Lakeview District - Lakeview Resource Area October 2012

Lakeview Resource Area

Resource Management 

Plan Amendment

Scoping Report

October 2012

BLM/OR/WA/AE-12/026+1792

BLM
As the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency, the 

Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our 

nationally owned public lands 

and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the wisest 

use of our land and water 

resources, protecting our fish 

and wildlife, preserving the 

environmental and cultural 

values of our national parks 

and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of 

life through outdoor recreation. 

The Department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources 

and works to assure that their 

development is in the best 

interest of all our people. 

The Department also has 

a major responsibility for 

American Indian reservation 

communities and for people 

who live in Island Territories 

under U.S. administration.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Lakeview Resource Area

1301 S. “G” Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

(541) 947-2177

Cover Picture is BLM Picture of Warner 

wetlands with Warner Mountains 

in Background
Lakeview Resource Area

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Scoping Report 

October 2012

For information about this report contact

Paul Whitman, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Lakeview Resource Area at 

(541) 947-6110

Bureau of Land Management

1301 S. “G” Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

(541) 947-2177

A detailed spreadsheet of all scoping comments received and BLM’s response is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/rmp-amendment/index.php


Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 
Scoping Report

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Description of the Planning Area 2

Purpose and Need 3

Settlement Agreement Background 3

Other Planning Issues 4

Scoping and Tribal Consultation 5

Tribal Consultation 5

Scoping Process 5

Scoping Report 7

Summary of Public Comments from Scoping 7

Issue Identification 8

Issues That Will Be Addressed 10

Issue 1: Wilderness Characteristics 10

Issue 2: Grazing Management 12

Issue 3: OHV and Travel Management 13

Issue 4: North Lake Special Recreation Management Area 16

Issue 5: Utility Corridors 20

Issue 6: Significant Caves 21

Issue 7: ACECs 21

Issue 8: Climate Change 22

Issue 9: Local Social and Economic Concerns 23

Comments, Concerns, and Issues That Will Not Be Addressed 24

Comments or Issues That Are Beyond the Scope of Analysis or 

Can Only be Resolved by Policy Change or Legislative Action 24

Comments Directing BLM to Follow Existing Law or Regulation 25

Comments or Issues that Represent Decisions Addressed 

Via Existing Laws, Regulations, or Other Land Use Planning Efforts 26

Comments or Issues That Do Not Require a Response or 

Can Be Answered More Directly Outside the Planning Process 28

Non-substantive Comments 28

Differences Between Lakeview RMP and SEORMP Amendments 29

Planning Criteria 29

Data Summary / Data Gaps 29

Road and Trail Inventory 29

Wilderness Characteristics Evaluations 30

Next Steps in the Planning Process 30

Appendix A: Notice of Intent for Lakeview RMP and SEORMP Amendments 31

Appendix B: Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Notice of Intent 35
Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 
1

Scoping Report

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend its resource management 

plan (RMP) for the Lakeview Resource Area of the Lakeview District. The current RMP for 

the planning area was adopted by the BLM in November 2003.

The planning decisions contained in an RMP are the basis for every subsequent on-theground action the BLM undertakes. An RMP ensures that the public lands are managed in 

accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 United States 

Code [USC] 1701 et seq.) under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 

An RMP is a set of comprehensive long-term decisions guiding the management direction, 

uses, and restrictions for resources administered by the BLM on public lands. In general 

an RMP does two things: (1) provides a set of goals and management direction for each 

resource or use, and (2) resolves multiple-use conflicts or issues, to the extent possible. In 

contrast, a plan amendment typically focuses on updating an existing RMP to deal with 

specific issues or is often limited to specific geographic areas. An amendment typically 

results in changes to some existing management decisions, while decisions for other issues, 

resources, uses, or areas are not modified. 

The BLM has added a new priority since the BLM initiated preparation of the SEORMP 

and Lakeview RMP amendments and associated environmental impacts statements (EISs) 

pursuant to terms of the Ninth Circuit Court Settlement Agreement. The importance of 

conserving the Greater Sage-Grouse has recently become even clearer to the BLM, and it has 

embarked on a nationwide effort to improve Greater Sage-Grouse conservation on BLMadministered lands. 

In 2010 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision, under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), for the Greater Sage-Grouse as “Warranted but Precluded.” 

Inadequate regulatory mechanisms were identified as a major threat in the USFWS finding 

on the petition to list the Greater Sage-Grouse. The USFWS has identified the principal 

regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs. In December 2011 

the Washington Office BLM released a National Technical Team Report outlining potential 

conservation measures for the Greater Sage-Grouse conservation was published in December 

2011. This unprecedented national planning effort has been split into two regions: a Rocky 

Mountain Region and a Great Basin Region. The Rocky Mountain Region will prepare 

numerous EISs to consider amending RMPs in the states of Colorado, Wyoming, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and portions of western Utah and western Montana. The Great Basin 

Region will also prepare multiple EISs to consider amending RMPs in California, Idaho, 

Nevada, Oregon, and portions of eastern Utah and eastern Montana (see Appendix B). The 

BLM aims to incorporate objectives and conservation measures into RMPs by September 

2014 in order to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve Greater SageGrouse and its habitat. These measures will be considered by the USFWS as it makes its 

final determination on whether to list the Greater Sage-Grouse under section 4 of the ESA. 

Therefore, these EISs will be prepared under expedited timeframes.

The BLM in Oregon is preparing a programmatic EIS for amending up to nine RMPs to 

incorporate conservation measures for the Greater Sage-Grouse. The Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMP amendment effort will include the SEORMP (2002) and the Lakeview RMP (2003). 

Given the expedited timeframes and conservation need for the Greater Sage-Grouse, 

preparation and completion of the Greater Sage-Grouse RMP amendments and associated 

EISs will come before all other planning efforts in eastern Oregon, including the SEORMP 

and Lakeview RMP Settlement Agreement amendments. Thus, the existing 2002 SEORMP 

and 2003 Lakeview RMP will first be amended to incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation measures that are adopted by those two BLM districts at the completion of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMP amendment effort. 
2

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Once the Greater Sage-Grouse RMP amendment effort is complete, the BLM may resume 

looking at the Ninth Circuit Court Settlement Agreement amendment process for the 

SEORMP and Lakeview RMP. 

Description of the Planning Area

The planning area encompasses approximately 3.2 million acres of public land within the 

Lakeview Resource Area (Map 1). The planning area is located in Lake and Harney counties 

in southcentral Oregon. However, the Lakeview Resource Area manages livestock grazing on 

approximately 2,265 acres of the BLM Surprise Field Office in northwestern Nevada through 

a cooperative agreement. 
3

Scoping Report

The planning area is bordered on the east by the Burns BLM District; on the south by the 

Modoc National Forest, Sheldon National Antelope Refuge, and BLM Surprise Field Office 

in Nevada and California; on the west by the Fremont and Deschutes National Forests; and on 

the north by the Prineville BLM District. Most of the public land is contiguous. Some small 

scattered parcels occur in the north end around Christmas Valley and in the south end near 

Lakeview (See Map 1 and Table 1).

Table 1: Land Status Within the Planning Area Acres by County

Ownership / Administration Lake County Harney County Total

Bureau of Land Management 

 Public domain 2,331,813 762,410 3,094,223

 Acquired lands 85,622 26,070 111,692

Subtotal BLM 2,417,435 788,480 3,205,916

US Forest Service 1,025,019 0 1,025,019

US Fish and Wildlife Service 277,483 0 277,483

Department of Defense 2,623 0 2,623

Oregon State Lands 112,213 32,624 144,838

Private 122,0228 39,689 1,259,917

Other 83,571 0 83,571

Grand totals 5,138,573 860,794 5,999,367

 (Other: meander-surveyed lake beds, local government, and acres of unknown ownership)

Purpose and Need

The overall purpose of this planning effort is to amend the Lakeview Resource Management 

Plan (Lakeview RMP) and develop a comprehensive plan to manage the BLM-administered 

lands in accordance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, 

and policies. 

Settlement Agreement Background

The BLM completed the Lakeview RMP in 2003 and Southeastern Oregon RMP (SEORMP) 

in 2002. Separate lawsuits were filed in District Court challenging each RMP. Both RMPs 

were upheld at the District Court level but were subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. On July 14, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled on the SEORMP case in 

Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Bureau of Land Management, 531 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 

2008). Soon thereafter, the BLM filed a petition for panel rehearing of the court’s remedy, 

and the matter was stayed during settlement negotiations. The Ninth Circuit Court also stayed 

litigation regarding similar challenges to the Lakeview RMP in Oregon Natural Desert 

Association v. Gammon, No. 07-35728 (9th Cir.), pending resolution of the SEORMP case 

and to allow for settlement negotiations between the parties. A settlement was reached in June 

2010, and the BLM is now preparing an amendment to the Lakeview RMP that is consistent 

with the terms of the 2010 Settlement Agreement. A copy of the settlement agreement is 

available for review on Lakeview’s RMP amendment website at http://www.blm.gov/or/

districts/lakeview/plans/rmp-amendment/index.php. 
4

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Purpose

One primary purpose of the RMP amendment is to analyze a broader range of management 

alternatives for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, livestock grazing, and lands that the BLM 

has determined have wilderness characteristics, consistent with the provisions of the 2010 

Settlement Agreement.

Need

The BLM updated its wilderness characteristics inventory during the 2003 planning effort but 

for only a small portion of public lands in the planning area. The 2010 Settlement Agreement 

requires BLM to update its wilderness characteristics inventory for all public lands (outside 

of existing wilderness study areas) in the planning area. The Settlement Agreement also 

requires BLM to analyze a broader range of alternatives for managing lands with wilderness 

characteristics, particularly with respect to OHV and livestock grazing uses.

Other Planning Issues

Purpose

A secondary purpose of the Lakeview RMP amendment is to address several other minor 

local planning issues that the BLM identified during internal scoping. None of these issues 

were substantial enough to require amending the existing RMP in and of themselves, but since 

an RMP amendment and associated EIS was already being considered, the BLM felt it was 

appropriate and efficient to also address them in this same planning effort. 

Need

The BLM identified a need to consider the designation and management of significant caves 

for over a hundred caves where cave inventories have recently been completed.

The BLM identified a need to develop a travel management plan for the planning area.

The BLM identified a need to develop a recreation area management plan (RAMP) for the 

North Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA).

The BLM identified a need to address new utility corridor designations within the planning 

area. This need was identified in the 2010 Settlement Agreement and based on new 

information related to the construction of the Ruby Gas Pipeline.

The BLM identified a need to address climate change in accordance with emerging policies. 

The BLM identified a need to consider whether the Foskett Dace Springs area met the 

relevance and importance criteria for designation as an area of critical environmental concern 

(ACEC) and required special management.
5

Scoping Report

Scoping and Tribal Consultation

Tribal Consultation

The BLM initiated government-to-government consultation regarding the Lakeview RMP 

amendment through correspondence (in April 2010) with The Klamath Tribes, Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Burns Paiute Tribe, Fort Bidwell Tribe, and Fort 

McDermitt Tribe. None of these tribes provided a formal response regarding any concerns or 

issues needing to be addressed in the plan amendment process. 

The BLM will continue to consult, both formally and informally, with interested tribes and 

individual members to allow additional opportunities for their involvement in the RMP 

amendment process. 

Scoping Process

The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that federal agencies initiate 

the scoping process in the early stages of developing an EIS to determine the scope and 

significance of issues related to a proposed action and alternatives (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] §1501.7). Knowing the scope and significance of issues allows for 

accurate and timely completion of environmental analysis. Scoping helps identify issues 

important to the management of the area, as well as which issues warrant consideration. 

Scoping is designed to provide for and encourage public participation, as well as solicit 

public input to help formulate or refine alternatives and understand effects of the proposed 

alternatives. 

The BLM provided information announcing the initiation of the RMP amendment process, 

how to submit comments, and the comment period. The information was distributed to 

the public, other agencies, and tribal governments through a number of means, including 

publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (see Appendix A), publishing 

legal notices in regional newspapers, sending out scoping letters and news releases, and 

conducting scoping open houses. The BLM invited parties to identify planning issues and 

refine the planning criteria. 

The BLM has also made information available on its RMP amendment website (http://www.

blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/rmp-amendment/index.php). The website also announced 

the dates, times, and locations of the scoping open houses. The BLM will continue to update 

this website with information as the project progresses. 

Notice of Intent and Legal Notices

The scoping process for the Lakeview RMP amendment began with publication of the NOI in 

the Federal Register on April 8, 2010 (Appendix A). Concurrently, the BLM published legal 

notices in five regional newspapers. These notices announced that the BLM was initiating 

the amendment process, provided a list of preliminary issues, announced open house meeting 

dates, identified the comment period (April 30, 2010 through July 7, 2010), and described 

how to submit comments to the BLM via email or postal mail. 
6

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Open Houses

The BLM hosted five open house meetings during the scoping period:

May 25, 2010 – Lakeview Oregon

May 26, 2010 – Hines, Oregon

May 27, 2010 – Bend, Oregon

May 28, 2010 – Christmas Valley, Oregon

June 2, 2010 – Portland, Oregon

A total of 85 people attended one or more these meetings, during which the BLM answered questions 

and provided information about: 

• BLM’s Planning Process

• Livestock Grazing Management

• Travel Management Planning

• Off-Highway Vehicle Use

• Wilderness Characteristics Inventory

The BLM also provided comment sheets at the open houses for attendees to complete and return during 

the meeting or mail in at a later date.

