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 historic 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.

BLM/OR/WA/PL-01/036+1792
U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Draft Lakeview

Resource Management Plan

 and Environental Impact Statement

Prepared by

Lakeview Resource Area Office

Lakeview District

September 2001

Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

1. Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

2. Draft (X) Final ( )

3. Administrative Action (X) Legislative Action ( )

4. Abstract: The Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has

identified five alternatives for managing 3.2 million acres of public land in southeastern Oregon. Information

provided by BLM personnel, other agencies and organizations, and the public have helped to develop the five

alternatives described and analyzed in this draft plan. Alternative A is the continuation of present management.

Alternative B emphasizes commodity production or extraction. Alternative C emphasizes resource values and the

functioning of natural systems. Alternative D, the agency preferred alternative, provides a balance with a high

level of natural resource protection and improvement in ecological conditions while allowing commodity production. Alternative E would minimize human intervention in the ecosystem and eliminate commodity production.

Major RMP issues include designation and management of special management areas, management of riparian

and wetland areas, management of upland habitats, management of recreation in the resource area, and support

for local Tribes and communities.

The draft document analyzes management of four existing areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC’s), as

well as designation and management of 12 additional proposed ACEC’s. Also addressed is the suitability of wild,

scenic, and recreational designations on three stream segments totaling 29 miles determined to be eligible for such

designations under the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.”

The draft document incorporates the scientific findings and assessment from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project that are applicable to the planning area.

5. Date comments must be received: The close of the 90-day comment period will be announced in news releases, legal notices, individual mailings, and on the district planning webpage (www.or.blm.gov/Lakeview/

Planning/planninglist.htm).

6. For Further information contact:

Dwayne Sykes

Bureau of Land Management

Lakeview District Office

HC 10 Box 337

Lakeview, OR 97630

Email: d1sykes@or.blm.gov

Telephone: (541) 947-5768
vi

Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Summary and Readers’ Guide

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ S-1

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................ S-1

Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................ S-1

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................ S-1

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................ S-2

Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................................ S-2

Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................................................ S-2

Comparison Summary of Resource Impacts by Alternative............................................................... S-3

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................1-1

Planning Area ......................................................................................................................................1-1

Existing Management Plans ................................................................................................................1-1

Planning Process ..................................................................................................................................1-2

Public Involvement in the Planning Process .................................................................................1-2

Planning Issues..............................................................................................................................1-4

Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study .........................................................................................1-6

Planning Criteria ..................................................................................................................................1-7

Relationship to Federal Agency Plans .................................................................................................1-7

Relationship to State and Local Government Plans .......................................................................... 1-11

Relationship to Tribal Government Plans ......................................................................................... 1-11

Chapter 2 — Affected Environment

Planning Area Profile ..........................................................................................................................2-1

History of the Resource Area ........................................................................................................2-1

Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................2-1

Plant Communities ..............................................................................................................................2-2

Shrub Steppe .................................................................................................................................2-2

Riparian Vegetation .......................................................................................................................2-8

Forest and Woodland .................................................................................................................. 2-11

Special Status Plant Species ..............................................................................................................2-14

Noxious Weeds and Competing Undesirable Vegetation ..................................................................2-14

Soils ..............................................................................................................................................2-18

Water Resources/Watershed Health...................................................................................................2-20

Fish and Aquatic Habitat ...................................................................................................................2-27

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................2-31

Special Status Animal Species...........................................................................................................2-35

Livestock Grazing Management ........................................................................................................2-38

Wild Horses .......................................................................................................................................2-47

Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................2-48

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern...................................................................................2-48

Wilderness Study Areas ..............................................................................................................2-51

Wild and Scenic Rivers ...............................................................................................................2-52

Guano Creek Wilderness Study Area Cooperative Management Area .......................................2-52

Significant Caves ........................................................................................................................2-55

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................2-55
vii

Traditional Cultural Properties, National Register Sites, and Cultural Resources .....................2-56

Cultural Plant Species .................................................................................................................2-59

Paleontological Resources (Prehistory) ......................................................................................2-59

Human Uses and Values ....................................................................................................................2-63

Air Resources ....................................................................................................................................2-69

Fire Management ...............................................................................................................................2-72

Recreation Resources ........................................................................................................................2-78

Off-Highway Vehicle Designations ...................................................................................................2-83

Visual Resources ...............................................................................................................................2-84

Geology and Minerals .......................................................................................................................2-84

Lands and Realty ...............................................................................................................................2-87

Roads/Transportation ........................................................................................................................2-92

Hazardous Materials ..........................................................................................................................2-97

Chapter 3 — Management Alternatives

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................3-1

Resource Management Plan Goals ...............................................................................................3-1

Ecosystem Management ...............................................................................................................3-2

Rangeland Health and Health of the Land Strategy......................................................................3-2

Desired Range of Conditions ........................................................................................................3-3

Adaptive Management ..................................................................................................................3-5

Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................3-6

Overview of the Alternatives ...............................................................................................................3-8

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .................................................3-8

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ....................................................................................................3-9

Management Common to All Alternatives..................................................................................3-10

Management Themes of the Alternatives....................................................................................3-10

Detailed Descriptions of Alternatives (Table 3-1) ............................................................................. 3-11

Plant Communities ......................................................................................................................3-12

Shrub Steppe.........................................................................................................................3-12

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation ................................................................................................3-13

Forest and Woodlands ..........................................................................................................3-14

Special Status Plant Species........................................................................................................3-15

Noxious Weeds and Competing Undesirable Vegetation............................................................3-16

Soils.............................................................................................................................................3-17

Water Resources/Watershed Health ............................................................................................3-17

Fish and Aquatic Habitat.............................................................................................................3-19

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat......................................................................................................3-20

Special Status Animal Species ....................................................................................................3-21

Livestock Grazing Management .................................................................................................3-22

Wild Horses.................................................................................................................................3-23

Special Management Areas .........................................................................................................3-24

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................3-24

Wilderness Study Areas ........................................................................................................3-25

Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................................3-25

Cultural and Paleontological Resources .....................................................................................3-26

Human Uses and Values ..............................................................................................................3-27

Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................3-28

Fire Management ........................................................................................................................3-28

Recreation ...................................................................................................................................3-30
viii

Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Off-Highway Vehicles .................................................................................................................3-32

Visual Resources .........................................................................................................................3-33

Energy and Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................3-34

Lands and Realty.........................................................................................................................3-35

Roads/Transportation ..................................................................................................................3-38

Detailed Descriptions of Alternatives (Narratives) ...........................................................................3-39

Plant Communities ......................................................................................................................3-39

Shrub Steppe.........................................................................................................................3-39

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation ................................................................................................3-43

Forest and Woodlands ..........................................................................................................3-47

Special Status Plant Species........................................................................................................3-49

Noxious Weeds and Competing Undesirable Vegetation............................................................3-52

Soils.............................................................................................................................................3-53

Water Resources/Watershed Health ............................................................................................3-54

Fish and Aquatic Habitat.............................................................................................................3-59

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat......................................................................................................3-62

Special Status Animal Species ....................................................................................................3-66

Livestock Grazing Management .................................................................................................3-68

Wild Horses.................................................................................................................................3-70

Special Management Areas .........................................................................................................3-72

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................3-72

Wilderness Values ................................................................................................................3-96

Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................................3-97

Cultural and Paleontological Resources .....................................................................................3-98

Human Uses and Values ............................................................................................................3-103

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................3-106

Fire Management ......................................................................................................................3-107

Recreation Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-111

Off-Highway Vehicles ...............................................................................................................3-117

Visual Resources .......................................................................................................................3-121

Energy and Mineral Resources .................................................................................................3-122

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................3-128

Roads/Transportation ................................................................................................................3-134

Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................4-1

Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................4-1

Critical Elements of the Human Environment ..............................................................................4-1

Plant Communities ..............................................................................................................................4-2

Shrub Steppe .................................................................................................................................4-2

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation ......................................................................................................4-13

Forest and Woodlands .................................................................................................................4-22

Special Status Plants ..........................................................................................................................4-25

Noxious Weeds and Competing Undesirable Vegetation ..................................................................4-31

Soils ..............................................................................................................................................4-34

Water Resources/Watershed Health...................................................................................................4-36

Fish and Aquatic Habitat ...................................................................................................................4-46

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................4-54

Special Status Animal Species...........................................................................................................4-66

Livestock Grazing Management ........................................................................................................4-76
ix

Wild Horses .......................................................................................................................................4-83

Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................4-87

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................4-87

Wilderness Values ..............................................................................................................4-100

Wild and Scenic Rivers ......................................................................................................4-102

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ..........................................................................................4-106

Human Uses and Values ..................................................................................................................4-109

Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 4-117

Fire Management .............................................................................................................................4-118

Recreation Resources ......................................................................................................................4-120

Off-Highway Vehicles .....................................................................................................................4-126

Visual Resources .............................................................................................................................4-130

Energy and Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................4-133

Lands and Realty .............................................................................................................................4-137

Roads/Transportation ......................................................................................................................4-142

Chapter 5 — Consultation and Coordination

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................5-1

Public Participation .............................................................................................................................5-1

Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted ...................................................................5-4

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals on Mailing List ...........................................................5-4

Preparers ..............................................................................................................................................5-5

Chapter 6 — Glossary and References

Glossary ...............................................................................................................................................6-1

References .........................................................................................................................................6-15

Index ..............................................................................................................................................6-27

Appendices

Appendix A — Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

A1: Subbasin Review Report ...................................................................................................... A-1

A2: ICBEMP Scientific Assessment of the Lakeview Planning Area ...................................... A-10

Appendix B — Planning Criteria, Legal Authorities, and Relationship/Consistency to Other Plans

B1: Planning Criteria, Legal Authorities, and Relationship to Other Plans .............................A-15

B2: Consistency of the Resource Management Plan with Oregon Statewide Plans.................A-22

Appendix C — Soils and Ecological Site Inventory

C1: Soils ....................................................................................................................................A-27

C2: Ecological Site Inventory Process ...................................................................................... A-27

Appendix D — Best Management Practices ....................................................................................A-31

Appendix E — Livestock Grazing

E1: Allotment Management Summaries ...................................................................................A-37

E2: Livestock Grazing Impacts to Vegetation Communities ..................................................A-162

E3: Range Projects .................................................................................................................. A-178

E4: Rangeland Standards and Guidelines ...............................................................................A-178

E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area ......................................................................A-190
x

Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F — Watershed and Water Quality

F1: Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale .....................................................................A-193

F2: Riparian/Wetland Areas ....................................................................................................A-194

F3: Water Quality Restoration Plans.......................................................................................A-204

F4: Water Resources and Basic Hydrologic Principles ..........................................................A-210

Appendix G — Noxious Weeds .....................................................................................................A-215

Appendix H — Fish and Wildlife

H1: Objectives of the Recovery Plan for Endangered Fish ....................................................A-217

H2: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat of the Lakeview Resource Area .......................................A-223

Appendix I — Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ..............................................................A-237

Appendix J — Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers

J1: Wilderness Study Areas .....................................................................................................A-253

J2: Wild and Scenic River Suitability Determinations ...........................................................A-257

J3: Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic

Rivers, Oregon/Washington .....................................................................................................A-270

J4: Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................ A-274

Appendix K — Interim Management Policy for Caves .................................................................A-279

Appendix L — Fire Rehabilitation

L1: Lakeview Resource Area Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan .............................................A-281

L2: Normal Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Guidelines for

Wilderness Study Areas ........................................................................................................... A-283

Appendix M — Recreation

M1: Off-Highway Vehicle Use ...............................................................................................A-287

M2: Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Definitions and

Classifications by Alternative ..................................................................................................A-287

M3: Visual Resource Management Class Objectives .............................................................A-290

Appendix N — Minerals

N1: Historic Mineral Activity and Mineral Potential .............................................................A-292

N2: Mineral Development Scenarios ......................................................................................A-297

N3: Stipulations and Guidelines for Mineral Operations .......................................................A-308

Appendix Attachment: Locatable Minerals Surface Management .........................................A-313

Appendix Attachment: Guidelines for Development of Salable

Mineral Resources in the Lakeview District............................................................................A-315

Appendix O — Lands

O1: Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements ............................................A-317

O2: Public Lands Available for Disposal ................................................................................A-319

Appendix P — Common and Scientific Names for Plants and Animals ........................................A-330

Appendix Q — Forest Health Considerations within the Summer Lake, Lake Abert,

Warner Lake, and Guano Subbasins ...............................................................................................A-333
xi

List of Tables

Table S-1.—Comparison summary of resource impacts by alternative ............................................. S-3

Table 1-1.—Land ownership/administration by county within the Lakeview Resource Area............1-2

Table 1-2.—Steps in the BLM planning process .................................................................................1-3

Table 2-1.—General vegetation classes on BLM-administered lands within the planning area.........2-5

Table 2-2.—(table was deleted)

Table 2-3.— Summary of stream condition in the planning area...................................................... 2-11

Table 2-4.—Functional condition of streams in the planning area (miles of streams) .....................2-12

Table 2-5.—Management on streams not at proper functioning condition .......................................2-13

Table 2-6.—Current forest vegetation classes on BLM-administered lands in the

Lakeview Resource Area ...................................................................................................................2-13

Table 2-7.—Sales of vegetative products in the Lakeview Resource Area, 1986–1998 ...................2-13

Table 2-8.—Summary of forest and woodland conditions and trends ..............................................2-15

Table 2-9.—Documented Bureau sensitive plant species in the

Lakeview Resource Area (ONHP 1998)............................................................................................2-17

Table 2-10.—Noxious weeds present in the planning area ...............................................................2-19

Table 2-11.—Warner Basin Working Group weed species categories ..............................................2-20

Table 2-12.—Hierarchy of hydrologic units, Lower Crooked Creek (171200060901) ....................2-22

Table 2-13.—Lakeview Resource Area subbasins and watersheds...................................................2-22

Table 2-14.—Stream characteristic by subbasin ...............................................................................2-23

Table 2-15.—Beneficial uses for Summer Lake, Lake Abert, and Warner Subbasins ......................2-25

Table 2-16.—Beneficial uses for Guano Subbasin............................................................................2-25

Table 2-17.—1998 State of Oregon water quality impaired stream reaches on

LRA-administered lands ....................................................................................................................2-26

Table 2-18.—Community water systems identified by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency .....................................................................................................2-28

Table 2-19.—1990 Water use by category and subbasin ...................................................................2-28

Table 2-20.—Native fish of the Lakeview Resource Area ................................................................2-29

Table 2-21.—Allotments and pastures under consultation for effect to Warner suckers ..................2-31

Table 2-22.—Livestock management for lotic riparian protection/enhancement .............................2-32

Table 2-23.— Warner Valley stream survey summary ......................................................................2-33

Table 2-24.—Priority animal taxa .....................................................................................................2-37

Table 2-25.—Bureau sensitive species ..............................................................................................2-39

Table 2-26.—Forage allocation and allotment summary ..................................................................2-41

Table 2-27.—Animal unit months (AUM’s) authorized annually from 1989 to 1999 ......................2-45

Table 2-28.—Areas unallotted or excluded from livestock grazing..................................................2-46

Table 2-29.—Herd management areas and herd areas in the Lakeview Resource Area ...................2-49

Table 2-30.—Paisley Desert and Beatys Butte Herd Management Area census summarys .............2-50

Table 2-31.—Paisley Desert and Beatys Butte HMA gathers ...........................................................2-51

Table 2-32.—Characteristics representative to each wild horse herd ...............................................2-51

Table 2-33.—Areas nominated for ACEC designation .....................................................................2-53

Table 2-34.—Wilderness study areas and instant study areas ...........................................................2-54

Table 2-35.—Summary description of drainages found to be eligible for

wild and scenic river designation ......................................................................................................2-56

Table 2-36.—Native American cultural plants of the planning area .................................................2-61

Table 2-37.—Cultural plant ecological groupings (ethno-habitats) ..................................................2-62

Table 2-38.—Census population .......................................................................................................2-65
xii

Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-39.—Gross farm sales in thousands ($) ...............................................................................2-66

Table 2-40.—Ethnic distribution, 1990 census .................................................................................2-68

Table 2-41.—Employment by sector: Statewide; Lake and Harney Counties; 1970–2000 .............2-70

Table 2-42.—Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes ($)....................................................................................2-72

Table 2-43.—Timber harvest by ownership ......................................................................................2-73

Table 2-44.—Travel spending in thousands ($) and employment generated, 1997 ..........................2-74

Table 2-45.—Number of fires by size class on the Lakeview Resource Area (in acres) ..................2-76

Table 2-46.—Total number of fires by size class occurring in the

Fort Rock Fire Management Area, 1980–2000 .................................................................................2-76

Table 2-47.—Visitation .....................................................................................................................2-81

Table 2-48.—Number of students annually in each school...............................................................2-85

Table 2-49.—Off_highway vehicle designations ..............................................................................2-85

Table 2-50.—Visual resource management classes...........................................................................2-86

Table 2-50a.—Acreage for all locatable mineral potential ...............................................................2-88

Table 2-51.—Mineral statistics for the Lakeview Resource Area.....................................................2-89

Table 2-52.—Acres for all leasable mineral potential.......................................................................2-90

Table 2-53.—Acreage for salable mineral potential..........................................................................2-90

Table 2-56.—Fenced Federal range disposal opportunities ..............................................................2-93

Table 2-57.—Existing withdrawals ...................................................................................................2-94

Table 2-58.—Existing communication sites......................................................................................2-97

Table 3-1.—Summary of resource management actions by program ...............................................3-12

Table 3-2.—Monitoring method by Fish and Aquatic habitat objective ...........................................3-61

Table 3-3.—Management summary for existing and proposed ACEC’s/RNA’s ...............................3-75

Table 3-4.—Overlap of existing and proposed ACEC’s and WSA’s (in acres).................................3-79

Table 3-5.—Off-highway vehicle designations by alternative ........................................................ 3-118

Table 3-6.—Total acres designated for OHV use ............................................................................3-120

Table 3-7.—Summary of mineral restrictions by alternative ..........................................................3-123

Table 3-8.—Acres of rights-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas ...............................................3-132

Table 4-1.—Livestock grazing impacts to key species vegetation by

type of grazing system and season of use ............................................................................................4-4

Table 4-2.—Characteristics of vegetation communities meeting

DRC’s—less desirable to more desirable ..........................................................................................4-12

Table 4-3.—Lakeview Resource Area forest area within and outside

special areas by alternative ................................................................................................................4-24

Table 4-4.—Miles of roads open or closed in special management areas.........................................4-89

Table 4-5.— Impacts to off-highway vehicle uses by alternative (acres) .......................................4-128

Table 4-6.— Acres of mineral restrictions within areas of high and

moderate mineral potential ..............................................................................................................4-135

Table 5-1.— Summary of key public involvement events ..................................................................5-2

Table 5-2.—Lakeview District Interdisciplinary Team .......................................................................5-6

Table A1-1.—Concept of scaled analysis ........................................................................................... A-2

Table A1-2.—Steps in the subbasin review and analysis of management situation........................... A-4

Table A2-1.—Ecological ratings for the four subbasins in the planning area .................................. A-11

Table B2-1.—Consistency with Oregon statewide plans .................................................................A-23

Table C1-1.—Prime farmlands within the planning area .................................................................A-28

Table E2-1.—Acres in each vegetation community under each grazing system by alternative.....A-163
xiii

Table E3-1.—Potential projects by allotment ................................................................................A-179

Table E5-1.—Grazing seasons in relation to months .....................................................................A-191

Table F1-1.—Hierarchy of hydrologic units, Lower Crooked Creek (171200060901) .................A-195

Table F2-1.—Riparian trend analysis worksheet by category........................................................A-196

Table F2-2.—Watershed conditions and relationship to non_point source pollution ....................A-198

Table F2-3.—Standards for rangeland health and relationship to watershed

condition factors (Table 1) contributing to nonpoint source pollution ..........................................A-201

Table F2-4.—Management actions (Chapter 3) that are directly related to or emphasize

 standards for rangeland health and watershed conditions that affect water quality ....................A-202

Table F3-1.—1998 State of Oregon water quality impaired stream reaches

 on LRA-administered lands ........................................................................................................... A-205

Table I-1.—ACEC’s proposed but found not to meet relevance and importance critera ...............A-251

Table L2-1.—Emergency fire rehabilitation native seed mixtures.................................................A-284

Table M2-1.—Recreation opportunity spectrum setting criteria....................................................A-291

Table N1-1.—Acreage for all locatable mineral potential .............................................................A-293

Table 02-1.—Public lands available for disposal ...........................................................................A-320

Table P-1.—Common and scientific names for plants and animals mentioned in this plan .........A-330

List of Maps

Map

I-1

FM-1

FM-2

FM-3

FM-4

FM-5

G-1

G-2

L-1

L-2

L-3

L-4

L-5

L-6

L-7

L-8

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-5

Title

Land Status within RMP Area

Existing Fire Management Plan within the RMP Area—Alternative A

Recent Fire History within the RMP Area

Proposed Fire Management Plan within the RMP Area—Alternative B

Proposed Fire Management Plan within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Proposed Fire Management Plan within the RMP Area—Alternative D

Grazing Allotments within the RMP Area—Alternatives A, B, and D

Grazing Allotments within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Existing Land Tenure Zones within the RMP Area—Alternative A

Existing Rights-of-Way and Utility Corridors and Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

within the RMP Area—Alternative A

Proposed Land Tenure Zones within the RMP Area—Alternative B

Proposed Land Tenure Zones within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Proposed Land Tenure Zones within the RMP Area—Alternative D

Proposed Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative B

Proposed Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Proposed Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative D

Mineral Estate Ownership within the RMP Area

Existing Withdrawals within the RMP Area

Salable Mineral Potential within the RMP Area

Locatable Mineral Potential within the RMP Area

Leasable Mineral Potential within the RMP Area

Recreation and Wilderness Study Areas within the RMP Area—Alternatives A and B

Existing OHV Designations within the RMP Area—Alternative A

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum within the RMP Area

Existing Road Density Classes by Watershed

Proposed OHV Restrictions within the RMP Area—Alternative B
xiv

Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

R-6

R-7

R-8

SMA-1

SMA-2

SMA-3

SMA-4

SMA-5

SMA-6

SMA-7

SMA-8

SMA-9

SMA-10

SMA-11

SMA-12

SMA-13

SMA-14

SMA-15

SMA-16

SMA-17

SMA-18

SMA-19

SMA-20

SMA-21

SMA-22

SMA-23

V-1

V-2

VRM-1

VRM-2

VRM-3

W-1

W-2

Proposed OHV Restrictions within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Proposed OHV Restrictions within the RMP Area—Alternative D

Recreation, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers within the RMP Area—Alternatives

C and D

Existing Special Management Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative A

Proposed Special Management Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative B

Proposed Special Management Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Proposed Special Management Areas within the RMP Area—Alternative D

Devils Garden ACEC and WSA—Alternatives A–D

Lake Abert ACEC and Abert Rim WSA—Alternative A

Lake Abert ACEC, Abert Rim WSA, and Proposed Abert Rim ACEC—Alternative D

Fossil Lake-Sand Dunes-Lost Forest ACEC, Sand Dunes WSA, and Lost Forest RNA/ISA—Alternative A

Fossil Lake-Sand Dunes-Lost Forest ACEC, Sand Dunes WSA, and Proposed Changes to Lost Forest

RNA—Alternative D

Warner Wetlands ACEC—Alternatives A and D

Proposed Black Hills ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Connley Hills ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Fish Creek Rim ACEC/RNA and WSA—Alternative D

Proposed Foley Lake ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Hawksie-Walksie ACEC/RNA and Hawk Mountain WSA—Alternative D

Proposed High Lakes ACEC, Proposed Guano Creek/Sink Lakes ACEC/RNA, and Guano Creek

WSA—Alternative D

Proposed Juniper Mountain ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Rahilly-Gravelly ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Red Knoll ACEC—Alternative D

Proposed Spanish Lake ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Table Rock ACEC/RNA—Alternative D

Proposed Twelvemile Creek Suitable Wild and Scenic River—Alternative D

Northwest Deer Winter Range Seasonal Vehicle Designations—Alternatives A and D

General Vegetation Classes within the RMP Area

Existing Juniper Habitats and Proposed Juniper Treatment Areas—Alternatives B, C,

and D

Visual Resource Management Classes within the RMP Area—Alternatives A and B

Proposed Visual Resource Management Classes within the RMP Area—Alternative C

Proposed Visual Resource Management Classes within the RMP Area—Alternative D

Sage Grouse Habitat within the RMP Area

Big Game Habitat within the RMP Area
xv

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Reader note: Refer to the list below for abbreviations or acronyms that may be used in this document.

ACEC ~ area of critical environmental concern

APHIS ~ Agricultural Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service

AUM ~ animal unit month

BIA ~ Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM ~ Bureau of Land Management

BMP ~ best management practice

BOR ~ Bureau of Reclamation

BPA ~ Bonneville Power Administration

CAA ~ “Clean Air Act”

CFR ~ “Code of Federal Regulations”

CWA ~ “Clean Water Act”

DLCD ~ Department of Land Conservation and Development

DOD ~ Department of Defense

DOE ~ Department of Energy

DOGAMI ~ Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

DOI ~ Department of the Interior

EIS ~ environmental impact statement

EPA ~ Environmental Protection Agency

FAA ~ Federal Aviation Administration

FERC ~ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FLPMA ~ “Federal Land Policy and Management Act”

ICBEMP ~ Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

IMP (wilderness) ~ “Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness

Review” 1995

ISA ~ instant study area

LCDC ~ Land Conservation and Development Commission

LRA ~ Lakeview Resource Area

NCA ~ national conservation area

NEPA ~ “National Environmental Policy Act”

NRHP ~ National Register of Historic Places

NOAA ~ National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS ~ National Park Service

NRCS ~ Natural Resources Conservation Service

ODA ~ Oregon Department of Agriculture

ODEQ ~ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODF ~ Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW ~ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODOT ~ Oregon Department of Transportation

ODSL ~ Oregon Division of State Lands

ODWR ~ Oregon Department of Water Resources

OHV ~ off-highway vehicle

ONHP ~ Oregon Natural Heritage Program

PRIA ~ “Public Rangelands Improvement Act”

RMP ~ resource management plan

RNA ~ research natural area

SHPO ~ State Historic Preservation Office

SMA ~ special management area

T&E ~ threatened and endangered

TNC ~ The Nature Conservancy

USDA ~ U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI ~ U.S. Department of the Interior

USFS ~ U.S. Forest Service

USFWS ~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS ~ U.S. Geological Survey

VRM ~ visual resource management

WSA ~ wilderness study area

WSR ~ wild and scenic river
Summary and Readers’ Guide

S -1

Summary and Readers’ Guide

Introduction

The Lakeview Resource Management Plan (RMP)/

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses

options for future management of approximately 3.2

million aces of Federal surface and Federal mineral

estate in southeast Oregon. This land surface and

mineral estate located in Lake and western Harney

Counties, Oregon, is managed by the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), Lakeview Resource Area (LRA).

The RMP/EIS addresses five major issues and analyzes

several alternatives to resolve these issues. These

alternatives represent different combinations of resource allocations to address identified issues and

future management of the planning area.

After the 90-day public comment period on the Draft

Lakeview RMP/EIS closes, BLM will analyze all

comments and then publish a Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

The public will receive a copy of the proposed plan and

have an opportunity to protest decisions they believe

are adverse to their interest. After resolution of any

protests, the record of decision will be issued along

with the approved plan.

The approved Lakeview RMP will replace the existing

management framework plans which currently guide

management in the LRA. Valid decisions and guidance

contained in these plans are brought forward and will

be incorporated into the approved plan. In addition,

advances in resource management science, changes in

laws and BLM policy, and public views will also be

considered. Uses of public land, decisions, and directions will be identified for management of resources

including vegetation, special status species, water

resources and watershed, fish, wildlife and wildlife

habitat, livestock grazing, wild horses, special management areas (SMA’s), cultural and paleontological

resources, human uses and values, fire, recreation, offhighway vehicles (OHV’s), energy and minerals, lands

and realty, and roads and transportation.

The following is a brief overview of the document to

assist in your review and to help you better understand

the planning process.

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 identifies the purpose and need for the plan,

defines the planning area, and explains public participation in this planning process. This chapter identifies

the planning criteria used as guidelines influencing all

aspects of the process. These guidelines are based on

law, regulation, and policy. Also included in this

chapter is a description of the involvement of the State,

local, and other Federal agencies and various Native

American Tribes. The five issues developed though

public participation and the planning process are listed

along with the management considerations for resolving conflicts.

In addition, Chapter 1 also explains the relationship of

this planning document to the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) supplemental EIS. The integrated scientific assessment, the

supplemental Draft EIS, and the proposed record of

decision from ICBEMP were considered, and where

applicable, incorporated throughout this document.

The subbasin review process, which was identified by

ICBEMP, is also explained in this chapter and in

Appendix A1.

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the planning area,

and describes the existing situation for each of the

resource programs. It describes both the living and

nonliving components that may be affected by the

proposed actions. Other components of the environment that will not be affected by the proposed actions

such as climate and physical characteristics are also

described. Current management direction is briefly

summarized for each program. Statistics such as acres,

numbers, resource condition, and designations, etc., are

presented in a number of tables. Applicable findings

from the ICBEMP’s integrated scientific assessment

are also presented for the pertinent resources.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 presents the various management strategies

for achieving the desired range of conditions. This

planning document identifies management for the 20-

year life of the plan. However, the long-term vision for

accomplishing objectives may be 50 years or longer

and may not be completely achieved under any alternative during the life of this plan.

There is also an overview of the alternatives and a

description of the theme of each alternative. Five
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

S - 2

alternatives are identified with different intensities of

resources uses and management direction to resolve

identified conflicts and achieve the desired range of

conditions:

• Alternative A — No action;

• Alternative B — Commodity production;

• Alternative C — Resource restoration and protection;

• Alternative D — Balance between commodity

production and resource protection; and

• Alternative E — Exclude commodity production.

Nonissue related uses have only small or no differences

among the alternatives.

Table 3-1 presents a summary of the alternatives. The

management goals and the management actions to

reach those goals are briefly described for each resource program by alternative.

Each alternative is a complete land use plan that

provides a framework for the multiple use management

of the full spectrum of resources present in the planning area. The resource management goals address the

desired future conditions of the various resources; are

based on law, regulation, and policy; and project the

direction management would follow. The management

goals are constant across all alternatives. Each alternative (except Alternative E) would meet the management

goal(s) of the various resources; however, the means

for meeting each goal, the rate at which they would be

met, and the impacts to resources may differ among the

alternatives.

The alternatives in this RMP/EIS are designed to

provide general management guidance in most cases.

Specific projects for a given area or resource will be

detailed in future activity plans or site-specific proposals, developed as part of the ecosystem analysis at the

watershed-scale process, interdisciplinary project

planning, or other means. These plans and processes

address more precisely how a particular area or resource is to be managed and ensures compliance with

the approved RMP’s management direction. Additional “National Environmental policy Act” (NEPA)

analysis and documentation would be conducted as

needed. This may consist of administrative determination of NEPA adequacy, categorical exclusion, or

environmental assessment.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 analyzes the impacts of the management

strategies (Chapter 3) on the existing condition (Chapter 2). There are several general assumptions listed at

the beginning of the chapter that apply to all alternatives. Also, there are assumptions at the beginning of

some specific resource programs to help guide the

reader through the thought process.

Each resource program is analyzed by management

goal through each of the alternatives, followed by an

overall comparison summary of resource impacts

across all the alternatives. This summary of impacts

includes a statement as to whether or not the proposed

actions would achieve the stated management goal

under each alternative. At the end of the analysis of

each resource program is a discussion of indirect,

secondary, and cumulative impacts of all actions across

all alternatives.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 summarizes key events in the consultation

and coordination process prior to and during preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS. It also lists those agencies,

organizations, and individuals who were contacted or

provided input. Also listed are the specialists who

prepared this plan, and the supporting technical specialists.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 contains the glossary and references cited in

the document to assist the reader in the review process.
Summary and Readers’ Guide

S -3
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

S - 4
Summary and Readers’ Guide

S -5
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

S - 6
Summary and Readers’ Guide

S -7
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

S - 8
Summary and Readers’ Guide

S -9
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

S - 10
Introduction

1 -1

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Purpose and Need

Resource management in the Lakeview Resource Area

(LRA) is currently directed by three management

framework plans that were completed in the early

1980s. Because of new issues and concerns, and

changes in management policies, regulations, and

demands on resources; these plans no longer provide

the adequate and comprehensive planning direction

needed for management of resources. The Lakeview

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact

Statement (Lakeview RMP/EIS) will provide the

Lakeview District of the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) with a comprehensive framework for managing

public land within the LRA (Map I-1). Completion of

the RMP/EIS will meet the mandate of the “Federal

Land Policy and Management Act” (FLPMA) of 1976

that public land be managed for multiple use and

sustained yield under an approved resource management plan.

A primary goal of this RMP is to develop management

practices that ensure long-term sustainability of a

healthy and productive landscape. A RMP is a set of

comprehensive, long-range decisions concerning the

use and management of resources administered by the

BLM. In general, the RMP does two things: (1) it

provides an overview of goals, objectives, and needs

associated with public lands management, and (2) it

resolves multiple use conflicts or issues that drive

preparation of the RMP.

This plan also considers and, where appropriate,

incorporates the science and findings derived from the

assessments of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project (ICBEMP). These findings were

important in defining the complexity and scope of the

issues being addressed in the Lakeview RMP/EIS.

When the record of decision is issued for the ICBEMP

Final EIS, the appropriate objectives, standards, and

management direction will be incorporated into this

document, or, if necessary, amend the management

direction for the LRA.

Planning Area

The planning area includes all of the LRA except for

approximately 31,500 acres administered by the Burns

District and addressed in the Three Rivers RMP. In

addition, the planning area includes approximately

2,172 acres in the Surprise Field Office in California

that the LRA has responsibility for managing through a

cooperative agreement. Map I-1 shows the relationship

between the district boundary and the RMP planning

area. For the purposes of this document, the terms

LRA, RMP area, and planning area are synonymous.

The LRA covers over 3.1 million acres (Table 1-1),

most of which is in Lake County and some in Harney

County, Oregon. BLM-administered land, or public

land, is generally well-blocked .

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 scattered

parcels occur in the north end of Lake County around

Christmas Valley and in the south end of the county

near Lakeview.

Existing Management Plans

The current management direction for the LRA is in

three existing management framework plans: the

“Warner Lakes,” “Lost River,” and “High Desert

Management Framework Plans” (BLM 1983), as

amended (BLM 1989; 1996); and the “Lakeview

Grazing Management Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Record of Decision” (BLM 1982). Any

management action proposed within the resource area

must conform to the direction in these documents.

Actions that do not conform require a plan amendment

or must be dropped from consideration. To date, three

plan amendments have been completed. The “Warner

Lakes Management Framework Plan” was amended in

1989 to officially designate the Warner Wetlands area

as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC)

and to prescribe special management direction. The

“High Desert Management Framework Plan” was

amended in 1996 to officially designate the Lake Abert

area as an ACEC and to prescribe special management

for the area. The “Warner Lakes Management Framework Plan” was amended in December 1998 to adopt a

proposal for exchange of land jurisdiction between the

BLM, LRA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge.

The two agencies initiated joint planning in 1997 to

transfer 12,880 acres of BLM-managed lands to the

refuge, and to transfer 7,870 acres of lands managed by
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

1 - 2

the Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to the

LRA. However, before the final plan amendment was

completed, congressional legislation authorizing the

transfer was signed in late 1998. Those decisions from

the management framework plans, as amended, that are

still valid have been incorporated into the Lakeview

RMP/EIS, which will supercede all previous planning

documents.

Planning Process

The RMP is a land use plan as prescribed by FLPMA.

The RMP establishes in a written document:

• Land areas for limited, restricted, or exclusive

resource uses or for transfer from BLM administration;

• Allowable resource uses and related levels of

production or use to be maintained;

• Resource condition goals and objectives to be

reached;

• Program constraints and general management

practices;

• Identification of specific activity plans required;

• Support actions required to achieve the above;

• General implementation schedule or sequences;

and

• Intervals and standards for monitoring the plan to

determine its effectiveness.

The underlying goal of the RMP is to provide efficient

on-the-ground management of public lands and associated resources over a period of time, usually up to 20

years. The procedure for preparing a RMP involves

nine interrelated actions as shown in Table 1-2.

Public Involvement in the Planning Process

Public involvement is an integral part of BLM’s

resource management planning process. Thus far,

public involvement activities have included a mass

mailing of a scoping brochure, holding public meetings, meeting with local government and Tribal government officials, conducting a subbasin review (see

Appendix A1), and mailing the “Summary of the

Analysis of the Management Situation” (BLM 2000).

The LRA began its public involvement in June 1999

with the mailing of a brochure that briefly described

the RMP/EIS process, outlined the planning schedule,

and requested comments on the first major planning
Introduction

1 -3

step—identification of issues. The brochure was sent to

approximately 500 individuals, organizations, agencies,

and offices. BLM invited the public to identify issues

or concerns they believed should be addressed in the

RMP process. A notice of intent to prepare the RMP

was published in the Federal Register at the same time.

This notice also announced the dates and locations of

two public meetings that would be held. A news

release with the same information was published in the

“Lake County Examiner” and in the “Klamath Falls

Herald and News.” BLM representatives attended

meetings with the Lake County Commissioners and the

Harney County Court to inform them of the RMP and

to encourage them to make comments, request information, and generally be involved in the process. The

same information was distributed to the governing

bodies of the Klamath Tribes, Burns Paiute Tribe, and

the Fort Bidwell Tribe. Other meetings with the Tribes
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

1 - 4

have also taken place at key steps in the planning

process.

From August 1999 through February 2000, BLM

conducted a subbasin review which involved other

Federal land managing agencies, state agencies, and

local and Tribal governments. This review resulted in

the identification of a number of findings and management concerns to be addressed in the RMP/EIS.

Members of the public, local and Tribal governments,

other Federal agencies and state agencies were mailed

copies of the “Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation” and were asked to comment, particularly on the planning criteria and proposed RMP/EIS

alternatives. Approximately 60 comment letters were

received.

Planning Issues

As a result of internal and external scoping, the following five comprehensive issues were identified to be

addressed in the RMP/EIS:

Issue 1. What areas, if any, should be designated and

managed as special management areas (SMA’s)

including ACEC designations, wild and scenic rivers

(WSR’s), or other?

FLPMA and BLM policy (BLM 1987; 1988) require

the BLM to give priority to designation and protection

of ACEC’s during the land use planning process. Since

completion of the management framework plans in the

1980s, a number of areas have been proposed for

ACEC designation. Two areas, Lake Abert and Warner

Lakes, were designated through management framework plan amendments.

Approximately 20 nominated areas were reviewed by

the resource area staff. Twelve of these areas were

found to meet the criteria as potential ACEC’s. Several

of these are also potential research natural areas

(RNA’s). In addition, three streams were evaluated and

found to be eligible for designation as WSR’s.

Questions to be answered in resolving Issue 1.

• Which areas should be designated as ACEC’s,

RNA’s, WSR’s, or other designations?

• Which designations are most appropriate for which

areas?

• How should designated areas be managed?

• What resources will be protected as a result of

designation and management?

• What values, particularly economic, will be

enhanced or foregone as a result of designation?

• How would designation and management of areas

affect other resources and their management?

• How should the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil

Lake existing ACEC be managed?

• Should boundaries or management of existing

SMA’s be changed, and if so, how?

Issue 2. How can upland ecosystems be managed and

restored to achieve desired range of conditions?

The vegetation on upland range provides the foundation for many uses of resources on public land. Structurally diverse plant communities provide habitat for

wildlife as well as forage for domestic animals. A

healthy cover of perennial vegetation stabilizes the soil,

increases infiltration of precipitation, slows surface

runoff, prevents erosion, provides clean water to

adjacent streams, and enhances the visual quality of the

public land. Resource uses can affect the natural

function and condition of upland communities.

The expansion of juniper woodlands into other plant

communities, riparian areas, and quaking aspen groves

and an increase in the density of historic woodlands

may be detrimental to other plants and watershed

functions.

Historically, wildland fire played an important role in

ecosystem processes in the resource area. Existing

plans do not address the possible use of wildland fire as

a management tool.

Questions to be answered in resolving Issue 2.

• What is the current condition of the various

ecosystems and plant communities in the planning

area, and how can their conditions be improved or

maintained?

• How should the public lands in the planning area

be managed to improve and maintain water quantity and quality and to promote hydrologic recovery?

• How should the public lands be managed to
Introduction

1 -5

maintain the existence, promote recovery, and

prevent listing of threatened and endangered

(T&E) species?

• How should vegetation be allocated to provide

forage for grazing animals including livestock,

wild horses, and wildlife; as well as to provide

wildlife habitat and watershed protection?

• Where are noxious weeds located in the planning

area, and how can their spread be controlled?

• What is the fire history in the planning area, and

what is the appropriate role of fire in the management of vegetation resources on the public lands?

• Which best management practices (BMP’s) should

be implemented to improve and protect watersheds?

Issue 3. How can riparian areas and wetlands be

managed to protect and restore their natural functions?

The vegetation in riparian areas and wetlands provides

the foundation for many uses of resources on public

land. Structurally diverse plant communities provide

habitat for wildlife as well as forage for livestock. In

addition, healthy riparian areas and wetlands stabilize

the soil, act as a sponge releasing water throughout the

year, prevent erosion, and improve water quality for

adjacent streams. Some resource uses affect the

natural function and condition of riparian areas and

wetlands. These uses include livestock grazing,

recreation, forest and woodland management, mineral

exploration and mining, road construction and maintenance, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.

Questions to be answered in resolving Issue 3.

• How should riparian vegetation communities be

managed to improve or maintain proper functioning condition?

• What kind of resource uses can be allowed in

riparian areas without degrading riparian conditions?

• How should riparian systems be managed to

improve or maintain habitat quality for fish,

wildlife, plants, and invertebrates?

• How should riparian and wetland areas be managed

to incorporate State of Oregon water quality

standards and approved management plans addressing water quality concerns?

• How should management actions in upland ecosystems be developed or designed to be compatible

with the needs of riparian communities?

• Which BMP’s should be implemented to reduce

erosion into streams?

Issue 4. How should recreation be managed to meet

public demand while protecting natural values and

health and safety of the public?

Recreation use in the resource area is increasing,

especially in north Lake County. There is a demand for

both developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities. OHV use needs to be managed including determining appropriate designations for areas in the LRA

regarding OHV use. There is an increasing demand for

access to the LRA by “outdoor therapy” groups. This

increasing use has resulted in conflicts with local

residents. Hunting, camping, fishing, rock hounding,

sightseeing, and pleasure driving are the most common

recreation activities in the LRA.

Questions to be answered in resolving Issue 4.

• What types and level of recreation should the

planning area provide?

• What role should BLM serve in promoting or

providing opportunities for tourism?

• 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 to

provide for public use?

• Can high use recreation areas such as the Sand

Dunes be managed to allow continued recreation

use while protecting resources? If so, how?

• How should the extensive recreation management

areas be managed?

• Is there a need for any additional roads to provide

access to areas currently inaccessible to BLM,

commercial interests, or the public?

• Which areas should be designated open, limited, or
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

1 - 6

closed to OHV use?

• Which roads, if any, should be closed or limited in

their use?

• What roads, if any, are appropriate for special

designations such as back country byways or back

country discovery routes?

Issue 5. How should public lands be managed to

meet the needs of local communities and Native

American Tribes?

The communities in the resource area are generally

small and isolated. As such, they have a great reliance

on the public lands, including those in the national

forest, to provide economic benefits to local communities, including jobs. In addition, a number of Native

American groups consider the resource area part of

their ancestral homelands and want to continue to have

access to the land for ceremonial and religious purposes and to hunt wildlife and gather plants for various

traditional uses.

Questions to be answered in resolving Issue 5.

• What is an appropriate role for BLM in providing

support to local communities?

• How should the public lands be managed to

provide economic support to local communities?

• How should the public lands be managed to meet

the needs of Tribal self-sufficiency and traditions?

• How can conflicts between agency actions and

Tribal needs and expectations be minimized or

avoided?

Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study

During the scoping process and the initial phases of

plan development, a number of alternatives and issues

were identified, and after discussion and review, were

eliminated from further consideration.

Grasshopper Control

Periodic outbreaks of grasshoppers occur in the planning area and can be a significant problem. The last

outbreak which was treated in the planning area

occurred in 1993. BLM has a memorandum of understanding (which may be reviewed annually as needed)

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) for the

control of grasshoppers on public lands in the district.

The “Rangeland Grasshopper Cooperative Management Program EIS for the Western States” was completed by USDA-APHIS in 1987 and is scheduled to be

updated in 2001. An environmental assessment of the

local effects of the USDA-APHIS control was completed for the Lakeview District (Lake and Klamath

Counties) in 1995 and tiers to the programmatic EIS.

This EIS is currently being updated. As such, grasshopper control in the planning area was not considered to

be a planning issue.

Determination that Lands are Chiefly Valuable for

Grazing

One issue that has been raised in the recent past relates

to making a determination of which lands within the

resource area are “chiefly valuable for livestock

grazing.” Section 1 of the “Taylor Grazing Act” states

that “... the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in

his discretion, by order to establish grazing districts or

additions thereto and/or to modify the boundaries

thereof, of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved

lands from any part of the public domain of the United

States ...which in his opinion are chiefly valuable for

grazing and raising forage crops.” It is the BLM’s

position that the Secretary of Interior already made this

determination when grazing districts were established.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project Scientific Assessment Findings

The ICBEMP science integration team identified a

number of findings from the scientific assessment

(USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1996) relevant to issue

identification across the Interior Columbia Basin. The

Lakeview subbasin review team reviewed these findings and determined that most of them applied to the

subbasin review area. These are discussed further in

Appendix A of this document. Those findings determined not to be applicable to BLM-administered land

in the Lakeview planning area (Appendix A2) have

been dropped from further analysis.

Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

In a written response to the “Summary of the Analysis

of the Management Situation,” the Wildlife Management Institute suggested that another issue be addressed in the plan: “How will the extent of RMP

implementation and its effectiveness in resolving

identified issues be determined?” This issue was

eliminated from analysis as a new planning issue since
Introduction

1 -7

an overall monitoring plan will be developed, as well

as monitoring of individual resources occur, regardless

of the alternative selected.

The monitoring plan will be issued as part of the RMP

record of decision. After the record of decision is

issued, an implementation plan will be developed based

on budget priorities to guide implementation of the

RMP. On-the-ground monitoring of resource management actions and RMP tracking will determine the

extent and effectiveness of implementation. This

information will be summarized in the annual planning

update. In addition, a formal RMP evaluation will be

conducted on a periodic basis (usually every 5 years) to

determine the extent and effectiveness of plan implementation.

Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and measures

used for data collection and alternative formulation

which will guide final plan selection. Planning criteria

are developed from appropriate laws and regulations,

BLM manual sections, policy directives, as well as

from concerns expressed by the public and other

agencies. They provide a basis for judging the responsiveness of the planning decisions and the planning

process to law, guidance, the results of public participation, and consultation with other agencies.

