Eugene Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Eugene Record of Decision

Eugene District Resource Management Plan Table of Contents:

- Tables

- Maps

- Appendices

Rights-of-Way


Objectives

Continue to make BLM administered lands available for needed rights-of-way where consistent with local comprehensive plans, Oregon Statewide planning goals and rules, and the exclusion and avoidance areas identified in this RMP.

Ensure that all rights-of-way for hydroelectric development are consistent with the Northwest Power Planning Council guidance, which recommends prohibiting future hydroelectric development on certain rivers and streams with significant fisheries and wildlife values.

Land Use Allocations

Allocation of lands to existing rights-of-way will continue.

Rights-of-Way Corridors - The following areas are designated as right-of-way corridors (areas identified as the preferred locations for future right-of-way grants):

  • Utility/transportation routes for electric transmission lines and pipelines 10 inches in diameter or larger as shown on Map 11

  • Existing and potential communication sites as shown on Map 11

  • Existing railroads

  • Existing Federal, State, and Interstate highways

Nominal corridor width is 1,000 feet on each side of the centerline of the existing facilities unless constrained by exclusion areas.

Exclusion Areas - Subject to valid existing rights and with the exception of buried lines in rights-of-way of existing roads, exclude rights-of way in the following areas:

Exclusion Area   Acres
Research Natural Areas   1,367
Wild Rivers (suitable
and designated)
  0
VRM Class I Areas   0

Avoidance Areas - With the exception of buried lines in rights-of-way of existing roads, avoid locating rights-of-way in the following areas:

Avoidance Area   Acres
Recreation Sites
(existing and proposed)
  1,220
Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (except RNAs)
  1,410
Scenic and Recreational Rivers
(suitable and designated)
  6,735
Sensitive Species Habitat (plants)   1,044
Visual Resource Management
Class II Areas
  4,471
Late-Successional Reserves   136,211

Future rights-of-way may be granted in avoidance areas when no feasible alternative route or designated right-of-way corridor is available (subject to NEPA review). Acreages shown above include overlaps.

Management Actions/Direction for Riparian Reserves

Issue rights-of-way to avoid adverse effects that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Where legally possible, adjust existing rights-of-way to eliminate adverse effects that retard or prevent the attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. If adjustments are not effective and where legally possible, eliminate the activity. Priority for modifying existing rights-of-way will be based on the actual or potential impact and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected.

For proposed hydroelectric projects under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission), provide timely, written comments regarding maintenance of in stream flows and habitat conditions and maintenance/restoration of riparian resources and stream channel integrity. Request the Commission to locate proposed support facilities outside of Riparian Reserves. For existing support facilities inside Riparian Reserves that are essential to proper management, provide recommendations to the Commission that ensure Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are met. Where these objectives cannot be met, provide recommendations to the Commission that such support facilities should be relocated. Existing support facilities that must be located in the Riparian Reserves should be located, operated, and maintained with an emphasis to eliminate adverse effects that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

For other hydroelectric and surface water development proposals in Tier One Key Watersheds, require in stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore riparian resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage. Coordinate this process with the appropriate State agencies. For other hydroelectric and surface water development proposals in all other watersheds, give priority emphasis to in stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore riparian resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage. Coordinate this process with the appropriate State agencies.

Management Actions/Direction for Late-Successional Reserves

Retain and maintain existing developments, such as utility corridors and electronic sites, consistent with other management actions/direction for Late-Successional Reserves.

Neither construct nor authorize new facilities that may adversely affect Late-Successional Reserves.

Review on a case-by-case basis new development proposals. They may be approved when adverse effects can be minimized and mitigated.

Locate new developments to avoid degradation of habitat and adverse effects on identified late-successional species.

Remove hazard trees along utility rights-of-way and in other developed areas.

Management Actions/Direction for Other Land Use Allocations

Encourage location of major new right-of-way projects in existing utility/transportation routes and other previously designated corridors.

Encourage applicants to consult the Western Regional Corridor Study in planning route locations.

Consider new locations for rights-of-way projects on a case-by-case basis. Applications may be approved where the applicant can demonstrate that use of an existing route or corridor would not be technically or economically feasible; and the proposed project would otherwise be consistent with this RMP and would minimize damage to the environment.

Allow expansion of communications facilities on existing communication sites. All communication sites with approved communication site management plans would be managed according to the provisions of the plans.

Consider new communication sites on a case-by-case basis. Applications may be approved where the applicant can demonstrate that use of an existing, developed communication site would not be technically feasible; and the proposed facility would otherwise be consistent with this RMP and would minimize damage to the environment.