Land, Water and Wildlife Program

Transcription

1 Land, Water and Wildlife Program Deer Creek Watershed Restoration Project on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service Idaho Conservation League with partner U.S. Forest Service Full Application Report to LAB In preparation for November 18, 2015 LAB hearing To: Levy Advisory Board (LAB) From: Clare Swanger, Program Coordinator Cc: Tom Bergin, Director Land Use & Building Services Date: November 9, 2015 Table of Contents: I. Project Summary. Begins on Page 1. II. Guide. Page 2. III. The Project. Page 2. IV. Expected Conservation Benefits and Other Outcomes. Page 5. V. Conservation Values and Public Benefits relative to LWWP Program Guidelines and Project Evaluation Criteria. Page 5. VI. Applicant and partner evaluations. Page 7. VII. Budget and Finances relative to LWWP funded projects. Page 8. VIII. Input from Blaine County Land Use Dept. Page 8. IX. Input from Outside Legal Counsel. Page 8. X. Questions for, and responses from, applicant. Page 9. XI. Supplemental Materials. Page 13. I. PROJECT SUMMARY The Idaho Conservation League (ICL), in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Forest Foundation (NFF) request $496,300 or 34.3% of the total cost of the $1,446,600 Deer Creek Watershed Restoration Project. The LWWP funds would be used for: 1) Deer Creek Stream, Riparian and Floodplain Restoration ($391,000) 2) Restoration of 1,535 acres of upland vegetation and white bark pine ($105,300) $705,300 has already been secured from USFS, NFF, the 5B Restoration Coalition (5BRC) and ID Dept of Parks & Recreation, leaving $245,000 other funds needed to complete the project if Blaine County provides funds as requested. The non-lwwp parts of the total project include moving trails out of riparian corridors, trailhead relocation and development, weed control, stream and erosion control, road stabilization, and funds for engineering, planning, design and, where needed, NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis. See the Project Budget on page 21 of the Application Form. Some components are complete or ongoing; others are underway; and some, like the activities associated with this application, are scheduled to begin summer

2 The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) discussed and determined on July 21, 2015 that they would consider an application for a project on publicly owned lands. On June 1, 2015, the BCC sent a letter to Kit Mullen, the Forest Supervisor for the Sawtooth National Forest, expressing support for post-beaver Creek Fire recovery, restoration and future resiliency building in which they mention the Deer Creek drainage and the pre-application for this project among other things. ICL included this letter with their application. II. GUIDE The required application materials are in your paper packets and sent via Dropbox: o Application Forms: Deer Creek Watershed Restoration LWWP application, Project Evaluation Checklist, ICL Partner Evaluation Form, Supplement to partner evaluation form o Letters of Support: U.S. Forest Service letter to LAB; National Forest Foundation (NFF) letter to BCC, LAB and staff; Letter to Forest Supervisor from BCC o Maps and Design: Deer Creek locator, Project Map, Conceptual road alignment 2, Conceptual road re-alignment, N. Fork conceptual trailhead and parking o Photographs: Aerial image, six photos, Field Trip photos from June 2015 Also via Dropbox are: Supplemental materials such as USFS reports and research articles. See Section X at the end of this report for a list. In the application form, Sawtooth National Forest Plan is the same as Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Assessment is the same as USFS Environmental Analysis for Deer Creek Watershed. The acronym for Environmental Assessments is EA. Everything in quotation marks comes from the Full Application unless otherwise noted. III. THE PROJECT Background The publically owned, USFS-managed Deer Creek lands that are the subject of this application are part of the Sawtooth National Forest (SNF). The Sawtooth National Forest Plan ( Plan ), completed in 2012, defines forest-wide goals and guides the management of, and activities on, the SNF lands using established directives, standards and guidelines. It will be in place for some time. The Wildlife Conservation Strategy Amendment to the Plan identified the Deer Creek Watershed as a forest-wide priority for wildlife habitat restoration. Goals and needs for the watershed that will guide management activities are listed in the Application Form, Section 2.C., page 4. 2

