# Legacy Program 2003

# Appendix C -- Site-specific Reports

## Rio Puerco Watershed Structures (Author: Duane Tabb) pages C2-C8

## San Simon Watershed Structures (Author: Mel Shilling) pages C9-C13

## Klamath Falls and Lakeview (Author: Bill Torgersen) pages C14-C17

## Lakeview (Author: George Lea) pages C18-C25

## Willow Creek Watershed Structures (Authors: Ed Spang, pages C26-C28; Jack Millar, pages C29-C30; Lowell Brown, pages C31-C32)

## Indian Creek, Blue Mesa, and High Mesa (Dave Wickstrom and Bob Carruthers) pages C33-C36

# BLM Legacy Program Report

## The Upper Rio Puerco Portion of the Rio Puerco Project

Prepared by Duane Tabb

(Following a field visit with personnel from the Albuquerque Field
Office)

Duane was the only Legacy Representative who arrived on site to
participate in the field review of the Rio Puerco Project but because of
his somewhat unique background we decided to proceed anyway. While we
are disappointed others didn't make it as planned, it provided the
opportunity to approach this report in a different manner. With the
agreement of the group Duane is going to address things in a more
generalized manner and focus on different aspects of the legacy program
and how it might be more effectively utilized throughout the Bureau. The
report from hereon will also be written mostly in the first person so
the correct individual can be held accountable for the content. Then if
necessary his pay can be cut as an appropriate punishment.

Duane visited a number of projects on the ground accompanied by Tom Gow,
Assistant Field Manager, and Jerry Wall, Soil Scientist, from the
Albuquerque Field Office. Also joining the tour were Bruce Van Haveren,
Regional Science Coordinator, and Norm Duquette, Program Analyst -
Knowledge Management, both from the National Science and Technology
Center in Denver.

**[Origin and History of the Project and Background]{.underline}**

The Rio Puerco Project was one of several special project areas
identified in the early 1960's to benefit from special earmarked
funding. These areas were identified based on the fragile nature of the
soils, the amount of erosion taking place, the downstream silt load
contributed from the area, the sparse vegetative cover, and the
potential for at least partial recovery.

As taken from the *Rio Puerco Special Project Evaluation Report* issued
in 1972, the Rio Puerco Special Project began in the fall of 1962 at
which time the project was allocated \$525,000 to be spent on S&M
projects by the end of the fiscal year. (Note: S&M referred to Soil and
Moisture, later changed to Soil and Water, then later to Soil and
Watershed, referring to the Bureau's budget structure). In the first 5
years of the project, emphasis was placed almost entirely on watershed
stabilization practices (i.e., retention and detention dams, small
erosion control structures, and land treatment). In the process of
developing these improvements, a number of wells were drilled to supply
construction water; protection fences for land treatment projects were
constructed; and earthen structures which provided the dual purpose of
watershed control and supply of livestock were also constructed.

In 1968, the emphasis began to shift to grazing management through
Allotment Management Plans. The first AMP was completed in Albuquerque
in June 1968. By fiscal year 1971, the change in emphasis had been
completed and most of that year's project money went directly to
improvements necessary to implement AMP's.

Elevation and Climate: The elevation of the project area is between
6,000-10,000 feet. The climate is semi-arid; the annual precipitation
averages approximately 10 inches. Sixty percent of this precipitation
occurs between June and September -- usually in one to five localized
"cloudburst". The growing season is approximately 150 days.

Massive Soil Erosion: The Rio Puerco watershed is afflicted with one of
the most spectacular soil erosion conditions in the United States. The
watershed is one of the major tributaries of the Rio Grande, embracing
approximately a third of the drainage that lies in New Mexico above the
Elephant Butte Reservoir which supplies irrigation water to the Elephant
Butte Irrigation District. The Rio Puerco drainage supplies
one-sixteenth of the waters of the Rio Grande, yet it is the source of
over half (56%) of the sediment that obstructs the main Rio Grande
channel. Many earth canyons of the Rio Puerco have occurred during the
past 100 years. Drainages frequently are trenched to the divide and much
of the range land has eroded away. More than 500,000 acre feet of soil
have been scooped out of the valley fills, and scalped from the top
soils of surrounding uplands to create havoc locally and downstream.

Original Project Objectives:

-   To arrest accelerated erosion currently resulting in spectacular
    losses of soil.

-   To stop gully erosion for the protection of remaining valleys in the
    area.

-   To restore the production of forage for livestock and wildlife.

-   To confine the movement of sediment to the upper watershed to
    prevent further downstream losses.

-   To provide access and facilities necessary to enable full use of
    timber, recreation, and other resources of the area.

The project was originally intended to include the development of all
surface resources on the area. Range improvement projects were to serve
both livestock and wildlife whenever possible.

**[Listing of Projects Completed as of 1972]{.underline}**

While not complete, the following listing provides a general idea of the
magnitude of the Rio Puerco Project.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Practice                Units                   Units Accomplished

  Brush Control           Acres                   166,844

  Fencing                 Miles                   336

  Seeding                 Acres                   34,300

  Water Developments      Number                  151

  Other Water             Number                  52
  Developments                                    
  (Structures)                                    

  Soil Stabilization      Acres                   8,600

  Wildlife Food and       Miles                   736
  Habitat                                         

  Wildlife Protection     Miles                   13.5
  (modified fence)                                

  Road Construction       Miles                   40

  Livestock Trails        Miles                   7.5

  Plus other misc.                                
  projects                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

> Note: this ends the reference to the Evaluation Report.

**[Memories of the Program over the years]{.underline}**

After 1962 funding was earmarked for The Rio Puerco Project in annual
increments of plus or minus \$1,000,000 until the early 1970's when
funding began to fall off.

One of my memories of the program was that money was coming in faster
than the District could effectively spend it. This meant future current
planning got slighted and time for future planning including the
planning for maintenance was non-existent. I remember the passion the
staff members had for the project and the pride they felt in what they
were doing. (Note: Much of that passion remains in current employees but
the wherewithal to carry out this passion doesn't exist.) I remember the
consistency with which staff members utilized photo points and the care
with which they went about documenting the progress of each project.
Another memory from the late 1980's and early 1990's is the profound
effect the lack of maintenance was having on the Project. Many projects
had met or exceeded their life cycle and there were no plans or funds to
take care of these projects now crying for attention. In addition the
district no longer had the time or the passion to attend to these needs
except on a much abbreviated basis. Maintenance has always been a
headache with this project. Maintenance was never designed into the
individual projects; preventive maintenance just wasn't done, with the
exception of roads, and the documentation of the project records as to
both maintenance needs and maintenance accomplishments grew worse with
time. This is not meant as a criticism of the District (Field Office)
personnel, but simply a statement of fact at the time. The District
culture was rapidly evolving into a completely different way of thinking
and was becoming much more political oriented. Also the Bureau Planning
System greatly impacted the workload of the District in that time
available for project work just was not available, while maintenance was
getting only sporadic attention at best. The District no longer had the
use of the old Soil Conservation District equipment fleet and had very
little left of its own force account capability. All these changes put
the Project in a deep hole in terms of monitoring, project maintenance,
planning for future needs, and overall project management. I remember
when the Project Area was the best signed area in the BLM, in part
because the District had its own sign shop. Now signs are a rarity, in
large part due to vandalism.

I remember doing Technical Procedures Reviews in the 1990's where it was
evident, maintenance was neglected, project files were neglected, often
project files could not be found, institutional memory was in short
supply as to the Rio Puerco Project, and District personnel had no time
to even get to the field on a regular basis. I remember the trauma of
the 1980's when no money was available to maintain dams that were in sad
condition and in many cases construction plans for the necessary
maintenance were ready to go but unfunded. Brush was growing on the dams
slopes and piping around the outlet structures was becoming a real
concern, many dams had reached their design life as related to silt
carrying capacity, and emergency spillways were beginning to experience
serious head-cutting.

I remember many brush eradication and seeding projects done in concert
with various types of dams and other control structures that were
showcases for success during the late 1960's and early 1970's. I
remember the slow loss of expertise in dam building and maintenance. I
remember reorganization efforts that caused serious damage to the
project record keeping system. In the 1960's project records were
maintained by a Records Clerk who took great pride in these records and
guarded them like an old mother hen guarding her chicks. Nowadays
records, if kept at all are incomplete and scattered around the office
rather than in a central location, poorly maintained, and virtually
useless in tracking maintenance needs and accomplishments.

**Special Note: I apologize for any hurt feelings my harsh words may
cause. But please nobody needs to take any of this personally, from any
generation of employees. The fault lies with the system and the
organization not with individual employees. Also, I would add, this
criticism will apply to virtually all offices of the current BLM.**

Let's get back a more pleasant note. Post-project management was well
planned and utilized through-out most of the 60's and 70's. These
practices ran the gamut from various types of grazing systems, follow-up
treatment, new projects, and major maintenance. The lacking elements
were preventive maintenance and persnickety record keeping.

I remember when the vast majority of BLM professional employees and
managers grew up in the West on farms or ranches. They had in effect
"grew up" with BLM and had a keen interest in what the BLM "did for a
living." These employees could hit the ground running when they came
aboard and supported each other as they grew in their knowledge and
responsibilities. Today the demographics look much different and new
employees have much to learn about the BLM and its culture before they
can become effective employees.

Finally, I remember the early 1960's when all new employees were placed
in a six month training program where each became acquainted with the
various function of the BLM, had a chance to work with each function for
two weeks and actually do field work for hands on experience. At the end
of the six month period these new folks attended a week long orientation
where program leaders and the top level of the management structure
presented topics of interest, explained the political realities under
which we would have to work, explained the organizational structure, the
budgeting system, the planning system as it existed then, and the
progression of laws, regulations, BLM procedures, and other items of
interest at the time. This program was begun when the BLM was required
to do a major recruitment of engineers, range, and forestry
professional. The program produced an entire generation of top managers
for the BLM. At one time most of the State Directors, District Managers,
SO Division Chiefs, WO staff chiefs, and Assistant and Deputy Directors
were products of this program. As a consequence we had managers who
understood all facets of the BLM, knew the right people to get things
accomplished, and recognized the need for coordinating all actions to
avoid having one action impact negatively on an other facet of BLM
responsibility. Further these folks were powerful persuaders of
politicians because they possessed the knowledge to speak with
authority. In addition they loved working for the BLM. (This is not
meant, by the way, to suggest employees today don't love their work
also.)

**[Field Trip]{.underline}**

-   Project types visited:

The Field Trip started on the San Luis Road where we visited pipelines,
reservoirs, detention dams, wildlife projects, a couple of the old
Cornfield Wash Study dam structures which were used to improve siltation
and hydrology estimates for the watershed. The results of these studies
(named the "Kennon Reports") were very useful in the design of water
development and control structures.

We were shown structures where rehab work is planned to include gabion
drop structures placed in the embankment where breaching has already
occurred. We also passed several relatively recent brush removal and
seeding projects that were small scale compared to projects of the past.

While in the Chijuilla sub-watershed the group visited more vegetative
removal and thinning projects, observed road erosion problems caused by
oil companies and others installing unauthorized roads and culvert
pipes. We observed a dam exhibiting piping around the outlet structure
and causing the road below to be somewhat boggy during wet times. We
observed a large number of diversion, check, and spreader dikes and dams
in this watershed that have been exceptionally effective and only after
an oil company built a road through the area did it begin to experience
problems.