Planning criteria influence all aspects of the planning

process, including inventory and data collection,

development of issues to be addressed, formulation of

alternatives, estimation of effects, and selection of the

preferred alternative.

Planning criteria help to:

• Streamline the plan’s preparation and focus;

• Establish standards, analytical techniques, and

measures to be used in the process;

• Guide development of the RMP;

• Guide and direct issue resolution; and

• Identify factors and data to consider in making

decisions.

Principles of ecosystem management, as well as a

continuing commitment to multiple use and sustained

yield, will guide land use decisions in the planning

area. The commitment to multiple use will not mean

that all land will be open for all uses. Some uses may

be excluded on some land to protect specific resource

values or uses. Any such exclusion, however, will be

based on laws or regulations or be determined through

a planning process subject to public involvement.

The Lakeview RMP/EIS is being prepared using the

best available information. Limited inventories were

conducted to gather additional data for some resources.

Appendix B contains a detailed description of the

planning criteria and legal authorities used in the

development of this RMP/EIS.

Relationship to Federal Agency

Plans

The LRA adjoins the Surprise Resource Area along the

Oregon, California, and Nevada borders. The two

offices operate under a memorandum of understanding

that provides for the Surprise Field Office to manage a

small area in Oregon, and the Lakeview Office to

manage two small areas in California and Nevada.

Parts of the Twelvemile Creek potential WSR and a

portion of the Rahilly-Gravely proposed ACEC extends

into California and Nevada. By agreement with the

California State Director and the Surprise Field Office

Manager, this RMP includes description and analysis of

the California BLM-administered lands. However, a

final decision on those lands will be made by the

California State Director when the appropriate planning document(s) is completed. The Surprise Field

Office anticipates beginning revision of its existing

land use plan in 2002.

A number of land use or resource management plans

have been developed by the BLM and other Federal

agencies which relate to or otherwise govern how

management is currently carried out within the planning area. The BLM is responsible for determining if

the proposed resource management plan is in conformance with these plans. The following Federal plans

have been identified as applicable to the planning area

and, unless otherwise noted, the Lakeview RMP/EIS is

believed to be in conformance with these plans. Where

appropriate, the management direction and previous

management decisions set forth by these documents are

used to tier analyses performed in this plan, or are

incorporated by reference, and therefore, are not

repeated in detail within this document. Therefore,

pertinent decisions already established by these documents are not being revisited here, but are merely

mentioned to give the reader a broad perspective of all

management direction pertinent to the planning area.

• “Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental Impact
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

1 - 8

Statement” (BLM, 1989a) and Record of Decision

(BLM, 1991a)—evaluated the impacts of and

recommended to Congress designation of certain

wilderness areas within the State of Oregon,

including 11 areas within the LRA.

• “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for

Lands Under Wilderness Review” (BLM 1995b).

• The “National Management Strategy for Motorized

Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands” (BLM

2001).

• “Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen

Western States Final Environmental Impact Statement” (BLM 1991b).

• “Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program

Final Environmental Impact Statement” (BLM

1985).

• “Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed

Control Program Final Environmental Impact

Statement” (BLM 1987).

• “Site-Specific Environmental Assessment Tiered to

the 1987 Final Environmental Impact Statement for

Rangeland Grasshopper Cooperative Management

Program” (APHIS 1993)—covers the periodic need

to control grasshopper outbreaks in various rangeland and agricultural areas. The lead for this type

of action rests with APHIS, but the BLM does

cooperate when treatment involves lands under its

administration.

• “Rangeland Grasshopper Cooperative Management

Program Final Environmental Impact Statement”

(APHIS 1987).

• “Wildlife Damage Management in the Roseburg

ADC District in Southwestern Oregon” (APHIS

1994)—covers wildlife damage management

activities in the LRA. APHIS is the lead agency

for this action. The BLM served as a cooperating

agency in the preparation of this environmental

assessment and decision.

• “Healthy Rangelands” (BLM and USFS 1994;

BLM 1995a; 1997a;) and “Standards for Land

Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of

Land Management in the States of Oregon and

Washington” (S&G’s) (BLM 1998a). These plans

amend current grazing and other land management

direction by applying new standards and guidelines.

• “Bonneville Power Administration Right-of-Way

Vegetation Management FEIS/ROD” (BPA 2000a;

2000b)—evaluates the impacts of vegetation

management activities on Bonneville Power

Administration (BPA) rights-of-way crossing

Federal lands.

• “Public Land Recreation, A Management Strategy

for Special Recreation Management Areas in

Oregon and Washington” (BLM 1988)—outlines

special management direction for special recreation

management area in Oregon and Washington,

including the Warner Wetlands Special Recreation

Management Area.

• “Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe

Ecosystems Management Guidelines” (BLM et al.

2000)—outlines interim management guidelines

for greater sage-grouse and its habitat to be implemented until replaced by a long-term protective

strategy.

• “Management Framework Plans for the High

Desert, Warner Lakes, and Lost River Resource

Areas” (BLM 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Historically

the Lakeview District was comprised of three

resource areas. Due to a reorganization of the

Lakeview District in the late 1980s, the majority of

the Lost River Resource Area became what is now

known as the Klamath Falls Resource Area. The

Lakeview Planning Unit portion of the Lost River

Resource Area was transferred, along with the

High Desert and Warner Lakes Resource Areas to

the newly formed LRA as part of this reorganization. The three management framework plan’s,

along with the “Lakeview Grazing Management

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record

of Decision”(BLM 1982a; 1982b) form the main

foundation of the existing management direction

for the LRA and are described in more detail under

Alternative A, the no action alternative. Some of

this direction will also be carried forward into

other management alternatives in this RMP. Some

of this direction will be replaced in other alternatives.

• Since these management framework plans were

completed, three plan amendments have also been

completed. Two amendments address the designation and management of two ACEC’s (BLM 1989c;

1989b; 1990b; 1990c; 1990d; 1996c; 1996d). The

third addresses a transfer of land management
Introduction

1 -9

jurisdiction with the Hart Mountain National

Antelope Refuge (USFWS and BLM 1998a;

1998b). This amendment was completed by

congressional legislation in 1998 and designates

the boundary and management for the Guano Creek

WSA Cooperative Management Area. The direction contained in these three amendments will be

brought forward in this RMP as management

common to all alternatives.

• A number of activity-level plans have also been

completed in recent years. Six were prepared to

address specific resource management issues

within the Warner Wetlands ACEC (BLM 1990e;

1990f; 1990g; 1990h; 1990i; 1990j). Several

mining plans of operations have been prepared

(BLM 1993;1996e; 1996f). Multi-year noxious

weed management plans (BLM 1994b; 1995e), a

fire management plan (BLM 1998e), off-highway

vehicle plans (BLM undated a; undated b), and

wild horse management plans have been prepared

(BLM 1977a; 1977b; 1994g; 1995c). Several

wildlife habitat management plans have been

completed (“Fort Rock-Silver Lake Habitat Management Plan,” “Paisley Habitat Management

Plan,” “North Warner Lakes Habitat Management

Plan,” “South Warner Lakes Habitat Management

Plan,” “Warner Aquatic Habitat Management

Plan,” “High Desert Aquatic Habitat Management

Plan,” and “Rosebud/Edmonds Well Habitat

Management Plan” (BLM 1980c; 1980d; 1981a;

1984a; 1984b; 1986a; 1986b; 1993d). One vegetation management plan has been completed for the

Black Hills area (BLM 1981b). Numerous allotment management plans have been completed

(BLM 1975; 1990g; 1994b; BLM and USFWS

1998a; 1998b). An existing process is in place for

authorizing temporary nonrenewable livestock

grazing use (BLM 1989). All of these documents

are considered part of the existing management

direction and will be included in the description of

Alternative A and other alternatives in this RMP

where appropriate.

• The “Western Regional Corridor Study” (Western

Utility Group 1993) shows existing, designated,

and future potential utility corridors for most

Western states, including Oregon. The BLM is

required to use this study as a reference document

when considering land use decisions that may

affect existing and/or proposed major utility

corridors.

• “Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan” (USFWS 1994a;

1994b) contains the management direction for the

adjacent Hart Mountain Refuge and the Guano

Creek Wilderness Study Area Cooperative Management Area located on BLM-administered lands.

This area and the associated management direction

was described in a draft plan amendment/environmental assessment prepared jointly by the USFWS

and BLM (1998a; 1998b) and by Congress in the

“Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act”

of 1998. The management direction for this area,

as outlined in these two plans, legislation, and the

1995 “Interim Management Policy for Lands

Under Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP)

(BLM 1995), will be considered common to all

alternatives analyzed in this RMP.

• The “Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the

Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin: Warner Sucker

(Threatened) Catostomus warnerensis, Hutton Tui

Chub (Threatened) Gilia bicolor spp., Foskett

Speckled Dace (Threatened) Rhinichthys osculus

spp.” (USFWS 1998) outlines recovery strategies

for three Federally listed species. This direction

will be considered common to all alternatives

analyzed in this RMP.

• “Juniper Firewood Cutting” (USDI-BLM 1991;

1999), EA No. OR-010-90-14, analyzed the effect

of cutting juniper for firewood, poles, and other

uses from 10 locations covering about 45,000

acres. The decision allows juniper removal from 6

of the 10 areas analyzed.

• The latest or final versions of biological opinions

related to the Warner sucker or conservation

agreements/strategies associated with sensitive

plants and animals.

• Military uses of BLM-administered lands are

authorized under existing laws and regulations.

Current uses within the LRA include: a low altitude

military operations area utilized by the 142nd

Fighter Group of the Oregon Air National Guard

(Air National Guard Readiness Center 1993),

rescue training operations by the 304th Rescue

Squadron (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1998) at two

sites in northern Lake County, and a withdrawal for

the backscatter radar site operated by the Department of the Air Force (1984).

• “Mining Occupancy in the General Sunstone Area”

(EA No. OR-010-98-5), analyzed the impacts of

occupancy of mining claims in the sunstone mining
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

1 - 10

area within the Rabbit Basin (USDI-BLM 1998).

• Potential geothermal, oil, and gas leasing within

the resource area has ben evaluated in several

existing documents (UDSI-BLM undated; 1976;

1981). Two existing mining operations occur on

the LRA under a plan of operation; one for diatomaceous earth and one for perlite (USDI-BLM

1993; 1996).

Consultation with U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

In December 2000 the LRA initiated consultation with

the USFWS regarding potential impacts of actions

proposed in the Lakeview RMP to Federally listed

species or species proposed for listing. This is in

conformance with the memorandum of agreement

between the BLM and the USFWS dated August 30,

2000. A lead representative for the USFWS was

designated. That individual was sent Lakeview RMP

material for review and input to the process. The

USFWS sent the LRA a list of species either federally

listed or proposed for listing that may occur in the

planning area. Species that are known to occur in the

planning area are addressed in this Draft RMP/EIS. A

biological opinion or concurrence will be requested on

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

Relationship to the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project

“The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP) was established in 1994 . . . to

develop and then adopt a scientifically sound, ecosystem based strategy for managing all USFS- or BLMadministered lands within the (interior Columbia)

Basin” (USDA-FS 1996). The ICBEMP covers an area

of 145 million acres including all of Eastern Oregon.

Fifty-three percent of the ICBEMP area is public land

managed by the BLM or the USFS. As part of the

project, a science integration team was set up and

directed to “... study ecological, economic and social

systems; examine current and historical conditions; and

evaluate whether outcomes from current practices and

trends would be consistent with long-term maintenance

of ecological integrity and ecosystem health.” (USDAFS and USDI-BLM 2000c). This was all done at the

basin scale. The size of this area requires a “stepdown” process to bring findings and information down

to a local level where they could be applied in a USFS

or BLM management unit such as a ranger district or

resource area. This is called the subbasin review

process. The ICBEMP area was divided for analysis

and review into four geographic scales: broad-scale

(interior Columbia Basin), mid-scale (subbasins or

groups of subbasins), fine-scale (watershed), and site

scale (project). The mid-scale or subbasin level is the

level at which field offices would do long-range

planning for all resources within their respective

administrative boundaries. This scaled analysis is

summarized in Table A1-1.

As part of the preparation to write the Lakeview RMP/

EIS, the Lakeview Field Office conducted a subbasin

review. The subbasins are based on the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) 4th field hydrologic unit codes. On

average these 4th field hydrologic unit codes comprise

an area of 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres. The Lakeview

subbasin review area included four subbasins wholly or

partially within the LRA identified in the ICBEMP

scientific assessment: Summer Lake, Lake Abert,

Warner Valley, and Guano comprising an area of

approximately 6.5 million acres. Land ownership and

administrative responsibilities included private, State

of Oregon, USFS, BLM, USFWS, and Department of

Defense. The majority of the land in the subbasin

review area is administered by BLM, Lakeview Resource Area.

In addition, the science integration team identified a

number of relevant issues applicable across the interior

Columbia Basin. The Lakeview subbasin review team

reviewed these findings and determined that most of

them applied to the subbasin review area. Appendix

A1 of this document contains a complete report of the

subbasin review conducted by the team. Those findings applicable to BLM-administered land in the

Lakeview planning area have been incorporated into

the issues or management concerns addressed in this

RMP/EIS.

In March 2000 an ICBEMP supplemental draft EIS was

published followed in December 2000 with a Proposed

RMP/Final EIS and proposed record of decision

(USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 2000a, 2000b, 2000c).

These documents analyzed three alternatives for

management of the USFS- and BLM-administered

lands in the basin. A number of the objectives, standards, and guidelines identified in the proposed record

of decision were incorporated into the management

alternatives in this RMP where they were applicable.

However, not all management direction from the

proposed record of decision was incorporated into this

Draft Lakeview RMP/EIS since a final decision has not

yet been issued. Should a final decision be issued, it

will automatically amend existing management direction and will be incorporated into the Proposed

Lakeview RMP/Final EIS. At this point in the process,
Introduction

1 -11

the Lakeview RMP/EIS is consistent with the scientific

findings from the project and objectives, standards, and

guidelines developed for the ICBEMP proposed record

of decision.

Relationship to State and Local

Government Plans

State Plans

The RMP’s consistency with the State of Oregon’s

statewide planning goals is shown in Appendix B2.

The Department of Land Conservation and

Development’s “Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals”

guide land use planning within the State (DLCD 1995).

This requires local governments to develop their own

comprehensive plans which implement the State’s

goals on the local level. Also shown in Appendix B2

are goals from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW) management plans for deer and elk and

Division of State Lands asset management prescriptions for State lands.

The Governor and various state agencies will be given

an opportunity to review the Proposed Lakeview RMP/

Final EIS and comment on its consistency with their

goals, policies, and plans.

The RMP is consistent with the “Oregon Statewide

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,” which was

last updated by the “Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan:

1994–1999.” The “Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan”

is one of several documents which make up the “Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation

Plan.” The “Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan” is being revised beginning in

2001 and is scheduled to be completed in 2002.

Lake County Plan

Lake County has an existing land use plan developed in

response to the State of Oregon’s requirements. The

plan consists of a number of reports, ordinances, and

subsequent amendments governing land use practices

and policies within the county (Lake County 1979;

1983; 1989a; 1989b; 1989c; 1992).

In 1992 the county passed an “Emergency Ordinance

and Interim Public Land Management Plan” (Lake

County 1992) to supplement the existing land use plan,

as amended. This ordinance does not support the

designation of any additional wilderness areas or

RNA’s within the county.

The Lake County Commissioners are being provided

with an opportunity to review the Lakeview RMP/EIS

and comment on its consistency with their approved

plans and policies.

Harney County Plan

Harney County has an existing land use plan developed

in response to the State of Oregon’s requirements. The

Harney County Commissioners are being provided with

an opportunity to review the RMP/EIS and comment on

its consistency with their approved plans and policies.

Relationship to Tribal Government Plans

Five recognized Tribal governments are known to have

an interest in the LRA: The Klamath Tribes, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Burns

Paiute Tribe, Fort McDermitt Tribe, and Fort Bidwell

Tribe. The LRA area manager and RMP team leader

have met with Tribal leaders of the Klamath Tribes,

Burns Paiute, and Bidwell Tribes to discuss the

Lakeview RMP/EIS and to identify Tribal goals, needs,

or plans which may conflict with or support any of the

alternatives. Additional meetings will occur at key

points during the process (see Chapter 5).
Affected Environment

2 -1

Chapter 2 — Affected Environment

Planning Area Profile

The resource management plan planning area (RMP

area or planning area) includes all of the Lakeview

Resource Area (LRA) except for approximately 31,000

acres of the resource area managed by the Burns

District. The planning area also takes in 2,172 acres of

the Surprise Resource Area of the Susanville District in

Nevada for which the LRA has management responsibility (Map I-1).

This chapter describes the current condition, amount,

location, use, and demands etc., of each of the resources in the planning area that could be affected by

the actions described in Chapter 3. A description of

physical aspects such as geology and climate are given

not because these could be affected by management

actions. Instead, the framework of the physical environment in which actions would be taking place is

described.

History of the Resource Area

Indigenous people have lived in what is now the LRA

for more than 12,000 years. Europeans first entered

this area in 1826, when Peter Skene Ogden of the

Hudson Bay Company crossed the area while exploring

the Great Basin. No further interest was shown until

John C. Fremont, representing the United States

Government, explored the area in 1843. Fremont’s

explorations were published and widely read in the

United States, creating an interest in the West (Fremont

1956). However, because of the dry conditions, rugged

environment, and lack of farmable land, much of the

Great Basin was ignored. It served only as a transportation route for early settlers heading to California and

Oregon. The Oregon Central Military Road, which

was used to transport supplies from Eugene, Oregon, to

Fort Boise, Idaho, was created in 1867. While little

used, it began to open up what would later become

Lake County to development.

In 1866, the military established the first Camp Warner

on what is today Hart Mountain. It was later moved to

a location west of Warner Valley in order to provide

settlers and travelers protection from the Northern

Paiute Indians. Oregon became a state in 1859, when

several transportation routes were bringing ever larger

numbers of settlers into the State. In 1867, the first

settlers entered the Goose Lake Basin and soon began

settling throughout the region. New Pine Creek,

Oregon, the oldest town in Lake County, was established in 1869. Lake County was established by State

legislature in 1874. At that time, it included what is

presently Klamath and Lake Counties. The site that

was to become Lakeview had its first residence built in

1872 and was selected as county seat in 1876.

The decades of 1870 and 1880 saw the settlement of

much of the region and the establishment of towns

throughout the area. The main focus of settlement and

economic development was ranching and livestock.

Logging became a major focus in later years. Towns

and villages such as Paisley, Summer Lake, Silver

Lake, Fort Rock, Adel, and Plush served as trade,

supply, and civic centers for the ranches and homesteads that developed. Lands occupied were primarily

within the rich valley basins and river bottoms of the

area. The rest of the land was used primarily for open

range grazing and harvesting trees for lumber. To a

limited degree, mining helped focus attention on the

area.

In the early 1900s, there was an occupation boom in the

Fort Rock and Christmas Valley area. Between 1902

and 1912, nearly all the available land within these

areas was homesteaded and filed upon. For a few

years, these settlers were able to work and make a

living with dry land farming techniques. However,

when rainfall diminished, the farms failed and were

abandoned. Where there had once been 18 post office

locations, only two survive today at Fort Rock and

Christmas Valley. The communities of Lakeview,

Paisley, Silver Lake, Fort Rock, Summer Lake, Christmas Valley, Adel, and Plush remain the centers of civic

life in the region, with Lakeview being the largest

community in the county. Other locations, especially

in northern Lake County, have disappeared from the

map.

Physical Characteristics

The LRA lies in the northwest portion of the Great

Basin. Traditionally, this area has been placed within

the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, which is

bordered to the north by the High Lava Plains Physiographic Province. Consequently, the planning area

displays the characteristics of both provinces. Anderson et al. (1998) divides the planning area into three

divisions: High Desert, Klamath, and Mazama Provinces. This division is based on physiography, geology,

and soils. Over 75 percent of the planning area is
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 2

classified as High Desert Province. The rest of the area

is classified Klamath Province (18 percent) and

Mazama Province (7 percent).

Physiography

The geology of this part of the Great Basin is characterized by uncompacted stream- and lake-deposited

sediments and a variety of volcanic and sedimentary

rocks. Some scientists estimate that these sediments

and rocks range in age from early Oligocene (38

million years ago) to Holocene (recent). They have

been displaced and broken-up by Miocene- to Pleistocene-age (15 million to 11,000 years ago) faults.

This has resulted in the north- to northwest-trending

mountains and valleys characteristic of this area.

These ridges and valleys are divided crossways by two

fault systems, a dominant northwest-southeast trending

set, and a northeast-southwest trending set. All watersheds in the planning area are internally drained, which

is characteristic of the Great Basin. However, in the

geologic past, Goose Lake spilled into the Pit River,

which eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean.

Many of these undrained basins contain saline playa

lakes and large accumulations of alkali. The relatively

young volcanic eruptions of the High Lava Plains

Province is responsible for some of the outstanding

volcanic features found in the RMP area. Lava flows,

volcanoes, cinder cones, lava tubes, and explosion

features occur throughout the RMP area, with the

youngest of these in the Christmas Valley/Fort Rock

area.

The entire resource area is within the limits of Mesozoic (240 to 66 million years ago) and Paleozoic (570

to 240 million years ago) marine sedimentary basins.

Significant accumulations of hydrocarbon-bearing

marine sediment may lie beneath the younger volcanic

and volcanic-derived sedimentary rocks in some areas.

The elevation in the RMP area ranges from 4,103 feet

at Summer Lake to 7,885 feet at Beaty Butte and 8,456

feet at Drake Peak.

Climate

The planning area has a semiarid climate with long,

cool, moist winters and short, warm, dry summers. The

average annual precipitation is between 8–18 inches,

depending on elevation, with the majority of moisture

coming in the winter and spring. Temperatures can

range from below 0 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter to

more than 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer.

Average monthly temperatures range from 28.7 degrees

in January to 62.5 degrees in July. However, freezing

temperatures can occur any time of the year. Climatic

data from elsewhere in the Northern Great Basin and

southeastern Oregon indicates that 7 out of 10 years in

the past have been affected by drought (BLM 1998g).

Plant Communities

Shrub Steppe

Ecological Provinces and Subbasins of Southeastern

Oregon

Introduction

Four subbasins as defined by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) in the RMP area are centered around

(1) the Paulina Marsh and Silver Lake (Silver Lake

Subbasin), (2) the Chewaucan Marsh drainage into

Lake Abert (Lake Abert Subbasin), (3) the Warner

Wetlands drainage (Warner Lakes Subbasin), and (4)

the Beaty Butte country (Guano Subbasin), which

drains into the Guano system. There are also small,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered

holdings within the Goose Lake drainage. Remnants of

Pleistocene pluvial (glacial melt and rain-filled)

lakebeds exist in these four major drainages. The

evidence of these extensive inundations exist in

exposed shoreline terraces and visible wave-action

beach lines. Present-day climate is uniformly dry and

cold with frosts that can come any day of the year.

Climate varies widely from location to location at any

given time, both seasonally and from year to year, even

though the climate is generally dry with extremes of

cold and hot (Anderson 1998). Pollen records demonstrate that extreme changes can occur rapidly from year

to year and that resiliency of species is the norm;

predictability is not the norm (Miller and Wigand

1994).

The High Desert Province

The High Desert Province is characterized by large and

small closed basins surrounded by extensive terraces

formed by the ancient lakes. Between the closed basins

are low basaltic ridges, hilly uplands, isolated buttes

such as Beaty Butte, mountains such as St. Patrick and

Warner, and block-faulted igneous formations such as

Abert Rim and Poker Jim Ridge. The rainfall varies

from 8 inches of precipitation at Plush to 10.2 inches

on Hart Mountain; average annual precipitation in this
Affected Environment

2 -3

province is 9.7 inches. On the northwest part of this

province, the boundary between High Desert and

Mazama Provinces is a belt rather than a distinct line

determined by the pumice mantle and/or lava flows

from Mazama, Paulina, and other volcanoes (Anderson

1998).

When Europeans came to the High Desert Province, it

was occupied by the Klamath, Warm Springs, and

Northern Paiute Tribes (Aikens 1986). Today, these

Tribal people live in towns, on ranches, or on reservations (Klamath Tribes, Warm Springs Confederated

Tribes, Burns, or Fort Bidwell). Many of them were

hunter-gatherers and used the land as part of their

yearly collecting cycles. There is evidence of their

manipulating the landscape with fires (Kelly 1932) and

digging for roots in the marshes (Fremont 1956).

There is evidence of much earlier occupations (more

than 10,000 years ago) in Fort Rock Cave and in the

presence of early-style projectile points (see the section

on archaeology.) Archaeological evidence at Connley

Caves, pollen records from several sites in the region,

tree ring analyses, and paleontological evidence from

Fossil Lake all help reconstruct past climates and

vegetation changes over time in this province (Aikens

1986; Aikens and Jenkins 1994)

According to the 1936 “Forest Type Map of Oregon,”

at that time stands of western juniper were on upland

areas scattered across the High Desert Province. In

1936, in the area north and northwest of Silver Lake,

juniper stands collectively covered an estimated 18,000

acres. From the vicinity of Cougar Mountain, scattered

juniper stands existed eastward nearly to Wagontire

Mountain; in 1936, they collectively covered an

estimated 185,000 acres. Natural stands of western

juniper in this province are usually associated with

rocky or very stony uplands, lava flows, and ridges

where understory vegetation is insufficient to burn

during wild fires. Ponderosa pine exists in a few places

in this province along the western edge and northwestern part of the province and on BLM land in the

northern part of Warner Mountains. These pines are

located where 18 inches of rain falls annually. An

ecological oddity, the Lost Forest, northeast of Christmas Lake Valley, contains ponderosa pine with some

juniper growing on sandy soils. This isolated sand

dune area receives only 8.7 inches of rain annually.

The isolated stand of pine lies about 25 air miles east

of the nearest pine forest, which is in the Mazama

Province.

The huge number of closed basins that typify the High

Desert Province include perpetually dry lakebeds,

lakebeds that are inundated infrequently and for short

periods, perpetual lakes that fluctuate in size over time,

and wetland and marshes that are reasonably perpetual.

Vegetation on the bottomlands and around these lakes

varies according to the frequency, depth, and duration

of inundations. This RMP area is almost entirely a

natural shrub-grassland steppe on uplands. Sagebrush

strongly dominates among a wide variety of shrub

species commonly growing in this province. At least

30 shrub species on upland sites and 15 shrub species

on bottomland sites have been recorded consistently in

this province. The sagebrush species and subspecies

are reasonably site-specific and related to soils where

they grow (Anderson 1998).

Predominate grass species in the arid shrub-grasslands

include bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Thurber’s

needlegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Sandberg’s

bluegrass. The more arid, sand dune sites may include

Indian ricegrass, creeping wildrye, needle-and-thread

grass, and thickspike wheatgrass. Some forb species

are widespread in this province; however, a few are

specifically oriented to local situations and will be

discussed under the section on sensitive plant species.

The Klamath Province

The Klamath Province abuts the High Desert in the

southwest corner of the subbasin review area; the

division from the High Desert Province is based on

changes in soils. The Province boundary in the study

area begins at the Oregon/California border southwest

of Adel and extends north to Honey Creek. It then

extends west and northwest to Valley Falls, south of

Paisley, across Picture Rock Pass, and west about 5

miles south of Silver Lake into the headwaters of

Bridge Creek to the junction of the High Desert,

Klamath, and Mazama Provinces. The Klamath

Province is characterized by high elevation basaltic

mountains, such as Warner Mountains, and Dead

Indian Mountain; and Winter Rim, although none of

these peaks reach timberline. The average annual

precipitation for this portion of the Province is 14

inches, 35 percent of which falls between April and

July. The exceptions are Winter Rim, which averages

35 inches per year, and Crane Mountain, which averages 65 inches annually (Anderson 1998).

At contact with Europeans, the Klamath Province was

inhabited by Modoc, Klamath, and Northern Paiute

Tribes, who used the RMP area seasonally for hunting

and plant gathering. These Tribal people had little

impact on the Province’s natural resources, although

they did use fire and other means of landscape manipulation (Aikens 1993).
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 4

According to the 1936 “State of Oregon Forest Type

Map,” which predates extensive logging activities,

about 70 percent of the Lake County part of Klamath

Province was covered by trees, primarily ponderosa

pine. Only about 1 percent of the Lake County part of

the Province was covered in juniper stands. As in the

Mazama Province, the Province was not heavily used

until after World War II (Stephenson and Boydstun

1994). Since then, radical changes in this province

include expanded juniper coverage and forest cutting

practices.

The Mazama Province

The Mazama Province in this RMP area is characterized by a continuous mantle of aeolian deposits of

pumice and other volcanic materials that extend from

Brothers in the north to Buck Creek in the south,

paralleling Highway 31 and south to the junction of the

three provinces. Most of the Mazama Province lies

between 4,000 and 5,000 feet, and consists of hilly to

mountainous topography interspersed with basins.

Innumerable large and small buttes, cones, and ridges

formed by volcanism dot the landscape. Fields of raw

lava and pumice are common. The rainfall in this

portion of the province demonstrates the “rain shadow”

effect of the Cascades. The Mazama Province averages

around 18 inches per year, compared to 145 inches

annually in the Three Sisters area to the west (Anderson 1998).

At contact with Europeans, Mazama Province was

occupied by the Klamath, Warm Springs, and Northern

Paiute Tribes. These people used the area seasonally as

part of their collective rounds and had little or no

impact on the area (Aikens 1993).

According to the 1936 “State of Oregon Forest Type

Map,” which predates extensive logging activity in the

area, about 4 percent of the Mazama Province was

open and unforested (sagebrush), 10 percent was in

stands of western juniper, and 20 percent was in stands

of lodgepole pine (some related to fire activity). For

most of the entire Province and the area represented in

this study, 55 percent was covered by stands of ponderosa pine with some small areas including Douglas-fir

and other minor species. In the RMP area, there are

thick stands of bitterbrush as an understory and in

isolated communities (Anderson 1998).

Logging in the section of Mazama Province that is in

the RMP area was minimal until after World War II.

Because of the lack of roads and transportation for

lumber, logging operations were small. One company

used a railroad to the Bend area. It was not until the

1980s that logging and replanting of trees began on a

large scale in this province (Tonsfeldt 1987, 1988).

Existing Plant Communities

Introduction: The vegetation in the planning area is

discussed at three levels. The top level is the entire

subbasin, which includes all three provinces, the midlevel is the actual plant communities themselves, and

the project level consists of the ecological sites, which

describe the potential for plant communities on specific

soils.

The uplands of the High Desert Province in Oregon is

almost entirely a natural shrub-grassland dominated by

different species of sagebrush—sagebrush species are

very site-specific. Basin big sagebrush grows mainly

on sites having moderately deep, loamy soils, such as

those on droughty bottomlands and fans, while Wyoming big sagebrush is present almost everywhere

throughout the uplands of the province. The habitat is

similar to big sagebrush, but occurs on sandier or more

gravelly soils. Mountain big sagebrush is dominant

above 5,500 feet on gravelly or stony upland soils.

Low sagebrush is strongly dominant on shallow to very

shallow stony upland lithic soils, but also grows mixed

among other sagebrush species on moderately deep,

very gravelly mountain slopes. Silver sagebrush is on

some intermittent lakes and in areas around playas

inundated part of the year. Bud sagebrush grows only

on the most arid uplands in the province, which are

very shallow, very stony soils and are usually alkaline

in nature. The distribution of black sagebrush is rare in

southeastern Oregon, but it grows in several extensive

stands in the Province on the shallowest soiled scablands (Anderson 1998; Kagan and Caicco 1996).

The existing plant communities and acres of coverage

are described in Table 2-1.

Big sagebrush shrubland: Big sagebrush shrubland is

the most common vegetative cover type in southeastern

Oregon. It appears as a mosaic with shrub-steppe

communities over much of the unwooded areas along

mountain range foothills and expansive extents in the

valley floor. There are several different mixtures of

plants within the big sagebrush mosaics. These are big

sagebrush (1) with perennial grasslands, (2) with

annual grasslands (cheatgrass), (3) within crested

wheatgrass seedings, (4) with a variety of shrubs, such

as squaw apple or bitterbrush, and (5) in some limited

areas on well-drained ash soils and in wetland mosaics.

Other plant combinations featuring sagebrush as the
Affected Environment

2 -5
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 6

dominant plant are big sagebrush (1) with spiny

hopsage, (2) with black greasewood, (3) with

shadscale, (4) with limited distribution of winterfat,

and (5) mixed with low or silver sagebrush.

Native grasses range from a mere presence of grass to

an abundance of grass depending on site history and

beneficial soil/water relations. Native perennial

bunchgrasses include bluebunch wheatgrass,

Sandberg’s bluegrass, Idaho fescue, Great Basin

wildrye, junegrass, needle-and-thread grass, Thurber’s

needlegrass, western needlegrass, and, in more disturbed situations, bottlebrush squirreltail. Introduced

grasses are primarily annual cheatgrass and perennial

crested wheatgrass.

Black sagebrush/grassland: Black sagebrush has a

limited distribution in the High Desert Province and is

considered a “rare type” in this province. This plant

community often occurs on shallow scabland soils on

plateaus and gentle slopes. The sites have extensive

areas of exposed rock and often do not have enough

vegetation to support wildland fires (see proposed

Foley Lake Area of Critical Environmental Concern

[ACEC]/Research Natural Area [RNA]), Special

Management Areas section). Sandberg’s bluegrass

usually is the dominant grass that makes up most of the

vegetation cover; however, other bunchgrasses also

occur on these sites. Black sagebrush is the dominant,

and often only, shrub present on these sites. In some

areas, these black sagebrush stands can be extensive or

occur in a mosaic with low or big sagebrush. Occasionally, bitterbrush is found as well. Gray rabbitbrush

and Truckee green rabbitbrush also occur on these

sites.

Silver sagebrush/grassland: The silver sagebrush/

grassland community is usually found in playas, which

are moist, semi-alkaline flats or valley bottomlands.

Some of the playas are quite extensive. Silver sagebrush occurs in playas because of its tolerance of the

alkalinity and standing water. This tall shrub community is moderately- to widely-spaced. It grows in areas

that have been deflated (eroded by wind) and subsequently partially filled with sediment. Although

rhizomatous species such as creeping wildrye,

milkvetch, and cress occasionally occur, the understory

can be dominated by widely-spaced, often robust

bunchgrasses such as Nevada bluegrass, mat muhly,

and alkali grass. Silver sagebrush is the dominant and

characteristic shrub of this community; however, green

rabbitbrush is a common associate.

Low sagebrush/grassland: Low sagebrush communities are found throughout eastern Oregon, generally on

areas with shallow, clayey soils of basalt origin. Low

sagebrush is the primary dominant, and often the only

shrub in the stand; however, Sandberg’s bluegrass is

also commonly found. Other associate grasses are

bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and bottlebrush

squirreltail. Low sagebrush is usually the dominant

vegetation in shallow soil and in rocky, claypan conditions that exclude the formation of other sagebrush and

shrub types. In many cases, low sagebrush does not

form extensive landscape-level covers but is part of the

large big sagebrush and sagebrush mosaic. The sites

have extensive areas of exposed rock and often do not

have enough vegetation to support wildland fires. Low

sagebrush can also occur within a quaking aspen

mosaic. In the spring when the snow melts and soils

warm, these areas are rich in colorful diversity from the

perennial and annual wildflowers that grow there.

Mountain big sagebrush/grassland: Mountain big

sagebrush communities occur on plateaus, mountain

toeslopes, and stony flats with minimal soil development at high elevations in the High Desert Province.

This medium to medium-tall shrubland varies with

widely-spaced to fairly dense shrubs that occur on

deep-soiled to stony flats, ridges, and mountain slopes,

and usually in cool, moist areas with some snow. In

this community, Idaho fescue is the most common and

diagnostic grass. Mountain big sagebrush is the

dominant and only important shrub, but low sagebrush

can occur in some places. Other shrubs that can occur

are chokecherry, serviceberry, snowberry, bitterbrush,

and buckthorn. Occasionally, mountain big sagebrush

grows in snowbank areas or other moist sites within

this community. Few trees occur in this community,

but quaking aspen and mountain mahogany may be

present. This is a forb-rich community where paintbrush, potentilla, geum, lupines, and buckwheat species

are abundant.

Miscellaneous shrub/native perennial grassland:

Mountain mahogany shrubland is found on the steep,

rocky slopes, and mountain ridges in southeastern

Oregon. It usually appears as a minor component

within the western juniper woodland types or grades in

and out of sagebrush steppe. This cover type is commonly encountered but generally exists as units too

small to be mapped. This widely-dispersed tall shrub

community grows in rock talus, rock outcrops, and in

the soil pockets within the rocky slopes along with big

sagebrush. It can be the dominant overstory vegetation

with occasional western juniper and low sagebrush or

bitterbrush, several buckwheats, and some grasses

(bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s and Nevada

bluegrasses, Idaho fescue, and western and Thurber’s

needlegrasses).
Affected Environment

2 -7

Bitterbrush communities are found in a medium-tall

shrubland steppe with bunchgrass or cheatgrass understory. Bitterbrush can be dominant or codominant with

big sagebrush. Idaho fescue is the characteristic native

bunchgrass, with bluebunch wheatgrass codominant at

lower elevations, while western needlegrass is dominant at higher elevations and where soils are sandier

(Anderson 1998). Sedge species replace it at the

higher elevation sites. Rabbitbrush species are common associates. Basin big sagebrush and mountain big

sagebrush grow as codominants in areas. Juniper and

ponderosa pine are occasionally found as isolated

individuals in this plant community.

Snowberry communities are found on steep slopes

between alpine habitats and riparian or sagebrush

steppe. They are usually in areas with some soil

development, north-facing, often very steep slopes and

can be in a mosaic with quaking aspen groves.

Thurber’s needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho

fescue, and Sandberg’s bluegrass are found as understory. Many forbs grow in the area with snowberry, as

do mountain mahogany, quaking aspen, and mountain

big sagebrush. Juniper can be found with these shrubs

at lower elevations.

Brush/clearings: These plant communities are the

result of human actions (such as physically removing

brush or tree plantations) or the result of fires (wild or

prescription).

Alkaline plant communities—salt desert scrub/

grassland: This plant community occurs in the

alkaline playa lake basins of the Northern Great Basin

of Lake County. It is especially prominent around Lake

Abert, Summer Lake, Alkali Lake, and the Warner

Lakes. These are low to tall shrub communities

comprised of dispersed alkali-tolerant vegetation. Salt

desert scrub is a “catchall” term that describes several

differing environments more common to the south in

the Great Basin. On the most saline, seasonally

flooded sites, black greasewood is dominant, and

winterfat is usually associated with droughty soils with

high carbonate content on alluvial fans and toeslopes.

Sites with better drainage support a variety of shrubs

and several holphytes (salt tolerant plants) such as

shadscale, hopsage, budsage, rabbitbrush, and grasses

such as saltgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Great

Basin wildrye. Salt desert scrub is surrounded by big

sagebrush or sagebrush steppe cover types. The most

extensive areas are always associated with the large,

ephemeral lakes of the region. However, there are

numerous small pockets of this cover type scattered

sporadically throughout southeastern Oregon (Anderson 1998; Kagan and Caicco 1996).

Lava land/sand dunes (vegetated): There are large

expanses of barren lava fields with occasional isolated

patches of tall shrub communities where Wyoming and

basin big sagebrush predominate and low shrub communities may also occur. These include barren, recent

lava flows with no vegetation, lava flows with big

sagebrush inclusions, and flows which have recently

been invaded by vegetation. Bluebunch wheatgrass,

Sandberg’s bluegrass, needlegrass, Idaho fescue, and

junegrass occur in soil pockets in these flows. However, bare lava characterizes large areas of this type.

While big sagebrush is the principal dominant plant,

low sagebrush is also common at certain sites. The two

rabbitbrushes are also associates. Other shrubs found

in these are currants, bitterbrush, and desert-sweet.

The vegetated sand dunes have a variety of grasses,

especially Indian ricegrass, creeping wildrye, and Great

Basin wildrye, while only a few shrubs survive on the

dune systems. They are found to be within the salt

desert shrub community list.

Unvegetated ground: These areas can be wetland

playas that are seasonally wet and dry, bare rock areas,

open water, recent burns, lava fields, and areas where

no data is available.

Modified grassland—crested wheatgrass and

cheatgrass: Extensive grasslands in southeastern

Oregon that formerly were composed of native bunchgrasses have today been planted with crested wheatgrass seedings or have been invaded by cheatgrass.

Both of these species originated in Eurasia but have

adapted to this climate and soil. Cheatgrass, an annual,

was inadvertently introduced in America with cattle

and in hay used for balast in ships; it can outcompete

the native grasses by germinating in the fall. Presently,

these grasslands are used primarily for grazing but

provide little forage value. Weedy native and exotic

annual forbs may also be present or even dominant.

These large expanses of cheatgrass can be the result of

hot fires, unsuccessful seedings, historic overgrazing,

abandoned farming, and other disturbances. Weedy

forbs, such as mustard, cranesbill, knapweeds, tumbleweed, horned buttercup, and thistle are common in

these areas.

In the past, many acres were planted with crested

wheatgrass after wildland fires. These communities

remain a dominant crested wheatgrass community for

about 10 years, when sagebrush and rabbitbrush

invade. Forbs commonly found in this type of

communtity include yarrow, milkvetch, arrowleaf

balsamroot, spreading phlox, salsify, and mullein. This

type is often restricted to foothill margins and gentle

terrain in close proximity to valley bottoms, while the
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 8

undisturbed remnants of this type are dominated by

native perennials. Green and gray rabbitbrush often are

common. Sagebrush also occurs locally when the

seedings have aged.

Riparian Vegetation

Introduction

Riparian vegetation is dependent on the stream channel

type, duration of water availability, soil type and depth,

climate, and management history. Sedges, rushes, and

in some cases, willow and alder, dominate streams with

deeper soils and longer-lasting water. Boulder-dominated streams will have pockets of vegetation that may

be grass- and shrub-dominated. As water availability

decreases, herbaceous vegetation will shift from sedges

to grasses. The grasses will change from wetland

obligates—plants that occur almost always in wetlands

under natural conditions, to wetland facultative—plants

that usually occur in wetlands but occasionally found

in nonwetlands. Lower elevation sites often have alder

and dogwood along with willow as the predominant

woody vegetation. Higher sites are dominated by

willow. There are several species of willow in the

resource area, some more dependent on moisture than

others. For example, scouler willow can survive dry,

upland sites, while sandbar willow requires wet conditions. Presence of these species can assist in determination of stream-site condition related to potential.

Canyon-confined streams in lower reaches of the area

often have ponderosa pine as a dominant structural

feature. Juniper has invaded many riparian sites and

quaking aspen stands and has replaced more desirable

riparian species that are able to better support riparian

function.

The role vegetation plays in stream condition (bank

stability, sediment capture, flood-flow attenuation, and

source of woody debris, etc.) depends on channel type.

Channel types E3-6, C3-6 and G3-6 (Rosgen 1996)

depend on vegetation to control stream function. The

type of vegetation is also critical. Larger sedges have

more extensive soil-holding ability than grasses like

Kentucky bluegrass. Large woody debris such as tree

trunks or boulders may supply the bank-forming

structure on streams (other than the vegetation-dependent ones).

Structure and type of vegetation is critical to wildlife

and fish, even when it does not control stream morphology, condition, or function. Hardwoods, such as

quaking aspen, some taller willows, and cottonwood,

supply vertical structure for neotropical birds. As the

trees age and decay, cavity nesters make use of them.

Vegetation also supplies shade to the stream and helps

to cool the water. Leaves from hardwoods supply

nutrients to the riparian and aquatic system. In some

areas, these leaves can be the driving force as a food

source for aquatic macroinvertebrates, which in turn

become a food source for fish.

Cottonwood deserves special consideration when

managing riparian vegetation. Many cottonwood

stands have declined in the area. Remnant stands can

be found that have little or no regeneration, while some

stands can be identified only by the remaining dead and

down trees. Cottonwood trees need flood events so

that a silt bed is developed for the seeds to establish

themselves. Normal water levels do not present the

conditions needed for seedling establishment. After

establishment, the seedlings must be protected from

grazing in order to survive.

Riparian vegetation communities are more diverse than

the surrounding upland areas and thus support a wider

variety of wildlife species. This is especially true when

considering the amount of habitat edge between the

riparian area and upland vegetation. The habitat

islands provided by springs are of special significance,

because they often provide the only habitat diversity in

uniform desert systems.

Grazing Management in Riparian Vegetation

Livestock use in riparian areas in the planning area is

controlled so that grazing does not negatively affect the

establishment or regrowth of vegetation. By allowing

early season grazing (winter/spring) and then removing

the stock, managers ensure that the vegetation has

enough soil moisture to regrow, so that by the end of

the growing season, adequate cover will be on the

banks to protect them from flooding. If the vegetation

that supports riparian function is removed too late in

the year, subsequent high flow events may erode stream

banks. Late season grazing often leads to heavy

browsing of willows and other hardwoods, as grazing

shifts from the drying herbaceous to the remaining

green, woody vegetation. As the herbaceous vegetation

cures, protein levels drop and the woody material

becomes relatively more nutritious. If late season

grazing is permitted, use levels on woody and herbaceous vegetation must be limited.

Proper Functioning Condition

In 1991, in response to growing concern over the

integrity of ecological processes in many riparian and
Affected Environment

2 -9

wetland areas, the BLM Director approved the “Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s,” establishing

national goals and objectives for managing riparian/

wetland resources on BLM-administered land. The

initiative’s goals were to restore and maintain existing

riparian/wetland areas so that 75 percent or more are in

proper functioning condition by 1997 and to provide

the widest variety of habitat diversity for wildlife, fish,

and watershed protection. Subsequently, the BLM

established a definition for proper functioning condition and a methodology for its assessment. The BLM

has adopted proper functioning condition assessment as

a standard for evaluating riparian areas and will use it

to supplement existing stream channel and riparian

evaluations and assessments.

The functioning condition of riparian and wetland

areas is a result of the interaction of geology, soil,

water, and vegetation (USDI 1993). Proper functioning

condition can be defined separately for lotic and lentic

waters, as follows:

Lotic waters: (running water systems, such as rivers,

streams, and springs; see BLM Technical Reference

1737-9 and -15):

Riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly when

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is

present to:

• dissipate stream energy associated with high

waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality;

• filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain

development;

• improve floodwater retention and groundwater

recharge; develop root masses that stabilize

streambanks against cutting action;

• develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth,

duration, and temperature necessary for fish

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses;

and

• support greater biodiversity.