During the comment period (which ended on July 7, 2010), the BLM received a total of 65 submissions 

(letters, emails, or paper comment forms). Two additional comment letters were received after the 

close of the comment period. A summary of comments received and issues identified during scoping is 

included later in this document. 

Additional Opportunities for Input

Lake County Open Houses

Between January 26 and February 9, 2012, the Lake County Commissioners sponsored four community 

open house meetings around Lake County (Lakeview, Adel, Paisley, and Christmas Valley). BLM 

was invited to participate. During these meetings BLM staff explained that they expected to develop 

a comprehensive travel management plan as part of the RMP amendment process, and the public 

was encouraged to review a series of maps and provide comments on the accuracy of its recent route 

inventory effort. Lake County Commissioners consolidated these comments and map notations and 

officially submitted them to the BLM in March 2012. BLM will review this information, update its 

route inventory where appropriate, and utilize this updated information as its existing route baseline 

during the travel management planning process.

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

Since the close of the scoping period, and as explained in the Introduction, the BLM Washington 

Office issued new guidance regarding the need to prepare a series of RMP amendments to consider the 

management, restoration, and conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat throughout its range. 

The public scoping process for the Oregon Sub-Regional Greater Sage-Grouse EIS began with 

publication of the NOI in the Federal Register on December 9, 2011 (Appendix B). The BLM 

Washington Office held information/scoping meetings regarding the national Greater Sage-Grouse 

planning effort in Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, and Utah during January 2012 to present 

information about the strategy and provide opportunity for public input. Informational meeting were 

held in Ontario and Lakeview, Oregon, in January 2012. 
7

Scoping Report

The public was encouraged to submit any feedback on the strategy and plan amendment 

process to the Western Regional Project Manager at the BLM Nevada State Office. Public 

input will be used by the BLM Oregon State Office during preparation of its Oregon SubRegional Greater Sage-Grouse EIS, which will present alternatives for managing sage-grouse 

habitat on BLM lands in Oregon. 

North Lake Special Recreation Area Management Plan Scoping

Scoping for the North Lake Special RAMP initially started in October 1995. A public meeting 

was held at the North Lake County School on November 6, 1995. The BLM re-initiated 

scoping and consultation for the RAMP in March 2005. Additional public meetings were 

held in Christmas Valley and Lakeview during this same time frame. An informal public open 

house was held in Christmas Valley on May 26, 2008, to update the public on the status of the 

RAMP. 

Scoping Report

The BLM is publishing this Scoping Report as another means of providing the public, 

agencies, and tribes an opportunity to review the development of the issues to be addressed, 

prior to the release of the draft Lakeview RMP amendment/EIS.

Summary of Public Comments from Scoping

The following BLM summaries are provided to give the public an overview of the range of 

participation. A detailed spreadsheet of all scoping comments received and BLM’s response 

is available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/Lakeview/plans/rmp-amendment/index.php. 

The BLM received a total of 65 submissions (letters, emails, online submissions, or paper 

comment forms) (note: the 65 submissions were submitted by 58 unique individuals or 

organizations). The submissions contained 532 individual comments and four different form 

letters from 27 individuals. Tables 2-5 summarize the RMP Scoping Comments by affiliation 

(Table 2), interest (Table 3), categories (Table 4), and comment demographics (Table 5). 

The BLM also brought forward information from 15 letters, emails, or verbal comments 

received from previous scoping efforts conducted between 1995 and 2008 related to 

development of the North Lake Special RAMP adding another 107 individual comments 

(Table 4). 

Table 2: Scoping Comments by Affiliation

Affiliation/Category Number of Unique Submissions

Agency – Federal 1

Agency – State 1

Environmental – Groups and Individuals 7

Grazing Interests, Business, Individuals, and permittees23

Motorized Recreation – Groups and Individuals 22

Non-Motorized – Group 1

Opposed to More Wilderness – Individual 3

Supports Multiple Use – Individual 1

Unknown 1

Total 58
8

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Table 3: Scoping Comments Summarized by Interest Category

Letter Emphasis Number of Submissions

Access Protection 4

Beyond Scope or No emphasis 4

Economic Development 1

Environmental Protection 1

Grazing Support 23

Non-Motorized – Recreation 1

OHV Use Support 18

Opposed to Wilderness 5

Protect Military Training Area 1

Resource Protection 2

Wilderness Advocate 12

Total 58

Table 4: Comment Categories (RMP and NLRA Scoping)

Category Number of Comments

Substantive Comments 286

Comments or Issues that are Beyond the Scope of Analysis 51

Comments directing BLM to follow Existing Law or Regulations 15

Comments or Issues That Represent Decisions Already Made by Plan, Law, or 

Regulation

17

Comments or Issues That Do Not Require a Response or Can Be Answered 

More Directly Outside the Planning Process

9

Non-substantive Comments and Duplicated Form Letters 285

Total 662

Issue Identification

The primary purpose of scoping is to give people an opportunity to identify the issues that 

need to be addressed during the planning process. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

defines planning issues as disputes or controversies about existing and potential land and 

resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, or related management practices. 

While many issues may arise during scoping, not all of the issues warrant analysis (BLM 

H-1790-1, section 6.4.1). Analysis of an issue is only warranted if it contributes information 

that may help resolve disagreement about the best way to manage or use a resource or resolve 

an undesirable resource condition. 

Issue identification for the Lakeview RMP amendment first involved determining if the 

comment(s) submitted related to BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed amendment 

(described above). Comments, concerns, or issues that fall outside the stated purpose 

and need are generally not carried forward into the plan amendment process. Comments, 

concerns, or issues that fall within the stated purpose and need can be carried forward into 

the plan amendment process and addressed in one of many ways. Some comments/issues 

are used to refine the planning criteria. Other comments/issues can be addressed through the 

range of alternatives developed or the analysis of effects.
9

Scoping Report

The alternatives will include management goals, objectives, allowable uses, and actions 

anticipated to achieve desired outcomes. The alternatives will include a range of management 

directions for all of resources and resource uses. The BLM will then analyze the effects of the 

alternatives and determine to what degree each alternative addresses the issues and meets the 

amendment’s stated purpose and need. 

Table 5: Comment Demographics

City State Number

Salem OR 1

Seattle WA 1

Adel OR 6

Burns OR 1

Grand View ID 1

Lakeview OR 3

Langlois OR 1

Paisley OR 4

Plush OR 2

Salem OR 1

Unknown OR 1

Unknown Unknown 1

Bend OR 2

Helena MT 1

Hillsboro OR 1

Keno OR 1

Klamath Falls OR 3

Pocatello ID 1

Roseburg OR 1

Vancouver WA 1

Unknown Unknown 11

Unknown Unknown 1

Manzanita OR 1

Corvallis OR 1

Bend OR 1

Halfway OR 1

Lakeview OR 1

Chiloquin OR 1

Denver CO 1

Portland OR 2

Bend OR 1

Chicago IL 1

Ashland OR 1

TOTAL 58
10

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Issues That Will Be Addressed 

Issues 1–9, described in the following section, were identified either internally by the BLM at 

the initiation of scoping (see the NOI in Appendix A) or from the public comments received 

during the scoping comment period. Issues 1–9 will be addressed in the Lakeview RMP 

amendment EIS. Each issue is identified, representative public comments are provided (a 

detailed spreadsheet of all scoping comments received and BLM’s response is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/rmp-amendment/index.php) questions to be 

resolved under each issue, followed by the BLM response on how the information will be 

utilized in the draft EIS.

Issue 1: Wilderness Characteristics

There was considerable debate in some comments as to whether additional lands with 

wilderness characteristics are present in the planning area or whether such lands should be 

protected or left open for other uses.

A range of recommendations were made from designating all Oregon Natural Desert 

Association (ONDA) proposals as wilderness study areas (WSAs) to eliminating all current 

WSAs. Management suggestions ranged widely from eliminating all uses from existing 

WSAs to allowing all historic uses in existing and any future WSA proposals, including 

grazing, energy development, and vehicle access. 

Representative Public Comments 

The agency must walk the fine line between adhering to these conflicting mandates. For 

example, in one Alternative, the BLM may consider identifying lands with wilderness 

characteristics and developing general management guidance on how those lands are to 

be managed. BLM should not, however, develop an Alternative that formally establishes 

Wilderness Study Areas, or could be interpreted as making a recommendation to Congress on 

lands to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

BLM must make all new information regarding wilderness characteristics available for 

public review and comment prior to utilizing such information to develop draft alternatives.

There appears to be a disparity between WSA acreage that BLM identified twenty years ago, 

and what ONDA has identified. There should not, however, be any disparity about what the 

key factors of wilderness character are. If so, please look to 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c) when making 

inventory decisions. As to the acreage, please follow ONDA’s recommendation to designate 

1.7 million of your acres as wilderness, rather than your ‘89/’91 WSA process which found 

less than 500k acres. Anything less would likely result in more litigation coming at the 

expense of taxpayers. The Ninth Circuit mandates that you consider closures of significant 

portions of land to comply with NEPA. Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Bureau of Land 

Management, 531 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2008).

Inventoried lands possessing wilderness characteristics must not be automatically managed 

as de facto wilderness. Until and unless they are designated as WSAs by an act of Congress, 

the BLM is obligated to manage these lands under the multiple-use mandate.

Insure that the EISs disclose and discuss the ONDA wilderness report information as well as 

BLM’s own, related data and analyses.

Recognize and protect the numerous vast unfragmented roadless areas, including by 

closing significant portions of them to motorized use and by limiting impacts from energy 
11

Scoping Report

development, mining, rangeland projects and other potentially wilderness-disturbing actions 

within areas that possess wilderness character.

Inventorying lands with wilderness characteristics will also provide important data on 

existing large blocks of habitat and how BLM can restore these blocks of habitat to better 

match the historic range of variability.

Identifying, restoring and protecting substantial roadless areas in the lands governed by the 

Southeastern Oregon and Lakeview RMPs can provide crucial benefits to wildlife, ..cultural 

resources...soils...solitude......economic values,....etc.

The wildlands located within the Vale and Lakeview District Offices help to define the 

character of these areas and are an important component of the quality of life for local 

residents and future generations, providing wilderness values in proximity to burgeoning 

urban and suburban areas. Their protection enables the customs and culture of this 

community to continue.

Please recognize and protect wilderness-quality lands and roadless areas, including areas 

outside of existing WSAs that possess wilderness characteristics. These areas are important 

for their value as an enduring resource of wilderness for the American people.

Administrative protection can and should be considered for lands with wilderness 

characteristics that are not currently protected. The Draft RMP amendments should also 

consider management alternatives that provide administrative protection for the wilderness 

characteristics of those lands currently designated as WSAs if they are not ultimately 

designated as Wilderness by Congress; their wilderness characteristics are already 

acknowledged by the BLM.

BLM must include various ways to protect these lands in each of the management 

alternatives. In addition to considering designation of new WSAs, BLM should propose 

protective management prescriptions or other protective status (including mineral 

withdrawals, non-motorized recreation prescriptions, ACEC designations, and prohibitions 

on new road construction and erection of structures such as cell towers) for these lands.

My comments pertain primarily to the Sand Dunes Wilderness Study Area and Lost Forest, 

and the impacts that off-road thrill craft have on the wilderness values there. ONDA has 

conducted a district-wide wilderness inventory and has determined that not only the Sand 

Dunes, but much of the Lost Forest, and a large area east of the Sand Dunes has wilderness 

character. 

Questions to be resolved

• Are lands with wilderness characteristics present in the planning area (outside of 

existing WSAs)?

• How should lands that the BLM determines have wilderness characteristics be 

managed?

BLM Response

The 2010 Settlement Agreement requires the BLM to complete wilderness character 

inventory updates for all BLM-administered lands in the planning area (outside of existing 

WSAs) and consider the inventory information during the development of alternatives to 

be analyzed in the Lakeview RMP amendment. The inventories are to follow current BLM 

state and/or national wilderness inventory guidance. The inventories are to also consider 

citizen-provided information to determine if it represents valid new information regarding the 

presence of wilderness characteristics. 
12

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

These wilderness characteristics inventory updates have been posted on the Lakeview District 

website as they are completed (http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.

php). Hard copies have also been provided to interested parties upon request. The Lakeview 

RMP amendment will address a range of management alternatives for lands that the BLM 

determines to possess wilderness characteristics (outside of existing WSAs). 

