ Imazapyr √ √ √

Metsulfuron Methyl √ √ √ Picloram √ √ √

Rimsulfuron √ √ Sethoxydim √ √

Sulfometuron Methyl √ √ √ Triclopyr √ √ √

1The BA listed fluridone as an additional herbicide that may be used on BLM-administered lands and other lands. However, the BA specified fluridone will not be used within anadromous watersheds because it is an aquatic herbicide and herbicides will not be applied in water (i.e., aquatic plants will not be removed) as part of the B2H Project. As such, NMFS has not included fluridone in this table and will not evaluate effects of fluridone on ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. Liquid forms of herbicides will be applied as follows: (1) Broadcast spraying using booms mounted on ground-based vehicles; (2) spot spraying individual plants or small patches of plants with hand-held nozzles attached to backpack tanks, tanks on vehicles, or hand-pumped sprayers; or (3) hand or selective application through wicking and wiping, basal bark, frill (“hack and squirt”), stem injection, or cut-stump. Dyes or colorants (e.g., Hi-Lite, Dynamark, etc.) will be used within 100 feet of live water to identify areas that have been treated and to minimize over-spraying by not treating the same area twice. Aerial spraying will not occur. Table 8 identifies no-application buffers that will be adhered to when applying herbicides in anadromous watersheds. The buffer distances are based on herbicide formula, stream type, and application method. Applications using an herbicide mixture will adhere to the most conservative buffer for the herbicides used in the mixture. Buffer widths are measured as map distance perpendicular to the bankfull edge for streams, the upland boundary for wetlands, or the upper bank for roadside ditches.

21

Table 8. No-application buffer widths for herbicide applications by stream type and application method (distances in feet).

Herbicide1

Perennial Streams and Wetlands, Intermittent Streams, Roadside

Ditches with Flowing or Standing Water Present

Dry Intermittent Streams, Dry Intermittent Wetlands, Dry

Roadside Ditches

Broadcast Spraying

Spot Spraying

Hand Selective

Broadcast Spraying

Spot Spraying

Hand Selective

Labeled for Aquatic Use Aquatic Glyphosate 100 Waterline Waterline 50 0 0 Aquatic Imazapyr 100 Waterline Waterline 50 0 0 Aquatic Triclopyr-

triethylamine salt (TEA) Not

Allowed 15 Waterline

Not Allowed 0 0

Aquatic 2,4-D (amine) 100 Waterline Waterline 50 0 0 Low Risk to Aquatic Organisms

Aminopyralid 100 Waterline Waterline 50 0 0 Dicamba 100 15 15 50 0 0

Dicamba+diflufenzopyr 100 152 152 50 0 0 Imazapic 100 15 Bankfull 50 0 0

Clopyralid 100 15 Bankfull 50 0 0 Metsulfuron methyl 100 15 Bankfull 50 0 0

Moderate Risk to Aquatic Organisms Imazapyr 100 50 Bankfull 50 15 Bankfull

Sulfometuron methyl 100 50 5 50 15 Bankfull Chlorsulfuron 100 50 Bankfull 50 15 Bankfull

High Risk to Aquatic Organisms Triclopyr-butoxyethyl

ester (BEE) Not

Allowed 150 150 Not Allowed 150 150

Picloram 100 50 50 100 50 50 Sethoxydim 100 50 50 100 50 50 2,4-D (ester) 100 50 50 100 50 50

1Registered use of Fluroxypyr, Hexazinone, and Rimsulfuron is not appropriate in riparian and aquatic habitats. Therefore, these three herbicides will not be used within 300 feet of a waterway, regardless of application method. 2The BA listed the buffer distance as 12 feet; however, the buffer listed in ARBO II is 15 feet. Because the buffer distances for the B2H Project were obtained from ARBO II, we have assumed the 12 feet was a typographical error. BLM concurs with the 15-foot buffer width. 1.3.10 Conservation Measures Conservation measures to avoid or minimize effects on ESA-listed fish and designated critical habitat were grouped into three categories in the BA: design features, mitigation measures, and conservation measures specific to ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. Design features are practices developed to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. The IPC will implement design features as standard practices of construction, operation, and/or maintenance, as applicable. Mitigation measures are practices applied to mitigate site- and/or resource-specific impacts. The IPC will coordinate with the BLM or other land-managing agencies, or private landowners, as appropriate, to refine the implementation of mitigation measures at specific locations.

22

The IPC committed to adhere to all of the conservation measures (i.e., design features, mitigation measures, and conservation measures) on all lands regardless of jurisdiction or ownership. No exceptions to the conservation measures or other measures described in this section that were developed through the ESA Section 7 informal consultation process will be granted without prior approval from NMFS. For purposes of this Opinion, NMFS departed from the categorization presented in the BA as described above and instead grouped conservation measures into the following seven topics: general; construction; road; sediment and erosion control; herbicide; and blasting. Conservation measures for each of these categories are described more thoroughly in the following sections. 1.3.10.1 General Conservation Measures The IPC will implement general conservation measures throughout project implementation to minimize the potential for adverse effects on ESA-listed resources. The conservation measures pertain to staff training, RHCA delineation, aquatic invasive species, vegetation clearing, and protection of sensitive features. Environmental Training. All personnel will receive environmental training. Prior to construction, the compliance inspection contractor will instruct all personnel on the protection of ecological and other natural resources. At a minimum, this instruction will include the following topics relevant to natural resources:

1. Federal and state laws regarding plants and wildlife, including collection and removal;

2. Importance, purpose, and necessity of protecting plants and wildlife;

3. Conservation measures that must be implemented to protect plants and wildlife; and,

4. Reporting and procedures for stopping work.

This instruction is mandatory in order to educate all construction and maintenance personnel on the requirements for environmental protection during construction and for maintenance activities set forth in the POD with the intent of avoiding, minimizing, reducing, or eliminating effects on the environment. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Delineation and Protection. The RHCAs will be defined as described below. All distances are as measured on the ground.

1. Fish-bearing streams: 300-foot slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest;

2. Perennial non fish-bearing streams: 150-foot slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest;

23

3. Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1-acre: 150-foot slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest;

4. Intermittent or seasonally flowing streams and wetlands less than 1 acre: a. Watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species or designated critical habitat:

100-foot slope distance from the edge of the stream channel or wetland or to the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.

b. Watersheds that do not have current, documented presence of ESA-listed fish species or designated critical habitat: a 50-foot slope distance from the edge of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.

Conservation measures (e.g., micro-siting road locations whenever feasible) will be developed on a site-specific basis in coordination with the BLM and other Federal land-managing agencies to reduce the potential for direct or indirect impacts on RHCAs and fish habitats. Aquatic Invasive Species: Interagency-developed methods of avoidance, inspection, and sanitization as described in the Operational Guidelines for Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Equipment Cleaning (USFS 2009) will be adhered to. Support vehicles, drill rigs, water trucks, and drafting equipment will be inspected and sanitized, as necessary, following approved guidelines. If control of fugitive dust near sensitive waterways is necessary, water will be obtained from treated municipal sources or drafted from sources known to contain no aquatic invasive species. Vegetation Clearing: Removal of vegetation in the ROW will be minimized whenever feasible to limit disturbance to timber resources and slow-growing vegetation communities and to protect sensitive habitat, subject to structure and conductor clearance requirements. Trees and other vegetation will be removed selectively (e.g., edge feathering) to blend the edge of the ROW into adjacent vegetation patterns, as practicable and appropriate. Protection of Sensitive Features: Transmission line structures, work areas, new access roads, and other B2H Project features will avoid waterways that support ESA-listed fish species, critical habitat, or RHCAs of these waterways whenever feasible. This may be accomplished through selective placement of B2H Project features, spanning waterways, or realigning the B2H Project centerline (e.g., micro-siting). 1.3.10.2 Construction Conservation Measures The IPC will implement construction conservation measures throughout project implementation to minimize the potential for adverse effects on ESA-listed resources. These conservation measures pertain to staging; heavy equipment; timing of construction activities; spatial extent of activities; and handling of solid waste, hazardous materials, and concrete; and inwater work.

24

Staging: Staging areas for storage of vehicles, equipment, and fuels will be established to minimize erosion into, or contamination of, streams and floodplains. Typically, staging areas will be at least 300 feet from any natural waterbody or wetland in areas where topography does not restrict such a distance, unless the B2H Project engineer determines that site characteristics necessitate the placement of a staging site closer. For staging areas within 300 feet from any natural waterbody or wetland, sediment and pollution control measures will be put in place before and during staging activities. Staging areas within 300 feet of any natural waterbody or wetland will be approved by a land management agency biologist before staging occurs. Heavy Equipment: Heavy equipment appropriate for the job will be selected and operated in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the environment (e.g., minimally sized, low-pressure tires, minimal hard turn paths for tracked vehicles, and temporary mats or plates within wet areas or sensitive soils). Heavy equipment will be stored and fueled in staging areas after daily use. Heavy equipment will be inspected daily for fluid leaks and invasive weeds before leaving the staging areas. Timing of Construction Activities: Efforts will be made to avoid work during wet periods with saturated soil conditions. If work during these times is not avoidable, measures will be taken to minimize impacts. Vehicles will not be allowed to travel when soils are moist enough for deep rutting (i.e., > 4 inches deep) to occur unless prefabricated equipment pads or matting are installed over the saturated areas or other measures are implemented to prevent rutting. Equipment with low-ground-pressure tires, wide tracks, or balloon tires will be used when possible. Spatial Extent: The spatial limits of construction activities, including vehicle movement, will be predetermined by the ROW Grant or private property easement, and activities will be restricted to and confined within those limits. Handling of Solid Waste, Hazardous Materials, and Concrete: A spill prevention and response procedures document will be prepared. Employees will be trained on spill prevention and proper disposal procedures. Spill kits will be retained in all vehicles. Regular maintenance of vehicles and machinery will occur. Controls on material delivery and storage and adequate training and signage will be implemented. Waste and supplies will be in covered storage areas. Hazardous materials will be stored in accordance with state law and guidelines (e.g., secondary containment). Finally, no uncured concrete or form materials will be allowed to enter active stream channels. Inwater Work: It is anticipated that no inwater work or work below the OHWM will be required within waterbodies that support ESA-listed fish species and/or designated critical habitat. Similarly, no such work will occur in waterbodies within 1,000 feet upstream of occupied habitat or designated critical habitat.

25

1.3.10.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Conservation Measures The IPC will implement sediment and erosion control conservation measures to minimize the potential for sediment production and delivery to aquatic habitats. These conservation measures are listed below.

1. Waste disposal areas will be located outside of wetlands, RHCAs, floodplains, and unstable areas to minimize the risk of sediment delivery. Erosion control will be applied prior to the wet season.

2. Clearing and grading will be phased to the maximum extent practicable to prevent exposed inactive areas from becoming sources of erosion

3. Existing vegetation will be preserved and open areas revegetated when practical.

4. Temporary sediment control measures (e.g., check dams, silt fencing, filter strips, and mulch) will be used to slow runoff and contain sediment from road construction areas. Accumulated sediment and the control measures will be removed when work or haul is complete or to retain the capacity of the control measure.

5. Construction, reconstruction, or renovation activities will not occur during active or expected rain events. Erosion control measures will function properly and additional erosion control measures will be kept onsite to allow for immediate storm-proofing if necessary.

6. Native seed and certified weed-free mulch will be applied to cut and fill slopes, ditch lines, and waste disposal sites with the potential for sediment delivery to wetlands, RHCAs, floodplains, and waters of the state. Application will occur upon completion of construction and as early as possible to increase germination and growth. Areas will be reseeded if necessary to accomplish erosion control. Seed species that are fast growing and provide ample ground cover and soil-binding will be used. Mulch that will stay in place will be applied at site-specific rates to prevent erosion.

7. Bioengineering techniques will be used to control bank erosion.

8. Sediment trapping measures (e.g., straw bales, jute netting, or sediment basins) will be placed at the base of newly constructed fill or side slopes where sediment could be delivered to surface waters. Materials will be kept away from culvert outlets.

9. Ground-disturbing activities will be suspended if forecasted rain will saturate soils to the extent that there is potential for sediment delivery. Exposed soils will be covered or temporarily stabilized during work suspension.

10. Fill material over stream crossing structures will be stabilized as soon as practicable during ground-disturbing activities. Stabilization measures could include erosion control blankets and mats, soil binders, soil tackifiers, and slash.

26

11. Open resource roads receiving infrequent maintenance will be stabilized to reduce road erosion and reduce the risk of washouts by concentrated water flows. Temporary roads will also be stabilized.

12. Soil stock piles will be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday or other BMPs will be implemented to prevent sediment delivery to surface waters.

13. Road surfaces will be maintained (e.g., covered with aggregate) to prevent rutting, erosion, and sediment delivery under active haul activities.

14. Snow will be removed from haul roads in a manner that protects roads and adjacent resources. A minimum layer (2 to 4 inches) of compacted snow will be retained on the road surface. Drainage through the snow bank will be provided at periodic intervals to allow for snow melt to drain off of the road surface.

15. Water will be applied, as needed, to avoid wind-blown soil.

16. Fertilizer will be applied in a manner that prevents direct fertilizer entry to surface water or floodplains.

17. Procedures for maintenance and repair of sediment and erosion control measures will be established and implemented.

1.3.10.4 Road Conservation Measures The IPC will implement construction conservation measures throughout project implementation to minimize the potential for adverse effects from roads on ESA-listed resources. These conservation measures pertain to use, widening, location, design, and stream crossings. Road Use: All vehicle movement outside the ROW will be restricted to predesignated access, contractor-acquired access, public roads, overland travel routes, or crossings of streams approved in advance by the applicable land-managing agency or landowner. Access routes that have the potential to affect streams with ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat will be reviewed and approved by the cooperating agencies and NMFS. The BLM will require installation of access control measures (e.g., gates, guard rails, and earth/log barricades) to restrict vehicle use on B2H Project access roads (on government-managed lands) that are intended to be closed to public motorized use.3 Road Widening: In areas where soils, vegetation, and/or streams are sensitive to disturbance, existing roads used for construction access and/or B2H Project maintenance will not, as much as possible/practicable, be widened or otherwise upgraded except in areas necessary to make roads passable and safe.

3 Installation of access control measures were not included in the description of the proposed action or conservation measures in the BA; however, this was mentioned in the effects section of the BA. Richard Pastor (2017), clarified the BLM intends to require installation of access control measures as described here.

27

Road Location: Temporary and permanent roads and landings will be placed in stable locations (e.g., ridgetops, stable benches or flats, and gentle-to-moderate side slopes). Construction on steep slopes, slide areas, and high landslide hazard locations will be minimized. Temporary and permanent road construction or improvement will be located to minimize the number of stream crossings. Roads and landings will be located to avoid: wetlands, RHCAs, floodplains, waters of the state, and areas that can contribute to dry draws and swales. Efforts will be made to minimize the total transportation system mileage. Existing roads, regardless of land ownership, will be considered for use prior to constructing new roads. Existing roads or landings will be upgraded when it would cause less adverse environmental impact than constructing a new road or landing. Road Design: Design considerations for road work include:

1. Ensure road cut and fill slopes have stable angles in order to minimize erosion and prevent slope failure.

2. Construct road fills to prevent fill failure by using inorganic material, compaction, buttressing, subsurface drainage, rock facing or other effective means.

3. Design roads crossing low-lying areas so that water does not pond on the upslope side of the road. Provide cross drains at adequate intervals to ensure free drainage.

4. Install underdrain structures when roads cross or expose springs, seeps, or wet areas rather than allowing intercepted water to flow down gradient in ditches.

5. Effectively drain the road surface by using crowning, insloping or outsloping, rolling dips, waterbars, or combination of these methods. Avoid concentrated discharge onto fill slopes unless the fill slopes are stable and erosion proofed.

6. Outslope temporary and permanent low-volume roads to provide surface drainage on road gradients up to six percent, unless there is a traffic hazard from the road shape.

7. Consider using broad-based drainage dips and/or leadoff ditches in lieu of cross drains for low-volume roads. Locate surface water drainage measures where they will not drain into surface waters or floodplains.

8. Avoid using outside road berms unless designed to protect road fills. Where used, breach berms to accommodate drainage where fill slopes are stable. Berms may only be used in RHCAs where they help avoid or minimize impacts on fish habitat.

9. Divert road and landing runoff water away from headwalls, slide areas, high landslide hazard locations, or steep erodible fill slopes.

10. Design landings to disperse surface water to vegetated, stable areas.

28

11. Disconnect road runoff to stream channels by outsloping the road approach. If outsloping is not possible, use runoff control, erosion control, and sediment containment measures.

12. Minimize ditch flow conveyance to streams through cross drain placement above stream crossing.

13. Locate cross drains to prevent or minimize runoff and sediment delivery. Implement sediment reduction techniques, such as settling basins, brush filters, sediment fences, and check dams.

Stream Crossings: For all streams, regardless of fish presence, existing stream crossings will be used as much as possible. Stream crossings will completely span waterways that support ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat. Temporary stream crossings on fish-bearing waters that do not support ESA-listed fish or designated critical habitat, will use no-fill structures (e.g., portable mats, temporary bridges, or improved hardened crossings) when practicable. If not practicable, temporary crossings will be designed using the least amount of fill as possible and will be constructed with coarse material to facilitate removal upon completion. The IPC will coordinate with relevant agencies regarding existing site conditions, design, installation, maintenance, decommissioning, and the appropriate management practices for construction of stream crossings. If a crossing will be needed over, or within 600 feet upstream of, a waterbody that supports ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat, the IPC will obtain approval from the NMFS and other appropriate land-managing agencies for: (1) Site selection; (2) design of upgrades to existing crossings; and (3) appropriate BMPs for upgrading the existing crossings. 1.3.10.5 Herbicide Application Conservation Measures In addition to restricting the types of pesticides used and implementing no-application buffers as previously described, the IPC will implement herbicide conservation measures throughout project implementation to minimize the potential for chemical contamination of aquatic habitats in anadromous watersheds. The conservation measures listed below for herbicide use are similar or identical to those outlined in ARBO II (NMFS 2013a) and will be incorporated into a B2H Project specific herbicide plan that meets state and Federal requirements.

1. Herbicides will only be used in an integrated weed or vegetation management context where all treatments are considered and various methods are used individually or in concert to maximize the benefits while reducing the undesirable effects.

2. Herbicide impacts to fish, wildlife, non-target native plants, and other resources will be considered when making herbicide choices.

3. Only the minimum area necessary will be treated for effective control.

29

4. Herbicides will be applied by certified and licensed applicators to specifically target invasive plant species.

5. Application rates will follow label directions, unless site-specific analysis determines a lower maximum rate is needed to reduce non-target plant impacts.

6. An herbicide safety and spill response plan will be prepared for all projects to reduce the likelihood of spills and misapplication, to reduce potential for unsafe practices, and to take remedial actions in the event of spills. Spill plan contents will follow BLM direction as well as direction stipulated by all of the cooperating agencies.

7. Herbicides will be mixed more than 150 feet from any natural waterbody to minimize the risk of accidental discharge. Impervious material will be placed beneath mixing areas in such a manner as to contain any spills associated with mixing/refilling. Spray tanks will not be washed within 300 feet of surface waters.

8. A pesticide applicator report will be completed within 24 hours of application.

9. Herbicide drift and leaching will be minimized as follows:

a. No spraying will occur when wind speeds exceed 10 miles per hour (mph).

b. Whenever wind speeds are 2 mph or less, the applicator will confirm the absence of an inversion before applying herbicides.

c. The boom or spray will be kept as low as possible to reduce wind effects.

d. Appropriate equipment and settings (e.g., nozzle selection, pressure, drift reduction agents, etc.) will be selected. Spray equipment that produces 200 to 800 micron diameter droplets will be used.

e. Herbicide label directions (e.g., maximum daytime temperatures for application) will be followed.

f. No spraying will occur during adverse weather conditions (e.g., snow or rain imminent, fog, etc.).

g. Wind and other weather data will be monitored and reported for all pesticide applicator reports.

h. Herbicides will not be applied when the soil is saturated or when a precipitation event likely to produce direct runoff to fish-bearing waters from a treated site is forecasted to occur 48 hours following application. Herbicides will not be applied during periods of heavy rainfall.

30

1.3.10.6 Blasting/Implosive Splicing Conservation Measures In addition to the setback distances and seasonal restrictions outlined in Section 1.3.6.1, the IPC will implement the following conservation measures when blasting:

1. Use controlled blasting techniques to minimize loss of material on steep slopes or into wetlands, RHCAs, floodplains, and waters of the state.

2. Do not side cast waste material within RHCAs. Waste material will be loaded and hauled to appropriate disposal locations.

3. Use nonexplosive or microexplosive alternatives, such as Betonamit® or an equivalent, where possible to reduce resource impacts.

4. Fire all shots in predrilled or dug holes that are small in diameter, shallow, and ensure proper stemming or back-filling.

5. Place sandbags or other fill over loaded holes over each shot to increase stemming.

6. Individually prime all holes with an electric blasting cap or NONEL® blasting cap.

7. In multiple hole shots:

a. Do not fire any two holes side by side simultaneously.

b. Use blasting caps with a 1-millisecond delay.

c. Use at least 50 milliseconds of delay.

8. Do not exceed a powder factor of 0.5 pounds of explosives per cubic yard of solid rock. Do not exceed 0.25 pounds per cubic yard of explosive when air gapping boulders.

9. Prepare a blasting plan that meets all state and Federal requirements prior to any blasting/implosive splicing. The plan will be reviewed by the NMFS, approved by the appropriate agency(s), and executed appropriately.

1.3.10.7 Drilling Conservation Measures The IPC will implement the following conservation measures when drilling:

1. Drilling will not occur within waterways or RHCAs.

2. Drill recovery/recycling pits and any associated waste or spoils will be completely isolated from surface waters, off-channel habitats, and wetlands.

31

3. All drilling equipment, drill recovery/recycle pits, and any waste or spoil produced will be contained and then completely recovered, recycled, or disposed of as necessary to prevent entry into any waterway.

4. If a drill boring case breaks and drilling fluid or waste is visible in water or a wetland within watersheds that support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat, efforts will be made to contain the waste and ODFW and NMFS will be contacted within 48 hours.

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat upon which they depend. As required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, each Federal agency must ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Per the requirements of the ESA, Federal action agencies consult with NMFS and section 7(b)(3) requires that, at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provides an Opinion stating how the agency’s actions would affect listed species and their critical habitats. If incidental take is reasonably certain to occur, section 7(b)(4) requires NMFS to provide an ITS that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes non-discretionary reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions to minimize such impacts. 2.1 Analytical Approach This Opinion includes both a jeopardy analysis and/or an adverse modification analysis. The jeopardy analysis relies upon the regulatory definition of “to jeopardize the continued existence of” a listed species, which is “to engage in an action that would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Therefore, the jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species. This Opinion relies on the definition of “destruction or adverse modification,” which “means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features” ((81 FR 7214, 7216) (February 11, 2016) (codified at 50 C.F.R § 402.02)). The original designations of critical habitat for Chinook salmon (58 FR 68543) (Dec. 28, 1993) and steelhead (70 FR 52630) (Sept. 2, 2005) use the terms “primary constituent element” (PCE) or “essential feature.” The new critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7414) (Feb. 11, 2016) (codified at 50 C.F.R § 402.02) replace these terms with the term “physical or biological feature” (PBF). The shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting a “destruction

32

or adverse modification” analysis, which is the same regardless of whether the original designation identified PCEs, PBFs, or essential features. In this Opinion, we use the term PBF to mean PCE or essential feature, as appropriate for the specific critical habitat. We use the following approach to determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat:

Identify the rangewide status of the species and critical habitat expected to be adversely affected by the proposed action.

Describe the environmental baseline in the action area.

Analyze the effects of the proposed action on both species and their habitat using an “exposure-response-risk” approach.

Describe any cumulative effects in the action area.

Integrate and synthesize the above factors by: (1) Reviewing the status of the species and critical habitat; and (2) adding the effects of the action, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects to assess the risk that the proposed action poses to species and critical habitat.

Reach a conclusion about whether species are jeopardized or critical habitat is adversely modified.

If necessary, suggest a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative to the proposed action. 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat This Opinion examines the status of each species that would be adversely affected by the proposed action. The status is determined by the level of extinction risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. This informs the description of the species’ likelihood of both survival and recovery. The species status section also helps to inform the description of the species’ current “reproduction, numbers, or distribution” as described in 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The Opinion also examines the condition of critical habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the conservation value of the various watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up the designated area, and discusses the current function of the essential PBFs that help to form that conservation value. The status of each ESA-listed species and designated critical habitats that may be affected by the proposed action are described in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. More detailed information on the status and trends of the ESA-listed species, and their biology and ecology, can be found in the listed regulations and critical habitat designations published in the Federal Register (Table 9).

33

Other sources of information include the most recent status review (NWFSC 2015) and recovery planning documents (NMFS 2016). Table 9. Federal Register notices for final rules that list threatened and endangered

species, designated critical habitat, or apply protective regulations to listed species considered in this consultation.