-   Observations and Conclusions:

Old brush and pinon-juniper eradication and seeding projects are
difficult to delineate visually as they in many cases have been
reinvaded with the native brush. However, compared to the less than 10
percent ground cover of the 1960's the landscape looks in much better
shape in spite of the current drought conditions. Ground cover is much
greater than 10 percent throughout the area that we visited. I was
pleasantly surprised to see little change in many structures that had
met their design lives years ago. The silted full catch basins had
re-vegetated and additional spillway damage to these silted full
structures was moderate, at least in the structures we visited. On the
down side the dam slopes were infested with brush and other vegetative
growth which will eventually lead to severe piping and loss of the
structure. But, on the other hand, I believe the slowing down of
spillway damage is due in large part to the fact the flash floods
hitting the basin are being subjected to a much shallower and vegetated
slope, allowed to spread out, and are meeting the dam and emergency
spillway with most of the energy effectively dissipated. It is indeed a
shame and perhaps a crime that BLM has been forced, through severe lack
of funding and political ineptitude, to neglect this area of highly
concentrated watershed protection projects needing attention. It has
always been a concern of mine to observe large amounts of planning,
time, energy, funding, and expertise go into the development of an area
only to see it lose its emphasis for whatever reason and go to seed, so
to speak. This is very poor stewardship of the taxpayer's money and the
Bureau's scarce people resources.

I have a theory as to why many brush thinning or eradication and seeding
projects appear more successful in this area than they do in the more
Northern areas of the BLM. I believe it may be due to the severe lack of
annual precipitation preventing the native brush from re-invading the
grassed in areas. As long as the grass remains healthy the brush can be
held at bay. This is not true in areas where the rainfall exceeds 10 or
so inches annually.

I believe it can be said with confidence that the implementation of the
Rio Puerco Project did significantly reduce the silt load in the Rio
Grande River arising from the Rio Puerco drainage area. Whether it was
worth the expenditure of expertise and money could probably be debated
at length and the conclusions would always be disputed by others.
However, what's done is done and we are left with a need to perform
reasonable maintenance on existing projects. We also have the knowledge
that similar major special projects should be approached with great
caution absent a guarantee of future maintenance funding. This of course
is impossible in a political environment in which the BLM operates.

I observed BLM roads that appeared to have less use than they did a
decade ago, probably due to less oil and gas exploration activity, that
exhibited a lower level of maintenance than a decade ago, and yet in
mast cases were in a more passable condition. In other words preventive
maintenance is lacking but corrective maintenance is being accomplished
as necessary.

Apparently some progress has been made in turning roads that are really
through public roads over to the appropriate county.

I observed the very interesting about face along State Highway 550 by
the Department of Transportation. Many years ago they decided to
re-channel the Rio Puerco River by cutting a straight through channel
across the meanders of the River. This would enable them to build the
new Highway parallel to the River without a series of major bridges and
would save a few bucks. The resulting channel reduced the length of flow
thereby increasing the gradient of the channel and increasing the water
velocity which created serious erosion which began to encroach on the
highway. The project now partially completed has a brand new and
improved highway complete with appropriate bridging across the meanders
of the River. The BLM is now about to begin construction work as its
share of the project, to allow the River to reclaim its previous
meanders.

**[Recommendations to the Field Manager]{.underline}**

Many ideas were tossed around by the group. The Field Office folks
offered their ideas for reflection by this grizzled old fossil and I
offered my own ideas as modified by the expertise of the other
participants and my past experiences and travels throughout the various
BLM offices. The result was not earthshaking. Obviously current
employees have a pretty good handle on what must be done. It is how to
do these projects without funds and personnel that makes things
difficult. We talked about solutions currently funded and in the
contract preparation stage as well as a few projects where remedial
action had already been taken. We discussed project proposals as to
appropriateness and I offered the view the plans were indeed appropriate
and reasonably well thought out.

I offer the following specific recommendations:

-   Make a serious effort at reconstituting your project files,
    beginning with major projects in the Rio Puerco Project area. Put in
    place a system to manage the files and file them in a central
    location for reference by the entire staff. Perhaps the use of the
    dummy files that are still likely loosely maintained in Engineering
    Teams offices could be used to help beef up other existing
    incomplete files. In some cases contract files may have to be
    recalled from the records center to obtain necessary information.
    Perhaps this project could be accomplished by a small group of
    retired BLM volunteers or even by contract with a group of these
    same folks. By paying for the services you might get a better
    product, but I would imagine it will all depend on the interest in
    such a project by the retirees.

-   Give some serious thought as to how you can better educate the
    politically oriented managers the Bureau now has on staff throughout
    the organization. Could a well documented briefing be produced and
    perhaps presented by retirees who are resident at locations not
    convenient to Albuquerque, i.e., the WO?

-   Make a serious effort to involve local retirees, slowly at first,
    but with the idea being to increase the involvement as and if
    interest in generated.

-   I may be going out on a limb here, so what else in new? Can more
    pressure be applied to our grazing permittees to ensure better
    performance in the maintenance of fences and water systems?

-   I strongly recommend the major project underway in concert with the
    New Mexico Department of Transportation as mentioned previously be
    documented very closely so that results can be shared with others
    who at some time in the future feel the need to try to meddle with
    Mother Nature's plans without her permission. Critically needed if
    not already available is a series of photographs taken from
    established photo stations do document the process that will take
    place as a result of the construction. This information will be
    invaluable in the event the project results are less than desired
    and will be useful for others to review before undertaking similar
    projects. Again, are there retired BLM'ers in the area who might
    like to take on such a project?

**[Issues]{.underline}**

I am going to offer for consideration a few issues that may just as well
be applied to most of the BLM. They are:

-   BLM must somehow insure that operation and maintenance funding is
    built into the project planning process and that this funding is
    held sacred. Failing to do so, I believe, should preclude further
    project development. The maintenance load is simply overwhelming now
    and future development will simply compound the problem.

-   The current big push for outsourcing is going to make the bad
    situation of loss of expertise and institutional knowledge worse by
    expecting outside contractors to perform work we have no capability
    to properly describe. In the case of project design the BLM has
    known for some time that to develop a professional services contract
    and properly administer it requires an on-board competent and
    current professional staff. Further, to keep the staff current they
    must do a portion of the design work each year themselves. The
    result is it will cost about twice as much to do the work by
    Professional Service Contract as it will to do it in-house. I will
    admit that among the old-timers there are those who will disagree
    with this concept. But I believe they are incorrect.

-   Project records are just short of being a major disaster in most of
    the BLM. These records are important to help track the life of a
    project from inception to abandonment. These records hold
    information critical to the development of annual maintenance plans,
    they record all expenditures to help in making the decision as to
    whether to maintain a project, abolish, or abandon it. Project
    records are essential and critical in the event of a law suit
    involving a major project. Project records are essential for use by
    newly hired professionals to both help them locate projects and
    become familiar with the project culture of the BLM. And finally,
    well maintained project records indicate a well managed construction
    and maintenance program that is controlled by well planned actions
    as opposed to actions that are somewhat willy-nilly.

-   Expertise regarding the Rio Puerco Project and the many projects
    like it throughout the BLM is rapidly thinning to the point of being
    critical.

-   Training and orientation of new employees has had many false starts
    over the past 20 years but simply have not been able to get
    established. Far too many employees have only a limited knowledge of
    what the BLM does for a living and why it is necessary. Could
    retirees be of assistance in this effort?

**[Overall Recommendations-Considerations]{.underline}**

-   Overview:

I realize all this sounds a little, maybe a lot, presumptuous of me,
however please consider my background before you dismiss me out of hand.

As a refresher I was the Design and Construction Branch Chief in the New
Mexico SO from 1966-1970 and spent many weeks in the field throughout
New Mexico, much of the time on the Rio Puerco, working with these same
projects experiencing the problems of that era. After becoming the Chief
Engineer in 1974 at the "old WO" and with the help of some good
Engineering Management Trainees an excellent series of well coordinated
BLM Manual Sections was issued and an effective Technical Procedures
Review was put in place to help me keep the Manual Series current, to
help insure some sense of continuity between states, to help states
learn from the mistakes and successes of other states on a first hand
basis, and many other values I won't go into here. During my annual
visitation for two weeks is from 2 to 3 states per year leading each of
these reviews with teams made up of engineers from two other states, I
had the pleasure of becoming very familiar with what works, what doesn't
work, where serious problem areas exist, and perhaps just as important
why these problems exist and often how other states solve these
problems. The BLM Manual has now been abolished, but is still used and
the Technical Procedures Reviews are no longer permitted. Expertise is
thin, knowledge of the BLM is sporadic, and political influence is
heavy. Further, as we all are aware, knowing the what and why of a
problem or concern doesn't guarantee we can doing anything about it.

-   Food for thought:

In keeping with the concept of the Legacy Program I believe there are
several areas where local managers might cultivate working relationships
with knowledgeable retirees to the benefit of both. Several things need
to be considered at the outset however. These are listed below:

1.  Retirees want to be used because of their expertise and experience
    not as flunkies.

2.  Many retirees have egos that if stroked properly can become
    invaluable and long term resources to a field or state office.

3.  Most retirees like to talk and share experiences but may not wish to
    get involved in the work itself especially as volunteers.

Now, just what might Legacy people do for a local office? I believe
having one sitting in on meetings where strategy and long range planning
are being discussed would be helpful. These folks could help insure all
facets of an issue are on the table before decisions are made in the
absence of important considerations. I believe Legacy people might prove
to be an excellent source of outsourcing talent. Just think, they would
already be trained and would only need a little reorientation. Some of
these old guys and gals would be great help in getting your records back
in shape and might even know where to find some of them. Wouldn't some
of these folks be great trainers? Maybe a small group of local employees
could be given the responsibility for cultivating the local Legacy
resource and identifying retirees interested in providing certain types
of services.

There are other ideas discussed earlier concerning the involvement of
BLM retirees. Not all these ideas will be workable and perhaps no
interest can be generated, but isn't it time we tried, again. I seem to
remember some work was done in this area a decade or so ago.

Finally, I believe the key to making such a program work is to insure
the retirees are never taken for granted, but always viewed as a
valuable resource. If this can be accomplished I believe a very valuable
source of almost free talent could be cultivated. I also believe the
Public Lands Foundation could help cultivate such an idea. At least I'll
bet we can fertilize it!!

**[Some Parting Comments]{.underline}**

I thoroughly enjoyed the role I played in this project. Even after being
out of the harness for over eight years I felt like I had never left. Of
course the problem with this is I have a great continuity gap. Because I
was the only Legacy representative on this project I have enjoyed the
freedom to be creative and not have my prose subjected to the views of
too many others.

Even writing this report has been a ball as I can say things in black
and white which while employed I had to use more politically appropriate
language and in some cases be a bit more professional with my choice of
words, chuckle.

It is my hope this Legacy Report will prove useful to the local manager,
many others in the BLM, and maybe result in a positive change or two.

My thanks go to the Legacy Program for the opportunity to participate in
this project.

San Simon Legacy Program and Field visit

July 29, 2003

Mel Shilling

> *In the 1950's the BLM Soil and Moisture Program's major objective was
> the protection/prevention of soil and moisture loss due to erosion.
> The Safford District had begun construction of the San Simon Fan
> Retention Dam and initiated work on the Gold Gulch tributary when I
> joined the BLM District in 1957.*

The San Simon project objective was to halt the devastating channel
erosion in the river's main channel and tributaries and the resulting
huge loss of soil, as well as the palatable vegetation resource in the
adjacent valley. The project was initiated in the mid 1950's with
construction of the San Simon Fan structure and two structures on the
Gold Gulch tributary.