3 The SNF developed an integrated watershed restoration project intended to improve forest health, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, reduce the potential for uncharacteristic fire behavior near private lands and communities, and provide sustainable recreation opportunities in the Deer Creek area. An environmental assessment (EA) was completed and a decision notice was authorized on July 15, The project was called the Deer Creek Watershed Project (DCWP). Issue and Proposed Solution Three weeks after the EA decision notice, the Beaver Creek fire burned 69% of the Deer Creek drainage. Severe rains in September 2013 caused flooding and triggered major debris flows in the burned area that resulted in major releases into the Deer Creek floodplain and damming of the natural river channel, which forced water flows on to the roadway and caused damage to the current roadway, bridge system, and recreational trails. Some of the road washed out. According to the application, The fire highlighted additional restoration measures that could help to maintain a more resilient natural system in the face of future change and offer watershed wide benefits to the system for the long term. This proposal is intended to help supplement restoration funding thus enabling the Forest Service to implement a more comprehensive restoration strategy in Deer Creek. Its purpose is to supplement and improve the lasting conservation benefits and resiliency within the Deer Creek watershed, specifically to improve riparian habitat, fish passage and water quality, and enhance native vegetation Restoration measures for which LWWP funding is requested are: 1. Deer Creek Stream, Riparian and Floodplain Restoration: Includes re-locating a section of the existing road out of the riparian zone and onto the adjacent hillside, removing the existing bridge, obliterating and restoring that section back to the original floodplain grade, re-establishing the stream channel and fisheries habitat and restoring the natural vegetation. [$391,000 request to LWWP] 2. Restoration of upland vegetation and whitebark pine habitat (1,535 acres): Includes native grass and forb seeing, sagebrush seedling planting, whitebark pine planting and treatment, and invasive species treatments. [$105,300 request to LWWP] 1. Deer Creek Stream, Riparian and Floodplain Restoration: The USFS has long wanted to move the road away from Deer Creek and out of the riparian area for ecological and management reasons. This goal was identified in the EA but not pursued due to lack of funding potential. Because post-fire flooding and debris flows took out some of the road, it must be re-built somewhere, thus creating an opportunity to re-locate it out of the riparian area. The LWWP offers the possibility of funding. Re-locating the road would allow the USFS to restore the creek area to a better functioning stream and riparian area. ICL staff says that the 5B Restoration Coalition discussed the road issue at length and encouraged the USFS to seek the best systemwide solution, i.e., this approach. The application describes, in the context of the entire $1.4 million project, the LWWP funding request as supplemental restoration in relation to activities being funded by non-lwwp sources. However, the restoration along Deer Creek, i.e., this request, cannot occur without re-locating the road which requires unusually difficult-to-raise funds, thus making LWWP pivotal. 3

4 2. Restoration of upland vegetation and whitebark pine habitat: The whitebark pine restoration work was also identified in the EA for the DCWP. The USFS planned selective thinning and prescribed burning (called treatments ). However, the area burned in the fire and whitebark pine trees were lost. Whitebark pine live at high altitude/colder temperatures in the west; provide an important food component for birds and small mammals; and help hold snow. Whitebark pine is a keystone species because it supports community diversity. Relative to other pine species, it takes more years to get to cone-bearing phase. The species has been declining due to climate change, blister rust and pine beetle and in 2011 became a priority candidate species for ESA (Endangered Species Act) listing. Whitebark pine have significant characteristics that bode well for restoration investment, a key one being that Clark s nutcracker birds disperse the seeds great distances. The stands in Deer Creek are at high elevation, have low rust, and are in relatively good shape making this a good opportunity. The supplemental article, Climate Change and Whitebark Pine: Compelling reasons for restoration, with the filename Whitebark pine Keane et al 2013, provides multifaceted discussion. I encourage reading at least the Abstract. While one might think that ESA-candidate status would generate more funding for restoration, the applicants say competition for funding is very tough. Accordingly, the applicants included this work in this project. The USFS has collected monitoring data for two years since the fire, creating a post-fire baseline with which to compare, over time, the outcomes of restoration work. Additional Information The USFS recently completed a mine and mill site reclamation project for the Wood River Zinc and Mill site, located just downstream from the area proposed for restoration work under this project. Other mining claims exist in the area, with no current activity. Timing The work that LWWP would fund would begin during the summer of 2016 and continue into The applicants say it would be helpful to receive final approval from the County no later than the spring of Applicant/Partner roles Also see Section VI. PARTNER EVALUATION ICL will continue to lead and coordinate the LWWP application process and communications. They will also continue to help with the project s development; review and analyze NEPA documentation; coordination among the partners; and communicate with the 5B Restoration Coalition. ICL has experience with watershed-scale projects. The USFS will implement, monitor and report about the project. The Ketchum Ranger District has extensive professional experience and interdisciplinary teams that regularly develop and carry projects of this scale. 4