Listing Status Critical Habitat Protective Regulations Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Snake River spring/summer run T 70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

64 FR 57399 (October 25, 1999)

70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

Steelhead (O. mykiss)

Snake River Basin T 71 FR 834 (January 5, 2006)

70 FR 52630 (September 2, 2005)

70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

Middle Columbia River T 71 FR 834 (January 5, 2006)

70 FR 52630 (September 2, 2005)

70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

2.2.1 Status of the Species This section describes the present condition of the MCR steelhead distinct population segment (DPS), SRB steelhead DPS, and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). NMFS expresses the status of a salmonid ESU or DPS in terms of likelihood of persistence over 100 years (or risk of extinction over 100 years). NMFS uses the viable salmonid population (VSP) approach as described by McElhaney et al. (2000), which is summarized below. A VSP is an independent population that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year timeframe. NMFS has developed three categories of population viability based on its risks of extinction over a 100-year period: (1) A “viable” population has less than a five percent risk of extinction (low risk); (2) a “highly viable” population has less than a one percent risk of extinction (very low risk); and (3) a “maintained” population has less than a 25% risk of extinction (moderate risk). To be considered viable, an ESU/DPS should have multiple populations so that a single catastrophic event is less likely to cause the ESU/DPS to become extinct, and so that the ESU/DPS may function as a metapopulation as necessary to sustain population-level extinction and recolonization processes (ICTRT 2007). The overall viability (or risk level) of the ESU/DPS is the aggregate of risk levels assigned to its major population groups (MPGs). Similarly, the viability or risk level assigned to an MPG is the aggregate of its individual population risk levels. Attributes associated with a VSP are: (1) Abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production areas); (2) productivity (adult progeny per parent); (3) spatial structure; and (4) diversity. A VSP needs sufficient levels of these four population attributes in order to: safeguard the genetic diversity of the listed ESU or DPS; enhance its capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions; and allow it to become self-sustaining in the natural environment (ICTRT 2007). These abundance/productivity (A/P) and spatial structure/diversity (SS/D) viability attributes are influenced by survival, behavior, and experiences throughout the entire salmonid life cycle, characteristics that are influenced in turn by habitat and other environmental

34

and anthropogenic conditions. The present risk faced by the ESU/DPS informs NMFS’s determination of whether additional risk will appreciably reduce the likelihood that the ESU/DPS will survive or recover in the wild. Sections 2.2.1.1 through 2.2.1.3 briefly describe the status for the three listed species that may be affected by implementation of the B2H Project. These status summaries begin with a description of their listing history and general life history characteristics. This is followed by a description of the status of the species in terms of the VSP approach described above (McElhany et al. 2000), with particular attention paid to the populations that could be affected. One factor affecting the rangewide status of ESA-listed fish considered in this Opinion, and aquatic habitat at large is climate change. Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance of listed species, and the conservation value of designated critical habitats, in the Pacific Northwest. These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the Pacific Northwest. Areas with elevations high enough to maintain temperatures well below freezing for most of the winter and early-spring will be less affected. Low-elevation areas are likely to be more affected. During the last century, average regional air temperatures increased by 1.5°F, and increased up to 4°F in some areas. Warming is likely to continue during the next century as average temperatures increase another 3 to 10°F. Overall, about one-third of the current cold-water fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest is likely to exceed key water temperature thresholds by the end of this century (USGCRP 2009). Precipitation trends during the next century are less certain than for temperature but more precipitation is likely to occur during October through March and less during summer months, and more of the winter precipitation is likely to fall as rain rather than snow (ISAB 2007; USGCRP 2009). Where snow occurs, a warmer climate will cause earlier runoff so stream flows in late spring, summer, and fall will be lower and water temperatures will be warmer (ISAB 2007; USGCRP 2009). Higher winter stream flows increase the risk that winter floods in sensitive watersheds will damage spawning redds and wash away incubating eggs. Earlier peak stream flows will also flush some young salmon and steelhead from rivers to estuaries before they are physically mature, increasing stress and the risk of predation. Lower stream flows and warmer water temperatures during summer will degrade summer rearing conditions, in part by increasing the prevalence and virulence of fish diseases and parasites (USGCRP 2009). Other adverse effects are likely to include altered migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature emergence of fry, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing habitat, and increased competition and predation risk from warm-water, non-native species (ISAB 2007). The earth’s oceans are also warming, with considerable inter-annual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend (Bindoff et al. 2007). Historically, warm periods in the coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmon and steelhead, while cooler ocean periods have coincided with relatively high abundances (Scheuerell and Williams 2005; Zabel et al. 2006; USGCRP 2009). Ocean conditions adverse to salmon and

35

steelhead may be more likely under a warming climate (Zabel et al. 2006). Moreover, as atmospheric carbon emissions increase, increasing levels of carbon are absorbed by the oceans, changing the pH of the water. Marine fish species have exhibited negative responses to ocean acidification conditions that include changes in growth, survivorship, and behavior. Marine phytoplankton, which are the base of the food web for many oceanic species, have shown varied responses to ocean acidification that include changes in growth rate and calcification (Feely et al. 2012). 2.2.1.1 Middle Columbia River Steelhead The MCR steelhead was first listed as a threatened species on March 5, 1999 (64 FR 14517). This DPS occupies the Deschutes River, Klickitat River, John Day River, Yakima River, Umatilla River, and Walla Walla River basins. These basins drain portions of Washington and Oregon. Several factors led to NMFS’s conclusion that the MCR steelhead were threatened: (1) Relatively low spawning levels in streams where data was available; (2) widespread presence of hatchery fish; (3) declines in abundance in the John Day River, Deschutes River, and Yakima River basins; (4) high summer stream temperatures; and (5) habitat degradation (e.g., reduced flows, loss of riparian vegetation, and loss of instream structure (Good et al. 2005). When the status of these fish were reexamined in 2005, NMFS determined they still warranted listing as threatened, but expanded the listing to include additional hatchery programs contributing fish considered to constitute part of the species (71 FR 834) (Jan. 5, 2006). Fish from the following seven propagation programs were also listed: the Touchet River, Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, Upper Yakima River, Umatilla River, and Deschutes River stocks. On May 26, 2016, in the agency’s most recent 5-year review for Pacific salmon and steelhead, NMFS concluded that the species should remain listed as threatened (81 FR 33468). Life History Characteristics. Adult MCR summer steelhead enter the Columbia River from May to October to begin their migration inland. Adult MCR winter steelhead enter the Columbia River between November and April. Summer steelhead require several months to mature before spawning, whereas winter steelhead enter freshwater with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly thereafter. The MCR steelhead DPS includes the only populations of inland winter steelhead in the U.S., with populations in the Klickitat River, White Salmon River, Fifteenmile Creek, and possibly Rock Creek (NMFS 2009a). Steelhead typically spawn in March through June when flows are high, which allows access to small streams (including intermittent streams), that may be unsuitable for salmonids that spawn in the fall. Steelhead may arrive at spawning grounds weeks or months before they spawn. Steelhead select spawning areas at the downstream end of pools, in gravels ranging in size from 0.5 to 4.5 inches in diameter (Pauley et al. 1986). Juveniles emerge from redds in 4 to 8 weeks, depending on temperature. After emergence, fry initially move into shallow, low-velocity areas in side channels and along channel margins to escape high velocities and predators (Everest and Chapman 1972). Juvenile steelhead then progressively move toward deeper water as they grow in size (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Juveniles typically reside in fresh water for 1 to 5 years throughout the Columbia Basin, but most generally smolt after 2 years in freshwater (Busby et al. 1996). Smolts migrate downstream during spring runoff, which occurs from March to mid-

36

June in the Columbia River basin, depending on elevation. They typically spend 1 to 2 years in the ocean before returning to fresh water to spawn. Steelhead can spawn more than once and adults may return to the ocean after spawning. Spatial Structure/Diversity. This DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in streams from above the Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, Washington, excluding steelhead from the Snake River basin. The DPS also includes the progeny of seven artificial propagation programs previously listed. The MCR steelhead listing does not include resident forms of O. mykiss (rainbow trout) co-occurring with these steelhead. The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) (McClure et al. 2003) identified 20 historical populations of MCR steelhead. This identification was based on genetic information, geography, life history traits, morphological traits, and population dynamics. Seventeen of these populations are extant, and three are extirpated (i.e., White Salmon River, Deschutes Crooked River above Pelton Dam, and Willow Creek). The ICTRT stratified the MCR steelhead populations into MPGs based on ecoregion characteristics, life history types, and other geographic and genetic considerations. It identified four MPGs: Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries, Yakima Basin, John Day Basin, and Umatilla/Walla Walla. The John Day River MPG is wholly within Oregon and the Yakima Basin MPG is wholly within Washington. The other two include populations on both sides of the Oregon/Washington boundary. Abundance/Productivity. Natural origin spawning estimates of populations have been highly variable with respect to meeting minimum abundance thresholds. Straying frequencies into at least the Lower John Day River population are high. Returns to the Yakima River Basin and to the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers have been higher over the most recent brood cycle, while natural origin returns to the John Day River have decreased. Out-of-basin hatchery stray proportions, although reduced, remain very high in the Deschutes River basin. The estimates of total DPS abundance indicates that the DPS is not at immediate risk of extinction; however, a number of populations still have an overall viability rating of high risk. Status of the DPS. Escapements to all extant MPGs have recently shown overall upward trends, though some tributary counts in the Deschutes River have been moving downward for years. The Yakima River is still recovering from extremely low abundance in the 1980s. The John Day River represents the largest native, naturally-spawning stock in the species. The combined spawner surveys for the John Day River showed spawner declines of about 15% per year from 1985 to 1999, but trends have largely been up since then (NMFS 2003b; Good et al. 2005). When NMFS proposed to list these fish, we cited low returns to the Yakima River, poor abundance estimates for the Klickitat River and Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead, and overall declines among naturally-producing stocks. However, recent dam counts show an overall increase in MCR steelhead abundance and a relatively stable naturally-produced component. There have been improvements in the viability ratings for some populations in the DPS, but the DPS is not currently meeting the viability criteria described in the MCR Steelhead Recovery Plan (NWFSC 2015; NMFS 2009a). In addition, several of the factors cited by Good et al.

37

(2005) remain as concerns or key uncertainties. The recent VSP ratings for the 20 populations are summarized in Table 10 (NWFSC 2015). Status of the Umatilla River Population. The proposed action falls within the range of the Umatilla River population which, in turn, is part of the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. There are four populations in the MPG: the Umatilla River, Walla Walla Mainstem, Touchet River, and Willow Creek populations. The Willow Creek population is extirpated. The Walla Walla Mainstem and Touchet River populations are classified as intermediate-sized populations while the Umatilla River population is classified as a large population. The ICTRT rated all three remaining populations in the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG as being at moderate risk (ICTRT 2008). In order for the MPG to achieve viable status, the Umatilla population must achieve viable status. In turn, for the DPS to recover, all MPGs must achieve a low risk rating (NMFS 2009a). The Umatilla population is rated as being at moderate risk for both A/P and SS/D (NMFS 2009a). Mainstem passage, tributary habitat, hatchery-related effects, predation, competition, and disease are all referenced as major limiting factors for the Umatilla population (NMFS 2009a). The recovery goal for the Umatilla population is 1000 spawners and a 1.35 spawner:spawner ratio. Table 10. Summary of the MCR steelhead population status and ICTRT viability criteria

(NWFSC 2015).

MPG Population VSP Parameter Risk Overall

Viability Rating A/P SS/D

East Side Cascades

Fifteen Mile Creek Moderate Low Maintained Klickitat Moderate? Moderate Maintained?

Eastside Deschutes Low Moderate Viable Westside Deschutes High Moderate High Risk

Rock Creek Moderate? Moderate High Risk? Crooked River Extirpated

White Salmon River Extirpated

John Day River

Upper Mainstem Moderate Moderate Maintained North Fork Very Low Low Highly Viable

Middle Fork Low Moderate Viable South Fork Low Moderate Viable

Lower Mainstem Tribs Moderate Moderate Maintained

Yakima

Satus Creek Low Moderate Viable Toppenish Creek Low Moderate Viable

Naches River Moderate Moderate Maintained Upper Yakima Moderate High High Risk

Umatilla/Walla Walla

Umatilla River Moderate Moderate Maintained Touchet River High Moderate High Risk

Walla Walla River Moderate Moderate Maintained Willow Creek Extirpated

Note: Shaded populations occur in the action area. Note: Risk ratings with “?” are based on limited or provisional data series. Populations included in the action area are highlighted.

38

2.2.1.2 Snake River Basin Steelhead The SRB steelhead was listed as a threatened ESU on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937), with a revised listing as a DPS on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). This DPS occupies the Snake River basin, which drains portions of southeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and north/central Idaho. Reasons for the decline of this species include substantial modification of the seaward migration corridor by hydroelectric power development on the mainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers, and widespread habitat degradation and reduced streamflows throughout the SRB (Good et al. 2005). Another major concern for the species is the threat to genetic integrity from past and present hatchery practices, and the high proportion of hatchery fish in the aggregate run of SRB steelhead over Lower Granite Dam (LGD) (Good et al. 2005; Ford 2011). On May 26, 2016, in the agency’s most recent 5-year review for Pacific salmon and steelhead, NMFS concluded that the species should remain listed as threatened (81 FR 33468). Life History Characteristics. The SRB steelhead exhibit a diversity of life-history strategies, including variations in fresh water and ocean residence times. Traditionally, fisheries managers have classified SRB steelhead into two groups, A‐run and B‐run, based on ocean age at return, adult size at return, and migration timing. A‐run steelhead predominantly spend 1-year in the ocean; B‐run steelhead are larger with most individuals returning after 2 years in the ocean. New information shows that most Snake River populations support a mixture of the two run types, with the highest percentage of B-run fish in the upper Clearwater River and the South Fork Salmon River; moderate percentages of B-run fish in the Middle Fork Salmon River; and very low percentages of B-run fish in the Upper Salmon River, Grande Ronde River, and Lower Snake River (NWFSC 2015). Adult SRB steelhead enter the Columbia River from late June to October to begin their migration inland. After holding over the winter in larger rivers in the SRB, steelhead disperse into smaller tributaries to spawn from March through May. Earlier dispersal occurs at lower elevations and later dispersal occurs at higher elevations. Juveniles emerge from the gravels in 4 to 8 weeks, and move into shallow, low-velocity areas in side channels and along channel margins to escape high velocities and predators (Everest and Chapman 1972). Juvenile steelhead then progressively move toward deeper water as they grow in size (Bjornn and Rieser 1991). Juveniles typically reside in fresh water for 1 to 3 years, although this species displays a wide diversity of life histories. Smolts migrate downstream during spring runoff, which occurs from March to mid-June depending on elevation, and typically spend 1 to 2 years in the ocean. Spatial Structure/Diversity. This species includes all naturally-spawning steelhead populations below natural and manmade impassable barriers in streams in the SRB of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho, as well as the progeny of six artificial propagation programs (71 FR 834) (Jan. 5, 206). The hatchery programs include Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater River, East Fork Salmon River, Tucannon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River steelhead hatchery programs. The SRB steelhead listing does not include resident forms of O. mykiss (rainbow trout) co-occurring with steelhead. The ICTRT identified 24 extant populations within this DPS, organized into five MPGs (ICTRT 2003). The ICTRT also identified a number of potential historical populations associated with

39

watersheds above the Hells Canyon Dam complex on the mainstem Snake River, a barrier to anadromous migration. The five MPGs with extant populations are the Clearwater River, Salmon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, and Lower Snake River. In the Clearwater River, the historic North Fork population was blocked from accessing spawning and rearing habitat by Dworshak Dam. Current steelhead distribution extends throughout the DPS, such that spatial structure risk is generally low. As described previously, SRB steelhead exhibit incredible diversity in life history strategies. Maintaining this diversity is important for the recovery of the species. Diversity risk for populations in the DPS is either moderate or low. Large numbers of hatchery steelhead are released in the Snake River, and the relative proportion of hatchery adults in natural spawning areas near major hatchery release sites remains uncertain. Moderate diversity risks for some populations are thus driven by the high proportion of hatchery fish on natural spawning grounds and the uncertainty regarding these estimates (NWFSC 2015). During the most recent 5 years, approximately 76% of steelhead entering the Snake River were hatchery origin (ODFW and WDFW 2016), indicating a high potential for hatchery introgression. However, during the most recent 10 years, proportion of hatchery origin steelhead has declined (ODFW and WDFW 2016), indicating a declining hatchery related diversity risk. Reductions in hatchery-related diversity risks would increase the likelihood of these populations reaching viable status. Abundance/Productivity. Historical estimates of steelhead production for the entire Snake River basin are not available, but the basin is believed to have supported more than half the total steelhead production from the Columbia River basin (Mallet 1974, as cited in Good et al. 2005). Historical estimates of steelhead passing Lewiston Dam (removed in 1973) on the lower Clearwater River were 40,000 to 60,000 adults (Ecovista et al. 2003), and the Salmon River basin likely supported substantial production as well (Good et al. 2005). In contrast, at the time of listing in 1997, the 5-year mean abundance for natural-origin steelhead passing LGD, which includes all but one population in the DPS, was 11,462 adults (Ford 2011). Counts have increased since then, with between roughly 23,000 and 44,000 adult wild steelhead passing LGD in the most recent 5-year period (2011 through 2015) (NWFSC 2015). Population-specific abundance estimates exist for some but not all populations. Of the populations for which we have data, three (Joseph Creek, Upper Grande Ronde (UGR), and Lower Clearwater) are meeting minimum A/P thresholds and several more have likely increased in abundance enough to reach moderate risk. Despite these recent increases in abundance, the status of many of the individual populations remains uncertain, and four out of the five MPGs are not meeting viability objectives (NWFSC 2015). In order for the species to recover, more populations will need to reach viable status through increases in A/P. Status of the ESU. The overall risk rating for each population is listed in Table 11. While new information has resulted in an updated view of the relative abundance of natural origin spawners and life history diversity across the populations in the DPS, there is still much uncertainty because of the limited nature of the new information. The overall viability ratings for the majority of populations in this DPS were considered to be either maintained or high risk, with the Joseph Creek and the UGR populations being rated as highly viable and viable, respectively. Four of the five MPGs are not considered to be viable due to the high risk and maintained

40

population ratings, uncertainty about the viability status of many populations, and lack of some population data. Overall, the information analyzed for the most recent status review does not indicate a change in biological risk status, and the SRB steelhead DPS remains at moderate risk of extinction (NWFSC 2015). In order for the SRB steelhead DPS to achieve a low risk of extinction and be a candidate for delisting, all five MPGs (identified in Table 11 below) must meet their desired status. The action area is located entirely within the Grande Ronde River MPG, which consists of four individual populations. For this MPG to reach its desired status, at least two populations must be viable (one of which must achieve highly viable status) and the remaining populations should at least achieve maintained status. Currently, the Grande Ronde River MPG is tentatively rated as achieving viable status. Joseph Creek is considered to be highly viable, the UGR population meets the criteria for viable, and the remaining two populations are provisionally rated as maintained. The only population within the Grande Ronde River MPG that will be affected by the proposed action is the Upper Grande Ronde population. Limiting factors and threats to the SRB steelhead DPS include: (1) Mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related adverse effects; (2) impaired tributary fish passage; (3) degraded freshwater habitat (i.e., floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, riparian areas and large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, streamflow); (4) impaired water quality and increased water temperature; (5) predation; and (6) genetic diversity effects from out-of-population hatchery releases (ICBTRT 2007; NMFS 2012a; NWFSC 2015).

41

Table 11. Summary of VSP parameter risks and overall current status for each population in the Snake River Basin steelhead DPS (NWFSC 2015).

MPG Population VSP Parameter Risk Overall Viability

Rating A/P SS/D Lower Snake

River Tucannon River High? Moderate High Risk?

Asotin Creek Moderate? Moderate Maintained?

Grande Ronde River

Lower Grande Ronde N/A Moderate Maintained? Joseph Creek Very Low Low Highly Viable

Wallowa River N/A Low Maintained? UGR Low Moderate Viable

Imnaha River Imnaha River Moderate? Moderate Maintained?

Clearwater River (Idaho)

Lower Mainstem Clearwater River Moderate? Low Maintained? South Fork Clearwater River High? Moderate High Risk?

Lolo Creek High? Moderate High Risk? Selway River Moderate? Low Maintained? Lochsa River Moderate? Low Maintained?

North Fork Clearwater River Extirpated

Salmon River (Idaho)

Little Salmon River Moderate? Moderate Maintained? South Fork Salmon River Moderate? Low Maintained?

Secesh River Moderate? Low Maintained? Chamberlain Creek Moderate? Low Maintained?

Lower Middle Fork Salmon R. Moderate? Low Maintained? Upper Middle Fork Salmon R. Moderate? Low Maintained?

Panther Creek Moderate? High High Risk? North Fork Salmon River Moderate? Moderate Maintained?

Lemhi River Moderate? Moderate Maintained? Pahsimeroi River Moderate? Moderate Maintained?

East Fork Salmon River Moderate? Moderate Maintained? Upper Mainstem Salmon R. Moderate? Moderate Maintained?

Hells Canyon Hells Canyon Tributaries Extirpated Note: Risk ratings with “?” are based on limited or provisional data series. Populations included in the action area are highlighted. Note: Shaded populations occur in the action area. Status of the Upper Grand Ronde Population. The action area for this project falls within the UGR steelhead population. The UGR population currently meets the ICTRT criteria for a VSP, and the Grande Ronde Steelhead MPG is tentatively rated as achieving viable status (NWFSC 2015). The most recent 10-year geometric mean for adult spawners in the UGR population is 1,649, which exceeds the minimum mean viability abundance of 1,500 for this population (NWFSC 2015). The habitat limiting factors identified for the UGR population include: (1) Elevated summer water temperatures; (2) excess fine sediment; (3) limited habitat quantity and diversity; (4) low summer flows; and (5) degraded riparian conditions.

42

2.2.1.3 Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units The Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU was listed as threatened on April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653). This ESU occupies the Snake River basin, which drains portions of southeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and north/central Idaho. Several factors led to NMFS’s conclusion that Snake River spring/summer Chinook were threatened: (1) Abundance of naturally produced Snake River spring and summer Chinook runs had dropped to a small fraction of historical levels; (2) short-term projections were for a continued downward trend in abundance; (3) hydroelectric development on the Snake and Columbia Rivers continued to disrupt Chinook runs through altered flow regimes and impacts on estuarine habitats; and (4) habitat degradation existed throughout the region, along with risks associated with the use of outside hatchery stocks in particular areas (Good et al. 2005). On May 26, 2016, in the agency’s most recent 5-year review for Pacific salmon and steelhead, NMFS concluded that the species should remain listed as threatened (81 FR 33468). Life History Characteristics. Chinook salmon exhibit a variety of complex life history patterns that include variation in age at seaward migration; length of freshwater, estuarine, and oceanic residence; ocean distribution; ocean migratory patterns; and age and season of spawning migration. Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are characterized by their return times. Runs classified as spring Chinook salmon are counted at Bonneville Dam beginning in early March and ending the first week of June; summer runs are those Chinook salmon adults that pass Bonneville Dam from June through August. Returning adults will hold in deep mainstem and tributary pools until late summer, when they move up into tributary areas and spawn. In general, spring-run type Chinook salmon tend to spawn in higher-elevation reaches in mid- through late August, and summer-run Chinook salmon tend to spawn at lower elevations in late August and September (although the spawning areas of the two runs may overlap). Snake River spring/summer Chinook spawn generally follow a “stream-type” life history characterized by rearing for a full year in the spawning habitat and migrating in early to mid-spring as age-1 smolts (Healey 1991); however, portions of some populations migrate during their first summer as age-0 smolts (Copeland and Venditti 2009). Adult Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon enter the Columbia River in late February and early March. Returning adults will hold in deep mainstem and tributary pools until late summer, when they return to their native streams to begin spawning. In general, spring-run Chinook salmon tend to spawn in higher-elevation reaches of major Snake River tributaries in mid- through late-August; summer-run Chinook salmon tend to spawn lower in Snake River tributaries in late August and September (although the spawning areas of the two runs may overlap). Chinook salmon typically spawn in moderate to large-sized streams in shallow gravel bars at the downstream end of pools. Eggs are deposited in late summer and early fall, incubate over the following winter, and hatch in late winter and early spring of the following year. Juveniles rear through the summer, and most overwinter and migrate to sea in the spring of their second year of life. Depending on the tributary and the specific habitat conditions, juveniles may migrate extensively from natal reaches into alternative summer-rearing or overwintering areas, or may migrate to the ocean as age-0 smolts. Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon return from the ocean to spawn primarily as 4- and 5-year old fish, after 2 to 3 years in the ocean. A small fraction of the fish return as 3-year old “jacks,” heavily predominated by males (Good et al. 2005).