The San Simon River Channel was initially started when local farmers
plowed a channel to concentrate or divert the flooding San Simon water
through their farmland into the Gila River. Within in a very few years a
channel 8 to 40 feet deep and up to over 200 feet wide had eroded from
the farmland at the rivers mouth to about 30 miles upstream and up many
of its tributaries.

This massive erosion not only removed channel material, it destroyed the
ability of the adjacent valley soil to absorb moisture due to rapid
runoff. The remaining palatable plants were grazed beyond survival. The
head cut and gully erosion progressed over the years with the continuing
loss of soil and moisture; however the livestock numbers were not
reduced accordingly. The area is conducive to rapid growth of spring
annuals. The more gentle winter and spring rains often provide annual
forbs and grasses for temporary forage, thus livestock could survive if
not thrive, but the health of the vegetation resource was not good.

The expectation was that the large retention dams would retain surface
runoff in the drainages, allowing deposition of the water-born materials
to fill the existing channels upstream from each dam. The clean water
would be discharged via concrete spillway or pipes, at streambed level
into the existing channel.[^1] The upstream channels and flood plains
did fill in within only a few years. The restored soil and the water
holding capacity of the original flood plain allowed endemic plant
species to re-establish, plus several undesirable ones, i.e. bacarus,
salt cedar, cockleburs etc.

However, the released clean water, free of its silt and gravel load,
then picked up a new load from the streambed and continued the deepening
of the down-stream channel. Untreated, the side tributaries from the
mouth to the San Simon Fan also continued to erode as it had been for
the last 30 years.

In addition to the large retention dams several other practices were
tried to enhance the vegetation quantity and quality.

The cocklebur infestation above the San Simon Fan was terrible. The
infestation covered about one square mile. The area was sprayed aerially
for three years running with little effect. I attempted to burn the area
several times but could never successfully establish an adequate fire.

The BLM chained several areas of creosote in the San Simon Valley. Most
of the areas were about two to five sections in area. I established
transects in most of the areas. All transects were photographed, and
recorded. By the time I left the District in June 1966, in no instance
could I determine any increase in either quantity or quality of grass
species within the area chained compared to adjacent areas. The density
of creosote plants decreased after chaining but this was short term
(from two to four years). I do not remember the numbers but the original
creosote density was restored in all cases within five years.

The BLM reseeded some of the chained areas by air with a variety of
indigenous grass species. There was very little seedling survival found
in any of the areas. Usually rainfall following seeding was insufficient
to provide for seedling survival. There was some aerial spraying above
the dams of broad leaf species other than cockleburs but I do not
remember any details.

Monitoring of the affects of the detention dams effects on vegetation
was my responsibility. I took dozens of photographs of each of the
sites. I set photo stations at several locations with the location
pinpointed on aerial photos. I took successive photos from each station
for several years. The revegetation above the dams was noticeable at the
San Simon Fan, starting at the high water line after each runoff event.
Within two years the vegetation increase began to spread outward. The
species such as tobosa, three awn species, sand drop seed, western wheat
grass, some grama species, etc. were obvious.

There was little change seen in the follow-up photos below any of the
dams prior to my leaving the District. The San Simon Fan had a discharge
pipe to allow water to flow over a small part the original flood plain.
This worked fine until the water began to overflow back into the deep
channel creating a new head cut. Annual maintenance to control the
runoff was essential and expensive. Upstream from both the San Simon Fan
and Creighton Dam new gravel deposits, including rocks as large as 2
inches could be seen as far as where the San Simon and Gold gulch run
under the railroad.

Monitoring was not done on a regular schedule. Most photos were take as
opportunity allowed, Transect readings were done in the late fall, when
all other transect were read. I set photo points along the main banks of
the channel from the mouth of the San Simon all the way south to the Fan
and some even farther south in the Cienega area. These photo stations
were identified with standard aluminum cap permanent markers and located
on aerial photos.

Management of grazing in the District at that time was minimal. The
fencing of individual allotments had only been completed for a few
years. Each allotment was allocated a number of cattle to graze
yearlong. That number was set in the late 1940's from 1934/1937 SCS
range surveys and District Advisory Board recommendations. Few, if any,
adjustments had been made up until the early 1960's. In fact I issued
the Districts first trespass notice for permitted livestock numbers in
about 1959 and even the State Office didn't know how to handle the paper
work.

The loss of the original flood plain habitat had occurred at least 30
years earlier. Neither the Grazing Service nor BLM management caused
this resource loss.

The San Simon Fan was fenced and the rancher grazed as many head in this
pasture as he wanted within his total allotment. The permittee did limit
the cattle numbers, partially due to the occurrence of Johnson grass,
which was poisonous when exposed to frost. After the summer flooding of
the Fan, mud, mosquitoes, and rapid growth of all vegetation made
limiting numbers of livestock rather moot. Grazing of the flood plain
from July to December did not seem to make a noticeable change in the
amount of available vegetation. When the wet season ended and the
vegetation matured most of the grasses were not very palatable so many
of the cattle were moved out.

The reservoirs on Gold Gulch were not fenced. Until I left the District,
there was no noticeable palatable growth above the lower HX Dam. Most of
the flood plain of the upper dam (Crieghton) was on State or private
land, so there was no monitoring of vegetation, as I remember.

The dams themselves were inspected regularly and were carefully
maintained. The District Engineers regularly surveyed cross sections of
the reservoir areas to measure deposition. This data was filed but I do
not recall any numbers.

The site visit (July 29, 2003) was very rewarding. The expansion of
objectives and success of the controlled water flow exceeded all my
expectations. The development of the mature floodplain above the San
Simon Fan was particularly gratifying. The extent of deposition in the
main channel above the Barrier Dam was much like we all assumed it would
be in the late 1950's and 1960's.

There does not seem to be a lot of change in the vegetation at the
middle areas between the channel and the uplands. However the management
of livestock does show a lot of improvement in revegetation where water
courses have been treated to spread flood waters and reverse erosion.

I was delighted with the conversion of the Hot Well area into a
recreation area. This effort was beyond our thinking and that of the
BLM's when I was in the District. The excellent current studies and
reports and ongoing resource research are a great asset and will provide
the basis for good future decisions.

Recommendations

My recommendations are based upon experience from the District level to
the Department of Interior. The competition for funds will always be a
short fall in resource management. There will never be enough money for
resource improvement. Therefore your best justification must be put
forward, including political support. I think the District must have a
good economic justification for its program.

I recommend the District engage a University cooperative level economic
analysis of the value of a cubic yard of water storage in San Carlos
reservoir versus a cubic yard of soil retained in the San Simon
watershed. This analysis also should include socio economic factors,
other resource values, etc.

My second recommendation is to place the priority for maintenance of
existing structures above any large new structures. Protection of the
existing investment and protection of the progress of restoration will
be the hardest to fund. All government maintenance funds are the first
cut before new projects because maintenance does not collect votes.

Thank you for this opportunity,

Mel Shilling

Number range CHAPTERBureau of Land Management Legacy Tour

Lakeview District, Oregon

August 11-15, 2003

Legacy Volunteer: Bill Torgersen, Lakeview Forester, 1966-1974

**Background:**

My BLM career began on the Prineville District in the summer of 1962 as
member of a range survey crew running transects, using the weight
estimate method of forage measurement, and condition and trend surveys
on the Central Oregon Desert. I began working permanently with the
Bureau in the summer of 1963 as a forester on the Prineville District.
My tenure in Prineville provided me with a well-rounded introduction to
forest management in the Public Domain. Forest inventory, timber sales,
a significant timber trespass backlog, and road and property line
surveys kept me constantly in the field, a condition common to many of
us at that time. I worked with several talented individuals with
extensive experience in Western Oregon.

While in Prineville I attended an aerial photography class at Oregon
State University where I met Bruce Whitmarsh, Forester, from Lakeview.
Later that year (November 1966) a position opened in Lakeview and Bruce
was influential in my selection. Shortly after arriving in Lakeview the
Eastern Oregon Districts began the Area Manager concept and Bruce became
the Area Manager for Klamath County, which gave me the District lead for
the forestry program. I remained in Lakeview until November of 1974. I
had a wonderful career with BLM and was to spend two years on the forest
inventory staff in the Denver Service Center completing forest
inventories for Central Montana, New Mexico, and Montrose; thirteen
years as District Forester in Butte, Montana; ten years in Washington DC
as national program lead for public domain forestry and Senior Technical
Specialist for Forestry in the Forest, Wildlife, and Fisheries Group. I
completed my career in the Oregon State Office where I worked on several
issues pertaining to the Western Oregon Forest Plan.

As I reflect back over the years, my eight years in Lakeview comes to
the top as my favorite assignment. The community of Lakeview as well as
the many fine professionals I served with there profoundly influenced
the remainder of my career. As a forester in Eastern Oregon I was privy
to a cadre of expertise in the Oregon State Office as well as training
offered to the West-Side personnel in many aspects of forest management.

Let me set the stage for my interest in the long-term BLM management of
the pine and woodland forests in Klamath County and the Lakeview
District. There were three people assigned to each of three resource
areas on the district all headquartered in Lakeview. There was a small
resource specialist staff assigned to the district office. The district
had substantial operations staff. We shared responsibilities and often
assisted one another across resource disciplines. I will concentrate my
comments on the Gerber Block (aka the Bonanza Unit) as the thinking and
management of the remainder of district forests was similar. It was
interesting to refresh my memory with old documents in the Klamath Field
Office describing pine management procedures from the period of my
tenure in Lakeview, specifically the Gedney Stand Structure approach to
all-age management and observe how this, and adaptations to it have
played out over the past 35 yrs. I also reviewed Management Framework
Activity Recommendations for various resources and was pleasantly
surprised to see many similarities with today's management direction.

While in the Washington D.C. office I presented a paper and slide
program for a Symposium on Ponderosa Pine Management sponsored by
Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. During its preparation I
worked closely with Klamath Field Office personnel. Some of the
following comments were taken from that paper.

The Gerber Block, a 112,000-acre area in south central Oregon has a long
history of public use for a variety of commodities and experiences.
This, combined with tenured management based on a strong commitment to
maintenance of sustainable, as well as aesthetic biological systems has
resulted in an area unique in managed ponderosa pine systems. It was
recently given special status by the state of Oregon and is considered a
showplace for successful pine management. Over the past 40 years applied
silvicultural treatments have been combined with individual commitment
to the preservation of the aesthetic appeal of old growth maintenance of
diverse stand structures, and management direction that would reduce
susceptibility to catastrophic loss.

Over the past 40 years there has been a continuum of stewardship shared
by three foresters and one forest technician. These individuals were,
and are being supported by line managers and given the freedom to use
personnel discretion and allowed to deviate from traditional thinking of
the time. They were not confined by specific manuals and handbook
guidance. A sense of personnel pride and stewardship prevailed. Recent
field reviews of the Gerber Block confirm in my mind that this thinking
was shared by line managers, other resource specialists and forward
thinking range users as well.