5 The National Forest Foundation has offered to serve as fiscal manager, including providing oversight of project work and implementation (ICL does not want to do these things). Like the other organizations in this project, NFF has extensive relevant expertise and experience. IV. EXPECTED CONSERVATION BENEFITS AND OTHER OUTCOMES The Deer Creek Stream, Riparian and Floodplain Restoration is expected to: Restore naturally functioning floodplain in Deer Creek including the stream channel and fish habitat Reduce sediment release and erosion Improve riparian habitat and vegetation Improve water quality Remove the necessity for further roadwork in the riparian area, since the road will be out of the riparian area. The Restoration of upland vegetation and whitebark pine habitat is expected to: Increase whitebark tree numbers and expand tree population dispersion Help this ESA candidate species Improve forest health and species diversity Enhance wildlife habitat Increase ecological resiliency Other benefits include: Restore an area that is highly valued by the community for its multiple motorized and non-motorized uses, connectivity with adjoining lands and trail systems, proximity to Hailey, and other reasons Increase for the LWWP, the diversity of project locations, project types, and partners Complete the first LWWP project north of Hailey Provide opportunity for the USFS to evaluate pre- and post-fire conditions and the effects of these restoration activities over time which is likely to be applicable to other areas Complete a project in the #1 priority area of the 5B Restoration Coalition Create the possibility for citizen involvement in monitoring V. CONSERVATION VALUES AND PUBLIC BENEFITS RELATIVE TO LWWP PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA In addition to considering the project as a whole, are there characteristics or quantitative factors the stand out as particularly strong reasons to recommend this project for funding or as potential show-stopping problems or risks and if so, what are they? Six Minimum Criteria: To meet the basic threshold for LWWP funding, the project must meet the following criteria at the Full Application stage: 1. Blaine County location? Yes 2. Serves 1+ primary Levy goals of protecting land, water or wildlife? Yes 5

6 3. Landowner committed lands for the project? Yes. 4. Qualified entity willing to take responsibility for completion, maintenance and enforcement of the project? BCC/LAB to assess. In my view ICL, USFS and NFF have the necessary experience and track record to succeed at this project. 5. Matching funds being sought? Yes. Most secured, others in process. 6. Lasting conservation value sought? Yes. - LAB/BCC to assess risks to the project s success. - How do the applicant and partners define lasting conservation for this project, and how will they demonstrate that and measure the success and effectiveness of the project? - Monitoring and reporting are critical and to be defined as much as possible prior to a BCC consideration of the project for Conceptual Approval. See Section X. for initial monitoring information and discussion. Blaine County Resolution # Areas of greatest interest include the Big Wood River corridor and its major tributaries [Deer Ck is a major tributary of the BWR] Protecting rivers and streams and their riparian corridors, flood plains and wetlands [The primary purpose of project is riparian restoration] Preserving water quality [Floodplain and riparian restoration would be expected to help water quality downstream including on adjacent private properties] Supporting joint projects between counties and other governmental entities in the County [LWWP worked with the USFS on the post-beaver Creek aerial seeding project. This project provides a second opportunity to partner with them.] Conserving, restoring, maintaining and otherwise providing for proper stewardship of lands and waters as provided herein. [This is a restoration project] Program Guide, pages 5-6, Other Considerations Protect water sources and quality: In keeping with the primary objectives of the Levy, the Program will prioritize projects that protect ground or surface water quality or quantity in Blaine County watersheds. Of particular interest are projects that preserve or restore native riparian vegetation, natural watercourses and buffers [A core aspect of this project is to restore riparian vegetation and a natural watercourse, Deer Creek] Protect habitat for wildlife and fish: The Program aims to support area wildlife by investing Levy funds in projects that conserve a variety of species or are critical to one particular species. Special consideration will be given to sites that contribute most to the survival of area fish and wildlife. [The upland restoration helps conserve a variety of species including the whitebark pine, which is a keystone species and ESA candidate.] The Program will give consideration to projects that provide outdoor recreation and public access 6