43

Spatial Structure and Diversity. The Snake River ESU includes all naturally spawning populations of spring/summer Chinook in the mainstem Snake River (below Hells Canyon Dam) and in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, and Salmon River subbasins (57 FR 23458) (June 3, 1992). Historically, this ESU likely included populations in the Clearwater River drainage and extended above the Hells Canyon Dam complex on the Snake River (79 FR 20802) (April 14, 2014). However, these populations were extirpated with the construction of the Lewiston Dam (in 1927) and the Hells Canyon Dam complex (completed in the late 1960s). The listing also includes fish from the following fifteen artificial propagation programs: Tucannon River (conventional and captive broodstock programs); Lostine River; Catherine Creek; Lookingglass Hatchery; Imnaha River; UGR; Big Sheep Creek; South Fork Salmon River; Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement; Pahsimeroi Hatchery; Lemhi River; East Fork Salmon River, West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon, and Upper Salmon River (Sawtooth Hatchery). Based upon the recently completed 5-year review (NWFSC 2015) and a recent evaluation of West Coast salmon hatchery programs (Jones 2015), NMFS is proposing to revise the description of the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU. This revision will include the addition of three new spring/summer Chinook salmon programs (Yankee Fork, Panther, and Dollar Creek) in the ESU (81 FR 72759) (Oct. 21, 2016). These programs are recommended for inclusion because they were initiated with currently listed stocks and the propagated fish are being released within the ESU’s range. Within the Snake River ESU, the ICTRT identified 28 extant and four extirpated or functionally extirpated populations of spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, listed in Table 12 (ICTRT 2003; McClure et al. 2005). The ICTRT aggregated these populations into five MPGs: Lower Snake River, Grande Ronde/Imnaha Rivers, South Fork Salmon River, Middle Fork Salmon River, and Upper Salmon River. All extant populations must achieve at least “maintained status” (i.e., moderate risk of extinction) for the ESU to recover (NMFS 2016). Spatial structure risk is low to moderate for most populations in this ESU (NWFSC 2015) and is generally not preventing the recovery of the species. Spring/summer Chinook salmon spawners are distributed throughout the ESU albeit at very low numbers. Diversity risk, on the other hand, is somewhat higher, driving the moderate and high combined SS/D risks for some populations. Several populations have a high proportion of hatchery-origin spawners—particularly in the Grande Ronde, Lower Snake, and South Fork Salmon MPGs—and diversity risk will need to be lowered in multiple populations in order for the ESU to recover (ICTRT 2007, ICTRT 2010, NWFSC 2015). The ratio of hatchery fish to naturally produced fish in the ESU has been steadily increasing since listing (ODFW and WDFW 2015), indicating an overall increase in diversity risk. Abundance and Productivity. Historically, the Snake River drainage is thought to have produced more than 1.5 million adult spring/summer Chinook salmon in some years (Matthews and Waples 1991), yet by the mid-1990s counts of wild fish passing LGD dropped to less than 10,000 (IDFG 2007). Wild returns have since increased somewhat but remain a fraction of historic estimates. Between 2005 and 2015, the number of wild adult fish passing LGD annually

44

ranged from 8,808 to 30,338 (IDFG 2016). Natural origin abundance has increased over the last 5 years for most populations in this ESU, but the increases have not been large enough to change population A/P viability ratings; all but one population (Chamberlain Creek) remain at high risk of extinction over the next 100 years (NWFSC 2015). Many populations will need to see increases in A/P in order for the ESU to recover. Status of the ESU. The overall viability ratings for the majority of populations in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU are high risk. The risk ratings for A/P, SS/D, and overall viability for each population in this ESU are listed in Table 12. In order for the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU to achieve a low risk of extinction and be a candidate for delisting, all five MPGs must attain viable status. To accomplish this, the diversity risk rating will need to be lowered in multiple populations, and most populations will need to see increases in their A/P. The action area is located entirely within the Grande Ronde/Imnaha River MPG, which contains eight independent spring/summer Chinook salmon populations, including six extant and two functionally extirpated populations. Extant populations include Catherine Creek, Imnaha River, Lostine/Wallowa Rivers, Minam River, UGR River, and Wenaha River. The Big Sheep and Lookingglass Creek populations are considered functionally extirpated. All populations in the MPG are considered spring-run life history type with the exception of the Imnaha River, which is classified as a spring/summer-run population. To achieve viability for the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU, the Grande Ronde/Imnaha River MPG must also attain viable status. A recovery scenario for this MPG needs to include the Imnaha River population (the only population with a spring-summer Chinook salmon run), two of the three large-size populations (Catherine Creek, Lostine/Wallowa Rivers, or UGR River), and either the Minam River or Wenaha River populations (the intermediate-size populations) to achieve viable status. At this time, no single population is targeted for achieving a highly viable status. Populations not meeting viable status must at least achieve a maintained status (NWFSC 2015). As summarized in Table 12, none of the populations are achieving their desired status (NMFS 2016, NWFSC 2015). The Catherine Creek and UGR River populations are both present in the action area and potentially affected by the project. The regional concerns that affect the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU include: (1) Tributary habitat alterations; (2) mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related adverse effects; (2) hatchery programs; (3) fisheries management; (4) estuary and plume habitat alterations; (5) predation and competition; and (6) impaired tributary fish passage (NMFS 2016). Status of the Catherine Creek Population. At a minimum, the Catherine Creek population must achieve a “maintained status” for the MPG to achieve viable status (NMFS 2016; NWFSC 2015). This population is comprised of spring-run Chinook salmon. Mobrand et al. (1995) concluded that four major Chinook salmon life history patterns were associated with the Catherine Creek drainage: (1) Spawning, rearing and overwintering above the forks in higher elevation tributaries (e.g., upper and middle sections of the Catherine Creek tributary);

45

(2) spawning and summer rearing in those upstream sections followed by a fall downstream migration to overwinter in Grand Ronde Valley reaches, including the mainstem Grande Ronde River; (3) spawning in upper tributaries, followed by migration to the lower reaches for summer rearing and subsequent overwintering; and (4) spawning in middle reaches, followed by emigration to the ocean as sub-yearlings. Chinook salmon production from Catherine Creek is currently dominated by the first and second life history patterns described in Mobrand et al. (1995): spawning and summer rearing occurs in upper tributary habitats (e.g., above the Forks in Catherine Creek). Although some production currently occurs through the other major historical pathways, it is substantially reduced relative to historical levels. The ICTRT classified the Catherine Creek spring Chinook population as a “Large” population based on historical habitat potential. However, for A/P viability criteria, this population is treated as an “Intermediate” population because the A/P analyses are based on current spawner levels in occupied areas of Catherine Creek only. The population had a 5-year (2010 through 2014) geometric mean abundance of 110 natural-origin spawners and a significant level of direct hatchery supplementation. The most recent 5-year (2010 through 2014) geometric mean productivity for the population was 0.95 recruits per spawner (R/S) (NWFSC 2015). Even though the population has exhibited moderately positive trends in total spawning abundance since 1995 and increases in natural-origin productivity, the current A/P metric rating remains at high risk (NWFSC 2015). The combined SS/D rating is at moderate risk for the Catherine Creek population. The number and arrangement of spawning areas, range of the population, and changes in gaps and continuity factors are all rated at moderate risk. The population is at high risk for the spawner composition metric due to the high proportion of out-of-ESU hatchery fish spawning naturally in the population from 1985 to 1993 and the high proportion of within-basin hatchery fish spawning naturally in the population since 2001. The rating for ‘maintaining natural levels of variation’ was moderate risk.

46

Table 12. Summary of VSP parameter risks and overall current status for each population in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU (NWFSC 2015).

MPG Population

VSP Parameter Risk Overall Viability

Rating A/P SS/D

South Fork Salmon River (Idaho)

Little Salmon River Insufficient data

Low High Risk

South Fork Salmon River mainstem High Moderate High Risk Secesh River High Low High Risk

East Fork South Fork Salmon River High Low High Risk

Middle Fork Salmon River

(Idaho)

Chamberlain Creek Moderate Low Maintained Middle Fk. Salmon River below

Indian Ck. Insufficient

data Moderate High Risk

Big Creek High Moderate High Risk Camas Creek High Moderate High Risk Loon Creek High Moderate High Risk

Middle Fk. Salmon River above Indian Ck. High Moderate High Risk

Sulphur Creek High Moderate High Risk Bear Valley Creek High Low High Risk

Marsh Creek High Low High Risk

Upper Salmon River (Idaho)

North Fork Salmon River Insufficient data

Low High Risk

Lemhi River High High High Risk Salmon River Lower Mainstem High Low High Risk

Pahsimeroi River High High High Risk East Fork Salmon River High High High Risk

Yankee Fork Salmon River High High High Risk Valley Creek High Moderate High Risk

Salmon River Upper Mainstem High Low High Risk

Panther Creek Functionally Extirpated

Lower Snake (Washington)

Tucannon River High Moderate High Risk

Asotin Creek Functionally Extirpated

Grande Ronde and Imnaha Rivers

(Oregon/ Washington)

Wenaha River High Moderate High Risk Lostine/Wallowa River High Moderate High Risk

Minam River High Moderate High Risk Catherine Creek High Moderate High Risk

UGR River High High High Risk

Big Sheep Creek Functionally Extirpated

Imnaha River High Moderate High Risk

Lookingglass Creek Functionally Extirpated

Note: Shaded populations are found in the action area.

47

Overall, the Catherine Creek population does not meet viability criteria and is rated at high risk. Tributary habitat limiting factors and threats for these populations include: (1) Impaired physical habitat quality (e.g., lack of habitat quantity and diversity); (2) impaired water quality due to elevated water temperatures and fine sediment; (3) reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; and (4) impaired riparian conditions. High priority recovery actions for these populations include improving conditions in the middle reach of Catherine Creek and in the upper Grande Ronde River above the city of La Grande. Restoration actions that will be prioritized are those that increase streamflows, moderate water temperatures, reconnect floodplains and wet meadows, and improve riparian habitat and instream habitat complexity. Status of the Upper Grand Ronde River Population. At a minimum, the UGR River population must achieve a “maintained status” for the MPG to achieve “viable” status (NMFS 2016; NWFSC 2015). This population is comprised of spring-run Chinook salmon. The ICTRT classified the UGR River population as a “Large” population based on historical habitat potential. The population had a 5-year (2010 through 2014) geometric mean abundance of 43 natural-origin spawners and a significant level of direct hatchery supplementation. The most recent 5-year (2010 through 2014) geometric mean productivity for the population was 0.59 R/S (NWFSC 2015). This productivity is significantly lower than the target productivity of 1.58 R/S and is one of the lowest of any population in the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU (NWFSC 2015). Even though the population has exhibited moderately positive trends in total spawning abundance since 1995 and increases in natural-origin productivity, the current A/P metric rating remains at high risk (NWFSC 2015). The combined SS/D rating is at high risk for the UGR River population. The number and arrangement of spawning areas, range of the population, and changes in gaps and continuity factors are all rated at high risk. The population is at moderate risk for maintaining natural levels of variation. The ICTRT expects the risk ratings for genetic variation and out-of-ESU hatchery strays to improve over time because changes in hatchery broodstock management have occurred (NMFS 2016). Overall, the UGR River population does not meet viability criteria and is rated at high risk. Tributary habitat limiting factors and threats for this population include: (1) Impaired physical habitat quality (e.g., lack of habitat quantity and diversity); (2) impaired water quality due to elevated water temperatures and fine sediment; (3) reduced water quantity and/or modified hydrograph; and (4) impaired riparian conditions. Improving habitat conditions in the upper Grande Ronde River above the city of La Grande is a high priority for recovery of the species. Restoration actions that will be prioritized are those that increase streamflows, moderate water temperatures, reconnect floodplains and wet meadows, and improve riparian habitat and instream habitat complexity. 2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat In evaluating the condition of designated critical habitat, NMFS examines the condition and trends of PBFs which are essential to the conservation of the ESA-listed species because they support one or more life stages of the species. Proper function of these PBFs is necessary to

48

support successful adult and juvenile migration, adult holding, spawning, incubation, rearing, and the growth and development of juvenile fish. Modification of PBFs may affect freshwater spawning, rearing or migration in the action area. Since the ESA-listed species addressed in this Opinion occupy many of the same geographic areas and have similar life history characteristics, the PBFs essential to their conservation are also similar (Table 13). Generally speaking, sites required to support one or more life stages of the ESA-listed species (i.e., sites for spawning, rearing, migration, and foraging) contain PBFs essential to the conservation of the listed species (e.g., spawning gravels, water quality and quantity, side channels, or food). Table 14 describes the geographical extent of critical habitat for the ESA-listed species that may be affected by the B2H Project. Critical habitat includes the stream channel and water column with the lateral extent defined by the ordinary high-water line, or the bankfull elevation where the ordinary high-water line is not defined. In addition, critical habitat for Chinook includes the adjacent riparian zone, which is defined as the area within 300 feet of the line of high water of a stream channel or from the shoreline of standing body of water (58 FR 68543) (Dec. 28, 1993). The riparian zone is critical because it provides shade, streambank stability, organic matter input, and regulation of sediment, nutrients, and chemicals. Table 13. Types of sites, essential PBFs, and the species life stage each PBF supports.

Site Essential PBF ESA-listed Species Life Stage

SRB and MCR Steelheada

Freshwater spawning Water quality, water quantity, and substrate Spawning, incubation, and larval development

Freshwater rearing

Water quantity & floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions Juvenile growth and mobility

Water quality and forageb Juvenile development

Natural coverc Juvenile mobility and survival

Freshwater migration Free of artificial obstructions, water quality and quantity, and natural coverc

Juvenile and adult mobility and survival

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon

Spawning & Juvenile Rearing

Spawning gravel, water quality and quantity, cover/shelter, food, riparian vegetation, and space

Juvenile and adult.

Migration Substrate, water quality and quantity, water temperature, water velocity, cover/shelter, foodd, riparian vegetation, space, safe passage

Juvenile and adult.

a Additional PBFs pertaining to estuarine, nearshore, and offshore marine areas have also been described for Snake River Basin steelhead and Middle Columbia River steelhead. These PBFs will not be affected by the proposed action and have therefore not been described in this Opinion.

b Forage includes aquatic invertebrate and fish species that support growth and maturation. c Natural cover includes shade, large wood, log jams, beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.

d Food applies to juvenile migration only.

49

Table 14. Geographical extent of designated critical habitat in Idaho for ESA-listed anadromous species.

ESU/DPS Designation Geographical Extent of Critical Habitat in Idaho

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon

58 FR 68543 (December. 28, 1993).

64 FR 57399 (October 25, 1999).

All river reaches presently or historically accessible, except river reaches above impassable natural falls and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams

SRB steelhead 70 FR 52630 (September. 2, 2005).

Specific stream reaches are designated within the Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater River Basins. Table 21 in the Federal Register details habitat areas within the DPS’s geographical range that are excluded from critical habitat designation.

MCR steelhead 70 FR 52630 (September. 2, 2005).

Specific stream reaches are designated within the Middle Columbia, Yakima, John Day, and Deschutes River Basins. Table 22 in the Federal Register details habitat areas within the DPS’s geographical range that are excluded from critical habitat designation.

Migratory habitat has been impacted by the development and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System dams in the mainstem Columbia River and privately owned dams in the Snake and Upper Columbia River basins. Hydroelectric development has modified natural flow regimes, resulting in higher water temperatures, changes in fish community structure leading to increased rates of piscivorous and avian predation on juvenile salmonids, and delayed migration time for both adult and juvenile salmonids. Physical features of dams, such as turbines, also kill migrating fish. Construction of the Hells Canyon Dam eliminated access to several historic production areas in Oregon and Idaho. Construction of the Pelton Round Butte Dam also eliminated access to several MCR steelhead historic production areas in the Deschutes River basin in Oregon; however, reintroduction efforts, including fish passage, have been recently made. Similarly, operation and maintenance of large water reclamation systems such as the Umatilla Basin and Yakima Projects have significantly reduced flows and degraded water quality and physical habitat in the range of MCR steelhead (NWFSC 2015). Spawning and rearing habitat quality in tributary streams in the Snake River and MCR varies from excellent in wilderness and roadless areas to poor in areas subject to intensive human land uses (NWFSC 2015). Critical habitat throughout much of the Interior Columbia (which includes the Snake River and the MCR) has been degraded by intensive agriculture, alteration of stream morphology (i.e., channel modifications and diking), riparian vegetation disturbance, wetland draining and conversion, livestock grazing, dredging, road construction and maintenance, logging, mining, and urbanization. Reduced summer streamflows, impaired water quality, and reduction of habitat complexity are common problems for critical habitat in non-wilderness areas. Human land use practices throughout the basin have caused streams to become straighter, wider, and shallower, thereby reducing rearing habitat and increasing water temperature fluctuations (NWFSC 2015). In many stream reaches designated as critical habitat in the SRB and MCR, streamflows are substantially reduced by water diversions (NWFSC 2015). Withdrawal of water, particularly during low-flow periods that commonly overlap with agricultural withdrawals, often increases summer stream temperatures, blocks fish migration, strands fish, and alters sediment transport

50

(Spence et al. 1996). Reduced tributary streamflow has been identified as a major limiting factor for Snake River spring/summer Chinook and SRB steelhead in particular (NWFSC 2015). Many stream reaches designated as critical habitat for these species are listed on the CWA 303(d) list for impaired water quality, such as elevated water temperature (IDEQ 2014, ODEQ 2014). Many areas that were historically suitable rearing and spawning habitat are now unsuitable due to high summer stream temperatures; these areas include some stream reaches in the UGR. Removal of riparian vegetation, alteration of natural stream morphology, and withdrawal of water for agricultural or municipal use all contribute to elevated stream temperatures. Water quality in spawning and rearing areas in the Snake River has also been impaired by high levels of sedimentation and by heavy metal contamination from mine waste (e.g., IDEQ and EPA 2003; IDEQ 2014). The present condition of PBFs within designated critical habitat and the human activities that affect PBF trends within the action area are further described in the environmental baseline. 2.3 Action Area “Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). As described in Section 1.3, the transmission line will extend from near Boardman, Oregon to near Melba, Idaho and is divided into six segments. Of these, segments three through six do not geographically overlap with anadromous species and/or designated critical habitat (Figure 1). As such, for the purposes of this consultation, the action area is limited to within the boundaries of watersheds crossed by segments 1 and 2. The action area is further limited to include aquatic and terrestrial environments within these watersheds as described below. The terrestrial portion of the action area includes the transmission line ROW, new and existing access roads, substations, laydown yards, multi-use areas, and other B2H Project features. Since the final engineering design for the B2H Project is not available, the exact locations of these B2H Project features are not known. Therefore, the reference centerline of the proposed route is used to identify the general area of potential environmental impacts. The effects in this general area of potential environmental impact will be the same or materially the same as the effects in the ultimate precise location of the project features. For the purposes of this analysis, the action area extends 0.5 mile on each side of the transmission line centerline, equating to a 1-mile wide corridor. The action area falls within eleven 5th level hydrologic unit codes (HUC) (Table 15). Figures 2 and 3 provide an overview of the action area within the Middle Columbia and Lower Snake River basins. The aquatic portion of the action area includes the all stream channels and RHCAs extending 150 feet upstream and 300 feet downstream of B2H Project-related disturbances (e.g., access road upgrades, construction of new access roads, and/or construction of the transmission line). This linear distance in the stream represents the fullest extent of measurable impacts that could occur as a result of sediment delivery, chemical contamination, or vegetation removal within the RHCA. Environmental effects of the action are not expected to extend beyond 300 feet

51

downstream because: (1) No work below the OHWM will occur; and (2) the IPC will implement various conservation measures to eliminate and/or minimize effects of the action. Table 15. Watersheds (5th level HUC) traversed by the B2H Project within the Action

Area.

Basin Watershed Name HUC Anadromous

Fish or Critical Habitat Present

MCR

Middle Lake Umatilla 1707010109 No Juniper Canyon 1707010107 No

Sand Hollow 1707010311 No Lower Butter Creek 1707010310 Yes1 Upper Butter Creek 1707010309 No

Birch Creek 1707010306 Yes McKay Creek 1707010304 Yes1

Meacham Creek 1707010302 Yes

Lower Snake River

Five Points Creek – Grande Ronde River 1706010404 Yes Beaver Creek – Grande Ronde River 1706010403 Yes

Ladd Creek 1706010406 Yes2 1Only a portion of this HUC is accessible to anadromous fish. The accessible habitat is downstream of the action area. 2Interstate 84 crosses Ladd Creek approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the ROW; historically blocking upstream fish passage. The barrier was removed in 2015, allowing access to upstream spawning and rearing habitat.

52

Figure 2. Map of the B2H Project ROW through the MCR basin.

53

Figure 3. Map of the B2H Project ROW through the Grande Ronde basin.

54

Streams within the action area are used by all freshwater life history stages of threatened MCR steelhead, SRB steelhead, and/or Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. Designated critical habitat for MCR and SRB steelhead includes specific reaches of streams and rivers, as published in the Federal Register (70 FR 52630) (September 2, 2005). Designated critical habitat for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon includes all river reaches presently or historically accessible to the species (64 FR 57399) (October 25, 1999); it also includes the riparian areas 300 feet upslope from these river reaches. Table 16 lists the specific streams or rivers that are designated critical habitat for one or more of these species. For Chinook salmon, streams are listed as designated critical habitat if available information and resources summarized in Section 1.3.2 of this Opinion indicate current or historical occupancy. The action area also includes EFH for Chinook salmon and coho salmon (PFMC 2014). Within the action area, EFH is limited to the Grande Ronde River. EFH is located outside of the action area on Rock Creek and Ladd Creek. Table 16. Streams that intersect the action area and that are occupied by ESA-listed fish,

designated critical habitat, and/or designated EFH. Stream Name Steelhead Chinook salmon EFH

MCR SRB Critical Habitat

Snake River spring/summer

Critical Habitat Chinook Coho

Bear Creek √ √ West Birch Creek √ √ California Gulch √ √ East Birch Creek √ √ Meacham Creek √ √

Dry Creek √ √ Grande Ronde River √ √ √ √ √ √

Graves Creek √ √ Rock Creek √ √ 1 1 1 1

Unnamed Tributary to Rock Cr. √ √

Ladd Cr. √ 2 3 3 3 3 1Chinook salmon are known to occupy the stream downstream of the action area; critical habitat includes areas currently or historically occupied. 2Critical habitat ends downstream of the action area, at the Interstate 84 crossing. 3Chinook salmon were likely historically present in at least the lower portion of Ladd Creek. Ladd Creek is currently unoccupied. 2.4 Environmental Baseline The “environmental baseline” includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). An environmental baseline that does not meet the biological requirements of a listed species may increase the likelihood that adverse effects of

55

the proposed action will result in jeopardy to a listed species or in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To describe the environmental baseline, we first provide an overview of the physical condition of the action area and of activities that have or could have an impact on ESA-listed resources. NMFS then describes the environmental baseline in terms of the biological requirements for habitat features and processes necessary to support all life stages of each listed species within the action area (i.e., the PBFs listed in Table 13). Each listed species considered in this Opinion resides in and migrates through portions of the action area. Thus, for this action area, the biological requirements for salmon and steelhead are the PBFs essential to spawning, rearing, and freshwater migration. The environmental baseline conditions in the action area were evaluated at the subbasin scale using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (hereinafter referred to as the “Matrix”) (NMFS 1996), although information for individual watersheds traversed by the B2H Project was obtained when available. All of the PBFs in Table 13 are represented to varying degrees by one or more of the indicators included in the Matrix. An indicator is a particular aquatic, riparian, or hydrologic measure that is relevant to the conservation of ESA-listed salmonids. In some instances, an indicator is synonymous to a PBF, water temperature being a prime example. In other instances, many indicators comprise a PBF. For example, the LWD, pool frequency and quality, large pools/pool quality, and off-channel habitat indicators provide insight into the natural cover and cover/shelter PBF. The action area spans three subbasins: Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (HUC 17070101); Umatilla/Willow (HUC 17070103); and UGR (HUC 17060104). The starting point of the B2H Project, near Boardman, Oregon, is located in the Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula subbasin. The B2H Project does not cross or parallel any waterways or RHCAs in this subbasin that support ESA-listed anadromous fish and/or designated critical habitat. The B2H project crosses or parallels waterways or RHCAs that support ESA-listed anadromous fish and/or designated critical habitat in the remaining two subbasins. The segments of the B2H transmission line and access routes that could potentially affect listed anadromous fish encompass numerous watersheds. For this reason, the existing baseline conditions for this analysis were evaluated at the subbasin scale, as opposed to the watershed scale. Evaluations specific to the action area are described when information was available. The environmental baseline of the Umatilla/Willow and UGR subbasins are summarized in Table 17 and discussed in more detail below. 2.4.1 Umatilla/Willow Subbasin The Umatilla/Willow subbasin is a 3,714 square miles (mi2) area in northeastern Oregon. It consists of two geologic provinces: the Blue Mountains and the lower basin. The Blue Mountains are characterized by deeply incised upland surfaces and foothills. The lower basin is comprised of plains and terraces (NPCC 2004a). Historically, land cover in the subbasin was dominated by interior grasslands or shrub-steppe habitats, with forested communities in the

56

higher elevation areas. Riparian vegetation communities and condition varies throughout the subbasin. The majority of riparian vegetation in the upper tributaries consists of hardwood and conifer species. The lower mainstem and tributary reaches have riparian vegetation consisting primarily of shrubs and grasses with scattered hardwood trees, although there are some galleries of large, mature cottonwoods (NPCC 2004a). Currently, much of the land is privately owned and is dominated by agricultural lands. Agricultural uses include grazing, irrigated agriculture, dry land farming, and tree farms. Both dry land and irrigated agriculture comprise about 39% of the subbasin. Forested areas comprise 14% and urban/developed areas account for about one percent. Approximately 11% of the land in the subbasin is managed by Federal agencies (e.g., the USFS and U.S. Navy). Other land owners include the State of Oregon, CTUIR, counties, and cities (NPCC 2004a). Table 17. Environmental baseline conditions within the Umatilla/Willow and UGR

subbasins.

Pathway Indicator Umatilla/Willow

Subbasin UGR Subbasin

FA FAR FUR FA FAR FUR

Water Quality Temperature √ √

Sediment √ √ Chemical Contamination √ √

Habitat Access Physical Barriers √ √

Habitat Elements

Substrate √ √ LWD √ √

Pool Frequency √ √ Pool Quality √ √

Off-Channel Habitat √ √ Refugia √ √

Channel Condition and

Dynamics

Width/Depth Ratio √ √ Streambank Condition √ √

Floodplain Connectivity √ √

Flow/Hydrology Peak/Base Flows √ √

Drainage Network Increase √ √

Watershed Conditions

Road Density/Location √ √ Disturbance History √ √ Riparian Reserves √ √

Note: FA – Functioning Appropriately; FAR – Functioning at Risk; and FUR – Functioning at Unacceptable Risk. The Umatilla River and Willow Creek are the two major drainages within the subbasin, both of which originate in the Blue Mountains and drain to the Columbia River. Streamflow patterns are primarily driven by snow melt and rain in late winter/early spring. Flows tend to peak in the spring and are often extremely low during the summer. The action area lies within the Umatilla River drainage, and primarily traverses the headwaters of tributary streams. More specifically,

57

watersheds that are accessible and support MCR steelhead and/or designated critical habitat and that are traversed by the B2H Project include Birch Creek and Meacham Creek (Table 15, Figure 2). As described in the BA and summarized in Table 17, habitat conditions in this subbasin are largely FUR. A few indicators are deemed to be FAR, and none are FA. The pathways and indicators with potential to be affected by the proposed action are water quality (temperature, sediment/turbidity, and chemical contamination), habitat elements (substrate, LWD, and refugia), and watershed conditions (road density/location and riparian reserves). The current condition of these pathways and indicators is discussed in more detail below. 2.4.1.1 Water Quality Water quality in the Umatilla/Willow subbasin has been degraded by climate change, timber harvest, railroads, livestock grazing, channel straightening, diking, removal of instream wood, and road building (Tetra Tech 2013). High water temperature results from low flows, lack of riparian vegetation, lack of groundwater exchange, and channel form. Upland erosion and runoff, bank erosion, and downcutting of stream channels have increased sediment loads (NPCC 2004a). Many point and nonpoint pollution sources contribute to poor water quality in the subbasin. Point sources include numerous wastewater treatment plants that release treated wastewater into the mainstem Umatilla River. Nonpoint sources include urban and agricultural runoff laced with hydrocarbons, pesticides, and fertilizers. The four waterways with ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat crossed by the B2H Project this subbasin are located in the Birch Creek watershed. The Birch Creek watershed is considered to be FUR for temperature and sediment and to be FAR for chemical contamination and nutrients. Birch Creek is identified as “water quality limited” by the ODEQ for temperature. The water temperature impairment on Birch Creek is indicative of the degraded condition of riparian vegetation. Furthermore, Birch Creek has seasonally high levels of fine suspended sediment during winter and spring heavy rainfall events caused by bank erosion resulting from grazing, hay production, and development in the floodplain (NMFS 2012b). The B2H Project also traverses into the uppermost portions of the Meacham Creek watershed. There are no stream crossings by access roads or the transmission line; however, an access road parallels a stream and extends into the outermost edge of the Meacham Creek RHCA. Meacham Creek, from its headwaters to its mouth, is impaired as a result of elevated stream temperatures. Based on the above information, temperature and sediment indicators in the subbasin are considered to be FUR and the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator is considered to be FAR.