Issue 2: Grazing Management

Within the public comments received, grazing interests expressed lack of agreement with 

the Settlement Agreement’s emphasis on additional grazing restrictions on public lands. 

Comments from others ranged from supporting continued livestock grazing on public lands 

to desiring complete elimination of grazing throughout the planning area. Grazing use was 

viewed as a cause of increased spread of noxious weeds by some respondents, while others 

saw grazing as a tool for the control of noxious weeds. 

Representative Public Comments 

Incentivize for and compensate long time federal grazing permittees who end grazing on 

public lands.

As a rancher ends his allotment it needs to be given to another at the going rate or kept on 

the books until another takes it up. Do not allow grazing allotments to end! Grazing on public 

lands should be encouraged whether it is WSA, Wilderness or Backcountry it needs to be 

allowed.

Exclude grazing from WSA areas. From Table 6, out of 3.5 million acres managed, only 

261,000 acres are excluded from livestock grazing. Cut back on unsustainable grazing levels, 

and set a utilization standard to ensure overgrazing does not happen.

When managing cattle on public lands where riparian waterways are implicated, maintain 

(1) the physical integrity of the aquatic ecosystem, (2) the sediment regime of the aquatic 

ecosystem, (3) the riparian plant communities, and (4) the stream flow characteristics.

Grazing is very important to public lands. The BLM should do everything possible to make 

sure this continues to happen on our lands. Grazing removes more flammable tinder in 

one year than most realize. These dried grasses are all but spontaneous fire just waiting to 

happen.

Grazing on BLM land is a vital part of our operation as well as the operation of most ranches 

in Lake County. Without public land grazing, most ranches would no longer be viable and 

would ultimately have to be turned into something that was. This would invite development 

that would be detrimental to the area’s natural beauty, resources, and wildlife. Wildlife do 

much better in a hay field than on a golf course. I believe that the grazing plan that was 

adopted as part of the current RMP addresses any concerns that need to be addressed and it 

should be left alone. The only adjustments should be to strengthen the ability of responsible 

grazing to continue on indefinitely.

Carefully review the legal aspects of grazing reductions, permit relinquishment, and other 

issues in the grazing portion of the alternatives to be set forth. Will the new alternatives 

comply with the Taylor Grazing Act and the Federal Land Policy & Management Act? I 

would like to see alternatives that may review reinstatement of suspended non-use on certain 

permits.

Properly managed livestock grazing has proven itself to enhance the environment and wildlife 

habitat. It also has an enormous impact to the local economy which is even more crucial with 
13

Scoping Report

a shrinking private sector. The arguments to reduce or end livestock grazing are political and 

philosophical and cannot hold up to environmental scrutiny.

ONDA’s alternative dismisses the BLM’s authority to address range land health issues 

individually by falsely implying that it is ecologically necessary to close any allotment or 

pasture, potentially for twenty years or more, should isolated management issues emerge.

Question to be Resolved

• How should livestock grazing be managed on lands with special resource values within 

the planning area? 

BLM Response

The Lakeview RMP amendment will address a range of livestock grazing management 

alternatives.

Issue 3: OHV and Travel Management 

Public comments regarding motorized vehicles and OHV use can be grouped into one of the 

following categories. OHVs are: 

• necessary for BLM and permittee management activities,

• a valid recreational use of the public lands, or

• detrimental to the environment and needing to be restricted or removed. 

Vehicle access was seen as a cause of increased spread of noxious weeds by some 

respondents, while others saw vehicle access as a necessary tool for the control of noxious 

weeds. 

Representative Public Comments 

The effects of further restrictions on OHV areas and roads needs to be analyzed to show 

that shrinking available areas will intensify environmental damage in those areas open and 

overcrowding.

The effects of government wide reduction of roads available for vehicle access to public lands 

for a variety of recreation uses are a concern.

The adverse effects of OHV use on campers and hikers who want solitude need to be 

displayed in the effects analysis. Congress worded the 1964 Wilderness Act to include some 

common sense and a real sense of Wilderness. The 1964 Act talked of huge expanses of land 

untrammeled by man, where the imprint of man is unnoticed. The true intent of the Act is not 

being followed. I do not support the continued efforts to create Wilderness areas that limit 

access. Americans with disabilities access is limited by the creation of Wilderness areas.

Close the wilderness quality areas to motorized use with the travel management plan.

We understand the courts have found flaws with some of the analysis in the previous plan, 

and some of those flaws concerned how the previous planning effort addressed lands with 

wilderness characteristics and recreational uses, including off-highway Vehicle use. As 

off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, we believe this supplemental planning effort provides an 

opportunity to improve recreational management, including enhancing and improving the 

opportunity and quality of the OHV experience in the planning area – AND – is also an 

opportunity to bring active management and real protection to important natural resources, 

including wilderness character.
14

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

This issue deals with the question of how lands that have wilderness characteristics will be 

managed. We are concerned because many of the areas that wilderness advocacy groups 

are saying have wilderness characteristics also experience meaningful historical use by 

motorized and/or mountain bikes. The BLM must not, through this planning effort, place itself 

and the recreating public in an awkward catch 22 by inappropriately defining lands with 

wilderness potential that have long received meaningful motorized/mechanized access. If the 

existing uses do not stop the lands from being identified as having wilderness characteristics, 

then certainly those historic activities should be allowed to continue.

It has been recognized, as a matter of fact and law, that continuation of motorized activities 

within areas proposed or recommended for Wilderness does not significantly degrade 

wilderness values. In the same vein, federal courts have recognized that temporary noise 

and disturbance associated with motorized activity does not adversely impact wilderness 

character and is not inconsistent with laws, regulations, and policies requiring the 

maintenance of wilderness character. See River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 2009 WL 

2151356 (9th Cir, 2009).

Insofar as that can be reflected as a planning issue, we would suggest trail-based recreational 

experience be considered. Significance criteria such as loops, level or range of difficulty, 

scenic quality, destinations or other similar qualities OHV users appreciate in trails should be 

considered by the planning team.

In response to the increase in popularity of OHV recreation, the BLM should develop an 

Alternative that improves and enhances OHV recreation.

All that the current WSA has done is close lands to the public land users. Roads, ways, 

routes, trails and vast areas have been closed without all the public’s input being considered. 

Considering only the anti-access groups words, to close vast amounts of lands to the 

American public is not right.

ATVs are a critical management tool that saves time and money as well as improves the 

overall way that grazing impacts the land. It is crucial that ranchers be allowed to use them 

responsibly to help manage grazing, especially for monitoring and fencing. I understand 

that in areas that are already wilderness or in wilderness study areas, OHV use needs to be 

restricted. However, other areas need to remain open to responsible use by permittees.

Re-evaluate the closure of existing Wilderness Study Areas to small all-terrain vehicles. Said 

vehicles are very important to present and future public needs to mention a few: a.) Access 

to archeological sites b.) Fire suppression c.) Noxious weed control d.) allotment boundary 

fence management e.) recreational hunting f.) designated grazing management and inventory 

g.) BLM enforcement agents.

The RMPs should enact broad ORV closures on lands with sensitive resources and establish a 

system of designated routes.

Close routes that will enhance wilderness values and restore wilderness characteristics; 

close routes that maximize opportunities for non-motorized recreation, including backcountry 

hunting and fishing; close routes that might adversely affect wildlife values, including biggame habitat; close routes in order to protect large blocks of roadless sagebrush habitat; and 

close routes that are causing soil erosion or otherwise might lead to spread of invasive weeds.

Use the ONDA wilderness and route inventory reports as a baseline inventory of route 

conditions and as a guide for which routes are obsolete, redundant, causing resource damage 

or should be closed or decommissioned for any other reason.

Any alternatives should allow for permit/leaseholders to use OHV as needed to perform duties 

on the rangelands. Fencing, herding, mineral distribution, and monitoring are some of the 

duties that routinely require OHV use.
15

Scoping Report

The BLM should take this opportunity to complete travel management concurrently with the 

RMP amendments. The amended RMPs should also identify priorities for implementation 

of the travel management plan, which may also be instructive in the event that the agency 

expects that additional travel planning will be needed. Special management areas, such as 

ACECs, special recreation management areas and citizen-proposed wilderness, will include 

travel designations within their boundaries.

Concern regarding the construction, maintenance, closure decommissioning and use of road 

on soil and water, fire risk from recreation, weeds, fish and wildlife habitats, etc.

User created routes, closed roads and legacy roads impact our areas of concern and 

should be included in any analysis of environmental impacts from the proposed action and 

alternatives

EIS should include the current number of road miles and density and the change in road 

miles and density that will occur as a result of the plan.

Recommend prioritizing road density reduction in crucial winter ranges, along wildlife 

migration corridors, near impaired waters and sensitive and/or rare plant and animal 

habitat establishing numerical targets for decommissioning, maintenance, reconstruction and 

revision of designations could help guide management. These numerical targets could also 

be environmental, such as reductions of the amount of sedimentation delivered to streams, or 

decreases in the amount of fragmented habitat respects the need to base numerical targets on 

funding expectations.

Identify a road system that reflects long term funding expectations. We support giving priority 

to upgrading the most heavily used roads and restricting travel on classified roads that pose 

environmental threats and cannot be maintained due to lack of funds and other resources.

Roads are expensive to maintain and their negative environmental impacts are well 

documented. They create and transport sediment that impairs water quality and degrades 

stream and riparian habitat. They invite the spread of invasive weeds, which compete with 

native vegetation. They fragment and degrade wildlife habitat.

 Questions to be Resolved

• How should motorized vehicle use, particularly off-highway use, within WSAs and 

lands with wilderness characteristics be managed? 

• How should non motorized access be managed across the planning area?

BLM Response

The 2010 Settlement Agreement (http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/rmpamendment/index.php) requires the BLM to analyze at least two alternatives that place 

additional limits on OHV use. For this reason, the Lakeview RMP amendment will analyze a 

range of alternatives that vary in the amount of areas falling within all three OHV allocation 

types (open, limited, and closed) based on a balancing of all resource uses and values. 

In addition, current policy requires that BLM develop a comprehensive travel management 

plan (TMP), either concurrently with a given land use planning effort or within two years of 

signing a ROD for a given land use planning effort. TMPs must address both motorized and 

non motorized access needs. For these reasons, the Lakeview RMP amendment will address a 

range of motorized and nonmotorized travel management alternatives.
16

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Issue 4: North Lake Special Recreation Management 

Area 

Public comments expressed disagreement about the type and amount of recreation that 

should be allowed in the North Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). Some 

want only non motorized recreation promoted, while others want extensive recreation site 

improvements to support OHV and other recreation uses over relatively large areas. 

Representative Public Comments 

Recommend taking a low impact hike in the Christmas Valley dunes area this Memorial Day 

weekend and see how enjoyable you find it with ORVs buzzing all over the place!! No control, 

no respect = maximal impact on other users. Hikers have been virtually forced to give up on 

the dunes, and the same encroachment by ORVs is being invited across the public forests and 

the grasslands of the area.

The ORV development of the Christmas Valley area is a symptom of a recreational disease, 

and BLM should not be in the business of accommodating and supporting communities that 

develop themselves to foster this disease to the detriment of the greater public good.

I want all of the Christmas Valley sand dunes open for the public to freely use. And everything 

that was closed should be re-opened. 

Remove fence from sand dunes and only fence specific arch sites. Designate Christmas Valley 

Sand Dunes as motorized OHV recreation area. Install pit toilets in the camping area at the 

dunes. Dig a well at dunes and provide public water.

Virtue Flats and Christmas Valley Sand Dunes must include OHV USER and all motorized 

users.

Virtue Flats and Christmas Valley Sand Dunes are examples of but two areas that allow crosscountry travel at this time. Other areas need to be found that would allow this type of travel 

even if it were exclusively a trail system on 80,000 acres or more in each district of BLM 

lands. Please take the OHV community seriously as you write the new TMP. We are here now, 

but in ten years we will have double. We are the growing public land user not the declining.

I have been concerned about the BLM lands in North Lake County for some time. There are 

some wonderful recreational and educational opportunities available. The area also has a 

very sensitive ecosystem that needs protection.

I’d like to express my thoughts on the vandalism first. BLM scheduling a meeting in North 

Lake County and getting their input and support is a very important first step. However 

instead of making it a meeting created and ran by government employees, why don’t you 

approach the Christmas Valley Chamber ask for their cooperation, let them run the meeting 

and ask for residents ideas for public land management in their area and hopefully come to 

some kind of consensus. Maybe if you take that approach they will feel some ownership and 

help guard against the vandalism issue.