Most of the pine stands have been selectively logged three to four times
over the past 50 years. Initial cuts were high risk and kept much of the
old growth intact. An aggressive pre-commercial thinning program began
in the 1960 s. Most of the dense pine stands in the Gerber Block were
thinned by 1974. We were enabled to do this through temporary acceptance
by the State Office of a program which gave a timber sale purchaser the
option of either contributing dollars to BLM for thinning or doing the
work themselves. The cost was deducted from the value of the timber.
Both methods were successfully initiated. It was our custom to thin all
overstocked stands within the timber sale boundary. Thinning costs at
that time were generally in the \$25.00/acre range. The objection to
this method came from the O&C program in western Oregon due to the
difference of distribution of receipts to the counties. I don t recall
when we lost that tool. The Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund
and more recently the Stewardship Contracting authorities have revived
that capability to some measure. It only makes sense to pay for the
treatment of stands in unhealthy condition through sale of commodities
removed. We also began doing cutters' choice thinning which relieved us
from the burdensome job of marking. The one risk we did take was
accumulation of heavy slash loads on thinned areas which would reduce
over time. Looking back, this risk period was probably shorter and less
severe than keeping stands and dog hair condition and even heavier fuel
loading. Hurrah for the prescribed fire follow-up.

In the early 1970 s the adjacent Fremont National Forest began an
overstory removal program. We did not follow suit for a variety of
reasons, including the fact we had already begun to retain snags for
wildlife (a practice that brought us some early ridicule from our
forester peers). Also we decided to retain a significant amount of old
growth because it looked nice and was in character with the appearance
of the original pine forest. It was often thought necessary for partial
shade to promote regeneration on dry sites. While I like to think we had
more scientific reasoning, we didn't, but time has supported our
thinking in a variety of ways. In about 1996 I flew in a light plane
from Boise to Klamath Falls accompanied by Rick Tholen (now the BLM
forest health guru for WO). There had been years of drought in eastern
Oregon. As we flew over the Fremont forest, large burned areas and bug
killed timber dominated the landscape. We intentionally flew over the
Gerber Block and were impressed by an apparent thriftiness in forest
vegetation due largely to early thinning and a prescribed burn program
started over 20 years ago.

**Site Visit:**

In the summer of 1974 Joe Foran, a forest technician from Coos Bay, came
to the district to assist me in a re-inventory of forest resources. I
was reassigned to the Forest Inventory Team in DSC in November and Bill
Johnson, silviculturalist, came from Medford to take my place. I spent
two weeks with Bill prior to departure to familiarize him with the
program. Both Joe and Bill are still on the Lakeview District and work
out of the Klamath Field Office. It was my pleasure to join them in the
field for two days in August 2003. They have both been successful in
promoting programs of what I consider national importance in view of the
President's Forest Health Initiative and annual occurrence of numerous
large wild fires in the west. Their successful prescribed fire program
began over 20 years ago and was one of the first in BLM. It is still one
of the best. This program has treated thousands of acres and resulted in
reduced fuel loads, opening up of stands, elimination of undesirable
vegetation, and a gradual return to a more open forest structure. Some
of the pine stands have been repeatedly treated and a random stand
selection process for priority of treatment by fire has been initiated.

It has long been my opinion that much can be learned by past management
practices without a host of new studies. This is especially true for
forests. Stumps, regeneration, growth rates, stand structure and
composition, fire scars, and the ability to determine age all tell part
of the story. It is my opinion the personnel from a host of resource
disciplines in the Klamath Field Office have not only reviewed the most
up-to-date material on resource management but applied it directly to
the ground an a most advantageous manner. Cases in point are:

The removal of competing vegetation (primarily juniper) from around old
growth trees being retained for future eagle nesting sites. In much of
the ponderosa forest from Canada to Mexico the in-growth of dense
thickets has been shown to cause the demise of old growth legacy trees.

The use of research on juniper ecology conducted by Miller from Oregon
State University is being used in the selection of treatment areas for
removal or density reduction in juniper stands. The thinning of
woodlands has already resulted in increased flows for springs in the
area and healthier residual vegetation. The reintroduction of fire to
the system is restoring forest and range types to more emulate
pre-settlement condition and reduced the danger of catastrophic loss by
fire. Silvicultural prescriptions are used which encourage this process.
Many of the stands pre-commercially thinned in the 60s and 70s are now
commercial and due for re-entry. There are already examples on the
District where wild fires have entered treated stands and gone from
crown to ground.

The Klamath Field Office has been in the forefront in encouraging the
development of markets for products made from juniper. They have been
innovative developing contracts for woodland treatments and delivering
the raw material to milling facilities. Products are being developed in
the Klamath area for flooring, animal bedding, oil absorption material,
paneling, and more. Much remains to be done in this area.

The rehabilitation, reconstruction, and/or obliteration of roads began
in earnest in the 60s and 70s. As with thinning, normally an entire sale
area was restored to a stable condition through provisions in the sale
contract. Erosion caused by poor road location and construction in the
earliest entries had been severe. I am heartened to see most of that
work done over 30 years ago is still in place. The seeding of sale
access roads is still in place and cindered roads have been maintained.
The use of culverts is kept to a minimum.

We were fortunate to share a day with local residents with a long
history of cooperation with BLM. Three of Henry Gerber's daughters were
along on Monday's trip along with Louis Randall, a range user from
Langell Valley. Henry Gerber was an original member of the National
Advisory Group when the Taylor Grazing Act was created. Supposedly the
Gerber Block was the first grazing district in BLM. Their historic and
contemporary perspective was much appreciated. On the second day, when
Bruce Van Haveren, Joe Foran, Bill Johnson and I went out together, we
were fortunate in running into a juniper logging operation, range user
Ned Livingston, and cadastral surveyors working in the same area I had
worked in 35 years ago. In fact, Ned thanked me for the thinning I had
done years before.

**Conclusions:**

Land management practices through the last 35 years have left their mark
on the land. It is my firm belief the land is in better shape today than
it was then. The trend is still improving and practices have been
followed or are being initiated which will continue in that direction.
Not only have your forest conditions improved but your range conditions
as well. Rest rotation systems have been in place long enough to show
definite improvement.

A couple of observations deserve comment:

Old Growth Pine: I would revise ponderosa marking guidelines to provide
further protection of what I refer to as legacy trees. There are few
trees left I would categorize as overmature. What you have left,
**KEEP**, as they have a place in the system. I have seen ponderosa
stands throughout the west and this is a frequent observation. Continue
your thinning of commercial pole size material as basal areas indicate
many stands are again overstocked.

Range Improvement: Stan Haught was foreman of the fire crew during my
tenure in Lakeview. He was a talented craftsman and left his mark
throughout the area, especially in camping facilities and spring
developments. Several of the spring developments I observed, Ben Hall
and Norcross to be specific, are indeed in disrepair. They need work on
protective railings around troughs, exclosure fences around headboxes,
and cleanout of algae. The fact they still function is a tribute to
Stan's talent, but their appearance says maintenance work is needed.

**Additional Comments:**

My interest in the long term management of the Lakeview District is
genuine and has been shown through continued support of the forest
management program while functioning in positions where I could
influence budget and policy. In fact, I spent two weeks as Acting Area
Manager for the High Desert Area a few years ago. I have made four
visits for various reasons including the most recent. I have formed
lasting friendships with employees which are important to me. I have
always been impressed by the genuine welcome I received at District and
Field Office levels. I have also been impressed by the technical
expertise and positive attitude of employees.

My time spent with Legacy Volunteer George Lee, Program Coordinator
Bruce Van Haveren, and Legacy Volunteer Bill Wagner, was also
informative and genuinely fun. My trip to Beatty's Butte with former
co-workers Al Stenninger and AK Majors both of whom I haven't seen for
30+ years was also a very positive experience. They are two of the most
talented and competent range managers I have had the pleasure of
associating with. My visits with range users on that trip tell me an
outstanding relationship still exists between BLM employees and user
publics in Lakeview.

As is usual, visits with Archeologist Bill Cannon and Botanist Lucille
Housely were especially informative. Lucille mentioned a particular
interest in the condition of the Lost Forest which I share and would be
glad to discuss further with her. In support of Bill's and Lucille's
efforts to improve our historical record, I will criticize the BLM on a
national level for their neglect and inability to retain valuable
records and historical information. I have been guilty of it myself and
at times critical of efforts to clean out our accumulated history. For
example, it would have been of great value to have the old timber sale
files for those areas visited. They used to be available from the
records center but I was informed that was no longer so.

My sincere thanks go to District Manager Steve Ellis, Jon Raby the new
Field Manager in Klamath Falls, and all the personnel involved that made
us feel welcome and especially appreciated. I believe the Legacy program
has a valuable service to render and is most advantageous to both the
future and historic past of our agency.

**BLM LEGACY PROGRAM REPORT**

**LAKEVIEW OREGON DISTRICT FIELD VISIT**

**August 11-15, 2003**

George Lea, BLM retiree and President of the Public Lands Foundation

**Introduction**

I must begin by thanking BLM for initiating the Legacy Program and for
the opportunity to visit the Lakeview District Office after being the
District Manager, some 40 years ago. As the DM in the early 1960's we
had all of seventeen employees. Today there are 210 employees in the
District! I also had the opportunity to work in the district as a Range
Conservationist for three years in the mid 1950's when there were three
employees in the District, the district manager, a clerk and me. So
there was quite a contrast between what could be accomplished then and
now. Needless to say it was a very enjoyable trip and one that I hope
the current employees gained some knowledge from my experiences. I
certainly learned from them, which I will try to summarize in this
report. I also want to thank all the District employees, far too
numerous to list them all, for taking part in the field tours. I was
very impressed by their professionalism and the compatibility among them
all.

Retiree Bill Torgenson and Legacy Program leaders Bill Wagner (retired
BLMer) and Bruce Van Haveren from the BLM Science and Technology Office
in Denver accompanied me.

The Legacy Program was created to provide current BLM field managers and
specialists with an opportunity to learn about past land management
efforts and practices from those employees who were involved in such
efforts 25 or more years later. The underlying philosophy is, if we
don't learn from the past, we are bound to repeat our mistakes in the
future. The objectives of the Legacy Program are much the same as those
that lead to the formation of the Public Lands Foundation. During my
30-year career with BLM it had always bothered me that once an employee
retired, BLM forgot they ever existed, lost their addresses and the
retiree left BLM with a lifetime of experience and knowledge regarding
public land management that should be put to good use. The retiree also
left a lifetime of social contacts with former associates and personal
friendships. After I retired I decided to do something about capturing
this wealth of experience and to keep the social contacts alive. And so
in 1987 the Public Lands Foundation (PLF) was organized as a non-profit,
501(C)(3) organization whose members would be primarily retired BLMers.
The goals of PLF are to: a) be an advocate for the conservation and
effective multiple use management of the public lands administered by
BLM, b) keep the public lands in public ownership and open to use by the
public, c) support the implementation of FLPMA, d) encourage
professionalism among employees and support the hiring of professional,
career employees throughout BLM, e) recognized outstanding managerial
and technical performance by annual awards to BLM employees, f) provide
opportunities for people with experience and expertise in natural
resources to contribute to the public land management process and g) to
encourage communications among PLF members and associates. PLF supports
the BLM whenever possible but our members maintain their independence
and freedom to express heir own views. Since we "do not have to feed our
babies," we can and do speak up.

Today PLF has over 1000 dues-paying members, most of which are retired
BLMers but with many working BLM folks as members also, who support
these goals and continue to take an active part in how the public lands
are managed.

This was the second year of the BLM Legacy Program and I believe it will
become very successful in meeting its objectives. So successful that I
would like to predict that soon the program would become
institutionalized and conducted annually by each field office. I see the
program being kept small, perhaps less than two retirees per field
office per year with over all direction coming from perhaps the BLM's
National Science and Technology Center.