58

2.4.1.3 Watershed Conditions Land use (e.g., agriculture, timber, and urban development) has led to widespread changes in the subbasin. The most significant changes in watershed condition result from the loss of large, forested riparian areas along the Umatilla River. Riparian vegetation on the mainstem Umatilla River and many tributaries is in poor condition, with approximately 70% of the 422 miles inventoried being identified as needing riparian improvements. Road density in the subbasin is approximately 1.7 miles per square mile (mi/mi2), with a RHCA road density of roughly 0.4 mi/mi2. Road densities within the Birch Creek and Meacham Creek watersheds are 2.1 and 1.7 mi/mi2, respectively. Road densities in the watershed RHCAs are 0.7 and 0.6 mi/mi2, respectively. Based on the above information, the road density and location and riparian reserve indicators are all considered to be FUR. 2.4.2 Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin The UGR subbasin is a 1,650 mi2 area in northeastern Oregon. It is located in the southwest portion of the Blue Mountains ecological province in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The subbasin is defined by the Blue Mountains to the west and northwest and the Wallowa Mountains to the southeast. Elevations in the subbasin range from 2,312 feet at the confluence of the Grande Ronde and Wallowa Rivers to over 7,000 feet in the headwater areas. Historically, land cover was dominated by grasslands in the lower elevations, moving to shrub/scrub communities at mid-elevations, followed by forested lands in the higher elevations (NPCC 2004b). About 53% of the land in the subbasin is privately owned, including almost all of the Grande Ronde Valley. Private land ownership is primarily along valley bottoms and mouths of streams. The predominant uses of private land include agriculture and livestock, although there are a few large private timberlands. The USFS manages approximately 46% of the remaining land, and the BLM manages a small amount of land as well (GRWQC 2000). Major streams within the subbasin include the Grande Ronde River, Catherine Creek, Meadow Creek, and Lookingglass Creek. Streamflows are variable, with peak flows in the Grande Ronde and its tributaries originating in the Blue Mountains occurring in March or April. Peak flows in the Catherine Creek drainage, which originates in the Wallowa Mountains, usually occurs in May or June (NPCC 2004b). The action area traverses the following three watersheds (5th level HUCs): Five Points Creek – Grande Ronde River, Beaver Creek – Grande Ronde River, and Ladd Creek (Figure 3). As summarized in Table 17, habitat conditions in this subbasin are largely FUR. A few indicators are deemed to be FAR and none of the indicators are FA. As in the Umatilla/Willow subbasin, the pathways and indicators with potential to be affected by the proposed action are water quality (temperature, sediment, and chemical contamination), habitat elements (LWD and

59

refugia), and watershed conditions (road density/location and riparian reserves). The current condition of these pathways and indicators is discussed in more detail below. 2.4.2.1 Water Quality Water quality in the UGR subbasin has been degraded by timber harvest, mining, livestock grazing, agriculture, urbanization, climate change, and road building. The ODEQ identified nine parameters of concern in the subbasin including: algae, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat modification, nutrients, pH, sedimentation, and temperature. Three of these parameters (i.e., temperature, sediment, and habitat modification) are issues for many streams in the subbasin, even outside of the Grande Ronde Valley (NPCC 2004b). The primary causes for elevated stream temperatures in this subbasin are decreased discharge due to water diversions and decreased riparian vegetation due to anthropogenic activities (Independent Economic Analysis Board 2011). Per the BA, the temperature, sediment, and chemical contaminants indicators in the subbasin are all FUR. 2.4.2.2 Habitat Elements The Grande Ronde subbasin is highly degraded as a result of anthropogenic activities. Historically, the Grande Ronde River was a highly sinuous stream with wide floodplains. As agriculture and urbanization increased, portions of the rivers were straightened and meanders were blocked, reducing available refugia. After high flow events in the 1960s, a series of levees were built in the subbasin for flood control. These factors, as well as livestock grazing, forest management practices, and the development of forest roads have resulted in a lack of LWD and a loss of refugia. As such, these indicators are considered to be FUR in the subbasin. The substrate indicator is FAR. 2.4.2.3 Watershed Conditions Road density in the subbasin is approximately 3.4 mi/mi2, with a RHCA road density of roughly 1.3 mi/mi2. Road densities within the Beaver Creek – Grande Ronde River watershed and its RHCAs are 3.4 mi/mi2 and 1.2 mi/mi2, respectively. Similarly, road densities in the Five Points Creek – Grande Ronde River watershed and its RHCAs are 3.5 mi/mi2 and 1.1 mi/mi2, respectively. The Ladd Creek watershed has slightly lower road densities of 3.3 mi/mi2 overall, but its RHCA road density of 1.6 mi/mi2 is greater. Riparian habitat degradation has been identified as one of the most serious problems in the subbasin (GRWQC 2000). According to the BOR (2014), vegetation densities range from locally dense to completely removed with approximately 50% to 60% of the riparian vegetation within a 30-meter-wide zone affected. Although no active logging or riparian vegetation

60

clearing is known to be occurring, recovery of the riparian vegetation is slow due to grazing and currently land-use practices on private lands. Based on the above information, the road density and location indicator is FUR and the riparian reserve indicator is FAR. 2.4.1.2 Habitat Elements Water diversions, land-use practices, stream channelization, and levee construction have reduced refugia (e.g., side channel access), habitat diversity (e.g., LWD), rearing space, food production areas, and longitudinal connectivity along stream courses (NMFS 2004a). Historic logging practices and road building have reduced available LWD. A lack of riparian vegetation, LWD, and channel complexity creates poor habitat for salmonids (NMFS 2012a). Based on the above information, habitat elements are considered FUR in the subbasin. 2.5 Effects of the Action Under the ESA, “effects of the action” means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, which will be added to the environmental baseline (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. When assessing the potential effects of an action, NMFS evaluates whether individuals or critical habitat will be exposed to stressors produced by the action and any interrelated or interdependent activities. NMFS then evaluates whether those stressors will elicit responses from exposed individuals or critical habitat. Then NMFS assesses whether those responses and any deaths, injury, or disruptions they cause will reduce the viability of the species. If the proposed action will adversely affect critical habitat, then NMFS will assess whether those adverse impacts will appreciably diminish the conservation value of critical habitat for the conservation of the species. The BA for this project provides an analysis of the effects of the proposed action on Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, SRB and MCR steelhead, and their designated critical habitats in the action area. The analysis uses the Matrix to evaluate elements of the proposed action which have the potential to affect ESA-listed fish or PBFs of their critical habitat. NMFS used information in the BA as well as other information to conduct our own analysis of potential effects of the B2H Project. The presence of ESA-listed species and critical habitat within the action area are described in Section 2.3. The potential direct and indirect effects to critical habitat are described in Section 2.5.1. The potential direct and indirect effects to ESA-listed species are described in Section 2.5.2. While the exact locations of the B2H Project features are not precisely known, NMSF has made conservative assumptions about potential effects based on the best information currently available. Those assumptions include conservative estimates about the amount of vegetation

61

clearing that may occur within RHCAs along streams that support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. These conservative assumptions allowed for an effects analysis that is broad enough to cover the ultimate route and project design. 2.5.1 Effects on Designated Critical Habitat The transmission line ROW and access roads will cross or run parallel to numerous waterways in eleven watersheds. While seven of these watersheds support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat (Table 15), activities related to the ROW and/or roads that could have impacts to listed fish and their habitats only occur in five watersheds. Anadromous fish occupancy and designated critical habitat do not overlap the action area in the Lower Butter Creek and McKay Creek watersheds, due to the presence of downstream anthropogenic barriers. Although the ROW and access roads will cross or run parallel to waterways in these two watersheds, and although the watersheds support listed fish and their critical habitats, the proposed activities occur too far upstream of occupied or critical habitat to cause effects. As such, the effects analysis will be focused on effects within the other five watersheds. Furthermore, because MCR steelhead, SRB steelhead, and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon share similar life histories and require similar PBFs, the effects analysis applies equally to all three species for the specific watershed in which they are located. Actions within the ROW and along access roads that could affect salmonids or their designated critical habitat include construction activities, vegetation removal, and herbicide application. As previously indicated, implementation of the B2H Project has the potential to affect the following pathways and indicators: water quality (temperature, sediment, and chemical contamination); habitat elements (LWD and refugia); and watershed conditions (road density/location and riparian reserves). 2.5.1.1 Water Quality—Temperature Stream temperatures have the potential to be impacted as a result of vegetation removal within RHCAs along the transmission line ROW and along access roads being upgraded or constructed. Vegetation removal in RHCAs may lead to increased solar exposure to the waterways, which could contribute to local increases in stream temperatures (Danehy et al. 2005). To calculate the potential impacts to vegetation along the ROW for all waterways within a watershed, the full width of the transmission line ROW (i.e., 250 feet) was intersected with the full width of each RHCA (i.e., 300 feet on either side of the stream). We calculated the potential impacts to RHCA vegetation along access roads (proposed for upgrades or construction) for all waterways within a watershed using the GIS access road layer provided by the BLM. The area of disturbance was calculated by multiplying the estimated length of road intersecting the RCHA (i.e., 300 foot buffer on either side of a stream) by an assumed average width of 14 feet and converting to acres. Data were available to further break this into total access road impacts and impacts associated with new access roads. Construction

62

of new access roads is expected to result in greater vegetative loss than upgrading existing access roads, which may only require minimal brushing of vegetation. Table 18 summarizes the potential acres of vegetation clearing within RHCAs in the five watersheds known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat and in which the proposed action might affect the listed species or their habitat. This table provides the total estimate of RHCA disturbance within the watershed as well as the estimated disturbance for each stream that is known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Estimates of RHCA impacts are provided for: (1) Transmission line ROW; (2) new access roads; and (3) all access roads where upgrades or new construction are proposed. The potential impacts from the transmission line ROW within a given watershed range from about 20 acres all the way to roughly 70 acres. This is an extremely conservative estimate of vegetation removal within RHCAs for the following reasons: (1) Each RHCA contains varying amounts of shade-providing vegetation that may not extend to 300 feet on either side of the stream; and (2) not all vegetation will be removed (e.g., RCAs will be spanned to the greatest extent practicable, allowing low-growing trees, shrubs, or vegetation in valley bottoms to remain). Furthermore, although a majority of the trees within the wire zone will be removed, low-growing trees and shrubs, as well as trees in valley bottoms, will not be removed. After initial clearing, vegetation in the wire zone will be maintained to consist of native grasses, legumes, herbs, ferns, and shrubs up to 25 feet tall at maturity. Vegetation in the border zone will be maintained to consist of tall shrubs or short trees (up to 34 feet tall at maturity), grasses, and forbs. Many of the ROW crossings are located on smaller tributary streams, and the type of vegetation that will be maintained over time will likely be sufficient to adequately shade these small, headwater streams. Table 18. Estimated RHCA disturbance from the B2H Project.

Watershed Stream1

Transmission Line ROW

Impacts (acres)

New Access Road

Impacts (acres)

Total Access Road

Impacts (acres)

Total RHCA

Disturbance (acres)

Birch Creek

All Streams 34.5 1.0 4.6 39.1 Bear Creek 0.1 0 0 0.1

West Birch Creek 0.4 0 0.63 1.03 California Gulch 0.3 0 1.23 1.53 East Birch Creek 0.5 0 0.81 1.31

Meacham Creek All Streams 49.2 0.2 2.7 51.9 Meacham Creek 0 0 0.03 0.03

Five Points Creek – Grande Ronde River

All Streams 22.2 0 0 22.2 Dry Creek 0.8 0 0 0.8

Beaver Creek – Grande Ronde River

All Streams 68.1 0.5 6.4 74.5 Grande Ronde River 1.4 0 0 1.4

Graves Creek 3.4 0 0.17 3.57 Rock Creek 2.0 0 0.68 2.68 Sheep Creek 0 0 0.17 0.17

Unnamed Tributary to Rock Creek 3.2 0 0.85 4.05

Ladd Creek All Streams 29.0 0.1 1.4 30.4

63

1All streams include all waterbodies that are included in the 1:100K national hydrography dataset and that are affected by the B2H Project within action area watersheds, regardless of whether the streams are occupied by ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. Most of the transmission line ROW stream crossings are on smaller tributary streams and are located more than 1,000 feet upstream of streams that support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Because of their small size, and because some low-growing vegetation will likely be adequate to provide substantial shading, any localized stream temperature effects at these crossings are not expected to be substantial enough to affect downstream habitat that is known to be occupied by ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitat. To evaluate potential impacts to designated critical habitat, a more specific analysis was performed to understand potential impacts to vegetation within RCHAs of the ten streams known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. The widths of vegetated buffers (combined for each side of the stream) were estimated using aerial photo interpretation, and ranged between 25 feet and 600 feet. Assuming that full clearance of vegetation in the ROW would be required, vegetation removal within the RHCA of these streams would range from 0.1 acre to 3.4 acres per stream (Table 18). This assumption is highly conservative because not all vegetation will be permanently removed. The potential impacts to RHCA vegetation from access roads upgrades or construction ranges from 0 to 6.4 acres per stream (Table 18). This is an overestimate of vegetation removal within RHCAs because vegetation removal associated with upgrading of existing access roads will likely be minimal since the road prisms already exist on the ground. To understand access road-related impacts on RHCAs of streams known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat, a more specific analysis was performed. Instead of assuming a road width of 14 feet, the measured width of existing access roads (widths of new access roads were still assumed to be 14 feet) was used to calculate potential impacts to RHCAs. Similar to above, this remains a conservative estimate of potential impacts because upgraded access roads are already on the landscape and vegetation removal will likely be limited to minimal brushing. Construction of new access roads will result in the disturbance of anywhere from zero to 1-acre of RHCA. No new access roads will be constructed in RHCAs that parallel streams known to support ESA-listed fish or their designated critical habitat. Loss of shade-providing vegetation is likely to result in localized increases in stream temperatures due to increased solar radiation. These impacts may be temporary at locations where shade-providing vegetation is successfully reestablished (e.g., smaller streams where lower-story vegetation can provide adequate shade). However, at some locations, shade providing vegetation may be permanently removed, resulting in permanent but very small loss of stream shade. Therefore, the conservation value of the water quality temperature in the action area is not expected to be appreciably diminished. 2.5.1.2 Water Quality—Sediment/Turbidity Construction activities involving ground disturbance (e.g., upgrades to access roads or construction of new roads, etc.) and long-term road use and road maintenance have the potential to increase sediment production and delivery to nearby waterways. Sediment delivery to streams may affect water quality by increasing turbidity. In addition, riparian vegetation removal has the

64

potential to decrease bank stability, which may result in bank erosion and an increase in sediment to the waterways. However, complete vegetation clearing associated with the construction of structure footings will not occur within RHCAs, because structure footings will not be located within RHCAs. Instead, vegetation removal in RHCAs, if it occurs, will target taller vegetation that exceeds the maximum height specified for the wire and border zones. Because lower-growing vegetation will be maintained along the ROW, bank stability is not expected to be compromised to a degree that will result in high levels of sediment delivery. The proposed action does not involve inwater work or work below the OHWM in streams (or in tributaries within 1,000 feet of streams) that support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Construction activities and road use within RHCAs have the greatest potential for sediment production and sediment delivery to streams that support ESA-listed fish and/or their designated critical habitat. The intensity and duration of turbidity pulses resulting from construction and maintenance activities, and ongoing road use will be minimized as much as possible through implementation of various conservation measures, which are described in the BA and summarized in Section 1.3.10 of this Opinion. Examples of conservation measures aimed at minimizing sediment production and subsequent sediment delivery to streams include: installation of underdrain structures when roads cross or expose springs, seeps or wet areas; installation of effective road drainage features at appropriate intervals; implementing sediment and erosion control measures (e.g., check dams, silt fencing, etc.); and installation of user controls on roads that are closed to public use. Turbidity pulses are expected to be limited to storm events following construction activities due to the distance project activities occur from streams. In addition, implementation of various conservation measures is expected to limit not only the amount of sediment produced, but also subsequent delivery to nearby streams. As such, turbidity pulses are expected to be low-intensity, localized, infrequent, and short-lived. Therefore, the conservation value of the water quality PBF in the action area is not expected to be appreciably diminished. 2.5.1.3 Water Quality—Chemical Contamination. Accidental release of fuel, oil, herbicides, and other contaminants may occur during the B2H Project. Petroleum-based contaminants, such as fuel, oil, and some hydraulic fluids, contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which can cause lethal and sublethal effects on aquatic organisms. The IPC will be required to develop and implement a pollution control plan, which will contain specifications about placement, containment, and use of chemicals within the action area. Implementation of this plan will significantly reduce the likelihood of chemical releases during project activities. Concrete will be used for the wire structures that will be constructed. Concrete will come from either commercial plants or portable batch plants. The portable batch plants will be located outside of RHCAs. The wire structure will primarily be located outside RHCAs and in those instances when RHCA entry is requited, they will located as far away from streams as possible. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that chemical contamination from uncured concrete will occur.

65

Management of noxious weeds along the transmission line ROW and access roads will employ herbicide application. Approximately 200 acres of RHCAs are located within the action area and may be treated with herbicides. Of these, about 15 acres are located in RHCAs that are adjacent to streams that are known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Where herbicide application will occur is unknown; as a result, we assume all of the RHCA acres may be treated at some point. Herbicide Exposure Pathways. Herbicides may enter stream channels from accidental spills or direct application, spray and vapor drift, runoff from upland treatments, or percolation to groundwater. The IPC will be required to prepare an herbicide safety/spill response plan outlining actions that will be taken to reduce the likelihood of spills and misapplication, to reduce the potential for unsafe practices, and to identify necessary remedial actions in the event of spills. Mixing of herbicides will not occur within 150 feet of stream channels. Implementation of these conservation measures will significantly reduce the likelihood of herbicide spills during project activities. Spray and vapor drift are important pathways for herbicide entry in aquatic habitats. Several factors influence herbicide drift, including spray droplet size, wind and air stability, humidity and temperature, physical properties of herbicides and their formulations, and application method. For example, the amount of herbicide lost from the target area and the distance the herbicide moves both increase as wind velocity increases. Under inversion conditions, when cool air is near the surface under a layer of warm air, little vertical mixing of air occurs. Spray drift is most severe under these conditions since small spray droplets will fall slowly and move to adjoining areas even with very little wind. Low relative humidity and high temperature cause more rapid evaporation of spray droplets between the sprayer and target vegetation. This reduces droplet size, resulting in increased potential for spray drift. Vapor drift can occur when herbicide volatilizes. The formulation and volatility of the compound will determine its vapor drift potential. Several proposed conservation measures will reduce the risk of herbicide drift. Use of ground equipment for application reduces the risk of drift, and hand equipment nearly eliminates it. The BLM will prohibit herbicide applications when wind speeds exceed 10 mph or when inversion conditions are present. In addition, the boom or spray will be kept as low as possible and spray equipment will be selected to ensure droplet size ranges from 200 to 800 microns in diameter. See also discussion in Section 1.3.10. Implementation of these conservation measures will significantly reduce the potential for herbicide drift during applications. Surface water contamination with herbicides can occur when they are applied intentionally or accidentally into ditches, irrigation channels, or other waterways. Surface water contamination can also occur when herbicides applied to vegetation in the uplands or RHCA are transported overland via stormwater runoff. No herbicides will be intentionally applied to waterways as part of the B2H Project, although some herbicides may be applied up to the waterline (within the bankfull elevation of streams). In these instances, only spot spraying or hand selective application methods will be used. In addition, dyes or colorants will be used when applying herbicides within 100 feet of waterways. Use of dyes or colorants will minimize over-spraying

66

and prevent repeated treatment. Use of a licensed applicator that is trained in herbicide application and strict adherence to the buffer widths for herbicide type and application method (Table 8) will further diminish the likelihood of accidental applications to waterways. The contribution of herbicides to surface water from runoff depends on site and application variables. The highest pollutant concentrations generally occur early in the storm runoff period when the greatest amount of herbicide is available for dissolution (Stenstrom and Kayhanian 2005; Wood 2001). Herbicide availability depends on how soon after application a rainfall event occurs. Lower exposures are likely when herbicide is applied to smaller areas or when rainfall occurs more than 24 hours after application. In order to minimize the potential for herbicides being delivered to nearby waterways from overland flow, herbicide application will not be allowed when the soil is saturated, during periods of rainfall, or when a rain event likely to produce direct runoff to fish-bearing waters is forecasted to occur 48-hours following application. In addition, only the minimum area necessary will be treated and careful consideration of environmental resources (e.g., ESA-listed fish, critical habitat, non-target native plants, etc.) will occur when selecting the most appropriate herbicide to use. Groundwater contamination is another important pathway to consider. Most herbicide groundwater contamination is caused by “point sources,” such as spills or leaks at storage and handling facilities, improperly discarded containers, and rinses of equipment in loading and handling areas, often into adjacent drainage ditches. Point sources are discrete, identifiable locations that discharge relatively high local concentrations. In soil and water, herbicides persist or are decomposed by sunlight, microorganisms, hydrolysis, and other factors. 2,4-D and triclopyr are detected frequently in freshwater habitats within the four western states where listed Pacific salmonids are distributed (NMFS 2011a). Proposed conservation measures as discussed above in Section 1.3.10 minimize these concerns by ensuing proper calibration, mixing, and cleaning of equipment. Non-point source groundwater contamination of herbicides is relatively uncommon but can occur when a mobile herbicide is applied in areas with a shallow water table. Proposed conservation measures minimize this danger by restricting the formulas used, and the time, place and manner of their application to minimize offsite movement. Herbicide treatment within RHCAs is expected to be limited to only those areas disturbed during construction of the B2H project (Table 18). The total RHCA acres that may be treated per watershed per year are as follows: Meacham Creek watershed – 50 acres; Birch Creek watershed – 40 acres; Five Points Creek watershed – 20 acres; Beaver Creek watershed – 75 acres; and Ladd Creek watershed – 30 acres. Herbicide Toxicity. Herbicides included in the B2H Project were selected due to their low to moderate aquatic toxicity to listed salmonids. The risk of adverse effects from the toxicity of herbicides and other compounds present in formulations to listed aquatic species is mitigated by reducing stream delivery potential by restricting application methods and implementing buffer zones. Only aquatic labeled herbicides are allowed to be applied up to the waterline. Aquatic glyphosate, aquatic imazapyr, aquatic 2,4-D amine, and aminopyralid can be applied to vegetation up to the waterline using spot spray or hand selective application methods in both perennial and intermittent channels. Triclopyr TEA can be applied up to the waterline, but only using hand selective techniques. The associated application methods were selected for their low

67

risk of contaminating soils and subsequently introducing herbicides to streams. However, direct and indirect exposure and toxicity risks are inherent in some application scenarios. Generally, herbicide active ingredients have been tested on only a limited number of species and mostly under laboratory conditions. While laboratory experiments can be used to determine acute toxicity and effects to reproduction, cancer rates, birth defect rates, and other effects to fish and wildlife, laboratory experiments do not typically account for species in their natural environments and little data is available from studies focused specifically on the listed species in this Opinion. This leads to uncertainty in risk assessment analyses. Environmental stressors increase the adverse effects of contaminants, but the degree to which these effects are likely to occur for various herbicides is largely unknown. As described below, the effects of the herbicide applications to various representative groups of species have been evaluated for each herbicide proposed for use. The effects of herbicide applications using spot spray, hand/select, and broadcast spray methods were evaluated under several exposure scenarios: (1) Runoff from riparian (above OHWM) application along streams, lakes and ponds; (2) runoff from treated ditches and dry intermittent streams; and (3) application within perennial streams (dry areas within channel and emergent plants). The potential for herbicide movement from broadcast drift was also evaluated. Risks associated with exposure and associated effects were also evaluated for terrestrial species. Although implementation of conservation measures (described in Sections 1.3.9.1 and 1.3.10.5) aimed toward minimizing drift and contamination of surface and groundwater, herbicides reaching surface waters would likely result in mortality to fish during incubation, or lead to altered development of embryos. Stehr et al. (2009) found that the low levels of herbicide delivered to surface waters are unlikely to be toxic to the embryos of ESA-listed salmon, steelhead and trout. However, mortality or sublethal effects such as reduced growth and development, decreased predator avoidance, or modified behavior are likely to occur. Herbicides are likely to also impact the food base for listed salmonids and other fish, which includes terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates and forage fish. Adverse effect threshold values for each species group were defined as either 1/20th of the lethal concentration value where 50% of the test organisms die (LC50) for listed salmonids, 1/10th of the LC50 value for non-listed aquatic species, or the lowest acute or chronic “no observable effect concentration” (NOEC), whichever was lower, found in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) risk assessments that were completed for the USFS. The citations for the specific assessments for each particular herbicide that pertain to the proposed action are found below. These assessments, along with ecological risk assessments performed by the BLM, form the basis of the analysis in this Opinion. Generally, effect threshold values for listed salmonids were lower than values for other fish species groups, so values for salmonids were also used to evaluate potential effects to other listed fish. In the case of sulfometuron-methyl, threshold values for fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) were lower than salmonid values, so threshold values for the minnow were used to evaluate effects to ESA-listed fish. Data on toxicity to wild fish under natural conditions are limited and most studies are conducted on lab specimens. Adverse effects could be observed in stressed populations of fish, and it is