7 [This project provides a wide variety of motorized and non-motorized recreation including hunting, hiking, biking, camping, and equestrian on public lands. It serves as a conduit to the larger connected trail system in the Wood River Valley. Its proximity to Hailey makes it easily accessible to a large percent of the Blaine County population.] Project Evaluation Checklist (PEC) Reviewing each section in the PEC shows: A very high number of strong attributes for protecting wildlife and fish habitat, as well as for public access for recreation A high number of strong attributes protecting water resources Rather than include the details of each strong attribute here, please review the PEC yourself. VI. APPLICANT AND PARTNER EVALUATIONS Idaho Conservation League Founded in 1973, ICL self-describes as Idaho s leading voice for conservation. In 2014, operating revenues were $1.9 million, with a small operating loss. Assets exceed $3.3 million. ICL s mission is to protect Idaho's environment. ICL's goal is to create an informed and engaged conservation majority in Idaho. By building a robust conservation community, ICL hopes to influence local, state and federal policies to ensure adequate protections for clean water, clean air, healthy families and Idaho's unique way of life. From the Partner Evaluation Form: The Idaho Conservation League is involved in seven different collaborative efforts across the state of Idaho. We have extensive experience in helping to develop and inform project conceptualization and development for watershed level projects. We also have extensive experience reviewing and analyzing NEPA documentation for similar projects and evaluating for environmental consideration. U.S. Forest Service The Ketchum Ranger District has extensive professional experience and interdisciplinary teams that regularly develop and carry projects of this scale. Many USFS collaborative projects are resource-driven around forest products (e.g., fuels reduction, urban/wildlife interface). Kurt Nelson, Ketchum District Ranger, said the USFS has interest in integrative restoration agency-wide. This project is about ecological resiliency, clean water and recreation, i.e., integrative restoration. USFS projects associated with Deer Creek retain their pre-fire priority within the Forest. To date, USFS has secured $460,300 towards the total $1.4 million project. The LWWP/County and USFS worked together on the post Beaver Creek fire aerial seeding project. That successful project was designed and implemented on a very tight timeframe. Please see the USFS Letter of Support for this project. 7

8 National Forest Foundation The NFF is the nonprofit partner of the USFS, chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1993 (nationalforests.org). According to the web site, the NFF brings people together to restore and enhance our National Forests and Grasslands engages Americans in community-based and national programs that promote the heath and public enjoyment of the 193-million-acre National Forest System, and administers private gifts of funds and land for the benefit of the National Forests. Working with the USFS and partners, the NFF s goal is to leverage our best thinking, conservation capacity, and community action to measurably improve the health of our nation s National Forests and Grasslands. The NFF has committed $80,000 to this project, with the potential for additional funds. Please see their Letter of Support for information about their relevant experience for this project. The NFF is facilitating, helping to fund, and providing expertise in community restoration projects to the 5BRC. VII. BUDGET AND FINANCES RELATIVE TO LWWP FUNDED PROJECTS The applicants request $496,300, or 34.3% of the $1,446,600 project total (see Application Form, p. 21). The $70,000 of indirect and project management costs do not qualify as match for LWWP funding, thereby increasing the LWWP contribution to 36.1%. A line item budget for the components LWWP is being asked to fund has been requested but not yet received. LWWP funding dollars and % for previous projects, in chronological order: Flat Top Sheep Co., conservation easement: $217,500 or 50% Bar B Ranch, conservation easement: $140,000 or 37% Loving Creek Fish Ladder and Bypass Channel: $13,900 or 50% Beaver Creek Fire Aerial Seeding: $48,500 or 65% Molyneux Family Legacy, four conservation easements: $992,190 or 46% This would be the second largest LWWP grant, with potentially the highest % contribution from the applicant and partners, depending on whether all costs included in the $1.4 million total project budget qualify as match for LWWP funds. VIII. INPUT FROM BLAINE COUNTY LAND USE DEPT.: Director Tom Bergin says the department has no input or concerns at this time, and no jurisdiction over activities on federal lands. IX. INPUT FROM OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL: Available at, or prior to, LAB meeting. 8