Obviously economic development and tourism is important to the businesses in the (North 

Lake) area, so protecting the environment and balancing the economics will be tricky. Put this 

one in economics sections

BLM needs to decide from their inventory of attractions, what they want to promote 

(brochures, signage, maps etc.). If you want to keep the public out of some of the sensitive 
17

Scoping Report

areas don’t even promote them to the traveling public. It’s frustrating to the tourist to have 

a brochure or map of a special experience and then find they can’t even get to it on a decent 

road or there are no toilets or picnic tables when they get there. There are some wonderful 

tourist opportunities in North Lake County; Derrick Cave, Crack in the Ground, Sand 

Dunes, Ft. Rock and maybe more that I haven’t experienced. When talking to the individual 

Elderhostelers, they wouldn’t be interested in exploring those attractions on their own, in 

their present access condition. I hesitate promoting them to individual tourists to explore on 

their own. Perhaps with a frank discussion from the area residents you can help determine 

which should be made more accessible and which should be protected or withdrawn from the 

promotional material.

It is important to have the new lookout tower on Green Mountain be accessible to the public.

Good interpretive signs (needed) for Crack-in-the-Ground. Roadway indicator signs (needed 

to) Crack (in-the-Ground). Better signage (needed) to Sand Dunes.

Distribution system is needed for brochures; where they need to go (delivered). Chamber 

needs to do this! Communication (needed) between Christmas Valley/Silver Lake/Lakeview/

Fort Rock Museum.

We hope you can oversee the development of a balanced recreation plan for North Lake 

County that: 1) serves all users, 2) respects the legitimate rights of low impact visitors and 

users, 3) meets all of the guidelines of BLM national management policy for ORV/OHVs, 

and 4) is responsible to maintaining and improving the ecological condition of the natural 

resources under BLM management.

I recommend:

1) the use of very large boulders to use for road closures. Where boulders are not 

possible due to the type of equipment needed to install them, then I recommend using 

fencing. In view areas, wood rail fences; in other areas, wire fences.

2 )the closure of all user-created roads.

3) more monitoring and presence of law enforcement. I also think issuing citations 

and fines are more effective than just issuing warnings.

4) the permanent retirement of grazing allotments in all critical wildlife areas.

Table Rock - Designated campsites, road closures on all user-created roads and sensitive 

terrain roads. Possible location of a porta potty. If there are livestock grazing allotments on 

Table Rock, I recommend permanently retiring them.

Sand Dunes - Install a permanent bathroom facility. Closure of all user-created roads leading 

to and from campsites to Sand Dunes. More signage located in more areas. I recommend 

closing critical archaeological areas to OHV use completely.

The Sand Dunes and Lost Forest areas are perfect places for solitude. I recommend the 

closure of these areas for a few designated days each year for non-OHV users. Example for 

hikers, photographers, birders, etc.

Lost Forest - Designated campsites, road closures on all user-created roads and sensitive 

terrain roads. Possible location of a porta potty. I recommend the use of more signage 

and located in more areas. If there are livestock grazing allotments in the Lost Forest, I 

recommend permanently retiring them. I recommend closing critical archaeological areas to 

OHV 

Green Mountain - I believe that grazing should not be allowed in the vicinity of the top of 

Green Mountain, nor near the camping area. 
18

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

I am also concerned about the outrageous, out-of-control, highly dangerous activities 

that occur in the Sand Dunes, especially during Memorial Day weekend. In my opinion, 

interim management policy for Wilderness Study Areas is being violated. Although interim 

management may allow historical uses, the current OHV abuses in the Sand Dunes WSA is 

anything but historic. The user numbers and user impacts have increased exponentially, as 

have illegal activities, serious injuries, and fatalities. I believe that BLM will find itself liable 

if its management does nothing to restore non-primitive recreation back to historic levels, 

and if it continues to encourage activities that cause injury and death. Designation of the 

OHV use area within the WSA undoubtedly violates both the spirit and the law of interim 

management policy.

The illegal activities that take place in the Sand Dunes WSA and Lost Forest are out of 

control. Not only do they cause irreparable damage to archeological, paleontological, and 

botanical resources, they are also a hazard to human health and life. Enforcement has been 

woefully inadequate to non-existent. Injuries are inevitable due to alcohol consumption, 

dense traffic, high speeds, blind jumps, and unrestrained children driving. Given the lack of 

staff and budget that would be required to bring the situation under control, I would contend 

that the simplest, most cost-effective course of action would be to close the Sand Dunes to 

motorized traffic altogether.

I think one of the worst things BLM can do is to provide more access routes to the Sand 

Dunes. Such an action would impair the wilderness character of lands contiguous with the 

Sand Dunes WSA on the east, it would encourage even more traffic, more difficult to enforce, 

and further violation of interim management. I do not see a need for more recreation site 

development, with the possible exception of portable toilet sites. Any developments should 

be on the north side of the WSA in locations not identified by ONDA as having wilderness 

character (see map).

One of our concerns is the ability for hunters to have access to our resources so that they 

can enjoy the great outdoors. In keeping with this we are asking to be kept informed of 

any transportation management changes on public lands. By transportation management 

changes we mean any activities such as road closures, restricting on and off road travel with 

any form of motorized or mechanical vehicle, including OHVs. 

When planning any new recreation projects, or replacing various elements of campgrounds, 

trails, etc.- such as signs, picnic tables, surfaces, piers - please keep in mind the impact 

the project will have on people with disabilities. I wanted to offer my assistance, when 

appropriate, and hope that I may call upon you in return to help explain some of the new 

recreational/trail accessibility regulations which are due to come into effect in the not too 

distant future.

Our members are frequent visitors to the North Lake Recreation Area and take a very 

personal interest in seeing the quality of the experience we have on the public lands of the 

area improved and not diminished. We are low impact recreational users, and we do not want 

to see uncontrolled, unregulated, unenforceable high environmental impact developmentespecially for high user impact activities like OHVs - encouraged on these fragile semi-arid 

lands.

Here are some questions that we think specifically apply and that must be adequately 

addressed in any viable/responsible recreation management plan for the North Lake area 

that considers increased OHV use:

1) Is the boundary of the area open for OHV use clearly and fully marked?

2) Is the area that is not open for OHV use clearly identified/signed and not just left 

passively open as a result of no designation or the intent to address in the future?

3) Are the requirements of a Comprehensive Travel Management Plan met in fact 

and not just in name in the management plan with an overall open/closed area and 
19

Scoping Report

trail system with appropriate signage?

4) How will OHV users- not the public- cover the special user costs for enforcing the 

open and closed boundaries for the area on a 24/7 basis during the entire use season 

since OHV users are interested in and their vehicles are equipped for use night and 

day?

5) How will OHV users- not the public -cover the costs for the special expense of 

enforcement to identify, process and punish OHV boundary violators?

6) How will ecological damage to the area be independently assessed on a regular 

schedule with what provisions for closure and restoration as needed?

7) How will OHV users - not the public - cover the costs of damage assessment and 

the needed closures and restoration?

8) How will the interests of non-OHV users of the dunes be accommodated such that 

in the wide open dunes area their experience will not be adversely affected by the 

constant buzz of ORV engines and/or the smell of ORV exhaust?

9) How will the immediately surrounding and uniquely important Fossil Lake and 

Lost Forest areas be adequately protected?

These are the kinds of questions that must be adequately answered in any consideration 

of recreation development for ORV/OHV use in the Dunes, or in any other location within 

the North Lake Recreation area. We cannot see how it is possible to answer these kinds of 

questions satisfactorily without either bankrupting the OHV users or requiring the public 

to neglect the interests of the vast majority of low impact users while subsidizing the costly 

and ecologically destructive play of a privileged few- play that is sponsored by Honda, 

Kawasaki, and Suzuki and the OHV associations these corporations support in the U.S. for 

their economic self-interest. Let Honda and the OHV users pay the full additional costs of 

their activities on public lands (as compared to low impact users)- ecological damage, injury 

liability, special area enforcement, etc. and see if they are still anxious to promote OHV 

development.

Ultimately the question to Lakeview BLM is whether it will have the courage to restrict the 

advance of the OHV onslaught on our public lands or elect to promote the OHV problem, 

succumb to the well-funded OHV lobby, do the bidding of Honda, Kawasaki and Suzuki, and 

make ever larger ecological sacrifice zones out of our public lands. We expect that Lakeview 

management will recognize the fundamental underlying problem and select restriction rather 

than expansion for OHV recreational use in the North Lake SRMA.

I spent over two years under contract to Lakeview BLM and Fremont National Forest 

recommending motorized trail systems for designation and some for closure. The information 

thus gathered is still on file and speaks for itself. I have duplicate copies, as well. These 

motorized trails are on numbered BLM roads for the most part and their utilization adds 

a necessary dispersal for motorized recreation. The much-sought value of solitude can be 

enjoyed in this expansive trail system which still enjoys the protection of the “Limited Use” 

category.

Some concerns and thoughts that rise to the surface are: 

1) Self-healing open areas for OHV are in short supply and motorized recreation 

needs that consideration for diversity and a viable alternative.

2) The values sought for a sand dune wilderness were thought to qualify despite 

historic OHV use. The only threat to those visible values is in the periphery of the 

dunes, a substantial sum of which is in private ownership. The best way to protect, I 

feel, is in the existence of a presence, preferably in the form of an on-site host.

3) The Fossil Area, Lost Forest and the Sand Dunes, all under the blanket of an Area 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), are prone to frequent vandalism largely 

due to remoteness of location and inadequacy of funding for some managerial 

presence.

4) Recreation funding may well be available from Oregon State gas taxes and from 

Federal Recreational Trail Funds. These funds, available singly or one serving as 
20

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

a match for the other, could fund a host site, rest rooms and showers for the area. 

Apart from OHV, these amenities would compliment and enhance visitation to the 

area. In order to qualify, the Sand Dunes area would have to have at least a ten-year 

availability for OHV planning. The WSA status is not conducive to OHV planning. It 

would be necessary to petition for a legislative change in that status.

5) In this semi-remote area, resource protection can better be afforded by active 

management than by passive designation.

6) The possibilities of accommodation of both motorized and non-motorized values in 

an alternate time and space or seasonal use has yet to be explored.

Questions to be Resolved

• How should the North Lake SRMA be managed?

• What types and levels of recreation should the SRMA provide?

• What role should BLM serve in promoting or providing opportunities for tourism in 

the SRMA?

• How should outdoor therapy groups be managed to meet the needs of these groups 

while ensuring safety of the public and adjacent property owners?

• Should other recreation sites be developed in the SRMA for public use?

• Can high use recreation areas such as the Sand Dunes be managed to allow continued 

recreation use while protecting other resources?

• Is there a need for any additional roads in the SRMA to provide access to areas 

currently inaccessible to BLM, commercial interests, or the public? 

• Which roads in the SRMA, if any, should be closed or limited in their use?

BLM Response

Recreation use in the planning area is increasing, especially in the northern portion of Lake 

County. There is an increasing demand for both developed and undeveloped recreation 

opportunities. OHV use needs to be managed. There is a continued demand for access 

to public lands by outdoor therapy groups. This increasing use has resulted in conflicts 

with local residents. For these reasons, the Lakeview RMP amendment will include the 

development of a recreation management plan for the North Lake SRMA.

Issue 5: Utility Corridors

Views expressed in public comments focused on ensuring that the RMP amendment included 

an analysis of the effects of new utility corridor designations and other energy developments 

on access, wilderness character, and habitat fragmentation. 

Representative Public Comment 

Utilize this planning process to consider the latest science, reassess current land use, and 

adopt appropriate guidelines related to ... energy facility siting - including new utility 

corridors.

Place new utility corridor designations north of Horse Mountain and south of the Poverty 

Basin and Alkali Buttes.

Given the rapid expansion of energy development in this region, particularly wind projects 

and associated transmission line projects and upgrades, BLM should seize this opportunity 

to pro actively address siting issues. Such an approach will greatly increase opportunities to 

responsibly develop clean, renewable energy and associated transmission while minimizing 

impacts to wildlands, wildlife and other sensitive resources and values in the area. Zoning for 
21

Scoping Report

development and avoidance areas is one of the best ways to address this issue, as shown by 

BLM’s ongoing work to designate zones in numerous other planning processes.

Question to be Resolved

• Are new utility corridor designations needed?

BLM Response

The 2010 Settlement Agreement requires the BLM to address specific management direction 

for Corridor 7-24, established through BLM’s West Wide Energy Corridors ROD in 2009. 

The 2010 Settlement Agreement can be accessed at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/

plans/rmp-amendment/index.php. This designated corridor is currently unoccupied. In 

addition, the Ruby Pipeline project was recently completed across the southern portion of the 

planning area, mostly outside of a designated corridor. 

For this reason, the Lakeview RMP amendment will address whether Corridor 7-24 should 

be retained in its current location or the location possibly adjusted. The amendment will also 

consider if the Ruby Pipeline corridor should become a designated corridor where future 

linear right-of-ways are encouraged to locate. 

Issue 6: Significant Caves

No comments were received regarding the designation or management of significant caves. 

Questions to be Resolved

• Should additional significant cave designations occur?

• What cave management direction should be applied?

BLM Response

After implementation of the 2003 Lakeview RMP-ROD, BLM’s Washington Office issued 

expanded direction on the designation and management of significant caves. For this reason, 

the Lakeview RMP amendment will consider designating additional significant caves in the 

planning area and developing appropriate cave management direction.