68

less likely that effects would be noted in otherwise healthy populations of fish. Chronic studies or even long-term studies on fish egg-and-fry are seldom conducted. Risk characterizations for both terrestrial and aquatic species are limited by the relatively few animal and plant species on which data are available, compared to the large number of species that could potentially be exposed. This limitation and consequent uncertainty is common to most if not all ecological risk assessments. Additionally, in laboratory studies, test animals are exposed to only a single chemical. In the environment, humans and wildlife may be exposed to multiple toxicants simultaneously, which can lead to additive or synergistic effects. The effects of herbicides proposed for use on salmonids are fully described by NMFS in other recent opinions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USFS, and BLM (NMFS 2015; NMFS 2009b; NMFS 2010; NMFS 2011a; NMFS 2011b; NMFS 2012c; and NMFS 2013a) and in ecological risk assessments prepared by SERA and the BLM. In these Opinions, the risk of adverse effects to listed salmonids and their habitat were evaluated in terms of hazard quotient (HQ) values. The HQ values were calculated by dividing the expected environmental concentration by the adverse effects threshold concentration. The expected environmental concentration is a product of the water contamination rate (WCR) multiplied by the application rate. The WCR values are categorized by herbicide, annual rainfall level, and soil type. Variation of herbicide delivery to streams among soil types (clay, loam, and sand) is displayed as low and high WCR values. All WCR values are from risk assessments conducted by SERA, or if these aren’t available, from risk assessments conducted by the BLM. As previously described, adverse effect threshold concentrations were defined as 1/20th of the LC50 values for ESA-listed aquatic species or 1/10th (all other species) of LC50 values, or “no observable adverse effect” concentrations, whichever concentration was lower. The HQ values were calculated for fish, aquatic invertebrates, algae, and aquatic macrophytes. Adverse effects to designated critical habitat are likely to occur for application of herbicides where the HQ values are greater than one. 2,4-D. 2,4-D is a selective systemic herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds. It is highly soluble in water, but rapidly degenerates in most soils and is rapidly taken up in plants. 2,4-D ranges from being mobile to highly mobile in sand, silt, loam, clay loam, and sandy loam (EPA 2005a). 2,4-D is detected frequently in freshwater habitats within the four western states where ESA-listed Pacific salmonids are distributed. Toxicities for the acid and amine salts of 2,4-D indicated that both forms are practically non-toxic to freshwater or marine fish, with LC50s ranging from more than 80.24 milligrams acid equivalent per liter (mg a.e./L) to 2,244 mg a.e./L (EPA 2005a). Similarly, the acid and amine salts of 2,4-D are slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to aquatic invertebrates (EPA 2005a). Daphnia was the most sensitive species of freshwater species exposed to the 2,4-D acid, with a 48-hour LC50 of 25 mg a.e./L (Alexander et al. 1985). For the B2H Project, 2,4-D amine labeled for aquatic use may be used up to the waterline and the 2,4-D ester may not be used within 50 feet of a waterway. Over the range of 2,4-D acid/salt application rates used in Federal land management programs (0.5 to 4 pounds (lbs) acid equivalent/acre), adverse effects on fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates are likely only in the event of an accidental spill. However, with regard to 2,4-D esters, adverse effects on aquatic

69

animals (fish, invertebrates, amphibians) are plausible in association with runoff (at all application rates) and would be expected in cases of relatively large accidental spills (USFS 2006). Aminopyralid. Aminopyralid is a relatively new herbicide that is used to control broadleaf weeds. Common end use products (EUP) containing aminopyralid include Milestone® and Milestone VM®. The herbicide is weakly adsorbed to soils and is relatively immobile. Depending on soil type, its reported half-life ranged from 32 to more than 500 days. In water, the primary route of degradation is photolysis, and a reported half-life in a lab experiment was less than 1-day (EPA 2005b). Aminopyralid was designated a reduced risk pesticide by EPA because of its toxicological and environmental profile (DiTomaso et al. 2006; SERA 2007). SERA (2007) summarized several acute exposure studies that reported no mortality to aquatic organisms (e.g., rainbow trout and Daphnia magna) exposed to aminopyralid in concentrations up to 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Aminopyralid fits into the “low risk to aquatic organisms” group because its LC50 values are reflective of relatively high concentrations (i.e., > 100 mg/L). Aquatic plants were more sensitive to aminopyralid than aquatic organisms. The NOEC for cell density and biomass for the most sensitive algal species (Navicula pelliculosa) was reported to be 6 mg a.e./L and the NOEC for frond density in the aquatic macrophyte Lemna gibba was reported to be 44 mg a.e./L (SERA 2007). None of the HQ values exceeded levels of concern for any of the receptors. Chlorsulfuron. This herbicide is used to treat annual, biennial, and perennial broadleaf weeds. In the U.S., three commercial EUPs are available: Telar®, DF, and Glean®. Chlorsulfuron has a soil half-life of 1 to 3 months, with a typical half-life of 40 days. The EPA (2005c) describes chlorsulfuron as likely to be persistent and highly mobile in the environment, transported to non-target areas by surface runoff and/or spray drift. This active ingredient is practically non-toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates and it does not bioaccumulate (EPA 2005c; WSDOT 2006a). The LC50 values for most species tested exceed the limit of solubility for chlorsulfuron (SERA 2004a). The most susceptible fish species to acute exposures was the brown trout (Salmo trutta), with a reported LC50 value of 40 mg/L. In all other acute studies reviewed by SERA (2004a), the 96-hour LC50 values were not reported because no deaths were observed at the highest concentrations tested. The concentrations tested ranged from more than 250 mg/L in rainbow trout to more than 980 mg/L in sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Aquatic invertebrates appear to also be relatively insensitive to chlorsulfuron toxicity, with reported LC50 values for D. magna of 89 mg/L. Aquatic macrophytes are substantially more sensitive to chlorsulfuron, with 96-hour effects concentration where 50% of the test organisms exhibited a response (EC50) values (for growth inhabitation) reported as 0.7 micrograms per liter (µg/L) for duckweed. Phytoplankton communities were found to be affected (decrease in biomass) after being exposed to chlorsulfuron concentrations as low as 10 µg/L for 13 days (SERA 2004a).

70

Based on available information, chlorsulfuron HQ values are less than one for both fish and aquatic invertebrate receptors. Some of the HQ values for algae and aquatic macrophytes exceed levels of concern. Soil type is a major driver of exposure risk for chlorsulfuron, with low permeability soils markedly increasing exposure levels. Application on soils with low infiltration rates will have a substantially higher risk of resulting in adverse effects. The HQ values predicted for aquatic macrophytes at 15 inches per year ranged from 0 to 64, and HQ exceedances (i.e., HQ values > 1.0) occurred at both the typical and maximum application rates on clay soils. Thus, if applied to areas where transport to water containing aquatic macrophytes is likely, then adverse effects to those plant communities may be observed. Clopyralid. Clopyralid is a selective herbicide used to treat broadleaf weeds. Transline® is a commercial EUP used by both the USFS and BLM. Clopyralid is highly soluble in water, does not adsorb to soil particles, is not readily decomposed in some soils, and may leach into ground water. The half-life of clopyralid in the environment averages 1 to 2 months and ranges up to 1-year. Because clopyralid does not bind with sediments readily, it can be persistent in an aquatic environment, where clopyralid half-life ranges from 8 to 40 days (Tu et al. 2001). Clopyralid is stable in water over a pH range of 5 to 9 (Woodburn 1987 in SERA 2004b), and the rate of hydrolysis in water is extremely slow with a half-life of 261 days (Concha and Shepler 1994). Little information is reported for toxic effects of clopyralid, although available information suggests this chemical poses a low risk to aquatic life. The acid and amine forms of clopyralid have different toxicities to fish. Toxicity of the acid formulation of clopyralid for a 96-hour LC50 is reported in SERA (2004b) to be 103.5 mg a.e./L, using an unspecified life stage of rainbow trout. For the monoethanolamine salt form used in the proposed action, SERA (2004b) reported a 96-hour LC50 of 700 mg a.e./L. Fairchild et al. (2008) exposed rainbow trout and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) to chlopyralid and reported 96-hour LC50 values of 700 mg a.e./L and 802 mg a.e./L, respectively. Toxic effects on aquatic invertebrates are reported only for Daphnia, which has an LC50 of 350 mg a.e./L for the monoamine salt and 225 mg a.e./L for the acid LC50 (SERA 2004b). Aquatic plants are more sensitive to clopyralid than fish or aquatic invertebrates (SERA 2004b). The EC50 for growth inhibition in duckweed, an aquatic macrophyte, is 89 mg/L. However, at lower concentrations, in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 mg/L, growth of other aquatic macrophytes is stimulated (Forsyth et al. 1997). From information reported in SERA (2004b) it appears that there could be potential losses in primary productivity from algae killed by clopyralid, based on an EC50 for algae of 6.9 mg/L. However, concentrations lethal to algae are unlikely to occur because clopyralid will not be directly applied to water, and it won’t be applied if a precipitation event likely to produce direct runoff is forecasted to occur within 48-hours following application. None of the HQ values exceeded levels of concern for any of the receptors. Dicamba. Dicamba is used to control a variety of broadleaf weeds and woody vegetation. Vanquish® and Banvel® are two commercial EUPs used by both the USFS and BLM. Dicamba is highly mobile in and poorly adsorbed by most soil types. It is also highly soluble in water, so its transport is influenced by precipitation. Available monitoring data indicate that ambient

71

water may be contaminated with dicamba after standard applications of the product. Dicamba is a growth regulator selective herbicide that controls many broadleaf plants, but generally will not harm grasses. Like 2,4-D, it also is available as both an amine and ester formulation. Drift from dicamba applications is common, especially from the ester formulation (DiTomaso et al. 2006). The Washington State Department of Agriculture has added dicamba to its list of Pesticides of Concern because it is being increasing detected in most of the streams sampled in Washington (Sargeant et al. 2013). There is wide variation in the reported acute toxicity of dicamba to fish, with rainbow trout having the lowest 96-hour LC50 value, which was 28 mg/L. The reported 96-hour LC50 value for cutthroat trout (O. clarki) was more than 50 mg/L (Woodward 1982). For coho salmon, reported 48- and 144-hour LC50 values were 120 mg/L and more than 109 mg/L, respectively (Bond et al. 1965; Lorz et al. 1979). There are limited studies on sublethal effects from acute or chronic exposures. Available acute toxicity studies in fish indicate that dicamba is relatively non-toxic, although salmonids appear to be more sensitive than other freshwater fish (SERA 2004c). There is a wide range of toxicity values of dicamba to aquatic invertebrates. The lowest reported 48-hour LC50 is 5.8 mg/L for Gammarus lacustris (Sanders 1969). While D. magna, a common test species, appears to be relatively tolerant to dicamba with reported 48-hour LC50 values from 100 mg/L to > 1000 mg/L (Johnson and Finley 1980; Forbis et al. 1985). As with fish, no longer-term studies are available on the lethal and sublethal toxicity of dicamba to aquatic invertebrates. Algae species are more sensitive to dicamba than aquatic animals (SERA 2004c). The most sensitive species on which data are available is the freshwater algae, Anabaena flos-aquae, with a 5-day EC50 of 0.061 mg/L (Hoberg 1993a). The aquatic macrophyte, L. gibba, had reported 14-day NOEC and lowest observable effect concentration values of 0.25 mg/L and 0.51 mg/L, respectively (Hoberg 1993b). The HQ values for aquatic life are far below the value of one (SERA 2004c). Similarly, at typical application rates, the HQ values for plants are below levels of concern. However, levels of concern were exceeded under the maximum application rate scenario. As such, transient adverse effects may occur to sensitive algae or macrophyte species (SERA 2004c). Diflufenzopyr + Dicamba. Diflufenzopyr, typically used together with dicamba, is a selective systematic herbicide used for the control of annual broad-leaf weeds post-emergence, the suppression or control of many perennial broad-leaf weeds, and the suppression of annual grasses. The half-life of diflufenzopyr in soils is 14 days or less and about 26 days in an aquatic environment under aerobic conditions (EPA 1999). Its potential to leach to groundwater is low; surface runoff potential is high, and potential for loss on eroded soil is low. Diflufenzopyr has moderate volatility and the potential for loss to the atmosphere is moderate. Microbes and sunlight break down diflufenzopyr in the environment. Diflufenzopyr does not bioaccumulate in aquatic animals and is not persistent in the environment. The EPA (1999) characterizes diflufenzopyr as slightly toxic to practically nontoxic for both freshwater and marine/estuarine organisms. Test results on coldwater and warmwater fish species suggest that diflufenzopyr has relatively low toxicity to fish species (BLM 2005). For

72

freshwater organisms, LC50 values ranged from 15 to > 135 mg/L. The LC50 values for marine/estuarine organisms ranged from 18.9 to > 138 mg/L (EPA 1999). The species tested in these studies was not provided and additional toxicity data were not identified. Diflufenzopyr is toxic to aquatic macrophytes with the mixture of diflufenzopyr and dicamba herbicides (e.g., EUP Overdrive®) being more toxic than diflufenzopyr alone (BLM 2005). Use of diflufenzopyr and dicamba mixtures are not likely to result in HQ exceedances (BLM 2005). Fluroxypyr. Fluroxypyr is used to control broadleaf weeds and woody brush. The half-life of fluroxypyr in soils is reported to be 36 days (WSDOT 2006b). Its potential to leach to groundwater is intermediate, surface runoff potential is high, and the potential for loss on eroded soil is low (WSDOT 2006b). Microbes and sunlight break down fluroxypyr in the environment. It does not bioaccumulate in aquatic animals. Fluroxypyr is classified as relatively non-toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates (EPA 1998). The 96-hour LC50 value for rainbow trout was greater than 100 mg a.e./L (EPA 1983 in BLM 2014a). No adverse effects were noted in rainbow trout exposed to 0.49 mg a.e./L for 96-hours (Willis 1984a). Acute toxicity tests were also conducted using warmwater fish species such as the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). One study reported an LC50 value of 14.3 mg a.e./L after 96 hours of exposure to fluroxypyr acid, and no effects were reported at a concentration of 7.28 mg a.e./L. None of the HQ values estimated under the modeled scenarios exceeded one for any of the receptors (BLM 2014a). SERA (2009) came to a similar conclusion that use of the herbicide fluroxypyr did not result in any exceedances of the level of concern for the fish, aquatic invertebrate, macrophyte, or algae receptors. Glyphosate. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that will kill most plants. It is widely used to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses. Glyphosate strongly binds to most soils, but dissolves easily in water. Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of time, depending on soil texture and organic matter content. The half-life of glyphosate can range from 3 to 249 days in soil and from 35 to 63 days in water (USFS 2000a). Glyphosate toxicity varies among technical grade glyphosate, glyphosate formulations that do not contain a surfactant, and glyphosate formulations that contain POEA surfactants. The EPA (1993) classified the technical grade glyphosate as slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. The rainbow trout 96-hour LC50 values for glyphosate acid and the isopropylamine (IPA) salt of glyphosate range from 10 mg a.e./L to 240 mg a.e/L. The various formulations of glyphosate have different toxicities to fish (rainbow trout 96-hour LC50 values ranging from 1.3 mg a.e./L to 429 mg a.e./L), which highlights the role of inert ingredients in toxicity (SERA 2011a). Of the glyphosate formulations tested, both Rodeo® and Accord® (and other equivalent formulations) are the least toxic. These formulations consist of only the active ingredient and water; however, the manufacturer recommends the EUP be mixed with a surfactant prior to applying the herbicides. Mitchell et al. (1987) tested the toxicity of Rodeo®

73

with and without a surfactant. Without the surfactant, the 96-hour LC50 for rainbow trout was 429 mg a.e./L. With the surfactant X-77, the 96-hour LC50 ranged from 96.4 mg a.e./L (rainbow trout) to 180.2 mg a.e./L (Chinook salmon). The 48-hour EC50 values for aquatic invertebrates exposed to glyphosate or glyphosate IPA generally range from 50 to 650 mg a.e./L (SERA 2011a). For D. magna, studies provided to EPA in support of the registration for glyphosate reported EC50 values ranging from 128 to 647 mg a.e./L. Pereira et al. (2009) reported an extremely high acute EC50 (more than 2,000 mg a.e./L). Even though this result is much higher than any previously reported EC50 values, the test protocol used appeared to be relatively standard (SERA 2011a). Glyphosate is highly toxic to all types of terrestrial plants and is used to kill floating and emergent aquatic vegetation. Differences in species sensitivities to glyphosate acid are apparent for both algae (EC50 values from about 2 to 600 mg a.e./L) and aquatic macrophytes (EC50 values from 10 to near 200 mg a.e./L). Using typical and maximum application rates and rainfall rates of 15 and 50 inches per year, no HQ exceedances occurred for any of the receptors as a result of riparian applications (NMFS 2009b). When applied below the OHWM and up to the water’s edge, HQ exceedances may occur for salmonids (NMFS 2009b). Hexazinone. Hexazinone is a non-selective herbicide used to control a broad spectrum of weeds, including woody species. Hexazinone and its degradates are persistent and mobile in soil and aquatic environments (EPA 1994). Concentrations of hexazinone were detectable in runoff water up to six months post-treatment in a forestry dissipation study. The EPA classified technical grade hexazinone as practically nontoxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Reported acute LC50 values for rainbow trout, fathead minnow, and bluegill sunfish are > 320 mg/L, 274 mg/L, and > 370 mg/L, respectively (EPA 1994). Reported 48-hour LC50 values for D. magna range from 125.2 to 172.8 mg/L. SERA (2005) summarized field studies conducted to assess toxicity of hexazinone to invertebrate populations. In one study, two species of mayflies (Isonychia sp. and Epeorus vitrea) exhibited a 14% mortality rate when exposed to hexazinone concentrations ranging from 70 to 80 mg/L for 1-hour in an artificial stream. Mortality in all other species ranged from 0 to four percent (Kreutzweiser et al. 1992). The most sensitive algal species, Selenastrum capricornutum, exhibited a 5-day EC50 of about 7 µg/L. The least sensitive algal species, A. flos-aquae, exhibited a 5-day EC50 of about 160 µg/L. The aquatic macrophyte duckweed, exhibited a reduction in frond count and reduced biomass when exposed to 26 µg/L for 14 days (SERA 2005). No HQ exceedances are expected for hexazinone applications for the fish or aquatic invertebrate receptors. The HQ values for aquatic macrophytes were exceeded; thus, it is plausible that adverse effects to aquatic plants may occur as a result of herbicide use (SERA 2005). Imazapic. Imazapic has an average soil half-life of 120 days, with degradation primarily occurring through soil microbial metabolism (Tu et al. 2001). Imazapic is moderately persistent

74

in soils, and has not been found to move laterally with surface water (generally moving only 6 to 12 inches laterally but can leach to depths of 18 inches in sandy soils). Although the extent to which imazapic is degraded by sunlight is believed to be minimal when applied to terrestrial plants, it is rapidly degraded by sunlight in aqueous solutions (half-life of 1 to 2 days). Imazapic is water soluble and is not degraded hydrolytically in aqueous solution (Tu et al. 2001). Aquatic animals appear to be relatively insensitive to imazapic exposures, with LC50 values of > 100 mg/L for both acute toxicity and reproductive effects. Aquatic invertebrates also appear to be relatively insensitive (SERA 2004d). Aquatic macrophytes may be much more sensitive, with an acute EC50 of 6.1 µg/L in duckweed (L. gibba). Aquatic algae appear to be much less sensitive, with EC50 values of greater than 45 µg/L. No HQ values greater than one were calculated for imazapic applications for aquatic animals and plants (SERA 2004d). Imazapyr. Imazapyr is a non-selected herbicide used to control a variety of grasses, broadleaf weeds, vines, and brush species. It may also be used to control aquatic macrophytes. The persistence of imazapyr in soil has a reported soil half-lives ranging from a 313 to 2,972 days, with an overall average of 2,150 days. Imazapyr is rapidly degraded by sunlight in aquatic solutions (SERA 2011d). The EPA classifies imazapyr as practically non-toxic to fish based on LC50 values of > 100 mg a.e./L. The SERA 2011b, provides a summary of available imazapyr toxicity data. Based on acute bioassays in both bluegills and trout, the IPA salt of imazapyr is also practically non-toxic to fish. The acute toxicity data on aquatic invertebrates are similar to the data on fish for the IPA salt of imazapyr. Both imazapyr acid and IPA salt of imazapyr are classified as practically non-toxic to D. magna, with EC50 values being > 100 mg a.e./L and 614 mg a.e./L, respectively (SERA 2011b). Toxicity studies involving the EUP Arsenal®, indicate the formulation is more toxic than either the imazapyr acid or the IPA salt of imazapyr. For example, the EC50 for Arsenal® to D. magna is estimated to be about 79 mg/L, which is about 9.5 times more toxic than the IPA salt. Based on available information, imazapyr appears to be less toxic to algae than to aquatic macrophytes. Depending on the algal species, EC50 values range from about 12 to 92 mg a.e./L. Studies reporting imazapyr toxicity to aquatic macrophytes report EC50 values for growth inhibition ranging from 18 µg a.e./L (IPA salt toxicity to duckweed) to 29 µg a.e./L (Arsenal® toxicity to water milfoil). Based on available information, the HQ values for fish and aquatic invertebrates do not exceed one. None of the central estimates of the HQ values for algae exceed one. Calculated HQ values for aquatic macrophytes reach peak values of 87 and 123 following terrestrial and aquatic applications, respectively. As such, it is possible that changes in aquatic plant communities may occur after application of imazapyr. Metsulfuron Methyl. Metsulfuron methyl is a selective herbicide use to control annual and perennial weeds and woody plants. The persistence of metsulfuron-methyl in soil is highly variable; reported soil half-lives range from a 14 to 180 days, with an overall average of 30 days. The mobility of metsulfuron methyl ranges from moderate to highly mobile (National Library of

75

Medicine 2012). Metsulfuron-methyl dissolves easily in water. Metsulfuron-methyl readily leaches through silt loam and sandy soils; thus, there is potential for it to contaminate groundwater. Based on available studies, metsulfuron-methyl appears to have a low toxicity to and does not bioaccumulate in fish. The reported rainbow trout 96-hour LC50 values for metsulfuron-methyl range from more than 150 mg a.e./L to more than 1,000 mg a.e/L (SERA 2004e). The lowest concentration at which rainbow trout mortality was observed is 100 mg/L; however, in the same study, no mortality was observed in rainbow trout exposed to 1,000 mg/L (Hall 1984). Debilitating sublethal effects (i.e., erratic swimming, rapid breathing, and lying on the bottom of the test container) were observed by Muska and Hall (1982) after exposure to 150 mg/L for 24 hours. Toxicity studies on aquatic invertebrates are reported only for Daphnia. For acute exposures, the range of EC50 values for immobility ranges from more than 150 mg/L to 720 mg/L, suggesting relative insensitivity. The available data suggest that metsulfuron-methyl, like other herbicides, is much more toxic to aquatic plants than to aquatic animals. Macrophytes appear more sensitive to metsulfuron-methyl than algae (SERA 2004e). There are substantial differences in sensitivity to effects of metsulfuron-methyl among algal species, but all EC50 values reported in SERA (2004e) are above 0.01 mg/L, and some values are substantially higher. No HQ exceedances were calculated for metsulfuron for fish, aquatic invertebrates, or algae at environmental conditions characteristic of the action area (lower amounts of rainfall, i.e., 50 inches per year or less). The HQ exceedances for aquatic macrophytes occurred at the maximum application rate on clay soils at rainfall rates of 50 inches per year, ranging from 0.009 to 1.0 at 50 inches. Given the range of HQ values observed for metsulfuron at each rainfall level, soil type is an important factor in determining exposure risk, with low permeability soils markedly increasing exposure levels. Given the HQ value of 1.0, it is plausible that adverse effects to aquatic macrophytes may occur as a result of metsulfuron methyl application in areas characterized by clay soils. Picloram. Picloram is used to control broadleaf weeds and undesirable brush. It is relatively persistent and can remain effective in the soil for up to 3 years after application. Picloram is resistant to biotic and abiotic degradation processes and has a field half-life of 20 to 300 days. Picloram is highly soluble in water and can readily leach through some soil types. The EPA (1995) classified picloram acid and picloram potassium salt as moderately toxic to freshwater fish with reported rainbow trout LC50s of 5.5 mg a.e./L and 13 mg a.e./L, respectively. SERA (2011c) reported a variety of 96-hour LC50 values for rainbow trout, which ranged from 5.5 mg a.e./L to 41 mg a.e./L. There is relatively little information available on the toxicity of picloram to aquatic invertebrates (SERA 2011c). Reported 96-hour LC50 values for G. lacustris (a freshwater shrimp) and Pternarcys californica (a stonefly) are 27 mg a.e./L and 48 mg a.e./L, respectively (Sanders 1969; Sanders and Cope 1968). Toxicity of picloram to algae varies widely, from a low EC50 of 0.97 mg a.e./L (N. pelliculosa) to a high of 142 mg a.e./L (A. flos-aquae) (SERA 2011c). There are few studies regarding the toxicity of

76

picloram to aquatic macrophytes. SERA (2011c) relied heavily upon a study conducted by Kirk et al. (1994) which defined EC50 (47.8 mg a.e./L) and no observable adverse effect concentration (12.2 mg a.e./L) values for duckweed (L. gibba). The SERA (2011c) concluded that concentration of picloram in surface water would exceed levels of concern for longer term exposures of sensitive fish where runoff, sediment loss, and/or percolation are likely to lead to surface water contamination. NMFS (2009b) found that higher application rates of picloram in RHCAs on clay and sandy soil types could result in water concentrations that exceed effects thresholds for ESA-listed fish. The HQ values also exceed levels of concern for algae. The HQ values are below the level of concern for aquatic invertebrates and macrophytes (SERA 2011c). Rimsulfuron. Rimsulfuron is a selective herbicide that is effective against winter annual grasses (e.g., cheatgrass and medusahead rye). Rimsulfuron is non-persistent in the environment, with a reported soil half-lives ranging from 5 to 40 days in aerobic environments. The reported half-lives of rimsulfuron in water and aquatic sediments are 4 and 6 days, respectively (BLM 2014b). Rimsulfuron has low toxicity to aquatic life. Reported 96-hour LC50 values for fish range from > 110 mg/L (sheepshead minnow) to > 390 mg/L (rainbow trout and bluegill). Reported acute toxicity values for D. magna area similar, with a 48-hour EC50 of > 360 mg/L (EPA 1992). Rimsulfuron is highly toxic to vascular and aquatic plants. Blue green algae (A. flos-aquae) and duckweed exhibited decreased population abundance when exposed to concentrations exceeding 35 µg/L for 5 days and 11 µg/L for 14 days, respectively (EPA 1992). No HQ exceedances were calculated for fish or aquatic invertebrates (BLM 2014b). The HQ values greater than the levels of concern were reported for aquatic macrophytes and algae. Use of rimsulfuron within RHCAs could adversely affect critical habitat directly (e.g., removal of vegetation) or indirectly (e.g., destabilizing streambanks or increasing stream temperatures); however, the proposed action does not authorize the use of this herbicide within the RHCA. Sethoxydim. Sethoxydim is a selective postemergence herbicide used to control annual or perennial grass weeds. Several commercial formulations of sethoxydim are available; the USFS uses the EUP Poast®. Sethoxydim does not readily adsorb to soil particles. Based upon its soil organic carbon-water partitioning coefficient, it is relatively mobile in soil; however, in field tests, it did not leach below the top four inches of soil and it did not persist. Reported half-lives for sethoxydim range from 2 weeks in sandy load to 4 weeks in clay soils. In water, its half-life varies depending on pH, and has been reported to be 45 days at a pH of 6. The toxicity of sethoxydim alone for fish and aquatic invertebrates is much less than that of the formulated product (about 30 times less toxic for invertebrates, and about 100 times less toxic for fish). Reported rainbow trout acute LC50 values for sethoxydim alone and for the formulated product (Poast®) are 265 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L, respectively (SERA 2001). As with fish, the acute toxicity of sethoxydim and Poast® to D. magna is reported to be 78.1 and 2.6 mg/L, respectively.