**Field visit agenda**

August 11-Visit the Klamath Falls Area Office, of the Lakeview District
and review the Gerber Reservoir area known as the Bonanza Unit or the
Gerber Block

August 12- Visit the Lakeview District Office and tour the Warner Valley
area

August 13- Tour the northern part of the Lakeview Area

August 14- Tour the Beatys Butte area of the southeastern part of the
District.

August 15- Begin draft of the report and return to Klamath Falls

**[DAY ONE]{.underline}**

I was pleased to have long time residents of the area join the tour. It
was a pleasure to see again and have the local ranchers and civic
leaders such as Louie Randall and all three of Henry Gerber's daughters
joined us.

**Gerber Block Area**

The following projects were viewed: Juniper control, prescribed fire,
bitterbrush planting, forest management, riparian area management,
recreation facilities, water spreading, and endangered species. The
Gerber area contains approximately 112,000 acres of public land and is
considered to be the first Grazing District formed after passage of the
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Refer to the attached map. Bill Torgersen, a
Legacy participant and a retired BLMer and former Forester on the
Lakeview District, also took part in the tour.

**South DeVaul Juniper Control-** This is an excellent use of National
Fire Plan funding to reduce the occurrence of wildfire by controlling
invading juniper trees that have spread into and through the Ponderosa
Pine areas. Not only does the control of the spread of juniper reduce
the wild fire hazards; it also releases soil moisture for the production
of soil protecting grasses and shrubs. The Gerber Block adjoins the
nearby National Forest. The control of Juniper began in 1990 and to date
the Area office has been able to treat more than 7400 acres in this
manner. Both hand labor and mechanical equipment have been employed. An
organization, Rehabilitation, Employment and Community Housing (REACH)
has been contracted to employ local handicapped individuals to remove
juniper trees by hand and to recycle the material into useful products
as cedar chips, flooring, fence posts, landscaping timbers, decking,
paneling and furniture. This type of recycling industry needs to be
supported and encouraged to take advantage of forest thinning efforts
called for in the President's Health Forest Initiative and the National
Fire Plan. The Klamath Falls office is to be commended in its efforts to
develop this needed recycling of wood products from the public lands.
Specialized equipment to shear the juniper trees has also been utilized.
The handwork by REACH costs about \$300 per acre treated while the
mechanical means runs about \$90 per acre. The juniper slash had been
hand piled for burning during this winter. Bitterbrush is been
successfully planted around theses brush piles after they are burned to
take advantage of the fire released soil nutrients. It is noted that
juniper is not being eliminated from the ecosystem. Only the younger,
invading trees are being taken with the mature trees left in their
natural habitat.

**Dry Prairie Prescribed fire-** This is another excellent program that
has been carried out for more than 23 years in the area. Today, as a
result, the Gerber Block (I would prefer to call it the Gerber Forest)
is virtually fire proof. Some 23,300 acres have been treated in this
manner since the early 1980's. Several timber sites are burned each year
and in some cases areas have been burned 2-3 times over the years. The
district has found that a spring burn followed by a fall burn has
reduced the risk of a prescribed fire escaping and reduces the
underbrush. As the District Manager in the mid 1960's I never had the
staff to perform such work and of course the policy then was not to
start fire but to extinguish all fires as quickly as possible.

**Bitterbrush planting**- We saw several very successful plantings of
bitterbrush as deer habitat rehabilitation. The district has collected
seed and arranged to have the seed germinated to produce one-year-old
seedlings to be planted. To protect the new seedlings from heavy deer
and cattle browsing, the young plants are covered with plastic webbing.
The district has been most innovative in many aspects of their programs.
Here, a cooperative arrangement has been developed with a local
organization to provide work experience for at-risk youth. These work
crews have removed the plastic webbing.

**Forest management-** As the District Manager in the 1960's we annually
conducted a small ponderosa pine harvesting program. The cut was done on
a selective basis to thin and to remove over- mature and unhealthy
trees. The unit has been brought to the point where it is a
healthy-rapidly growing forest with harvesting in the future as the
trees mature. The Gerber Forest is truly a model forest. It is a prime
example of how to manage a forested area making it nearly fire proof.
The contrast between the BLM managed area and the adjoining national
forest was remarkable. As soon as one leaves the BLM unit and enters the
Forest Service area, the amount of underbrush increases dramatically and
thus the fire hazard and stagnation of the pine forest is very evident.

**Ben Hall Creek Riparian Area management-** Several riparian areas of
streams flowing into the Gerber Reservoir have been fenced. They have
been fenced not as an exclosure but as a livestock grazing pastures
which are a part of a grazing allotment plan. The results are dramatic
in protecting and healing the stream area. The riparian pasture is
grazed for only 10 days once each three years.

**South Gerber Recreational facilities**- While I was the DM the
Accelerated Public Works program during the mid 1960s produced funding
which enable us to employ local unemployed folks to construct and
install several camping areas with water and toilet provisions and a
boat ramp adjacent to the Gerber Reservoir. Many tons of local cinders
were also spread to improve a system of roads developed through the
years and as a bi-product of the limited timber sales program. Today the
area receives high use by fishermen and hunters. Currently the Bureau of
Reclamation has tentative plans to raise the water level in the Gerber
Reservoir a few feet but enough to flood a good portion of the
established campground. Today, BLM has a fine Fire Guard Station
building and facilities established at the campground area.

**Round Valley Waterspreading-** The Round Valley Waterspreader was
visited. This system consists of a main water storage reservoir, Round
Valley dam and outlet, a series of natural dikes and ditches and
constructed ditches to allow water to spread across the land in an
effort to produce livestock and wildlife forage. The landscape is
normally very rocky but with water the rocks sink out of sight and a
good pasture system is established. The Round Valley dam was built about
50 years ago and is operated entirely by a group of livestock
permittees. When I was the DM the project was in its developmental stage
but again BLM had little to do with it as it was maintained and operated
by the livestock association. Several antelope were seen using the water
spreading area. The BLM holds the water rights.

**Endangered species-** The "short-nosed sucker" is the only known
endangered species in the Gerber Forest. The small fish resides in the
Gerber Reservoir and spawns up the small adjacent streams. The riparian
rehabilitation work viewed, as described above, was performed to enhance
the spawning habitat and ability of the fish as well as to protect the
stream banks.

**[DAY TWO]{.underline}**

**Visit to Lakeview District Office and Tour of Hart Mountain and North
Warner Area**

The following projects/areas were visited: Mud Lake Waterspreading,
Warner valley ACEC, and weed infestation.

**Mud lake Waterspreader-** I met several livestock permittees during
the four days of this Legacy trip. The only problem was that while I
recall the rancher's names, the men I met were not those that I had
known and worked with during my time at the District. The men I met this
time were the sons of the men I had known. Their fathers had past away
but it was a joy to see their sons continue to operate the ranches,
which is not to common today. At the Mud Lake Waterspreader dam we met
John O'Keeffe, son of Henry O'Keeffe, whom I had known. John is, like
many of the current local ranchers, college educated and very active in
livestock association matters, both local and national. John is the main
contact for the national livestock association on the sage grouse issue.

The Mud Lake Waterspreader dam is a large structure with outlet gate
built during the CCC days. Its purposes were to store run off water and
to allow the water to irrigate naturally a series of natural shallow
lakes with a minimum of daily water management. Currently the reservoir
is below the out let due to less than normal rain fall for the year and
the natural lakes were without water and vegetation. The vegetation on
the lakebeds is of native species, which are drought hardy and respond
quickly to the supplemental water producing many AUMs of forage during
the good rain fall years, which relieves the grazing pressure on the
surrounding public lands. The project is today much as I recall it. The
operation of the waterspreading is preformed totally by John O'Keeffe.
His livestock operation is under an allotment management plan involving
14 large fenced pastures that are used in a rotation/deferred manner. I
was impressed by the enthusiasm John displayed for his allotment
management plan and the cooperation between him and the Range Manager. I
found the range conditions to have improved since I was employed here
and currently in a stable condition. The area is located just south of
the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge.

**Warner Valley Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)-** This is
a massive area at the northern end of Warner Valley containing a series
of very large shallow lakes that during high rainfall years are flooded
producing resting and nesting areas for many hundreds of thousands of
migratory waterfowl. It was designated as the Warner Wetlands ACEC in
1989, and perhaps more properly called a BLM waterfowl refuge. It is
truly an area of unique wildlife, ecological, cultural and geological
values. The amount of water available is totally dependant upon high
rainfall years when the private water rights are satisfied and the
surplus waters flow north into the ACEC area. The ACEC is about 21 miles
long and 8 miles in width and nearly exclusively public land. The BLM
has installed a system of water control dykes and ditches to better
distribute the water when it is available. This is work that we could
not fund during my tenure in the District while we recognized the need
and potential of the area. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on
how one looks at it, I was involved from the Washington BLM Office in
the original implementation of FLPMA and the ACEC provisions contained
in the Act. The original ACEC concept was meant to identify small
important areas of public land where a fragile resource conditions
existed. It was not the intent to identify large areas such as the
Warner Wetland as an ACEC. However BLM field people needed some
mechanism to identify special areas such as the Warner area and, having
none, used the ACEC idea to designate large areas containing significant
resources. The program guidance from the Washington Office permitted
this interpretation of the ACEC concept. This is not a criticism of the
Lakeview district efforts in designating the area as an ACEC. The Bureau
does not have the regulations or a program to make such needed
designations, through their planning system, using a more appropriate
means.

We reviewed the invasive weed problem in the ACEC where a 500,000-acre
cooperative weed Control District has been formed of all landowners in
the surrounding watershed area. Currently a large infestation of pepper
weed (*Lippidium latifolia*) is occurring in the ACEC and may well come
to dominate the entire area, spreading to other federal and private
lands if not controlled. The BLM does not have the means to control the
spread of the weed because of a settlement of an herbicide law suite in
the state of Oregon, which prevents the use of all chemical herbicides
that are effective in controlling pepper weed. Only BLM is affected by
the settlement of the law suite. Other agencies and landowners can use
the appropriate herbicides, but not BLM, producing an unrealistic and
unmanageable situation. A special category exclusion is needed to permit
BLM the use of herbicides in non-forested regions of Oregon

**[DAY THREE]{.underline}**.

**Tour of the Northern part of the Lakeview Resource Area-** The sites
and stops included, Abert Lake Wilderness study area, Lost Forest, Sand
Dunes, Fossil Lake, Fort Rock reseedings, Silver Lake, and Chewaucan
prescribed burn plan.

**Abert Lake-** The Abert Lake Rim WSA was viewed. The Rim is the
highest fault in North American. It was a pleasure to see the rest stop
sign along the highway at lake containing a fine pictorial description
of the geology etc of the area. But the best thing about the signing was
that it was a BLM sign erected in cooperation with the Oregon State
Highway Department. Further down the road near Alkali Lake we stopped
again at a rest stop cooperatively developed by BLM and the highway
department containing a very professional pictorial explanation of an
adjacent fire rehabilitation reseeding. This signage is the type of
public relations work BLM needs to do more of.