Lentic waters: (standing water systems, such as lakes,

ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows; see BLM Technical

Reference 1737-11 and -16):

Lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly

when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is

present to:

• dissipate energies associated with wind action,

wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites,

thereby reducing erosion and improving water

quality;

• filter sediment and aid floodplain development;

• improve flood water retention and groundwater

recharge;

• develop root masses that stabilize islands and

shoreline features against cutting action;

• restrict water percolation;

• develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide

the habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl

breeding, and other uses; and,

• support greater biodiversity.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as functional-atrisk when they are in functional condition but an

existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them

susceptible to degradation. These areas are further

distinguished based on whether or not they demonstrate

an upward, static, or downward trend.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as nonfunctional

when they clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate

stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are

not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc., as

listed above. The absence of a particular physical

attribute, such as a floodplain, is an indicator of

nonfunctional condition. However, some elements may

not be needed for a stream to function. For example, a

bedrock-controlled or boulder-controlled stream would

not need vegetation in order to meet the definition of

proper functioning condition. Also, since there is no

way to improve floodwater retention in these two types

of streams, it would not have to meet the third component—“Improve floodwater retention and groundwater

recharge”—in order to be in proper functioning condition.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as being in

unknown condition when the BLM lacks sufficient

information to make a determination.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 10

Because the functioning condition of riparian/wetland

areas is a result of interaction of geology, soil, water,

and vegetation, the process of assessing whether or not

a riparian/wetland area is functioning properly requires

an interdisciplinary team, including specialists in

vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The team also requires a biologist because of the fish and wildlife

values associated with riparian/wetland areas. Because

of the unique attributes of individual riparian areas,

site-specific and onsite assessments are necessary.

Riparian/wetland areas will function properly long

before they achieve an advanced ecological status. The

range between proper functioning condition and an

area’s biological potential then becomes the “decision

space” for social, economic, and other resource considerations. Until proper functioning condition is attained, management priorities and options focus on

reaching this threshold. Areas that meet proper functioning condition will be managed to assure a continuation of this condition.

In 1996 and 1997, a team of specialists inventoried 113

miles of stream on the LRA using the “Process for

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition” (BLM

Technical Reference 1737-9, 1993). The members

included specialists in the fields of hydrology, fisheries,

range, botany, and wildlife. Streams were divided into

reaches according to their structural and vegetative

characteristics, based on management and channel

type. Each reach was rated as proper functioning

condition, functional-at-risk, or nonfunctional. The

trend of the functional-at-risk category was also rated.

Ephemeral (streams that flow only in direct response to

precipitation and whose channel is above the water

table at all times) reaches of streams were not rated.

The percentage of intermittent/ephemeral portions of

reaches were rated for the intermittent reaches only.

Table 2-3 summarizes the results of this survey, indicating the miles of each rating and that rating’s percent

compared to the total miles rated. Table 2-4 shows

functional condition of streams in the planning area.

While conducting the field inspections, the team noted

management change options or projects that would

benefit the streams. Table 2-5 summarizes existing

management, miles, and recommended changes, where

made, on the functional-at-risk and nonfunctional rated

reaches.

The Fremont National Forest has also used the proper

functioning condition methodology on some of their

streams. In the Deep Creek Watershed, which drains

into the Warner Lakes Subbasin, they rated 23 segments as proper functioning condition and 17 as

functional-at-risk with an upward trend. In the

Chewaucan Watershed, which drains into Lake Abert,

10 segments were rated as proper functioning condition

and 3 were rated as functional-at-risk with an upward

trend.

Starting in 2000 and continuing in 2001, a riparian

score card is being developed that assesses the current

interaction of soils, vegetation, and stream channel.

These cards will be used to compare current conditions

to potential conditions for that site. In the future, once

the cards are completed, this information will be used

to describe desired range of conditions on each site.

Wetlands Vegetation

The large number of closed basins that typify the High

Desert Province include dry lakebeds, lakebeds that are

inundated infrequently and for short periods, perpetual

lakes that fluctuate in size over time, and wetlands and

marshes that are reasonably perpetual. Vegetation on

these bottomlands varies according to the frequency,

depth, and duration of inundation. Probably the most

significant and valuable wetlands in the High Desert

Province, from a total ecosystem viewpoint, are those

associated with isolated springs and streams scattered

over the arid landscape. The variety of shrubs, grasses,

and forbs present depends on the degree and duration

of wetness and shade at each location (Williams 1998).

Included in these plant communities are the willow

floodplain riparian areas, where tall shrub communities

with dense willow cover are occasionally interspersed

with wetlands, sedge meadows, or moist, forb-rich

grassland. This community occurs in broad valley

floors as well as narrow riparian canyons along rivers

and streams. Many rivers usually have some cottonwood, several willow species, wormwood, gooseberry,

rose, snowberry, red-osier dogwood, serviceberry,

alder, and some pine and Prunus species. Alder is rare

on the BLM portion of the RMP area. At one time,

cottonwood was probably more prevalent; at present it

does not occur widely in Lake County (Anderson

1998). Stinging nettle, cow parsnip, and Rubus species

are often present.

Hardstem bulrush-cattail marshes form open to dense,

nearly monotypic (solitary) stands of bulrush where

standing water is found throughout much of the growing season. Patches of cattail, burreed, and several

species of Scirpus are the most important graminoids.

Carex species occur in and around this type, along with

Eleocharis and Juncus species. In some areas, spike

rush forms a monotypic community along wetland

channels.
Affected Environment

2 -11

Sedge montane meadows and wetlands are scattered

throughout the area with tall sedge meadows and

wetlands, with dense, rhizomatous, or tufted sedges

dominating the meadows. Usually these areas are low

in forb production. Tufted hairgrass is the most

common grass, occurring at the drier margins. The

forbs often present are Potentilla, Geum, Lupinus, and

Lomatium species and occasionaly blue camas and

Perideridium species. Salix species dominate streams

that run though these meadows.

Tufted hairgrass montane meadows and valley prairie

occur on a few sites of the planning area. These tall

montane meadow grasslands with dense, tufted grasses

range from forb-rich to grass-sedge dominated areas.

Occasionally, willows, silver sagebrush, and black

greasewood can be found: . Tufted hairgrass is usually

the dominant species. In some areas, Nevada bluegrass

or Cusick’s bluegrass are entirely dominant. Carex and

Juncus species are codominant in wetter margins.

Forest and Woodland

Types, Locations, and Acreage

Map V-1 shows the current LRA vegetation classes,

based mainly on GAP 1 satellite imagery. Table 2-6 is

derived from this map and shows acreage by forest

vegetation classes.

Commercial forest lands in the LRA total 15,331 acres,

and are typically low-elevation ponderosa pine located

just below national forest lands. Most are relatively

small and remote tracts. The two most extensive

commercial stands are the isolated stands at Lost Forest

(4,153 acres) and Colvin Timbers (591 acres). Since

Lost Forest was designated an RNA in 1973, commercial pine forests in that area are not available for timber

harvest or development treatments. The remaining

10,587 acres of commercial forest are widely scattered

and have a relatively low stand volume. Management

on a sustained-yield basis would not be feasible.

Instead, these lands have been designated a protection

area in the present plan, which allows management

treatments but does not require an allowable sale

quantity.

Below the commercial forest lands is the drier desert

landscape. Precipitation is not sufficient to support

ponderosa pine but is adequate for western juniper in

many areas. Periodic natural fires, which previously

prevented wide-scale juniper establishment, have been

absent for over a century. This has allowed juniper to

spread from less fire-prone sites to sagebrush and

riparian communities. The majority of today’s juniper

stands are composed of such “invasive” trees. Juniper

has also invaded the dry fringes of pine stands, where it

competes vigorously with the pine.

Invasive juniper has been considered more of a pest

than a resource. Juniper’s heavy use of soil moisture

allows it to aggressively compete with forage species

used by deer, pronghorn, and domestic livestock.

Watersheds themselves can be degraded by juniper

through ground cover reduction and subsequent surface

erosion. Treatments of juniper stands have been made,

not to enhance the juniper woodland, but to release or

establish native grasses and shrubs and improve forage.

The juniper cuttings above Buck Creek on deer winter

range are an example.

Western juniper woodlands now cover 215,052 acres,

which is nearly 7 percent of the LRA (Map V-2). Large

expanses of juniper woodlands are found in northern

Lake County from the Fort Rock/Christmas Valley area

to Frederick Butte and Wagontire Mountain. Other

extensive areas of juniper are in the hills west of

Warner Valley and on Juniper Mountain.

Table 2-7 shows the yearly sales of fuelwood, boughs,

and fence posts from 1986 to 1998. In general,

fuelwood and bough sales have increased in the last 5

years, but, in relation to the resource, there is an

opportunity to greatly increase future demand for

commercial harvest on juniper woodlands. There could

also be a large regional demand for the salvage and

utilization of biomass leftover from stand treatments

for the generation of electrical energy.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 12
Affected Environment

2 -13
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 14

Conditions and Trends

Forested lands in the LRA have been studied as part of

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP). This project assessed forest

conditions and trends on a region-wide basis, as well as

smaller portions of the regional study area. The more

localized areas were designated as ecological reporting

units. Most conditions and trends of the Northern

Great Basin Ecological Reporting Unit also apply to

the LRA.

Table 2-8 summarizes current forest and woodland

conditions and trends for the entire Upper Columbia

River Basin Project Area, for the Northern Great Basin

Ecological Reporting Unit, and for the four subbasins

that contain the LRA. Appendix Q discusses the health

of forests and woodlands in the four subbasins.

Special Status Plant Species

Section 68.40 of the BLM Manual sets the guidelines

for special status plant species (Bureau-sensitive plant

species). These selected species receive priority

attention for inventories, research, monitoring, and for

management decisions regarding land-disturbing

activities. Consultation with Federal, state, and nongovernmental agencies help direct the plants’ protection and management. Challenge Cost Share projects

between government and nongovernment partners have

provided studies and monitoring on several of these

species. The BLM performs special status plant

surveys before any land exchanges, range and wildlife

projects, other surface-disturbing activities, or proposed mining operations take place.

A conservation agreement with the USFWS is in effect

in the LRA for Columbia cress, and the species is

monitored to prevent its extirpation. Conservation

agreements are being written with the USFWS for

Cusick’s buckwheat, snowline cymopterus, Crosby’s

buckwheat, and grimy ivesia. Monitoring is being

done on these and other populations of interest.

Federal regulations, state laws, and BLM policy

mandates the following actions:

• Maintain and improve critical or essential habitat

to prevent deterioration and provide recovery (see

Table 2-9 for current T&E species).

• Maintain, restore, or enhance the habitat of candidate, state-listed, and other sensitive species to

maintain the populations at a level which will

avoid endangering the species and the need to list

the species by either state or Federal governments

(see Table 2-9).

• Ensure that BLM-authorized actions within the

LRA do not result in the need to list special status

species or jeopardize the continued existence of

listed species.

• Increase BLM’s knowledge about the status and

distribution of special status species.

Special status plant species occur in a variety of plant

associations and on a variety of physical habitats, many

of which have distinctive soil types. Often, several

special status species occur together. In conservation

agreements, these are treated as a “plant community.”

In the planning process for ICBEMP, Vander Schaff

(personal communication) suggested that the various

volcanic ash substrates found in southeastern Oregon

have promoted a high degree of plant endemism, that

is, a large number of plant species that are found only

in certain sites or areas. Numerous species and subspecies have arisen that can occupy these often harsh ash

sites.

Noxious Weeds and Competing

Undesirable Vegetation

Introduction

In Oregon, as well as in other western states, noxious

weeds are so thoroughly established and spreading so

rapidly that they have been declared a menace to public

welfare (Oregon Revises Statutes 570.505). Noxious

weed invasion contributes to the loss of rangeland

productivity, increased soil erosion, reduced species

and structural diversity, loss of wildlife habitat, and in

some instances, is hazardous to human health and

welfare, as emphasized in the “Federal Noxious Weed

Act” (Public Law 93-629). Some weed species pose a

significant threat to multiple use public land management.

Noxious weeds cannot be adequately controlled unless

Federal, state, county, and private interests work

together. The “Carlson-Foley Act” (Public Law 90-

583), as well as state and county laws, make the

Federal government responsible for control of weeds

on Federal land and provides direction for their control.

The Lakeview District operates under the weed proto-
Affected Environment

2 -15
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 16

cols set forth in the following documents: “Vegetation

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of

Decision” (1991), “Supplement to the Northwest Area

Noxious Weed Control Program Final Environmental

Impact Statement and Record of Decision” (1987), and

the “Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment” (#OR-013-93-03) (1994).

The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) has

developed a classification system to provide guidelines

for implementing and prioritizing noxious weed control

programs, to assist in the distribution of limited funds,

and to serve as a model for other weed classification

systems (ODA 1997). This system defines three

classes of noxious weed species: (1) weeds that pose a

known economic threat and occur in infestations small

enough to make eradication or containment possible;

(2) weeds that pose an economic threat and whose

regional abundance limits control techniques primarily

to biological methods; and (3) weeds for which the

ODA will implement a statewide management plan.
Affected Environment

2 -17

Noxious plants are present throughout the planning

area (Table 2-10). The weed control program is

dynamic as a result of the influx of new weed introduction and the ongoing implementation of varied control

methods. Grazing and fire management, as well as

chemical, mechanical, and biological control methods

are used as part of an integrated weed management

program. These methods are subject to site-specific

determination of appropriate techniques. The BLM

monitors, on an annual basis, the changes in distribution and new introductions of noxious weeds.

Warner Basin Weed Management Area

The Warner Watershed is a 500,000-acre basin ringed

by forest, rim rock, and rangeland. The bottom of the

basin contains private hay meadows and the 51,000-

acre federally protected Warner Wetland ACEC.

Included in the Warner Basin Weed Management Area

are lands within the jurisdictions of the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS), BLM, USFWS, Oregon Division of

State Lands (ODSL), and numerous private organizations and individuals. Land ownership in the watershed is approximately one-third private, one-third

BLM, and one-third other public agencies.

In 1998, the Warner Basin Working Group, comprised

of representatives from public and private lands, was

formed to develop a management plan for the watershed that would employ integrated weed management

techniques. The working group developed the follow-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 18

ing three goals:

1) Coordinate management and inventory of weeds on

all land ownerships within the 500,000-acre Warner

Basin Watershed.

2) Protect all land resources from the threat of noxious

weed invasion in the Warner Watershed.

3) Educate resource users and the general public about

noxious weed identification, ways that weeds spread,

and the means to control those weeds.

The Warner Basin Working Group categorized target

weed species into three groups (Table 2-11):

1) High priority species, upon which control efforts

will continue or be initiated;

2) New invaders, which will move to the top of the

priority list for eradication if discovered in the Warner

Basin; and

3) Other species of concern, which are relatively

widespread but are not perceived to be as threatening to

the resource values of the Warner Basin as plants in the

first two groups.

Soils

Introduction

Soils in southcentral Oregon are semiarid, very young,

and poorly-developed. Chemical and biological soil

development processes, such as rock weathering,

decomposition of plant materials, accumulation of

organic matter, and nutrient cycling proceed slowly in

this environment. Soil recovery processes are also

slow; therefore, disruption of soil can lead to long-term

changes in ecology and productivity. In many areas,

natural or geologic erosion rates are too fast to develop

distinct, deep soil horizons. The soils in the LRA are

complex and diverse.

Soil data is available from the soil surveys mapping

southern Lake and Harney Counties. This information,

on file at the LRA office, contains soil series descriptions, mapping unit descriptions, interpretations, and

detailed soils maps. Major soil mapping units of the

southern planning area are discussed in Appendix C1.

Soils in the northern Lake County portion of the

resource area are currently being mapped by the BLM/

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

ecological site inventory crew out of Burns, Oregon.

The inventory procedure is described in Appendix C2.

Soil Erosion

In the semiarid areas of the planning area, bare soil

between plants is 10 to 20 percent of the total ground

cover of a native plant community; therefore, the soil

erodes naturally. In addition to this background

erosion rate, management regimes affect the rate at

which soil is eroded from a landscape. Any activities

that remove vegetative cover increase the erosion rate.

Some soils (for example, shallow soils over bedrock)

are particularly vulnerable to soil erosion. If the

surface layers of these soils are washed or blown away,

the productivity potential is lost for a geologic time

span.

Soil Management and Productivity

Current management practices, such as proper stocking

rates for livestock, rotation grazing, periodic rest from

grazing, improved road design, selective logging,

rehabilitation of unneeded surface disturbance, restricting vehicles to roads and trails, rehabilitating mined

areas, and control of concentrated recreational activities, have reduced erosion effects and improved soil

conditions.

Management practices may affect soils’ ability to

maintain productivity by influencing disturbances such

as displacement, compaction, erosion, and alteration of

organic matter and soil organisms levels. When soil

degradation occurs in semiarid, high desert regions,

natural processes are slow to return site productivity.

Prevention of soil degradation is far more cost-effective

and time-effective than remediation or waiting for

natural processes.

Soil productivity varies widely due to characteristics

such as soil depth, nutrient status, available waterholding capacity, and site characteristics including

elevation, aspect, and slope gradient. The most productive soils for forage or wood fiber are found in valley

bottoms, toeslopes, benches, and broad ridgetops.

Demands for maintaining a productive ecosystem

create a need for maintaining long-term soil productivity. Current soil productivity reflects site-specific

natural conditions and past management practices.

Historically, erosion occurred on upland soils and in

drainage channels as a result of uncontrolled land use,

prolonged drought, and catastrophic storms. Many
Affected Environment

2 -19

drainages were deeply incised by gully erosion more

than 30 years ago. Some geologic erosion and localized erosion caused by concentrated uses still occurs.

Soil bulk density (mass per unit volume), porosity

(hydraulic conductivity), organic matter content,

moisture content, nutrient content, and soil temperature

are affected to various degrees by surface management

actions. In turn, these factors affect soil-water interactions, productivity, nutrient cycling, water holding

capacity, and soil erosion rates.

Soil compaction may result from concentrated activities such as equipment operation, livestock grazing,

and pedestrian traffic. Compaction can reduce water

infiltration rates, resulting in less available moisture for

plants and increased surface runoff and root restrictions. These factors may contribute to reduced site

productivity, increased soil erosion rates, and water

quality degradation.

Microbiotic Crusts

Microbiotic crusts consist of lichens, mosses, green

algae, fungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria growing on or

just below the soil surface in a thin layer. Found in

spaces between larger plants, these crusts play a role in

controlling soil erosion, filtering water, retaining soil

moisture, and improving soil fertility by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and contributing soil organic matter.

In some instances, the crusts appear to improve plant

seeding establishment. Microbiotic crusts are extremely sensitive to air pollution and have been used as

a parameter to measure the effects of air pollution in

protected areas such as wilderness areas and national

parks. According to research by Ponzetti (2000) in the

northern Great Basin, “Biotic soil crusts show promise

as indicators of rangeland health, and are increasingly

being recognized as important components of arid and

semiarid communities. Rangeland health is defined as

the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation,

water, air, and ecological processes of rangeland

ecosystems are sustained. Biotic crusts improve the

sustainability of rangeland ecosystems by increasing

soil stability and contributing to nutrient cycles. They

appear to limit germination of cheatgrass, an invasive

exotic annual grass. Biotic crusts in the arid and

semiarid West do not appear to limit vascular plant

cover; greater crust cover often accompanies greater

plant cover, or is unrelated to plant cover. Bare ground
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 20

is often inversely related to crust cover, suggesting that

a decline in crust cover produces an increase in bare

soil, rather than an increase in vascular vegetation. In

addition, biotic crusts may serve as an early warning

system, since they appear to be more sensitive to

disturbance from livestock than vascular plant communities.”

In the “National Range and Pasture Handbook,” the

NRCS identified microbiotic crusts as 1 of 17 rangeland health ecological attributes to be used as an

indicator of rangeland health. Crusts are considered

important to soil and site stability, watershed and

hydrologic cycles, and soil and plant community

integrity. The LRA has very little microbiotic crust

monitoring or research other than Ponzetti’s few plots

(2000). This is also true for the northwest section of

the Northern Great Basin. Crusts have been collected

and curated for the BLM herbarium; some have been

identified. The ecological site inventory team was

instructed to identify the occurrence of microbiotic

crusts in their coverage estimates but not identify to

genus or species. Species need to be collected, identified, curated, and mapped. Also, research is needed on

the relationship of crusts to rangeland health and the

role fire plays in distribution and crust existence.

Water Resources/Watershed

Health

Introduction

Regions, subregions, basins, and subbasins are delineated based on protocol defined by the USGS. This

system delineates a hierarchy of geographical regions
Affected Environment

2 -21

and their subparts, such as subregion, basin, subbasin,

watershed, and subwatershed. Each hydrologic unit is

referred to as a field and given a 2-digit numeric

identifier. The code, called a hydrologic unit code, is a

unique numeric identifier. Table 2-12 shows an

example of this hierarchical breakdown.

The LRA is comprised primarily of four subbasins—

Summer Lake, Lake Abert, Warner Lakes, and Guano

(see Map R-4 and Table 2-13). These subbasins are

part of the larger Oregon Closed Basins Subregion and

the Pacific Northwest Region. The topographies of

these large areas direct surface and some shallow

subsurface water to streams, lakes, reservoirs, or

playas. These are internally drained subbasins and do

not have an outflow like traditional watersheds.

There are two main types of watersheds in the LRA.

One is the traditional watershed, which has considerable slope and a network of stream channels that start

as ephemeral in the headwaters and gradually are fed

more water down slope, transitioning to intermittent,

and finally perennial. These watersheds have streams

which can support a variety of aquatic species. The

other type is the closed basin. These are desert areas

where the precipitation infiltrates locally and mainly

supports the vegetation on site. Some water does move

over land and subsurface to large playas or wetlands.

Of the little precipitation received, more is used on site

then is delivered downslope.

Subbasins

The Summer Lake Subbasin is more than 2.5 million

acres in size. It is bounded by forested mountains on

the western edge and desert hills to the north, east, and

south. There are 20 fifth field watersheds in the

subbasin. Major waterbodies include Summer Lake,

Silver Lake, Thompson Reservoir, Ana Reservoir,

Duncan Reservoir, ZX Reservoir, and Detention

Reservoir. Alkali Lake and North Alkali Lake are lowlying areas seasonally inundated with water. Paulina

Marsh is a large wetland that drains into Silver Lake.

The lakes in the area are large and shallow, so the

shorelines change dramatically with seasonal filling

and drying.

The Lake Abert Subbasin is about 650,000 acres in

size. It is bounded by Abert Rim to the east, forested

mountains to the west and south, and desert hills to the

north. The major waterbody is Lake Abert, a large,

shallow, saline lake. There are six fifth field watersheds in the subbasin. The Chewaucan River is the

largest stream flowing into the lake and has upper and

lower marshes associated with it. The Lake Abert

Subbasin contains internally drained basins and many

seasonally flowing streams.

The Warner Lakes Subbasin is more than one million

acres in size. It is bounded by Hart Mountain to the

east, Abert Rim and Warner Mountains to the west,

desert hills to the north, and forested mountains to the

south. There are eight fifth field watersheds in the

subbasin. It has many lakes, which form a chain

parallel to the Hart Mountain uplifted fault block.

These are Crump, Hart, Anderson, Swamp, Flagstaff,

Upper Campbell, Campbell, Turpin, Stone Corral, and

Bluejoint Lakes. These lakes are associated with

extensive wetlands. The major perennial streams flow

from the Warner Mountains.

Guano Subbasin is almost two million acres in size. It

is bounded by Hart Mountain on the west and desert

hills on the north, east, and south. There are 11 fifth

field watersheds in the subbasin. It has many seasonal

lakes and wetlands. The subbasin has perennial,

intermittent, and ephemeral streams but is dominated

by streams which flow only seasonally. Guano Creek

is a main intermittent stream which drains from Hart

Mountain.

Hydrologic Integrity

The ICBEMP scientific assessment determined hydrologic integrity for the subbasins in the Columbia Basin:

“A hydrologic system that exhibits high integrity is a

network of streams, along with their groundwater

ecosystems, within the broader landscape where the

upland, floodplain, and riparian areas have resilient

vegetation, where capture, storage, and release of water

limits the effects of sedimentation and erosion, and

where infiltration, percolation, and nutrient cycling

provide for diverse and productive aquatic and terrestrial environments . . . hydrologic integrity was estimated based on disturbance sensitivity and recovery

potential of watersheds, plus the amount and type of

past disturbance. Watersheds with high impact (disturbance) and low recovery potential have higher probabilities of containing altered hydrologic functions than

other areas, and are consequently classified as low

integrity. Conversely, areas with low relative effect

from mining, dams, roads, cropland conversion, and

grazing, and which also have high recovery potentials,

are considered to have the highest probable hydologic

integrity.”

The Summer Lake and Abert Lake Subbasins were

rated as high forest hydrologic integrity. The Warner
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 22

Lakes and Guano Subbasins were rated as high range

hydrologic integrity (USDI-BLM 1996h). Appendix

A2 summarizes the ICBEMP scientific assessment

applicable to the planning area.

Streams

The streams in the RMP area originate in the higher

elevation hills and mountains, mostly in the adjacent

Fremont National Forest (see Table 2-14 for stream

characteristics by subbasin). They then flow to the

lower elevation valleys, lakes, wetlands, and playas.

Most surface runoff is from snowmelt or rainfall at the

higher elevations, producing peak discharges in the

spring. Year-to-year variability in precipitation influences streamflow both in quantity and duration. Water

scarcity has led to increased water storage, water

diversions, and groundwater withdrawal associated

with irrigation. These projects have significantly

altered natural flow regimes, which has changed habitat

conditions, channel stability, and timing of sediment

and organic material transport. Throughout the planning area, streamflows have been altered by management activities such as water impoundments, water

withdrawal, road construction, and grazing.

The Summer Lake Subbasin includes Ana River and

the small streams which flow off Winter Rim and into

Summer Lake. The Ana River is a spring-fed system

which is captured in a reservoir and then flows to

Summer Lake. Buck, Bridge, and Silver Creeks are the

main streams which flow into the Paulina Marsh and

then into Silver Lake. There are many intermittent

streams and ephemeral drainages where the water

infiltrates into the soil or evaporates. The intermittent

streams have surface flows for some of the year or

flows which are subsurface for a reach of the stream.

They are in contact with the water table and either

receive water from the groundwater system to surface

flow or lose surface water to the groundwater. The

ephemeral drainages are channels in which surface

water flows immediately after snowmelt or rainfall and

are always above the water table.

In the Lake Abert Subbasin, the Chewaucan River is

the main stream system. It has many headwater

tributaries in the forested mountains. It flows through

marshes in the valley bottom and supplies most of the

water to Lake Abert. There are many intermittent and

ephemeral drainages, which dry up seasonally.

The major streams in the Warner Lakes Subbasin flow

from the Warner Mountains. These include

Twelvemile, Twentymile, Deep, and Honey Creeks.

Most of the surface water would flow into the Warner

Lakes and wetlands but is diverted for irrigation.

There are many intermittent and ephemeral drainages,

which dry up seasonally.

In the Guano Subbasin, Guano Creek is the major

stream. It is intermittent, as are most of the other

streams. There are many ephemeral streams, which

have surface water in the channel only after snowmelt

or rainfall. There are perennial springs which flow for
Affected Environment

2 -23

a short length before moving to the subsurface.

Surface Water Quality

In the State of Oregon, the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has delegated authority to implement

the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” of 1972 and

amendments (“Clean Water Act” [CWA] of 1977) to

the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ). Federal land management agencies are

designated by the State to assist in CWA implementation on public lands. As a designated management

agency, the BLM must: (1) implement and enforce

natural resource management programs for the protection of water quality on Federal lands under its jurisdiction; (2) protect and maintain water quality where it

meets or exceeds applicable state and Tribal water

standards; (3) monitor activities to assure that they

meet standards and report the results to the State of

Oregon; and (4) meet periodically to recertify water

quality best management practices (BMP’s). BMP’s

are methods, measures, or practices to prevent or

reduce water pollution, including but not limited to

structural and nonstructural controls, operations and

maintenance procedures. BMP’s are applied as needed

to projects (Appendix D).

Water quality, as defined by the CWA, includes all the

physical, biological, and chemical characteristics which

affect existing and designated beneficial uses. The

State of Oregon is required to identify which beneficial

uses a waterbody currently supports or could support in

the future. The primary benefits of surface water are

domestic water supply, salmonid and resident fish

habitat, irrigation, livestock watering, wildlife and

hunting, fishing, water contact recreation, and aesthetic

quality. Most streams on the LRA support Statedesignated beneficial uses. Elevated summer temperatures are the primary water quality problem identified

by the State for some streams on the LRA. While some

streams have been measured and violate the State

standard for resident fish and aquatic life water temperature numeric criteria, it is unknown if the natural

temperature potential would meet the criteria. ODEQ

is currently reviewing standards (including temperature) for coldwater fisheries habitat in eastern Oregon.

Revised standards could be available within the next 5

years. Causes of stream degradation are removal of

riparian vegetation and destabilization of streambanks.

The land use most commonly associated with these

problems in the planning area is grazing. Other land

uses associated with degraded streams include roads,

trails, water withdrawal, reservoir storage and release,

altered physical characteristics of the stream, and

wetlands alteration.

The State of Oregon has established beneficial uses for

the surface and groundwater within the planning area
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 24

and water quality standards which protect these uses.

These uses are shown in Tables 2-15 and 2-16.

The water quality standards can be found at the ODEQ

web site ([online] URL: www.deq.state.or.us). They

are Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of

Environmental Quality, Water Pollution, Division 41,

“State-wide Water Quality Management Plan.” The

water quality standards are in QAR’s 340-041-0001 to

0975 and specifically 340-041-0922—Beneficial Water

Uses to be Protected in Goose and Summer Lake

Basins, 340-041-0925—Water Quality Standards not to

be Exceeded in Goose and Summer Lake Basins, 340-

041-0882—Beneficial Water Uses to be Protected in

Malhuer Lake Basin, 340-041-0885—Water Quality

Standards not to be Exceeded in Malhuer Lake Basin.

Water Quality Impaired Stream Reaches

The State of Oregon is required by section 303(d) of

the CWA to identify waters which are water quality

impaired. This list is updated biannually and the State

will develop a total maximum daily load allocation of

the pollutant of concern. Table 2-17 lists the stream

reaches in the planning area that have been identified

by the ODEQ as being water quality limited. Summer

Lake, Lake Abert, and Guano Subbasins are scheduled

for total maximum daily load development by the year

2007. The Warner Lakes Subbasin is scheduled for

total maximum daily load development by 2003.

USFS and BLM “Protocol for Addressing Clean Water

Act Section 303(d) Listed Waters” was issued in May

1999 to provide the agencies with a consistent approach to addressing water quality limited water bodies

on Federal lands. This guidance was developed in

collaboration with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), ODEQ, and the Washington Department of Ecology. The protocol uses a three-prong

approach to addressing water quality problems on

Federal lands: a set of goals, a seven-component

strategy, and a decision framework.

The BLM uses this Protocol to fulfill the agency’s

CWA responsibilities and provide assurance that

management activities in 303(d)-listed waterbodies will

contribute to the maintenance or restoration of water

quality. This assurance is provided by documenting

and implementing sufficiently stringent management

measures during the planning and “National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA) process, and by developing

and implementing water quality restoration plans. The

management prescriptions in a water quality restoration

plan are drawn from Federal standards and guidelines

and BMP’s, and the prescriptions in a water quality

restoration plan apply only to Federal lands. Appendix

F3 describes the LRA strategy for developing water

quality restoration plans.

Groundwater

Regional groundwater gradients and extensive aquifer

logs. Groundwater is particularly valuable in the

planning area because of limited surface water.

Groundwater occurs as both confined and unconfined

aquifer systems. Most unconfined aquifers are located

in stream valleys or associated with Pleistocene

lakebeds that contain recent alluvial material, although

some may exist as perched aquifers. Alluvial aquifers

vary greatly in size and yield. These aquifers are

important as transient storage systems to move groundwater to or from streams and the deeper confined

aquifers. Some perched aquifers occur between the top

of ridges and bottom of valleys and can usually be

identified by the occurrence of springs above the

valleys.

Little is known of the areal extent or depth of deep,

confined bedrock aquifer systems. The EPA has not

identified any sole-source aquifers in the planning area.

Groundwater is used for irrigation, domestic use, and

livestock use. There is some groundwater influenced

by geothermal heat sources, and the springs have hot,

mineralized water.

Springs and seeps occur in areas where water from

aquifers reaches the surface. Some springs begin in

stream channels, others flow into small ponds or

marshy areas that drain into channels, and still others

flow into lakes or reservoirs. Some springs and seeps

form their own channels that reach flowing streams,

but most lose their surface flow to evaporation or

recharge the alluvial fill.

There are a few hot springs in the analysis area. These

types of springs have vegetation and microbial and

algal faunae that are adapted to the hot, mineralized

water.

Springs have been disturbed by management activities,

such as livestock or wild horse grazing and watering,

recreation use, and road construction. This affects the

amount of water available to the vegetation and soils

where springs begin.
Affected Environment

2 -25

Community Drinking Water

Community water systems treat and distribute water

from the source, primarily underground aquifers, and

deliver it to consumers. Towns, small communities,

and private farm and ranch residences all use groundwater as their source of drinking water (see Table 2-

18).

Water Rights and Uses

Demands on water resources have increased in Oregon

over the past few decades. Although most early water

rights were established for irrigation and mining,

today’s demand includes municipal water supplies,

commercial and industrial supplies, and maintenance of

adequate streamflows for fish, recreation, and water

quality.

In Oregon, all water is publicly owned. Permits for

water use from any source must be obtained from the

Oregon Water Resources Department, with some

exceptions. Laws pertaining to the use of surface water

and groundwater are based on the principle of prior

appropriation (“first in time, first in right”) and limited

to the quantity of water needed to satisfy the specified

beneficial use without waste. That is, the first person

to obtain a water right will be the senior holder on a
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 26

particular stream and has priority over all junior claims

in times of water shortage.

The State of Oregon recognizes instream water rights

for the public benefit to maintain sufficient flows to

protect recreation, fish, wildlife, and other river-related

resources. Instream water rights are applied for by the

ODEQ, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and

the Department of Fish and Wildlife to the State’s

Water Resource Commission. The priority date for

instream water rights is the date the application is

submitted to the Water Resources Department.

Current BLM and Department of Interior (DOI) policy

is to use the State’s instream flow water right process

to preserve flow-dependant values for any stream

designated as a wild and scenic river (WSR). The

“National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” (Public Law

90-542) specifically reserves the minimum quantity of

water necessary to maintain the values for which the

river was designated. A Federal reserved water right is

authorized by the Act, and the priority dates for each

river segment is the date of designation. A Federal

reserved water right would only be exercised if the

State’s appropriative instream water right process is

inadequate to protect the designated values of the river.

Current DOI policy provides latitude to cooperate with

Oregon natural resource agencies to achieve resource

protection objectives prior to exercising a reserved

water right. This in no way abrogates the Federal

reserved water right.

Additionally, Federal reserved water rights may be

applied to important springs and waterholes pursuant to

“Public Water Reserve No. 107, Executive Order of

April 17, 1926,” under the authority of section 10 of

the “Stock-Raising Homestead Act of December 29,

1916.” Public Water Reserve 107 reserves only the

minimum amount of water necessary to accomplish the

primary purpose of the reservation. There was no

intent to reserve the entire yield of each public spring

or waterhole withdrawn by the Executive order. The

purposes for which these waters were reserved are

limited to domestic human consumption and livestock

watering on public lands. All waters from these

sources in excess of the minimum amount necessary

for these limited public watering purposes are available

for appropriation through State water law and administrative claims procedures.

There are over 900 existing water storage impoundments, pipeline systems, groundwater wells, and

irrigation diversions on public lands within the planning area that have State-approved water rights. The

availability of water in much of the area is limited and

may hamper additional developments that are water

dependent. Future development for rangeland projects

for wildlife, recreation, and livestock would require a

State of Oregon water right before project implementation could occur.

The information presented in Table 2-19 is a summary

developed by the EPA ([online] URL:http://
Affected Environment

2 -27

water.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/wuhuc?huc=17120005) on the

1990 USGS water use thermoelectric power, mining,

livestock (stock and animal specialties), irrigation,

hydroelectric power, wastewater treatment, and reservoir evaporation. The breakout by category can be

found at the web site.

Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Introduction

Fisheries habitat includes perennial and intermittent

streams, springs, and flatwater (lakes and reservoirs)

that support fish through at least a portion of the year.

The condition of fisheries habitat is related to hydrologic conditions of the upland and riparian areas

associated with, or contributing to, a specific stream or

waterbody, and to stream channel characteristics.

Riparian vegetation moderates water temperatures,

adds structure to the banks to reduce erosion, provides

overhead cover for fish, and provides organic material,

which is a food source for macroinvertebrates. Intact

vegetated floodplains dissipate stream energy, store

water for later release, and provide rearing areas for

juvenile fish. Water quality, especially in regard to

factors such as temperature, sediment, and dissolved

oxygen, also greatly affects fisheries habitat.

Habitat quality varies by stream reach, with canyons

generally being in better condition due to inaccessibility and rock armoring. In these reaches, pool quality

and quantity are usually good, and channel condition is

not dependent on vegetation. On less confined, deepsoil reaches, vegetation controls habitat conditions that

are variable depending on past and present management. Generally, the condition of these sites has

improved in the resource area over the last 20 years as

a result of stock management and exclusion. Some

sites were degraded to the point that many years will be

required for the streams to improve to a functional

state. Large wood, while not meeting standards in the

1995 “Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest

Regions,” is usually not a factor in determining function of the streams. Most sites on BLM-administered

land naturally do not have an adequate source of large

wood.

Public land provides habitat for nine native fish species

(Table 2-20), four of which are federally listed under

the “Endangered Species Act.” In September 1997, a

petition to list the Great Basin redband trout as threatened was filed. This petition included the four subpopulations in the LRA. After considering all available

information and analyzing public comment, on March

20, 2000, the USFWS determined that listing the

species was not warranted at this time (Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 54, 14932–14936). The BLM will

pursue activities to improve conditions for redband

trout to help prevent the need to list the species.

Amphibians and aquatic invertebrates are integral

components of the fish community. One amphibian,

the Columbia spotted frog, is a candidate for listing

under the “Endangered Species Act.”

Several nonnative fish have been introduced into the

planning area. ODFW periodically stocks a strain of

hatchery rainbow trout in 10 reservoirs. In most of

these reservoirs, spawning habitat is lacking and

natural reproduction does not occur. In the past,

cutthroat trout were planted in one stream. Currently,

all stream liberation of hatchery trout has been discontinued by ODFW.

ODFW no longer routinely stocks warm-water fish

species, but smallmouth bass, black and white crappie,

and brown bullhead have become established from

previous introductions in the Warner Lakes and some

smaller reservoirs. Anglers illegally introduced these

species in other reservoirs in the planning area.

ICBEMP rated the aquatic integrity of the subbasins

throughout the project area. An aquatic system that

exhibits high integrity has a mosaic of well-connected,

high-quality water and habitats that support a diverse

assemblage of native and desired nonnative species, the

full expression of potential life histories, dispersal

mechanisms, and the genetic diversity necessary for

long-term persistence and adaptation in a variable

environment. Subbasins exhibiting the greatest level of

these characteristics were rated high and those exhibiting the least were rated low, with medium rating in

between. The Guano Subbasin was rated as moderate

aquatic integrity, while the other three subbasins in the

planning area, Warner Lakes, Lake Abert, and Summer

Lake, were rated as low aquatic integrity. Subbasins

with low aquatic integrity may support populations of

key salmonids or have other important aquatic values

(that is, T&E species, narrow endemics, and introduced

or hatchery-supported sport fisheries). In general,

however, these watersheds are strongly fragmented by

extensive habitat loss or disruption throughout the

component watersheds, and most notably through

disruption of the mainstem corridor. Although important and unique aquatic resources exist, they are usually

localized (USDI-BLM and USDA-USFS 1996h).

Appendices A1 and A2 contain a summary of the
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 28

ICBEMP assessment applicable to the planning area.

These findings are further discussed in the Water

Resources section.

Species and Habitat

Trout

There are no anadromous salmonids (such as salmon

and steelhead that return from saltwater to spawn) in

the planning area. Redband trout, a relative of rainbow

trout, is the native trout. These trout occur in nearly all

perennial streams (consisting of approximately 60

miles on BLM-administered land) of the Warner Lakes,

Goose, Lake Abert, and Summer Lake Subbasins.

These subbasins make up four of six separate desert

basin populations of interior native redband trout

(Behnke 1992).

Redband trout evolved in Pliestocene lakes and moved

into mid- to high-elevation streams as the climate

became drier and warmer in portions of Oregon,

Nevada, and Utah that do not have water outlets to the

ocean. Redband trout are generally more tolerant of

higher temperatures than are planted rainbow trout.

The introduction of hatchery-raised rainbow trout as

early as 1925 may have altered many of the unique

characteristics of the native redband. Brook trout have

competed for limited resources with redband. However, brook trout are known to occur only on the upper

reaches of streams on private and Fremont Forest

lands; they have only occasionally been found in the

lower Chewaucan River on BLM-administered lands in

the resource area.

Neither rainbow nor brook trout are native to the Great

Basin. Brook trout, which evolved east of the Rocky

Mountains, were introduced for sport fisheries. Hatchery rainbow may have come from coastal streams.

Neither the extent of the loss of genetic purity nor the

locations of the most pure strains of redband are

known. Stocked rainbow trout are less able to survive

the high temperatures and low oxygen levels of the

local streams. Generally speaking, stocking any type

of trout on BLM land has been discontinued except for

the stocking done by ODFW in the Sid Luce, Big Rock,

Lucky, Sunstone, Sherlock, Spaulding, Duncan, Priday,

Mud Lake, and MC Reservoirs.

Cutthroat trout occur in the resource area only in

Guano Creek. They were introduced in 1957. The

early introductions were from Lahontain stock, but

subsequent introductions from other stocks have

altered the Lahontain genetic pattern of these fish. On

the resource area, Guano Creek is intermittent; that is,

it flows only in response to rain or snowmelt. Therefore, the trout are found only during spring runoff and

in the longer lasting pools on the Shirk Ranch. They

survive in the perennial reaches of the stream on Hart

Mountain Refuge and in Jacobs Reservoir.

Warner Sucker (Listed Threatened)

Warner suckers (Catostomus warnerensis) are endemic

to the Warner Valley and were listed as a threatened

species in 1985. There are 43 miles of critical habitat
Affected Environment

2 -29

in the resource area and 13.5 miles of critical habitat on

BLM-administered lands.

Biological evaluations (see Glossary) on the effects of

grazing on Warner suckers were completed in 1994 by

the BLM. On those pastures with “may effect” or

“likely to adversely effect” determinations from the

evaluations, consultation between the BLM and

USFWS in compliance with section 7 of the “Endangered Species Act” has been completed (Table 2-21).

If either noncompliance with the terms and conditions

of the biological opinion has occurred, or changes were

made to the actions proposed in the original consultation, the consultation process has been reinitiated.

Biological evaluations and reinitiation of the consultation are completed as needed. Biological evaluations

and consultations are completed on all Federal actions

taken by the BLM in the Warner Watershed south of

Bluejoint Lake. Besides the grazing program, consultations have been completed on several fence construction projects, noxious weed control, road construction,

waterhole maintenance, prescribed fire, commercial

recreation permits, and a wetland management plan.

A recovery plan for the Warner sucker, Hutton tui chub

(Gila bicolor spp.), and Foskett speckled dace

(Rhinichthys osculus spp.) was approved in April, 1998

(USFWS 1998). It included descriptions, life histories,

distribution, reason for decline, current conservation

efforts, and recovery strategy of the species. Most

importantly, it lists what actions must be completed to

remove the species from the endangered species list.

Many of the actions required to remove the species

from listing, such as screening and providing passage

over irrigation diversions, are needed on private lands

and are beyond the scope of this plan. The BLM has

worked on determining the population status of the

species to establish the self-sustaining metapopulation

requirements of the plan. BLM has also worked to

identify existing habitats and assess their quality and to

improve habitats by managing and excluding livestock.

Foskett Speckled Dace (Listed Threatened)

The Foskett speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.),

listed as threatened in 1985, occurs in a spring on

BLM-administered land in Coleman Valley. The BLM

acquired this land in an exchange with the private land

owner and has maintained livestock exclusion on the

spring area. Work, as outlined in the recovery plan

(USFWS 1998), is planned to enhance the dace habitat

and to reestablish the fish in an adjacent spring.

Hutton Chub (Listed Threatened)

The Hutton tui chub (Gila bicolor) was listed as

threatened in 1985 and inhabits a privately-owned

spring along the shore of Alkali Lake. The land owner

has excluded grazing from the spring and has restricted

public access to the spring in an effort to protect the

chub habitat. BLM management actions around the

spring are not likely to impact this species but are

evaluated to assure no adverse effect. This species is

also covered by the recovery plan, along with the

Foskett speckled dace and Warner sucker (USFWS

1998).

Other Aquatic Species

Other fish of concern because of limited habitat and

range include Sheldon tui chub (Gila bicolor spp.) in

the Guano Basin, Summer Basin tui chub (Gila bicolor

spp.) in the Summer Lake Basin and Oregon Lakes,

and XL tui chub (Gila bicolor spp.) in the Chewaucan

Basin.

Cowhead tui chub (Gila bicolor vaccaceps): Occur in

a limited range in northern California on a tributary of

Twelvemile Creek. This species was proposed for
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 30

listing, but the listing was postponed as a result of the

development of a conservation agreement between the

USFWS and the private land owners that manage the

chub habitat. Because the LRA is downstream from

this species’ habitat, management actions by the

Lakeview BLM will have no effect on this species.

Management actions proposed in adjacent areas will be

evaluated to assure they will have no adverse effect to

the species.

Columbia spotted frogs (Rana lutiventris): Are a

Federal candidate species and are known to occur in

two locations in the Warner Basin. It is suspected these

frogs occur in other locations but none have been

located. This species may be considered for Federal

listing in the future.

Spring snails (Pristinicola sp., Pyrgulopsis sp. and

others): Occur in several springs scattered around the

LRA. They tend to be endemic to the spring in which

they occur. Some species have been described (i.e., XL

and Abert), but many others have yet to be identified as

unique.

Management Activities

Many activities affect the habitat conditions for fish in

the area. Road construction has altered the ability of

many streams to access their floodplains or has constricted their floodplains and has straightened or

constricted many channels, resulting in channel incision. Logging and associated road construction have

removed overstory cover on many watersheds, changing peak and base flows of the streams below. Abusive

gazing has removed bank stabilizing vegetation and

impacted banks directly. Water withdrawal since the

turn of the century has affected the ability of fish to

thrive in the streams. Irrigation water withdrawn from

the major streams in the area reduces summer flows

and raises water temperature. Channeling streams to

better control the spread of water and removal of

willows to create irrigated pasture and hay fields has

resulted in channel incision and loss of habitat. Diversions often block upstream movement of trout from the

lower reaches of streams and lakes to upper spawning

areas. The movement of fish from Hart Lake into

Honey Creek and from Crump Lake into Twentymile

Creek is an example of this problem.