77

No HQ exceedances occurred for sethoxydim for aquatic invertebrates, algae, or aquatic macrophytes. The HQ values for sethoxydim were calculated using the toxicity data for the Poast® formulation, and incorporates the toxicity of naphtha solvent. Since the naphtha solvent tends to volatilize or adsorb to sediments, using Poast® formulation data to predict indirect aquatic effects from runoff leaching is likely to overestimate adverse effects (SERA 2001). Sulfometuron Methyl. Sulfometuron methyl is a broad spectrum herbicide used to treat grasses and broadleaf weeds. Sulfometuron methyl can be moderately persistent in soils, with reported half-lives ranging from 10 to 170 days (SERA 2004f). Sulfometuron methyl readily biodegrades in aerobic soil conditions, with reported half-lives of 12 to 25 days for various soil conditions (e.g., pH levels and moisture content). Sulfometuron methyl does not bind strongly to soils and it is slightly soluble in water. Depending on soil conditions, sulfometuron methyl can be mobile and may be transported to off-site soil by runoff or percolation. Sulfometuron methyl does not appear to be highly toxic to fish; however, investigations of acute toxicity have been hampered by the limited water solubility of sulfometuron methyl. In the available studies, none of the fish died from acute exposure to sulfometuron methyl, even at the highest concentration tests. As such, NOEC values (based on lethality) were placed at the highest concentrations tested: 7.3 mg a.e./L for fathead minnow (Muska and Driscoll 1982) and 148 mg a.e./L for rainbow trout (Brown 1994). Sulfometuron-methyl also appears to be relatively non-toxic to aquatic invertebrates, based on acute bioassays in daphnids, crayfish, and field-collected species of Diaptomus, Eucyclops, Alonella, and Cypria. The absolute LC50 values reported in SERA (2004f) for daphnids, crayfish, and the aquatic invertebrates are above 601 mg a.e./L, some by more than a factor of 10. Aquatic plants appear more sensitive than aquatic animals to the effects of sulfometuron-methyl, although there appear to be substantial differences in sensitivity among species of macrophytes and unicellular algae. The macrophytes, however, appear to be generally more sensitive. The 14-day NOEC (growth inhibition as measured by frond count) for duckweed exposed to technical grade sulfometuron-methyl was reported as 0.00021 mg a.e./L (Kannuck and Sloman 1995). For algae, the most sensitive algal species tested was S. capricornutum, with a 72-hour NOEC of 0.0025 mg/L and a 72-hour EC50 of 0.0046 mg a.e./L, based on a reduction in cell density relative to controls (Hoberg 1990). Considering the range of HQ values observed for sulfometuron at each rainfall level, soil type is an important factor in determining exposure risk, with low permeability soils markedly increasing exposure levels. No HQ exceedances occurred for sulfometuron methyl for fish, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, or algae (SERA 2004f; NMFS 2013a). Triclopyr. Triclopyr is a selective herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds and woody plants. Triclopyr herbicides contain one of two forms of triclopyr, either the TEA or the BEE. In both soil and aquatic environments, both the ester and amine salt formulations of triclopyr rapidly convert to the triclopyr acid and other degradates. In various soil types, the half-life of BEE has been reported to be three hours, and the half-life of TEA has been reported to range from 6 to

78

14 days. In water, triclopyr TEA dissociates to the acid very rapidly (i.e., within one minute), and triclopyr BEE hydrolyzes to the acid in less than a day in natural waters with a pH of 6.7. Triclopyr is not strongly adsorbed to soil particles and has the potential to be mobile, thus there is a chance that application of triclopyr near aquatic environments can result in surface water contamination (EPA 1998b). Data on the toxicity of triclopyr and its various forms has been collected since as early as 1973. Wan et al. (1987) conducted acute toxicity tests on coho salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, pink salmon and rainbow trout. They reported 96-hour LC50 values ranging from 0.3 mg a.e./L to 167 mg a.e./L for triclopyr acid, triclopyr ester (BEE), triclopyr TEA (Garlon® 3A), Garlon® 4 (a triclopyr BEE formulation), and trichloropyridinol (TCP). TCP is an environmental metabolite of triclopyr acid. The authors found triclopyr BEE was the most toxic chemical tested, followed in decreasing toxicity to salmonids by Garlon® 4, TCP, triclopyr acid, and Garlon® 3A. Similar to the lethality studies, results from the sublethal effects studies indicate that triclopyr BEE was the most toxic and Garlon 3A was the least toxic. Similarly, sublethal toxicity studies have demonstrated triclopyr BEE and triclopyr TEA to be the most and the least toxic, respectively. Stehr et al. (2009) observed no developmental effects at nominal concentrations of 10 mg/L or less for purified triclopyr alone or for the TEA formulations Garlon® 3A and Renovate®. According to information described by SERA (2011d), aquatic invertebrates appear to be about equally or somewhat less sensitive than fish to the various forms of triclopyr. Acute LC50 values for triclopyr acid and triclopyr TEA range from about 100 to about 6,400 mg a.e./L. Triclopyr BEE was substantially more toxic to aquatic invertebrates, with LC50 values ranging from 0.19 to 20 mg a.e./L (SERA 2011d). For triclopyr BEE, the EC50 values for growth inhibition in algae range from about 0.073 to 5.9 mg a.e./L. For triclopyr TEA and triclopyr acid, the EC50 values for the same endpoint in algae range from about 0.49 to 80 mg a.e./L. For aquatic macrophytes, triclopyr TEA is more toxic to dicots than to monocots, with EC50 values ranging from 0.04 to 0.56 mg a.e./L and 6.06 to 15.8 mg a.e./L, respectively. In fact, triclopyr TEA is reported to be more toxic to dicots than triclopyr BEE (EC50 values ranging from 1.49 to 4.62 mg a.e./L). No studies were available regarding the toxicity of TCP (SERA 2011d). For applications of triclopyr TEA formulations, no HQ exceedances are reported for fish or aquatic invertebrates. Applications in excess of 1 lb a.e./acre result in HQ exceedances for algae in areas where off-site transport might occur. For aquatic macrophytes, triclopyr TEA HQ exceed levels of concern (SERA 2011d). Applications of triclopyr BEE in excess of about 1.5 to 3 lbs. acid equivalent/acre could be associated with acute effects in sensitive species of fish or invertebrates, in cases of substantial drift or off-site transport of triclopyr via runoff (SERA 2011d). NMFS (2011a) determined that triclopyr BEE (esters) posed a medium risk to fish, although, given the uses, fate, and toxicity of triclopyr BEE, NMFS did not expect mortality to be a common occurrence. Similarly, HQ exceedances for algae were also reported for applications of triclopyr BEE. Triclopyr TEA is much more toxic to aquatic macrophytes than BEE, and HQs for BEE are much lower than those for triclopyr TEA (SERA 2011d). Because triclopyr BEE will rapidly degrade to triclopyr acid, SERA (2011d) recommends applying the HQ values for triclopyr TEA when assessing risk from BEE.

79

Surfactants. Surfactants make herbicides more effective by increasing absorption into the plant. There are numerous surfactants available on the market, some of which have reported toxicity (i.e., acute lethality) information. Toxicity (LC50) values reported for surfactants commonly added to glyphosate field solutions typically range from 1 to 10 mg/L (SERA 2011a). However, there are some surfactants that are considered slightly toxic (LC50 values ranging from > 10 to 100 mg/L) to practically non-toxic (LC50 values greater than 100 mg/L). The toxicities of mixtures of surfactants with the EUPs are largely unknown. Mitchell et al. (1987) tested the toxicity of Rodeo® with and without a surfactant. Without the surfactant, the 96-hour LC50 for rainbow trout was 429 mg a.e./L. With the surfactant X-77, the 96-hour LC50 ranged from 96.4 mg a.e./L (rainbow trout) to 180.2 mg a.e./L (Chinook salmon). The addition of X-77 altered the toxicity of the formulation by up to four times. The BLM has proposed to only use those surfactants approved for use at aquatic sites. The toxicities of these types of surfactants are generally lower than those allowed to be used in terrestrial applications. The surfactants R-11, POEA, and herbicides that contain POEA (e.g., Roundup) will not be used. Summary of Herbicide Effects on Water Quality. Up to 200 acres of RHCA are included in the action area; of these, about 15 acres are adjacent to streams known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. The proposed conservation measures as described in Section 1.3.10 (e.g., limitations on herbicides, adjuvants, and carriers; handling procedures; application methods; drift minimization measures; and riparian buffers) will greatly reduce the likelihood that significant amounts of herbicide will be transported to aquatic habitats. Even with these measures in place, some herbicides are still likely to enter streams through aerial drift or runoff (i.e., absorbed to soil particles or dissolved in the runoff water) from treated riparian areas, intermittent streams, and/or ditches. Potential effects of weed spraying on designated critical habitat will vary at each location depending on the size of the treatment area, chemicals used, method of application, distance from water, and vegetative characteristics of the treatment areas. If chemicals were to reach the water in an appreciable amount, a variety of biological effects could occur, including harmful effects on listed fish or other aquatic organisms due to direct exposure to the chemicals or indirectly from changes in the biotic community. Provided all of the conservation measures are appropriately implemented, the potential environmental concentrations of the herbicides proposed for use are not expected to reach levels that degrade water quality sufficiently to preclude or significantly delay development of the water quality PBF. Although the incidence of herbicides reaching water in an appreciable amount under the proposed action is likely to be infrequent, herbicides are capable of altering the biotic composition of aquatic species when they reach water. Benthic algae are important primary producers in aquatic habitats and are thought to be the principal source of energy in many mid-sized streams (Minshall 1978; Vannote et al. 1980; Murphy 1998). Herbicides can cause significant shifts in the composition of benthic algal communities at concentrations in the low parts per billion (Hoagland et al. 1996). In most cases, the sensitivities of algal species to

80

herbicides and their response to herbicides are not known. Herbicides have the potential to decrease or increase algal production and, by extension, alter the trophic support for stream ecosystems. However, the community response to changes in the algal community is unpredictable. Limited information is available on the ecological effects of the herbicides in streams, making it difficult to predict the degree of ecological risk to salmon and steelhead from alteration of the biological community. In general, human activities that modify the physical or chemical characteristics of streams often lead to changes in the trophic system that ultimately reduce salmonid productivity (Bisson and Bilby 1998). Consequently, effects to biotic communities as a result of herbicide use on adjacent lands may affect salmonid productivity. However, the potential for alteration of the biotic community under the proposed action is limited due to conservation measures intended to keep herbicides from the water. The potential for adverse effects on biological components of critical habitat (such as invertebrates and aquatic plants) from water contamination by herbicides is negligible at spatial scales of an individual stream or larger for the following reasons: (1) The potential treatment areas are relatively small and not all likely to be treated at the same time; and (2) methods of application and implementation of other conservation measures (e.g., buffers) will minimize water contamination. However, local adverse effects on biological components are possible in treatment areas where herbicides reach water. In general, most instream effects of herbicides are small, short-lived, and discreet events associated with spills, drift, or runoff events. Following the events causing contamination, critical habitat elements are likely to return to normal within a few hours to a few days. As such, long-term alteration of critical habitat in these localized areas is not expected. 2.5.1.4 Habitat Elements—Substrate As previously described, construction activities and long-term road use and maintenance has the potential to increase sediment production and delivery to nearby waterways. Construction activities and road use within RHCAs have the greatest potential for sediment production and sediment delivery to streams that support ESA-listed fish and/or their designated critical habitat. The proposed action does not involve inwater work, work below the OHWM in streams, or in tributaries within 1,000 feet of streams that support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Lastly, riparian vegetation removal has the potential to decrease bank stability, which may result in bank erosion and an increase in sediment to the waterways. Sediment delivery is expected to be limited to storm events following construction activities. Sediment production and delivery will be minimized as much as possible through implementation of various conservation measures, which are described in the BA and summarized in Section 1.3.10 of this opinion. Furthermore, construction activities are expected to be short in duration at any given location. The only long-term source of potential sediment production and delivery includes use and maintenance of access routes. Many of the access routes will be retained in a primitive state, which means some vegetation is expected to be present on the road surface. While the quantity of sediment delivered to action area streams is

81

not expected to be great enough to degrade the quality of spawning habitat or pool refugia overall, some localized impacts to spawning habitat may occur. 2.5.1.5 Habitat Elements—Large Woody Debris Nine waterways with ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat will be crossed by the B2H Project and vegetation within the RHCA will be affected. As previously described in Section 1.3.5, RHCAs will be spanned whenever possible. Although a majority of trees within the wire zone will be permanently removed, low-growing trees and shrubs will be maintained. Impacts from the loss of wood recruitment are expected to be localized and will impact only a relatively small proportion of the overall RHCA acreage. As such, the LWD indicator is expected to be maintained. 2.5.1.6 Habitat Elements—Refugia Vegetation removal within the RHCA and associated loss of LWD recruitment along with increased sediment delivery has the potential to degrade aquatic refugia within the action area. In stream systems such as are present in the action area, LWD is the primary agent in forming pool habitat which is the most common form of refugia. As previously described, conservation measures (e.g., span RHCAs whenever practicable, install adequate drainage on roads, limit cutting trees, implement appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs) will be implemented and will limit the extent of these potential impacts. Therefore, the refugia indicator is expected to be maintained. 2.5.1.7 Watershed Conditions—Road Density/Location New temporary and permanent access roads will be required for the B2H Project, as well as upgrades to existing access roads. Because it is unknown which access roads will be permanently retained, all new roads are assumed to be permanent. It is anticipated that about 69 miles of new access roads (unpaved) will be constructed in Segment 1 and 15 miles of new access roads (unpaved) will be required in Segment 2. Table 19 summarizes the watershed road densities that currently exist and that may exist after implementation of the B2H Project. As indicated in Table 19, road densities will only be minimally increased three of the five affected watersheds. Construction of new roads within RHCAs will be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. It is anticipated that less than one mile of new road will be constructed within the RHCA across all of Segments 1 and 2 combined. No new access roads will be constructed within RHCAs that are adjacent to streams known to support ESA-listed fish and/or designated critical habitat. Because the potential increase in road densities is very small, this indicator is expected to be maintained.

82

Table 19. Existing and post-project watershed road densities.

Watershed Name HUC Existing Road Density

(mi/mi2) Post-Project Road Density (mi/mi2)

Meacham Creek 1707010304 1.9 1.9 Birch Creek 1707010306 2.1 2.2

Beaver Creek – Grande Ronde River 1706010403 3.4 3.5

Five Points Creek – Grande Ronde River 1706010404 3.5 3.5

Ladd Creek 1706010406 3.3 3.4 2.5.1.8 Watershed Conditions—Riparian Reserves Up to 220 acres within RHCAs may be affected by either vegetation clearing and/or herbicide treatments. Permanent and complete removal of vegetation within RHCAs areas is not likely to occur, with the exception of when new access roads are constructed. Rather, taller vegetation within the transmission line ROW, and any vegetation impeding safe travel or encroaching upon the roadbed on existing access roads will be targeted for removal. As described in the proposed action, riparian areas will be spanned to the greatest extent possible and low-growing trees and shrubs will not be removed. Furthermore, any areas cleared will be replanted whenever possible, with a variety of native species to help restore vegetation communities. There will likely be a delay of 1 or 2 years before vegetation is recovered. However, only small amounts of vegetation will be treated. Since RHCAs will be largely spanned, vegetation nearest the stream will be the least affected. The delay time of vegetative recovery in the upper portions of the RHCA will likely only have minimal impacts on riparian reserves (RHCAs). Use of herbicides within RHCAs may result in long-term changes in plant communities. However, such changes would be targeted to replace invasive species with native ones. Noxious weed control measures will reduce weed competition between weeds and native plant species. Only spot spraying, and hand-selective methods (e.g., wicking, dipping, painting, and injecting) would be used within 100 feet of live water. As such, the potential for non-target mortality of riparian plants is negligible with these proposed application methods. Considering the above information, the baseline condition for riparian reserves in the action area is expected to be maintained. 2.5.1.9 Summary of Effects to Critical Habitat As described above, implementation of the proposed action may affect various indicators, which are reflective of the following critical habitat PBFs: water quality, spawning gravels/substrate, forage, riparian vegetation, natural cover, and stream temperature. Increased sediment delivery associated with initial vegetation clearing and the construction, use, and maintenance of access roads may impact water quality and spawning gravels/substrate.

83

Implementation of various conservation measures will minimize sediment delivery; however, localized adverse impacts to these PBFs may occur. Herbicide application may impact the water quality, riparian vegetation, and forage PBFs. As previously described, implementation of various conservation measures will limit non-target plant mortality in RHCAs, as well as potential for drift, direct spray, and runoff. Even with implementation of conservation measures, surface water contamination may occur and may lead to sublethal effects or reductions in forage base. However, contamination is expected to be short-lived, discreet events associated with spills, drift, or runoff that occurs infrequently. While localized adverse effects may occur, adverse effects at spatial scales of an individual stream or larger are not expected because: (1) The potential treatment areas are relatively small; and (2) methods of application and implementation of other conservation measures (e.g., buffers) will minimize water contamination. Removal of vegetation (mechanically, by hand, or by using herbicides) within the RHCA may impact the riparian vegetation, natural cover, and stream temperature PBFs. Conservation measures aimed at preventing impacts to non-target plant species are expected to minimize the loss of riparian vegetation from herbicide treatment. Because tree removal will occur in the transmission line ROW and on access roads, temporary and permanent vegetation removal in RHCAs could contribute to increases in stream temperatures and reductions in potential large wood recruitment. These impacts are expected to be localized and will affect a very small proportion of critical habitat in each watershed. 2.5.2 Effects to ESA-Listed Species The action area supports all life stages of MCR steelhead, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and SRB steelhead. It is possible that all life stages of these fish may be present during implementation of the B2H Project. Due to similarities in life histories, the effects discussed below will apply to all of the anadromous ESA-listed fish considered in this consultation. Implementation of the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect ESA-listed species from: (1) Sediment production and turbidity; (2) chemical contamination (e.g., petroleum products and herbicides); and (3) subsurface blasting and implosive splicing. These potential direct or indirect effects are described in Sections 2.5.2.1 through 2.5.2.3. All of the potential effects are then taken together to evaluate how implementation of the proposed action could affect the Chinook salmon and steelhead populations that utilize the action area (Section 2.5.2.4) 2.5.2.1 Sediment Production and Turbidity Increased sediment delivery can cause turbidity pulses and lead to excessive deposition on the channel bottom. Elevated turbidity can cause lethal, sublethal, and behavioral effects in juvenile and adult salmonids; depending on the duration, frequency, and intensity of the exposure (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Increased turbidity levels in the action area may result in temporary displacement of fish from preferred habitat or potentially sublethal effects such as gill

84

flaring, coughing, avoidance, and increase in blood sugar levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982; Sigler et al. 1984; Berg and Northcote 1985; Servizi and Martens 1992). Lloyd (1987) suggested that salmonids reacted negatively, by moving away, when turbidity reached 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Although elevated turbidity levels may cause stress, Gregory and Northcote (1993) have shown that moderate levels of turbidity (35 to 150 NTU) can also accelerate foraging rates among juvenile Chinook salmon, likely because of reduced vulnerability to predators (camouflaging effect). When sediment delivery exceeds the sediment transport capability of the stream, the amount of fine sediments will increase on and within stream substrates. Potential problems associated with excessive instream sediment have long been recognized for a variety of salmonid species and at all life stages, from possible suffocation and entrapment of incubating embryos (Coble 1961; Phillips et al. 1975; Hausle and Coble 1976; McCuddin 1977; Cederholm and Salo 1979; Peterson and Metcalfe 1981; Tagart 1984; Reiser and White 1988; Lisle and Lewis 1992), to loss of summer rearing and overwintering cover for juveniles (Bjornn et al. 1977; Hillman et al. 1987; Griffith and Smith 1993), to reduced availability of invertebrate food for resident adults (Tebo 1955; Cederholm and Lestelle 1974; Bjornn et al. 1977; Alexander and Hansen 1986). Salmonid populations are typically negatively correlated with the amount of fine sediment in stream substrate (Chapman and McCleod 1987). Initial vegetation clearing and the construction, use, and maintenance of access roads may increase delivery of sediment to waterways and increase turbidity in the water column. New construction of access roads, significant upgrades of existing access roads, development of multi-use areas, and construction of transmission line foundations have the greatest potential for significant sediment delivery. Implementation of various conservation measures are expected to minimize sediment production and delivery. Furthermore, with the exception of upgrades to existing access roads, none of these activities will occur in RHCAs adjacent to waters supporting ESA-listed fish. Extensive upgrades may occur along up to 0.75 miles of roads adjacent to stream channels known to support steelhead and/or Chinook salmon; however, no work below the OHWM will occur. Successful implementation of conservation measures will effectively minimize the quantity of sediment delivered to streams. Upland erosion and sediment delivery will likely increase substrate embeddedness in localized areas. However, the degree of instream substrate deposition likely to occur as a result of implementing the B2H Project is expected to be so small and so dispersed that negative impacts to incubating ESA-listed fish (e.g., entombment of redds) is unlikely. Extensive upgrades of roads adjacent to streams are expected to cause some temporary, localized turbidity pulses. The proposed action includes a requirement to monitor turbidity when visible turbidity pulses are observed during construction activities and a requirement to implement BMPs to minimize or eliminate the source of sediment. Lacking site-specific information about the extent of road upgrades adjacent to streams or how long construction might take, it is appropriate and conservative to conclude ESA-listed fish might be temporarily displaced by localized turbidity pulses. This temporary displacement will likely create the risk of injury to fish by annoying them to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns including feeding and sheltering.

85

2.5.2.2 Chemical Contamination Section 2.5.1.3 describes the potential for chemical contamination of water during implementation of the B2H Project. Contamination of surface water due to accidental release of fuel, oil, other petroleum products, and uncured concrete is highly unlikely to occur because IPC will implement numerous conservation measures designed to ensure proper use, containment, and disposal of these contaminants. However, contamination of surface water from herbicide use is likely to occur. As summarized in Section 2.5.1.3, ESA-listed species may be adversely affected directly from exposure to dissolved or particulate forms of herbicides or indirectly as a result of changes to the food web. Generally speaking, herbicide exposure may directly result in one or more of the following toxicological endpoints:

Direct mortality at any life history stage;

An increase or decrease in growth;

Changes in reproductive behavior;

A reduction in the number of eggs produced, fertilized, or hatched;

Developmental abnormalities, including behavioral deficits or physical deformities;

Reduced ability to osmoregulate or adapt to salinity gradients;

Reduced ability to tolerate shifts in other environmental variables (e.g., temperature or increased stress);

An increased susceptibility to disease;

An increased susceptibility to predation; and/or

Changes in migratory behavior.

These endpoints are generally considered to be important for the fitness of salmonids and other fish species. Concentrations of herbicides in surface water occupied by ESA-listed fish are not expected to reach levels that cause direct mortality of any life history stage; however, the potential for sublethal effects cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, it is possible that adverse effects to aquatic macroinvertebrates, algae, or aquatic plants may occur to a degree that indirectly affects ESA-listed fish. In general, most instream effects of herbicides are expected to be short-lived, discreet events associated with spills, drift, or runoff. This is because: (1) The potential treatment areas are relatively small and dispersed across throughout the action area; and (2) methods of application and implementation of other conservation measures (e.g., buffers) will minimize water contamination. Recovery of the biological community and ESA-listed fish

86

is expected to occur within a short period of time. However, herbicide exposure is likely to injure fish by modifying habitat so that it impairs essential behavioral patterns. 2.5.2.3 Subsurface Blasting and Implosive Splicing The detonation of explosives in or near a body of water produces compressive shock waves characterized by a rapid rise to a high peak pressure, followed by a rapid decay to a below-ambient hydrostatic pressure. Such a rapid pressure change may induce serious barotraumas to fish if blasting does not occur a sufficient distance away from a body of water (the “setback” distance). Examples of barotrauma include rupturing or bruising of the swim bladder; minor, non-lethal hemorrhaging in fins and epidermal tissue; severe or lethal hemorrhaging in the gills, liver, kidney, gastrointestinal track, heart, or brain (Goertner et al. 1994; Dunlap Kolden and Aimone-Martin 2013); embolism (Carlson et al. 2011); visceral damage such as torn ribs or ruptured organs; and stomach eversions and vent prolapse (Carlson et al. 2011). Exposure to blasting can also result in behavioral changes due to changes in stress hormones or damage caused to hair cells within the ear or lateral line (McCauley et al. 2003; Hastings and Popper 2005). According to Bishai (1961) and Rasmussen (1967), swim-up fry will die if exposed to shock wave pressures exceeding 2.8 psi. Studies by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) found that no mortality was observed at a psi of 2.7 for chum (O. keta) and coho salmon (Bird and Roberson 1984). Other studies have observed up to eight percent mortality in salmon smolts at 4.4 psi (Munday et al. 1986), 40% mortality as low as 7.2 psi (Coastline Environmental Studies 1987), and up to 50% mortality at psi ranges of 19.3 to 21 (Dames and Moore 1987). These investigations were unable to establish an absolute lower limit or psi standard for 0% mortality, although no mortality was observed in one study at the lowest psi of 2.7. In addition, vibrations within spawning gravels and increased peak particle velocities between 0.5 ips (NMFS 2013b) and 2.0 to 5.0 ips (Timothy 2013, Kolden and Antoine-Martin 2013) may result in injury or mortality to eggs or embryos. Incubating fish embryos are extremely sensitive to shock until the closing of the blastopore (around the time when eye pigment forms) (ADFG 1991). Studies by Smirnov (1954) found significant egg mortality resulting from ground vibrations with a peak particle velocity of 2 ips. Jensen (2003) evaluated whether a peak particle velocity threshold of 0.5 ips was adequately protective of salmonid eggs. He found peak particle velocities of 5.8 ips resulted in a 10% mortality rate of Chinook salmon embryos; therefore, he concluded the 0.5 ips threshold was adequately protective. Faulkner et al. (2008) studied egg mortality associated with simulated blasting by exposing rainbow trout (O. mykiss) eggs to vibrations up to 9.7 ips. Embryos in spawning gravel exposed to 9.7 ips experienced significantly higher mortality than controls. Increased embryo mortality did not occur in exposures of 5.2 ips. In 1991, the ADFG developed blasting standards to protect sensitive areas (e.g., areas that support anadromous fish). The standards consider the potential impacts to fish due to charge weight, distance from the waterbody (both vertically and horizontally), substrate type (underlying soil and rock located between the charge and the water body), and local topography. At that time, the guidelines established that blast induced pressures should not exceed 2.7 psi in the water, and vibrations should not exceed 0.5 ips in spawning gravels when embryos are

87

present. The ADFG has since revised their blasting standards to limit the instantaneous pressure to no more than 7.3 psi where fish are present, and to limit peak particle velocities in spawning gravels to no more than 2.0 ips during early stages of embryo development. Direct effects from blasting are anticipated to be reduced to a minimal level with implementation of the conservation measures described in the proposed action. These measures include charge weight, setback distances for subsurface blasting, seasonal restrictions when setback distances from streams supporting ESA-listed species are not able to be adhered to, and an even more restrictive prohibition on blasting within the RHCA. The setback distances were established to ensure the 2 psi and 0.5 ips thresholds are not exceeded in nearby waters. Although the conservations measures will typically be adhered to, the BLM may allow limited blasting to occur within the setback distances and outside of the work windows if necessary, although no blasting will occur within the RHCA. This allowance is expected to be rare, and for purposes of this Opinion, NMFS assumes such allowances will not occur more than one time per population per year. If higher charge weights are used (e.g., 100, 500, or 1,000 lbs), it is possible that the thresholds will be exceeded, even if blasting occurs outside of the RHCA. As such, direct effects to ESA-listed species may occur. If blasting is anticipated to exceed protective guidelines, NMFS and ODFW will be contacted and mitigation measures to limit potential impacts will be developed to ensure that effects analyzed in the Opinion are not exceeded. 2.5.2.4 Relevance of Fish Effects to Population/Major Population Groups/Evolutionarily

Significant Units Viability Effects to individual fish may, in turn, affect the attributes associated with a VSP (levels of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic diversity that support the species’ ability to maintain itself naturally at a level to survive environmental stochasticity). Blasting activities and herbicide use pose the most significant potential for adversely affecting individual fish to a degree that may impact population viability. Potential impacts from sediment delivery are expected to only result in temporary behavioral modifications that won’t result in any discernable effects on VSP attributes. As described in Section 2.2.1, the following four populations may be affected by these activities: Umatilla River steelhead; UGR steelhead; UGR River Chinook salmon; and Catherine Creek Chinook salmon. The ecological significance of sublethal toxicological effects to individual fish depends on the degree to which essential behavior patterns are impaired, and the number of individuals exposed to harmful effects. Sublethal effects could compromise the viability and genetic integrity of wild populations if the effects are widespread across an entire DPS or ESU, or if localized exposures result in the concentrated loss of fish in a geographic area occupied by a local population with unique genetic traits. The likelihood of population effects from sublethal effects of herbicides proposed for use are largely undocumented, but appreciable population effects can be ruled out if the potential exposure to harmful effects is limited to small numbers of fish and a spatial pattern that is not likely to cause the loss of a unique genetic stock. Similarly, the likelihood of population effects from mortality of individual fish could also be ruled out if blasting effects are limited to small numbers of fish.