**Fossil Lake-** During my employment at the district I was unaware of
the importance of Fossil Lake. I saw the area depicted on maps but never
had a reason to visit it. We did not have an archeologist on the staff
to bring its importance to our attention. The area is now fenced and
posted to preserve the scientific values of small-articulated fossils of
fish, mammals and birds and it turns out that the dry lakebed represents
the most important Quaternary vertebrate paleontological region in the
Pacific Northwest. The South Dakota School of Mines and Technology has
been collecting fossils here for several years and has established a
collection in the school's museum in Rapid City, SD. Specimens have been
collect here since the early 1930's with collections stored in several
other natural history museums and many scientific papers have been
published about the area. The area is now a part of the Lost Forest-Sand
Dunes-Fossil Lake ACEC complex. Fossil Lake is but one example of the
scientific values found on BLM lands and it is unfortunate that BLM does
not have a facility or museum to house these values. Some day that may
happen.

**Lost Forest-Christmas Valley Sand Dunes-** The sand dunes is a one
part of an intricate ecosystem. OHV use was taking place during the
visit. The dunes formed over 7,000 years ago with the eruption of Mount
Mazama, forming Crater Lake. The water-retaining soils are thought to
contribute to the preservation of the adjacent Lost Forest, an isolated
stand of ponderosa pine growing in an 8-10 inch rainfall. The entire
complex, including the Fossil Lake area, was designated as an ACEC in
1983. The ACEC contains several separate special designations such as
the Lost Forest Research Natural Area established in 1972, the Christmas
Valley National Back Country Byway, the Sand Dunes Wilderness Study
Area, and off-road vehicles closed and open areas. While all of these
designations in one area may add some confusion to the visiting public,
the District plans to develop a more coordinated management plan for the
complex area during the next year.

**Fort Rock Reseeding-** We attempted to relocate a crested wheat
seeding performed during my time in the district in the mid 1950's. With
out the legal description we were unable to relocate the seeding. Other
reseeding projects in the Fort Rock were visited. Without the benefit of
the grazing and weather history for the areas, it was difficult to
determine if they were successful or not. The one we visited did not
appear to be successful. This a very light soil site where plowing and
reseeding is a questionable practice.

**Silver Lake-** During my assignment to Lakeview during the 1950's, I
ran a range survey party in the Silver Lake Unit. We used the old SCS
Soil/Site method. I believe it was the first time BLM had used the
method to perform a range survey. SCS range specialists trained us. The
District later used the survey to adjudicate the Unit. I often wondered
if the information would be used in managing the area. I was pleased to
learn on this Legacy trip that the current Range Manager for the area
uses the 1950s vegetation/soils survey information. I found the SCS
method extremely valuable at the time in determining existing and
potential plant communities. I was pleased to learn that the BLM, at
least in Oregon, uses what is called the Ecological Site Inventory (ESI)
method of range survey, and that the ESI is basically the SCS Soil/Site
method.

**Paisley Juniper Control**- The district has prepared and extensive
area as a prescribed fire area between the community of Paisley and the
Forest Service boundary. Several acres of juniper trees have been felled
by hand and by machines in preparation of the fire. The plan is to
create a fire this fall to eliminate juniper on a 6-7 square mile area
in an effort to reduce the occurrence of wild fire. This is quite an
ambitious project and it will be interesting to follow up to measure its
success.

**[DAY FOUR]{.underline}**

**Tour of Beatys Butte-** The sites and stops included water
developments, wild fire and prescribed burn, Shirk Ranch, and Parker
Three Steps. Due to a pending legal dispute, described below, we were
accompanied by several livestock permittees, members of the local Beatys
Butte Livestock Association accompanied by private range consultants
employed by the livestock association. The range consultants were former
BLM employees in the district.

**Shirk Ranch-** This is currently an abandoned ranch consisting of
three or four buildings including a two-story ranch house. The property
was acquired from the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge as part of
an exchange between BLM and the FWS. The property was originally
acquired by the FWS when the Refuge was established during the 1930's.
Because of its age and isolated location the property has some historic
values and may soon disappear if the facilities are not protected and
preventive maintenance preformed.

**Beatys Butte-** This is a dominant feature in the SE portion of the
Lakeview District. It was, for many years, the range allotment of the
very large MC ranch located in Warner Valley. At one time the ranch ran
upwards to 10,000 head of cattle on the huge allotment of over one-half
a million acres. During recent years the ranch was sold and the permit
acquired by several local ranches to form the current livestock
association. We viewed the 2000 10,000 acre prescribed burn which has
resulted in excellent range conditions following the elimination of
dense stands of sagebrush. I was pleased to find that all of the ranch
operations in this part of the district are under AMPs, which require,
for example two years of rest following a fire. In 2001 a lightening
started wild fire burned an additional 12,000 acres and stopped in part
when it burned into the 2000 controlled burn. The release of the
moisture formerly consumed by sagebrush has increased the flow of
several springs in the area and run off to fill several livestock water
reservoirs. The wildfire area was also protected for two years from
grazing aided by electric fencing. I found the range conditions to be in
very good condition. There was, of course, heavy utilization around
watering places but even in these areas there was a good density of
perennial grasses that would recover the following year of rest as
required by the AMP.

There are several Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the Beatys Butte
area, as there are in other parts of the district and other BLM
districts. The ranchers on the tour expressed great concern for the
resolution of the status of these WSAs as to whether they will become
wildness areas or restored to full multiple use management and when this
final determination might happen. This is a typical reaction to WSAs
being established only to be left in this uncertain status for many
years.

**Beatys Butte law suite-** This is a joint law suite filed by the
Oregon Natural Resources Council and the Oregon High Desert Association
protesting the approval of livestock grazing portion of an amendment to
the Resource Management Plan for the Beatys Butte area. It is pending a
hearing. An administrative law judge has written BLM informing them that
they must consider all of the plaintiff's allegations as being true and
to be prepared to refute these claims. I found this requirement very
unusual and quite astounding. The suit contains several issues, the
principal one being the allegation that the lack of cryptobiotic soils
(Cryptogams) as part of the range ecosystem is indicative of excessive
grazing. Cryptogams are low growing mats of a community of moss, fungi
and algae. The suite alleges that these cryptograms provide for water
retention, soil protection and nitrogen production and that grazing
destroys these plant communities and are lacking in the Beatys Butte
range area. There is very little research on the occurrence and the
importance of these specialized plant communities. I suggested that BLM
find relict areas, areas that have never been grazed by livestock, to
determine what part these cryptograms play in a pristine range
ecosystem. The district has used the Environmental Site Inventory, a
method of range inventory which has as its basis the naturally-occurring
vegetation found in relict areas. With the numerous rim rock areas in
the Beatys Butte area, there should be several such relict areas.

In addition, I suggested the district establish a photo/transect in the
heavily utilized area near livestock water and record the plant density
by species. A repeat photo should be taken and the transect re-read the
following year during the rest cycle for the pasture. Judges usually
like to have data to review rather than just expert testimony. It will
be of interest to follow this case to determine the outcome of the
cryptogram issue. Apparently the environmental organizations would like
some day to establish a continuous wildlife refuge, no livestock grazing
area, extending from the Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge east to
the Steens Mountain National Monument.

**Parker Three Steps­**- A Parker Three Step photo/transect established
in the Beatys Butte allotment was located. The transect was established
in 1965 and has been read and recorded every three to five years since.
The data and photos were available for the tour to review. BLM dropped
the use of this method about in 1985 due to its perceived unreliability
in making conclusions as to the condition and trend of range sites.
Knowing the local rainfall and actual grazing use are extremely
important in judging changes in range conditions. It was therefore
difficult to make any firm decisions as to changes in condition based
upon the readings and photos taken at the study sites with out this
information. The district range manger for the area the past eight years
was on the tour and he found the range conditions to be unchanged and to
be in fair condition.

**Conclusions**

It is difficult to summarize my reaction and impressions on the all the
projects and sites that I was able to visit during the Legacy trip.
Equally it is difficult for to assess the value the district personnel
may have gained from my insight from the past. A very small explanatory
event occurred when the district range manager showed me a photo taken
in the Beatys Butte area in the 1970s. He wanted to use it as part of
the BLM defense in the law suite. He asked if I knew who the
photographer was. From the initials on the photo I knew immediately who
had taken the picture. The range manager was very pleased to have that
information.

I will summarize my finding and recommendations in a few short
paragraphs as follows:

**Recycling of vegetative materials-** There is an important need to
develop an industry capable of making a profit from the recycling of
material removed from forested and range land as part of both the
National Fire Plan and the President's Healthy Forest Initiative.
Currently BLM is selling such material such as removed juniper trees at
something they call "fair market value" because that is what the policy
is. I suggest that BLM policy be changed and such material be given to
the operators of such recycling operations free of any charge to aid in
the establishment of this industry. The town of Lakeview is currently
having difficulty sustaining a viable economy. It is conceivable that
since there are many thousands of acres of juniper in the county that a
recycling operation could be established in Lakeview. The community is
in need of economic investments. I am would think that private land
owners would welcome the opportunity to have juniper removed from their
land and between BLM and the FS a viable operation could be established.

**Storage of data-** While I was pleased to see, in some cases, data
collected many years ago still available and used by current district
folks in the Lakeview district, this was not the case in all instances
in the district nor across BLM. There is a need for a permanent and
Bureau wide standard data storage system. Administrative policies that
set arbitrary age limits on what must be destroyed or sent to storage
somewhere in "no-mans-land" needs to be modified to permit the routine
protective storage at the district office of data particularly resource
data of historic significance. This system must be applied consistently
in all BLM offices so as employees transfer from location to location
they find the same data storage and retrieval system in operation. I
suggest that such a system be established soon and that data currently
being collected be stored now and as funds become available the older
data be stored in the new system.

**Herbicide use-** The current situation in Oregon regarding the use of
herbicides needs to be changed to permit BLM, to use herbicides that can
effectively control invasive weeds along with its cooperating neighbors
who are permitted to use such herbicides. It makes little sense to
prohibit one federal agency the use of herbicides and allow other
federal, state and local organizations to use herbicides.

**Capturing retiree's expertise-** Once again my concern about the loss
of expertise when BLM employees retire was reinforced during this Legacy
visit. About 25 years ago BLM began to hire specialist such as
archeologist. Today these highly trained specialists are nearing
retirement and will soon leave taking all of this knowledge with them.
Many will not find a way to continue to employ this knowledge and
expertise. I am certain many would like to continue to pursue their
specialty and to keep active contacts with other retired BLM employees
they have come to know in BLM. The archeologist that explained the
importance of the Fossil Lake area to the Legacy tour group is a good
example. He is extremely knowledgeable, as he should be after 25 years
in the district, of the archeological resources of the public land, and
when he does retire all that knowledge is lost, lost to BLM and to the
public who are concerned about how the public land is managed. Some how
this situation needs to be changed so that those retired specialist who
wish to can continue to contribute to their profession and to the
management of the public lands and to maintain social contact with their
peers. I would be open to any suggestions readers of this report might
have to help solve this problem.

**Allotment Management Plans­- I** became aware that there is difference
between the north end of the district and the southeastern side in the
number of AMPs. While the northern area apparently has grazing systems
installed on most all of the livestock operations there are few AMPs.
While on the southeastern side all operations are under AMPs. Perhaps I
am wrong about this but if I have the correct information, I suggest the
development of AMPs be given priority where they do not exist.

**Give BLM lands a name­**- Once again I was impressed by the need to
give BLM lands a formal name. Calling the lands BLM administers, just
"public land" is a severe handicap to BLM and its ability to manage the
lands. The public lands of all other federal natural resource agencies
are named. There is a system of National Forest lands, a system of
National Refuge lands, and a system of the National Park lands and then
there is the "brown paper bag" [public land]{.underline} BLM
administers. Nationally BLM is basically invisible to the general
public, which has much to do about the size of the appropriations
Congress hands out each year. The public and many members of Congress
need to understand that there is a huge land estate managed by BLM that
is a part of a land system that has integrity and needs good management
parallel with the national image and attention given the other Federal
land agencies. There is a need for either a Presidential Order or an act
of Congress that provides a name for BLM lands. This action would not
change the management of the lands, would not amend FLPMA, just give
them a formal name. Since FLPMA, in its early stages, was known as the
National Resource Land Management Act, the Public Lands Foundation
suggests the lands be called the **National Resource Lands**.