9 X. QUESTIONS FOR, AND RESPONSES FROM, APPLICANT Project specifics and terminology Q. What do you mean by riparian restoration? A. In Deer Creek drainage, there are localized impairments to riparian zone function due to debris flows, loss of riparian vegetation, roads, and recreational facility infrastructure. In the 2013 Deer Creek Restoration Plan, we identified specific riparian restoration objectives: relocation of several designated dispersed campsites to upland locations, improvements to the existing Day Use area to reduce riparian impacts, and relocation of trail alignments out of the riparian zones. We plan to implement these restoration measures using USFS funding. Following the Beaver Creek Fire, we also identified a need to remove a segment of Deer Creek Road from the riparian zone/floodplain in order to restore floodplain functions. Once the roadway is moved up onto the hillside, there will be several opportunities for riparian and floodplain restoration, including native revegetation, installation of large woody debris to capture and store sediment in the riparian zone, stream channel restoration and floodplain reconnection, and facilitation of passive restoration by beaver. Q. What is required to obliterate and restore that section [of road] back to the original floodplain graded? How do you re-establish the stream channel? From Application Form, Section 3.B. A. Road obliteration is a practice we have used widely across the Forest as well as nationally. Obliteration includes removal of surface and roadbed road materials to take the floodplain back down to natural grade. It also involves erosion control measures such as native revegetation, use of coir logs, jute mats or other natural materials, as needed, to help stabilize the disturbed areas and promote natural recovery. Re- establishment of the stream channel may involve earth- moving, installation of native woody materials, log jam construction, creation of side channels, and other habitat restoration techniques. In some areas, restoration may also be allowed to occur naturally, dependent on the habitat needs, opportunities and findings of our watershed assessment (in progress). Q. Where is the one-mile of fish passage that will be restored? Is it part of or separate from the six miles of stream habitat that will be restored? From Application Form, Section 2.A. A. We already restored one mile of fish passage in 2014 in Wolftone Creek by removing 2 undersized culverts and replacing with trail bridges. We plan to restore an additional mile of stream on North Fork Deer by replacing one culvert that is currently impaired due to post- fire effects and repairing a headcut on a lower section of the stream. Project Risk Factors 9

10 Q. Do you know if the area is stable from future debris flows that might negate work done by this project? If large debris flows were to occur in the future, how might they impact the work of the project and its ecological functionality? A. The applicant says they can address this during the LAB meeting. Q. The USFS says it recently re-initiated a Watershed Conditions Framework Assessment for the subwatersheds impacted by the Beaver Creek Fire: Deer Creek, Greenhorn Creek and Baker Creek. The USFS says it plans to complete the assessment in early 2016 and that one of the products of the re-assessment may be a revised Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) for these subwatersheds. What is the likelihood the results of that assessment would impact this project? A. Pending (question posed to applicant Nov. 9) Q. The application states that baseline data collected for the EA will be useful for this project. Are there parts no longer applicable because of the fire and debris flows, and if so, which parts? (The application does say that for restoration measures not included in the prefire DCWP, e.g., road re-location, additional risk assessments through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process will be required and are anticipated to be completed during the winter of 2015). A. Pending (question posed to applicant Nov. 9) Budget (from Application Form, Budget, p. 21) Q. What is the estimated breakout for the $391,000 line item request to LWWP between: road re-location, obliterating old road, removing bridge, restoring riparian back to floodplain grade, and re-establishing large wood debris and native vegetation? A. The $391,000 will cover road relocation, which is the keystone component of the entire project on which all of the riparian and floodplain restoration hinges. Completion of road relocation will allow us to implement all of the other restoration work and help us leverage other funds (internal USFS funding and outside grants). Q. How does the $391,000 relate to the $100,000 line item that is also labeled Deer Creek Restoration, Riparian and Floodplain Restoration? Is the LWWP funded work contingent on the other $100,000, or vice versa? Must both parts of this be done simultaneously? A. See above. Everything is contingent on the proposed LWWP funded work. Q. What would the $70,000 of Indirect and Project management be used for? What does Leveraged with LWWP dollars through NFF match mean? A. Pending. 10