Issue 7: ACECs 

In general, ACEC designations were previously addressed in the 2003 RMP-ROD and will 

not be revisited. (See discussion in the “Comments or Issues that Represent Decisions that 

Have Already been Made via Existing Laws, Regulations, or Land Use Plan” section that 

follows). However, the BLM is proposing that the Foskett Springs area be designated and 

managed as an ACEC.

Representative Public Comment 

Designate important water bodies and botanical reserves as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) under FLPMA. BLM must give priority to the designation and protection of 

areas of critical environmental concern.
22

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Questions to be Resolved

• Does the Foskett Springs area meet the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC 

designation?

• Does the Foskett Springs area require special management?

BLM Response

The BLM is proposing the Foskett Springs area as an ACEC to ensure protection of the 

endangered Foskett Springs dace (Rhinichthys osculus spp.), an endemic fish species. If 

BLM can demonstrate that the habitat for this species is secure, the FWS may consider delisting the species. For this reason, the Lakeview RMP amendment will address the effects of 

designating and managing the area as an ACEC.

Issue 8: Climate Change

Within the public comments received, views varied from climate variability being 

substantially affected by human activities to climate variability being a completely natural 

phenomenon. Commentors asked BLM to consider the effects of climate change on future 

management actions, as well as address the effects of its management actions on climate 

change. 

Representative Public Comments 

Impacts to the ecosystem from climate change include shrinking water resources; extreme 

flooding events; invasion of more flammable non-native plant species; soil erosion; loss of 

wildlife habitat; and larger, hotter wildfires. Many of these impacts have been catalogued in 

recent studies by federal agencies showing the impacts of climate change specifically in the 

United States such as the recent report entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States, available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/

us-impacts.

The BLM State Office for Oregon/Washington has issued guidance on analyzing greenhouse 

gas emissions and addressing changing climate conditions in NEPA documents (IM No. 

OR-2010-012). This policy guidance states that this type of analysis should be included in 

resource management plans as these types of plans “typically have a long enough duration 

that climate change could potentially alter the choice among alternatives.”

Off-road vehicle designations, oil and gas management stipulations, and renewable energy 

development may significantly increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions contributing to 

climate change and must be analyzed under NEPA.

In addition to evaluating the impact of management decisions on climate change, including 

opportunities to reduce such impacts, BLM’s environmental analysis must also evaluate the 

likely impacts of climate change on the affected environment.

BLM is required to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to and from 

climate change in the planning areas governed by the RMP amendments. 

Take an in-depth look at grazing and how various permitted uses of public lands contributes 

to the effects of climate change.

Climate change is beyond the control of man. The climate has been changing since the 

beginning of time. 
23

Scoping Report

Climate change is likely to impact the ability of the BLM to maintain or increase the 

resilience of the lands it manages. 

BLM should adopt an alternative that will provide for land and watershed management that 

will both mitigate for climate change (i.e., store more carbon in the form of healthy plant 

communities) and prepare for climate change (e.g., by reducing cumulative stress from 

livestock, ORV use, fire suppression, weeds and so forth). Both of these objectives can be 

advanced by re-establishing natural disturbance regimes and reducing anthropogenic (man 

caused) disturbances.

Questions to be Resolved

• What are current and future predicted climate trends in the planning area?

• Do BLM management activities contribute to measurable greenhouse gas emissions?

• How much management flexibility should BLM employ to adapt to changing climate 

over the long term?

BLM Response

Recent Department of the Interior and BLM guidance require that BLM consider the 

effects of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions during its land and resource 

management planning activities. For this reason, the Lakeview RMP amendment will address 

the effects of various management alternatives on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas 

emissions in the planning area. The amendment will also address whether or not the current 

state of the science is capable of accurately predicting future climate trends.

Issue 9: Local Social and Economic Concerns

Two widely divergent views were presented in the public comments as to what management 

would be most beneficial to local communities. Wilderness proponents opined that 

communities near designated wilderness areas have a growing economy. Proponents of 

resource uses felt that the local economy is heavily dependent on such uses, and further 

restrictions would be devastating. OHV users requested analysis of the continuing restrictions 

on OHV access and the associated adverse effects on public use and local economics. 

Representative Public Comments 

Settlement alternatives appear to give no consideration to the economic and social values 

that must be considered under NEPA.

OHVs of all three Classes contribute economic wealth to all communities. Especially the 

smaller towns such as Christmas Valley, Baker City, Halfway, Fields, Unity, Prairie City, etc.

OHV recreation supports the local economy to a greater extent than users of WSAs.

Permit relinquishment should be left alone. Current process has worked well and permits 

need to remain available to area ranches for the local economy.

These ranches, most of them small family businesses, form the base of the local economy, 

providing jobs, tax revenue, and a safe, domestic food source.

Cattle removal from Hart Mountain has harmed the environment and economy.

Properly managed livestock grazing has proven itself to enhance the environment and wildlife 

habitat. It also has an enormous impact to the local economy which is even more crucial with 
24

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

a shrinking private sector. The arguments to reduce or end livestock grazing are political and 

philosophical and cannot hold up to environmental scrutiny.

Providing opportunities for quality, muscle-powered recreation on public lands can result in 

a significant economic boost to local and regional economies.

We request that your analysis of socioeconomic considerations in the Southeast Oregon and 

Lakeview Resource Areas follow the approach set out in this document.

Questions to be Resolved

• How should public lands be managed to meet social and economic needs? 

• What is an appropriate role for BLM in providing economic support to local 

communities?

BLM Response

The communities in the planning area are generally small and isolated. The local economies 

rely greatly upon the public lands to provide economic benefits to local communities, 

including such things as recreation, livestock forage, and jobs. For this reason, the Lakeview 

RMP amendment will address the effects of various management alternatives on social and 

economic conditions in the planning area.

Comments, Concerns, and Issues 

That Will Not Be Addressed

This section addresses comments, concerns, or issues received during the scoping period 

that were reviewed by the BLM, but will not be carried forward into the Lakeview RMP 

amendment for the reasons stated herein.

Comments or Issues That Are Beyond the Scope of 

Analysis or Can Only be Resolved by Policy Change 

or Legislative Action

Representative Comments

Remove the (Sand Dunes) WSA and designate the area as Christmas Valley Sand Dunes OHV 

Area.

Remove WSAs from all public lands.

Designate more WSAs.

The BLM should change its policy. 

Allow for the same improvements in existing Wilderness Study Areas as were allowed at 

the time of designation for example new fence construction, water enhancement and or 

development or access to areas.
25

Scoping Report

BLM Response 

Land use plans cannot be used to change existing laws, regulations, or BLM policies. Such 

actions are handled by Congress or the Washington Office of the BLM and are beyond the 

scope of the planning process. Comments such as the ones listed above can only be resolved 

through national level policy change or legislative action. 

Specifically, BLM’s authority to designate WSAs expired in 1991. Further, only Congress can 

decide whether to designate a WSA as wilderness or release the area from wilderness study. 

Comments such as these fell outside of BLM’s stated purpose and need for the plan 

amendment. 

Comments Directing BLM to Follow Existing Law or 

Regulation

Representative Comments

Regulations are clear in directing BLM to allow ORV use only where it does not endanger or 

interfere with the other resources and users of the public lands.

You must follow regulation. 

Follow FLPMA. 

Ensure you follow NEPA.

BLM Response 

Comments such as these represent statements asking BLM to comply with existing laws and 

regulations. BLM is fully aware of its responsibilities to prepare and implement RMPs that 

comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and other governing land use plans. An 

RMP is, by definition, a plan that balances multiple and often competing resource values and 

uses in accordance with a wide variety of complementary and contradictory laws, regulations, 

and policies. A summary of all of the laws, regulations, policies, and land use plans that apply 

to this planning effort will be included in Chapter 1 of the Lakeview RMP amendment/EIS.

See also the discussion of Planning Criteria that follows later in this document.

Comments or Issues that Represent Decisions 

Addressed Via Existing Laws, Regulations, or Other 

Land Use Planning Efforts

Representative Comments

BLM must maintain and restore aquatic ecosystems, not degrade them. 

When managing cattle on public lands where riparian waterways are implicated, maintain 

(1) the physical integrity of the aquatic ecosystem, (2) the sediment regime of the aquatic 

ecosystem, (3) the riparian plant communities, and (4) the stream flow characteristics.
26

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Please exclude livestock from meadows and riparian areas to eliminate future injury and to 

heal from past injuries.

Refrain from grazing near any water bodies and riparian areas. Depending on the area, 

comply with standards from the NWFP, PACFISH, and INFISH.

Designate important waterbodies and botanical reserves as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) under FLPMA. BLM must give priority to the designation and protection of 

areas of critical environmental concern.

Sage grouse do not live, breed, nor raise their young on these old roads or ways. I can drive 

right by them and they will not move a muscle. I can hunt upland game birds all day and 

not find even one on the trail. Amongst the sage is where I will find them as they freeze into 

momentary statues.

Please close routes within three miles of sage grouse leks, at least on a seasonal basis to 

protect sage grouse from disturbance during lekking and broad-rearing.

The Lakeview RMP area includes prime sage grouse habitat. Take a fresh look at protecting 

sage grouse.

Grazing animals need water which ranchers supply. Ranchers and BLM make sure that the 

springs are flowing, reservoirs are full and not breached and creeks provide as much water as 

possible. By allowing grazing, the waters are there also for wildlife to partake. In fact, if you 

slowly drive up on one of these tanks on a hot afternoon, one will quite often see sage grouse 

dusting themselves or hunkered on the damp dark side with beaks open as they gasp in the 

hot summer air. Without grazing, these water holes would not have been there in the past, or 

in the future. This water has saved these grouse and millions of other wild animals for over a 

century now.

The threats to sage grouse habitat across the West are numerous. They include domestic 

livestock grazing, which can lead to the establishment and spread of weeds, erosion, denuded 

vegetation and associated lack of cover, pollution of water, and other impacts to sagebrush 

habitats; the proliferation of the non-native annual grass cheatgrass, which is spreading 

rapidly and replacing sagebrush; periods of drought and the effects of global climate change, 

which may exacerbate the expansion of cheatgrass and the loss of sagebrush habitat.

Barbed-wire fencing also negatively impacts sage grouse. Fencing is a mortality threat for 

sage grouse when flying grouse collide with the fencing. This is especially the case around 

late brood rearing habitat such as springs, seeps and wet meadows. Fences also provide 

perches for predators that prey on sage grouse. Nearly all of these threats are present in sage 

grouse habitat in Oregon, including within the planning areas, to one extent or another.

Because the Lakeview and Southeast Oregon land use planning areas cover almost 7 million 

acres of the most important core sage grouse habitat outside of Wyoming, it is important that 

BLM take a hard look in the EIS at impacts to sage grouse and sagebrush habitat.

BLM should also ensure that these plans set sideboards for renewable energy development 

that ensure such projects can be developed without degradation of the desert wildlands 

and damage to sensitive wildlife populations. Please develop alternatives which exclude 

energy development, including transmission and generation facilities, from areas of critical 

environmental concern and other special management areas including priority habitat for 

sensitive species such as sage grouse.

Inventorying lands with wilderness characteristics will also provide important data on 

existing large blocks of (sagebrush) habitat and how BLM can restore these blocks of habitat 

to better match the historic range of variability. Swanson et al. (1994) contend that managing 
27

Scoping Report

an ecosystem within its range of variability is appropriate to maintain diverse, resilient, 

productive, and healthy ecosystems for viable populations of native species.

BLM Response 

Comments such as these have already been decided or directed by existing law, regulation, or 

RMP. 

In particular, the 2003 Lakeview RMP-ROD retained 4 existing and designated 13 new 

ACECs. Most of these were to protect native plant communities or special status plants. 

Two ACECs (Warner Wetlands and Lake Abert) were designated specifically to recognize 

important natural processes (wildlife habitat) associated with these water body/wetland 

complexes. In addition, the Twelvemile Creek area was recommended suitable as a 

recreational class wild and scenic river. For this reason, BLM believes that it has already 

adequately addressed the designation and management of “important water bodies and 

botanical reserves” in the planning area and these decisions are not being re-addressed in this 

plan amendment.

The majority of the comments regarding riparian and water quality management have also 

been previously addressed in the 2003 Lakeview RMP-ROD and do not need to be revisited. 

However, the Lakeview RMP amendment will still include a discussion of the impacts of 

various management alternatives on riparian areas, aquatic systems, and water quality.

As mentioned in the Introduction, the BLM published an NOI on December 9, 2011, to 

prepare EISs to amend RMPs throughout the BLM for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. 

The BLM aims to incorporate objectives and conservation measures into RMPs by September 

2014 in order to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse 

and its habitat. 

Comments or Issues That Do Not Require a 

Response or Can Be Answered More Directly 

Outside the Planning Process

Representative Comments

Not able to find any information on the BLM’s websites as referenced in the Notice of Intent.