**Permanent Water development­-** Everyone would agree that water is the
key to the use of the arid rangelands. The permanency of water is the
key for wildlife use of the arid rangelands. Often when wells are the
source of water, they are not operated during non-grazing periods. I
encourage the District to make provisions for a permanent supply of
water at all water developments. This may involve the periodic
attachment of a portable gasoline well pump to keep permanent supply of
water available at the site.

**Monitoring-** This Legacy field visit reinforced my view that the
Bureau needs to make a strong commitment to long-term ecological
monitoring and the management to the data collected. With the pending
retirement of a large percentage of BLM's work force to occur over the
next few years coupled with the rapid turn over of field office
personnel, the need for a Bureau wide data management system is
critical. It is possible that Public Land Foundation members and other
retired BLM employees could be used for collection and storage of
monitoring data.

WILLOW CREEK WATERSHED LEGACY\--BLM

September 2003

Glasgow, Montana

Edward F. Spang

Background

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

The Willow Creek Watershed Project (WCP) is nearing its 50-year
anniversary (1954-2004) and has resulted in many accomplishments and
benefits. My time with the project was 1954-1958. We \'pioneered\' the
project beginning in 1954. This was a vast open area and all information
and available data had to be researched out or generated from on the
ground work. We started from scratch. This included such things as
reviewing climatic data to establish basic knowledge necessary in
projecting storm events and soils data for construction potential, etc.
Ground truth came from actual on-the-ground topographical surveys, of
which I was a participant. From this level of knowledge the construction
phase of the project began in 1954/55. I was part of the survey group
that located and surveyed specific detention/retention dam sites
including follow-up supervision of construction.

Conditions In 1954

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

The watershed was a vast open range area with major erosion occurring on
Willow Creek proper and adjacent areas. Private and BLM lands were being
affected as well as downstream impacts in the lower reaches of Willow
Creek at Glasgow, Montana. Major headcuts existed and were advancing
rapidly. Soil erosion was readily visible after each storm/runoff. Flows
were

exceptionally large and damaging. At that time there were no flow gages
established\--just calculated estimates. However, the damaging results
were very evident. Livestock use was licensed as \'common use\' and
grazing concentrated along Willow Creek primarily. Wildlife habitat was
limited. The Willow Creek area was an area that \'nature\' seemed to be
after.

Project Objectives & Initial Start Up

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

The original WCP objective was for the management of flood waters and to
control erosion. Obviously, many other benefits (wildlife habitat,
vegetation enhancement, livestock management, access, etc.) resulted
from this objective, but they came along as follow up benefits over the
years.

The initial start up of major construction took place 1954-1958. Much
was learned in this short \'start up\' period. Large detention and
retention structures were constructed. They included some new challenges
to BLM at that time. Detention and retention were major construction
sites with draw down pipe installation, soils became an issue,
compaction and moisture content, weather, etc.\--all requiring special
knowledge and expertise that was yet to come. Engineering expertise was
limited in BLM during this period, new technology was still being
developed, construction practices were being fine tuned. Needless to say
we had some washouts due to major storms that resulted in
reconstruction. Because of my role in the WCP, I was sent to attend a
construction course put on by the Bureau of Reclamation. Soil
characteristics, moisture and compaction were taught. Also, construction
practices relating to core fills, lifts, compaction methods, etc. This
was the extent of my engineering training.

In my opinion, BLM was becoming of \'age\' in the need for engineers.
Major milestones were initiated, accomplished and pursued from this
period\--and continues today. I consider this learning curve one of the
success stories that the WCP has played a key role.

Legacy Site Visits-Sept.2003

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Hopefully the stage has been set to assess and evaluate where we are
today using the benchmark period presented above. One must keep in mind
the original objective of the WCP that has a 50-year history. That was
also the expected useful life of the structures (project)\--and the
project is still compiling benefits. Amazing thought.

Our visit included the general overview of the watershed itself and
specific structures and spreader system. Some of the major structures
observed were January, Deep Cut, Itchina, ULT, Hardpan, Half Pint, Mud
Pot, Forest, Collins, Gut Shot, and others. We observed dams washed out,
worn and used, but functioning, maintained and reconstructed. I must say
that this, in no way, takes away the success story of the WCP. There is
an ongoing effort to continue the maintenance of the WCP and rightly so.

The detention and retention structures are probably the most important
activity to the WCP and to the associated resource management
requirements of the area. Over the years new technology has been
implemented in all phases of new and past construction as applicable.
This was observed and explained in detail. The engineering methods,
techniques, stipulations, etc. for such as (1) draw down pipe
acquisition and installation (2) compaction (3) core fill (4) soil
manipulation (5) reconstruct (6) identification of sources of problems,
etc. have been and are being applied with impressive results. The
structures that are scheduled to remain in the overall watershed are
meeting the original objective both upstream and downstream. What would
enhance the objective further would be to have the capability to step up
the time frame on maintenance identified by the Field Office.

The fact that water now exists yearlong and wildlife habitat and other
vegetation has been established where once existed head cuts and raw and
active erosion\--one can easily observe other benefits taking place in
the watershed. Wild game, birds and ducks were readily seen; oasis
present around most of the structures; grazing systems were able to be
implemented; yearlong water exists; stream beds and banks were filled in
and healing; access (roads/trail) enhanced management opportunities;
recreation enhanced; and the community of Glasgow is benefiting. This
list is not inclusive.

Observation/Suggestions

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

1\. There is a need to continue the original objective of the WCP. BLM
should go back and revisit the 1987 decision with this in mind. Use the
original objective to identify the on-the-ground needs. However, include
the objectives being met or identified for wildlife, grazing, access,
etc., but not as the primary criteria. Point is that the WCP is the
purpose for the program. Seems wildlife and access criteria were more
for budget purposes than erosion or water control. Budget should not
influence the reason for the on-the-ground need. That is an entirely
separate step based on priorities in my judgment.

2\. The interest shown in maintaining the WCP was exceptional and
rewarding. Continue the application of new technology and the
recordation of progress and benefits.

3\. The things that are being accomplished on the Willow Creek Watershed
need to be kept before the public (Glasgow). Do this on a recurring
basis. Don\'t leave too much time between briefings and/or tours. This
also bridges the \'Legacy\' to our publics. A knowledgeable public
should generate support versus dissension\--hopefully.

4\. When presenting the WCP to BLM and publics be sure to emphasize the
benefits of the overall WCP. It is easy for some to see a breached
structure and lose the \"rest of the story.\" This may take a special
effort but is a must, I think.

5\. Insure the BLM personnel have a current awareness of why the WCP is
to be continued. Staff needs to be ready to respond within BLM and to
our publics. There is a positive story to be told at any moment or time.

6\. Measure Benefits. The WCP includes highly technical benefits and
general and/or specific benefits. To get the best mileage out of
accomplishments the monitoring of these benefits may need to be packaged
to (1) be more responsive to the general public questions/interests and
(2) to meet more technical data requirements of the Bureau. This is our
support data for the continuation of a needed project. The idea is to do
what it takes.

In closing\--I appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Legacy
of the old S&M program. I was impressed with the interest shown by the
BLM staff and the volunteers. It was most interesting and informative to
me. The presentations and explanation of past and future applications of
technology and management opportunities were excellent. Was good seeing
long time friends and meeting new friends. Thanks to all.

Ed Spang

State Director (Nevada and Alaska) (Retired)

Legacy Program Tour of Willow Creek Watershed Improvements

September 8, 2003

Jack Millar

On September 8, 2003 the legacy group visited the Willow Creek Watershed
area and several existing projects/systems in the Willow Creek
watershed. Our visit was to ascertain if the original objectives and
goals had been met and what follow up actions should be taken.

As I understood it when I started for the BLM in 1954, the Willow Creek
Plan objective was primarily the soil conservation and flood control.
The old "S and M" program had its separate funding, and its purpose was
to reduce sedimentation, reduce erosion, and control flooding.

Prior to the implementation of the plan the Willow creek watershed was
heavily eroded and laced with excessive head cutting through out its
length. Sheet erosion was excessive and cut channels lowered the water
table to the extent that vegetation was sparse. This condition was due
to poor soils and continual overgrazing. Annual rainstorms and spring
snowmelt runoff posed a serious flood danger to Glasgow.

During the period from roughly 1952 thorough the 1960's, a series of
detention dams and water spreader systems were designed and constructed
to reduce erosion, sedimentation and control flooding. Detention dams
rather than retention dams were constructed, as the primary function of
a detention dam is not to store water, but retain water. Water is stored
for a designed period of time, silt captured to the designed basin level
and water released by means of a draw down pipe. The desired effect is
that instead of a rush of floodwater downstream during a short interval,
the floodwater is released over a 5-10 day or longer period. Silt
storage in the reservoir enables the stream banks both upstream and
downstream to stabilize and re-vegetate. Over the years several water
spreader systems were constructed in conjunction with these detention
dams to enhance vegetation and utilize moisture, along with various land
treatments and improved grazing practices.

The projects/systems that we viewed included detention dams and water
spreader systems constructed during the period, some were still in their
original condition and some that had been reconstructed using newer
modern materials and engineering practices.

Several of the projects we viewed had breached due to pipe failure. In
the early 1950's and 60"s the only pipe available in the required size
was galvanized corrugated metal pipe. As some of these early pipes began
to rust out, later construction included double bituminous dipping of
corrugated metal pipe to prolong the pipe life. This coating of the pipe
helped somewhat but due to extreme temperature differences between
summer and winter the steel pipe would expand and contract and the
bituminous coating would crack and peel off allowing corrosion to begin.

While it was anticipated at the time of construction that the useful
life of these structures would be 50 years, one revelation came to light
to indicate otherwise. That was the fact that the soils in the watershed
were so corrosive that complete perforation of 16 gauge corrugated metal
pipe took only 2 years. This was not known until some years later when
testing such factors became available.

As with other disciplines, engineering design has metamorphosed with the
discovery of new and better materials, advanced technology and the
benefit of years of experience, with a little trial and error thrown in
for good measure. Some of the structures we viewed which had been
repaired using new plastic materials, unknown at the initiation of the
project. The Projects re-constructed with modern plastic pipe looked
excellent and are not subject to corrosion or the extreme expansion of
steel pipe.

We made a quite extensive tour throughout most of the Willow Creek and
Lone Tree watersheds and I feel I was able to make a good assessment of
present conditions of the watershed. Having worked in the area yearly
during the construction period and on most of the structures in one
capacity or another I can easily see the tremendous improvement.

I would disagree with the 1986 decision for the willow creek watershed
plan that indicated that the structures were not functioning as
anticipated. Overall it is my observation that the structures/systems we
observed are doing an excellent job as designed. Headcutting at the
structures has stopped. The channels have narrowed and re-vegetated
downstream of the structures and the silt is captured up-stream has
resulted in healing of side channels. Sheet erosion has been greatly
reduced and vegetation has returned to the channel bottoms. Although I
have not seen any reports I assume that stream flows have stabilized at
the mouth of Willow Creek and flooding of Glasgow has been eliminated.