Active riparian management in the resource area has

been initiated on nearly all perennial and many intermittent streams. Table 2-22 depicts the stream and the

type of management that occurs on it. Some of the

exclosures have been successful in controlling grazing

use, while in others, grazing still occurred when

livestock found their way through the exclosure fences.

With the initiation of consultation with USFWS under

section 7 of the “Endangered Species Act,” more

extensive efforts in locating unauthorized grazing use

and construction of additional fencing has made most

of the exclosures in the Warner Basin more effective.

The resource area has initiated grazing management on

14 pastures to improve riparian conditions. When

grazing occurs as directed by the BLM, management

on these pastures has been successful in improving

conditions.

Aquatic habitat surveys using the “Alaskan Aquatic

Resource Information Management System” were

completed in 1996 and 1997 on all of the perennial

fish-bearing streams on the LRA (Table 2-23). The

Fremont Forest completed many surveys on forest

lands during these years as well. While much of the

data collected from these surveys has yet to be analyzed, analysis of the data used in the “Deep Creek

Watershed Analysis” (1998) indicated that stream

temperature was the major limiting factor on the

watershed’s streams, resulting in a generally poor

overall rating on most stream reaches. Temperatures

greater than the State standard are the result of several

factors, including water withdrawal, loss of streamside

vegetation, channel widening, and lower summer

flows. ODEQ is currently reviewing standards (including temperature) for coldwater fisheries habitat in

eastern Oregon. Revised standards could be available

within the next 5 years. Stream channel entrenchment

has prevented water storage in floodplain soils, thereby

reducing water storage that would promote longerduration streamflow and reduced or eliminated

interflow between cool/cold subsurface waters in the

riparian area (floodplain) and surface streamflow.

Even under pristine conditions, State standards for

temperature would be unlikely to be achieved on BLM

stream reaches. However, most other elements of pools

per mile, large wood per mile, pools per mile greater

than 2.6-feet deep, unstable banks, proper functioning

condition rating and sediment rating were good to fair

with some poor ratings.

While most stream conditions provide adequate habitat

for suckers and trout, there are opportunities to enhance some habitat components. Deep pools may be

created and stream width-to-depth ratios may be

reduced with structural controls. Other projects could

be implemented that would improve cover and forage

areas. Management actions, including grazing control

and instream projects, that would improve temperature

conditions by channel narrowing and overstory vegetation establishment, could be initiated.
Affected Environment

2 -31

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

BLM is responsible for managing of a wide array of

both native and introduced fish and wildlife habitats.

In general, the ODFW is responsible for managing

animal populations. However, an animal is inseparable

from its habitat, and any management strategies must

consider both the animal and its habitat.

Numerous species of wildlife occur in the LRA.

However, only priority species or taxa and their

associated habitats are discussed here. These animals

are recognized as being of particular interest to the

public and generally the emphasis for management. A

subset of the priority taxa will be highlighted to

provide background information and specific management opportunities relative to them. Special status

species are discussed in the following section.

With priority habitat and priority animal taxa as

background, the alternatives section will outline the

various actions, in addition to those included in the

current management direction, that could be implemented to maintain, improve, or expand the habitat

conditions for the various animal species. The current

management direction is derived from the “Warner

Lakes and High Desert Management Framework

Plans.”

The planning area includes a number of priority

habitats where the BLM generally focuses most

management efforts. These habitats are the major plant

communities or terrestrial features within the review

area that are important to wildlife. Priority wildlife

habitats include streamside riparian, springs, seeps, wet

meadows, seasonal wetlands, playas and lake beds,

cliffs, caves, talus slopes, dry meadows, dryland

shrubs, juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine forests,

mixed conifer forests, and quaking aspen groves.

Ongoing changes to these important plant communities,

many of them caused by humans, have resulted in

alterations to the animal habitat within the planning

area. For example, wet meadows are converting to dry

meadows as a result of lowering water tables caused by

irrigation pumping and surface water diversion. Juniper encroachment is converting shrublands to woodlands, primarily because of changes in natural fire

regimes. Quaking aspen stands are not regenerating

themselves and are diminishing in numbers.

Golden eagles are a year-round resident of the planning

area. Although these eagles are not in the resource area

in large numbers, there are plenty of nesting sites, such

as cliffs and large conifers. Golden eagle prey is

generally plentiful and includes rabbits, hares, marmots, squirrels, deer and pronghorn fawns, and other

medium-sized animals.

The peregrine falcon was taken off the T&E list in

1999 after the species reached the goals set forth in the

1982 “Pacific Coast Recovery Plan.” The primary

peregrine habitats in the LRA are along Fish Creek

Rim and Abert Rims, but no nests have been found.

One pair of falcons has been observed successfully

nesting on Winter Rim. Two hack sites, one in Warner

Valley and one in the Summer Lake Basin, have been

used successfully to reintroduce 15–20 peregrines in

the last several years.

Waterfowl and shorebirds are seasonally abundant in

the planning area. Several species that are not federally listed but are considered sensitive species by BLM

occur in the planning area. These include the longbilled curlew, western snowy plover, greater sandhill

crane, and the white-faced ibis. Many of these birds

successfully nest in Warner Valley, Summer Lake

Basin, the Chewaucan Marsh, and in isolated potholes

throughout the area. Early nesting species rely on

residual cover for concealment and are reluctant to use

an area without the previous year’s growth. Mowing
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 32

hay or grazing can reduce or eliminate this cover. If

the birds do use an area of sparse growth, nesting

success is greatly reduced, usually because of predation.

Rocky Mountain elk numbers have been increasing in

Lake County for the past 20 years. Populations are

expanding toward the management objectives of

ODFW’s “Elk Management Plan.” Habitat on BLMadministered lands is primarily winter range while

summer and transitional range is on USFS lands.

Mule deer are the most numerous, adaptable, and

widely-distributed big game species in the resource

area. There is a high level of public interest in this

species for hunting and viewing. Current resource area

management has focused on improvement and maintenance of transitional and crucial winter range, development of water sources (primarily springs), and installation of guzzlers or man-made water collection and

storage units, modification of livestock grazing systems

to reduce competition with domestic livestock for

winter browse and early green-up grasses, fencing

riparian areas, closing roads seasonally, and conducting

prescribed burns.

Pronghorn are the second most abundant big game

species in the planning area. Pronghorn habitat consists primarily of Wyoming big sagebrush and low

sagebrush lands. The planning area contains crucial

winter range as well as summer- and year-long habitats

for pronghorn. Water is sparsely distributed in the

planning area. Approximately 3,000 to 5,000 pronghorn

currently use the planning area throughout the year.

However, ODFW indicates that pronghorn populations

throughout Oregon, including the planning area, have

declined 20 to 30 percent since 1991.

There are approximately 500 to 600 California bighorn

sheep at various locations throughout the planning

area. These locations are used year-round. Habitat is

composed of sagebrush-grassland, escape areas,

lambing areas, thermal protection, rutting areas, and

foraging areas. The locations are characterized by
Affected Environment

2 -33
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 34
Affected Environment

2 -35

rugged mountains, canyons, and escarpments. Water is

a limiting factor and is supplied by big game guzzlers,

natural seeps and springs, and waterholes.

Table 2-24 lists the priority species in the planning area

and the reason that they are considered priority.

Special Status Animal Species

Special status species are designated by Bureau 6840

policy. A listing of special status species was developed using the following criteria: Federal threatened,

Federal endangered, proposed threatened, proposed

endangered, and BLM special status species. Table 2-

25 lists special status species known or suspected to

occur in the LRA. There are three categories of special

status species, (1) Bureau sensitive, (2) Bureau assessment, and (3) Bureau tracking. Bureau sensitive

species are those that could easily become endangered

or extinct. Bureau assessment species are those not

presently eligible for official Federal or state status, but

are of concern in Oregon. Bureau tracking species are

those that may become a species of concern in the

future. These species occur in many of the priority

habitats on the resource area including streamside

riparian, seasonal wetlands, playas and lake beds,

cliffs, talus slopes, wet meadows, dry meadows,

dryland shrub, juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine

forests. Following is a brief description of the special

status species that occur in the planning area. A

complete description of priority habitats and special

status species is contained in Appendix P.

Bald eagle: The bald eagle was listed in 1978 as a

Federal threatened species in Oregon under the “Endangered Species Act” and may be taken off the list in

the future by the USFWS. Under the “Endangered

Species Act,” Federal agencies are directed to ensure

that any actions authorized, funded, or conducted by

them do not jeopardize the continued existence of a

listed species or result in the modification or destruction of critical habitat. The Act also applies to old

candidate species now considered BLM sensitive and

relates to actions that would cause the need to further

list the species.

The reason for possibly removing the bald eagle from

the threatened list is that recovery goals identified in

the 1986 “Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle”

have been met. Habitat for bald eagles within the

seven-state Pacific Recovery Zone (Oregon, Washington, Nevada, California, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) has been secured and population levels in

specific geographic areas have been reached.

Inventories of nesting bald eagles within the LRA have

been conducted annually since 1979 by the Oregon

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit out of Oregon

State University, Corvallis, Oregon; the Oregon Eagle

Foundation in cooperation with BLM; and USFS

wildlife biologists. The surveys over the years have

only found one bald eagle nest on BLM-administered

lands and one on USFS-administered lands 1 mile from

the USFS/BLM boundary. The surveys have also

detected one nest located on private land surrounded by

BLM land.

Inventories of wintering bald eagles, foraging areas,

and communal night roosts have been conducted within

Lake County by BLM, USFS, and Oregon Eagle

Foundation biologists. Bald eagles forage in the winter

in the Fort Rock, Warner, Goose Lake, Crooked Creek,

and Chewaucan Marsh Valleys. A communal winter

roost has been located on the USFS/BLM-administrative boundary in north Lake County.

Bald eagles select large, old growth trees primarily in

ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer forest types to nest

(Anthony et al.1982). Anthony also noted that most

nests (84 percent) are located within 1 mile of large

bodies of water, such as lakes and reservoirs. Nest

trees were found to be the larger, dominant or codominant trees in the stand and were usually components of

old growth forests. The nest trees selected usually

have an open view of the area, a clear flight path to and

from the tree, and suitable perch trees nearby. Occasionally large snags and osprey nesting platforms are

used.

Current management direction for bald eagles is

outlined in the “Working Implementation Plan for Bald

Eagle Recovery in Oregon and Washington”(USFWS

1989). This plan provides specific direction for the

management of bald eagle nests and roost sites. The

LRA is also cooperating with the USFS and has set up

a bald eagle management area for each of the nests

occurring on the USFS/BLM administrative boundaries. The goals, objectives, and stipulations agreed to

in the joint Bald Eagle Management Area are taken out

of the implementation plan.

Peregrine falcon: The peregrine falcon was federally

listed as an endangered species throughout its range

under the “Endangered Species Act,” and as a State

endangered species in Oregon (ORS 1987). In 1999,

the peregrine falcon was removed from the endangered

species list after reaching the recovery goals set forth in

the 1982 “Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the Ameri-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 36

can Peregrine Falcon.”

The recovery plan called for 185 productive nesting

pairs with a 5-year average fledging success of 1.5

young per active pair within its former range in the

Pacific States to delist the species. This benchmark

was met in 1999.

Inventories conducted by the Wilderness Research

Institute, Incorporated, (1982) revealed no active

peregrine nests in Lake County. However, it was

determined that there was some suitable habitat along

Fish Creek Rim, between Plush and Adel, Oregon,

where researchers concentrated their search. Peregrines have historically nested along Fish Creek rim

prior to 1948, but no nesting has been observed since.

Pagel surveyed all suitable nesting habitat in 1999 and

found no active peregrine nests (Pagel 1999). He also

expanded his search to other potentially suitable rims

within the LRA and plans to continue the study in the

future to cover the entire LRA.

There are two hack sites where young peregrines

hatched in captivity were reintroduced into the wild in

Lake County. One site is in the Warner Valley and one

in the Summer Lake Basin. Approximately 15–20

peregrines were successfully reintroduced into the wild

through cooperative efforts of the BLM, USFS,

USFWS, ODFW, and the Peregrine Fund. Many of the

released birds have been observed in the Warner Valley,

Summer Lake Basin, and Abert Lake area since the

reintroductions, and one pair has been observed

successfully nesting on Winter Rim on USFS-administered lands.

The peregrine falcon is a cliff-nesting species, preferring tall cliffs with ledges, or small caves that are

suitable for constructing a nest scrape (USFWS 1982).

Nest sites are usually associated with cliffs near water

with an abundant population of nongame birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, the peregrine’s primary prey.

Fish Creek Rim contains suitable habitat but no known

nests. One possible reason is that during prolonged

drought cycles common to eastern Oregon, Warner

Valley is totally dry and as a consequence, shorebird

and waterfowl numbers are down or nonexistent.

When a wet cycle occurs, it takes 2–3 years for waterfowl and shorebirds to relocate the area and provide the

prey base necessary for peregrines to successfully nest.

This same situation applies to Abert Rim and Lake

Abert. Summer Lake Basin maintains some water even

during drought years as a result of management on

ODFW’s Summer Lake Management Area. It attracts

enough shorebirds and waterfowl to provide a prey

base for nesting and resident peregrines.

Greater sage-grouse: The western subspecies of the

sage grouse was federally listed as a candidate species

(Category 2) by the USFWS until candidates were

recently dropped from the list. The greater sage-grouse

throughout its range is of high public interest and is

designated by BLM as a special status species and

USFWS species of concern. The greater sage-grouse is

currently under consideration for listing as either a

threatened or endangered species.

Sage grouse populations have exhibited long-term

declines throughout North America, declining by 33

percent over the past 30–40 years. The species has

disappeared in five states (Arizona, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska) and one province

(British Columbia) and is “at risk” in six other states

(Washington, California, Utah, Colorado, North

Dakota, and South Dakota) and two provinces (Alberta

and Saskatchewan). Even in states where the species is

considered to be “secure” (Oregon, Nevada, Idaho,

Wyoming, and Montana), long-term population declines have averaged 30 percent (Connelly and Braun

1997; Crawford and Lutz 1985). Greater sage-grouse

population estimates for Lake County are not available.

However, the BLM in cooperation with the ODFW has

conducted limited nonsystematic lek inventories for

greater sage-grouse on the resource area since 1977 and

the general population trend corresponds to declines

observed throughout the west.

Oregon BLM is committed to the implementation of

the “Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe

Ecosystem Management Guidelines” (2000). While

these guidelines focus on greater sage-grouse as an

icon, they are dedicated to all of the shrub-steppe

obligate species that have been the focus of the

ICBEMP effort. This plan in essence will step-down

the results of the ICBEMP to application at the field

level.

Greater sage-grouse depend on sagebrush/grassland

communities. Existing habitat is displayed on Map W1. Big sagebrush, the primary species grouse depend

on in Lake County, is usually associated with western

juniper, although juniper is not necessarily a habitat

component. Greater sage-grouse are most frequently

found in sagebrush covered flatlands or gently rolling

hills. Free water is also a component of greater sagegrouse habitat, but they do not require it for their daily

survival. Water is used when available from late spring

through late fall, and sage grouse attain their highest

population densities in areas that contain abundant and

well-distributed surface water. Sage grouse rely on

snow and ice during the winter months and moisture

from succulent plants when available.
Affected Environment

2 -37
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 38

Townsend’s big-eared bat: This bat is a BLM sensitive species that occurs in a wide variety of habitat

types. This species uses caves and cave-like structures,

including abandoned mine shafts and tunnels for roosts

and hibernating or wintering habitat. They also require

wet meadows and riparian areas where they can forage

for flying insects. Bat surveys have been conducted in

the LRA, and a few Townsend’s big-eared bats have

been found. All abandoned mines on the LRA are

surveyed for bats before the mines are permanently

closed.

Livestock Grazing Management

Introduction

The “Taylor Grazing Act” was passed on June 28,

1934, to protect public lands and their resources from

degradation, to provide orderly use to improve and

develop public rangelands, and to stabilize the livestock industry. Following various homestead acts, the

“Taylor Grazing Act” established a system for allotting

grazing privileges on Federal land to livestock operators based on grazing capacity and use priority, and for

the characterization of allotment boundaries. The Act

also established standards for rangeland improvements

and implemented grazing fees. Approximately 142

million acres of land in western states were under the

jurisdiction of the Grazing Service, which evolved into

the BLM in 1946. The “Federal Land Policy and

Management Act” (FLPMA) was passed in 1976, and

the “Public Rangelands Improvement Act” (PRIA)

passed in 1978. These also provide authority for

managing grazing on public lands.

Livestock Grazing

Authorization

Livestock grazing is administered on 120 allotments in

the LRA. Allotment boundaries are illustrated on Map

G-1. Information specific to each of the 120 allotments

in the planning area is provided in Appendix E1 and is

summarized in Table 2-26. A total of 69 permittees are

authorized to graze livestock in these allotments under

section 3 of the “Taylor Grazing Act.” Five permittees

are authorized to graze livestock in parcels included

under section 15 of the Act. Total active preference of

all permittees in the planning area is 164,128 animal

unit months (AUM’s). The total number of AUM’s of

grazing use for each of the last 10 years is shown in

Table 2-27.

In accordance with rest rotation grazing system objectives, not all public land in grazing allotments is used

every year. In order to promote healthy rangelands,

specific pastures are designed to be rested from livestock use.

Known problems pertaining to livestock grazing are not

related to existing forage allocations, but needed

changes in management such as season of use.

When additional forage is available on public lands,

temporary nonrenewable grazing use is periodically
Affected Environment

2 -39

authorized for qualified applicants when such use is

consistent with meeting multiple use objectives.

In the LRA, 261,566 acres of public land have been set

apart from grazing allotments specifically to either (1)

improve or protect resource values, or (2) they were

found to be unsuitable for livestock grazing. Table 2-

28 identifies land that is not allocated to livestock

production and is not included in a grazing allotment.

About 124,800 acres within the LRA have available

forage produced annually but not allocated to specific

livestock operators. Livestock use in some of these

areas is authorized on a temporary basis to provide

management flexibility for livestock operators. That

flexibility has been used for fire closures, poor climatic

conditions, and recovery of resource values. It has also

been used to rest or defer the use of other pastures or

allotments so that resource values can recover. About

136,766 acres are excluded from grazing on a permanent basis.

Additional areas (encompassing 472,890 acres) within

livestock grazing allotments have limited use based on

prior agreements or decisions. Limiting use or excluding livestock protects resource values or facilities from

livestock-related impacts. Examples of such resource

values and facilities include but are not limited to
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 40

developed water sources, riparian communities,

streams, reservoirs, springs and wetlands; WSA’s,

special status plant or animal habitats, relevant and

important values for which ACEC’s are designated;

research and study plots; and administrative, recreation, and archaeological sites.

Standards for Rangeland Health and Grazing

Management Guidelines

The 1996 rangeland reform process modified the

grazing regulations identified in 43 CFR part 4100. A

new regulation was developed and is currently being

implemented throughout the BLM. The regulation, 43

CFR 4180, addresses the fundamentals of rangeland

health. In August 1997, the standards and guidelines

that were developed in consultation with the Southeast

Oregon Resource Advisory Council and Provincial

Advisory Committees, Native Americans, and others,

were approved by the Oregon State Director for

Oregon/Washington. These standards and guidelines

are intended to provide a clear statement of agency

policy and direction for those who use public lands for

livestock grazing and for those who are responsible for

their management and accountable for their conditions.

The objectives of the rangeland health regulations are

to “...promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of

public rangelands to properly functioning conditions...

and to provide for the sustainability of the western

livestock industry and communities that are dependent

upon productive, healthy public rangelands.” The

fundamentals of rangeland health combine the basic

precepts or physical function and biological health with

elements of law relating to water quality and plant and

animal populations and communities. Although the

focus of the standards is on domestic livestock grazing

on BLM-administered lands, on-the-ground decisions

must consider the effects and impacts of all uses.

The standards are the basis for assessing and monitoring rangeland conditions and trend. The assessments

evaluate the standards and are conducted by an interdisciplinary team with participation from permittees

and other interested parties. The five standards are as

follows:

Standard 1, Watershed Function—Uplands: Upland

soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil,

climate, and landform.

Standard 2, Watershed Function—Riparian/Wetland Areas: Riparian/wetland areas are in properly

functioning physical condition appropriate to soil,

climate, and landform.

Standard 3, Ecological Processes: Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and

communities appropriate to soil, climate, and landform

are supported by ecological processes of nutrient

cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle.

Standard 4, Water Quality: Surface water and

groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions,

complies with State water quality standards.

Standard 5, Native, Threatened and Endangered

(T&E), and Locally Important Species: Habitats

support healthy, productive, and diverse populations

and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.

The complete “Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for

Public Lands in Oregon and Washington” are found in

Appendix E4.

Based on 43 CFR part 4180, if livestock are contributing to the nonattainment of a standard, as soon as

practical but no later than the start of the next grazing

season, management will be implemented to ensure

that progress is being made toward attainment of the

standard(s).

The LRA commenced assessment of the standards and

guidelines in 1998 and will continue this process for

the next 8 years. Approximately 10 percent of the

public land acres in the resource area would be assessed each year. The process has been completed on

12 allotments encompassing 801,654 acres through the

end of the 2000 fiscal year. Ten term grazing permits,

which have been through the assessment process, were

issued through the end of fiscal year 2000. In the

assessments completed, livestock were not identified as

contributing to the nonattainment of any standard,

except in one situation. This was mitigated through an

administrative jurisdictional transfer of a portion of the

Jack Lake riparian pasture in the Beaty Butte Allotment

to the USFWS. Management was changed to reflect

their existing land use plan (i.e., no grazing). If a term

grazing permit expires and an assessment cannot be

completed due to conflicting workloads, a standard

stipulation is placed in the terms and conditions of the

permit, identifying that an assessment will be completed in the future. This assessment may result in a
Affected Environment

2 -41
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 42
Affected Environment

2 -43
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 44
Affected Environment

2 -45

modification of the permit if it is determined that

livestock grazing is contributing to the nonattainment

of a standard.

Rangeland Projects

Various rangeland treatments, such as brush control

and rangeland seeding, have been completed in the

LRA. Structural improvements, fences, cattleguards,

reservoirs, spring developments, wells, and pipelines

have been constructed to facilitate livestock distribution and rangeland management (see the 1997

“Lakeview District Planning Update” www.or.blm.gov/

Lakeview/planning). Nonnative seeding has occurred

since the 1950s, with most activity occurring in the

1960s. Seedings have been implemented on a very

limited scale from the 1970s to present. The original

objective of rangeland seeding with nonnative species

was to increase livestock forage. The development of

various grazing systems resulted in seedings being used

to rest or defer use of adjacent native vegetative

communities. For the most part, seeding since the

1970s has been developed as a result of emergency fire

rehabilitation on sites that were susceptible to erosion

and the invasion of noxious weeds and nonnative

annual grass species (such as cheatgrass). As summarized in the vegetation section, nonnative seedings

encompass approximately 67,000 acres or 2.2 percent

of the resource area.

As mandated in FLPMA and PRIA, a portion of the

grazing fees is invested in range improvements with the

expectation that these improvements may benefit

wildlife, watersheds, and livestock producers. Through

use of emergency fire rehabilitation funds, additional

public land resources have been protected through

rehabilitation of burned areas, thereby reducing soil

loss and decreasing the ability of noxious weeds and

annual nonnative grasses to become established.

Livestock operators, state and Federal agencies, and

other interested public entities have continued to fund

rangeland improvement construction.

Allotment Categorization/Grazing Systems

Grazing systems were limited before the 1960s. In the

mid-1960s, grazing systems were established to maintain or establish plant communities. Grazing systems

have evolved to protect and maintain plant community

diversity and the resource values on public land.

Three selective management categories are used to

administer livestock grazing. All allotments were

grouped into these categories according to management

needs, resource conflicts, potential for improvement,

and Bureau funding/manpower constraints.

Improve (I) category allotments: Are managed to

improve current unsatisfactory resource conditions and

will receive the highest priority for funding and management actions.

Maintain (M) category allotments: Are managed to

maintain current satisfactory resource conditions and

will be actively managed to ensure that resource values

do not decline.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 46

Custodial (C) category allotments: Are managed

custodially by the BLM to protect resource conditions

and values. There are 28 Category I allotments, 62

Category M allotments, and 30 Category C allotments

in the LRA.

The “Lakeview Grazing Environmental Impact Statement,” subsequent rangeland program summaries, and

Lakeview District planning updates have all outlined

proposed grazing systems for all I and M allotments.

As a result of land-use planning direction, grazing

systems have been developed and implemented through

agreements with allotees. These grazing systems are

usually documented and described in an allotment

management plan. An allotment management plan is a

documented program, developed as an activity plan,

that directs management of livestock grazing on

specified public land in order to achieve objectives

relating to desired resource conditions, sustained yield,

multiple use, and economics (ranch). Allotment

management plans are implemented when incorporated

into term grazing permits or leases and accepted by the

permittees or lessee. Strategic portions of allotment

management plans are the rangeland projects designed

to meet resource objectives and subsequent grazing

systems/schedules. LRA has implemented allotment

management plans on 9 I Category allotments and 16

M Category allotments. Grazing management has been

developed for the remainder of the allotments by

agreement or annual authorization. Appendix E1

displays allotment specific information.

Monitoring data collection tracks progress in meeting

identified management objectives. Active grazing use

authorizations and management actions in each allotment are periodically evaluated, based on the monitoring data. Adjustments are made by agreement or

decision in accordance with legislation, regulations,

and policy so that public land resources are maintained

or improved. As allotment assessments are completed,

allotments could be placed in different categories.

Range Condition

ICBEMP assessed the rangeland integrity of all the

subbasins in the project area. “Measures of rangeland

integrity include such elements as: (1) grazing influences on vegetation patterns and composition, (2)

disruptions to the hydrologic regimes, (3) expansion of

exotic species, (4) changes in fire severity and fre-
Affected Environment

2 -47

quency, (5) increases in bare soil, and (6) expansion of

woodlands into herblands and shrublands.” In the

planning area, Summer Lake and Lake Abert Subbasins

were rated as having low range integrity and the

Warner Lakes and Guano Subbasins were rated as

moderate range integrity (USDI-BLM and USDAUSFS 1996h). Appendix A2 contains a summary of the

ICBEMP assessments applicable to the planning area.

The terms ecological status and seral stage are synonyms for range condition. Ecological site inventory

data describes the condition of vegetative communities

based on soil characteristics and potential natural

vegetative community. Currently, ecological site

inventory data is not available for the entire resource

area. A description of the ecological site inventory

process is contained in Appendix C2.

Wild Horses

Introduction

It is commonly believed that Spanish explorers reintroduced the horse to North America in the early 1500s.

After that time, descendants of these horses became

widespread across the West. Between 1880 and the

1930s, the number of wild horses in eastern Oregon

increased rapidly as horses brought to this area by

settlers, ranchers, and the U.S. Calvary escaped or were

abandoned by their owners and joined wild horse

herds. By the late 1940s, wild horse numbers were

estimated at 2,500 to 3,000 in the LRA.

Local residents remember the 1950s as a period of

intensified gathering throughout eastern Oregon, and as

a result, horse populations were drastically reduced.

By the late 1950s, fewer than 50 horses remained in the

Beaty Butte area. No estimates were recorded for the

Paisley area.

Public concern and outcry in the late 1960s influenced

Congress to pass the “Wild Free-Roaming Horse and

Burro Act” in 1971 (Public Law 92-195). The law

provided for the protection, management, and control

of wild horses and burros on public land. The Act

defines “wild free-roaming horses and burros” as all

unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public

lands. Two herd areas have been managed in the LRA

since 1971.

Federal protection and the absence of natural predators

have resulted in an increase in the wild horse and burro

populations. In 1973, the BLM began the Adopt-AHorse or Burro Program. Under this program, excess

wild horses and burros are removed from the range as a

way to maintain healthy herds and protect the habitat.

The animals are then offered for adoption to qualified

adopters.

Herd Management Areas

Wild horses in the LRA are managed in two designated

areas: Paisley Desert Herd Management Area and the

Beaty Butte Herd Management Area (Map SMA-1).

Part of the Paisley Desert Herd Management Area is

unavailable to wild horses (see Map SMA-1). No wild

horses have been seen in this area from 1973 to

present. As a result of the Paisley adjudication agreements of 1986 and 1992, the 31,859 acre area was

developed for livestock grazing, including seedings and

division of the area into several pastures. The present

fencing prevents horses from drifting into the area.

The goal of the wild horse program is to keep horses

within the herd management areas and to manage horse

numbers at viable levels while maintaining the natural

habitat in an ecological balance. Further information

may be found in the Paisley Desert and Beaty Butte

wild horse management plans.

Horses compete with livestock and wildlife for forage

on the public lands. In order to prevent resource

damage, BLM has established a limit for the amount of

forage that may be taken from a given area. The

vegetative resource is managed by dividing the available forage among competing uses in a forage allocation. Forage allocations for horses in each herd management area are based on the maximum number of

adult horses in the appropriate management level range

(based on an average population of about 80 percent

adults and 20 percent foals). Herd sizes have been

established based on available resources, reproductive

rates, other range uses, and public input. Table 2-29

shows statistics for the two herd management areas.

Appropriate management levels, as well as the boundaries of each herd management area, were established

through previous land use plans. Appropriate management levels are established to ensure that public land

resources, including wild horse habitat, are maintained

in satisfactory, healthy condition, and that unacceptable

impacts to these resources are minimized. To date, the

data gathered during herd area monitoring supports

established appropriate management levels.

Herd areas are monitored each year through aerial and/

or ground census. Data on the use of forage plants is

collected annually. Determinations to gather the herds,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 48

the number of horses to be removed, and when they are

to be removed are based on these surveys. Table 2-30

shows census numbers for each herd management area

since 1971.

Herd Gathers

Horses are usually allowed to run free until a herd

reaches its maximum size, or monitoring data indicates

a need to gather. Horses are also gathered if they stray

outside the boundaries of the herd management area.

The excess horses are gathered to prevent resource

overuse and to keep the herd healthy. Generally,

gathering is scheduled every 3 to 5 years, depending on

reproductive rates, death rates, funding, public concern,

and other special management considerations. Sitespecific gathering details, including trap sites, are

determined at the time of each gather. Temporary traps

would be adjacent to existing roads and would remain

in place for up to 7 days. Occasionally, temporary

traps may be placed within wilderness study areas

(WSA’s) if no other reasonable location is within 10

miles of wild horses. Any placement in WSA’s would

have to be accessible on existing roads or ways.

The Paisley Desert and Beaty Butte herds have been

gathered six times since 1971. Horses have historically

strayed outside the herd management areas. Horses

from the Beaty Butte herd move between the Burns

District to the east and the Lakeview District and

between the Sheldon and Hart Mountain National

Wildlife Refuges. Horses from the Paisley Desert often

move east and south into surrounding crested wheatgrass seedings.

Gathering is done outside the normal February through

June breeding and foaling season. Usually, horses are

gathered to reduce numbers to the lowest end of the

appropriate management level range to avoid the need

for frequent, expensive gathers that may disrupt the

herd. Excess horses are usually transported to the

Burns Wild Horse Corral for adoption by the public,

but horses may go to other adoption sites throughout

the United States. Table 2-31 shows the number of

horses removed from each herd management area by

gathers since 1977.

Fertility Control

Fertility control research using immunocontraceptives

in mares may be conducted in either herd management

area. A study of fertility control on the Beaty Butte

herd was done in the late 1980s by the University of

Minnesota. Dominate studs in the herd management

area were gelded and released back to the herd management area.

Herd Quality and Genetics

Herds in both the Paisley Desert and Beaty Butte Herd

Management Areas are in good condition; they exhibit

few health problems.

Wild horses in these herds are managed first for quality

and conformation and second for color. They come in

all shapes and sizes. Adult horses average from 14 to

16 hands and weight 950 to 1,300 pounds.

There is a wide variety of genetic backgrounds among

the horses in both herds. The colors of the original

Paisley Desert horses were predominately solid colors

of bay, brown, and sorrel. Presently, nearly every color

can be found among the horses in the herd. In the

southeast portion of the herd area, a few bands consist

of horses in varying colors of gray. Others are buckskin, palomino, or dun. Pintos were introduced into the

area in 1980.

Historically, bloodlines appear to have been mainly

thoroughbred with a few heavily-muscled horses,

possibly of draft breeding. However, horses from

outside the herd area have been introduced, and

crossbreeding has occurred to the point that bloodlines

are no longer pure. Table 2-32 shows characteristics of

each herd.

The majority of the Beaty Butte horses are sorrels,

browns, and roans. From appearance, bloodlines in the

herd include draft horses, saddle-type riding horses,

and thoroughbreds. One band of horses exhibits a few

characteristics of the Spanish mustang, including small

size, hooked ears, dun color, and dorsal stripe.

Special Management Areas

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Introduction

As a part of the preplanning process for the RMP, the

LRA staff considered and evaluated all lands within the

resource area for possible designation as ACEC and

RNA. FLPMA and BLM policy (BLM 1987, 1988)

require the BLM to give priority to designation and

protection of ACEC’s during the land use planning

process.
Affected Environment

2 -49

ACEC’s are areas within the public lands where special

management is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic

values, fish and wildlife resources, or natural systems

or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural

hazards. Appendix I contains a complete description of

the ACEC criteria and the designation process.

Two ACEC/RNA’s (Sand Dunes/Lost Forest/Fossil

Lake ACEC/RNA and Devils Garden Lava Bed ACEC)

were designated in previous land use plans. Another

area was given protective management but was not

designated (Connley Hills ACEC/RNA) (BLM 1982a;

1982b; 1983a; 1983b). Other areas were considered

for potential ACEC designation in the “Lakeview

Grazing Management Final Environmental Impact

Statement” (BLM 1982a) but failed to meet the criteria.

However, as a whole, the LRA was not evaluated at the

time management framework plans were completed in

the early 1980s. Since these plans were approved in

1983, two plan amendments have been completed,

which designated the Warner Wetlands and Lake Abert

ACEC’s (BLM 1989; 1995). Existing ACEC’s are

shown on Map SMA-1.

Background

ACEC’s may be nominated by BLM staff, other

agencies, or members of the public at any time. In

1992, the BLM contracted with the Oregon Natural

Heritage Program (ONHP) to conduct a survey to

evaluate plant and animal community natural heritage

cells represented within the resource area and to look at

previous ACEC nominations. After reviewing the

entire LRA, nine sites were recommended for designation for both ACEC and RNA status (Vander Schaff

1992), because they contained at least one ONHP plant

community cell. Those recommendations, along with

other nominations from the Oregon Natural Resources

Council, various Native American Tribes, BLM staff,

and Richard Miller (Oregon State University), were

evaluated by the LRA staff, and the findings documented in the “Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Nomination Analysis Report” (BLM 2000) (copies

of the complete report are available from the LRA

Office or at the office’s web site at www.blm.or.gov/

Lakeview/planning).

BLM policy requires that RNA’s be managed as

ACEC’s; therefore, areas nominated as RNA’s must

also meet the ACEC criteria. Nine RNA’s have been

proposed. RNA management goals and plans are

usually more restrictive than ACEC management alone,

as RNA’s are created for scientific research and should

guard values for the representative cells. Also, eight of

the proposed ACEC’s contain populations of Bureausensitive plant species. Appendix I contains a description of each existing and proposed ACEC and their

relevant and important values.

Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

At present there are four existing ACEC’s in the LRA:

ACEC Acres

Devils Garden 28,241

Lake Abert 50,117

Lost Forest RNA/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake 36,120

Warner Wetlands 53,087

Total 167,565

The Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake/Lost Forest (RNA) ACEC

is being analyzed to create management prescriptions

for the area, as no management plan has yet been

developed. Lake Abert ACEC is proposed for expansion to include land on top of the rim. Location of the

existing ACEC’s are shown on Map SMA-1 and are

described in Appendix I.

Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The areas in Table 2-33 were nominated as ACEC/

RNA’s and were evaluated for potential designation as

part of the preplanning process described above. The

table shows the name of the proposed ACEC, the

proposed acreage, and the values for which it was

nominated. Maps SMA-2, -3, and -4 show the approximate location of the nominated areas.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 50

Table I-1 (in Appendix I) shows 11 potential ACEC’s

which were considered but did not meet the relevance

and importance criteria. As a result of the evaluation, it

was determined that the proposed areas met the relevance and importance criteria required of potential

ACEC’s. The need for special management of these

areas will be determined in this document.
Affected Environment

2 -51

Wilderness Study Areas

Under section 603 of FLPMA, the BLM was required

to complete a wilderness review of public land in

Oregon. Based on an inventory and study of the public

lands within the LRA in the 1980s, 12 WSA’s were

recommended in 1989 for possible designation as

wilderness by Congress. Until Congress acts on the

wilderness recommendations or otherwise releases

WSA’s for other purposes, WSA’s are managed in

accordance with BLM’s 1995 “Interim Management

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP). As mandated by section 603(c) of FLPMA,

these WSA’s will be managed in a manner which will

not impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness.

Each of the WSA’s within the LRA have the minimum

characteristics necessary to qualify for wilderness

consideration. These characteristics include containing

5,000 acres (or more) of contiguous BLM land, are

roadless islands of any size, are roadless areas of

sufficient size to make practical their preservation and

use in an unimpaired condition, and possess outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive and

unconfined types of recreation. Many of the WSA’s

contain special features, such as unique or sensitive

plant and animal species and communities, interesting

geologic features, cultural or paleontological resources,

or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or

historic value.

A brief description of the location, number of acres

recommended and not recommended for wilderness

designation, and a summary of the criteria considered

in developing the suitability recommendations for each

WSA is contained in Appendix J2. Table 2-34 lists

each of the WSA’s and the number of acres recommended or not recommended for wilderness designation. The WSA’s are shown on Map R-1. The Basque

Hills and Rincon WSA’s straddle the Lakeview/Burns

District boundary, and are managed by the Burns

District. Complete descriptions of these WSA’s can be

found in the 1989 “Oregon Wilderness Environmental
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 52

Impact Statement.” Acreages listed in Table 2-34 are

only those located within the LRA. These acreages are

based on the most up-to-date geographic information

system measurements and, therefore, may differ from

those in the “Oregon Wilderness Environmental Impact

Statement.” These changes do not represent a change

in boundaries.

Since 1992, when the wilderness recommendations

were submitted to Congress, 3,139 acres of land

adjacent to or within WSA’s (Fish Creek Rim, Abert

Rim, and Guano Creek) have been acquired through

land exchanges and donations.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Introduction

As a Federal land management agency, BLM is an

active participant in managing designated wild, scenic,

and recreation rivers, and in contributing to the eligibility, classification, and suitability studies of rivers listed

in the “Nationwide Rivers Inventory” and other potential rivers. Other potential rivers are those identified by

congressional bills, BLM, or the public which might

meet the qualifications for wild, scenic, or recreation

river designation, but which have not been formally

considered.

To be eligible for inclusion in the national WSR

system, a river must be free flowing and have at least

one outstandingly remarkable river-related value within

its immediate environment (usually a 0.25-mile corridor along each side of the river).

Existing Conditions

Currently, there are no rivers within the LRA that are

designated or listed in the “Nationwide Rivers Inventory.” The following rivers in adjacent areas have been

designated: the Sycan River and North Fork of the

Sprague River in the Fremont National Forest, the

Donner und Blitzen River in BLM’s Burns District, the

North and South Forks of the Owyhee in BLM’s Vale

District, the Malheur River in the Malheur National

Forest, and the Klamath River in Lakeview BLM’s

Klamath Falls Resource Area.

In 1982, the Chewaucan River was evaluated by the

Fremont National Forest to determine if the river was

eligible for inclusion into the national WSR system.

This evaluation was coordinated with BLM’s Lakeview

District, since 4 miles of the river runs through BLMadministered lands. The report found that the

Chewaucan River did not meet the minimum eligibility

criteria of having outstandingly remarkable values.

Furthermore, it stated that the mixed land ownership

within the river corridor would create problems in

formulating a coherent management plan for the entire

river corridor.

Another joint eligibility assessment between the BLM

and Fremont National Forest came about from a 1989

appeal of the “Fremont National Forest Resource

Management Plan.” In an effort to resolve the appeal,

the USFS agreed to assess the eligibility of five rivers:

Deep Creek, Honey Creek, Little Honey Creek (all of

which flowed through both BLM- and USFS-administered land), Dairy Creek, and the South Fork of the

Sprague River (which flows through USFS-administered land). In these coordinated efforts, the only

BLM-administered river stretch found to be eligible

was Honey Creek.

In preparation for this RMP, an evaluation of the

remaining streams in the LRA was conducted during

1997 and 1998. An interdisciplinary team evaluated all

possible drainages which were known to be perennial

or intermittent, along with many springs, lakes, and

drainages whose character was unknown. From this

list, it was determined which streams were free-flowing

and if they had any outstandingly remarkable values. It

was determined that two rivers were eligible for further

study: Guano Creek and Twelvemile Creek. These

creeks were tentatively classified concerning their

degree of naturalness.

Table 2-35 lists the eligible creeks and their classification; Map R-8 shows their locations.

Guano Creek Wilderness Study Area Cooperative Management Area

This area consists of about 11,020 acres of the Guano

Creek WSA (about 94 percent of the total area) (Map

SMA-1) immediately south of Hart Mountain National

Antelope Refuge. This area is currently managed in

accordance with the “Hart Mountain National Antelope

Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan” (USFWS

1994a; 1994b), the draft plan amendment/environmental assessment prepared jointly by the USFWS and

BLM (1998a; 1998b), the “Oregon Public Lands

Transfer and Protection Act” of 1998, and the wilderness IMP (BLM 1995). No livestock grazing is allowed. The use of prescribed burning is emphasized to

restore native vegetation communities. Management

emphasis is for wildlife habitat values.
Affected Environment

2 -53
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 54
Affected Environment

2 -55

Significant Caves

Introduction

The “Federal Cave Resources Protection Act” of 1988

declared that significant caves are an invaluable and

irreplaceable part of the Nation’s natural heritage, and

directed Federal agencies to secure, protect, and

preserve significant caves for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people. The “Federal Cave

Resources Protection Act” also directed Federal

agencies to prepare and maintain a list of significant

caves, and to establish criteria for the identification of

significant caves on Federal lands. The resulting cave

management regulations were published in the Federal

Register in 1993. Until caves within the LRA are

evaluated to determine significance and management

plans are prepared which provide specific management

prescriptions, all caves are to be managed in accordance with BLM’s “Oregon and Washington Interim

Cave Management Policy.” This policy provides for

specific protective management of all caves and cave

resources until a specific management plan is prepared.

Many of the known caves within the LRA are also

located in WSA’s and these caves are afforded added

protection under the wilderness IMP.

For a cave on public lands to be nominated, it must

possess one or more of the following values: biota,

cultural, geologic/mineralogic/paleontologic, hydrologic, recreational, or educational. The listing of

significant caves involves two separate processes.

During 1995, the initial listing process was coordinated

by a national interagency effort in consultation with

individuals and organizations interested in cave resources. This process had three steps: (1) nomination,

(2) evaluation, and (3) listing.

Existing Conditions

There are presently seven significant caves located

within the LRA. Dependent on funding and staffing

levels, management plans for any known significant

caves would be completed in fiscal year 2003. As part

of the evaluation process, interested individuals and

organizations would be consulted as allowed within the

parameters of the confidentiality provisions set in 43

CFR, Subpart B, Section 37.12. During the initial

listing in 1995, nine caves were nominated by the

Willamette Valley Grotto. Seven of these caves were

found to be significant and are protected under interim

management of the “Federal Cave Resources Protection Act.” A subsequent listing of 62 caves was received in late 1995. Seventeen of these were eliminated from further review because they were duplicates

of the first list, were on private land, or did not meet

the definition of a “cave.” Forty-five caves need to be

field checked before a determination on listing can be

made. Dependent on funding and staffing levels, the

inventory and evaluation process would be completed

within 5 years after the completion of the resource

management plan for the LRA. After the inventory and

evaluation process has been completed within the LRA,

a management plan for all new caves determined to be

significant would be developed. This process would

include public involvement. Because a separate

management plan would be developed outside of this

planning effort, caves will not be addressed further in

this document.

Cultural and Paleontological

Resources

Introduction

When the first Europeans came through this part of

Oregon, four Native American Tribes were the primary

occupants or visitors in what is now the planning area.

The Northern Paiute occupied most of the area. The

Yahuskin Band of the Northern Paiute occupied the

north around Silver Lake, Christmas Valley, and

Summer Lake, while the Fort Bidwell and Harney

Valley Bands lived in the eastern and southeastern

portions. Native people from the Warm Springs area to

the north and Klamath and Modoc from the west would

have also used portions of the resource area. It is

unclear what Tribe or Tribes held the territory on a

consistent basis during precontact periods. Evidence in

the archaeological record and the ethnographic record

indicates that, as in more recent time periods, groups

moved, changed, or vacated the land. What is known is

that indigenous people have lived in what is now the

resource area for more than 12,000 years. Today’s

borders and boundaries for historic ethnic groups are a

product of Federal and State government politics rather

than of Tribal selection.

The resource area’s archaeological record is one of the

richest in the Nation in terms of site numbers and age.

Evidence, reflected in the tools and other man-made

materials, exists in the LRA for some of the earliest

occupation in North America. These periods of occupation or cultural periods are determined by the types

of points found on spears or arrows. The Clovis

Period, presently the earliest described cultural period

in North America, dates from about 12,000 to 10,000
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 56

years ago. Following the Clovis Period, the Stemmed

Point Period was present from about 10,000 to 7,500

years ago. Following this was the Desert Culture

Period, which lasted until the period of the historic

Tribes of the area and contact with Europeans.

Archaeological or cultural sites range from small lithic

scatters (areas of stone tool debris) of only a few flakes

to large lithic workshops at quarry locations that cover

many square miles. There are village locations, small

temporary campsites, hunting stations, hunting blinds,

game drives, rock art, spiritual sites, burial and cremation sites, and collecting sites present within the

resource area. Areas where water is located and where

resources, such as food plants and stone for toolmaking, can be found are the main locations of these sites.

Within the site areas, places of traditional cultural use

are present and can be identified.

Traditional Cultural Properties, National

Register Sites, and Cultural Resources

Federal agencies are responsible for the management

and protection of cultural resources on lands under

their administration. This management and protection

must be done in coordination and consultation with

Native American Tribes who are connected with the

land. Through a group of laws beginning with the

“Antiquities Act” of 1906, FLPMA, the “Archaeological Resources Protection Act,” NEPA, and the “Historic Preservation Act” (1966, as amended in 1992), the

BLM has been mandated to identify, protect, and

manage cultural resources on BLM-administered lands.

A number of procedures, including those specified in

36 CFR 800.4(a), are used to identify cultural resources

within the planning unit. In most cases, the BLM

avoids cultural sites and does not subject them to

mitigation. If avoidance is not possible, appropriate

mitigation procedures are worked out in coordination

with Native Tribes and the State Historic Preservation

Office and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Wherever possible and practical, site protection is

provided through law enforcement patrols, site monitoring, and site stewardship programs.