Please keep me informed.

Please add me to the mailing list. 

Please send me a copy of the DEIS when it is available.

Please consider the enclosed material during your analysis.

BLM Response 

This category includes comments that provided additional information or data, questions 

that could be addressed more directly outside the planning process, or comments that do not 

require a response. 

Mailing lists have been updated to ensure interested parties remain on the list and receive 

future mailings. 
28

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

All attached data, maps, information, bibliographies, or references were reviewed. Any 

information that BLM found to be relevant to the planning process will be included in the 

analysis and cited where appropriate. However, some of the material submitted included 

references to studies for unrelated environments or conditions that do not exist in the planning 

area and will not be considered further. 

Non-substantive Comments

Representative Comments

I believe that...

I visited the area and observed... 

I prefer .... 

I do not favor more restrictions on....

BLM Response 

These types of comments generally represent statements of opinion or personal experience, 

comments that are conjectural, or are not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Such 

comments do not rise to the level of substantive planning issues and will not be considered.

Differences Between Lakeview RMP

and SEORMP Amendments

The primary purpose and need statements for amending the SEORMP and Lakeview RMP are 

identical. Every effort will be made to present the analysis in a consistent fashion between the 

two EISs. However, resources, geographic, social, and economic characteristics, and current 

management differ between the two planning areas and will be fully described and analyzed 

as separate plan amendments. The secondary purpose described above under “Other Planning 

Issues” reflect specific issues that will be addressed in the Lakeview RMP amendment. The 

SEORMP amendment/EIS scoping report is being released at approximately the same time 

as this Lakeview RMP amendment scoping report. Please review the SEORMP amendment 

scoping report to consider the unique planning issues to be analyzed through the Lakeview 

SEORMP amendment process.

Planning Criteria

Planning criteria guide the development of the plan amendment by defining the decision 

space or the general sideboards for the planning effort. Planning criteria are generally based 

upon applicable laws, national and BLM state director guidance, and the results of public 

and governmental participation (43 CFR 1610.4-2). Planning criteria ensure that the plan 

amendment is tailored to the substantive issues and avoids unnecessary data collection or 

analysis. Planning criteria include compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and other relevant laws 

and are listed in the attached NOI (Appendix A).
29

Scoping Report

Data Summary / Data Gaps

In preparation for this plan amendment process, the BLM has updated many data sets, 

including but not limited to roads and trails, wilderness characteristics, caves, and fire history. 

These data sets will be used to describe the current environmental conditions in the planning 

area, as well as design management alternatives and assess environmental effects. The status 

of two key data sets is discussed in more detail below.

Road and Trail Inventory

The Lakeview BLM staff began updating its road and trail inventory in 2005. This update has 

focused on re-assessing the location and condition of existing BLM roads and trails, as well 

as confirming the presence of many new routes on BLM lands in the field. The BLM began 

this road inventory update process by comparing existing routes in its ground transportation 

(GTRN) data set with recent digital ortho photos taken in 2005 and 2009. BLM staff digitized 

potential new road lines using the ortho photos as a backdrop and a “heads-up” digitizing 

process. The BLM then created field maps and then verified the presence and condition of 

the majority of these routes in the field. The results were recorded on field maps or, in some 

cases, were collected using global positioning system technology. This field data was then 

used to update both the GTRN and Facility Asset Management System (FAMS) data sets. 

The BLM Washington Office also commissioned a field condition assessment for all 

roads currently in the transportation system (that is, the FAMS database) with an assigned 

maintenance level of 3, 4, or 5. Between 2005 and 2007, approximately 60 percent of these 

roads in the Lakeview District had detailed the field condition assessments. The results of this 

assessment were reviewed by the District Engineer were used to update the FAMS database. 

The GTRN and FAMS updates were completed on the majority of the BLM-administered 

roads and motorized routes in the planning area in 2011.

Wilderness Characteristics Evaluations

Wilderness Characteristics Evaluations (inventory updates) have been completed on 

approximately 70 percent of the planning area in accordance with BLM’s current wilderness 

inventory guidance. The evaluations have been posted on the BLM’s website as they are 

completed (visit http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php). Hard copies 

have been provided to interested parties upon request. The wilderness evaluations for the 

remainder of the planning area will be completed before publication of the Draft Lakeview 

RMP amendment/EIS, and a summary of the results will be completed before publication of 

the Draft Lakeview RMP Amendment and a summary of the results will be included therein.

Next Steps in the Planning Process 

The BLM has completed the public scoping portion of the planning process and initiated 

tribal consultation. Over the next few months the BLM will complete the development of a 

reasonable range of alternatives, analyze the effects of the alternatives, and publish a draft 

Lakeview RMP amendment/EIS. The draft document will identify the BLM’s preferred 

alternative, which is the alternative the BLM predicts would best meet the purpose and need 

and best fulfill BLM’s statutory multiple-use mission and responsibilities. 

The public will be provided a 90-day opportunity to review and comment on the draft 

Lakeview RMP amendment/EIS. The BLM will respond to substantive comments it receives 

and, if necessary, will 
30

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

• modify one or more of the alternatives; 

• supplement, improve, or modify the analysis; 

• make factual corrections; or 

• explain why comments are not substantive or do not warrant further agency response. 

The BLM will then prepare a proposed draft Lakeview RMP amendment/Final EIS that 

incorporates the appropriate changes and provides a 30-day protest period. 

After resolving all protests, the BLM will prepare and publish the approved Lakeview RMP 

amendment-ROD, which will describe the agency’s approved plan and rationale for making 

its decision. A summary and time line for completing the remaining steps in the planning 

process are included in Table 6.

Table 6: Estimated Timeline for Completing 

Remaining Steps in the Lakeview RMP Planning Process

Remaining Planning Steps Approximate Completion

Complete the Draft RMP amendment/EIS and publish for review Fall 2014

End of 90-day review period Winter 2014-2015

Analyze comments and publish Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS Spring 2015

End of 30-day protest period Summer 2015

BLM Director resolves protests Summer 2015

State Director approves RMP Amendment and signs ROD Fall 2015

Publish and mail the RMP Amendment/ROD Fall 2015
31

Scoping Report

Appendix A: Notice of intent for 

Lakeview RMP and SEORMP Amendments
32

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

17950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we 

must base our assessment of these 

factors solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

V. What Could Happen as a Result of 

This Review? 

For each species under review, if we 

find new information that indicates a 

change in classification may be 

warranted, we may propose a new rule 

that could do one of the following: 

(A) Reclassify the species from 

threatened to endangered (uplist); 

(B) Reclassify the species from 

endangered to threatened (downlist); or 

(C) Remove the species from the List 

(delist). 

If we determine that a change in 

classification is not warranted, then the 

species remains on the List under its 

current status. 

VI. Request for New Information 

To ensure that a 5-year review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we request new 

information from all sources. See ‘‘What 

Information Do We Consider in Our 

Review?’’ for specific criteria. If you 

submit information, please support it 

with documentation such as maps, 

bibliographic references, methods used 

to gather and analyze the data, and/or 

copies of any pertinent publications, 

reports, or letters by knowledgeable 

sources. 

If you wish to provide information for 

any species included in these 5-year 

reviews, please submit your comments 

and materials to the Field Supervisor of 

the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

VII. Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the offices where the comments 

are submitted. 

VIII. Completed and Active Reviews 

A list of all completed and currently 

active 5-year reviews addressing species 

for which the Pacific Region of the 

Service has lead responsibility is 

available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

ecoservices/endangered/recovery/ 

5year.html. 

IX. Authority 

This document is published under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: March 15, 2010. 

David J. Wesley, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 1 Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7915 Filed 4–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLORV00000.16100000.DO0000

.LXSS072H0000 HAG10–0083] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare 

Amendments to the Southeastern 

Oregon Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), Malheur County, OR, and the 

Lakeview RMP, Lake County, OR, and 

Associated Environmental Impact 

Statements. 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, (NEPA) and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended, (FLPMA) the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Vale District (Jordan Resource Area and 

Malheur Resource Area) and Lakeview 

District (Lakeview Resource Area) in 

southeastern Oregon intend to prepare 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) 

to amend the Southeastern Oregon RMP 

(September 2002), Vale, Oregon, and the 

Lakeview RMP (January 2003), 

Lakeview, Oregon, and by this notice 

are announcing the beginning of the 

scoping process to solicit public 

comments and identify issues. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the two RMP 

amendments with associated EISs. 

Comments on issues may be submitted 

in writing until July 7, 2010. The date(s) 

and location(s) of any scoping meetings 

will be announced at least 15 days in 

advance through local media, 

newspapers and the BLM Web sites at: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/vale/ 

plans/valermp.php and http:// 

www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/ 

plans/lakeviewrmp.php. In order to be 

included in the Draft EISs, all comments 

must be received prior to the close of 

the 90-day scoping period or within 30 

days after the last public meeting, 

whichever is later. We will provide 

additional opportunities for public 

participation upon publication of both 

Draft EISs. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on issues related to the Southeastern 

Oregon RMP Amendment/EIS by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http://www.blm.gov/or/ 

districts/vale/plans/valermp.php. 

• E-mail: SEORMP@blm.gov. 

• Fax: 541–473–3144. 

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Vale District Office, 100 Oregon St., 

Vale, Oregon 97918. 

You may submit comments on issues 

and planning criteria related to the 

Lakeview RMP Amendment/EIS by any 

of the following methods: 

• E-mail: paul_whitman@blm.gov. 

• Fax: 541–947–6399. 

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Lakeview District Office, 1301 South G 

Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630. 

Documents pertinent to these 

proposals may be examined at the Vale 

and Lakeview District Offices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information and/or to have your 

name added to our mailing lists, contact 

Jill Silvey, Southeastern Oregon and 

Lakeview RMP Project Manager, 

telephone (541) 473–3144; address 100 

Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918; email SEORMP@blm.gov, or Paul 

Whitman, Lakeview District Planner, 

telephone (541) 947–6110; address, 

1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 

97630; e-mail paul_whitman@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

Vale and Lakeview District Offices 

intend to prepare RMP Amendments 

with associated EISs for the 

Southeastern Oregon and Lakeview 

planning areas. The two planning areas 

are located in Malheur, Lake, Harney, 

and Grant Counties in Oregon and 

encompass approximately 4.6 million 

acres of public land in the Southeastern 

Oregon planning area and 

approximately 3.2 million acres of 

public land in the Lakeview planning 

area. After the BLM completed the 

Southeastern Oregon RMP and the 

Lakeview RMP in 2002 and 2003, 

respectively, separate lawsuits were 

filed challenging each RMP. On July 14, 

2008, the Ninth Cicuit ruled on the 

Southeastern Oregon RMP in Oregon 

Natural Desert Association v. Bureau of 

Land Management, 531 F.3d 1114 (9th 

Cir. 2008). Soon thereafter, the BLM 

filed a petition for panel rehearing of the 

Court’s remedy (vacatur of the Record of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
33

Scoping Report

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices 17951 

Decision). The matter has been stayed 

during settlement negotiations. The 

Ninth Circuit stayed litigation regarding 

similar challenges to the Lakeview RMP 

in Oregon Natural Desert Association v. 

Gammon, No. 07–35728 (9th Cir.), 

pending resolution of the Southeastern 

Oregon RMP case, and to allow for 

settlement negotiations between the 

parties. The BLM is preparing RMP 

Amendments/EISs consistent with the 

2008 holding of the Ninth Circuit. 

The two RMP Amendments/EISs plan 

to address the following issues: 

• Consideration of information from 

updates of resource information related 

to wilderness characteristics; 

• Development of a range of 

allocation alternatives with respect to 

ORV use, travel, and transportation; and 

• Development of grazing 

management alternative(s). 

The purpose of the public scoping 

processes is to determine other relevant 

issues that will influence the scope of 

the environmental analyses, including 

alternatives, and guide the planning 

processes. 

The BLM has also identified some 

preliminary planning criteria to guide 

development of the RMP Amendments, 

to avoid unnecessary data collection 

and analysis, and to ensure the RMP 

Amendments are tailored to the issues. 

These criteria may be modified and/or 

other criteria may be identified during 

the public scoping process. Preliminary 

planning criteria include compliance 

with all legal mandates of the FLPMA, 

the NEPA, the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the Administrative 

Procedures Act, the BLM planning 

regulations in 43 CFR part 1600, and 

other relevant laws. The following 

planning criteria will also guide the 

planning processes: 

• The principles of multiple-use and 

sustained yield will be observed; 

• A systematic interdisciplinary 

approach to integrate, physical, 

biological, economic, and other sciences 

will be used; 

• Priority will be given to the 

designation and protection of Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern; 

• The best available data regarding 

natural resources will be used, to the 

extent possible; 

• Present and potential uses of public 

lands will be considered; 

• The relative scarcity of values and 

availability of alternative means and 

sites for recognizing those values will be 

considered; 

• Long term benefits to the public 

against short term benefits will be 

weighed; 

• Tribal, Federal, and state pollution 

laws, standards and implementation 

plans will be complied with, to the 

extent possible; and 

• Consistency and coordination with 

other programs, plans and policies will 

be sought. 