88

Herbicide application may occur within roughly 50 RHCA acres adjacent to waters known to support ESA listed fish, spread across five watersheds. The potential for population level effects as a result of herbicide use associated with the B2H Project are negligible the following reasons: (1) The potential treatment areas are relatively small and spread across the landscape; (2) herbicide treatments are not expected to extend beyond 3 years following construction; and (3) methods of application and implementation of other conservation measures (e.g., buffers) will minimize water contamination. Similarly, ESA-listed fish are known to occupy only 10 streams that will be crossed by the B2H transmission line, so opportunities for fish to be exposed to blasting impacts are limited by the project design. Implementation of conservation measures (e.g., setback distances and work windows) are expected to further limit occurrences of adverse effects. Blasting within the setback distances and outside of the work windows is anticipated to occur rarely, if at all. In these circumstances, the BLM will contact NMFS to develop additional mitigation measures. Considering this information, any adverse effects from blasting activities will not be substantial enough to diminish the viability of any of the four populations inhabiting the action area. 2.6 Cumulative Effects “Cumulative effects” are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. EPG contacted Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Baker counties about future non-Federal projects that may occur within their jurisdictions. The counties did not identify any proposed projects involving non-Federal activities within the action area. It is anticipated that agricultural operations, weed management, livestock grazing, water development, local road construction and maintenance, and future land-use development will continue to contribute to the cumulative effects in the region. Also anticipated are beneficial projects, including fish passage, irrigation efficiency, and restoration/enhancements in the subbasins that will contribute to improving salmonid habitat in the future. Based on this information, NMFS assumes that future impacts from state or private actions are likely to continue at rates similar to today, and are unlikely to be substantially more severe than they currently are. These impacts have been described in the Environmental Baseline (Section 2.4). Some continuing non-Federal activities are reasonably certain to contribute to climate effects within the action area. However, it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the action area’s future environmental conditions caused by global climate change that are properly part of the environmental baseline vs. cumulative effects. Therefore, all relevant future climate-related environmental conditions in the action area are described in the environmental baseline (Section 2.4).

89

2.7 Integration and Synthesis The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step in our assessment of the risk posed to species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, we add the effects of the action (Section 2.5) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.4) and the cumulative effects (Section 2.6), taking into account the status of the species and critical habitat (Section 2.2), to formulate the agency’s biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to: (1) Reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or (2) appreciably diminishes the value of designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species. 2.7.1 Species The Umatilla River steelhead population is currently considered to be “maintained”; however, in order for the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to achieve a viable status, the Umatilla River population must achieve a “viable” status. The UGR steelhead population is currently meeting its VSP criteria and is tentatively rated as “viable.” Neither of the Chinook salmon populations (i.e., Catherine Creek and the UGR River) are meeting their VSP criteria. Both populations are considered to be at a high risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe; primarily due to their high A/P risk. The proposed recovery scenario for the Grande Ronde/Imnaha Rivers MPG are for the Catherine Creek population to achieve either a viable or highly viable status, and the UGR River population to achieve a “maintained” status (NMFS 2009a and 2016). To accomplish this, both populations will need to see an increase in their A/P VSP metric. As previously described, mortality of individual fish is unlikely to occur, although limited blasting-related mortality may occur if the conservation measures are not adhered to. In these situations, the BLM will contact NMFS prior to blasting to develop additional mitigation measures. Sublethal effects from herbicide contamination of surface water or turbidity are not expected to influence any of the populations’ VSP parameters. Baseline conditions in the affected watersheds are largely functioning at risk or functioning at unacceptable risk. Considering the existing condition of the environmental baseline (which also includes effects associated with state and private activities that are not expected to substantially change in the future), NMFS has determined that the potential loss of a very small number of juvenile steelhead and/or Chinook salmon, and the minimal sublethal effects, that may be caused by the proposed action should not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival, nor will it appreciably reduce the likelihood of recovery of the Umatilla River steelhead, UGR steelhead, UGR River Chinook salmon, or Catherine Creek Chinook salmon populations. Because the effects will not be substantial enough to negatively influence VSP criteria at the population scale, the viability of the MPGs and ESU/DPS are also not expected to be reduced.

90

2.7.2 Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat for MCR steelhead, SRB steelhead, and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon occur within the action area. Information in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 describes the status of critical habitat across the species’ range and the environmental baseline conditions of the action area, respectively. General speaking, the condition of critical habitat is not functioning appropriately. Large swaths of land in the action area are privately owned and have been impacted by agriculture and urbanization. Limiting factors include impaired physical habitat and water quality, reduced water quantity, and degraded riparian conditions. Climate change will likely result in a generally negative trend for stream temperature. As described in Section 2.6, cumulative effects in the action are likely to continue to have similar influences as they do today, and as was reflected in the environmental baseline. In the analysis of the effects of the action on critical habitat PBFs, we found that effects to PBFs will generally be short-lived, widely dispersed among watersheds, and limited to the scale of a small stream reach. Potential long-term effects from permanent removal of vegetation are also expected to be limited to small areas dispersed throughout the action area. Because of this, the PBFs of critical habitat will remain functional, or retain their ability to become more functional over time without any significant delay. Considering the existing condition of the environmental baseline (which includes effects associated with state and private activities that are not expected to substantially change in the future), implementation of the B2H Project is not expected to appreciably diminish the function and conservation role of the PBFs within the action area. As such, the value of the critical habitat for the conservation of the listed species will not be appreciably diminished. 2.8 Conclusion After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species and critical habitat, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, any effects of interrelated and interdependent activities, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS’s biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of MCR steelhead, SRB steelhead, and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, or to destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitats. 2.9 Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. “Take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 C.F.R. § 222.102). “Incidental take” is defined by regulation as takings

91

that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ITS. 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take The proposed action is reasonably certain to result in incidental take of ESA-listed species. NMFS is reasonably certain the incidental take described here will occur because: (1) Recent and historical surveys indicate ESA-listed species are known to occur in the action area; (2) the proposed action includes construction activities that could increase sediment delivery to streams, causing elevated turbidity pulses; (3) the proposed action includes application of herbicides; and (4) blasting near streams with ESA-listed fish may occur. In the Opinion, NMFS determined that incidental take is reasonably certain to occur as follows:

Exposure of juvenile and adult steelhead and Chinook salmon to elevated turbidity pulses.

Exposure of all life stages of Chinook salmon and steelhead to elevated concentrations of herbicides.

Exposure of all life stages of Chinook salmon and steelhead to overpressures or peak

particle velocities from blasting near occupied streams. NMFS is unable to quantify the take associated with elevated turbidity pulses, herbicide exposures, and exposures to overpressures and peak particle velocities for the following reasons: (1) It is not possible to identify exactly when and where these potential impacts will occur; and (2) it is not possible to accurately quantify the number of fish that might be exposed to these stressors. The distribution and abundance of fish are affected by habitat quality, competition, predation, season, and other biotic and environmental processes. Additionally, there is no practical way to count the number of fish that experience lethal or sublethal effects as a result of exposure to the effects of the proposed action. In circumstances such as these, NMFS uses the causal link established between the activity and the likely changes in habitat conditions affecting the listed species to describe the extent of take. 2.9.1.1 Turbidity The best available indicator for the extent of take caused by construction-related disturbance is an increase in visible suspended sediment which is causally linked to effects resulting from turbidity. NMFS assumes that an increase in sediment will be visible in the immediate vicinity of the action area and for a distance downstream, and the distance that increased sediment will be visible is proportional both to the size of the disturbance and to the width of the wetted stream (Rosetta 2005). If a turbidity pulse becomes visible in a stream that is occupied by ESA-listed

92

species, the IPC will conduct turbidity monitoring. The extent of take will be exceeded if the downstream turbidity concentrations are more than 10% above background concentration for eight consecutive hours. 2.9.1.2 Herbicide Application of herbicides in the action area is expected to result in short-term degradation of water quality, which will cause injury to fish in the form of sublethal adverse physiological effects. This is particularly true for herbicide applications in riparian areas or in ditches or intermittent channels that may deliver herbicides to streams occupied by listed salmonids. Direct measurement of herbicide transport is impracticable for the type and scale of herbicide applications proposed. Therefore, the best available indicator for the extent of take due to the proposed plant control is the extent of treated areas. This is because any increases in treated acres would result in a higher likelihood of sublethal effects. For this action, the extent of take is the number of RHCA acres expected to be treated per watershed per year as follows: Meacham Creek watershed – 50 acres; Birch Creek watershed – 40 acres; Five Points Creek watershed – 20 acres; Beaver Creek watershed – 75 acres; and Ladd Creek watershed – 30 acres. If herbicide treatment occurs in excess of these acreage limits, the extent of take has been exceeded. 2.9.1.3 Blasting Detonation of explosives near surface water can cause significant barotrauma in juvenile and adult fish as well as mortality of incubating embryos. Although the BLM is proposing conservation measures to limit blasting near waters occupied by ESA-listed species, there may be rare instances where blasting could cause take of ESA-listed species. For this action, the extent of take reflects the number of locations blasting is performed within the setback distances (but outside of the RCHA) and outside of the work windows near occupied streams. The extent of take limits blasting under these circumstances to no more than one location per population per year. 2.9.2 Effect of the Take

In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

“Reasonable and prudent measures” are nondiscretionary measures that are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of the amount or extent of incidental take (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). The BLM, USFS, BPA, BOR, COE (for those measures relevant to the CWA section 404 permit), and the IPC shall comply with the following RPMs:

93

1. Minimize the potential for incidental take from turbidity, herbicide contamination, and

blasting activities as described in Section 2.9.4, Terms and Conditions.

2. Ensure completion of a monitoring and reporting program to confirm that the terms and conditions in this ITS were effective in avoiding and minimizing incidental take from permitted activities and ensuring incidental take is not exceeded, as described in Section 2.9.4, Terms and Conditions.

2.9.4 Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions described below are non-discretionary, and the BLM, USFS, BPA, COE (for those measures relevant to the CWA section 404 permit), and IPC must comply with them in order to implement the RPMs (50 C.F.R. § 402.14). The action agencies and IPC have a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take and must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as specified in this ITS (50 C.F.R. § 402.14). If the following terms and conditions are not complied with, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) will likely lapse.

1) The following terms and conditions implement RPM 1: a) The proposed action, including all described conservation measures, shall be

implemented as described in the BA and proposed action section of this Opinion.

b) Streams that support ESA-listed fish shall be observed during construction activities to determine if there is a visible turbidity plume. If turbidity is visible, then turbidity monitoring shall be conducted as prescribed in term and condition 2.b below. Construction activities will be modified if downstream monitoring documents turbidity concentrations more than 10% above background levels. Construction activities will be halted if downstream turbidity is greater than background concentrations for a period of 8 hours to allow the turbidity to dissipate.

c) Avoid the use of picloram, clopyralid, chlorsulfuron, and metsulfuron-methyl

within annual floodplains where the water table is within 6 feet of the surface and soil permeability is high (silt loam and sandy soils). Where necessary to achieve weed management objectives, use application methods with the lowest potential for off-site transport.

d) Maintenance and calibration of spray equipment should occur regularly through the spray season to ensure proper application rates.

94

e) Ensure all chemical storage, chemical mixing, and post-application equipment cleaning is completed in such a manner as to prevent the potential contamination of any riparian area, perennial or intermittent waterway, ephemeral waterway, or wetland.

f) If blasting activities will be performed within the setback distances (but outside of the RHCA) and outside of the inwater work windows, fish surveys shall be performed to document whether ESA-listed fish species are present. If ESA-listed fish species are present, monitoring of inwater pressure changes shall be performed.

2) The following terms and conditions implement RPM 2 (monitoring and reporting): a) The action agencies shall prepare a monitoring report describing completed and

ongoing activities within the Birch Creek, Meacham Creek, Five Points Creek – Grande Ronde River, Beaver Creek – Grande Ronde River, and Ladd Creek watersheds. The report shall be submitted to NMFS by February 15 each year. This report will include the information listed below.

i) A description of construction activities and herbicide treatments that were conducted the previous calendar year in RHCAs.

ii) Maps showing access roads and transmission line ROWs that cross

RHCAs.

iii) A description and map(s) of roads that will be retained permanently for access.

iv) Turbidity monitoring results (see Term and Condition 1.b. for a

description of turbidity monitoring requirements) or a statement that visible turbidity plumes were not observed during construction near occupied streams.

v) A summary of herbicide treatments within RHCA per 6th level HUC,

including the following information: herbicide product used, surfactants used, application method, application rate, number of acres treated, total acres in the subwatershed.

vi) A description of any blasting performed within the setback distances (but

outside of the RHCA) and outside of the inwater work windows, including results from fish surveys and inwater pressure monitoring.

vii) A summary of the adequacy of the conservation measures implemented

for minimizing take to ESA-listed species.

95

b) Turbidity monitoring shall be conducted as follows:

i) Monitoring will be conducted at locations upstream and downstream of the project area (where ground disturbance is occurring) when turbidity pulses are visible in occupied streams adjacent to the project area. Occupied streams are those that support ESA-listed fish. The upstream sample location (“background sample”) must be collected about 100 feet upstream of the project area. The downstream sample location will be sited based upon stream width as follows: (1) 50 feet for streams that are 30 feet wide or less; (2) 100 feet downstream for streams between 30 and 100 feet wide; and (3) 200 feet downstream for streams greater than 100 feet wide.

ii) Samples will be collected using an appropriately and regularly calibrated

turbidimeter, every 30 minutes when work is being conducted. The monitoring location, time, and results will be recorded.

iii) Turbidity monitoring will continue for the duration of the turbidity pulse.

Monitoring may end when a visible turbidity pulse is no longer observed.

c) Project monitoring reports (e.g., stream crossing project checklists, monitoring results for monitoring included in the proposed action or described in 2.a. and 2.b. above) may be submitted electronically to: [email protected]. Hard copy submittals may be sent to the following address:

National Marine Fisheries Service Attn: Bill Lind 800 E. Park Blvd

Plaza IV, Suite 220 Boise, Idaho 83712

d) NOTICE: If a steelhead or salmon becomes sick, injured, or killed as a result of

project-related activities, and if the fish would not benefit from rescue, the finder should leave the fish alone, make note of any circumstances likely causing the death or injury, location and number of fish involved, and take photographs, if possible. If the fish in question appears capable of recovering if rescued, photograph the fish (if possible), transport the fish to a suitable location, and record the information described above. Adult fish should generally not be disturbed unless circumstances arise where an adult fish is obviously injured or killed by proposed activities, or some unnatural cause. The finder must contact NMFS Law Enforcement at (206) 526-6133 as soon as possible. The finder may be asked to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to collect specimens or take other measures to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is preserved.

96

2.10 Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and endangered species. Specifically, conservation recommendations are suggestions regarding discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). The following recommendations are discretionary measures that NMFS believes are consistent with this obligation and therefore should be carried out by the BLM, USFS, COE, BOR, BPA, and the IPC:

1. Where large trees are cut down in RHCAs, the LWD should be placed near, or within the stream channel where appropriate.

2. Where permanent vegetation removal occurs within RHCAs, opportunities for RHCA restoration activities elsewhere along that same stream, or within the same subwatershed should be investigated and implemented where feasible.

Please notify NMFS if the BLM, USFS, BOR, BPA, COE, or IPC carries out these recommendations so that we will be kept informed of actions that minimize or avoid adverse effects and those that benefit listed species or their designated critical habitats. 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes formal consultation for the B2H Project. As 50 C.F.R. § 402.16 states:

Reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (a) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the [ITS] is exceeded; (b) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered; (c) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT RESPONSE

Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA (Section 3) defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”

97

Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, and may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate and loss of (or injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects on EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of it and may include site-specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 C.F.R. § 600.810). Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. This analysis is based, in part, on the EFH assessment provided by the BLM and descriptions of EFH for Pacific Coast salmon contained in the fishery management plan developed by the PFMC (2014) and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project The B2H Project and action area for this consultation are described in the introduction to this document. The action area includes areas designated as EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. The PFMC (2014) identified five habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), which are contained within the overall EFH designation, which warrant additional focus for conservation efforts due to their high ecological importance. Three of the five HAPC are applicable to freshwater and include: (1) Complex channels and floodplain habitats; (2) thermal refugia; and (3) spawning habitat. The Grande Ronde River provides the only EFH for Chinook and coho salmon within the action area. The Grande Ronde River does not provide spawning habitat within the action area; however, it provides migratory and rearing habitat. None of the freshwater HAPCs are present in this segment of the Grande Ronde River (which is within the action area). 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat As described in Section 2.5.1 of this opinion, the primary adverse effects to EFH are related to sediment delivery from construction activities and herbicide applications that could temporarily degrade water quality. In addition, temporary and permanent removal of riparian vegetation could lead to the loss of LWD recruitment and localized impact to stream temperature. It is possible that adverse effects to migratory and rearing habitat will occur. Because none of the HAPCs are present within the action area no adverse effects to HAPCs will occur. 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations NMFS believes the following eight Conservation Recommendations are necessary to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. These Conservation Recommendations are a non-identical set of the ESA Terms and Conditions.

98

1. The proposed action, including all described conservation measures, should be implemented as described in the BA and proposed action section of this opinion.

2. Turbidity monitoring should be conducted, when visible turbidity plumes are observed in occupied streams during construction activities. If downstream monitoring documents turbidity concentrations more than 10% above background levels, the construction activity should be modified to reduce sediment delivery. If downstream turbidity is greater than background concentrations for a period of 8 hours, then construction should be stopped to allow the turbidity to dissipate.

3. If blasting activities will be performed near the Grande Ronde River within the setback distances (but outside of the RHCA) and outside of the inwater work windows, monitoring of inwater pressure changes should be performed.

4. Where large trees are cut down in RHCAs, the LWD should be placed near, or within the stream channel where appropriate.

5. Where permanent vegetation removal occurs within RHCAs, opportunities for RHCA restoration activities elsewhere along that same stream, or within the same subwatershed should be investigated and implemented where feasible.

6. Application of picloram, clopyralid, chlorsulfuron, and metsulfuron-methyl within annual floodplains where the water table is within 6 feet of the surface and soil permeability is high (silt loam and sandy soils) should be avoided. Where necessary to achieve weed management objectives application methods with the lowest potential for off-site transport should be used.

7. Regular maintenance and calibration of spray equipment should occur throughout the spray season to ensure proper application rates.

8. All chemical storage, chemical mixing, and post-application equipment cleaning should

be done in a manner that prevents the potential contamination of any riparian area, perennial or intermittent waterway, ephemeral waterway, or wetland.

Fully implementing these EFH conservation recommendations would protect, by avoiding or minimizing the adverse effects described in Section 3.2, above, approximately 0.7 acres of designated EFH for Pacific Coast salmon. This estimate was obtained by multiplying the estimated width of the Grande Ronde River (i.e., 100 feet) by the width of the transmission line ROW (i.e., 250 feet). 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement As required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA, the BLM, USFS, BPA, BOR, and COE must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30 days after receiving an EFH Conservation Recommendation. Such a response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final

99

approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS’s EFH Conservation Recommendations unless NMFS and the Federal agencies have agreed to use alternative time frames for the Federal agency response. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agencies for avoiding, minimizing, mitigating, or otherwise offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the Conservation Recommendations, the Federal agencies must explain their reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects (50 C.F.R. § 600.920(k)(1)). In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agencies. Therefore, we ask that in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. 3.5 Supplemental Consultation The BLM, USFS, BPA, BOR, and COE must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS’s EFH Conservation Recommendations (50 C.F.R. § 600.920(l)). 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW

The DQA specifies three components contributing to the quality of a document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the opinion addresses these DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this opinion has undergone pre-dissemination review. 4.1 Utility Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended users of this Opinion are the BLM, USFS, BPA, BOR, and COE. Other interested users could include IPC. Individual copies of this opinion were provided to the BLM, USFS, BPA, BOR, and COE. This Opinion will be posted on the Public Consultation Tracking System website (https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pcts-web/homepage.pcts). The format and naming adheres to conventional standards for style.

100

4.2 Integrity This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, ‘Security of Automated Information Resources,’ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. 4.3 Objectivity Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They adhere to published standards including NMFS’s ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 402.01 et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 C.F.R. § 600. Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available information, as referenced in the References section. The analyses in this opinion and EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style. Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with West Coast Region ESA quality control and assurance processes.

101

5. REFERENCES Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1991. Blasting standard for the protection of

fish. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat, Douglas, AK. 35 pages. Alexander, H.C., F.M. Gersich, and M.A. Mayes. 1985. Acute toxicity of four phenoxy

herbicides to aquatic organisms. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:314-321.

Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management. 6:9-13. Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior in

juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 42:1410-1417.

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le

Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)] (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Bird, F.H. and K. Roberson. 1984. Keystone Canyon blasting study. Alaska Department of Fish

and Game. 25 pp. Bishai, H.M. 1961. The effects of pressure on the survival and distribution of larval and young

fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 26(3):292-311. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.

North American Journal Fisheries Management. 2: 371-374. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. Pages 373-398 in:

Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby, editors. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Bjornn, T.C., M.A. Brusven, M.P. Molnau, J.H. Milligan, R.R. Klamt, E. Chacho, and C.

Schaye. 1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and its effects on insects and fish. University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Bulletin 17. Moscow, Idaho.

102

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83–138 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Diflufenzopyr ecological risk assessment, final

report. 133 electronic pages. BLM. 2005. Diflufenzopyr Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. USDI-Bureau of Land

Management. ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650. Reno, Nevada. BLM. 2014a. Fluroxypyr ecological risk assessment, final. Washington, D.C. 146 electronic

pages. BLM. 2014b. Rimsulfuron ecological risk assessment, final. 146 electronic pages. Bond, C.E., J.D. Fortune, and F. Young. 1965. Results of preliminary bioassays with kurosal-SL

and dicamba. Progressive Fish Culturalist 27(1):49-51. Brown, M.R. 1994. Static, acute, 96-hour LC50 of DPX-T5648-42 (sulfometuron methyl) to

rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss: (Limit test). Laboratory Report No. 589-94. Unpublished study prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, Newark, DE. 28 pages. MRID 43501802. in SERA. Sulfometuron methyl – human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. SERA TR 03-43-17-02c. Fayetteville, NY. 2004.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2014. Reclamation – Managing water in the west. Final. Upper Grande

Ronde River tributary assessment. Grande Ronde River Basin. Tributary habitat program, Oregon. January.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V.

Lagomarcino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA-NWFSC-27. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Carlson, T., G. Johnson, C. Woodley, J. Skalski, and A. Seaburg. 2011. Compliance monitoring

of underwater blasting for rock removal at Warrior Point, Columbia River channel improvement project 2009/2010. Pacific Northwest national Laboratory completion report (PNNL-20388). Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Cederholm, C.S. and L.C. Lestelle. 1974. Observations on the effects of landslide siltation on

salmon and trout resources of the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington 1972-73. Final report FRI-UW-7404. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, WA.

103

Cederholm, C.S. and E.O. Salo. 1979. The effects of logging road landslide siltation on the salmon and trout spawning gravels of Stequaleho Creek and the Clearwater River Basin, Jefferson County, Washington, 1971-1978. Final Rep. FRI-UW-7915, part III. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, Washington.

Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development of criteria for sediment in the Northern

Rockies Ecoregion. EPA contract 68-01-6986. Boise, Idaho. Coastline Environmental Studies, Ltd. 1987. Blast monitoring of detonations near marine

environment. Project ADFG 86.01. Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Juneau, AK.