I believe the 1986 decision was based on the premise that repairs would
continue to be made using what had proved to be the inferior materials
and technology available at the time. With the new materials available I
believe that repairs made would last indefinitely. Therefore is my
opinion that the 1986 record of decision for the Willow Creek watershed
activity plan be revisited.

I do not agree with the decision to breach selected dams. Dam design is
based on controlled and uncontrolled flows upstream. Breaching a dam
would cause a domino effect by altering the streamflow characteristics
downstream and negatively impact the design of the structure below by
accelerated erosion of the silt basin behind the breached dam and
changing flows from controlled to uncontrolled.

I do agree, however, with the decision as it lists priorities as with
the availability of funding to be (1) essential for access roads, (2)
essential wildlife and riparian habitats, (3) replacement of lost
vegetation and (4) alternative livestock and watering facilities.

In summary it is my view that the projects are meeting the designed
objectives and should maintained as funding permits.

Thank you for inviting me on the tour. It was great to see old friends.
I was pleased to see that some of my work is paying off.

Jack Millar

Legacy Program Tour -- Willow Creek, Montana

Lowell K. Brown

Being invited to tour the Willow Creek watershed project was a highlight
of my BLM retirement. I first visited the area in 1959 and was not
impressed with the area or the projects. Most of the visits were in
support of the Public Domain Range people and involved livestock counts,
utilization checks, and reading vegetative transects. My major role was
to handle the LU lands in the Malta District. This area was not a LU
area and regular visits were not required.

When I first started working for the Malta District, Watershed
Management was not well coordinated with other programs and the range
staff often questioned the value of the big detention dams without first
getting control of the livestock. Erosion was very noticeable and the
vegetative cover was not ideal.

The area seemed to be popular for watershed tours and a good show area
for poor watershed conditions. I was often told that the Malta District
was the dirt moving district for the Bureau and the proposed projects
lived up to this standard. Little did I realize that these projects
would ever achieve any value.

The Legacy Program brought me back and I was able to evaluate the area
after 44 years. My first impression was stability. The area showed
marked improvement and riparian vegetation reestablished in areas that
had showed major erosion. I pretty well completed the tour with a
reversed attitude that the overall program had worked.

There were many trials and errors, design changes and grazing management
that collectively contributed to the mass improvement of this critical
watershed. It took a long time to achieve some of the objectives while
others may never be achieved. Sediment storage in the structures may not
be so bad as once thought if design features are changed. Design life is
receiving more consideration and should result in less major
maintenance. Since I lack engineering skills, very little can be offered
here. Natural erosion will always be a challenge.

Recommendation:

1.  Maintenance should be built into the project so it can be timely.

2.  Photo points should be more numerous.

3.  Intensive grazing management should continue. (rest rotation)

4.  Planning stages should include all resource disciplines.

5.  Small check dams might help in some of the high sediment yielding
    areas.

Overall, I'm impressed with the stability of that area and the attitude
of the managers.

Further: I'm really impressed with the Legacy Program as it brought a
lot of talent together with ideas that could help solve some complex
problems. What better way to manage the nation's resources.

I have a special place in my heart for John Fahlgren and that crew who
look after the land that I first disliked and still spent a lot of time
in. Today, it doesn't look so bad. Jack Millar certainty had a lot of
grass roots ideas that should help in future planning. I know that
Willow Creek Watershed has a lot of watershed problems yet, but still
offers a lot of challenge to manage it for the good of the people.

Hopefully we can get the Gold Basin RCA in the Legacy program and what
I've seen so far makes me want to revisit the pinon-juniper chaining
areas that I had involvement with.

Lowell K. Brown

BLM Legacy Program

Gunnison Field Office

September 2003

David Wickstrom and Bob Carruthers

Project Description: Timber Harvest and Reforestation, Indian Creek,
Blue Mesa and High Mesa

1\. What were the original project objectives?

\- Harvesting mature timber

\- Develop market for salvage wood products from past timber sales (i.e.
mine props and feed lot bunkers)

\- Clear areas previously harvested - pile and burn

\- Replant by seeding, machine and hand planting

\- Develop road system that will be available for future forest
management and public access

2\. What were the goals or expectations in terms of future resource
values or uses?

\- Maintain an allowable cut

\- Determine time required to regenerate a mature forest

\- Field review of harvested areas and areas planned for harvesting

\- Locating section corners and lines to determine property lines

\- Indian Creek, Blue Mesa and High Mesa - Harvest mature and damaged
trees

> \- Blue Mesa - Species conversion to facilitate restoration of
> spruce-fir forest. Planted lodgepole pine as cover for future
> conversion to spruce-fir

\- Blue Mesa - Protect springs from livestock use

\- Indian Creek, Blue Mesa and High Mesa - Improve public access (i.e.
outback jeeping, sightseeing, hunting and recreational camping)

\- Blue Mesa - Close reforested areas to grazing

\- Blue Mesa - Resolve timber cutting trespass

When were the projects started? 1966-1974

3\. What vegetation or structural treatments were done?

\- Harvesting mature timber - Forest product sale preparation (i.e.
cruising, road layout, and access acquisition)

> \- Past timber harvested areas - salvage and reforestation (i.e.
> piling and burning, seeding and planting)

\- Spring development (i.e. exclosures) with piping off site

\- Planted and seeded areas were closed to grazing

4\. Was monitoring included in the project?

\- Indian Creek -- first-year review to determine success of planting

\- Blue Mesa - yearly review of seeded and planted areas for 1-4 years
to determine mortality and need for additional planting. General photo
shots taken of planted areas

\- High Mesa - General photos taken of areas designated for harvesting

5\. Were photo points established? No

6\. What post-project management was planned or used?

\- Annual road maintenance

\- Indian Creek - Bond pulled on timber sale. Money used for planting

2-0 spruce seedlings

\- Blue Mesa - forest product salvage from harvested areas

> \- Blue Mesa - land treatment - piling and burning, seeding and tree
> planting
>
> \- Blue Mesa - Closed planted areas to grazing
>
> \- Close review of new timber sales - objective was to maintain a
> forest?

Harvesting was adjusted to assure a healthy stand remained.

7\. What are your observations and conclusions based on the 2003 site
visit?

\- For all areas - General appearance is good. Harvested areas have
stabilized. New trees are growing in all age classes. Lesson learned:
­Restocking of a spruce-fir forest is a slow, costly process. An
estimated 150 years or longer is required to produce trees suitable for
harvesting for lumber. Clearing timber sale areas by piling and burning
takes longer to regenerate than what was predicted. Instead of a forest
being reestablished in 1-3 years, a time period of 10-30 years or more
is more likely to be needed. Our observation was that trees were small.
The largest being 6\"-8\" in diameter.

\- Indian Creek - Young trees of all age classes are evident. There is
more aspen than was expected. The Indian Creek Road provides access to
the Powderhorn Wilderness area. The road is one lane with turn outs and
rough. This is okay. We do not need highways everywhere.

\- Blue Mesa - Planted areas are returning to a forest environment.

The areas reviewed that were planted or seeded with lodgepole pine are
now supporting a mixed forest of lodgepole pine, aspen, fir and spruce
around the edges. There is more aspen than what was expected. Alpine fir
is the most prominent species.

Alpine fir shows signs of elk browsing. Trees are small. Open areas
support grass and sedges. Livestock grazing is believed to be much less
or no longer being done.

The few lodgepole pines that were initially planted in the early 1960s
and fed with fertilizer during the 1960s responded with growth up to
18\". Normal growth is 3\"-5\". Feeding trees fertilizer improved
survival and speeded growth. The trees found looked healthy and were
larger than others not given fertilizer.

The Darryl Duncan Memorial Forest was viewed. The young forest is an
open stand of lodgepole pine and alpine fir. To the general public, the
area would look natural. This area was posted off-limits to grazing. How
long did this posting last and was it honored by grazing permittees?

\- High Mesa - The road up and on High Mesa is stabilized. It is a one
lane road with turn outs. Clearing and disposing of the right-of-way
slash before construction left the road corridor in good condition. A
concern at the time of construction was wind throw along the road
corridor. There was little blowdown observed. A rain gauge has been set
up to record moisture.

8\. What do you recommend to the field manager in terms of follow up
actions?

Refine forest management practices to maintain healthy forests.

There seems to have been very little timber harvesting after the mid
70s. No activity was noticed. There is interest in cutting select trees
for house logs. Keep harvesting areas small. The need for large sales is
not needed as before. Early sales paid for the road construction. Future
access costs for timber harvesting will be less. There are areas of
heavy forest debris that should be cleaned (i.e. chipped on-site) to
reduce fire hazard and make the forest more accessible. Precommercial
thinning projects should be done.

\- Complete a soils analysis program on areas planned for forest
harvesting or regeneration. Knowing the condition of soils before
undertaking forest harvesting and regeneration activities will assist
foresters to have better results when undertaking these activities.

\- Indian Creek - Monitor the area and determine its potential for
future harvesting of forest products. The area lies adjacent to a
wilderness area. This situation will require forest management skills
that do not interfere with the wilderness (i.e. clearcutting to the
boundary may not be the logical thing to do).

\- Blue Mesa - Foresters working on Blue Mesa need to be knowledgeable
of the past forest harvesting in the area before undertaking new
harvesting. They also need to know the history of grazing practices over
the area and the impact grazing had on forest regeneration.

Forests are aged but healthy. Areas that have not been impacted by
harvesting need to be studied, and harvesting activities undertaken
should retain a healthy forest. These forests need to be managed for the
total forest.

Forestry is more than cutting the big trees for lumber.

The few experimental lodgepole pines that were given fertilizer in the
mid 1960s were found. These trees are considerably larger (6-8\") than
the ones planted nearby that were not given fertilizer. These trees are
4-6\" in diameter. Lodgepole pine trees in this area need to be bored
and the growth rings analyzed. Soil analysis should be done.

The mixed stands of pine, alpine fir, spruce and aspen provide excellent
wildlife habitat. Heavy use by elk is high-lining alpine fir trees

The area\'s signs are in disrepair. New signs and more of them should be
installed to show the public where the public lands are. Interpretive
signs (i.e. kiosks) should be built to explain the management of the
area. People like to know how the public lands are being managed.

The development of private lands for homes will generate urban interface
issues. A market for firewood may develop as a result of the home
building.

The big spring on the Little Blue should be further developed for the
public.

\- High Mesa - No review of the cutting areas was undertaken.

The High Mesa road and the Big Blue Road on Blue Mesa were both cleared
of slash before construction. This approach provided for beautiful
drives along the routes and easy entry into the forests for future
forest harvesting activities and reduced fire hazard.

\- Install a weather station to obtain a better understanding of the
weather on High Mesa.

[^1]: *The most significant concern with managing the erosion/vegetation
    topic is the dynamic of free moving surface water. Moving water will
    suspend various size particles of material (clay, silt, sand,
    gravel, rocks etc.) depending on the velocity of the water flow. The
    Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) constructed hundreds of
    retention/diversion structure of all sizes and types throughout the
    West in the 1930's. In general, these were all successful for a
    short time. These structures temporarily slowed or stopped the
    surface water flow. The water born materials were deposited in
    place, forming a terrace. Surface water then had to find a new
    downhill course that often had a steeper gradient. This increased
    grade allowed the flowing water to increase in velocity; therefore,
    increasing its capacity to carry a new material often resulting in a
    new head cut or gully, leaving the terraces high and dry.*