You may submit comments on issues 

and planning criteria in writing to the 

BLM at any public scoping meeting, or 

you may submit them to the BLM using 

one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section above. To be most 

helpful, you should submit comments 

either prior to the close of the 90-day 

scoping period or within 30 days after 

the last public meeting. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. The minutes and list of attendees 

for each scoping meeting will be 

available to the public and open for 30 

days after the meeting to any participant 

who wishes to clarify the views he or 

she expressed. The BLM will evaluate 

identified issues to be addressed in the 

RMP Amendments, and will place them 

into one of three categories: 

1. Issues to be resolved in the plan 

amendment; 

2. Issues to be resolved through policy 

or administrative action; or 

3. Issues beyond the scope of the plan 

amendments. 

The BLM will provide an explanation 

in the Draft RMP Amendments/EISs as 

to why an issue was placed in category 

two or three. The public is also 

encouraged to help identify any 

management questions and concerns 

that should be addressed in the RMP 

Amendments. The BLM will work 

collaboratively with interested parties to 

identify the management decisions that 

are best suited to local, regional, and 

national needs and concerns. 

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary 

approach to develop the RMP 

Amendments in order to consider the 

variety of resource issues and concerns 

identified. At a minimum, specialists 

with expertise in the following 

disciplines will be involved in the 

planning processes: Rangeland 

management, wilderness, travel 

management, recreation, and wildlife. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7; 43 CFR 1610.2. 

Larry Frazier, 

Acting Vale District Manager. 

Carol Benkosky, 

Lakeview District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7986 Filed 4–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCAC09000 L16100000.DP0000] 

Notice Re-opening the Comment 

Period for the Draft Resource 

Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Clear Creek Management Area, 

California 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) announces a reopening of the comment period on the 

Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Clear Creek 

Management Area (CCMA). The original 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on December 4, 2009 [74 FR 

0232] and provided for a comment 

period to end on March 5, 2010. The 

BLM is re-opening the comment period 

to end April 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sky 

Murphy, BLM Hollister Field Office, 20 

Hamilton Court, Hollister, California 

95023, (831) 630–5039. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

original Notice of Availability provided 

for comments on the Draft RMP/Draft 

EIS to be received through March 5, 

2010. The BLM is re-opening the 

comment period in response to and in 

light of the land use restrictions 

considered in the plan. Comments on 

the Draft RMP and EIS will now be 

accepted through April 19, 2010. 

Karen Montgomery, 

Acting Deputy State Director for Natural 

Resources. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7999 Filed 4–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

34
35

Scoping Report

Appendix B: Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMP Notice of Intent
36

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

77008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices 

accessioned into the applicant’s 

collection for scientific research. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Duke Lemur Center, Durham, 

NC; PRT–56737A 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import biological specimens collected 

from silky sifakas (Propithecus diadema 

candidus) in the wild in Madagascar for 

the purpose of scientific research. 

Multiple Applicants 

The following applicants each request 

a permit to import the sport-hunted 

trophy of one male bontebok 

(Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled 

from a captive herd maintained under 

the management program of the 

Republic of South Africa, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. 

Applicant: Ronald Bain, New Haven, 

MO; PRT–59367A. 

Applicant: James Moses, Houston, TX; 

PRT–59496A. 

Applicant: Glen Hudson, Weston, FL; 

PRT–59085A. 

Applicant: Paxton Motheral, Fort 

Worth, TX; PRT–58509A. 

Applicant: Lloyd Douglas, Aledo, TX; 

PRT–59287A. 

Applicant: Jill Holstead, Houston, TX; 

PRT–59495A. 

Correction 

On October 28, 2011, we published a 

Federal Register notice inviting the 

public to comment on several 

applications for permits to conduct 

certain activities with endangered 

species (76 FR 66954). We made an 

error by omitting one animal in Leonard 

Voyle’s application (PRT–57362A), 

which starts in the first column on page 

66955. The omission is for an additional 

male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus 

pygargus), for a total of two animals, not 

one. All the other information we 

printed was correct. With this notice, 

we correct that error and reopen the 

comment period for PRT–57362A. The 

corrected entry for this application is as 

follows: 

Applicant: Leonard Voyles, Richmond, 

TX; PRT–57362A 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import the sport-hunted trophy of two 

male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus 

pygargus), culled from a captive herd 

maintained under the management 

program of the Republic of South Africa, 

for the purpose of enhancement of the 

survival of the species. 

Brenda Tapia, 

Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch 

of Permits, Division of Management 

Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31590 Filed 12–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLMT930000–12–L18200000–XX0000] 

Notice of Administrative Boundary 

Change for Bureau of Land 

Management Offices in Montana To 

Eliminate the County Split of Lewis 

and Clark County 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The administrative 

boundaries between the Central 

Montana District Office, Lewistown 

Field Office, and the Western Montana 

District Office, Butte Field Office, are 

being changed. The administrative 

boundary change will realign Lewis and 

Clark County, currently a split county 

between the two offices, to the Western 

Montana District Office, Butte Field 

Office. 

DATES: The boundary change is effective 

October 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Benes by telephone at (406) 538–1945 or 

by email at gbenes@blm.gov; or Richard 

Hotaling by telephone at (406) 533–7629 

or by email at rhotalin@blm.gov; or 

Scott Haight by telephone at (406) 533– 

7630 or by email at shaight@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–(800) 877–8339 to contact 

the above individuals during normal 

business hours. The FIRS is available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 

message or question with the above 

individuals. You will receive a reply 

during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

primary purpose of the administrative 

boundary change is to improve service 

to the public and coordination efforts 

with local, Federal, State, and county 

agencies. The benefits of this change 

will result in the following 

improvements: 

• Consolidation of resource receipts, 

workloads (i.e., range, forestry, 

recreation) into one office location; 

• Consolidation of law enforcement 

coordination between the county sheriff 

and one BLM office; 

• Consolidation of fire response and 

coordination between the county 

interagency dispatch and one BLM 

office; and 

• Improved coordination with local 

and county officials on a number of land 

resource issues such as lands and realty, 

rights-of-way, and land use planning. 

The boundaries for the Butte Field 

Office are described as follows: 

Butte Field Office 

The Bureau of Land Management, 

Butte Field Office administrative 

boundary now encompasses all of 

Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, 

Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Park, Silver 

Bow and the northern portion of 

Beaverhead Counties, in the state of 

Montana. 

Authority: BLM Manual 1203 Delegation 

of Authority Sec 1202 and Sec 1201 relates 

to functions of BLM. The delegation manual 

shows the various delegations of functions to 

BLM officials, et al., which includes 

‘‘Approve changes in District and Field 

Office boundaries.’’ (See the table of 

delegations in the manual, specifically 

subject code 1202). This authority is retained 

by the Director, with concurrence by the 

‘‘Office of the Assistant Secretary’’ (see 

footnote 3 in the 1203 Manual). 

Jamie E. Connell, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31651 Filed 12–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLWO230.11100000.PH0000] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statements To Incorporate Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures 

Into Land Use Plans and Land 

Management Plans 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, as amended (FLPMA), and the 

Resources Planning Act of 1974, as 

amended by the National Forest 

Management Act 1976 (NFMA), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the Forest Service (FS) intend to prepare 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37

Scoping Report

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices 77009 

and Supplemental EISs, and by this 

notice are announcing the beginning of 

the scoping process to solicit public 

comments and identify issues. The BLM 

is the lead agency on these EISs and 

Supplemental EISs and the FS is 

participating as a cooperating agency. 

These EISs/Supplemental EISs will be 

coordinated under two regions: An 

Eastern Region and a Western Region. 

The Eastern Region includes BLM land 

use plans in the States of Colorado, 

Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and portions of Utah and Montana. The 

Western Region includes BLM land use 

plans in California, Idaho, Nevada, 

Oregon, and portions of Utah and 

Montana. For each of these regions, the 

FS will include those areas that were 

identified by the FWS as high priority 

areas for greater sage-grouse within the 

NFS units listed below. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the EISs/ 

Supplemental EISs. Comments on issues 

may be submitted in writing until 

February 7, 2012. The date(s) and 

location(s) of all scoping meetings will 

be announced at least 15 days in 

advance through local media, 

newspapers and the BLM Web site for 

the Eastern Region at http:// 

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/ 

sagegrouse/eastern.html, and for the 

Western Region at http://www.blm.gov/ 

wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/ 

western.html. In order to be included in 

the Draft EISs/Supplemental EISs, all 

scoping comments must be received 

prior to the close of the scoping period 

or 15 days after the last public meeting, 

whichever is later. Comments that are 

specific to a particular area or land use 

plan should be identified as such. We 

will provide additional opportunities 

for public participation upon 

publication of the Draft EISs/ 

Supplemental EISs. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the greater sage-grouse 

planning effort by any of the following 

methods: 

• Eastern Region 

Æ Web site: http://www.blm.gov/wo/ 

st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/ 

eastern.html 

Æ Email: sageeast@blm.gov 

Æ Fax: (307) 775–6042 

Æ Mail: Eastern Region Project 

Manager, BLM Wyoming State 

Office, 5353 Yellowstone, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 

• Western Region 

Æ Web site: http://www.blm.gov/wo/ 

st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/ 

western.html 

Æ Email: sagewest@blm.gov 

Æ Fax: (775) 861–6747 

Æ Mail: Western Region Project 

Manager, BLM Nevada State Office, 

1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, Nevada 

89502 

Documents pertinent to the Eastern 

Region will be coordinated through the 

BLM Wyoming State Office. Documents 

pertinent to the Western Region will be 

coordinated through the BLM Nevada 

State Office. 

Though BLM and NFS lands in Utah 

are distributed between the Western and 

Eastern Regions, all such lands will be 

addressed in one EIS, or through 

ongoing plan revision processes. All 

comments applicable to the Utah EIS 

should be sent to the Western Region. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information and/or to have your 

name added to our mailing list, contact 

Chuck Otto, Eastern Region Project 

Manager, telephone (307) 775–6062; 

address 5353 Yellowstone Road, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; email 

cotto@blm.gov, or: Brian Amme, 

Western Region Project Manager, 

telephone (775) 861–6645; address 1340 

Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 

89520; email bamme@blm.gov. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

(800) 877–8339 to contact the above 

individual during normal business 

hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week, to leave a message 

or question with the above individual. 

You will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April 

2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) published its listing decision for 

the greater sage-grouse indicating that 

listing was ‘‘Warranted but Precluded’’ 

due to higher listing priorities under the 

Endangered Species Act. The 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve the greater sage-grouse and its 

habitat was identified as a significant 

threat in the FWS finding on the 

petition to list the greater sage-grouse as 

a threatened or endangered species. The 

FWS has identified conservation 

measures to be included in the 

respective agencies’ land use plans as 

the principal regulatory mechanisms to 

assure adequate conservation of the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat on 

public lands. For the BLM, these land 

use plans are Resource Management 

Plans (RMP). For the FS, these are Land 

and Resource Management Plans (LMP). 

In view of the identified threats to the 

greater sage-grouse, and the FWS 

timeline for making a listing decision on 

this species, the BLM and FS propose to 

incorporate consistent objectives and 

conservation measures for the 

protection of greater sage-grouse and its 

habitat into relevant RMPs and LMPs by 

September 2014 in order to avoid a 

potential listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. These conservation 

measures would be incorporated into 

RMPs and LMPs through the plan 

amendment and revision processes of 

the respective agencies. The BLM and 

FS expect to prepare EISs to analyze 

proposed amendments to some land use 

plans that are not currently undergoing 

amendment or revision. For plans 

already undergoing amendment or 

revision, the BLM and FS will consider 

incorporating conservation measures 

either through the ongoing amendment 

or revision processes, or through 

supplemental environmental analyses as 

appropriate. 

The BLM and FS intend to evaluate 

the adequacy of sage-grouse 

conservation measures in RMPs and 

selected LMPs, and consider 

conservation measures, as appropriate, 

in proposed RMP and selected LMP 

amendments and/or revisions 

throughout the range of the greater sagegrouse (with the exception of the bistate population in California and 

Nevada and the Washington State 

distinct population segment, which will 

be addressed through other planning 

efforts). 

The BLM currently expects to 

evaluate sage-grouse conservation 

measures in 68 planning areas, and the 

FS expects to evaluate sage-grouse 

conservation measures in 9 LMPs. The 

plans applicable to these planning areas 

are listed below. 

BLM Wyoming has already begun 

undertaking a programmatic EIS specific 

to the greater sage-grouse. This 

programmatic EIS will analyze 

amendments to all of the State’s RMPs 

not currently being amended or revised 

to address needed changes to the 

management and conservation of greater 

sage-grouse habitats. The ongoing RMP 

revisions in Wyoming will evaluate 

conservation measures through existing 

planning processes. 

Below is a list of RMPs and LMPs that 

the BLM and FS intend to evaluate. 