Traditional Cultural Property

A traditional cultural property is a place that is eligible

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) because of association with cultural practices

or beliefs of a living community that (1) are rooted in

that community’s history, and (2) are important to

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the

community. Within the LRA, several such cultural

sites have been identified through consultation with

Tribal governments of the region. While these areas

have been identified, they have not yet been listed on

the NRHP and, as such, are considered potential

traditional cultural properties. The identified potential

traditional cultural properties are not considered to be

all-inclusive, however. As projects in the region are

proposed, new traditional cultural properties may be

identified. This is because Tribal members are often

unwilling to identify places which they are using unless

identification is absolutely necessary to protect the area

from destruction or other use. Many practices conducted at such sites require that the performance be

done in private, without the knowledge of outsiders. In

addition, public identification of such locations creates

a potential problem in that these sites may be subsequently used for non-Native practices.

The majority of the identified traditional cultural

properties are currently under consideration for designation as ACEC’s for future management and protection.

National Register Sites

National register sites are sites (which may include

traditional cultural properties) which have been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

Eligibility is determined on criteria established by the

1966 “National Historic Preservation Act.” Sites are
Affected Environment

2 -57

unique, provide information important to the study of

history or prehistory, and are connected to important

events or important persons.

Abert Rim National Register District and Potential

Traditional Cultural Property

The Abert Rim area contains a National Register

District for cultural resources. This National Register

District is shown on Map SMA-1. Nomination of the

district was based on the presence of large numbers of

house pits, stone house rings, lithic scatters, plant

processing areas, rock art, and other cultural features.

The Abert Rim area has one of the highest site densities

within the Northern Great Basin, and sites cover all

time periods of the archaeological record. The area is

important to members of the Northern Paiute for plant

gathering, protection of the archaeological sites, and

continuation of cultural practices which may be

performed in the area. For these reasons, the area has

potential to be designated a traditional cultural property. This area is further described in the ACEC

section and shown on Maps SMA-3 and -4 as the

proposed Abert Rim ACEC.

Management concerns for the Abert Rim Area are:

• Continued improvement of the U.S. Highway 395

would most likely further disturb archeological

sites within the right-of-way. While mitigation of

the archaeological content of these sites would be

performed, it is likely the sites will be destroyed.

• Degradation and inappropriate use of cultural

features which are important to the Native Peoples

of the area could occur if these features become

widely known.

• The Tribes have expressed a concern for both

known and unknown Native American burial sites

located within the area and for plant resources in

the upland portions of the rim and would like these

burial sites and plants protected.

Greaser Petroglyph National Register Site

This site is a large boulder located on the eastern side

of Warner Valley. Petroglyphs and some pictographs

have been created on the surface of the rock. These

ancient designs are between 500 and 6,500 years old.

Management concerns for Greaser Petroglyph Site are:

• In the past, vandals have attempted to remove those

portions of the boulder containing designs.

• The rock has been vandalized–there are scratches

on its surface.

• The boulder is fractured and portions of it have

fallen away or have been removed from the site.

Picture Rock Pass National Register Petroglyph Site

This is a series of boulders in the pass that contain rock

art. In addition, other cultural sites, such as lithic

scatters and campsites, are present in the area, along

with archaeological sites. The designs on the boulders

are from 500 to 1,500 years in age.

Management concerns for the Picture Rock Pass area

are:

• The rock art at the site has been subjected to some

vandalism.

• Digging, in what can only be assumed to be an

attempt to look for buried artifacts, has occurred in

the area of the boulder containing the rock art.

• Some new-age rock art has been placed at the site.

• Tours of the area are encouraged by local businesses.

High Lakes Potential National Register and Traditional Cultural Property Area

The High Lakes Area contains one of the largest

concentrations of rock art in North America, as well as

lithic scatters (stone tool debris), village locations,

temporary campsites, plant collecting/processing sites,

burial sites, and rock quarries of archaeological value

(Maps SMA-3 and -4). The oldest dated rock art site in

North America is located in this region. The area

shows evidence of having been a major plant gathering

and occupation region for more than 10,000 years.

Plants which were gathered in the area in antiquity are

still present in the area for collection by Northern

Paiute. The Northern Paiute Tribes of the region have

expressed great interest and concern for the proper

management and use of the archaeological and plant

resources of the area. The existing management

framework plan identifies this area for special management. The High Lakes area is shown on Maps SMA-3

and -4.

Management concerns for the High Lakes Area area:
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 58

• The protection of the rock art sites in the area

continues to be of concern.

• Site vandalism is an increasing problem.

• In addition, the sites are being used in ways which

conflict with Native American values. Examples

are New Age religious practices, modification with

chalk for photos, building of campfires against

them, destruction of the sites during suspected

devil worship, and non-Native use for financial

gain.

• The commercial visitation of such sites is increasing their rate of deterioration. Artifact collecting is

a problem, up to and including the removal of the

rock art with rock saws.

• Concern has been expressed by the Tribal groups

that competing use of the plant resources could

lead to a reduction in plants, making traditional

uses difficult.

Rahilly-Gravelly Potential Traditional Cultural

Property Area

This is an area containing cultural resource sites. Here,

the Northern Paiute gathers plants that are culturally

important. This area is shown on Maps SMA-3 and -4.

Site types in the area include rock art, stone rings, lithic

scatters, and hunting stations. Obsidian quarry areas

are also found in the area. The location shows evidence of having been a focal point of plant collection

and occupation for more than 8,000 years. Within this

same area, yampa or ipos, a root plant used for food,

can be found and collected in abundance most years.

This plant is important in the maintenance of Native

American traditions.

Management concerns for the Rahilly-Gravelly Traditional Cultural Property Area are:

• Native Tribes have expressed concern that the

quality of the plants around Rahilly-Gravelly

should be maintained or improved.

• Sites within the area are subject to illegal artifact

collection.

• The rock art in the area is subject to vandalism and

theft. In some locations, attempts have been made

to remove the rock art by cutting it off the rock.

• There is concern that competing uses for collection

of the plants could become a problem.

Tucker Hill Traditional Cultural Property Area

The plants and features of Tucker Hill are critical for

the continuation of the Northern Paiute’s cultural

practices. The area also contains numerous archaeological sites. This area is shown on Maps SMA-3 and -

4.

Management concerns for the Tucker Hill Traditional

Cultural Property Area are:

• There has been mining in the north end of the

Tucker Hill formation. Within the proposed area,

mining is incompatible with the cultural values that

need to be protected.

• Artifacts have been illegally removed from the

area.

Table Rock Traditional Cultural Property Area

Through consultation with Tribal leaders, BLM has

identified the area around Table Rock as significant to

the Klamath Tribes (Maps SMA-3 and -4). The

location contains numerous archaeological materials as

well as features of a cultural nature, which are important to the Klamath Tribes and the Northern Paiute.

Some locations on the formation have been found to

contain burials, making this formation a sensitive area

for local Tribes.

Management Concerns for the Table Rock Traditional

Cultural Property Area are:

• The Table Rock area is one of the highest formations in the Christmas Valley/Fort Rock area. It has

been used for many years as a communication site.

A road and power line were constructed up the side

of the formation in the early 1960s to provide

access and power to the site. Construction of the

original buildings and towers on the top reportedly

destroyed a number of features. The site continues

to be used for communications.

• On several occasions in recent years, additional

structures and towers have been added to the

location. These are considered addition impacts

upon the cultural features of the area.

• The collection of artifacts and improper use of

cultural features is aided by the presence of the
Affected Environment

2 -59

road to the top of the formation.

Cultural Plant Species

Through treaties with the Federal government and

regulatory acts signed over the past 30 years, Indian

nations have reserved rights and recognized interests to

harvest a broad range of native plant and animal

species from the public lands (USDI-BLM 1995g;

Housley and Hanes 1998). Therefore, sustainable

harvest levels of the various species should be a

management goal. Indian governments consider

availability of these species a trust responsibility of the

Federal government. Inadequate quantities can lead to

substantial effects on community well-being, because

numerous social activities center on the harvest,

preparation, and consumption of the resources. This

involves both the occurrence of and access to the

relevant resources. The occurrence of culturally

important plant species may be measured through

linkage with existing dominant overstory categories or

associated soil types. Degree of access is determined

by judging the potential effects that a number of

anticipated impediments may be posed by differing

management actions.

Cultural Plant Ethno-Habitats

Cultural plants are defined as those plants important to

Tribal groups, both past and present, for subsistence,

economic, and ceremonial purposes. Ethno-habitats

are plant habitats defined by Tribal people as having

human importance. Various historical factors since

European contact have affected the availability of

cultural plants for Tribal use within the planning area.

The invasion of noxious weeds; the exclusion of fire;

and impacts from grazing, timber harvest, and road

building, among other factors, have all contributed to

declines and dislocations in many of the plant species

important to Tribes within the interior Columbia Basin

(Hanes 1999). There is great concern by Tribal

peoples, anthropologists, botanists, and some Federal

land managers to protect the habitats where cultural

plants are located. ICBEMP concludes that: “Tribal

plants occurring in nonforested habitats are most at risk

for decreases in habitat that may influence continued

harvestability.” Nonforested habitats include low

sagebrush scablands (Croft and Helliwell 1998).

Table 2-36 shows the more important cultural plants

found in the planning area, and Table 2-37 shows

ethno-habitats. Some areas have been identified, which

have large populations or large number of species of

cultural plants concentrated in relatively small areas.

These areas have been proposed as ACEC’s.

Plants of considerable importance occur in the low

sagebrush “lithic soils” habitat of BLM lands. Today,

such plants as biscuit root (Lomatium species), wild

onion (Allium species), bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva),

yellow bell (Fritilleria pudica), balsamroot

(Balsamorhiza species), and yampa or epos

(Perideridia species) are important to the maintenance

of indigenous cultures through ceremonies and other

cultural activities. These plants were once critical to

the very survival of the Tribe. In the spring, while

Tribal peoples were at the root camps located on lithic

soils, the women dug roots and gathered plants, and the

men hunted greater sage-grouse hens and other game

(Kelly 1932).

The ethno-habitat described as “wet meadows” is

another plant community in need of special management concerns. Camas (Camassia quamash), tobacco

root (Valeriana edulis), bistort (Polygonum bistoides),

and wapato (Sagittaria latifolia) are cultural plants of

concern that grow in wet meadows. Livestock overgrazing has caused stream cutting and consequent

lowering of the watertable followed by loss of the plant

habitat. Wapato in the Chewaucan wetlands was a

major food source for Tribal People at the time of

contact with white man. Today, much of the

Chewaucan wetlands is under private ownership. The

marsh has been channelized, drained, and is managed

for hay production. Today, very little wapato is found

in the area because of habitat loss.

Paleontological Resources (Prehistory)

Paleontological resources are the fossil remains of

plants and animals. These animals and plants may be

either extinct or extant today in the resource area or

elsewhere. Within the resource area, there are several

areas which are known to contain plant and animal

fossil remains.

Fossil Lake

Fossil Lake, in northern Lake County, is currently part

of a larger RNA/ACEC area known as the Fossil Lake/

Sand Dunes/Lost Forest RNA/ACEC. This ACEC was

created to protect fragile and rare fossils, manage the

Sand Dunes of the area, and protect an isolated island

of ponderosa pine or disjunct forest. Within the Fossil

Lake portion of the ACEC, considerable research,

starting with Smithsonian work in the late 1800s, has

been conducted. Each year for the past 12 years, the

BLM has worked cooperatively with the South Dakota
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 60

School of Mines to conduct paleontological research

and salvage fossils in the area. A large collection of

materials resulting from this work is housed cooperatively at the South Dakota School of Mines in Rapid

City, South Dakota. It is maintained, curated, and

made available for study. Other collections are located

at the Smithsonian and University of California at Los

Angeles.

Fossil Lake is a small, dry lakebed in the approximate

center of a large fossil-bearing deposit located in the

Christmas Valley/Fort Rock Basin. The area covers

nearly 10,000 acres of known fossil-bearing deposits.

The full extent of the remains has not been determined.

The fossil deposits are of the Holocene Epic, ranging

from about 50,000 to 8,000 years before the present.

The fossils overlap to some extent with cultural deposits of the 12,000-to-8,000-year before present period.

There is some indication of hunting in this area during

this time period. It is also possible that there was

hunting of extinct game such as mammoth, sloth,

camel, and bison. The area is extremely rich in mammal, bird, and fish fossils. It has been determined that

there are several rock layers, each of which represents

a different time period and each containing a different

assortment of fauna. Fossil Lake is the type site for

many North American Holocene Age (recent) fossils.

It is reported to be the richest site for fossils from this

era outside of the Labraya Tar Pits in California.

Fossil Lake is an actively eroding basin. Because the

sediments are mostly volcanic in nature and are loose

and unconsolidated, they erode easily. Wind storms

sweep the basin and remove large amounts of sediment

and carry it away. Some of this material is deposited in

the active sand dunes, which are a part of the ACEC.

Each year, because of this erosion, new fossils are

exposed on the surface. Often these remains are still

partly articulated (segmented). If they are not collected, these remains become weathered and scattered,

causing them to lose much of their scientific interest.

To help protect the fossils, which are extremely fragile

when exposed on the surface, an area of 6,660 acres

was closed to off-highway vehicle use (OHV) use in

the early 1970s. Livestock were removed from the

area, and it is now fenced to prevent vehicle and further

livestock entry. Currently, only foot traffic is allowed

within the closure area.

Management concerns for Fossil Lake are:

• The Fossil Lake deposits are subjected each year to

heavy erosion. This causes the fossils to be

exposed on the surface of the ground where they

are weathered and scattered, causing a loss of their

scientific value.

• The area of the deposits is not fully included in the

area of vehicular and livestock closure. Large

areas of significant fossils can be found within the

area primarily to the east in the sand dunes. These

areas are open to use by dune buggies and other

OHV’s, which destroy fragile fossils like articulated fish fossils.

• The area is also subjected to illegal fossil collecting by collectors and commercial venders.

Simontacchi Camel Location

This location was discovered in 1997 by the BLM and

reported to the paleontological community for study.

Since that time, it has been examined by the South

Dakota School of Mines paleontologists. This location

contains large amounts of camel and other vertebrate

fauna. It is important because of the large number of

camel remains present in the deposits. This location, in

loose, ashy deposits, is a series of small knolls with

draws between them. Fossils have been and are

continuing to be exposed on the surface by both wind

and water erosion. Once exposed on the surface, these

fossils are subject to weathering and scattering by

erosional forces.

Management concerns for the Simontacchi Camel

location are:

• There is a need for the continued collection of

exposed remains. Currently, the South Dakota

School of Mines devotes only 1 or 2 days per year

to collecting and curating fossils from this location.

This work is not adequate to properly find, collect,

and curate the fossils eroding from the deposits.

Collections could be made more frequently and for

a longer period for each gathering than is currently

being done.

Rattlesnake Butte Formations

The Rattlesnake Butte Formations, located within the

Beaty Butte region of the LRA, were identified by the

USGS. Like Fossil Lake, their full extent and faunal

content have not been determined. The fossil deposits

are a tan/brown volcanic tuff, which is exposed in

many locations throughout the region. Fossils here are

of the Miocene age, dating from 5 million to 23 million

years in age. Remains include rhinoceros, elephant,
Affected Environment

2 -61

horse, camel, and a wide range of other vertebrate

fauna. Since the geologic deposits which contain the

fossils is relatively compact and hard, erosion bringing

the fossils to the surface is slow. In addition, the

deposits are exposed in vertical rather than horizontal

faces, making the amount of material exposed at any

particular time relatively small.

Management concerns for Rattlesnake Butte Formations are:

• This location or formation should be surveyed

further to determine the full extent of the fossils

within the area.

• Collections should be made of the exposed fossils

and they should be properly curated for study and

use by the public.

Historical Resources

Within the LRA, many locations contain remains from

Lake County’s history. On scattered locations, the

remains of old line shacks that served as shelters for

cattlemen and sheep herders can be found. These are

usually one-room board and batten structures of simple

construction. Most have fallen down and remain only

as piles of weathered boards, nails, and broken glass.

Within the Fort Rock/Christmas Valley area, nearly all

of the old homesteads, towns, and businesses are gone.

Other historic sites include the remains of historic

roads and trails, Civilian Conservation Corps camps

and project locations, abandoned mines and mine

processing locations, ranch houses, corrals, cemeteries,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 62

and abandoned logging/sawmill locations.

Historical Resources in Need of Special Management

Shirk Ranch Property

The Shirk Ranch is located in the northwest portion of

the Guano Valley. The complex consists of the main

ranch house, a yard, a fence around the house, a well,

well house, and water tower, two root cellars, an

outhouse, two bunk houses, an old corral, an old barn

location, an old house foundation, a burned building

foundation and chimney, a blacksmith shop, a chicken

coop, a cemetery, and other ranch features in the fields

and ditches of the property.

The Shirk Ranch, which was built in the late 1800s, is

important in regional history. It has been determined to

be one of the finest extant examples of High Desert

ranching in existence. It is a destination for many

history buffs in the region. It is eligible for inclusion

on the NRHP.

Management concerns about the Shirk Ranch Complex

are:

• Because of neglect, the standing buildings and

features of the Shirk Ranch are in need of immediate stabilization and repair. This is true of all of

the buildings at the site.

• If a fire burns through the area, the buildings at the

ranch are subject to destruction because of brush

and grass surrounding them.

• Vandalism of the buildings is becoming a problem

and artifacts from the property are being stolen at

an increasing rate.

• Plans for the proper stabilization, use, and maintenance of the site are needed.

Oregon Central Military Road

The Oregon Central Military Road, which crosses

much of the southern portion of the district, has several

areas where features of the road exist in original

condition. The road was built from Eugene, Oregon, to

Fort Boise, Idaho, to move troops and supplies. Of the

portions of the road which are in original condition

(including ruts in rocks), the Stone Bridge in the

Narrows between Crump and Hart Lakes and the

unbladed portion are of national significance.

Management concerns about the Oregon Central

Military Road are:

• Those portions of the road which are in original

condition should be protected from vehicle traffic

and artifact collection.
Affected Environment

2 -63

Human Uses and Values

Introduction

The LRA encompasses most of Lake County and a

portion of Harney County. A small portion of Washoe

County in Nevada is included in the area covered by

the RMP. To effectively compile an economic profile

of the planning area, Lake and Harney Counties were

selected as the analysis unit.

The primary economic center of Lake County is the

town of Lakeview. Lakeview is the county seat and the

location of many Federal, State, and local government

offices. Most basic goods and services are available in

Lakeview. The area is also strongly tied to the city of

Klamath Falls, located 95 miles west of Lakeview in

Klamath County. A greater diversity of firms and most

specialty services are available in Klamath Falls.

The major economic center of Harney County is the

Burns/Hines area. These communities are located

approximately 50 miles northeast of the planning area

boundary. Other regional business centers include

Medford and Ashland in Josephine County, Bend in

Deschutes County, and Portland.

The nearest community with commercial air service is

Klamath Falls. Lakeview is served by a rail spur line

that links to Alturas, California. The nearest Amtrak

service is in Klamath Falls. A commercial bus line

operates between Lakeview and Klamath Falls.

Several smaller communities are located within the

RMP area. Paisley is an incorporated community,

while Adel, Christmas Valley, Summer Lake, Fort

Rock, and Silver Lake are unincorporated communities

in Lake County. These smaller communities generally

have very limited services for residents and visitors:

fuel, a campground, a motel or resort, a small store, a

restaurant, and one or two churches.

Summary of ICBEMP Economic Findings

ICBEMP examined the Lake and Harney County areas

generally and the communities of Lakeview, Paisley,

Burns, and Hines specifically. The smaller, unincorporated communities of Adel, Christmas Valley, Summer

Lake, Fort Rock, Silver Lake, and Blitzen were not

examined. Lake County is located in the Bend/

Redmond trade center. USFS lands are 19.3 percent of

the land base and BLM, 48.7 percent. These public

lands offer primarily roaded natural and primitive/

semiprimitive recreational settings, but visitation is

determined to be low (ICBEMP 1997). Harney County

is located in the Boise trade center. USFS lands are 8

percent of the land base in Harney County, and BLM

lands represent 62 percent of the land base. These

public lands offer primarily roaded natural and primitive/semiprimitive recreational settings, but visitation is

determined to be low (ICBEMP 1997).

The ICBEMP concluded that Lake County and Harney

County are areas of low economic and social resiliency

(USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1996). This determination

is based on their dependence on public land timber and

forage and the fact that 20 percent of the Lake County

budget and 21.3 percent of the Harney County budget

are derived from Federal land payments.

Lakeview, Paisley, Burns, and Hines are analyzed in

“Economic and Social Conditions of Communities:

Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on

Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and

Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental

Impact Statements” (Reyna 1998). This document

identifies Lakeview as an isolated trade center with

medium timber employment specialization and high

government employment specialization. Paisley is

determined to have very high agricultural employment

specialization, low timber employment specialization,

and low government employment specialization. Burns

is determined to have high timber employment specialization and medium agricultural employment specialization. Hines is determined to have very high timber

employment specialization and high agricultural

employment specialization (Reyna 1998).

Population, Age Distribution, and Ethnicity

Lake and Harney Counties are among Oregon’s least

populated counties. Except for Lakeview and the

Burns/Hines area, the two counties are primarily rural

in character. Table 2-38 displays the census population

in 1980, 1990, and 2000 for Lake County, Lakeview,

and Paisley and for Harney County, Burns, and Hines.

Lake County has a relatively high percentage of

population ages 65 or older. Estimates for 1997 were

1,211 or 16.4 percent of the population. There were an

estimated 1,912 people in the under-18 age group (25.8

percent) and 4,277 in the 18–64 age group (57.8

percent). Harney County has a relatively high percentage of population ages 65 or older. Estimates for 1997

were 1,121 or 14.9 percent of the population. There

were an estimated 1,881 in the under-18 age group

(25.1 percent) and 4,498 in the 18–64 age group (60
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 64

percent). Age distribution for the State in 1997 was as

follows: 0–17 is 25.6 percent of the population; 18–64,

is 60.8 percent; and 65+ is 13.6 percent (Wineburg

1998). Information on age distribution and immigration suggests that Lake and Harney Counties are not

attracting large numbers of retirees.

Lake and Harney Counties have limited ethnic diversity. Native Americans are represented at a rate greater

than statewide in Lake County. They are also a measurable ethnic group in Harney County. Persons of

Hispanic heritage (any race) are also well represented,

but at rates less than statewide—in Lake and Harney

Counties at 3.8 and 3.1 percent of the population,

respectively (Frewing-Runyon 1999).

Native American residents may participate in unique

cultural practices associated with reserved treaty rights.

Activities may include fishing, hunting, and gathering

plant materials for food or ceremonial purposes. No

reservation lands are located in Lake County, but the

Klamath Tribe has reserved rights in the area (Cannon

1999). The Burns-Paiute Tribe has a small reservation

in Harney County, located near Burns. The Tribe was

established by Executive order instead of by treaty and

has no reserved treaty rights (Hanes 1999).

In some areas, Hispanic populations are strongly

associated with labor-intensive agricultural practices

and crops such as the production of fruits and vegetables for human consumption. This does not appear

to be the case in Lake or Harney Counties. Agricultural activities in the two counties are not considered

highly labor-intensive, and are limited primarily to

production of hay, forage, and livestock.

In some areas, collection of special forest products is

closely associated with Hispanic and/or Asian ethnic

groups. This type of activity occurs on forested lands

in Lake and Harney Counties (Cannon 1999). The

majority of these lands are managed by the Fremont,

Deschutes, Ochoco, and Malheur National Forests.

No other ethnic groups in Lake or Harney Counties are

known to be associated with public land resources

through unique cultural, historical, or employment

practices. Table 2-40 displays ethnic distribution for

the United States, Oregon, Lake and Harney Counties,

and postal ZIP codes within Lake and Harney Counties.

Employment and Wages

Lake County

In 2000, an estimated 3,070 people were working in

Lake County. This included almost 800 self-employed

persons. Wage and salary workers were more common,

totaling 2,290. The lumber and wood product industry

was the dominant manufacturing employer, with all but

10 of the 310 manufacturing employees. Lumber and

wood products employment peaked in 1994 at 600,

then abruptly declined to 250 in 1998 before beginning

the current upward trend.

In 2000, Federal, State, and local governments employed 930 people—the greatest number of people

employed by any sector. However, since 1992, government employment has decreased by 11.4 percent (State

of Oregon, Employment Department, Various Years).

During the fiscal year1995, employment by Federal

natural resource agencies in Lake County was as

follows: BLM, 59; USFS, 165 (ICBEMP 1998).

The trade sector employed 570 people in 2000, an

increase of 16.3 percent since 1990. The services

sector employed 260 people in 2000, an increase of

30.0 percent since 1990. Growth in the trade and

services sectors during this period has been very slow

when compared to the statewide trend: trade is up 25.8

percent, and services are up 48.1 percent. Overall,

Lake County has been experiencing shrinking employment. The civilian labor force has decreased 12.9

percent, and wage and salary employment is down 6.5

percent since 1990 (State of Oregon, Employment

Department, Various Years). Unemployment has also

been increasing since 1990.

Harney County

In 2000, an estimated 3,600 people were working in

Harney County. This included 820 self-employed

persons. Wage and salary workers were more common,

totaling 2,780. Major manufacturing employers, SMC

and Louisiana Pacific, are located in the Burns/Hines

area, outside the planning area. Manufacturing employed 490 people in Harney County (State of Oregon,

Employment Department, Various Years).

Federal, State, and local governments employed the

greatest number of people at 1,090 (State of Oregon,

Employment Department, Various Years). During the

fiscal year1995, employment by Federal natural

resource agencies in Harney County was as follows:

BLM, 60; USFS, 74 (ICBEMP 1998).

The trade sector employed 570 people, up 16.3 percent

from 1990 figures. The services sector employed 400

people in 2000, up 33.3 percent since 1990. However,

growth in the trade and services sectors has been below
Affected Environment

2 -65

the statewide trends: trade is up 25.8 percent, and

services are up 48.1 percent. Overall, Harney County

has been experiencing growing employment. Unemployment has also been decreasing since 1996 (State of

Oregon, Employment Department, Various Years).

Table 2-41 displays detailed employment information

for Oregon and Lake and Harney Counties since 1970.

Per Capita Income and Poverty Rates

Lake County

Per capita personal income of $20,285 in 1999 was

significantly below Oregon’s statewide level of

$26,958. Lake County also has a higher portion of

income derived from transfer payments (22.5 percent)

than the state as a whole (13.5 percent). Transfer

payments include Social Security payments, Aid to

Families with Dependent Children, unemployment

compensation, disability payments, and other government payments. Typically, transfer payments are a

major source of income for retirees and low-income

people. The percent of income derived from dividends,

interest, and rent in Lake County (25.5 percent) was

similar to statewide figures (22.5 percent). This

income represents returns on accumulated assets held

by individuals and is often a large portion of income

for the self-employed and retirees. Earned income,

typically wages and salaries, was 52.0 percent of

income in Lake County, significantly below the statewide 64.0 percent. Just as Federal, State, and local

government is the dominant employer in Lake County,

it is also the dominant provider of earned income at

45.3 percent (23.6 percent of all income). Statewide,

Federal, State, and local government employment

provides 17.6 percent of earned income, 11.2 percent of

all income (U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of

Economic Analysis 2001).

Harney County

Per capita personal income of $21,173 was significantly below Oregon’s statewide level of $26,958 in

2001. Harney County also has a higher portion of

income derived from transfer payments (19.5 percent)

than the state as a whole (13.5 percent). Total income

derived from dividends, interest, and rent in Harney

County (22.0 percent) was similar to the same kind of

income statewide (22.5 percent). This income represents returns on accumulated assets held by individuals

and is often a large portion of income for the selfemployed and retirees. Earned income, typically wages

and salaries, was 58.5 percent of income in Harney

County, significantly below the statewide proportion of

64.0 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of

Economic Analysis 2001).

The poverty rate estimate for 1993 was 13.1 percent for

Lake County. This compares to 13.2 percent for the

State of Oregon. The poverty rate estimate for Harney

County was 12.8 percent (Frewing-Runyon 1999).

This statistic indicates that people whose incomes are

very low live in Lake and Harney Counties, but that the

proportion is not unusual for the Northwest region in

general.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 66
Affected Environment

2 -67
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 68

Revenue Sharing

BLM and USFS lands represent 69 percent of the land

base in Lake County (ICBEMP 1997). Federal lands

are not subject to state or local property taxes. In

recognition of the state and county services that are

provided (roads, emergency services, and law enforcement), Congress passed legislation in 1976 to provide

Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes to all states and counties

where public lands are located. The BLM is currently

charged with making these payments on behalf of itself

and other Federal agencies. Revenue is distributed

using a complex formula based on acres of Federal

land, population, and the total of the previous years’

revenue sharing from resource-use collections (timber,

range, mining, and so forth). Previous years’ payment

are shown in Table 2-42.

Local Economic Activity Generated by Public

Land Resources

Introduction

The BLM and other Federal land management agencies

often make commodities available for use by the

private sector. Both the BLM and USFS make rangelands available to private ranching concerns on a

renewable permit basis. A fee is collected for each

grazing head of livestock. Similarly, the BLM and

USFS sell timber to private firms. In the planning area,

however, the BLM manages no forested land for

commercial harvest (see Table 2-43).

Agriculture and Livestock Grazing

Because of a cold, dry climate and short growing

season (Sunset Publishing Corporation 1995), the

agricultural industry centers on just a few products.

The most common is the raising of cattle and calves for

beef. In 1996, an estimated 86,690 head of cattle and

calves were in Lake County, and an estimated 124,960

head of cattle and calves were in Harney County

(Oregon State University 1997). Within the study area,

cow-calf livestock operations, which sell calves as the

primary product, are more common than cow-yearling

operations, which sell yearlings as the primary product.

In 1998, Lake County ranchers sold an estimated

$20,881,000 worth of cattle and calves or related beef

products. Sales in Harney County totaled $23,018,000

(Oregon State Extension Service 1999). No commer-
Affected Environment

2 -69

cial feedlots operate in Lake County or in Harney

County (CenturyTel of Eastern Oregon, Incorporated

1998).

In conjunction with the livestock industry, growing hay

and forage is the second leading product in both Lake

and Harney Counties, with estimated sales of

$16,968,000 and $10,356,000, respectively, in 1998

(Oregon State Extension Service 1999). The sales

figure does not include hay and forage grown by

ranching operations to feed their own livestock, thus

the total value of hay and forage grown is much higher.

Gross farm sales in Lake County totaled $41,806,000

in 1998, about 1.3 percent of all agricultural sales in

Oregon. Gross farm sales in Harney County totaled

$36,841,000 in 1998, about 1.1 percent of all agricultural sales in Oregon (Oregon State Extension Service

1999). Table 2-39 displays detailed information on

gross farm sales by commodity for the state of Oregon

and for Lake and Harney Counties since 1990.

Recreation

Lake and Harney Counties have many beautiful

locations for recreation opportunities. The tourism

industry is small; however, for people seeking outdoor

recreation and solitude, public lands in Lake and

Harney Counties have a great deal to offer. A 1997

study prepared for the Oregon Tourism Commission

estimated that travel-related spending in Lake County

totaled $11,170,000 in 1997. Of this, an estimated

$2,120,000 was associated with travelers staying in

public campgrounds. In Harney County, travel-related

spending totaled $22,230,000, with $8,970,000 attributed to travelers staying in public campgrounds. Lake

County represents just 2 percent of the $5.05 billion of

travel-related spending in the State of Oregon. Harney

County represents 4 percent of total travel expenditures

in Oregon (Oregon Tourism Commission 1998). Table

2-44 displays estimated travel expenditures by sector

for the State of Oregon and Lake and Harney Counties.

Lake County: There are 40 public campgrounds in the

county: 34 are operated by the USFS, 2 by the BLM, 1

by the USFWS at Hart Mountain Refuge, 2 by the State

of Oregon, and none by Lake County (Trish Lindaman,

personal communication). Seven private campgrounds

and RV parks are listed in the yellow pages. Eleven

motels and two bed and breakfasts are also listed

(CenturyTel of Eastern Oregon, Incorporated 1998).

Harney County: There are eight public campgrounds

in the county. None of those are located in the RMP

area. Two private campgrounds and RV parks are

listed in the yellow pages. Thirteen motels and three

bed and breakfasts are also listed. None are located

within the planning area (CenturyTel of Oregon,

Incorporated 1999).

Air Resources

Introduction

Congress passed the “Clean Air Act” (CAA) in 1967

and amendments to the Act in 1972, 1977, and 1990.

This Act gives the state the responsibility for the

administration and enforcement of air quality and

visibility standards. To meet these objectives, the State

of Oregon has developed and administered the “State

Implementation Plan.” The “State Implementation

Plan” specifies a 22 percent reduction in emission

levels statewide from the baseline period of 1982–1984

by the end of year 2001, with a review in 1990 to

determine whether “reasonable progress” has been

made.

The “Oregon Smoke Management Plan,” companion to

the “State Implementation Plan,” classifies certain

areas as “designated areas” and “smoke sensitive

areas.” The “Oregon Smoke Management Plan”

requires that prescribed burning, primarily slash

burning, be done only when atmospheric conditions

prevent smoke from deteriorating the air quality of

these areas. However, the LRA is not included in the

“Oregon Smoke Management Plan” but follows a local

plan in conjunction with the other members of the

South Central Oregon Fire Management Partnership

(the partnership is a proactive voluntary effort to

manage smoke emissions).

Existing Conditions

Lakeview and much of northern Nevada are a designated PM10 nonattainment areas due to high emissions

from wood burning in the winter months. This means

that within these areas the air has had concentrations of

PM10 in excess of the “National Ambient Air Quality

Standard” for PM10 (particles with a diameter of 10

microns or less). Although Lakeview has shown

attainment for the past few years, it is still an area of

concern and has not been formally redesignated as an

attainment area. In 1995, the ODEQ submitted a PM10

control strategy to the Environmental Quality Commission for Lakeview that included revisions to the

“Oregon Smoke Management Plan.” The plan includes

designating a 20-mile radius special protection zone
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 70
Affected Environment

2 -71
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 72

around Lakeview to help mitigate potential smoke

impacts from forest slash and prescribed burning. New

air quality standards will regulate the concentrations of

PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or

less).

The South Central Oregon Fire Management Partnership has developed a smoke management plan to help

limit smoke impacts into “designated areas” or “smoke

sensitive areas.” It was implemented and was effective

during the 1999 spring burn season. An average of

approximately 100 acres per year were burned from

1980 through 1983. Approximately 3,000 acres per

year were burned from 1984 through 1998, and the

LRA burned 17,500 acres in 1999. Smoke emissions

from prescribed burning activities differ depending on

the method used (broadcast burn or pile and burn); the

grass, shrub, and tree species burned; the amount of

fuel; the proportion of the fuel consumed by the fire;

and weather conditions.

There is one air monitoring station, only operational

during the winter, located in the town of Lakeview.

There are no other monitoring stations within the

resource area.

In addition to adhering to seasonal and other timing

restrictions imposed by the “Oregon Smoke Management Plan,” the BLM reduced emissions from burning

through other means that include performing aggressive mop-up, increasing interagency coordination

through the South Central Oregon Fire Management

Partnership, cutting off or limiting new burning based

on current or anticipated smoke accumulation and

dispersion, using predicative forecasting to alert the

partnership of stable air conditions, which in the past

have led to dispersion and intrusion problems, and the

monitoring by aircraft to track emissions from prescribed burning.

Fire Management

The LRA fire management program focuses on wildland fire and prescribed fire. The wildland fire season

generally runs from mid-May through mid-September.

Prescribed fires are usually planned for periods before

and after the wildland fire season, depending on

weather conditions. The LRA averages about 65

wildland fires per year, encompassing approximately

21,000 acres per year (Table 2-45 and Figure 2-1).

About 90 percent of the fires that occur are caused by

lightning; 10 percent of the fires are caused by humans.

The 1998 “Lakeview District Fire Management Plan”

provides wildland fire management direction for

specific geographic areas and outlines preferred

suppression actions. The plan describes suppression

action constraints (i.e., avoiding use of heavy equipment during initial attack) and defines the numbers of

personnel and equipment required for efficient suppression actions (Map FM-1). The plan also recognizes the

natural role of fire in the ecosystem and the risks

involved with reintroducing wildland fire.

The 1996 “Fort Rock Area Fire Management Plan”

provides direction for suppressing naturally-occurring

fires only within the Fort Rock area. These naturallyoccurring fires are monitored on a daily basis, and a

suppression matrix is followed that is based on a least

cost plus loss formula. These fires often extinguish

naturally. The typical fire size that occurs in the Fort
Affected Environment

2 -73

Rock Fire Management Area is less than one acre. The

plan covers 343,000 acres or 10 percent of the total

LRA in the northern portion of the LRA. Approximately 30 to 45 lightning ignitions are detected in this

area each year. Table 2-46 shows the number of fires

by size class for the past 20 years in this area.

The LRA’s prescribed fire program, started in 1981,

aims to reduce fuel loadings and restore the natural

landscape. From 1981 to 1983, about 100 acres were

burned each year. Since 1984, prescribed burns have

averaged about 3,000 acres per year, depending on

favorable burning conditions. In fall 1999, one exceptionally large prescribed burn covered more than
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 74

15,000 acres. Burns are conducted in sagebrush to

reduce hazardous fuel loading, restore typical vegetation conditions to the landscape, and achieve desired

vegetation characteristics.

Values at Risk

There are numerous risks involved with fire management activities; these risks are associated with wildland

fire exclusion (no fires), with using prescribed fire, and

with wildland fire suppression. Rangeland health,

wildlife habitat, and air quality are the primary values

at risk; grazing is the main commodity at risk.

Light surface fires, whether prescribed or naturallyignited, often benefit rangeland health and wildlife

habitat. By contrast, high intensity fires may have

negative short- and long-term impacts to rangelands

and wildlife habitat.

Fire Exclusion

In the “Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem

Management in the Interior Columbia Basin,” it is

noted that the subbasins of southcentral Oregon,

including Guano, Warner Lakes, Abert, and Summer

Lake, have been significantly altered by grazing and

fire exclusion. The risks of fire exclusion (no fires),

although not immediately visible, become evident as

time passes. Risks include species conversions from

grasslands or shrub steppe to woodlands, and, over

time, increased fuel loading. Changes in species and

fuel loading alter the historical fire regime. For

example, fire exclusion might allow juniper encroachment into sagebrush-steppe ecosystems, whereas

periodic fires in sagebrush-steppe ecosystems would

kill small juniper trees and allow regeneration of native

grasses and forbs. These grasses and forbs would carry

subsequent low-intensity fires.

Periodic natural fires have been absent for over a

century. This has allowed juniper to spread from less

fire-prone sites to sagebrush and riparian communities.

The majority of today’s juniper stands within the

planning area are composed of such “invasive” trees.

Prescribed Fire

BLM prescribed fire operations are carefully planned.

LRA specialists give considerable thought to all

possible effects of the fire. However, regardless of the

precautions taken, there are risks associated with

prescribed fire. These risks include the fire escaping

predetermined boundaries, fires burning more intensely

than planned, or fires having unanticipated negative

effects. For example, fires that exceed the holding

capabilities of the operators can escape and burn

private property or damage range improvements, such

as fences. Prescribed fires may allow noxious weeds to

invade a burned site. There are also air quality risks;

however, these risks may be mitigated by prescribed

burning during weather conditions that allow for good

smoke dispersal. In spite of the risks, prescribed

burning offsets risks associated with future wildland

fires. Recent prescribed fire history is displayed on

Map FM-2.

Wildfires

Risks of wildland fire depend on the intensity and size

of the wildland fire. Suppressing fires in the LRA

altogether allows sagebrush and juniper to dominate,

which limits grass production. Low-intensity wildland

fires may actually improve rangeland health and
Affected Environment

2 -75

wildlife habitat. High-intensity wildland fires quickly

alter rangelands and wildlife habitat and can produce

large amounts of smoke. Domestic livestock may be

displaced for several years and sensitive wildlife

species, such as greater sage-grouse, may decline

following large wildland fires. While species that

favor early successional stages may benefit in the

short-term from wildland fires, species that rely on

older vegetation will suffer when that vegetation is

burned. Severely burned landscapes are more susceptible to noxious weed invasions, urthering declines in

rangeland health and wildlife forage. In addition,

smoke emissions cause air quality degradation.

Fire also has an effect on recreational and visual

resources. Locations where prescribed fires or wildland fires have occurred may become temporarily less

desirable for hikers, campers, or hunters. Impacts on

visual resources may vary considerably depending on

the location of the fire. Land-disturbing activities

employed in fire suppression may negatively impact

the landscape. However, the impact of the fire lessens

over time as the landscape becomes revegetated, at

which time the area may become more desirable to

recreationists. Recent wildland fire history is displayed

on Map FM-2.

Appropriate Management Response

Appropriate management response is a set of specific

actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement protection and wildland fire use objectives.

These responses can range from full initial attack

suppression to monitoring. The appropriate management response for a site-specific area will be documented in the fire management plan. Included in this

plan will be a matrix which considers, along with other

factors, fire danger, wildland fire use areas, and resource availability. A wildland fire situation analysis

will be done on all fires that exceed initial attack

capabilities.

Wildland Fire Use

Wildland fire use is the management of naturally

ignited wildland fires to accomplish prestated resource

management objectives in predefined geographic areas

outlined in the fire management plan. A matrix will be

outlined in the fire management plan to determine

Figure 2-1.—Total number of fires for the Lakeview Resource Area, 1980–1999
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 76

when wildland fire use is meeting resource management objectives or when it becomes wildland fire

suppression. If wildland fires have no recognized

resource benefits, there is no wildland fire use, only

wildland fire suppression using least cost plus loss

concepts.

Impacts of Past Management Activities on Fire

Hazards

Past management actions have both increased and

decreased fire hazards in the LRA. Increased fire

hazard is associated with fire exclusion, and decreased

fire hazard is associated with prescribed fire practices

and allowing the restoration of a more historical

vegetative condition. Management practices, such as

grazing and reseeding, also affect fire hazard by

altering vegetation to make it either more or less

flammable.

While implementing prescribed burns and monitoring

fires in the Fort Rock area, the LRA has also been

suppressing wildland fires. Without having a detailed

and carefully analyzed fire management plan in place

for a specific area, current policy requires that all

wildland fires be suppressed. Only 10 percent of lands

in the LRA are included in a plan that would allow

natural fires to burn under certain conditions. These

naturally-occurring fires are monitored on a daily basis

and a suppression matrix is followed that is based on a

least cost plus loss formula. BLM actively suppresses

wildland fires as quickly and safely as possible on the
Affected Environment

2 -77

as campfires and vehicles driving on public land. The

directives are specific in terms of locations involved

and actions prohibited. Such closures and directives

are normally issued during periods of unusually high

fire danger.

Impacts of Suppression Activities on Resources

Building firelines during suppression operations,

especially dozer lines, may increase soil erosion and

compact the soil. So that the impacts on resources can

be mitigated during initial attack activities, the fire

management plan limits the use of heavy equipment on

the resource area. However, the noticeable changes to

the landscape that result when there are no fires at all

may, in fact, indicate an impact to the resources that is

more negative than suppression activities. Changes in

vegetation, changes in fire regimes, and changes in

some wildlife populations are direct and indirect results

of fire exclusion.

Fire Ecology of the Major Vegetation Types

Ponderosa pine forests are found in scattered patches

throughout the LRA. Most are adjacent to the Fremont

National Forest on the western edge of the resource

area. The Lost Forest in the northeast section of the

resource area is an area of isolated ponderosa pine

forest. Studies in southeastern Oregon have shown that

prior to 1900, most ponderosa stands experienced lowseverity surface fires at intervals ranging from 1 to 30

years (Agee 1993). Because of its thick bark and selfpruning branches, ponderosa pine is fairly resistant to

mortality from fire. Today’s fire suppression techniques are very successful at quickly controlling

ponderosa pine fires while they are still small. However, this suppression in ponderosa pine forests has

allowed juniper encroachment and increased surface

fuel loadings, which increases the potential for more

intense wildland fire behavior.

Juniper woodlands are the most widely distributed

forest type in the LRA. Juniper continue to expand

their range by encroaching into ponderosa pine forests

and shrublands. It is difficult to determine fire histories in juniper. Old growth juniper isolated from other

vegetation may not burn for over 300 years. The

mountain big sagebrush fire regime where much

juniper has encroached today, typically burned every

15 to 25 years (Miller and Rose 1999). Young western

junipers have thin bark and are readily killed by surface

fires. Juniper stands with grass and shrub understory

will allow fires to carry through the juniper. As trees

mature, they choke out shrub and grass vegetation,

other 90 percent of the acres in the LRA.

Fire exclusion and suppression alter vegetation composition and fire regimes. Suppressing fires has allowed

sagebrush and juniper to dominate and has resulted in

reduced grass and forb production. As juniper invade a

site, they eliminate understory vegetation, thus making

invaded sites highly resistant to low-intensity fire.

Fires occurring in juniper-invaded shrublands may only

carry during strong wind conditions resulting in highintensity wildland fire. Grazing practices may also

reduce grasses and forbs to such an extent that lowintensity fire cannot be sustained. In such degraded

rangelands, the lack of fire may further contribute to

unwanted shifts in vegetation composition. Prescribed

fires are used to reduce the risk of wildland fire.

Prescribed burns are planned to reduce fuel loading and

enhance native vegetation composition. In some cases,

natural vegetative conditions are restored by using

prescribed fire.

Cheatgrass is an especially noxious, invasive annual

grass that creates a fire hazard in limited parts of the

resource area. Cheatgrass thrives in disturbed environments; overgrazing or wildland fires often provide an

opportunity for cheatgrass establishment. It competes

with native grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and may be

successful at overcoming and outcompeting the native

vegetation, leaving large expanses of cheatgrass. An

area that is overcome by cheatgrass has the tendency to

burn more frequently than the native shrublands and

grasslands. Repeated burning encourages future

cheatgrass production at the expense of native grasses,

forbs, and shrubs.

Crested wheatgrass is an introduced perennial grass

that is sometimes planted by the BLM to revegetate

disturbed sites (for example, after a wildland fire). If

crested wheatgrass is planted in areas formerly dominated by shrubs, the fire regime may be altered. Although crested wheatgrass plantings may eventually

allow some native plants to recover over time, large

expanses of crested wheatgrass have the potential to

burn more frequently than native plant communities.

In order to help reduce the risks of wildland fires, BLM

regulates the activities of both industrial and nonindustrial use of the public land under its administrative

umbrella. One way this is done is through the Industrial Fire Precautions Level System, which regulates

permitted industrial operations on the LRA. This

system dictates the types of activities (such as chain

saw use) that are acceptable at given fire danger levels.

Nonindustrial uses may be managed through regulated

closures and management directives for such activities
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 78

leaving little surface vegetation and the stand more

susceptible to erosion. Older stands become resistant

to fire because low productivity limits fuel availability.