Coble, D.W. 1961. Influence of water exchange and dissolved oxygen in redds on survival of

steelhead embryos. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 90:469-474. Concha, M. and K. Shepler. 1994. Photodegradation of (carbon 14) – clopyralid in buffered

aqueous solution at pH 7 by natural sunlight: Lab project number: 451W: ENV94048 (Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc.) MRID No. 43891401. in SERA. Clopyralid – Human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Copeland, T. and D.A. Venditti. 2009. Contribution of three life history types to smolt

production in a Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 66:1658-1665.

Dames and Moore. 1987. Effects of linear explosive seismic energy releases on fish in Alaska’s

transition zones. For the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Danehy, R.J., C.G. Colson, K. Parrett, and S.D. Duke. 2005. Patterns and sources of thermal

heterogeneity in small mountain streams within a forested setting. Forest Ecology and Management. 208(1-3):287-302.

DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser, and M.J. Pitcairn. 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide.

California Invasive Plant Council. Berkley, California. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-03. 78 p. http://www.cal-ipc.org.

Dunlap Kolden, K. and C. Aimone-Martin. 2013. Blasting effects on salmonids. Prepared for

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, AK. 31 pp. Ecovista, Nez Perce Tribe Wildlife Division, and Washington State University Center for

Environmental Education. 2003. Draft Clearwater Subbasin Assessment, Prepared for Nez Perce Tribe Watersheds Division and Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. 463 p. http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/clearwater/plan/Default.htm

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1983. 96-hour statis acute toxicity test with Oncorhynchus

mykiss. Evaluation report reviewed by C. Lewis, U.S. EPA. 1988. MRID 40244515. in BLM. Fluroxypyr ecological risk assessment. 2014.

104

EPA. 1992. Pesticide ecotoxicity database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Fate and Effects Division, Washington D.C. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ (January 2017).

EPA. 1993. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. EPA 738-R-93-014. Washington D.C. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf.

EPA. 1994. Reregistration eligibility decision: Hexazinone. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics Substances. EPA-738-R-94-002. EPA. 1995. Registration Eligibility Decision for Picloram. EPA 738-R95-019. Office of

Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. 301 pages. EPA. 1998. Fluroxypyr: Pesticide fact sheet. U.S. Environmental Protectin Agency, Office of

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Arlington, Virginia. EPA. 1998b. Registration Eligibility Decision for Trichlopyr. EPA 738-R-98-011. Office of

Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. 285 pages. EPA. 1999. Diflufenzopyr, Pesticide Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Arlington, Virginia. EPA. 2003. No effect determination for dicamba for Pacific anadromous salmonids. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. March 27. EPA. 2005a. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D. EPA 738-R-05-002. Office of

Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. 304 pages. EPA. 2005b. Pesticide fact sheet: aminopyralid. Office of Prevention, Pesticides Environmental

Protection, and Toxic Substances. 56 pages. EPA. 2005c. Reregistration eligibility decision for chlorsulfuron. EPA Office of Prevention,

Pesticides Environmental Protection, and Toxic Substances. 90 pages. Everest, F.H. and D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile

Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(1):91-100.

Fairchild, J.F., A. Allert, L.S. Sappington, K.J. Nelson, and J. Valle. 2008. Using accelerated life

testing procedures to compare the relative sensitivity of rainbow trout and the federally listed threatened bull trout to three commonly used rangeland herbicides (picloram, 2,4-D, and clopyralid). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 27(3):623-630.

Faulkner, S.G., M. Welz, W.M. Tonn, and D.R. Schmitt. 2008. Effects of simulated blasting on

mortality of rainbow trout eggs. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 137:1-12.

105

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, R.H. Byrne, F.J. Millero, A.G. Dickson, R. Wanninkhof, A. Murata, L.A. Miller, D. Greeley. 2012. Decadal changes in the aragonite and calcite saturation state of the Pacific Ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26:3.

Firth, J. 2002. Recommended Blasting Standards. Jerry Firth, Regional Blaster, USDA Forest

Service, Region 4. Ogden, UT. August, 2002. Forbis, A., D. Burgess, and L. Georgie. 1985. Acute toxicity of CN 10-6471 [(Banvel herbicide)]

to Daphnia magna: Report No. 33173. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories, Inc. 37 pages. MRID 001513152. in SERA. Dicamba - human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Ford, M.J. (editor). 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the

Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-113, 281 pages.

Forsyth, D.J., P.A. Martin, G.G. Shaw. 1997. Effects of herbicides on two submersed aquatic

macrophytes, Potamogeton pectinatus L. and Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov, in a prairie wetland. Environmental Pollution. 95(2):259-268.

Goertner, J.F., M.L. Wiley, G.A. Young, and W.W. McDonald. 1994. Effects of underwater

explosions on fish without swimbladders. NSWC TR 88-114. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Silver Springs, MD.

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs

of west coast salmon and steelhead. West Coast Salmon Biological Review Team. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-66. 598 pages.

Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee (GRWQC). 2000. Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin

Water Quality Management Plan. Gregory, R.S. and T.S. Northcote. 1993. Surface, planktonic, and benthic foraging by juvenile

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in turbid laboratory conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 50:223-240.

Griffith, J.S. and R.W. Smith. 1993. Use of winter concealment cover by juvenile cutthroat and

brown trout in the south fork of the Snake River, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 13:823-830.

Hall, C. 1984. 96-hour LC50 to rainbow trout: benzoic acid, 2-N-(4-Methoxy-6-methyl- 1,3,5-

triazin-2-yl)-N-methylamino-carbonyl-amino-sulfonyl, methyl ester. Laboratory Report No. 545-84. Unpublished study prepared by Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine. 5 pages. MRID No. 00149672. in SERA. Metsulfuron Methyl – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. 2004.

106

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Unpublished report prepared for California Department of Transportation. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/Effects_of_Sound_on_Fish23Aug05.pdf. (April 2016).

Hausle, D.A. and D.W. Coble. 1976. Influence of sand in redds on survival and emergence of

brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 105:57-63.

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-

382 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Hillman, T.W., J.S. Griffith, and W.S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by

juvenile Chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 116:185-195.

Hoagland, K. D., J. P. Carder, and R. L. Spawn. 1996. Effects of organic toxic substances. Pages

469- 496 in: Stevenson, R. J., M. L. Bothwell, and R. L. Lowe, editors. Algal ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. Academic Press. New York, NY.

Hoberg, J. 1990. Sulfometuron methyl - toxicity to the freshwater green alga Selenastrum

capricornutum. Lab Project No. AMR- 1893-90. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 24 pages. MRID 41680102. in SERA. Metsulfuron methyl – human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Hoberg J. 1993a. Dicamba technical: toxicity to the freshwater alga, Anabaena flos-aquae: Final

Report: Lab Project Number: 93-3-4702: 10828.0892.6139.420: 100/92/02. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 605 pages. MRID 42774109. in SERA. Dicamba - human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Hoberg, J. 1993b. Dicamba technical: toxicity to the duckweed, Lemna Gibba: Final Report: Lab

Project Number: 93-3-4665: 10828.0892.6140.410: 100/92/06. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 61 pages. MRID 42774111. in SERA. Dicamba - human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Independent Economic Analysis Board. 2011. Cost-effectiveness of improved irrigation

efficiency and water transactions for instream flow for fish. Document IEAB 2011-2. December 5, 2011.

Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2003. Independent populations of

chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionarily significant units within the interior Columbia River domain – working draft. Seattle, WA. Available: https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/col_docs/independentpopchinsteelsock.pdf. (April 2016).

107

ICTRT. 2007. Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs, Review Draft March 2007. Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team: Portland, Oregon. 261 pp. Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/pubs.cfm. (April 2016).

ICTRT. 2008. Current Status Reviews: Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs.

Volume III; Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Draft, May 9, 2008.

ICTRT. 2010. Current status reviews: Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs and steelhead

DPSs. Volume 1, Snake River ESUs/DPS. NMFS, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, WA.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2014. Idaho’s 2012 integrated report.

Boise, ID. 54 pp plus appendices. IDEQ and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. South Fork Clearwater River

Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads. IDEQ: Boise, Idaho. 680 p. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2007. Annual returns to Lower Granite Dam, Idaho

Department of Fish and Game data provided to NMFS by Peter Hassemer, December 2007. IDFG: Boise, Idaho.

IDFG. 2016. “Hatchery and Wild Chinook Salmon Return to Lower Granite Dam.” Follow Idaho

Salmon Home (F.I.S.H) website, http://216.206.157.62/idaho/web/apps/MAIN_LGRchinadultreturn_spsu_wild.php (June 2016).

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia

River Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report, ISAB 2007-2, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Jensen, J.O.T. 2003. New mechanical shock sensitivity units in support of criteria for protection

of salmonid eggs from blasting or seismic disturbance. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2452. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.

Johnson, W.W. and M.T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to fish and aquatic

invertebrates. Resource Publication 137. U.S. FWS, Washington, D.C. 98 pages. Jones, R. 2015. Memorandum: 2015 5-year review – Listing status under the Endangered

Species Act for hatchery programs associated with 28 salmon evolutionarily significant units and steelhead distinct population segments. 54 p.

108

Kannuck, R. and T. Sloman. 1995. Sulfometuron methyl (DPX-T5648): Influence on growth and reproduction of Lemna gibba G3. Lab Project No. AMR 2902-94. Unpublished study prepared by Stine-Haskell Research Center, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co, Newark, DE. 41pages. MRID 43538503. in SERA. Metsulfuron methyl – human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Kirk, H., D. Milazzo, and L. Humbert. 1994. The toxicity of Tordon K herbicide formulation to

the aquatic plant, duckweed, Lemna gibba L.G-3: Lab Project Number: DECO/ES/2764. Unpublished study prepared by The Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Research Lab. 35 pages. MRID 43230311. in SERA. Picloram - human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. 2011.

Kolden, K.D. and C. Antoine-Martin. 2013. Blasting effects on salmonids, final report. Prepared

for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Douglas, AK. Kreutzweiser, D.P., S.B. Holmes, and D.J. Behmer. 1992. Effects of the herbicides hexazinone

and triclopyr ester on aquatic insects. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 23(3):364-74.

Lisle, T.E. and J. Lewis. 1992. Effects of sediment transport on survival of salmonid embryos in

a natural stream: a simulation approach. Canadian Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Sciences. 49:2337-2344.

Lloyd, D. 1987. Turbidity as a Water Quality Standard for Salmonid Habitats in Alaska. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 7:34-45. Lorz, H.W., S.W. Glenn, R.H. Williams, C.M. Kunkel, L.A. Norris, and B.R. Loper. 1979. Effects of

selected herbicides on smolting of coho salmon. EPA-600/3-79-071. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Mallet, J. 1974. Inventory of salmon and steelhead resources, habitats, use and demands. Job

performance report. Proj. F-58-R-1. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Matthews, G.M. and R.S. Waples. 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and summer

Chinook salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-200, Seattle, Washington. Available: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NMFS/TM_NMFS_FNWC/TM_NMFS_FNWC_200_files/TM_NMFS_FNWC_200.htm#toc. (January 2017).

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound

damages fish ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 113(1):638-642. McCuddin, M.E. 1977. Survival of salmon and trout embryos and fry in gravel-sand mixtures.

Master’s thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

109

McClure, M., T. Cooney, and Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2005. Updated population delineation in the interior Columbia Basin. Memorandum to NMFS NW Regional Office, co-managers and other interested parties. May 11.

McClure, M.B., E.E. Holmes, B.L. Sanderson, and C.E. Jordan. 2003. A large-scale multispecies

status assessment: anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Ecological Applications 13(4):964-989.

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckleshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000.

Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, Seattle, WA. Available: https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6190_06162004_143739_tm42.pdf. (January 2017).

Minshall, G.W. 1978. Autotrophy in stream ecosystems. BioScience 28:767-771. Mitchell, D.G., P.M. Chapman, and T.J. Long. 1987. Acute toxicity of Roundup and Rodeo

herbicides to rainbow trout, chinook, and coho salmon. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39(6):1028-1035.

Mobrand, L., L. Lestelle, L. Gilbertson, R. Brounding, D. Bryson, R. Carmichael, E. Claire,

B.Hadden, C. Huntington, L. Kuchenbecker and M. Shaw. 1995. Executive summary for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed ecosystem diagnosis and treatment project reports. July 1995 Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Project #94-030. 72 p.

Munday, D.R., G. Ennis, D.G. Wright, D.C. Jeffries, E.R. McGreer, and J.S. Mathers. 1986.

Development and evaluation of a model to predict effects of buried underwater blasting charges on fish populations in shallow water areas. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1418. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, B.C.

Murphy, M. L. 1998. Primary production. Pages 144-168 in: Naiman R. J. and R. E. Bilby,

editors. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Muska, C. and R. Driscoll. 1982. Early life stage toxicity of INT-5648-18 to fathead minnow.

Haskell Laboratory Report No. 765-82. Unpublished study received March 28, 1983, under 352-401; submitted by Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. Inc., Newark, DE. MRID 00126600. in SERA. Sulfometuron methyl – human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. SERA TR 03-43-17-02c. Fayetteville, NY. 2004.

110

Muska, C. and C. Hall. 1982. 96-hour LC50 to rainbow trout: Laboratory Report No. 515-82. Unpublished study received Feb 14, 1983 under 352-EX-111. CDL:071434-B. Submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Delaware. MRID No. 00125816. in SERA. Metsulfuron Methyl – Human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

National Library of Medicine (NLM). 2012. Data Query of the Hazardous Substances

Database. National Library of Medicine, Toxnet. Available: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/. (May 2012).

Newcombe, C.P. and J.O. Jensen. 1996. Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries: A

Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:693-727.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act

Determinations of Effect for Individual and Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. Habitat Conservation Program, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS. 2003a. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 consultation biological opinion and

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for the city of Pendleton, Bob White Trail project, Umatilla River subbasin, Union County, Oregon. July 21, 2004.

NMFS. 2003b. Preliminary conclusions regarding the updated status of listed ESUs of West

Coast salmon and steelhead. West Coast Salmon Biological Review Team, NWFSC. Co-manager Review Draft. February, 2003.

NMFS. 2004a. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the City of Pendleton, Bob White Trail Project, Umatilla River Subbasin, Union County, Oregon. July 21, 2004.

NMFS. 2009a. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery

Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. NMFS. 2009b. Endangered Species Act section 7 formal consultation and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests invasive plant treatments project, Baker, Grant, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler Counties, Oregon; Asotin, Columbia Garfield, and Walla Walla Counties, Washington; and Adams and Nez Perce counties, Idaho. March 31, 2009. Tracking No. 2008-06525.

NMFS. 2010. Endangered Species Act Programmatic Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations for Vegetation treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands Across Nine BLM Districts in Oregon (September 1, 2010) (Refer to NMFS No: 2009/05539).

111

NMFS. 2011a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation biological opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency registration of pesticides 2,4-D, triclopyr BEE, diuron, linuron, captan, and chlorothalonil. Endangered Species Division of the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland. http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/final-4th-biop.pdf.

NMFS. 2011b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Reinitiation of the Payette National Forest Noxious Weed Management Program; Hells Canyon (17060101), Little Salmon River (17060210), Lower Salmon (17060209), South Fork Salmon (17060208), Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207), Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206), and Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205) Subbasins; Idaho, Valley, Adams, and Custer Counties, Idaho (October 12, 2011) (Refer to NMFS No: 2011/03919). https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/sxn7.pcts_upload.download?p_file=F8361/201103919_weeds_reinitiation_10-122011.pdf.

NMFS. 2012a. Draft Snake River Salmon Endangered Species Act Recovery Plan. NMFS,

Northwest Region. NMFS. 2012b. Endangered Species Act biological opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for the Birch Creek RM 0.2 fish passage project (HUC 170701030608), Umatilla County, Oregon (Corps No. NWP-2012110). July 24, 2012.

NMFS. 2012c. Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Invasive Plant Treatment Project on Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, Oregon. February 2, 2012. (Refer to NMFS No: 2009/03048).

NMFS 2013a. Endangered Species Act biological opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for aquatic restoration activities in the States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II). April 25, 2013 (Refer to NMFS No: NWP-2013-9664.

NMFS. 2013b. Endangered Species Act biological opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for the Sawtooth National Forest’s programmatic road maintenance activities; Upper Salmon River subbasin HUC 17060201; Custer and Blaine Counties, Idaho. (October 17, 2013) (Refer to NMFS No: 2013/10395).

NMFS. 2014. Reinitiation of the Endangered Species Act biological opinion and Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for revisions to standard local operating procedures for endangered species to administer maintenance or improvement of stormwater, transportation or utility actions authorized or carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Oregon (SLOPES for stormwater, transportation or utilities). March 14, 2014.

112

NMFS 2015. Endangered Species Act biological opinion for the Bureau of Land Management vegetation treatments using aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron on BLM lands in 17 western states. October 14, 2015.

NMFS. 2016. Draft Recovery Plan for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook & Steelhead.

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/snake_river/current_snake_river_recovery_plan_documents.html

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004a. Draft Umatilla/Willow subbasin

plan and addendum. May 28, 2004. NPPC. 2004b. Grande Ronde subbasin plan. May 28, 2004. Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). 2015. Status review update for Pacific salmon

and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. 356 pp. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014. Technical basis for revising

turbidity criteria – draft. October 2005. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Oregon guidelines for timing of in-

water work to protect fish and wildlife resources. June, 2008. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife (WDFW). 2015. 2015 Joint Staff Report: Stock Status and Fisheries for Spring Chinook, Summer Chinook, Sockeye, Steelhead, and other Species and Miscellaneous Regulations. Joint Columbia River Management Staff. 85 pp.

ODFW and WDFW. 2016. Joint Staff Report: Stock status and fisheries for spring Chinook,

summer Chinook, sockeye, steelhead, and other species, and miscellaneous regulations. Joint Columbia River Management Staff, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. January 20, 2016. 95 pages.

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 2014. Appendix A to the Pacific Coast Salmon

Fishery Management Plan, as modified by Amendment 18. Identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon.

Pastor, Richard. 2017. Personal communication email to Johnna Sandow (NMFS) re: access

control measures on roads. January 20, 2017. Pauley, G.B., B.M. Bortz, and M.F. Shepard. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) – steelhead trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.62). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-062.pdf. (April 2016).

113

Pereira, J. L., S.C. Antunes, B.B. Castro, C.R. Marques, A.M.M. Goncalves, F. Goncalves, and R. Pereira. 2009. Toxicity evaluation of three pesticides on non-target aquatic and soil organisms: commercial formulation versus active ingredient. Ecotoxicology 18:455-463.

Peterson, R.H. and J.L. Metcalfe. 1981. Emergence of Atlantic salmon fry from gravels of

varying composition: a laboratory study. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1020. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Biological Station. St. Andrews, New Brunswick.

Phillips, R.W., R.L. Lantz, E.W. Claire, and J.R. Moring. 1975. Some effects of gravel mixtures

on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead fry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 104:461-466.

Rasmussen, B. 1967. The effects of underwater explosions on marine life. Bergen, Norway. 17

pp. Reiser, D.W. and R.G. White. 1988. Effects of two sediment size-classes on survival of steelhead

and Chinook salmon eggs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:432-437. Rosetta, T. 2005. Technical basis for revising turbidity criteria (draft). Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. Portland, Oregon. October. Sanders, H.O. 1969. Toxicity of pesticides to the crustacean Gammarus lacustris. USDI

Technical Paper 25. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. FWS, Columbia, MO. Sanders, H.O. and O.B. Cope. 1968. The relative toxicities of several pesticides to naiads of three

species of stoneflies. Limnology and Oceanography. 13(1):112-117. Sargeant, D., E. Newell, P. Anderson, and A. Cook. 2013. Surface Water Monitoring Program for

Pesticides in Salmon-Bearing Streams, 2009-2011 Triennial Report, A Cooperative Study by the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Agriculture. Washington State Departments of Ecology and Agriculture. Olympia, Washington. February.

Scheuerell, M.D. and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival

of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries Oceanography 14:448-457.

SERA. 2011a. Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. USDA,

Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. SERA TR-052-22-03b. Atlanta, Georgia. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Glyphosate_SERA_TR-052-2203b.pdf.

SERA. 2011b. Imazapyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – final report. Submitted to:

USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Report. S.R. USDA/Forest Service. December. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Imazapyr_TR-052-29-03a.pdf.

SERA. 2011c. Picloram - human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Submitted to:

114

USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. . http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Picloram_SERA_TR-052-27-03a.pdf.

SERA. 2011d. Triclopyr – Human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. USDA,

Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. SERA TR-052-25-03a. Atlanta, Georgia. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/052-25-03aTriclopyr.pdf (January 2017).

SERA. 2009. Fluroxypyr human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Submitted to:

USDA – Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/0521303a_fluroxypyr.pdf. (January 2017).

SERA. 2007. Aminopyralid human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Submitted

to: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. . http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/062807_Aminopyralid.pdf.

SERA. 2005. Hexazinone - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. USDA,

Forest Service Forest Health Protection. SERA TR 05-43-20-03d. Arlington, Virginia. https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/102505_hexazinone_ra.pdf (January 2017).

SERA. 2004a. Chlorsulfuron - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report.

USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection. SERA TR 04-43-18-01c. Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/112104_chlorsulf.pdf (January 2017).

SERA. 2004b. Clopyralid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. USDA,

Forest Service Forest Health Protection. SERA TR 04-43-17-03c. Arlington, Virginia. Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/120504_clopyralid.pdf (January 2017).

SERA. 2004c. Dicamba - human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. Submitted to:

Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service. Arlington, Virginia. Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/112404_dicamba.pdf (January 2017).

SERA. 2004d. Imazapic - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. USDA,

Forest Service Forest Health Protection. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/122304_Imazapic.pdf. (January 2017).

SERA. 2004e. Metsulfuron Methyl - human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report.

Submitted to: Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service. Arlington, Virginia. Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/120904_Metsulfuron.pdf. (January 2017).

SERA. 2004f. Sulfometuron Methyl - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report.

USDA, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. SERA TR-03-43-17-02c. Arlington, Virginia.

SERA. 2001. Sethoxydim [Poast] - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report.

USDA, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. SERA TR-01-43-01-01c. Riverdale,

115

Maryland. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/100202_sethoxydim_ra.PDF. (January 2017).

Servizi, J.A. and D.W. Martens. 1992. Sublethal responses of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch) to suspended sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 1389-1395.

Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn, and F.H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and

growth of steelhead and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150.

Smirnov, A.I. 1954. The effect of mechanical agitation on developing eggs of the pink salmon

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha WALBAUM, Salmonidae). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 97(2):365-368.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach

to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services, Inc. Corvallis, Oregon. Report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

Stehr, C.M., T.L. Linbo, D.H. Baldwin, N.L. Scholz, and J.P. Incardona. 2009. Evaluating the effects

of forestry herbicides on fish development using rapid phenotypic screens. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29(4):975-984.

Stenstrom, M.K., and M. Kayhanian. 2005. First flush phenomenon characterization. California

Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis. CTSW-RT-05-73 02.6. Sacramento, California. August. http://149.136.20.66/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-05-073-026_First_Flush_Final_9-30-05.pdf.

StreamNet. 2016. StreamNet: Fish data for the northwest. Interactive mapper. Available at:

http://www.streamnet.org/. March 16, 2016. Tagart, J.V. 1984. Coho salmon survival from egg deposition to emergence. Pages 173-181 in J.

M. Walton and D. B. Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish Conference. Port Angeles, WA.

Tebo, L. B., Jr. 1955. Effects of siltation, resulting from improper logging, on the bottom fauna

of a small trout stream in the southern Appalachians. Progressive Fish-Culturist. 17:64-70.

Tetra Tech. 2013. Meacham Creek floodplain restoration and in-stream enhancement (Phase II)

biological assessment and essential fish habitat assessment. January 2013. Timothy, J. 2013. Alaska blasting standard for the proper protection of fish. Alaska Department of

Fish and Game. Technical Report No. 13-03. Douglas, Alaska. Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed control methods handbook: Tools and techniques for

use in natural areas. The Nature Conservancy. Version: April 2001. Available:

116

https://www.invasive.org/gist/products/handbook/methods-handbook.pdf (January 2017).

117

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the US. USGCRP, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000a. Glyphosate: herbicide information profile. USFS, Pacific

Northwest Region. Available: www.fs.fed.us/r6/weeds/Gly-Nov-17-2000.pdf. (May 2012).

USFS. 2006. 2,4-D human health and ecological risk assessment final report. Forest Health

Protection, USDA-Forest Service. Arlington, Virginia. USFS. 2009. Operational Guidelines for Aquatic Invasive Species prevention and equipment

cleaning. Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The

river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.

Wan, M.T., D.J. Moul, and R.G. Watts. 1987. Acute toxicity to juvenile Pacific salmonids of

Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, triclopyr, triclopyr ester, and their transformation products 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol and 2-methoxy-3,5,6-trichloropyridine. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39(4):721-728.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2006a. Chlorsulfuron: Roadside

vegetation management herbicide fact sheet. Available: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BA59FA46-057D-4526-9BC3-F7B3831E453D/0/chlorsulfuron.pdf. (January 2017).

WSDOT. 2006b. Fluroxypyr: Roadside vegetation management herbicide fact sheet. Available:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/767D2219-C458-4CCA-A5DC-3F185580580F/0/fluroxypyr.pdf. (January 2017).

Willis, C. 1984a. The acute toxicity of Dowco 433 acid to rainbow trout: LSR/Aquatox Schedule

No. AFT/84/008. Unpublished study prepared by Aquatox Limited. 19 pages. MRID No. 40244518. in BLM. Fluroxypyr ecological risk assessment: Final. 2014.

Wood, T.M. 2001. Herbicide use in the management of roadside vegetation, western Oregon, 1999-

2000: Effects on the water quality of nearby streams. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4065. Portland, Oregon. http://or.water.usgs.gov/pubs_dir/Pdf/01-4065.pdf.

Woodburn, K. 1987. Clopyralid – The hydrolysis of clopyralid in sterile, buffered water: lab

project number: LEH060893. (Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco). MRID No. 41971101. in SERA. Clopyralid – Human health and ecological risk assessment – Final report. 2004.

Woodward, D.F. 1982. Acute toxicity of mixtures of range management herbicides to cutthroat

trout. Journal of Range Management. 35(4):539-540.

118

Wright, D.G., and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or near Canadian Fisheries Waters. Canadian Tech. Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2107.

Zabel, R.W., M.D. Scheuerell, M.M. McClure, and J.G. Williams. 2006. The interplay

between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology 20:190-200.

record of decision in accordance with federal civil rights law and u.s. department of agriculture...

Documents