11 Monitoring and Reporting Q. The LWWP is addressing monitoring and reporting as early as possible and will discuss it prior to any BCC consideration of the Full Application. Accordingly, regarding aquatic monitoring what is involved, who does it, what kind of report, etc.? We have already completed annual monitoring of fish populations since the fire, and will continue to do so using our standard Management Indicator Species protocol. We are also monitoring stream habitat conditions using a modified R1R4 USFS protocol. IDEQ monitors water quality parameters on a 5- year timeline. USFS also monitors stream conditions at several sites in the drainage to look at long- term habitat trends. Q. Same question as above but for upland restoration monitoring. Upland restoration monitoring will begin with baseline permanent plots and photo points of the restoration area the first year. Monitoring will occur the following 3 years and then every 5 years. The number of plots and photo points will depend on the acreage of restoration. Permanent plots will be established within restoration and outside of restoration treatment units in comparable ecological characteristics sites. Plots have a center point permanently marked with a stake. Plots consisted of three 50-m transects radiating from a central point at 360, 240, 120. Three photographs are taken at each transect, one from the transect beginning, mid-point, and one surface photograph at a random location along each transect. A meter squared (m2) quadrat, is placed at 5 meter intervals along each transect (1-45 m) to record the frequency of seeded species, noxious and invasive species, ocular cover estimates of all species (using the 6 Daubenmire cover class ratings), and ground cover (observed at the 4 corners of m2). At each plot information on plot location and ecological characteristics (GPS coordinates, slope, aspect, topographic position), soils (rocky, sandy), erosion occurrence, qualitative observations on seeded species performance, species dominance, diversity, occurrence of invasive species (cheatgrass), and vegetation recovery is recorded. Data for each parameter is first averaged over the three transects to derive a plot estimate. Plot estimates are then averaged together to derive values for the entire treatment unit or nontreatment unit. Permanent photo points will be established at representative sights to track restoration progress. The USFS will establish the plots. If a small group of students or interested public are interested in helping the USFS could provide some training on the non-technical aspects of the monitoring such as photo point monitoring. Q. What does Noxious week monitoring is implemented through the program of work and would be done twice a growing season during the Deer Creek watershed mean? What program of work are you referring to? Program of work is FS jargon for the standard tasks that the weed crew does. The Program Manager Robert Garcia identifies the program of work at the beginning of 11

12 the season with his crew. This includes areas that are targeted for treatment with known infestations of noxious weeds, and monitoring areas such as recently disturbed areas like the fire. Other Q. The application says that the Project Area is ~32,500 acres. It also says that 69% of the Deer Creek drainage burned. How are you defining Deer Creek drainage and do you have a rough idea of acres? A. Should be in the BAER report. One of us can look that up for you. Q. What is the status of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Prioritization of subwatersheds in the forest? The ACS is a long- term strategy to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within lands administered by the Ecogroup Forests. The ACS Prioritization was completed as part of the Forest Planning Process and included in the 2012 Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Update. 12

13 XI. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS. Sent to your Dropbox, or link provided here. Link to the Sawtooth National Forest Plan 2012 Amended: The section on Management Area 4 that includes the Big Wood River is in Dropbox. Link to the Wildlife Conservation Strategy Amendment (2012) to the Sawtooth National Forest Plan: Environmental Assessment (EA) Deer Creek Final July The document that authorized the pre-beaver Creek Fire Deer Creek Restoration Project (which was not implemented due to the fire). Includes baseline data relevant to this project. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Wood River Mine and Mill Preliminary Assessment, submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Feb pages. This report assessed the Wood River Zinc Millsite that is located on Deer Creek west of War Dance Creek. The application states that a remediation plan has been completely recently. LWD Dolloff Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams. 16 page article plus Table of Contents for book in which article is included. LWD Whiteway et al Do In-Stream Restoration Structures Enhance Salmonid Abundance? A Meta-Analysis. 10 pages. Road Obliteration, Lloyd, R.A. et al, Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. 6 pages. Stream Restoration FISRWG, 1998, Rev Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices. Comprehensive. 483 pages + 64 pages appendices. Upland Restoration, Bekedam S Establishment Tolerance of Six Native Sagebrush Steppe Species to Imazapic (PLATEAU ) Herbicide; Implications for Restoration and Recovery. 58 pages + references and appendices. Upland Restoration, Butler et al, Restoring Central Oregon Range from Ventenata and Medusahead to a Sustainable Bunchgrass Environment Warm Springs and Ashwood, pages. Upland Restoration, USFS Field Guide for Managing Cheatgrass in the Southwest. 7 pages. Whitebark pine Keane et al Climate Change and Whitebark Pine: Compelling reasons for restoration. 12 pages. Deer Creek Watershed Project BABE Report Final 5_29_2013. Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation of potential risks to ESA-listed and candidate species as well as Region 4 Sensitive Species. 128 pages. 13