Western juniper does not sprout after fire; reestablishment is through seed, which is dispersed fairly slowly

by water and animals.

Sagebrush is the most common vegetation type found

throughout the LRA. The main sagebrush vegetation

types are: big sagebrush (Wyoming and basin) shrub/

grassland, low sagebrush shrub/grassland, silver

sagebrush shrub/grassland; and mountain big sagebrush

shrub/grassland. Wyoming big, basin big, low, and

mountain big sagebrush are easily killed by fire and

recolonize a site by seeds stored in the soil or by wind

dispersal of off-site seeds. Silver sagebrush may

regenerate after fire by root sprouting or by off-site

seeds. Recovery times of all the sagebrush species

greatly depend on the seed availability and moisture

following disturbance. Sagebrush fire return intervals

are difficult to determine since fire histories cannot be

accurately studied. Sagebrush are typically entirely

consumed by fire and do not leave fire scars as evidence that can be used to determine historical fire

regimes. However, site productivity affects the fire

behavior and frequency in these sagebrush stands.

Sites with higher productivity (more grass and forb

understory) will carry fire easier and more frequently

than sites with low productivity. Generally, silver and

low sagebrush are found on less productive sites

compared to mountain, basin, or Wyoming big sagebrush.

Emergency Fire Rehabilitation

Emergency fire rehabilitation refers to activities that

may be completed following wildland fire. Common

activities may include seeding with native or nonnative

plants, noxious weed control, erosion control, and

repairing or building temporary fencing burned in fire.

Following a wildland fire, specialists decide whether

emergency fire rehabilitation activities are warranted,

based on vegetation condition, soils, fire size and

intensity, stream condition, slope, improvements

burned by wildland fire, etc. Currently, emergency fire

rehabilitation activities are completed after a written

and approved emergency fire rehabilitation plan.

Recreation Resources

Introduction

Three major highways and numerous county roads

traverse the LRA. This transportation system provides

access to a number of roads (both primitive and maintained) on BLM-administered lands. Significant routes

within this transportation network include two designated national back country byways and one designated

national scenic byway (Map R-1). Given the considerable means of access, dispersed recreation opportunities exist throughout the entire planning area. Although

limited in number, there are opportunities for developed recreation at several sites within the planning

area. Adjacent areas of interest managed by other

agencies include the Hart Mountain and Sheldon

National Antelope Refuges, Steens Mountain, and the

Deschutes and Fremont National Forests.

Although the majority of visitors to the LRA are from

Oregon, an increasing number are from out of state and

abroad. BLM attractions featured on recent editions of

Oregon Public Broadcasting’s “Oregon Field Guide”

have further piqued the interest of high-desert enthusiasts. As visitors have experienced for themselves, there

are many and varied opportunities for self-reliant

recreational pursuits in the “Oregon Outback.”

Current Uses and Facilities

The major recreation activities in the planning area

include general sightseeing, driving for pleasure,

scenery and wildlife viewing, hiking and backpacking,

photography, hunting and fishing, camping, picnicking,

hang gliding, rockhounding, caving, and driving

OHV’s. The heaviest recreation use occurs over

Memorial Day and Fourth of July holiday weekends

and during fall hunting seasons. There are no fee use

areas in the LRA. Commercial recreational use varies

year-to-year, but generally three special recreation

permits are issued each year for hunting/guiding

activities, one or two are issued for natural history

tours, and four are issued for adolescent wilderness

therapy schools. Administration responsibilities for

several of these special recreation permits are shared

with adjacent BLM districts or the Fremont National

Forest.

Most recreational use within the LRA is concentrated

in two areas—northern Lake County and the Warner

Wetlands ACEC/special recreation management areas.

The northern Lake County area can generally be

described as the portion of the LRA north of Summer

Lake and west of Highway 395. Recreation sites and

facilities in this area that are regularly patrolled by

BLM personnel include the Black Hills, Duncan

Reservoir Campground, Buck Creek Watchable Wildlife Site, West Fork Silver Creek, Green Mountain
Affected Environment

2 -79

Camp, Crack-in-the-Ground, Derrick Cave, Fossil

Lake, Christmas Valley Sand Dunes, and the Lost

Forest (Map R-1). All of these sites are located on or

near the Christmas Valley National Back Country

Byway and are within or adjacent to four WSA’s and a

RNA. The heaviest recreational use occurs during the

summer months, but the area is heavily hunted in the

fall and early winter months as well.

One high-use area is the Sand Dunes, an area open to

OHV and all-terrain vehicle use. During Memorial

Day weekend, up to 1,000 OHV enthusiasts crowd into

the area. Visitor use in northern Lake County has

increased in recent years. This increase in use has

paralleled the increase in population which has been

occurring in Bend, Oregon, approximately 80 miles

away.

Since its establishment as an ACEC in 1989, recreational use and interest in the Warner Wetlands have

also been on the rise. Located along the Lakeview to

Steens National Back Country Byway and adjacent to

the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, interpretive facilities at Hart Bar and the Warner Valley Overlook orient and educate visitors to the area. Until

recently, use of these sites has been a by-product of

recreational visits to Hart Mountain Refuge (estimated

at 20,000). As water levels have increased at the

Warner Wetlands (1999 was historically high), visitor

numbers to the wetlands as a destination point have

risen steadily. During these high water years, fishing,

waterfowl hunting, canoeing, sea kayaking, and bird

watching are popular recreation activities in the Warner

Wetlands ACEC.

Other attractions and facilities in the resource area

include the following:

• The Sunstone Collection Area is a 4 square mile

area open to the public for the collection of

sunstones for personal use.

• Highway Well Rest Area, located 55 miles north of

Lakeview on U.S. Highway 395, is cooperatively

managed by the State of Oregon and BLM. Recently reconstructed, it provides travelers with

vault toilets, drinking water, picnic tables under a

shade structure, and several interpretive signs.

• Abert Lake Watchable Wildlife Site is a small

interpretive site located along Abert Lake on U.S.

Highway 395 about 25 miles north of Lakeview.

• A short stretch of the Chewaucan River above the

town of Paisley flows through intermingled public

lands (BLM and USFS). This area is monitored by

the Paisley District of the Fremont National Forest

through an informal agreement.

• The Doherty Slide Hang Gliding Launch Site,

located 60 miles east of Lakeview, adds to

Lakeview’s title of “Hang Gliding Capital of the

West.”

Fishing opportunities are available throughout the

planning area in numerous lakes, reservoirs, and

streams. The ODFW stocks rainbow trout in the

following waters: Mud Lake, Spaulding, Lucky,

Sunstone, West Sunstone, Duncan, Sherlock, Sid Luce,

Big Rock, and MC Reservoirs. In the Warner Wetlands, crappie, largemouth bass, and bullhead catfish

are available for catching during high water years.

Hunting for big game (pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer,

and elk), as well as for waterfowl and upland game

birds, occurs throughout the planning area, mainly

during the fall and early winter months.

BLM has developed brochures for several of the more

visited or sensitive areas, and these have been made

available at numerous businesses and agency offices.

Brochures are available for the Lakeview to Steens and

Christmas Valley National Back Country Byways, the

Sunstone Collection Area, the Lost Forest RNA, and

the Christmas Valley Sand Dunes. Handouts for the

Warner Wetlands have been developed showing the

road system and a marked canoe trail. Two recreation

maps showing major roads and recreational opportunities cover the entire LRA and are available for sale.

Locations of these sites are shown in Map R-1, and

estimated use figures derived from traffic counter data

and field observations are shown in Table 2-47.

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program

BLM currently has authority to charge and collect fees

through two separate programs related to the “Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act” and other laws.

The “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act” of 1993

(Public Law 103-66) amended the “Land and Water

Conservation Fund Act” and further expanded the

BLM’s authority to collect recreation use fees and

deposit these fees into special accounts. Up to 15

percent of the fees collected are available for immediate use at the sites where the fees were collected and

the remainder of the fees collected may be appropriated
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 80

to the area where they were collected in the following

fiscal year.

The 1996 appropriations process (Public Law 104-134)

again amended the “Land and Water Conservation

Fund Act” by establishing criteria for the Pilot Fee

Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) for four agencies

including the BLM, National Park Service (NPS),

USFS and USFWS. This program is to test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of new admission and

user fees. The program broadened collection authority

for the agencies to collect fees and make these receipts

immediately available for use at up to 100 designated

sites throughout the BLM. The authority has been

extended through year 2002 and is proposed to be

extended even further. The funds may be spent for

backlog repair and maintenance projects, interpretation,

signs, habitat and facility enhancement, resource

preservation, annual operation, maintenance, and law

enforcement relating to public use.

Currently the BLM has decided to allow 100 percent of

the funds collected at each designated project to be

deposited into the Fee Demo account to be used at the

sites where the fees were collected. This includes the

Golden Eagle Passport sales.

Congressional legislation to change or extend the Fee

Demo program or make it permanent is pending.

Currently, the LRA does not have any fee demonstration sites. The only existing site that lends itself to fee

collection would be Duncan Reservoir Campground.

However, since this campground offers limited amenities (no drinking water or trash collection), and the cost

of collecting fees would exceed receipts, fee collection

would be neither cost effective nor desirable for the

public.

If BLM were allowed more fee demonstration sites

above the current 100 projects, fee demonstration could

be considered for commercial and permitted uses

throughout the LRA, or for commercial and permitted

uses within special recreation management areas. Fees

collected would be used to improve recreation facilities, and to monitor activities permitted under special

recreation permits.

Special Recreation Management Areas

All BLM-administered land falls into two recreation

management classes, special recreation management

areas or extensive recreation management areas. A

relatively small portion of the public lands are managed

as special recreation management areas. Major investments in recreation facilities and visitor assistance are

appropriate in special recreation management areas

when required to meet management objectives. Primary management objectives within special recreation

management areas are providing recreation opportunities that would not otherwise be available to the public,

reducing conflict among users, minimizing damage to

resources, and reducing visitor health and safety

problems. These areas are described in the following

sections and are shown on Map R-1.

Existing Special Recreation Management Areas

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area: The Warner Wetlands Special Recreation

Management Area has the same size, configuration, and

boundaries as the Warner Wetlands ACEC. Located

approximately 50 miles northeast of Lakeview, the

current recreation management of the 53,000-acre

wetlands is to provide for activities and facilities which

compliment, or are consistent with, the wildlife,

vegetation, and cultural resource management objectives of the ACEC. Facilities in the special recreation

management area consist of Hart Bar Interpretive Site,

Warner Valley Overlook, and a 10-mile canoe trail

marked in the channels between Campbell, Turpin, and

Stone Corral Lakes. The 1990 “Recreation Area

Management Plan” discussed constructing additional

facilities (trails, campgrounds, and overlooks), but

these have not been constructed because of potential

impacts to cultural resources and wildlife habitat.

Since USFWS recently acquired lands within the

ACEC, there are tentative plans for a joint BLM/

USFWS campground to be constructed on that property. The LRA has an informal agreement with

USFWS, where USFWS is responsible for the maintenance of the Warner Valley Overlook site. The

Lakeview to Steens National Back Country Byway

takes the visitor past Hart Bar and Warner Valley

Overlook and onto the pronghorn refuge to connect

with the Steens Mountain National Back Country

Byway.

The type and amount of recreational use in the Warner

Wetlands away from the back country byway fluctuates

with the water levels. During high-water years when

the lakes and channels fill, activities such as boating,

fishing (crappie, largemouth bass, and bullhead catfish), waterfowl hunting, canoeing, and sea kayaking

are possible. Currently, there are no restrictions on

motorboat use. During dry years, these water-based

opportunities are not available and use is more vehicle

oriented. During these dry years, illegal artifact
Affected Environment

2 -81

collecting becomes a major problem, as does crosscountry vehicle travel. The OHV designation for the

special recreation management area is limited to

designated roads and trails, but the recreation area

management plan does not specifically designate any

roads or trails open or closed. However, an informal

inventory of the road system has since been conducted,

and most of the roads and trails have been designated

as open. During high-water years, portions of almost

all of these roads are under water and impassable,

sometimes for several years. Use of the special recreation management area is estimated at 8,000 visitors a

year, mostly associated with Hart Bar.

Potential Special Recreation Management Areas

Northern Lake County: This area consists of the

more highly visited areas along the Christmas Valley

Back Country Byway, including four WSA’s (Devils

Garden, Squaw Ridge, Four Craters, and Sand Dunes),
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 82

the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC, and the

associated geologic features in the area (Black Hills,

Crack-in-the-Ground, Derrick Cave, Sand Dunes, Lost

Forest, and Fossil Lake). All the LRA’s seven caves

are also within this area. Depending on future management direction, the area could be expanded to include

Duncan Reservoir Campground, West Fork Silver

Creek, and Buck Creek.

Recreational use in northern Lake County has steadily

increased over the past 10 years. Since 1994, the LRA

has hired a seasonal employee to patrol north Lake

County from April through November. This position is

primarily funded through an Oregon State Parks and

Recreation OHV grant. Currently, there are limited

facilities at the various sites, and OHV designations

range from open to limited to closed. Although the

Sand Dunes are within a WSA, they have remained

open to crosscountry vehicle use since this use was

occurring prior to the area’s being designated a WSA.

Many OHV enthusiasts come from throughout central

Oregon to recreate in these dunes because the dunes

along the Oregon coast have become crowded and

restrictive. OHV use violations occur regularly at the

Sand Dunes because the surrounding area is either

limited to designated roads and trails for vehicle use or

closed completely.

Over the last few years, recreational use during the

winter season in northern Lake County has steadily

increased. The winter rains and snow and the increased visitation during the winter season have

resulted in increased damage to roads. Management

issues in this special recreation management area

include OHV use, vandalism, firewood collection in

the Lost Forest, commercial uses (e.g., wilderness

therapy schools), and the increasing visitor pressure in

general.

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

In the extensive recreation management areas, management actions to facilitate recreation opportunities are

limited primarily to providing basic information and

access. People visiting extensive recreation management areas are expected to rely heavily on their own

equipment, knowledge, and skills while participating in

recreation activities.

The Lakeview Resource Area: The majority of the

lands within the LRA are managed as an extensive

recreation management area. In fact, recreation

activities and facilities in the extensive recreation

management area include everything in the LRA except

the Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area. All of the WSA’s and developed sites (except

those associated with the wetlands) are included in the

current extensive recreation management area, as are

numerous small reservoirs and lakes which are stocked

by the ODFW. Several creeks also provide fishing

opportunities for rainbow trout. Except for the few

facilities in northern Lake County, most of the recreational use is dispersed and occurs primarily during

the fall hunting seasons for pronghorn, deer, and elk.

ODFW issued approximately 7,500 big game tags

(pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, and elk) in 1999 for

hunt units located in the planning area.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The recreation opportunity spectrum recognizes that

people want and need different recreation experiences,

and that the resource base has a varying potential for

providing recreation experiences. Through recreation

opportunity spectrum, management can characterize

demand for various types of recreation settings and

opportunities, and the capability of the resource to

provide such experiences. All possible combinations

of recreation experiences, setting, and activity opportunities can be arranged along a spectrum, or continuum.

The recreation opportunity spectrum is divided into six

classes: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized;

semiprimitive motorized; roaded natural; rural; and

modern urban. Each class is defined in terms of a

combination of activity, setting, and experience opportunities (see Appendix M2 and Map R-3).

Recreation opportunity spectrum classes are established as the result of an inventory and are used as an

analysis tool in the RMP process. Currently, the LRA

has not been inventoried for recreation opportunity

spectrum. However, recreation opportunity spectrum

could be a tool to be used in developing OHV designations and setting limits for special recreation permits.

Special Recreation Permits

Special recreation permits are authorizations that allow

for recreational use of the public lands and related

waters. They are issued as a means to manage visitor

use, protect natural and cultural resources, provide for

the health and safety of visitors, and provide a mechanism to accommodate commercial recreational uses.

There are four types of uses for which these permits are

required: commercial, competitive, organized groups/

events, and individual or group use in special areas.

The LRA authorizes approximately five to eight special
Affected Environment

2 -83

recreation permits every year, including two or three

permits which are shared with and administered by

adjacent BLM and forest offices. Where possible,

commercial operations which cross district or forest

lines are administered under one permit, in order to

provide “one-stop shopping” for the customer. Currently, the LRA administers one hunting/guiding permit

and four wilderness therapy school permits (three of

which are shared with the Burns and Prineville Districts). Administration of four additional shared

hunting/guiding permits is through the Prineville,

Burns, and Vale BLM Districts, and the Fremont

National Forest. In addition, LRA staff are aware of

commercial and educational tours taking place without

proper authorization.

The main workload for permits concerns the four

wilderness therapy schools. These schools are designed to benefit adolescents aged 13–18 who are

experiencing problems such as substance abuse,

depression, oppositional and defiant behavior, and

emotional problems. Generally, students are supervised in a remote, nomadic camp setting while learning

basic survival skills. The programs are designed to

remove the student from their familiar settings and

supports and enable them to learn to accept accountability for their actions in an unfamiliar, harsh environment.

Three of the schools operate in northern Lake County

and southern Deschutes County; one group operates in

eastern Lake County and portions of western Harney

County. The four schools, Catherine Freer, TREX,

Sage Walk, and Obsidian, have been under permit since

1988, 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. Table 2-48

shows the number of students attending these schools

since 1988.

Due to the rapid increase in students, particularly in

northern Lake County where three of the groups

operate, conflicts have occurred concerning public

safety, road conditions, runaways, wildlife, and use of

resources. Incidents in 1999 and 2000 led to BLM

instituting a moratorium on these schools, which

prohibits any new schools operating in the LRA and

limits the number of students participating in each

school.

As visitor use in a recreation area increases, one of the

actions that may be taken by the authorized officer is to

determine the desired level of use or the carrying

capacity. If the use level in the area exceeds the

carrying capacity, measures must be taken to remedy

the problem. Actions could include limiting the overall

number of individuals, the number of groups or parties,

or the number of individuals per group.

Off-Highway Vehicle Designations

The “National Management Strategy for Motorized

Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands” (BLM

2001) is a comprehensive effort for developing a

proactive approach to determine and implement better

on-the-ground motorized OHV management solutions

designed to conserve soil, wildlife, water quality, native

vegetation, air quality, heritage resources, and other

resources, while providing for appropriate motorized

recreational opportunities. The strategy provides

agency guidance and offers recommendations for

future actions to improve motorized vehicle management. The implementation of this strategy will be an

ongoing, adaptive process that will require the continued cooperation and participation of interested public.

As a guiding document, the strategy will be refined and

implemented as opportunities arise and funding allows.

The strategy will help ensure consistent and positive

management of environmentally responsible motorized

OHV use on public lands.

OHV use is frequently associated with hunting, fishing,

and driving for pleasure, and also occurs for administrative purposes such as livestock management and

facility management.

All public land in the planning area is designated as

open, limited, or closed in regard to vehicle use. In an

open area, all types of vehicle use are permitted at all

times. In a limited area, vehicle use is restricted at

certain times, in certain areas, to designated routes, to

existing routes, or to certain vehicular uses. In a closed

area, motorized vehicle use is prohibited. Appendix

M1 provides further definition of OHV use terms.

The majority of the LRA (2,510,908 acres) is designated as open to vehicular travel. Through various

planning amendments and emergency vehicle closures,

several areas have been designated as closed or limited

and are shown in Table 2-49 and Map R-2.

Most of the motorized vehicular use occurs on existing

roads and unmaintained “jeep trails.” However, offroad (cross-country) vehicle use also occurs in intensive use areas, such as the Christmas Valley Sand

Dunes, and on isolated tracks dispersed through the

planning area. On- and off-road vehicle use occurs

within SMA’s and critical or important wildlife habitats, cultural sites, and plant sites. Some of this use is
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 84

inappropriate or damaging to these special/sensitive

areas and resource values.

Visual Resources

Introduction

Visual resources are the land, water, vegetation,

structures, and other features that make up the scenery

of BLM-administered lands. BLM-administered lands

are classified according to their relative worth from a

visual resource management (VRM) point of view.

Three factors are considered in developing VRM

objectives. These factors are the inherent scenic

quality of the landscape, the visual sensitivity the

public has for the landscape, and the visual distance

(whether the landscape can be seen as foreground,

middleground, background, or is seldom seen from a

travel route or sensitivity area). Examples of highly

scenic areas include Abert Rim, Deep Creek, Camas

Creek, and Twentymile Creek canyons. Public lands

seen from Highway 140, Highway Well Rest Area, or

along a national back country byway are examples of

lands highly sensitive to landscape modification.

Scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones are

combined to determine the VRM classes for the area.

VRM classes specify management objectives and allow

for differing degrees of modification in the basic

elements of landscape features (form, line, color, and

texture). See Appendix M3 for a detailed description

of VRM classification.

Visual management classes are established through the

RMP process for all BLM-administered lands. During

the RMP process, the class boundaries are adjusted as

necessary to reflect resource allocation decisions made

in the RMP. Management objectives for each class are

designed to mitigate, and in some cases avoid, the

adverse effect of management activities on scenic

values.

To help maintain the management objectives of a VRM

class, the BLM’s visual contrast rating system is used

for proposed projects and activities to help analyze and

mitigate visual impacts to the existing landscape. This

systematic process uses the basic design elements of

form, line, color, and texture to compare the proposed

project/activity with the major features of the existing

landscape.

Current Management Classes

Visual management classes in the LRA are compiled

from several planning efforts, which took place between 1982 and 1999, as well as new BLM guidance.

Unfortunately, detailed records regarding some of this

inventory data have been lost and are no longer available. Map VRM-1 shows VRM classes derived from

these inventories, as well as updated state and national

guidance. Acreages, percentages of the land base, and

representative areas in each class are listed in Table 2-

50.

Geology and Minerals

Introduction

Past mineral activity in the LRA has included exploration for and production of sand, gravel, rock, cinders,

decorative stone, sunstones, and diatomite. Minor

amounts of perlite, mercury, gold, lead, and zinc have

been produced from scattered sources. Currently, the

principal mineral activities in the resource area are the

production of gravel and rock for the maintenance of

county roads and state highways, and the mining of

sunstones, perlite, and diatomite.

There are three designated known geothermal resource

areas within the planning area. Most of the planning

area has potential for geothermal energy, as indicated

by high heat flow. In addition to high heat flow, the

Summer Lake/Paisley, south Warner Valley, and

Lakeview areas contain hot springs and hot wells.

Currently, geothermal energy is used only on private

land for heating homes and greenhouses in the

Lakeview area and for mineral baths in the Summer

Lake area. With anticipated energy shortages in the

Pacific Northwest and the focus on global warming, the

clean geothermal energy resources that are present

beneath the LRA could become more important in the

future. It is also anticipated that the demand for

mineral material such as sand and gravel for road

construction and maintenance will increase. The

demand for decorative stone is expected to increase

significantly. The potential exists for additional

deposits of perlite. These are associated with rhyolitic

and dacitic rocks and metals that have been deposited

at shallow depths by ascending hot fluids associated

with volcanic and hot spring activity.

Appendix N1 has more complete information on

historical mining and mineral activity.
Affected Environment

2 -85

Current Activity

Locatable Minerals

As of September 1999, there were 368 mining claims

recorded in the resource area. A total of 295 of these

claims are in the Rabbit Basin sunstone area. The

remaining claims are in the Tucker Hill perlite area and

Christmas Valley diatomite area. Except for sunstone

exploration and minor exploration associated with the

Christmas Valley diatomite operation, there is no

known ongoing locatable mineral exploration. There

are no known deposits of critical or strategic minerals
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 86

located in the resource area. Existing locatable mineral

potential is displayed on Map M-1 and Table 2-50a.

Table 2-51 and Map M-2 display the acres of land

where mining is currently restricted or not allowed.

Less than 1 percent of the LRA is segregated from

mining under the mining laws. This percentage does

not include withdrawals where BLM does not have

surface management. Including those withdrawals,

approximately 10 percent of the Federal land within the

boundaries of the LRA is closed to mining. About

2,500 acres in the Rabbit Basin sunstone area are

classified closed to mining claim location under the

“Classification and Multiple Use Act” of 1964. Mining

on about another 423,300 acres of wilderness study

areas (WSA’s) is restricted in that any work on mining

claims located after 1976 must not impair wilderness

values per wilderness IMP. Mining plans of operation

are required on lands under wilderness study and on

approximately 110,300 additional acres of ACEC’s

designated public land, regardless of the size of the

acreage to be disturbed. There are no Public Law 167

mining claims restricting surface resource management. Table 2-51 and Map M-3 display the withdrawals mentioned above, and other restrictions.

Currently, there are no explorations or claims for

uranium existing in the LRA. Areas of potential for

uranium are displayed on Map M-5. No commercial

development of uranium has occurred in the LRA, but

has occurred in the Fremont National Forest in the

1950s and 1960s. Concerns about safety of nuclear

energy, high cost, and disposal of radioactive waste has

limited the demand for uranium. As a result, uranium

development is not expected within the life of this plan.

Leasable Minerals

No exploration permits or leases exist in the resource

area, and no lands are withdrawn from mineral leasing.

However, about 423,300 acres of WSA’s are closed to

mineral leasing by BLM policy. The only use of

leasable-type minerals in the planning area is on private

land where geothermal energy is being used for bathing

(Paisley and Lakeview areas) and for greenhouse and

home heating (Lakeview). Map M-4 and Table 2-52

shows leasable mineral potential in the planning area.

A total of 1,372,940 acres of the public land mineral

estate (42 percent) are open to geothermal and oil and

gas leasing, subject to standard lease stipulations.

About 777,210 acres (21 percent) are open to leasing

subject to moderately restrictive stipulations, such as

seasonal, OHV, and visual resource restrictions.

Approximately 695,000 acres or 24 percent of the

mineral estate are subject to a no-surface-occupancy

stipulation. Some of the moderately restrictive stipulations overlap with themselves and with the no-surfaceoccupancy stipulations, so the acres are not necessarily

additive.

Of the 113,900 acres of private surface/Federal minerals are under the same moderately restrictive stipulations mentioned in the previous paragraph depending

on locations. Depending on the lands, improvements,

and terrain involved, additional stipulations could be

required.

At present, oil and gas and geothermal leasing is

covered by the “Lakeview District Oil and Gas/Geothermal Leasing Environmental Assessment” (USDIBLM 1981).

Presently, there are no exploration or leases for coal,

coal bed methane, oil shale, or tar sands existing in the

LRA. The LRA is not considered a potential development area for these resources within the life of this

plan. Therefore, as required by 43 CFR 3461, the LRA

is considered unacceptable for further consideration for

coal, coal bed methane, oil shale, or tar sands development at this time. Leasable mineral potential is described in Appendix N-1.
Affected Environment

2 -87

Salable Minerals

There are an estimated 50 to 100 sand and gravel, rock,

and cinder pits on public land in the resource area

(Map M-5). Table 2-53 summarizes salable mineral

potential acreage. Most of this material is used for

construction and maintenance of roads and highways.

Lake County and the State of Oregon hold 16 free-use

permits, and the State also has 19 pits or quarries and

14 additional storage sites authorized under mineral

material site rights-of-way. Sale of mineral materials to

individuals averages about 15–20 per year, but appears

to be increasing. There are a number of sources for

decorative stone scattered across the LRA. The best

deposits of decorative stone are located in the Devils

Garden Lava Flow. This area contains the highest

quality slab lava on the Lakeview District. Because it

is within a WSA, the rock cannot be sold at this time.

The restrictions on mineral material disposal are

generally the same as those for leasing, and are displayed on Table 2-51.

See Appendix N-1 for a discussion of salable mineral

potential.

Restrictions to Mineral Exploration, Development, and Production

Generally, BLM-administered land is open to mineral

exploration and development under multiple use

management principles. However, there are two types

of closures that can restrict these activities: discretionary and nondiscretionary.

Discretionary closures are areas where the BLM has

determined that energy and/or mineral leasing, entry, or

disposal, even with the most restrictive stipulations or

conditions, would not be in the public interest. These

areas are not formal withdrawals or regulatory closures, and therefore may be changed without going

through the withdrawal or regulation modification

process. Examples of discretionary closures include

BLM land classifications and proposed withdrawals.

Nondiscretionary closures are areas specifically closed

to energy and/or mineral leasing, entry, or disposal, by

law, regulation, Secretarial decision or Executive order.

Examples include BLM and other agency withdrawals.

The BLM must petition the Secretary of the Interior to

withdraw public lands. Withdrawals of 5,000 acres or

more require congressional notification.

Designations such as RNA’s and ACEC’s, OHV

restrictions, cultural resources, and T&E species may

constrain mining activities for locatable minerals.

Constraints on leasable and salable minerals would

include those for locatable minerals as well as other

concerns such as visual resources and crucial deer

winter range restrictions. Any special constraints

affecting leasable or salable mineral exploration or

development would be made a part of the site-specific

operating plan. The provision would be attached to the

lease, permit, or contract.

Table 2-51 and Map M-2 displays withdrawals, wilderness, recreation and public purposes, and other segregations that restrict mineral activities in the resource

area. Table 2-51 shows acres of mineral estate that are

open, closed, or otherwise restricted for the three

classes of minerals.

Lands and Realty

Lands

Introduction

The LRA administers public lands in Lake and Harney

Counties. Three different management framework

plans currently direct management of those lands and

resources: the “High Desert Management Framework

Plan” for public lands generally north of Valley Falls,

Oregon, and west of U.S. Highway 395; the “Warner

Lakes Management Framework Plan” for public lands

generally east of U.S. Highway 395; the “Lost River

Management Framework Plan” for those public lands

in and adjacent to the Goose Lake Valley. Since

approval in 1983, the management framework plans

have not been amended or modified relative to the

lands and rights-of-way programs.

Existing Conditions

Land Ownership

The LRA encompasses approximately 2,414,336 acres

in Lake County, 744,907 in Harney County, and 2,172

acres in Washoe County. About 56 percent of Lake

County and about 91 percent of Harney County within

the boundaries of the resource area are public land

administered by the LRA (BLM files). Table 1-1

shows land ownership and administration in Lake,

Harney, and Washoe Counties that exist within the

boundaries of the LRA.

The LRA administers lands predominately located in
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 88

high desert terrain east and west of U.S. Highway 395

(Map I-1). The majority of the public lands are public

domain lands (3,080,383 acres) with approximately

81,032 acres of acquired public lands located in the

Fort Rock and Warner Valley areas. The resource area

also manages an additional 121,000 acres of reserved

Federal minerals (no surface ownership) (Map M-6).

The majority of the resource area consists of solidlyblocked public lands with the larger private land blocks

occurring in the valleys where the land is more fertile

and water available for agricultural production. Rural

home sites also occur throughout the agricultural areas

with large State land blocks intermingled throughout

the areas of solidly-blocked public lands.

Public/Private Land Interface

Generally, the LRA does not have a public/private land

interface problem. There are situations throughout the

resource area where public and private lands intermingle and create property boundaries which do not

conform to logical natural topographic features. This

occasionally complicates and increases management

costs of such activities as control of prescribed burns,

livestock grazing, and the management of key wildlife

habitat—but rarely have management activities generated significant controversy.

The “High Desert and Warner Lakes Management

Framework Plans” identified approximately 250 acres

of public land to be made available for urban-suburban

expansion and public purposes. Presently, the resource

area has transferred approximately 258 acres out of

Federal ownership for this purpose.
Affected Environment

2 -89

Land Use Classifications/Recreation and Public

Purposes Act

The resource area has one existing land use classification for the Sunstone Collection Area (2,500 acres); no

applications are pending which would require new

classifications. Historically, the majority of the resource area was under a classification for multiple use.

The “High Desert and Warner Lakes Management

Framework Plans” specifically identified the need for

four recreation and public purpose leases—three for

county sanitary landfill sites and one for civil defense

purposes. To date, all these classifications have been

terminated because the classifications were no longer

necessary or the land has been disposed of.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 90

Lands Identified for Disposal

The “High Desert, Warner Lakes, and Lost River

Management Framework Plans” on land tenure identified approximately 52,425 acres of public land for

disposal, pending site-specific environmental analysis

and soil and water studies (Map L-1). If the parcels are

found suitable for disposal, a land classification would

be issued that states this information (refer to the

criteria governing land tenure adjustments found in

Appendix O1). Presently, the LRA has disposed of

approximately 8,040 acres of those lands identified.

Refer to Table O2-1, Appendix O2, Alternative A, for

the legal descriptions of those public lands remaining

available for disposal.
Affected Environment

2 -91

The previously mentioned management framework

plans did not specifically address areas subject to

exchange unless a proposal was active at the time of

writing. Typically, under the present planning system,

land exchanges are evaluated for plan conformance and

viability on a case-by-case basis. The “Warner Lakes

Management Framework Plan” did identify the need to

complete the North Warner State (Oregon) Exchange.

However, since the acreage was unknown at planning

time, the management framework plan did not specifically identify the acreage involved. To date, the LRA

has completed five exchanges totaling approximately

21,300 acres.

Lands Identified for Acquisition

To date, acquisition of non-Federal lands by the LRA

has been considered only in the “Warner Lakes Plan

Amendment for Wetlands and Associated Uplands” to

the “Warner Lakes Management Framework Plan.”

The plan amendment specified that private lands within

the designated wetlands area will be acquired only

through voluntary willing sellers or exchange proponents, as opportunities arise. Since implementation of

the plan amendment, the LRA has successfully acquired approximately 10,340 acres within the Warner

Wetlands.

Access (Easement) Acquisition

Currently, access to public land in the LRA has not

been a significant problem, since physical access is

readily available to most areas. However, there are

several hundred locations throughout the LRA, representing possibly thousands of individual easements,

where legal access rights could be acquired. Generally,

the LRA pursues easement acquisition on a case-bycase basis as determined by necessity.

Unauthorized Occupancy and Use

Unauthorized occupancy and use is not a significant

problem in the LRA. No known unauthorized occupancies exist and approximately 24 unauthorized use

situations are presently identified in the “High Desert,

Warner Lakes, and Lost River Management Framework

Plans.” Unauthorized occupancies are typically

encroachments of buildings or yards onto public land

and have usually existed for many years. These

situations are most often discovered in the course of

surveying projects. Unauthorized agricultural uses

typically involve the encroachment onto small areas of

public land from agricultural operations on adjoining

private land; unauthorized right-of-way situations

generally involve negligence. Resolution of such

situations depend upon individual circumstances and

may include issuance of temporary land use permits,

leases or rights-of-way, disposal of the land either by

sale or exchange, or removal of the unauthorized use.

To date, all of the 24 unauthorized use situations

identified in previous land use plans have been reviewed and all but 3 have been resolved. Many of the

unauthorized uses involved fenced Federal range.

Fenced Federal range results when small portions of

Federal land are within fenced private lands. These

were resolved by adjusting the grazing permits of those

applicable permittees. Several of these fenced Federal

range situations, although technically authorized, have

been identified for disposal in order to effect permanent resolution. Additional unauthorized uses are

expected to be discovered periodically as the new

surveys, field inspections, and public observations

continue throughout the resource area. See Table 2-56

for the legal descriptions of fenced Federal range sale

situations.

Temporary Authorizations

There are, at any particular time, approximately three

to five temporary land use permits in effect that authorize such activities as trespass prior to resolution,

access, hay storage, apiary sites, national guard or

military reserve training, engineering feasibility

studies, and other miscellaneous short-term activities.

Withdrawals

A withdrawal is a formal action that accomplishes one

or more of the following actions:

• Transfers total or partial jurisdiction of Federal

land between Federal agencies.

• Segregates (closes) Federal land to some or all of

the public land laws and/or mineral laws.

• Dedicates land for a specific public purpose.

There are three major categories of formal withdrawals: (1) congressional withdrawals, (2) administrative

withdrawals, and (3) “Federal Power Act” or Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) withdrawals.

1) Congressional withdrawals: are legislative withdrawals made by Congress in the form of public laws

(acts of Congress).
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 92

2) Administrative withdrawals: are made by the

President, Secretary of the Interior, or other authorized

officers of the executive branch of the Federal government.

3) “Federal Power Act or” FERC withdrawals: are

power project withdrawals established under the

authority of the “Federal Power Act” of 1920. Such

withdrawals are automatically created upon filing of an

application for a hydroelectric power development

project with FERC.

The LRA contains 12 existing withdrawals. Table 2-57

lists the existing withdrawals along with the authority,

location, acreage, purpose, segregative effect, and

surface management agency.

The LRA has two Power Site Reserves (numbers 265

and 429) located within the Deep Creek Watershed,

either along Deep Creek and/or its tributaries. In the

early 1990s, two applications were filed with FERC for

possible pumped storage development at Lake Abert.

The applications were subsequently withdrawn.

Although hydropower development potential in the

LRA is considered low, it may be feasible with today’s

technology and under current energy market conditions. The LRA would consider all future proposals for

hydropower development as they arise.

Rights-of-way

There are six major right-of-way corridors presently

traversing the LRA. Three of the corridors contain

large (500+ kilovolt) power transmission lines, one

running east-west, north of Summer Lake and south of

Christmas Valley, Oregon; a second north-south

corridor traverses east of Fort Rock and Silver Lake,

Oregon; and a third corridor running north-south, east

of Christmas Valley and west of Adel, Oregon. The

remaining three corridors are occupied by State Highways 31 and 140 and U.S. Highway 395.

The existing management framework plans identify

several right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas

(Map L-2). The future upgrading of existing transmission lines is likely and may require additional right-ofway width. Existing communication sites are listed in

Table 2-58. All, with some restrictions, have the

potential for future expansion; the Mahogany Mountain

site is currently unoccupied. Demand for additional

communications capabilities is expected to result in

requests to establish new sites in the future.

Alternative Energy Resources

The LRA has received inquiries regarding areas with

the potential for wind farm development. Areas such

as Christmas Valley, Coyote and Rabbit Hills, and

South Warner Rim may have potential. Currently, the

Oregon Office of Energy holds a wind monitoring site

right-of-way on South Warner Rim. Although the LRA

does not have any specific areas identified for development at the present time, all future proposals would be

considered.

The LRA may have some potential for the development

of solar energy. To date, the LRA has not received any

inquiries regarding the development of solar energy.

Any future inquiries would be considered as they arose.

Roads/Transportation

Approximately 2,500 miles of roads are on the LRA

road inventory. However, based on the number of

roads shown on USGS maps and aerial photographs, it

is estimated that another 2,500 of roads and ways not

on the inventory also exist on the public land. These

roads are used by BLM personnel for administrative

access, by ranchers and other permittees, and by the

general public seeking recreation opportunities.

In an effort to assist in setting priorities for future

watershed and road analyses (potentially required by

any decision resulting from the ICBEMP planning

effort), road density classes were computed by watershed for all watersheds within the four main subbasins

within the planning area. Existing road data was

classified in accordance with road density classes

defined by the ICBEMP. Almost all of the planning

area is in the very low to medium road density. Very

low road density is 0.02 to 0.10 miles of road per

square mile of land; low road density is 0.11 to 0.70

miles per square mile; and medium is 0.71 to 1.70

miles per square mile. About 2,000 acres in the

northwest corner of the planning area are classified in

the high road density. High density is 1.70 to 4.70

miles per square mile. This information is displayed on

Map R-4.

The resource area maintains approximately 100 miles

of roads each year. Roads are maintained at various

levels, depending on maintenance needs, funding, and

the need for the road. The assigned maintenance level

reflects the need for the road and appropriate maintenance that best fits the transportation management

objectives for planned management activities. Roads
Affected Environment

2 -93
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 94
Affected Environment

2 -95
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 96

are prioritized for maintenance needs.

Level 1: This level is assigned to roads where minimum maintenance is required to protect adjacent lands

and resource values. These roads are no longer needed

and are closed to traffic. The objective is to remove

these roads from the transportation system. Emphasis

is on maintaining drainage and runoff patterns as

needed to protect adjacent lands. Grading, brushing, or

slide removal is not performed unless roadbed drainage

is being adversely affected, causing erosion. Currently,

there are no Level 1 roads on the resource area’s

transportation plan.

Level 2: This level is assigned to roads where the

management objectives require the road to be opened

for limited administrative traffic. Typically, highclearance vehicles are necessary for passage. Grading

is conducted as necessary to correct drainage problems.

Brushing is done to allow administrative access.

Approximately 1,600 miles of Level 2 roads are on the

transportation plan.

Level 3: This level is assigned to roads that need to be
Affected Environment

2 -97

open seasonally or year-round for commercial, recreation, or high volume administrative access. Generally,

these roads are natural- or aggregate-surfaced, but may

include low-use asphalt-surfaced roads. These roads

have defined cross section with drainage structures

such as dips, culverts, or ditches. These roads may be

used by passenger cars traveling at a reasonable speed.

Drainage structures are inspected at least annually and

maintained as needed. Grading is done to provide a

reasonable level of comfort and safety. Shoulder

brushing is done to improve sight distance. Any

obstructions affecting drainage would be high priority

for removal. At the present time, approximately 550

miles of Level 3 roads are on the transportation plan.

Level 4: This level is assigned to roads that management direction requires to be open all year, unless they

are closed or have limited access due to snow conditions. These roads connect major administrative

facilities such as recreation sites, local road systems, or

administrative sites to county, state, or Federal roads.

They may be single or double lane, aggregate or

asphalt surface, with a higher volume of commercial

and recreational traffic than administrative (BLM or

permittees) traffic. These roads should be maintained

annually if possible. However, because of annual road

maintenance funding limitations in the District, not all

Level 4 roads are maintained each year. A total of 385

miles of Level 4 roads are currently on the transportation plan.

Level 5: This level is assigned to roads that need to be

open all year and are the highest traffic volume on the

transportation system. These roads may be closed or

have limited access due to snow conditions. The entire

roadway is maintained at least annually. There are no

Level 5 roads on the resource area’s transportation

plan.

New roads may be constructed by BLM or by a permittee in connection with a project such as mineral

development or a rights-of-way. In the past 10 years,

no new roads have been constructed. However,

approximately 6 to 8 miles of new ways have been

developed in connection with the development of

wells, pipelines, and fences. These ways have not been

constructed with heavy equipment but have resulted

from the passage of vehicles.

Hazardous Materials

Introduction

All incidences of hazardous materials on public land

are handled as outlined in the Lakeview District’s

contingency plan of April 1999. All actions related to

land or minerals are reviewed both internally and

externally (if appropriate) for compliance with Federal

and state regulations. Special stipulations are also

developed as part of the permit or lease to safeguard

human health, prevent environmental damage, and limit

BLM liability.

The hazardous materials program will be managed in

the same general manner in all alternatives in accordance with laws, policies, and regulations. Consequently, the hazardous materials program will not be

addressed further.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

2 - 98

Existing Conditions

Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Disposal Area

The 10.3-acre storage site in Lake County, Oregon, is

owned, operated, and monitored by the ODEQ. The

Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Disposal Area was the

storage site for 25,000, 55-gallon drums of distillation

residue from the manufacturing of herbicide during

1967 to 1971. During studies that were done in the

1970s and 1980s, hazardous substances such as

chlorophenoxphenols, chlorinated phenols, chlorinated

dibenzodioxns, and chlorinated dibenzofurans were

found in the soil and groundwater near the Alkali Lake

Chemical Waste Disposal Area. The contaminates have

been transported off-site by wind and water.

Land surrounding the Alkali Lake Chemical Waste

Disposal Area is federally-owned public land that is

open to multi-resource activities such as cattle grazing,

hunting, hiking, and general public recreation. As of

spring 1998, the groundwater contamination plume was

detected on this public land 1,500 feet west of the 10.3

acres that ODEQ originally fenced around the disposal

area. Besides the contamination of groundwater,

another potential impact is to the Hutton tui chub, a

30,000-year-old fish species which is on the USFWS

T&E list.

In 1990, the BLM and ODEQ took additional steps to

protect the public by fencing out the area of known

groundwater contamination in West Alkali Lake. This

site was part of the EPA’s national dioxin study in

1984, but no risk assessment was performed at that

time. The BLM has proposed potential ACEC nomination of public lands surrounding the 10.3 acres, but it

was determined that those lands were not suitable for

ACEC designation.
Management Alternatives

3 -1

Chapter 3 — Management Alternatives

Introduction

The development of management alternatives for the

Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental

Impact Statement (Lakeview RMP/EIS) was guided by

the legal authorities and planning criteria listed in

Appendix B1. These included the “National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA) and Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) planning regulations and policy.

Five management alternatives were developed to

address the management issues. The purpose of

developing alternatives was to prepare different

combinations of resource uses to address the identified

issues and management concerns and to resolve

conflicts among uses. A range of resource management

actions and allocations was developed for resources

related to identified issues. There are only small

differences among alternatives in regard to resource

uses not tied to issues.

Resource Management Plan Goals

The mission of the BLM is to sustain the health,

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the

use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

In order to accomplish that mission, BLM has developed a strategic plan (“BLM Strategic Plan 2000–

2005”) containing a comprehensive set of broad goal

statements and a subset of mission goals. Two goal

statements and subset of mission goals dealing with

public land management are shown below. (The

complete “BLM Strategic Plan 2000–2005” is available

at the BLM web site: www.blm.gov/nhp/info/stratplan.)

1) Serve current and future publics.

• Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible recreation.

• Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible commercial activities.

• Preserve natural and cultural heritage resources.

• Reduce threats to public health, safety, and property.

• Provide land, resource, and title information.

• Provide economic and technical assistance.

2) Restore and maintain the health of the land.

• Understand and plan for the condition and use of

the public lands.

• Restore at-risk resources and maintain functioning

systems.

The Lakeview RMP/EIS is also responsive to the goals

developed by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project (ICBEMP). Five goals were

developed for the project and were carried forward into

the 2000 Final EIS. The goals are broad general

statements of intent that were derived from the Purpose

and Need statement, issues identified through the initial

scoping processes, and the ICBEMP project charter.

Project goals are:

1) Sustain, and where necessary, restore the health of

the forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems.

2) Provide a predictable, sustained flow of economic

benefits within the capability of the ecosystem.

3) Provide diverse recreational and educational

opportunities within the capability of the ecosystem.

4) Contribute to recovery and delisting of threatened

and endangered (T&E) species.

5) Manage natural resources consistent with treaty and

trust responsibilities to American Indian Tribes.

Based on the BLM “Strategic Plan,” the ICBEMP

goals, and the issues identified for the Lakeview RMP/

EIS planning area, the following goals were developed

for the Lakeview RMP/EIS.

1) Manage for long-term sustainability and, where

necessary, restore the health of the forest, rangeland,

aquatic, and riparian ecosystems in the planning area.

2) Manage sensitive species and communities to

ensure long-term viability, and promote delisting of

T&E species.

3) Provide recreational, educational, and research

opportunities within the capability of the planning area

ecosystem.

4) Provide a predictable, sustained flow of economic
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 2

benefits within the capability of the planning area

ecosystem.

5) Manage resources on the planning area to meet

treaty and trust responsibilities to local American

Indian Tribes.