Some RMPs/LMPs are already 

undergoing either revision or 

amendment. In cases in which an 

ongoing plan revision or amendment 

may not be completed by September 

2014, the underlying completed RMP is 

also listed, as it may be amended. FS 

LMPs are denoted below in parentheses. 

Within the Eastern Region, the 

potentially affected BLM RMPs and FS 

LMPs include: 

• Colorado 

Æ Colorado River Valley RMP 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38

Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment 

77010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices 

revision 

Æ Grand Junction RMP revision (and 

existing 1987 Grand Junction RMP) 

Æ Kremmling RMP revision 

Æ Little Snake RMP (2011) 

Æ White River RMP Oil and Gas 

amendment 

• Montana/Dakotas 

Æ Billings RMP revision (and existing 

1984 Billings RMP) 

Æ Headwaters RMP (1984) 

Æ HiLine RMP revision (and existing 

1988 West HiLine RMP) 

Æ Judith, Valley, and Phillips RMP 

(1992) 

Æ Miles City RMP revision (and 

existing 1985 Powder River and 

1995 Big Dry RMPs) 

Æ North Dakota RMP (1988) 

Æ South Dakota RMP revision (and 

existing 1986 South Dakota RMP) 

Æ Upper Missouri River Breaks NM 

RMP (2008) 

• Utah 

Æ Park City Management Framework 

Plan (MFP) (1975) 

Æ Price RMP (2008) 

Æ Randolph MFP (1980) 

Æ Salt Lake District Isolated Tracts 

Planning Analysis (1985) 

Æ Vernal RMP (2008) 

Æ Uinta National Forest Revised 

Forest Plan (2003) (FS) 

• Wyoming (please note that BLM 

Wyoming has already issued a 

Notice of Intent to begin an EIS that 

will amend all completed plans to 

address needed changes in the 

management and conservation of 

greater sage-grouse habitat) 

Æ Bighorn Basin RMP revision 

Æ Buffalo RMP revision (and existing 

1985 Buffalo RMP) 

Æ Casper RMP (2007) 

Æ Kemmerer RMP (2010) 

Æ Lander RMP revision 

Æ Newcastle RMP (2000) 

Æ Pinedale RMP (2008) 

Æ Rawlins RMP (2008) 

Æ Rock Springs RMP revision (and 

existing 1997 Green River RMP) 

Æ Thunder Basin National Grassland 

LMP (not included in BLM 

Wyoming Notice of Intent above) 

(FS) 

Within the Western Region, the 

potentially affected RMPs and LMPs 

include: 

• California 

Æ Alturas RMP (2008) 

Æ Eagle Lake RMP (2008) 

Æ Surprise RMP (2008) 

• Idaho 

Æ Birds of Prey NCA RMP (2008) 

Æ Bruneau RMP revision (and 

existing 1983 Bruneau RMP) 

Æ Challis RMP (1999) 

Æ Craters of the Moon NM RMP 

(2006) 

Æ Four Rivers RMP revision (and 

existing 1988 Cascade and 1983 

Kuna RMPs) 

Æ Jarbidge RMP revision 

Æ Lemhi RMP (1987) 

Æ Owyhee RMP (1999) 

Æ Pocatello RMP revision 

Æ Shoshone-Burley RMP revision 

(and existing 1980 Bennett Hills/ 

Timmerman Hills, 1985 Cassia, 

1975 Magic, 1985 Monument, 1981 

Sun Valley, and 1982 Twin Falls 

MFPs/RMPs) 

Æ Upper Snake RMP revision (and 

existing 1983 Big Lost, 1985 

Medicine Lodge, 1981 Big Desert, 

and 1981 Little Lost-Birch Creek 

MFPs/RMPs) 

Æ Curlew National Grassland 

Management Plan (2002) (FS) 

Æ Caribou National Forest Revised 

Forest Plan (2003) (FS) 

Æ Sawtooth National Forest Revised 

Forest Plan (2003) (FS) 

• Montana 

Æ Butte RMP (2009) 

Æ Dillon RMP (2006) 

• Nevada 

Æ Battle Mountain RMP revision (and 

existing 1997 Tonopah and 1986 

Shoshone-Eureka RMPs) 

Æ Black Rock Desert NCA RMP (2004) 

Æ Carson City RMP revision (and 

existing 2001 Carson City RMP) 

Æ Elko RMP (1987) 

Æ Ely RMP (2008) 

Æ Wells RMP (1985) 

Æ Winnemucca RMP revision 

Æ Humboldt National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan 

(1986) (FS) 

Æ Toiyabe National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1986) 

(FS) 

• Oregon 

Æ Andrews RMP (2005) 

Æ Baker RMP revision (and existing 

1989 Baker RMP) 

Æ Brothers-Lapine RMP (1989) 

Æ John Day RMP revision 

Æ Lakeview RMP amendment (and 

existing 2003 Lakeview RMP) 

Æ Southeastern Oregon RMP 

amendment (and existing 2003 

Southeastern Oregon RMP) 

Æ Steens RMP (2005) 

Æ Three Rivers RMP (1992) 

Æ Two Rivers RMP (1989) 

Æ Upper Deschutes RMP (2005) 

• Utah 

Æ Box Elder RMP (1986) 

Æ Cedar City RMP revision (and 

existing 1983 Pinyon and 1986 

Cedar-Beaver-Garfield-Antimony 

RMPs) 

Æ Grand Staircase-Escalante NM RMP 

(1999) 

Æ House Range RMP (1987) 

Æ Kanab RMP (2008) 

Æ Pony Express RMP (1990) 

Æ Richfield RMP (2008) 

Æ Warm Springs RMP (1986) 

Æ Dixie National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1986) 

(FS) 

Æ Fishlake National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1986) 

(FS) 

The purpose of the public scoping 

process is to determine relevant issues 

relating to the conservation of the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat that 

will influence the scope of the 

environmental analysis, including 

alternatives, and guide the process for 

developing the EISs/Supplemental EISs. 

At present, the BLM has identified the 

following preliminary issues: 

• Greater Sage-grouse Habitat 

Management 

• Fluid Minerals 

• Coal Mining 

• Hard Rock Mining 

• Mineral Materials 

• Rights-of-Way (including 

transmission) 

• Renewable Energy Development 

• Fire 

• Invasive Species 

• Grazing 

• Off Highway Vehicle Management 

and Recreation 

Preliminary planning criteria include: 

• The BLM and FS will utilize the 

Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats 

(Connelly, et al. 2004), and any other 

appropriate resources, to identify greater 

sage-grouse habitat requirements and 

best management practices. 

• The approved RMP amendments/ 

revisions will be consistent with the 

BLM’s National Sage-grouse 

Conservation Strategy. 

• The approved RMP amendments/ 

revisions will comply with FLPMA, 

NEPA, and Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations at 40 CFR parts 

1500–1508 and Department of the 

Interior regulations at 43 CFR part 46 

and 43 CFR part 1600; the BLM H– 

1601–1 Land Use Planning Handbook, 

‘‘Appendix C: Program-Specific and 

Resource-Specific Decision Guidance 

Requirements’’ for affected resource 

programs; the 2008 BLM NEPA 

Handbook (H–1790–1), and all other 

applicable BLM policies and guidance. 

• The approved LMP amendments/ 

revisions will comply with NFMA, 

NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations at 40 CFR parts 

1500–1508, Regulations of the Secretary 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scoping Report

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices 77011 

of Agriculture at 36 CFR part 219 and 

FSM 1920 and FSH 1909.12. 

• The RMP and LMP amendments/ 

revisions will be limited to making land 

use planning decisions specific to the 

conservation of greater sage-grouse 

habitats. 

• The BLM and FS will consider 

allocative and/or prescriptive standards 

to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat, 

as well as objectives and management 

actions to restore, enhance, and improve 

greater sage-grouse habitat. 

• The RMP and LMP amendments/ 

revisions will recognize valid existing 

rights. 

• Lands addressed in the RMP and 

LMP amendments/revisions will be 

public lands (including surface-estate 

split estate lands) managed by the BLM, 

and National Forest System lands, 

respectively, in greater sage-grouse 

habitats. Any decisions in the RMP and 

LMP amendments/revisions will apply 

only to Federal lands administered by 

either the BLM or the FS. 

• The BLM and FS will use a 

collaborative and multi-jurisdictional 

approach, where appropriate, to 

determinethe desired future condition 

of public lands and National Forest 

System lands for the conservation of 

greater sage-grouse and their habitats. 

• As described by law and policy, the 

BLM and FS will strive to ensure that 

conservation measures are as consistent 

as possible with other planning 

jurisdictions within the planning area 

boundaries. 

• The BLM and FS will consider a 

range of reasonable alternatives, 

including appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative 

values of resources while contributing 

to the conservation of the greater sagegrouse and sage-grouse habitat. 

• The BLM and FS will address 

socioeconomic impacts of the 

alternatives. Socio-economic analysis 

will use an accepted input-output 

quantitative model such as IMPLAN or 

RIMSII, and/or JEDI for renewable 

energy analysis. 

• The BLM and FS will endeavor to 

use current scientific information, 

research, technologies, and results of 

inventory, monitoring, and coordination 

to determine appropriate local and 

regional management strategies that will 

enhance or restore greater sage-grouse 

habitats. 

• Management of greater sage-grouse 

habitat that intersects with Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) on Public lands 

administered by the BLM will be guided 

by the Interim Management Policy for 

Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). 

Land use allocations made for WSAs 

must be consistent with the IMP and 

with other laws, regulations, and 

policies related to WSA management. 

• For BLM-administered lands, all 

activities and uses within greater sagegrouse habitats will follow existing land 

health standards. Standards and 

guidelines (S&G) for livestock grazing 

and other programs that have developed 

S&Gs will be applicable to all 

alternatives for BLM lands. 

• The BLM and FS will consult with 

Indian tribes to identify sites, areas, and 

objects important to their cultural and 

religious heritage within greater sagegrouse habitats. 

• The BLM and FS will coordinate 

and communicate with State, local, and 

tribal governments to ensure that the 

BLM and FS consider provisions of 

pertinent plans, seek to resolve 

inconsistencies between State, local, 

and tribal plans, and provide ample 

opportunities for state, local, and tribal 

governments to comment on the 

development of amendments or 

revisions. 

• The BLM and FS will develop 

vegetation management objectives, 

including objectives for managing 

noxious weeds and invasive species 

(including identification of desired 

future condition for specific areas), 

within greater sage-grouse habitat. 

• The RMP and LMP amendments/ 

revisions will be based on the principles 

of Adaptive Management. 

• Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development Scenarios and planning 

for Fluid Minerals will follow the BLM 

Handbook H–1624–1 and current fluid 

minerals manual guidance for fluid 

mineral (oil and gas, coal-bed methane, 

oil shale) and geothermal resources. For 

NFS lands, the FS will use applicable 

and relevant policy and procedures. 

• The RMP and LMP amendments/ 

revisions will be developed using an 

interdisciplinary approach to prepare 

reasonable foreseeable development 

scenarios, identify alternatives, and 

analyze resource impacts, including 

cumulative impacts to natural and 

cultural resources and the social and 

economic environment. 

• The most current approved BLM 

and FS corporate spatial data will be 

supported by current metadata and will 

be used to ascertain greater sage-grouse 

habitat extent and quality. Data will be 

consistent with the principles of the 

Information Quality Act of 2000. 

• State Game and Fish agencies’ 

greater sage-grouse data and expertise 

will be utilized to the fullest extent 

practicable in making management 

determinations on Federal lands. 

The BLM and FS will utilize and 

coordinate the NEPA commenting 

process to help fulfill the public 

involvement process under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 470f), if applicable, as 

provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). 

Native American tribal consultations 

will be conducted in accordance with 

policy, and tribal concerns will be given 

due consideration, including impacts on 

Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and 

local agencies, along with other 

stakeholders that may be interested or 

affected by the BLM’s or FS’s decision 

on this proposal are invited to 

participate in the scoping process and, 

if eligible, may request or be requested 

by the BLM to participate as a 

cooperating agency. The public is also 

invited to nominate or recommend areas 

on public lands for greater sage-grouse 

and their habitat to be considered as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

as a part of this planning process (BLM 

Manual 1613.3.31). Parties interested in 

leasing and development of Federal coal 

in the planning area should provide coal 

resource data for their area(s) of interest. 

Specifically, information is requested on 

the location, quality, and quantity of 

Federal coal with development 

potential, and on surface resource 

values related to the 20 coal 

unsuitability criteria described in 43 

CFR part 3461. This information will be 

used for any necessary updating of coal 

screening determinations (43 CFR 

3420.1–4) in the Decision Area and in 

the environmental analysis. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2. 

Edwin Roberson, 

Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and 

Planning. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31652 Filed 12–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

OFFICAL BUSINESS

Lakeview, OR 97630

1301 S. “G” Street

Lakeview District Office

Bureau of Land Management

United States Department of the Interior

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76