Ecosystem Management

As described by ICBEMP “Summary of Scientific

Findings” (USDI-BLM 1996a): “Ecosystem management is scientifically-based land and resource management that integrates ecological capabilities with social

values and economic relations to produce, restore, or

sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions,

uses, products, values and services over the long term. .

. .” Ecosystem management “concentrates on overall

ecosystem health and productivity through an understanding of how different parts of the ecosystem

functions with each other, rather than on achieving a

set of outputs. Human activities, including social

values regarding use of public lands and biophysical

components, are part of the total picture.

A major part of the ICBEMP was the gathering,

organizing, and understanding information at the basin

scale. In order to apply the findings of ICBEMP to the

local level, i.e. the Lakeview RMP/EIS area, management must go through a step-down process. Step-down

is the process of applying broad-scale science findings

and land use decisions to site-specific areas using a

hierarchical approach of understanding current resource conditions, risks, and opportunities (USDA-FS

and USDI-BLM 2000). Information thus developed

provides the context for understanding how projects

can be developed that meet multiple management

objectives.

The ICBEMP describes four levels of analysis below

the basin-level analysis that are intended to provide the

context to appropriately implement these broad-level

decisions on individual national forests or BLM

districts:

1) Subregional analysis—programmatic or broad

overview EIS such as RMP.

2) Mid-scale analysis—subbasin review.

3) Watershed-scale analysis—ecosystem analysis at

the watershed scale.

4) Site-specific NEPA analysis—project environmental

assessment (EA) or EIS.

In order to better define issues and to identify ICBEMP

findings applicable to the LRA and adjacent Federal

lands, the resource area staff conducted a subbasin

review between August 1, 1999 and March 1, 2000.

Subbasin review, the second layer of the step-down

process, is an intergovernmental process tiering midand fine-scale information to ICBEMP findings, goals,

objectives, and standards. It is also an assessment of

ecosystem processes and functions at the subbasin

level. Appendix A1 contains a summary of the

subbasin review process as well as a summary of

ICBEMP findings applicable to the resource area. The

review was conducted by an interdisciplinary, interagency group led by the LRA staff. Other participants

included representatives from other BLM offices, U.S.

Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW), state government, local government, and

Indian Tribes.

The “Analysis of the Management Situation” (available

at the LRA office) serves as the complete subbasin

review report. Findings and recommendations from the

subbasin review are carried forward into the RMP/EIS

in the issues to be resolved and in the alternatives

identified to resolve those issues. These findings and

recommendations are identified in Appendix A1.

Rangeland Health and Health of the Land

Strategy

The alternatives analyzed in this RMP/EIS include

management direction intended to complement or

support, rather than replace, “Standards for Rangeland

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management” (USDI-BLM 1997a), known as the Healthy

Rangelands Initiative. These standards and guidelines

were developed by the Oregon/Washington BLM State

Director in consultation with the affected resource

advisory councils in the two states. They were approved by the Secretary of the Interior in August 1997.

In addition, Oregon/Washington BLM developed

“Standards for Land Health for Lands Administered by

the Bureau of Land Management in the States of

Oregon and Washington” (1998). These standards

were based on the standards for rangeland health with

the intent that they would apply to all BLM-administered lands and not just rangelands.

The fundamentals of rangeland health stated in 43 CFR

4180 include four elements: watersheds, ecological

processes, water quality, and plant and animal habitats.

The standards for land health are based on these four

fundamentals with the addition of an air quality ele-
Management Alternatives

3 -3

ment. The objectives of the land health standards are

to promote healthy sustainable ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvements of public land to

properly functioning conditions; and to provide for the

sustainability of industry and communities that depend

upon productive, healthy public lands.

The alternatives analyzed in this RMP/EIS incorporate

the principle that cumulative effects of all management

activities, including federally authorized activities,

determine whether the standards for land health would

be achieved. Consequently, the effects of livestock

grazing are not the only concern.

The “Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines

for Livestock Grazing Management” and the “Standards for Land Health” are shown in Appendix E4.

Desired Range of Conditions

Introduction

The desired range of conditions described below apply

to all alternatives. The desired range of conditions

portrays the land, resource, or social and economic

conditions that would begin to be established in 20 to

50 years if management goals are achieved. The length

of time to achieve the desired range of conditions

would vary by alternative depending on the resources

involved, the theme of the alternative, and the management actions proposed under that alternative.

The desired range of conditions reflect the “Standards

for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau

of Land Management in the States of Oregon and

Washington” BLM developed. These standards are

expressions of the physical and biological condition or

degree of function necessary to sustain healthy ecosystems. The following desired range of conditions are

descriptions of what the physical and biological

condition or degree of function would be or be moving

toward at the end of the 20 to 50-year timeframe. The

desired range of conditions have been factored into the

management goals of each resource management

program.

Description of Desired Range of Conditions

Rangeland vegetation (sagebrush steppe) includes a

mosaic of multiple-aged shrubs, forbs, and native

perennial grasses. Shrub overstories are present in a

variety of spatial arrangements and scales across the

landscape level, including disjunct islands and corridors. Shrub overstories are present in predominantly

mature, late-structural status. Plant communities not

meeting desired range of conditions show upward

trends in condition and structural diversity. Desirable

plants continue to improve in health and vigor. New

infestations of noxious weeds are not common across

the landscape, and existing large infestations are

declining. Populations and habitat of rare plant species

and their associated communities are stable or continue

to improve in vigor and distribution.

Large portions of the landscape have a protective soil

cover of deep-rooted plants and litter which supports

proper hydrologic function. In thin-soiled areas and

other appropriate soils, microbiotic crusts are present

which increase soil stability, contribute to nutrient

cycles, and act as indicators of rangeland health.

Treated commercial (mostly pine) forests contain

healthy stands of site-appropriate species. Stands are

relatively open, with density within site capacity. Lowintensity fires can be accommodated without excessive

loss of trees, and insect and disease occurrence is at

endemic levels.

Western juniper dominance is restricted to rocky

outcrops, ridges, and other historic (old growth) sites

where wildland fire frequency is limited by lower site

productivity and sparse fuels. Western juniper occurs

in low densities in association with vigorous shrubs,

grasses, and forbs (where site potential permits).

Historic western juniper sites retain old growth characteristics. Quaking aspen groves occupy historic range

and are in stable or improving condition.

Rangeland vegetation and water sources support viable,

healthy herds of wild horses through time. Individual

herds have diverse age structures, good conformation,

and are quality animals exhibiting the characteristics

unique to each herd. Wild horse numbers are in balance

with the rangelands that support them. Improvements

in grass/shrubland steppe and riparian areas increase

the health of the herd.

The amount and diversity of wildlife habitat are

maintained or improved through time. Late-seral grass/

shrublands exist in blocks of various sizes in welldistributed patterns across the landscape. Ongoing

management of rangeland habitat components and

conditions (such as vegetation cover, forage, and roads)

and of key areas helps to maintain big game populations near State wildlife agency objectives. Hunting

opportunities continue to be provided throughout the

planning area. Improvement in the condition of grass/

shrubland steppe and riparian areas benefits a variety

of wildlife species by increasing the quality, quantity,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 4

and variety of habitat. Such species include upland

game, raptors, and nongame species. Management has

helped to create the long-term habitat changes that

contribute toward restoring some sensitive species and

toward recovery of listed species.

The area provides a wide variety of recreational

opportunities for a growing demand, as the population

increases and urban dwellers seek to experience the

open spaces commonly found on public land. Additional recreation facilities, restored and maintained

recreation sites, and more intensive management are a

few of the means used to meet the increased demand.

Protection of the natural landscape is an important

consideration when designing recreation facilities and

planning for related activities. Certain areas are excluded from recreational development to preserve their

natural character.

Special management areas (SMA’s), such as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers (WSR’s), and areas of

critical environmental concern (ACEC’s), preserve the

integrity of special or unique values over the long term.

Upland soils have sufficient vegetation cover to

minimize accelerated soil erosion. Physical and chemical soil properties are adequate for vegetation growth

and hydrologic function appropriate to the specific soil

type, landform, and climate.

Wildland and prescribed fire play an active role in

defining the composition of vegetation and limit the

dominance of woody species including shrubs and

invasive juniper.

Riparian areas and stream habitat conditions have

improved as a result of protection and management.

Watersheds are stable and provide for capture, storage,

and safe release of water appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform. Most riparian/wetland areas are

stable and include natural streamflow and sediment

regimes related to contributing watersheds. Soil

supports native riparian/wetland vegetation to allow

water movement, filtration, and storage. Riparian/

wetland vegetation structure and diversity are significantly progressing toward controlling erosion, stabilizing streambanks, healing incised channels, shading

water areas, filtering sediment, aiding in floodplain

development, dissipating energy, delaying floodwater,

and increasing recharge of ground water appropriate to

climate, geology, and landform. Stream channels are

narrower, water depth and channel meanders are

increasing, and floodplains are developing. Stream

channels and floodplains are making significant

progress in dissipating energy at high-water flows and

transporting and depositing sediment as appropriate for

geology, climate, and landform. Riparian/wetland

vegetation is increasing in canopy volume (height and

width) and in healthy uneven-aged stands of key woody

plants, increasing in herbaceous ground cover, and

shifting toward late succession. Surface disturbances

inconsistent with the physical and biological processes

described above have been reduced. Disturbances such

as roads, dispersed recreation sites, and inappropriate

livestock use are decreasing as vegetation and soils

recover naturally. There is no downward trend in

riparian condition and function.

Human use of natural resources is managed to enhance

fisheries, improve water quality, and promote healthy

riparian conditions. Water quality is managed so that

most streams are providing cool, clear, and clean water.

High-quality water is in greater demand from all users.

Better regulation of runoff has improved the water

supply from rangelands. There is increased infiltration

on upland sites, increased ground water recharge,

increased spring flow, reduced peak flow during floods,

and increased stability of base flow during late summer

and winter.

Management activities have been implemented on

nearly all sites at risk to erosion to facilitate recovery

of upland, riparian, aquatic, and water quality conditions. Improved aquatic habitat conditions allow

populations of T&E aquatic species to stabilize and

expand into appropriate, previously occupied habitat.

Populations of native aquatic species are increasing.

Water quality is improved to provide stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Water quality

of perennial and fish-bearing streams is within State

standards, and the remaining streams have made

significant progress toward attaining those standards.

Upland, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems are stable and

productive to a degree that leads to acceptable water

quality for identified beneficial uses. Improvement has

occurred in stream channel integrity and channel

processes, under which the riparian and aquatic systems developed. Hydrologic and sediment regimes (the

characteristic behavior or orderly occurrence of a

natural phenomenon or process) in streams, lakes, and

wetlands are appropriate to the surrounding soils,

climate, and landform. Instream flows are sufficient to

support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, and

stream functions are stable and effective. Flooding

streams discharge without significant damage to the

watershed.

Riparian vegetation provides sufficient vegetation

debris; provides adequate regulation of air and water
Management Alternatives

3 -5

temperatures during both summer and winter; and

helps reduce surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel

migration to levels characteristic of natural conditions.

Riparian and aquatic habitats support populations of

well-distributed native and desired nonnative plant,

vertebrate, and invertebrate populations.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is a procedure in which decisions and changes in management are made as part of

an ongoing process. It is a continuous process of

planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and

incorporating new information into strategies to meet

the goals and objectives of ecosystem management as

described in the RMP. This process builds on current

knowledge, observation, experimentation, and learning

from experience. A continuous feedback loop allows

for mid-course corrections in management to meet

planned goals and objectives. It also provides a model

for adjusting goals and objectives as new information

develops and public desires change.

The complex interrelationships of physical, biological,

and social components of the ecosystem and how they

would react to land management practices are often not

fully understood when a land-use management plan is

developed. To be successful, plans must have the

flexibility to adapt and respond to new knowledge or

conditions.

The following briefly describes the four parts of

adaptive management:

1) Planning/Decision—plan development or

revision is the process leading to decision-making.

It starts with issue identification and goal development. The next step is to gather information

necessary to develop alternatives for management

direction that address the issues and goals. The

final stage of planning is to develop alternative

management strategies to address issues and meet

the management goals, analyze the consequences

of the alternatives, and choose a preferred alternative for implementation.

2) Implementation—the process of putting plans

and decisions into effect. Implementation includes

short- and long-term actions taken to meet goals

and the desired range of conditions. Unless otherwise stated, all management direction listed here is

assumed to be implemented within 10 years.

Standards are defined as required management

actions addressing how to achieve management

goals; and standards can include requirements to

refrain from taking action in certain situations.

3) Monitoring—should detect changes early

enough so management activities can be modified

to work toward achieving management goals.

Monitoring data provide information on the

condition and trend of the ecosystem and can

indicate if goals and objectives are being met. They

also can identify management strategies that appear

to be working in the short term. Monitoring data

would be collected to determine if plan objectives

are being met.

4) Evaluation/Assessment—the point where plans

and monitoring data are reviewed. This phase of

adaptive management is used to judge the success

of existing plans in meeting goals and objectives,

and makes recommendations for mid-course

corrections. The understanding gained through

evaluations is critical to managing sustainable,

healthy, and productive ecosystems. Evaluations

are a key component of the adaptive management

process. An evaluation may lead to a change in

management actions to continue toward the goals

identified in the approved RMP and resulting

activity plans.

Periodic evaluations are key components of

adaptive management. Implementation of this plan

will be monitored to allow an up-to-date response

to changing conditions. Activity plan decisions

would be evaluated to ensure consistency with

management goals. As part of the evaluation

process, other government agencies would be

asked to review the approved RMP and advise the

BLM of continued consistency with their plans,

programs, and policies. Upon completion of

periodic evaluations, or in the event that modifying

the plan becomes necessary, the Lakeview District

Manager would determine what, if any, changes are

necessary to ensure that management actions are

consistent with management goals. If it is determined that a plan amendment is necessary, an

environmental assessment of the proposed change

would be conducted and a recommendation on the

amendment made to the BLM State Director. If

approved, the amendment may be implemented

after a 30-day public notice period. A plan amendment may be initiated because of a need to consider

monitoring findings, new data, new or revised

policy, or a proposed action that may result in a

change in the terms, conditions, or decisions of the

approved plan.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 6

Minor changes, refinements, or clarifications in the

plan are maintenance actions that incorporate data

changes. Plan maintenance actions would not

expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or

change the terms, conditions, or decisions of the

approved Lakeview RMP/EIS. Maintenance

actions are not considered plan amendments and do

not require formal public involvement and interagency coordination.

In developing the Lakeview RMP/EIS, the BLM

staff used the best science currently available

including the scientific assessment from the

ICBEMP. The staff also collaborated with other

Federal, state, local, and Tribal government agencies, and involved the public. However, the

agency’s knowledge would change as the public’s

desires change, as local environmental conditions

change, as new management techniques are

learned, and as advances in science and technology

are better understood. As a result, it is inevitable

that in the future some of the management direction in the RMP would be found to be inadequate

or incorrect. To rectify such situations, implementation of the Lakeview RMP/EIS decision would

use an adaptive management approach in a continual process to modify management actions to

incorporate new knowledge gained over time.

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale

The watershed scale is the third layer in ecosystem

analysis and planning. Where management actions

could have a watershed-scale effect, ecosystem analysis

at the watershed scale would be used, if necessary, to

assure potential actions are evaluated with an overall

understanding of the capabilities and limitations of

specific watersheds. Information gained through

analysis at this scale would be used in the adaptive

management process, and may support land management decisions and development of ecologically

sustainable programs and projects. Appendix F contains a description of the watershed analysis process.

The RMP provides the management goals and direction

for ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale in terms

of issues to be addressed and desired range of conditions to be achieved through management actions.

During the subbasin review, the team identified several

watersheds that are priorities for restoration (see Water

Resources/Watershed Health section, Common to All

Alternatives subsection). The following is a description of the criteria used to prioritize watersheds and the

process that would be used to change priorities, if

necessary. Work would focus on higher priority areas;

however, other areas may require attention to address

site-specific needs.

• Legal mandates (“Clean Water Act” [CWA],

“Endangered Species Act,” etc.);

• Resources at risk;

• Potential for recovery;

• Resource conflicts or controversy;

• Opportunity for interagency or partnership assessments;

• Field staff knowledge of the area;

• Current ongoing management; and

• Broad-scale priorities (identified in ICBEMP as a

priority subbasin or key watershed for various

reasons).

Watersheds would be reviewed periodically to determine if there have been any changes in resource issues,

BLM policies and regulations, or other concerns that

would warrant a needed change in the priorities.

Monitoring

The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-9) call

for the monitoring of resource management plans on a

continual basis with a formal evaluation done at 5-year

intervals. The Lakeview RMP/ElS would be monitored

on a continual basis to allow up-to-date evaluations and

to respond to changing situations. Management actions

arising from activity plan decisions would be evaluated

to ensure consistency with RMP/ElS objectives.

A detailed monitoring and evaluation plan would be

published with the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. It will

guide how the RMP/EIS would be formally evaluated

at intervals not to exceed 5 years. All plan monitoring

would assess:

1) Whether management actions are resulting in

satisfactory progress toward objectives;

2) Whether actions are consistent with current

policy;

3) Whether original assumptions were correctly

applied and impacts correctly predicted;

4) Whether mitigation measures are satisfactory;

5) Whether the RMP is consistent with the plans

and policies of state and local government, other
Management Alternatives

3 -7

Federal agencies and Indian Tribes; and

6) Whether new data are available that would

require alternation of the plan.

Monitoring is an essential component of natural

resource management because it provides information

on the relative success of management strategies. The

implementation of the RMP would be monitored to

ensure that management actions (1) follow prescribed

management direction (implementation monitoring),

(2) meet desired objectives (effectiveness monitoring),

and (3) are based on accurate assumptions (validation

monitoring).

Monitoring is integral to the management approaches

described herein such as adaptive management and

ecosystem management.

Monitoring results would provide managers with the

information to determine whether an objective has been

met, and whether to continue or modify the management direction. Findings obtained through monitoring,

together with research and other new information,

would provide a basis for adaptive management

changes to the plan. The processes of monitoring and

adaptive management share the goal of improving

effectiveness and permitting dynamic response to

increased knowledge and a changing landscape. The

monitoring program itself would not remain static. The

monitoring plan would be periodically evaluated to

ascertain that the monitoring questions and standards

are still relevant, and would be adjusted as appropriate.

Some monitoring items may be discontinued and others

may be added as knowledge and issues change with

implementation.

If monitoring and evaluation indicate that modifying

the plan is necessary, the Lakeview Resource Area

(LRA) District Manager would determine what, if any,

changes are necessary to ensure that management

actions are consistent with RMP objectives. If the

district manager finds that a plan amendment is necessary, an environmental assessment of the proposed

change would be conducted and a recommendation on

he amendment made to the State director. If approved,

it may be implemented 30 days after public notice. A

plan amendment may be initiated because of need to

consider monitoring findings, new data, new or revised

policy or a proposed action that may result in a change

in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms,

conditions and decisions of the approved plan.

Potential minor changes, refinements, or clarifications

in the plan may take the form of maintenance actions.

Maintenance actions incorporate minor data changes

and are usually limited to minor refinements and

documentation. Plan maintenance would not result in

expansion of the scope of resource uses or restrictions

or change the terms, conditions and decisions of the

approved RMP. Maintenance actions are not considered

plan amendments and do not require a formal public

involvement and interagency coordination process.

Watershed analysis is one of the principal analyses that

would be used to meet the ecosystem management

objectives. Information from watershed analysis would

also be used in developing monitoring strategies and

objectives. Specific to monitoring, the results and

findings from watershed analyses are used to reveal the

most useful indicators for monitoring environmental

change, detect magnitude and duration of changes in

conditions, formulate and test hypotheses about the

causes of the changes, understand these causes and

predict impacts, and manage the ecosystem for desired

outcomes. Watershed analysis would provide information about patterns and processes within a watershed

and provide information for monitoring at that scale.

The monitoring process would collect information in

the most cost-effective manner, and may involve

sampling or remote sensing. Monitoring could be so

costly as to be prohibitive if it is not carefully and

reasonably designed. Therefore, it would not be

necessary or desirable to monitor every management

action or direction. Unnecessary detail and unacceptable costs would be avoided by focusing on key

monitoring questions and proper sampling methods.

The level and intensity of monitoring would vary,

depending on the sensitivity or the resource or area and

the scope of the proposed management activity.

RMP monitoring would be conducted at multiple levels

and scales. Monitoring would be conducted in a

manner that allows localized information to be compiled and considered in a broader regional context, and

thereby address both local and regional issues. At the

project level, monitoring would examine how well

specific management direction has been applied on the

ground and how effectively it produces expected

results. Monitoring at broader levels would measure

how successfully projects and other activities have

achieved the objectives for those management areas.

Monitoring would be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and organizations in order to enhance the

efficiency and usefulness of the results across a variety

of administrative units and provinces. The approach

would build on past and present monitoring work. In

addition, specific monitoring protocols, criteria, goals,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 8

and reporting formats would be developed, subject to

review and guidance of the Regional Ecosystem Office.

This guidance would be used to augment and revise the

monitoring plan and facilitate the process of aggregating and analyzing information on provincial or regional

levels.

Monitoring results would be reported in an annual

program summary (such as the “Lakeview Planning

Update”), which would be published starting the

second year following initial implementation of this

plan. The annual program summary would track and

assess the process of plan implementation, state the

findings made through monitoring, specifically address

the implementation monitoring questions posed in each

section of this monitoring plan, and serve as a report to

the public.

The resource area would be responsible for the collection, compilation, and analysis of much of the data

gained through monitoring activities. The resource

area would report its findings and recommendations to

the District for consolidation and publication in the

annual program summary.

Overview of the Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from

Detailed Analysis

No Management Alternative

During development of the alternatives, a no management alternative was discussed. This alternative is not

the same as the no action alternative. This alternative

would include no grazing, no gathering of wild horses,

no suppressing of wildland fires, and no managing

recreation uses. The team determined that this alternative was not acceptable because “The Wild Horse and

Burro Act” requires that wild horse herds be maintained in a thriving ecological balance with their

environment. If horses were not gathered, they would

eventually deplete their habitat. In addition, the

“Taylor Grazing Act” requires the Secretary of the

Interior “to provide for the orderly use, improvement,

and development of the range.” Some fire suppression

would be necessary to protect private property and to

protect human health and safety. Since the resource

area would still be open to dispersed recreation use, a

minimal amount of recreation management would be

required to protect human health and safety.

This alternative is not considered further in the plan;

however, some aspects of it, such as no livestock

grazing, are incorporated into Alternative E.

Proposed High Desert Protection Act

A protection act for the High Desert has been proposed

by various organizations for a number of years to

protect the natural resources of the High Desert of

eastern Oregon. The proposed legislation includes

various actions including removing livestock grazing to

protect resources.

Some components of this proposal were built into

various alternatives of this document, particularly

Alternatives C and E. The proposed legislation itself

cannot be considered an alternative as it would require

congressional approval and such approval is speculative. Should approval ever occur, it would likely

require revision or amendment of the RMP and would

be addressed at that time. Therefore, it is not considered further in this plan.

Designation of the Proposed Pronghorn ACEC

In 1998, the Oregon Natural Desert Association and 22

other cosponsoring organizations nominated 1.1

million acres of BLM-administered lands surrounding

and connecting Hart Mountain National Antelope

Refuge and Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge as an

ACEC. Major management actions of the proposal

included removing livestock grazing, removing wild

horses, and facilitating movement of pronghorn herds

in the area.

The proposal was evaluated by biologists and other

resource specialists from Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildife (ODFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(UFWS), and BLM offices of Burns and Lakeview

Districts in Oregon, Winnemucca District in Nevada,

and the Surprise Resource Area in California. The

evaluation concluded that the entire proposed area as a

whole did not meet ACEC criteria, and therefore is not

considered further in this plan. However, portions of

the area within the LRA were found to meet the ACEC

criteria in previous evaluations and are being considered in the alternatives analyzed in detail. Refer to the

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern section of

this document for more information. The goals and

objectives of the Pronghorn ACEC would be largely

met under Alternative E. The complete Pronghorn

ACEC proposal and the evaluation report can be

viewed on the LRA website at www.or.blm.gov/

lakeview/planning.
Management Alternatives

3 -9

Alkali Lake

A proposal was made internally that the BLM-administered land surrounding the Alkali Lake hazardous waste

site should be designated an ACEC. The area does not

meet the ACEC criteria, there is no immediate danger

to human health, and it represents a man-made rather

than a natural hazard; therefore, the proposal is not

considered further in this plan.

Wilderness Study Area Boundary Reductions

The Lake County Commissioners have suggested an

alternative to look at changing two wilderness study

area (WSA) boundaries along State Highway 140. This

highway runs from north of Lakeview, east and south

to the Nevada state line. The Oregon Department of

Transportation (ODOT) is currently improving sections

of the highway, and in the summer of 2000 completed a

rerouting, widening, and resurfacing project on approximately 10 miles of the highway. The purpose of

the project is to improve safety on the highway and

allow its use by tractor-trailer trucks over 65-feet long.

Similar work is planned within the next 5 years on

other sections of the highway.

Two sections which are proposed for improvement in

the future are on or near the boundaries of two

WSA’s—Fish Creek Rim and Spaulding. The highway

right-of-way, not the highway itself, forms the boundary of the Spaulding WSA. In the case of the Fish

Creek Rim WSA, the right-of-way for the 69 kilovolt

powerline on the north side of the highway forms the

boundary.

ODOT would be free to do work at their discretion

within the designated highway right-of-way. Any work

outside the right-of-way, such as realignment of the

highway, would require modification of the right-ofway grant and preparation of an environmental analysis

document. Since the Fish Creek Rim WSA is set back

approximately 100 to 1,000 feet from the highway, it is

not known at this time if any realignment of the road

could impact the WSA. Any potential impact can only

be determined when an actual project is proposed,

complete with detailed maps showing a proposed

realignment. However, BLM cannot authorize any

work that would impact the wilderness qualities of

either of the areas, nor can BLM change the size or

boundaries of the two WSA’s in order to accommodate

any widening, straightening, or rerouting of the highway. Any changes to the existing boundaries of these

or any other WSA’s can only occur through congressional legislation. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of

this plan to change the boundaries of any WSA’s in the

planning area. Hence, this alternative is not considered

further in this plan.

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

The planning team has composed the Lakeview RMP/

EIS in such a way that the reader would be able to

readily track the management goals, management

actions, and monitoring needs. Every decision proposed through the planning process is actually a string

of components. Primary among these components are

management goals and management actions. Associated with the decision components are support components such as rationale and monitoring needs. The

following material defines and expands upon these

various components.

Management goal—the desired result of management efforts. The goals must resolve or move

toward resolving the management issues driving

preparation of the RMP.

Rationale—primary reasoning behind why it is

important to pursue the stated management goal.

Monitoring needs—monitoring of the resources is

conducted to determine whether or not the identified management goals are being accomplished.

Management actions—measures that are to be

undertaken in order to attain or achieve the stated

management goal and resolve the management

issues stated in Chapter 1.

Five alternatives are described and analyzed in detail in

the Lakeview RMP/FEIS. Each alternative consists of

four general elements. The first element is the overall

theme, ranging from emphasis on commodity production to emphasis on natural processes and natural

systems. The second consists of each of the individual

resources or resource programs (e.g., Air Quality,

Water Resources/Watershed Health, Plant Communities, Livestock Grazing Management, etc.). The third

consists of the individual management goals within

each of the resource programs. The fourth is the

collection of management actions necessary to achieve

the individual management goals of each resource

program. Each of the resource-specific management

actions is considered in combination with all other

goals and actions to arrive at a desired range of conditions. The overall themes thus determine the types of

management actions that would be applied.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 10

Alternatives, with the exception of Alternative E in

some cases, would generally meet the goals that have

been identified for all resources. However, there are

differences between alternatives. These differences

have to do with how fast the management goal is being

met, the degree to which it is being met, the priorities

within the program, the emphasis placed on different

management activities and whether those actions are

active or passive, and identifying what society is

willing to forego. Some areas can be improved with

additional funding to implement active restoration

methods, some with management changes or passive

restoration methods, and some with a combination of

both.

Integrated resource management was emphasized in

formulating the alternatives. A primary concern was

that all major ecological and socioeconomic systems be

fully recognized through the selection of specific

management actions. Public input received throughout

the planning process was considered in the development of alternatives.

The management goals associated with the alternatives

may not be completely met over the life of the plan (up

to 20 years). Funding and staffing levels would affect

rates of implementation, and projected implementation

rates may vary from alternative to alternative, depending on the cost of prescribed management activities.

Management Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would incorporate or comply with the

management direction and protections provided by the

Warner sucker biological opinion agreements, the

“Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Fishes of

the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin;” the “Standards

for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau

of Land Management in the States of Oregon and

Washington;” and the 1995 “Interim Management

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP). Most alternatives would incorporate the

“Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems Management Guidelines” (2000).

Local Native American Tribes would be consulted for

all actions which may affect their interests. Cultural

resource surveys and sensitive species surveys, would

be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activity or

land disposal.

Management Themes of the Alternatives

Following is a description of the five alternatives

considered in detail.

Alternative A

Alternative A is the continuation of present management or no action. This alternative would continue

management under the three existing management

framework plans), the “Lakeview Grazing Management

Final EIS and Record of Decision,” and the three

management framework plan amendments and various

existing activity plans. It would also include the

management direction and protections provided by the

Warner sucker biological opinion/agreements, and any

currently approved activity plans such as allotment

management plans or habitat management plans.

Resource values or sensitive habitats would receive

management emphasis as at present levels. Emphasis

would be on maintaining existing conditions. There

would be no comprehensive plan for restoration of

degraded systems. Restoration would be on a case-bycase basis and would utilize either active or passive

methods.

Alternative B

Alternative B would emphasize commodity production

and production of public goods and services (mining,

grazing, commercial recreation, and commercial

woodland products harvesting, etc.) would be emphasized. Under this alternative, constraints on commodity

production for sensitive resources would be the least

restrictive possible within the limits defined by law,

regulation, and BLM policy, including compliance with

the “Endangered Species Act,” cultural resource

protection laws, wetland preservation, etc. Potential

impacts to sensitive resource values would be mitigated

on a case-by-case basis. Emphasis would be on

maintaining existing conditions. Restoration actions

that would enhance commodity production would

utilize primarily active methods. Other restoration

actions would utilize passive methods.

Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes the restoration of natural

systems that are degraded and the maintenance of those

that are functioning at a high level of condition.

Commodity production would be constrained to protect

natural values and systems that are in good or better

ecological condition or to accelerate improvement in

those that are in less than good condition. Constraints

to protect sensitive resource would be the most restrictive. In some cases and in some areas, commodity

production could be excluded to protect sensitive
Management Alternatives

3 -11

resources. Both active and passive restoration methods

would be utilized to achieve management goals.

Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D is the BLM’s preferred alternative. This

alternative emphasizes a high level of natural resource

protection and improvement in ecological conditions

while providing commodity production. This alternative would balance the need to protect, restore, and

enhance natural values, with the need to provide for the

production of food, fiber, minerals, and services on the

public lands. This would be done within the limits of

the ecosystem’s ability to provide these on a sustainable basis and within the constraints of various laws

and regulations. Constraints to protect sensitive

resources would be implemented, but they would be

less restrictive than under Alternative C. Restoration

actions would utilize either active or passive methods

to achieve management goals.

Alternative E

This alternative would exclude all permitted, discretionary uses of the public lands including livestock

grazing, mineral sale or leasing, realty actions, recreation uses requiring permits, commercial rights-of-way,

etc. The resource area would petition the Department

of the Interior (DOI) to withdraw the entire planning

area from locatable mineral entry. This alternative

would allow no commodity production and would

include only those management actions necessary to

maintain or enhance natural values and protect life and

property. Any management actions would utilize

primarily passive methods. Some components of the

alternative may not be possible to implement because

of legal constraints, but the alternative is included for

purposes of impact comparison.

Detailed Descriptions of Alternatives

Table 3-1 summarizes the major management actions

proposed for each alternative, organized by resource or

resource program. The narrative following the table

states the management goal and rationale for each goal,

and, where necessary, provides a more detailed description of management actions by alternative. The effects

of these management actions by alternative result in the

projected environmental consequences analyzed in

Chapter 4.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 12
Management Alternatives

3 -13
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 14
Management Alternatives

3 -15
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 16
Management Alternatives

3 -17
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 18
Management Alternatives

3 -19
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 20
Management Alternatives

3 -21
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 22
Management Alternatives

3 -23
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 24
Management Alternatives

3 -25
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 26
Management Alternatives

3 -27
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 28
Management Alternatives

3 -29
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 30
Management Alternatives

3 -31
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 32
Management Alternatives

3 -33
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 34
Management Alternatives

3 -35
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 36
Management Alternatives

3 -37
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 38
Management Alternatives

3 -39

Plant Communities

Shrub Steppe

Management Goal 1—Restore, protect, and enhance

the diversity and distribution of desirable vegetation

communities, including perennial native and desirable introduced plant species. Provide for their

continued existence and normal function in nutrient,

water, and energy cycles.

Rationale

With passage of the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act” (FLPMA) and the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978, objectives and priorities for the management of public land vegetation

resources were more clearly defined. Guidance

contained in 43 CFR 4180 of the regulations directs

public land management toward the maintenance or

restoration of the physical function and biological

health of vegetative ecosystems. “Standards for Land

Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land

Management in the States of Oregon and Washington”

were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on

August 12, 1977. This objective would maintain and

improve the condition and trend in plant communities

that provide wildlife habitat, recreation, forage, scientific, scenic, ecological, and water and soil conservation benefits for consumptive and nonconsumptive

uses. The long-term goal of vegetation management

across the landscape is to maintain or improve rangeland condition to desired range of conditions which

meet management objectives, not specifically latepotential natural communities ecological status.

Management actions authorized or implemented by

BLM would influence future vegetation composition.

These actions may include season, intensity, and

duration of livestock grazing within diverse vegetation

communities; the influence of fire and associated

suppression actions; emergency fire rehabilitation and

the reintroduction of grazing following fire; the use of

natural and management-created firebreaks to protect

early-seral communities from frequent fire intervals;

rehabilitation and reclamation actions following soildisturbing activities; management of noxious weeds;

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; wild horse management; recreational use; and mining.

Vegetation management has been based on existing

inventories delineating the ecological status of vegetation communities. The basis for defining ecological

status and potential is site descriptions that provide a

summary of expected species composition and variability with vegetation communities, as well as anticipated

responses with management. The delineation of

ecological sites is based on soils and climate conditions. In most of the resource area, the ecological site

inventory has been completed which also helps provide

information for these decisions. Management objectives within existing land use plans to attain latepotential natural community seral communities were

based on the increased productivity of late-potential

natural community seral communities relative to lowseral communities, their greater ability to stabilize

watersheds, and their improved role in water, nutrient,

and energy cycling. Vegetation communities in latepotential natural community seral stages express a

mosaic of species composition and structure consistent

with site potential and, as such, reflect a range of

possible plant communities that should meet the

objectives defining desired range of conditions within

this land use plan.

Monitoring

Over the life of this plan, vegetation communities

would be monitored to determine progress toward

attaining desired range of conditions. Monitoring to

determine success in meeting vegetation management

objectives would include periodic measurements of

plant composition, vigor, and productivity, as well as

measurement of the amount and distribution of plant

cover and litter which protects the soil surface from

raindrop impact, detains overland flow, protects the

surface from wind erosion, and retards soils moisture

loss through evaporation. Additional data to determine

the effectiveness of established tools in meeting

objectives may include herbaceous or woody utilization, actual use, and climatic conditions. Recent

research by Ponzetti (2000) and USDI-BLM and U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) (2001) shows that microbiotic crusts may be indicators (e.g., an early warning

system) of rangeland health. Initial monitoring has

begun by ecological site inventory crews measuring

percent cover of biotic crusts in the northern part of the

resource area. Additional research in the Northern

Great Basin is needed to determine ecological roles,

response to natural and human actions, and management/monitoring techniques for biological soil crusts.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Upland shrub steppe communities would be managed

to improve ecological status of those pastures currently
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 40

in early- to mid-seral stage that are not meeting specific

management objectives. Within those pastures in lateseral stage to potential natural community, management

would be implemented to maintain them. Prescribed

fire would continue to be the preferred method to

control the dominance of woody species such as

invasive western juniper and decadent bitterbrush.

Emphasis would be placed on providing for uses which

are consistent with meeting ecological objectives

including increasing forage production through the

development and implementation of economically

feasible grazing systems and rangeland improvements.

Nonnative seedings would be managed to improve or

maintain their vegetation composition to ensure

continued forage production and support vegetation

community diversity. Identified vegetation communities that provide deer and pronghorn winter range

would be managed to supply necessary cover, forage,

and browse.

Management actions, consistent with existing land use

plans, would be implemented to rehabilitate and/or

vegetate plant communities in early- to mid-seral stages

only where such communities do not meet specific

management objectives. Vegetation manipulation

projects would be implemented primarily to enhance

forage production, and protect soil, water, and vegetation resources. The future composition of vegetation

communities would be the result of continued aggressive suppression response to wildland fires. Following

wildland fire, priority would be placed on the rehabilitation of vegetation communities to protect soil, water,

and vegetation resources, and to prevent unacceptable

on-site or off-site damage. Following fire, rehabilitated

areas would be closed to grazing at least two growing

seasons. Exceptions may be justified on a case-by-case

basis.

Seedings would be implemented with appropriate

mixes of adapted perennial and annual plant species.

Species mixes would be determined on a site-specific

basis dependent on the probability of successful

establishment and risks associated with seeding failure.

Alternative B

Upland native shrub steppe communities would be

managed to attain a trend toward desired range of

conditions based on site potential. Management

actions would maintain the condition of those native

communities where vegetation composition and

structure is consistent with desired conditions. Nonnative seedings in poor or fair condition would be managed to restore production and vigor, while those

seedings in good to excellent condition would be

managed to maintain their vegetation composition to

ensure continued forage production. Forage production

and other commodity values of native and nonnative

vegetation resources would be optimized to minimize

competition with herbaceous species. Upland shrub

cover would be maintained at minimum to moderate

levels of desired conditions in selected native vegetation communities and in nonnative seedings. The

frequency, distribution, and ecological integrity of

native stands of mountain shrubs would be restored and

maintained.

Management actions would be implemented to rehabilitate and/or establish desirable vegetation communities in areas held in a condition that does not meet

desired conditions due to dominance by annual, weedy,

or woody species. Vegetation would be manipulated to

direct trend toward desired conditions, enhance commodity production, and protect soil, water, and vegetation resources. Emphasis would be placed on the use

of prescribed fire and wildland fire use to reduce

woody species dominance, optimize forage production,

and direct vegetation composition toward desired

conditions. Prescribed fire prescriptions would include

consideration of short-term impacts to grazing management as well as long-term benefits of increased herbaceous production. Following wildland fire, priority

would be placed on the rehabilitation of rangeland

vegetation communities held at risk due to dominance

by annual and woody species.

Species mixes would be determined on a site-specific

basis dependent on the probability of successful

establishment and risks associated with seeding failure.

The selection of appropriate species would include the

use of forage-producing species, and nonnative and

native perennial species that support livestock production and other commodity values, as well as the function of upland vegetation communities. Treatment

configuration of prescribed burns would emphasize

commodity production (as consistent with other

resource management objectives) as opposed to

mosaics that benefit wildlife.

Areas burned by wildland fire, including those subsequently rehabilitated, would be deferred from grazing

use through at least two growing seasons following fire

or until monitoring data or professional judgment

indicate that health and vigor of desired vegetation has

recovered to levels adequate to support and protect

upland function. Healthy nonnative perennial communities or communities dominated by annuals may be

grazed prior to two growing seasons only if consistent

with management objectives.
Management Alternatives

3 -41

Alternative C

Upland native shrub steppe communities would be

managed to attain trends toward a variety of desired

range of conditions based on management objectives

and site potential. Management actions would maintain the condition of those native communities where

vegetation composition and structure are consistent

with desired conditions and natural values. Upland

shrub cover across the landscape would be maintained

at moderate levels of potential for wildlife cover values

and structural diversity in selected native vegetation

communities. The frequency, distribution, and ecological integrity of native stands of mountain shrubs would

be restored and maintained where site potential would

support these species. Nonnative seedings would be

evaluated in terms of wildlife connectivity, total

ecological diversity, and other factors to meet desired

range of conditions.

Management actions would be implemented to rehabilitate and/or vegetate plant communities that do not

meet desired range of conditions due to dominance by

annual, weedy, introduced, or woody species such as

invasive western juniper and decadent bitterbrush.

Vegetation manipulation projects would be implemented primarily to direct trend toward desired conditions, improve structural and species diversity, and

microbiotic crusts, and protect soil, water, and vegetation resources.

Emphasis would be placed on the use of prescribed and

wildland fire use to regulate woody species dominance

and direct vegetation composition toward desired

conditions. Priority would be placed on the restoration

of shrub steppe vegetation communities held at risk due

to dominance by annual and woody (invasive western

juniper) species. In appropriate locations, inoculation

of microbiotic crusts would be attempted to reestablish

desired microdiversity. However, this would be an

experimental procedure at this point.

Seedings would be implemented with appropriate

mixes of adapted perennial and annual native plant

species. Species mixes would be determined on a sitespecific basis dependent on the probability of successful establishment and risks associated with seeding

failure. Preference would be toward the use of native

plant species from local wild seeds or seeds significantly adapted to the resource area.

Areas burned by wildland fire, including those subsequently rehabilitated, would be rested from grazing at a

minimum for two full years or until monitoring data or

professional judgment indicate that health and vigor of

desired vegetation has recovered to levels adequate to

support and protect upland function.

Alternative D

Upland native shrub steppe communities would be

managed to attain a trend toward the desired range of

conditions based on management objectives and site

potential. Management actions would maintain the

condition of those native communities where vegetation composition and structure are consistent with

desired conditions and natural values. Nonnative

seedings in poor or fair condition would be managed to

restore production and vigor, as well as to improve

structure and species diversity consistent with other

management objectives. Nonnative seedings in good

or excellent condition would be managed to maintain

seeding production, improve structural and species

diversity, and maintain forage production. Upland

shrub cover across the landscape at moderate levels of

potential would be maintained for natural values and

wildlife cover values in most native vegetation communities where potential exists, and in nonnative seedings

as consistent with other resource management objectives. The frequency, distribution, and ecological

integrity of native stands of mountain shrubs would be

restored and maintained where site potential would

support these species, consistent with desired conditions and other management objectives.

Management actions would be implemented to rehabilitate and/or vegetate plant communities that do not

meet desired conditions due to dominance by annual,

weedy, or woody species such as invasive western

juniper and decadent bitterbrush. Vegetation manipulation projects would be implemented primarily to direct

trend toward desired conditions, improve structural and

species diversity, and protect soil, water, and vegetation

resources. Priority would be placed on the rehabilitation of shrub steppe vegetation communities held at

risk due to dominancy by annual species and invasive

western juniper.

Seedings would be implemented with appropriate

mixes of adapted native and nonnative perennial and

annual plant species; although native species would be

preferred for seedings. Species mixes would be

determined on a site-specific basis dependent on the

probability of successful establishment and risks

associated with seeding failure. Use of competitive

native species would be emphasized in seedings within

sites moderately and highly susceptible to degradation.

Treatment configuration would emphasize natural
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 42

values as consistent with other resource management

objectives.

Areas burned by wildland fire, including those subsequently rehabilitated, would be rested from grazing

through at least two growing seasons following fire or

until monitoring data indicate that health and vigor of

desired vegetation has recovered to levels adequate to

support and protect upland function.

Alternative E

Natural processes would define vegetation composition

across the landscape. No vegetation rehabilitation

would be implemented following wildland fire.

Management Goal 2—Protect healthy, functioning

ecosystems consisting of native plant communities.

Restore degraded high-potential landscapes and

decadent shrublands.

Rationale

Beginning in the 1960s, an awareness began to evolve

concerning the importance of public lands for the

maintenance of biological diversity. Eventually the

goals, objectives, and priorities for the fish/wildlife/

botanical program were established in the national

BLM “Fish and Wildlife 2000: A Plan for the Future”

(BLM 1987c), signed by the Director of the BLM in

May 1987 and subsequently adopted and published as

policy for implementation by all field offices. The

scope and design of the plan was to provide for improved management of fish, wildlife, and botanical

habitats on public lands for the social and economic

well-being of all Americans. Prepared in concert with

its national counterpart, Oregon-Washington’s plan was

to carry out the goals, objectives, and priorities on the

local field level. This vision incorporates cooperation

with other organizations and user groups such as other

Federal agencies, state agencies, conservation organizations and Challenge Cost Share/Volunteer Contribution

Programs.

Recent research shows that microbiotic crusts may be

indicators (e.g., an early warning system) of rangeland

health. Although no relationship between total vascular plant cover and crust cover was found, there was a

positive correlation between perennial bunchgrass

cover and crust cover. Bare ground is often inversely

related to crust cover, which could mean that a decline

in crust cover produces an increase in bare soil, rather

than an increase in vascular vegetation.

Especially during heavy fire years in the West, desired

seed species for rehabilitation or restoration are often

limited or not available. A program to collect, plant,

and grow native seed to produce a seed bank of locally

genetic and adapted plant species would facilitate seed

planning programs.

Monitoring

In cooperation with the State of Oregon, colleges and

universities, USFWS, U.S. Forest Service (USFS),

Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP), and private

individuals, inventories to identify the distribution and

density of special status plants, unique plant communities, and specialized animal habitats would be carried

out. The next step would be to determine and prioritize

degraded landscapes with restoration from an ecosystem perspective. Workshops and training for awareness

and ability to identify these communities and species

would be encouraged. Baseline inventories are being

initiated which would be repeated as necessary in

subsequent years to observe change and dynamics of

ecosystems.

Monitoring studies would be initiated to evaluate the

cost analysis and effectiveness of growing native handcollected seed in the resource area. Since viability of

native versus commercially grown seeds is usually

much lower, other avenues could be explored to

develop local seed banks.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Restoration projects would be completed on a case-bycase basis, usually to resolve a crisis such as wildland

fire rehabilitation, to deal with a program such as

rehabilitation of gravel pits, or to deal with a program

such as livestock grazing or resolve a single issue. No

resource area-wide plan would be created for rehabilitation of degraded landscapes or decadent shrublands.

Alternative B

Starting from a watershed perspective, resource areawide planning would be driven to protect native plant

communities. The prioritization for vegetation restoration would be from a forage production standpoint.

Restoration would be linked to increase of forage

production, development of salable minerals (rock,

gravel, cinder, etc.), and commodity-driven activities.
Management Alternatives

3 -43

Alternative C

Starting from a watershed perspective, resource areawide planning would be driven to protect healthy

functioning ecosystems consisting of native plant

communities. High priority would be given to restoration of degraded landscapes and decadent shrublands

through projects such as prescribed burns, seeding of

desirable native species, development of seed banks for

rehabilitation, planting of shrubs/trees in riparian

zones. The prioritization for restoration would be from

a subbasin or watershed perspective (see Water Resources/Watershed Health section). This would

maintain functioning native plant communities where

they currently exist; improve plant community structure in priority areas that are currently ecologically

degraded, change plant community structure where

shrubs dominate grassland species of grass and forbs,

and protect and restore microbiotic crusts. Locally

grown native seeds or those adapted to the planning

area would be preferred for rehabilitation and restoration of degraded or burned areas.

Specific projects would be developed by range, wildlife, hydrology, and botany for restoration of degraded

areas. As examples: playas which have had a watering

hole dug out causing rapid leaking of the water would

be rehabilitated by repairing the bottom of watering

hole and other methods of restoration; microbiotic crust

inoculation to reintroduce crust species would be

applied in degraded areas where former crusts existed

or other areas where success would be expected.

A priority for restoration would be the Sheeprock area,

noted by the “Lakeview Grazing Management Final

Environmental Impact Statement”(1982a) to have vast

areas of poor condition rangeland. The area falls

within a terrestrial watershed, which ICBEMP identified as having declined substantially since historic

times. Restoration methods could include prescribed

burning or brush control and reseeding. Checkdams

and other structures could be installed to control

erosion.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative C, but also use nonnative plant

species for restoration. Nonnative seed resources would

not be developed.

Alternative E

No active restoration projects would be done. Restoration would depend on natural processes.

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation

Management Goal—Restore, maintain, or improve

riparian vegetation, habitat diversity, and associated

watershed function to achieve healthy and productive

riparian areas and wetlands.

Rationale

FLPMA directs and requires BLM to comply with state

water quality standards and manage public land in a

manner that would preserve and protect certain land in

its natural condition. In addition to FLPMA, numerous

laws, regulations, policies, Executive orders, and

memorandums of understanding and agreements direct

BLM to manage its riparian/wetland areas for biological diversity, and the productivity and sustainability for

the benefit of the Nation and its economy. These

directives are listed in Appendix B. While those listed

in Appendix B relate specifically to planning requirements, they also relate to management in general.

Specifically, FLPMA and PRIA direct BLM to “...

manage public lands according to the principles of

multiple use and sustained yield” and “manage the

public lands to prevent unnecessary degradation ... so

they become as productive as feasible.” FLPMA,

section 102 , also requires that public land be managed

for multiple use and sustained yield in a manner that

would protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric,

water resource, and archaeological values. Section 102

also mandates that public land be managed in a manner

that recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources

of minerals, food, timber, and fiber.

Riparian areas in good condition are essential to water

quality improvement, fish habitat, and water quality

yield. More and better quality forage is produced on

healthy riparian sites. Riparian zones are the focal

point and best overall indicator of watershed health.

Management of riparian/wetland areas for desired

range of conditions would be implemented to attain

proper functioning condition as a first step to move

habitat conditions of entire watersheds and/or their

components that are comprised of uplands, streams,

riparian/wetland areas, and lakes and ponds toward

achieving terrestrial and aquatic objectives. While all

alternatives would meet objectives, the speed at which

desired range of conditions is obtained would vary

among alternatives. Alternatives C and E would

generally provide the fastest results, followed by

Alternatives D, A, and B. Management practices such

as grazing, mining, recreation, forest harvesting, and
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 44

other forms of vegetation management would be

designed for healthy sustainable and functional rangeland ecosystems as described in the “Standards for

Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of

Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington.”

The next step in the attainment of desired range of

conditions would be to evaluate riparian management

objectives (see Appendix F2) within riparian/wetland

areas and riparian conservation areas. Riparian conservation areas occupy that portion of watersheds where

aquatic and riparian dependent resources receive

primary emphasis for the maintenance, protection, and

restoration of ecosystem processes and functions.

Riparian management objectives are generally instream

and riparian characteristics within the flood-prone area,

expressed as values for stream channel conditions and

provide criteria to help assess aquatic, water quality,

and riparian/wetland goals and objective attainment of

desired range of conditions. The desired range of

conditions of riparian/wetland areas usually fall

between proper functioning condition and the biological potential (Appendix F2) of riparian conservation

areas. Riparian management objectives for vegetation

would be site specific based on riparian ecological site

inventory assessment. Although attainment of proper

functioning condition essentially assures that stream

and riparian/wetland areas function and are on an

improving trend, proper functioning condition may not

be and is usually not the final endpoint to reaching

desired conditions. Management priorities in upland

watershed areas and riparian conservation areas would

focus prescriptions for the attainment of these desired

conditions.

As stated above, there are a number of BLM policies

relating to riparian/wetland areas include the following:

• Focus management on entire watersheds using an

ecosystem approach and involving all interested

landowners and affected parties;

• Achieve riparian/wetland area improvement and

maintenance objectives through the management of

existing and future uses;

• Ensure that new plans and existing plans, when

revised, recognize the importance of riparian/

wetland values, and initiate management to maintain, restore, improve, or expand them;

• All sites are making significant progress towards

meeting standards of rangeland health.

• Prescribe riparian/wetland management based on

site-specific physical, biological, and chemical

condition and potential; and

• Use interdisciplinary teams to inventory, monitor,

and evaluate management of riparian/wetland areas

and to revise management where objectives are not

being met.

Monitoring

Monitoring for the attainment of desired range of

conditions may include the following:

• Assessment of proper functioning condition

(Technical Reference 1737-11/15) and measurement of parameters identified in the riparian

management objectives for ICBEMP (see Appendix F2). Attainment of proper functioning condition and riparian management objectives is considered a minimum step in the process of achieving

desired range of conditions. proper functioning

condition and the riparian objectives in most cases

do not equate to the desired range of conditions.

Determination of proper functioning condition and

riparian management objectives is an interdisciplinary process.

• Most of the current information on riparian/

wetland areas in the planning area has been based

on assessments of riparian condition and trend.

Although the BLM standard is to use proper

functioning condition assessments, trend assessments can quickly provide initial information about

progress toward desired conditions. Trend assessments include the following: Wildlife and aquatic

monitoring, water quality monitoring, Rosgen

channel typing, riparian site classification and

assessment of change over time towards meeting

desired range of conditions, low-level aerial

photography and other remote-sensing technologies.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Implementation of existing riparian/wetland objectives,

maintenance or improvement of existing riparian/

wetland exclosures, and designation or identification of

riparian pastures are described by the management

framework plan, allotment management plans, habitat

management plans, and biological opinions. In addition, riparian/wetland areas would be managed for the
Management Alternatives

3 -45

attainment of proper functioning condition. Areas not

in proper functioning condition would be managed to

attain an upward trend in the composition and structure

of key riparian/wetland vegetation and desired physical

characteristics of the stream channel. Uses and activities in these riparian/wetland areas would be adjusted if

current management would not allow for the maintenance or measurable progress toward the attainment of

proper functioning condition. Uses and activities within

the watershed would continue to occur as long as the

physical and biological condition and degree of function necessary to sustain healthy rangeland ecosystems

is maintained. Acquisition of riparian areas through

exchange and with willing participants would be

pursued. No western juniper management or other

vegetation management would be allowed in Deep and

Twelvemile Canyons, nor in view of Highway 140.

Restoration projects would be implemented in those

areas where conditions are not naturally recovering or

are currently functioning but are at risk of degradation.

Grazing systems and exclusion on riparian/wetland

areas would be determined on a case-by-case basis to

promote or maintain proper functioning condition on a

minimum of 75 percent of these areas.

Current spring developments would be maintained and

new developments/waterholes, as identified in the

existing plans, would be constructed. This would

include water developments in intact playas and

lakebeds.

Roads could be maintained to minimize impacts to

riparian zones.

Alternative B

Riparian/wetland areas would be managed for uses and

activities that emphasize commodity production, while

providing for the attainment of proper functioning

condition, riparian management objectives, and the

desired range of conditions of riparian conservation

areas.

Areas not in proper functioning condition would be

managed to attain an upward trend in the composition

and structure of key riparian/wetland vegetation and

desired physical characteristics of the stream channel.

Managed uses and activities in riparian conservation

areas would be allowed as long as there is progress

toward attainment of State water quality standards,

proper functioning condition, and riparian management

objectives. This alternative focuses specifically on the

protection and maintenance of the area within the

riparian conservation area and allows those commodity

uses and activities in the remaining watershed to occur.

Any use or activity within the riparian conservation

area that would adversely affect water quality standards

and/or riparian/wetland resources would be excluded

from the riparian conservation area. Enforcement

would be in the form of buffered exclusion areas or the

use of temporary and permanent fencing. Management

options for uses and activities would allow for measurable progress toward the attainment of water quality,

proper functioning condition, and riparian management

objectives within riparian conservation areas at a

positive annual rate. The desired range of conditions

would be set at a lower level than other alternatives so

long as objectives for water quality and proper functioning condition are met. Restoration activities, such

as intensive woody riparian vegetation plantings and

the installation of instream structures, would be used in

areas unable to attain proper functioning condition,

riparian management objectives and the desired range

of conditions through changes in management alone.

Restoration projects would be implemented in those

areas where conditions are not naturally recovering or

are currently functioning but are at risk of degradation.

Grazing systems and exclusion on riparian/wetland

areas would be implemented to promote or maintain

proper functioning condition on a minimum of 75

percent of these areas.

Current spring developments would be modified to

allow riparian function while still allowing for livestock water availability. Water developments would be

allowed in intact playas and lakebeds only if development would not negatively impact special status plant

or animal species.

Roads could be maintained to minimize impacts to

riparian zones.

Alternative C

Riparian conservation areas would be identified and

delineated.

Riparian/wetland areas would be managed for uses and

activities within the watershed that emphasize maintenance, improvement, and/or restoration of naturallyoccurring values that provide for the attainment of

water quality, proper functioning condition, riparian

management objectives, and desired range of conditions of riparian conservation areas. Restoration

activities, such as intensive woody riparian vegetation

plantings, vegetation manipulation, and installation of
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 46

instream structures, would be used in areas unable to

attain proper functioning condition, riparian management objectives, and the desired range of conditions

through changes in management alone.

Areas not in proper functioning condition would be

managed to attain an upward trend in the composition

and structure of key riparian/wetland vegetation and

desired physical characteristics of the stream channel.

Uses and activities within the riparian conservation

area and contributing upland watersheds would be

allowed as long as there is unimpeaded progress toward

attainment of State water quality standards, proper

functioning condition, and riparian management

objectives.

Management options focus on uses and activities that

allow for the protection, maintenance, and restoration

of riparian conservation areas and upland watersheds

and the unimpeaded progress toward the attainment of

water quality standards, proper functioning condition,

and riparian management objectives within riparian

conservation areas. Spring sources would be protected

as needed from trampling by livestock and wild horses.

All BLM managed and maintained roads would be

removed from riparian conservation areas.

The acquisition of riparian areas from willing private

landowners through exchange or purchase would be a

priority.

Alternative D

Riparian conservation areas would be identified and

delineated.

Riparian/wetland areas would be managed for uses and

activities within the watershed that emphasize the

maintenance or improvement of naturally-occurring

values while providing for commodity production and

the attainment of proper functioning condition, riparian

management objectives, and desired range of conditions of riparian conservation areas. Restoration

activities, such as intensive woody riparian vegetation

plantings, vegetation manipulation, and installation of

instream structures, would be used in areas unable to

attain proper functioning condition, riparian management objectives and the desired range of conditions

through changes in management alone. Prior to

structural work, management must be in place that

would allow improvement in stream conditions.

Areas not in proper functioning condition would be

managed to attain an upward trend in the composition

and structure of key riparian/wetland vegetation and

desired physical characteristics of the stream channel.

Uses and activities within the riparian conservation

area and contributing upland watersheds would be

allowed as long as there is measurable progress towards attainment of State water quality standards,

proper functioning condition, and riparian management

objectives. Specifically, in fenced Federal range

allotments, BLM riparian sites that are not in proper

functioning condition and where it is determined that

livestock are contributing to the condition, livestock

would be excluded. Spring developments would be

modified to promote natural function where possible,

but still allow livestock and wildlife access to developed water.

Management options focus on uses and activities that

allow for the protection and maintenance of riparian

conservation areas and upland watersheds and the

measurable progress toward the attainment of water

quality, proper functioning condition, and riparian

management objectives within riparian conservation

areas at a positive annual rate. All BLM managed and

maintained roads would be removed or relocated from

riparian conservation areas if they are impacting the

functioning of the stream.

The acquisition of riparian areas from willing private

landowners through exchange or purchase would be a

priority.

Alternative E

Commodity production would be excluded from all

public lands. Noncommodity and public uses and

activities would be allowed along streams, around

riparian/wetland areas, and in associated watersheds, if

they would promote or have no effect on water quality,

proper functioning condition, and riparian management

objectives within riparian conservation areas while

protecting and enhancing natural values.

Streams, water bodies, and riparian conservation areas

not meeting minimum State water quality standards,

proper functioning condition, and riparian management

objectives would be managed to attain an upward trend

in the composition and structure of key riparian/

wetland vegetation and desired physical characteristics

of the stream channel. Noncommodity uses and activities within the riparian conservation areas and contributing upland watershed areas that adversely affect

water quality and/or lead to stream channel or riparian/

wetland resource degradation would be adjusted,

restricted, or limited if water quality, proper function-
Management Alternatives

3 -47

ing condition, and riparian management objectives

cannot be attained or maintained with existing management.

Spring developments would no longer be maintained.

Other livestock waters critically needed for wildlife use

would be maintained.

Forest and Woodlands

Management Goal 1—In commercial (pine) forest

stands, maintain or restore forest health and meet

wildlife habitat needs.

Rationale

ICBEMP has documented declines in forest health of

the interior pine forests (USDI-BLM 2000b). Exclusion of natural fire has resulted in overstocked stands

and a large increase in the western juniper and white fir

components of these stands. They are less resilient and

are more susceptible to disturbances such as insect

attack, drought, and wildland fires. Wildlife dependent

on these forests are also at risk.

BLM policy requires that forest lands be classified into

management categories, and this classification has been

shown in USDI-BLM (2000b). Most commercial

forest lands in the planning area have been classified

into the category “Lands Where Forest Management is

for the Enhancement of Other Uses.” These are areas

where forest management activities are made for the

benefit of other resource uses or values. These lands

would not provide an assigned allowable sale quantity

of commercial or noncommercial timber volume, due

to the relatively low volumes per acre, scattered

location of the forest lands (making efficient management impractical), and the presence of other high

resource values to protect. However, forest products

could be produced as a byproduct of management

activities. Commercial forest lands not classified in

this category are those within ACEC’s whose management plans specifically exclude planned or sustained

production of forest products. Other potential areas

with such restrictions are Native American gathering

areas for plant products, old growth western juniper

areas, and areas with high cultural values.

Monitoring

An operations inventory is done on a periodic basis to

monitor stand composition and structure. Stocking

surveys are done before and after thinnings and other

treatments.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternatives A–D

Due to the scattered locations of the commercial

stands, harsh sites, and low volumes per acre, these

lands are not suitable for intensive management for

forest products. No allowable sale quantity would be

declared. However, these forest stands can be managed

in concert with surrounding lands to provide old

growth wildlife habitat, hiding cover for mule deer, and

watershed and scenic values. Management treatments

to reduce overstocking, control competing vegetation,

remove invasive western juniper or white fir, and

reduce ground and understory ladder fuels, would

improve forest health and increase resistance to insect

and disease outbreaks and wildland fires.

Whenever adjacent lands are treated, whether private

or national forest, treatment of the scattered BLM

forest stands should be considered. Potential treatments include selective cuts focused on thinning,

culturing around old growth trees in good condition,

precommercial thinning, and prescribed fire to reduce

ground fuels. Wildland fire use could be initiated once

fuel loadings are reduced to more natural levels.

Management of commercial forest land within ACEC’s

and other special areas would be guided by their

specific management plans.

Alternative E

No stand treatments would be done. Suppression of

wildland fire on commercial forest lands would be

limited to the few areas where adjacent private property is located.

Management Goal 2—Restore productivity and

biodiversity in western juniper woodlands and quaking aspen groves.

Rationale

Under natural conditions, periodic fires killed western

juniper saplings. Western juniper distribution was

generally limited to rocky areas with only light grasses

and other low fuels to carry ground fires. These

“natural” western juniper sites today are the “old

growth” sites, containing trees hundreds of years old.

Reduction and exclusion of natural fires by grazing of

fine fuels and fire suppression has allowed western

juniper to expand in area as well as density for the last

130 years. Western juniper is an aggressive competitor

for water, and has replaced, or is in the process of
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 48

replacing, native vegetation on many invaded sites.

These are the “invasive” western juniper less than 130-

years old. A loss of available forage for wildlife and

domestic livestock, as well as increased soil erosion,

has resulted. Quaking aspen stands have also been

invaded by western juniper, and many are in decline

from severe western juniper competition, as well as

livestock browsing of sprouts.

The western juniper woodlands are considered “noncommercial” forest lands because the growing sites can

only produce this noncommercial tree species. As

described above, most of the woodland stands are not

naturally-occurring. In the absence of periodic natural

fires, western juniper are spreading onto sites naturally

occupied by other plant communities, notably mountain

big sagebrush. As described under Management Goal

1, BLM policy requires forest lands, even these unnatural stands, be classified into one of four forest management categories. The western juniper woodlands, both

old growth and invasive, have been classified as

“Lands Where Forest Management is for the Enhancement of Other Values.” In other words, production of

wood products is not the objective of managing the

western juniper woodlands. No allowable sale quantity

is assigned to these lands, but removal of wood products to meet other resource objectives is allowed.

Monitoring

Monitoring of site conditions on western juniper

woodlands and quaking aspen groves would be done by

whichever specialist initiates a treatment. For such

monitoring information, see the sections on rangeland/

grazing, wildlife, watershed, and riparian vegetation.

Management Common to Alternatives A–D

Inventory information for the western juniper woodlands would be compiled on an ongoing basis. The

ecological site inventory, which identifies old growth

western juniper sites on rocky ridges and other fireprotected areas, as well as invasive western juniper,

would be completed for the LRA in 2001. Additional

geographic information systems and inventory work

would show western juniper stands by age class and

canopy closure. These future inventories would allow

much more precise management of western juniper

lands to maximize the mix of other resource values

presently inhibited by the western juniper cover.

When western juniper treatments are planned, Native

American values or use would be evaluated. For

example, traditional plant-gathering areas would need

special protection. Affected Tribes would be contacted

at an early stage in project planning.

Management of western juniper woodlands within

RNA’s, ACEC’s, or other SMA’s, would be guided by

the specific management plan for each area.

When evaluating areas for western juniper removal

(including areas for commercial and public wood

cutting), priority areas to treat would be areas where

the western juniper is most adversely affecting other

resources. These include quaking aspen groves,

riparian areas, greater sage-grouse leks and primary

habitat, deer winter range, bighorn sheep range, and

younger, invasive western juniper in old growth

western juniper sites. Age class of the western juniper,

soil type, aspect, understory vegetation, and presence

of noxious weeds would also be considered. Western

juniper areas would be considered high priority for

treatment where canopy cover is under 15 percent

(areas that still have a grass and brush understory).

These stands are more economically treatable due to

the smaller size of western juniper trees and the

potential for use of prescribed fire for effective control.

Sales and other disposals of firewood, posts, poles,

boughs, and other western juniper products, would be

made where compatible with maintenance of other

resource values. Combinations of one or more treatment methods (cutting, mechanical, prescribed fire)

could be made in a treatment area.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Western juniper woodlands are managed to meet public

demand for timber and vegetative products, including

firewood, posts, poles, boughs, and berries. No specific allowable cut or harvest goals are set. Some areaspecific restrictions were required by the management

framework plan. Recovery of biomass for generation

of electrical energy is a recent development, and

therefore was not addressed in the existing management framework plans. The only old growth western

juniper management guideline, which is included in the

present management framework plan, would prevent

cutting of old trees for wildlife habitat purposes.

However, protection of the old growth western juniper

stands has been a management goal for several years.

Quaking aspen groves are managed to maintain stand

health and to meet wildlife habitat needs.
Management Alternatives

3 -49

Alternative B

Commercial and public harvest within existing and

newly-created cutting areas would be maximized. Up

to 75 percent of early- to mid-successional (invasive)

western juniper stands would be treated by fire or

mechanical cutting over the life of the plan. Recovery

of biomass for energy production would be allowed on

western juniper treatment areas. This would involve

machine skidding of material to landings and creation

of temporary-use roads. Old growth western juniper

stands would be maintained or enhanced. All quaking

aspen stands in the planning area with invasive western

juniper would be treated early in the life of the plan.

Invasive western juniper would be treated using

prescribed fire or mechanical cutting on 6,000 to

12,000 acres of bighorn sheep range on Lynch Rim

(Fish Creek Rim) (see Map V-2). Treatments would

reduce invasive western juniper by 30 to 70 percent

within each of these areas over the life of the plan.

Any treatments occurring within the WSA would be

consistent with BLM’s wilderness IMP.

Alternative C

Commercial and public wood cutting would be allowed

on only 10 percent of mid- to closed-canopy invasive

stands over the life of the plan. Up to 75 percent of

early to mid-successional stands would be treated using

prescribed fire or mechanical cutting over the life of

the plan. Recovery of biomass for energy production

would be allowed on western juniper treatment areas.

This would involve machine skidding of material to

landings and creation of temporary-use roads. Old

growth western juniper stands would be maintained or

enhanced. All quaking aspen stands in the planning

area with invasive western juniper would be treated

early in the life of the plan. Invasive western juniper

would be treated using prescribed fire or mechanical

cutting on 12,000 to 25,500 acres of bighorn sheep

range on Lynch Rim (Fish Creek Rim), South Warner

Rim, Coleman Rim, and South Abert Rim (see Map V2). Treatments would reduce invasive western juniper

by 30 to 70 percent within each of these areas over the

life of the plan. Any treatments occurring within

WSA’s would be consistent with BLM’s wilderness

IMP.

Alternative D

Commercial and public wood cutting would be allowed

on 50 percent of the mid- to closed-canopy invasive

stands over the life of the plan. Up to 75 percent of the

early- to mid-successional stands would be treated

using prescribed fire or mechanical cutting over the life

of the plan. Recovery of biomass for energy production would be allowed on western juniper treatment

areas. This would involve machine skidding of material to landings and creation of temporary-use roads.

Old growth western juniper stands would be maintained or enhanced. All quaking aspen stands in the

planning area with invasive western juniper would be

treated early in the life of the plan. Invasive western

juniper would be treated using prescribed fire or

mechanical cutting on 12,000 to 25,500 acres of

bighorn sheep range on Lynch Rim (Fish Creek Rim),

South Warner Rim, Coleman Rim, and South Abert

Rim (see Map V-2). Treatments would reduce invasive

western juniper by 30 to 70 percent within each of

these areas over the life of the plan. Any treatments

occurring within WSA’s would be consistent with

BLM’s wilderness IMP.

Alternative E

No commercial or public wood cutting would be

allowed. Natural processes, including wildland fire,

would regulate western juniper woodlands. Since no

commodity production would be allowed, no material

would be available for biomass recovery. Old growth

stands would not receive any active management

treatment. No quaking aspen stands would be treated

to eliminate invasive western juniper.

Special Status Plant Species

Management Goal—Manage public lands to maintain, restore, or enhance populations and habitats of

special status plant species. Priority for the application of management actions would be: (1) Federal

endangered or threatened (T&E) species, (2) Federal

proposed species, (3) Federal candidate species, (4)

State listed species, (5) BLM sensitive species, (6)

BLM assessment species, and (7) BLM tracking

species. Protect, restore, and enhance the variety of

plant species and communities in abundance and

distributions that provide for their continued existence and normal functioning.

Rationale

Section 102.8 of FLPMA requires that public land be

managed to protect the quality of ecological and

environmental values, and where appropriate, to protect

their natural condition.

The “Endangered Species Act” mandates management
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 50

that leads to the conservation or recovery of federally

listed T&E species. This Act, BLM policy, and Oregon

State law (1987) also encourages management to

protect special status species that are not currently

listed as T&E.

Most plant species assigned to a special status category

are limited in their distributions, populations, or

habitats and may be at risk over various geographic

areas. It is in the public interest to prevent the need for

Federal listing under the “Endangered Species Act”

where evidence suggests that land uses are adversely

affecting special status species not currently listed as

threatened or endangered. There are both socioeconomic and biological benefits associated with conserving species to avoid Federal listing.

Maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of populations or habitat may each represent appropriate BLM

management depending on the habitat needs of specific

circumstances of a species. Restoration or enhancement may not always be the only clear choice for BLM

action regarding special status species. One potential

limitation that could delay restoration or enhancement

actions is that the biological mechanisms adversely

affecting a species may not be understood well enough

to identify needed management changes. Maintenance

may be a preferred course of action where resource

conditions are already considered to be a high quality.

Conservation agreements with USFWS detail monitoring, inventory, and plans to help with the conservation

of the plants and their habitat; through this type of

agreement, Federal listing can be postponed or negated

by increasing the possibility of protection.

The ONHP (1993) designates special ecosystems as

“cells” to represent unique ecosystems that make a

significant contribution to biodiversity within the Basin

and Range Physiographic Province. The “Natural

Heritage Act” of 1979, as revised, specifies that these

cells represent Oregon’s natural heritage resources. As

such, BLM designation of these areas protects one or

more plant community elements and may protect

special status plants. One of the goals for an RNA is to

preserve gene pools of endangered plants; and within

the BLM, RNA’s are managed by ACEC’s. Creating an

ACEC for the plant community or special status plant

species helps facilitate protection, restoration, and

enhancement of those plant species.

Monitoring

Monitoring would include surveys to determine the

distribution, resource conditions, and trends of special

status plant species and representative habitats. Any

new ground disturbing activities or NEPA actions

would require a survey clearance for presence or

absence of special status plants.

ACEC/RNA’s are monitored on a regular basis to

determine if guidelines are being met; and for the

condition of the areas values, such as the plant communities and populations. RNA’s also increase possibilities of scientific research being carried out on the

individual plants. Allotments are evaluated on a regular

basis and at that time ACEC/RNA monitoring would be

part of the process.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Special status plant species habitats and populations

would be managed so that BLM actions do not contribute to the need to list these species as federally threatened or endangered. Management for these species

would emphasize maintenance rather than restoration

and enhancement. Management would also be oriented

toward providing habitat conditions that favor individual special status species. Conservation agreements

would be written and implemented with the USFWS

for selected species at highest risk.

The 9,047-acre Lost Forest ACEC/RNA, which meets

the ONHP cell needs, would be retained. This disjunct

forest represents a unique ecosystem and different gene

pool than the “normal” ponderosa pine forests in

Oregon. Researchers continue to work in the area.

This existing ACEC/RNA and its associated values

would be considered when allotments in the ACEC/

RNA come up for evaluation.

Alternative B

All special status species habitats or populations would

be managed so that BLM actions do not contribute to

the need to list theses species as federally threatened or

endangered. Management would be oriented toward

providing habitat conditions that meet individual

species requirements.

ACEC/RNA management would be the same as under

Alternative A.

Alternative C

This alternative would include the most aggressive
Management Alternatives

3 -51

measures for special status species management.

Restoration or enhancement of habitats and populations

would occur in areas where it would be biologically

sound and reasonable to do so. Maintenance would

only be considered where habitat or population conditions are considered to be at or near their potential.

This is in contrast to Alternatives A and B, which

would include measures for maintenance regardless of

habitat or population quality.

Conservation and recovery of special status plant

species would require:

• Acquiring basic information of distribution and

habitat requirements.

• Determination of kind and degree of threats.

• Monitoring and inventory data for the development

of sound plans and management actions.

• Development and implementation of species or

habitat management plans such as conservation

agreements written and conducted with the

USFWS for all of the special status plant species

that have the BLM ranking of Bureau sensitive or

the former Class Two ranking of the USFWS.

• Possible studies of the genetics and other biological parameters to determine what makes the plant

species rare and survival conditions for plant and

habitat.

These actions would also require:

• Analyzing existing data and identifying gaps in

data/information.

• Organizing and use inventories, monitoring and

management information through a standardized

data base.

• Identifying actions and funding necessary to

conserve, recover, and continuously maintain

special status plant species.

• In response to the NEPA process, scheduling

necessary surveys at the appropriate time of year to

locate and identify special status plants and take

appropriate management actions which might

require avoidance or mitigation.

• Ensuring that management actions necessary to

protect, conserve, and recover special status plants

species are implemented, monitored, and tracked.

• Seeking to acquire appropriate lands having

populations of species not well protected under

existing ownership, such as Oregon semaphore

grass.

Twelve new ACEC’s would be designated (129,122

acres), one existing area would be expanded (Abert

Rim addition of 18,019 acres) and one, the 9,047-acre

Lost Forest ACEC/RNA, would be retained in order to

meet ONHP cell needs. Of these 13 new or expanded

ACEC’s, 10 areas would contain RNA’s and 9 of those

10 areas (57,063 acres) would contain special status

plant species. Some management for maintenance in

these areas could require avoidance or mitigation

measures that have impacts on land uses and allotment

parameters.

Alternative D

Management would be the same as under Alternative

C, except ACEC designations would be as follows.

Twelve new ACEC’s would be designated (123,642

acres), one existing area would be expanded (Abert

Rim addition of 18,019 acres) and one, the 9,047-acre

Lost Forest ACEC/RNA, would be retained in order to

meet ONHP cell needs. Of these 13 new or expanded

ACEC’s, 10 areas would contain RNA’s and 9 of those

10 areas (29,204 acres) would contain special status

plant species. Some management for maintenance in

these areas could require avoidance or mitigation

measures that have impacts on land uses and allotment

parameters.

Alternative E

Natural processes would determine future conditions,

except for federally listed species in need of management as specified in recovery plans developed by the

USFWS.

No new ACEC’s would be designated and existing ones

would be revoked. Natural processes would be allowed to operate with no inventories, monitoring, or

designation of these special areas.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 52

Noxious Weeds and Competing

Undesirable Vegetation

Management Goal—Control the introduction and

proliferation of noxious weeds and competing undesirable plant species and reduce the extent and

density of established populations to acceptable levels.

Rationale

FLPMA and PRIA direct BLM to “manage public lands

according to the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield” and “manage the public lands to prevent

unnecessary degradation ... so they become as productive as feasible.” The introduction and spread of

noxious weeds and undesirable plants within the

planning area contributes to the loss of rangeland

productivity, increased soil erosion, reduced species

and structural diversity, loss of wildlife habitat, and in

some instances may pose a threat to human health and

welfare. The “Carlson-Foley Act” (Public Law 90-583)

and the “Federal Noxious Weed Act” (Public Law-93-

629) direct weed control on public land. Protection of

natural resource values depends on educating people

about the negative impacts of weeds and what actions

agencies and individuals can take to prevent the weedy

species from moving in and becoming established.

Monitoring

Evaluation of treatments would continue in cooperation

with the State of Oregon, Lake County, and private

interests as well as neighboring counties and Federal

jurisdictions. Inventories to identify new introductions,

distribution, and density of noxious weed populations

would be carried out on an annual basis in cooperation

with the aforementioned entities.

Management Common to Alternatives A–D

Noxious weed prevention and control would continue

to be a priority for the resource area. Under each of

these alternatives, weeds would be controlled in an

integrated weed management program which includes

prevention education and cultural, physical, biological,

and chemical treatments. Preventative measures such

as public education and livestock and wildlife management would be employed to maintain or enhance

desirable vegetation cover and reduce the distribution

and introduction of noxious weed seed and plant parts.

Mechanical and manual control methods and burning

treatments would physically remove noxious weeds

and unwanted vegetation; biological controls would

introduce and cultivate factors such as insects and

pathogens that naturally limit the spread of noxious

weeds; and chemical treatments using approved

herbicides would be applied where mechanical and/or

biological controls are not feasible. Integrated weed

management would be implemented in cooperation

with the State of Oregon, Lake County, private interests, and neighboring counties and Federal jurisdictions.

Currently there are individual weed management plans

for two specific geographic areas—the “Warner Basin

Weed Management Area Plan” and the “Abert Rim

Weed Management Area Plan.” A Greater Abert Weed

Management Area would be proposed which would

include the existing Abert Rim Weed Management

Area and the rest of the Lake Abert Subbasin. The plan

would be developed in consultation and cooperation

with private landowners, ODFW, USFWS, USFS, and

other stakeholders in the Lake Abert Basin. The plan

would be patterned after the “Warner Basin Weed

Management Area Plan.”

The LRA weed control program is designed to address

the dynamic nature of noxious weeds such as increasing numbers of species, different plant physiology for

the various species, changing conditions of infestations, and changing technologies. Selection of the

appropriate control method would be based on such

factors as the growth characteristics of the target

species, size of the infestation, location of the infestation, accessibility of equipment, potential impacts to

nontarget species, use of the area by people, effectiveness of the treatment on target species, and cost.

Depending on the plant’s characteristics, these methods

may be used individually or in combination and may be

utilized over several years. Due to the length of seed

viability, annual germination of seed from previous

years, and the characteristics of certain plants, treatments could occur annually for a period of 10 or more

years. Because weed infestations vary annually due to

new introductions, spread of existing infestations and

the results of prior year treatments, site-specific

reviews of known locations would be conducted

annually prior to initiating weed treatment activities.

Herbicide treatment: Herbicides that may be used are

those approved in the “Vegetation Treatment on BLM

Lands in Thirteen Western States EIS” (1991), or any

that are approved through an amendment or other

agency approval process (see Appendix G for the

current list of approved chemicals). Application would

take place only in accordance with the manufacturer’s

label and by qualified/certified applicators. Methods of

application include wiping or wicking, backpack
Management Alternatives

3 -53

spraying, spraying from a vehicle with a hand gun or

boom, aerial spraying, or other approved methods.

Special management areas:

WSA’s—Noxious weeds occurring in WSA’s would be

treated with methods that are in accordance with the

provisions of Chapter III.C.2 of the Bureau’s IMP.

ACEC’s—In the Warner Wetlands ACEC, weeds would

be managed according to the “Warner Basin Weed

Management Area Plan.” In the Lake Abert ACEC and

the proposed Abert Rim addition, weeds would be

managed according to the “Abert Rim Weed Management Area Plan.”

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Continue to apply approved weed control methods

including mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments as identified in “Vegetation Treatment on BLM

Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS and ROD”

(1991), “Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious

Weed Control Program FEIS and ROD” (1987), and the

1994 “Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program

Environmental Assessment” (OR-013-93-03). Emphasis is on detection of new invaders and inventory and

control in proven hot spots such as roads, rights-ofway, waterholes, and recreation sites.

Alternative B

Given the increased commodity production and extraction under this alternative, the potential for the introduction of new noxious weed species and additional

sites of existing noxious weed species is very high.

Therefore, increased efforts in prevention education

and inventory would be implemented to detect new

sites and treat them before they spread. Weed control

methods would be the same as those in Alternative A.

Alternative C

Weed invasions threaten natural values and the proper

functioning of natural systems. Under this alternative

the weed program would be most aggressive. There

would be a zero tolerance for noxious weeds in the

resource area. Eradication attempts would occur on all

existing sites. Increased efforts in inventory to detect

and prevent the establishment of new invaders, and

complete restoration of all weed sites to desirable plant

species would be the goal. Education and outreach

efforts would be increased and expanded to include

areas outside of Lake County in an effort to “head-off”

species that may spread into the resource area.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative A, but with an expanded

program to inventory areas that are less disturbed,

remote, or previously uninventoried. Weed sites would

be restored to desirable species. Control efforts would

be expanded to include any new sites detected. Education and outreach efforts would be expanded to include

areas outside of Lake County in an effort to “head-off”

species that may spread into the resource area.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, only high priority noxious weed

species and infested areas on BLM lands would be

treated to protect adjacent private property.

Soils

Management Goal—Manage soil on public lands to

maintain, restore, or enhance soil erosion class and

watershed improvement and protect areas of fragile

soil using best management practices (BMP’s).

Rationale

Soils are the foundation for all vegetation growth in the

planning area. Without a good base of healthy, productive, intact soil, management goals for vegetation and

watershed and ultimately wildlife and livestock cannot

be achieved. Soils in the planning area are semiarid,

young, and poorly developed. Chemical and biological

soil development processes such as rock weathering,

decomposition of plant materials, accumulation of

organic matter, and nutrient cycling proceed slowly in

this environment. Soil recovery processes are also

slow; therefore, disruption of soil can lead to long-term

changes in soil ecology and productivity.

Monitoring

Soil health and condition would be monitored by

conducting project reviews for implementation and

effectiveness of BMP’s and assessing undisturbed sites

for various parameters including erosion potential and

groundcover. Monitoring by other programs such as

livestock grazing and watershed would also consider

soil condition and health.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 54

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Soils protection and management would be provided to

soil disturbing projects on a case-by-case basis. Current grazing practices and watershed management

would be continued. Road maintenance and new road

construction would continue at current rates: approximately 100 miles of road are maintained annually with

no new roads constructed.

Alternatives B-E

BMP’s to protect and manage soil would be implemented for all ground-disturbing activities including

new projects, livestock grazing, and road maintenance

and construction. See Appendix D for a complete

description of best management practices.

Water Resources/Watershed

Health

Management Goal 1—Protect or restore watershed

function and processes which determine the appropriate rates of precipitation capture, storage, and release.

Rationale

All the land in the resource area is part of a watershed.

These discrete areas process water as it comes into the

system as precipitation. Watersheds receive precipitation and then lose it to the atmosphere by evaporation,

evapotranspiration, and sublimation. Watersheds move

water across the land surface through the shallow

subsurface zone (soil mantle) and deeper groundwater

aquifers. Watershed function is controlled by climate,

geology, topography, type and amount of vegetation,

and soil characteristics.

Vegetation and soil condition cycle naturally over time

in response to climate, fire, and other natural ecological

processes. The rate water is captured by the watershed,

the amount of storage available, and the rate and

location of water release depends on the amount and

type of vegetation and type and condition of soil.

These parameters are effected by land management

activities and uses.

The watersheds provide the environment to which

species, populations, and communities have adapted.

Watersheds provide the habitat formed by natural

processes which support the distribution, diversity and

complexity of animal and plant species.

The rangelands in the LRA are managed according to

the “Standards for Land Health for Lands Administered

by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of

Oregon and Washington” approved by the Secretary of

the Interior in 1997. Subsequent guidelines, to be

developed for other uses, would guide the management

of watersheds. These standards and guidelines provide

a clear statement of agency policy and direction for

those who use public lands and for those who manage

and are accountable for public land conditions.

The objectives of the rangeland health regulations

referred to above are: “to promote healthy sustainable

rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and

improvement of public rangelands to properly functioning conditions . . . and to provide for the sustainability

of the western livestock industry and communities that

are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands.”

Healthy watersheds are the foundation of rangeland

health objectives. To help meet these objectives, the

regulations on rangeland health identify fundamental

principles providing direction in the management and

use of rangeland ecosystems.

A hierarchy, or order, of ecological function and

process exists within each ecosystem or watershed.

Each system consists of four primary, interactive

components: a physical component, a biological

component, a social component, and an economic

component. This perspective implies that the physical

function of an ecosystem supports the biological

health, diversity, and productivity of that system. In

turn, the interaction of the physical and biological

components of the ecosystem provides the basic needs

of society and supports economic use and potential.

The Fundamentals of Rangeland Health stated in 43

CFR 4180 are:

1) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress

toward, properly functioning physical condition,

including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic

components; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that

are in balance with climate and landform and maintain

or improve water quality, water quantity and the timing

and duration of flow.

2) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic
Management Alternatives

3 -55

cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are maintained,

or there is significant progress toward their attainment,

in order to support healthy biotic populations and

communities.

3) Water quality complies with State water quality

standards and achieves, or is making significant

progress toward achieving, established BLM objectives

such as meeting wildlife needs.

4) Habitats are, or are making significant progress

toward being, restored or maintained for Federal T&E

species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal

candidate and other special status species.

The fundamentals of rangeland health combine the

basic precepts of physical function and biological

health with elements of law relating to water quality,

and plant and animal populations and communities.

They provide direction in the development and implementation of the standards for rangeland health.

Monitoring

BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring

would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. A

range of vegetation and soils conditions, stream types

and conditions, and projects would be monitored.

Common to All Alternatives

Watershed management would incorporate required

state and Federal laws which protect the watershed

health. BMP’s are required by the CWA and developed

during the NEPA process. Watersheds would be further

protected by the evolution of watershed science and an

increase of information and data for the resource area.

This is incorporated into management through multiscale analyses such as subbasin review, watershed

analysis, and site-specific environmental assessment.

The implementation of water quality management

plans would improve the watershed condition of

watersheds with water quality limited segments as

defined by section 303(d) of the CWA. The criteria

used to determine priority streams are presence of T&E

species or habitat, water quality limited designation, an

active watershed council, and willingness of other

agencies to participate. High priority watersheds are:

• Honey Creek Watershed (1712000706);

• Twentymile Watershed (1712000704);

• Bridge Creek Subwatershed (171200052701);

• Buck Creek Watershed (1712000529);

• Guano Valley Watershed (1712000824); and

• Alkali Lake Watershed (1712000510).

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Management activities and uses would continue on

public land which allow healthy upland vegetation

conditions. Uses and activities which address water

resource-related objectives identified in existing

planning documents, such as objectives relating to

control of erosion and sedimentation, would be emphasized. Uses and activities would be managed to meet

rangeland health standards.

Implementation of existing watershed health objectives

to maintain or improve watershed condition would

continue. Management activities and uses within a

watershed would continue to occur as long as the

physical and biological condition and degree of watershed function necessary to sustain watershed health is

maintained.

On case-by-case basis, close unnecessary roads or

where resource damage is occurring. Construct and

maintain roads to minimum standards. Continue

existing upland grazing systems and exclosures.

Alternative B

Watersheds would be managed for uses and activities

that emphasize commodity production, while providing

for the attainment and maintenance of minimum

watershed health criteria, proper functioning condition,

and desired range of conditions. Public uses and

activities would be allowed in watersheds with water

quality limited stream segments as long as there is

progression toward attainment of State water quality

standards.

Management of watersheds with streams and water

bodies not meeting minimum State water quality

standards would focus on protection and maintenance

of the area along the instream channels and within

riparian conservation areas and allows those commodities uses and activities in the remaining watershed to

occur. No activities would be allowed within the

riparian conservation area that would adversely affect

water quality, riparian habitat, or wetlands. Implementation would be in the form of buffered exclusion areas
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 56

or the use of temporary and permanent fencing.

Management uses and activities would be the primary

tool for maintenance and restoration of upland vegetation and soils condition. Close unnecessary roads or

where resource damage is occurring. Construct and

maintain roads to meet BMP’s. Upland livestock

grazing would meet minimum standards.

Alternative C

Watersheds would be managed for uses and activities

that emphasize restoration, protection, or improvement

of watershed function and processes, and deemphasize

commodity production. This alternative would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of water quality

standards, proper functioning condition, and desired

range of conditions of the watersheds. Active restoration of native plant communities would be used in

areas unable to attain the desired range of conditions

through changes in management.

Watersheds with streams and water bodies not meeting

minimum State water quality standards would be

managed to attain an upward trend in the composition

and structure of upland and riparian vegetation communities and desired soil conditions. Management

activities and uses within the watershed that adversely

affect infiltration rates, soil moisture storage, or safe

release of water would be adjusted, restricted, or

limited if desired vegetation and soil conditions could

not be attained or maintained.

Management options would focus on uses and activities which allow for the protection, maintenance, and

restoration of upland watershed health and measurable

progress toward the desired condition of vegetation and

soils.

A priority for restoration would be the Sheeprock

Allotment. This area was identified in ICBEMP as a

watershed (habitat) that has declined substantially since

historical times. Restoration methods could include

prescribed burning or plowing and reseeding.

Checkdams and other structures could be installed to

control erosion.

Close and rehabilitate all roads on public lands not

required by law. Do not increase the road density in

any watershed with a low road density (less than 0.7

miles per sqaure mile). Minimize new road construction. Livestock grazing would be managed to promote

healthy watershed which include productive soil, native

vegetation, and biological crusts. Prohibit management

activities and uses, except when mandated by law, in

perennial and intermittent drainages where such

activities would adversely impact watershed function

or processes.

Alternative D

Watersheds would be managed for uses and activities

that emphasize restoration, protection, or improvement

of watershed function and processes while providing

for commodity production. This alternative would

provide for the attainment and maintenance of water

quality standards, proper functioning condition, and

desired range of conditions of the watersheds. Active

restoration of native plant communities would be used

in areas unable to attain the desired range of conditions

through changes in management.

Watersheds with streams and water bodies not meeting

minimum State water quality standards would be

managed to attain an upward trend in the composition

and structure of upland and riparian vegetation communities and desired soil conditions. Management

activities and uses within the watershed that adversely

affect infiltration rates, soil moisture storage, or safe

release of water would be adjusted, restricted, or

limited if desired vegetation and soil conditions could

not be attained or maintained.

Management uses and activities would be the primary

tool for maintenance and restoration of upland vegetation and soils condition. Management options would

focus on uses and activities which allow for the protection, maintenance, and restoration of upland watershed

health and measurable progress toward the desired

condition of vegetation and soils.

A priority for restoration would be the Sheeprock

Allotment. This area was identified in ICBEMP as a

watershed (habitat) that has declined substantially since

historical times. Restoration methods could include

prescribed burning or plowing and reseeding.

Checkdams and other structures could be installed to

control erosion.

On a case-by-case basis, close and rehabilitate all roads

on public lands not needed for private land access,

permit administration, law enforcement, or fire protection. Livestock grazing would maintain minimum

condition of a healthy watershed which include mostly

productive soils, native vegetation, and some biological

crusts.
Management Alternatives

3 -57

Alternative E

Commodity production would be excluded from all

public lands. Watersheds would be managed for uses

and activities that emphasize restoration, protection, or

improvement of watershed function. Any attainment

and maintenance of water quality standards, proper

functioning condition, and desired range of conditions

of the watersheds would be at a natural rate with no

active restoration.

Close and rehabilitate all roads on public lands except

those required by law. Allow no new roads except

when required by law. No livestock grazing would be

permitted. Remove existing exclosures.

Management Goal 2—Ensure that surface water and

groundwater influenced by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) activities comply with or are making

significant progress toward achieving State of Oregon

water quality standards for beneficial uses as established by the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality (ODEQ).

Rationale

The “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” (commonly

known as the “Clean Water Act” [CWA]) of 1977, as

amended, required the restoration and maintenance of

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

Nation’s waters. BLM is responsible to manage the

requirements of the Act on BLM-administered lands,

but primacy in implementing the Act is retained by the

State of Oregon. BLM is required to maintain water

quality where it presently meets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Oregon State water

quality standards and improve water quality on public

lands where it does not meet standards. State developed total maximum daily loads and State approved

water quality management plans are required for

watersheds containing water quality limited segments

(Table 2-17 and Appendix F3), as defined by section

303(d) of the CWA. In addition to the Act, numerous

laws, regulations, policies, and Executive orders direct

BLM to manage for water quality for the benefit of the

Nation and its economy (refer to Appendix B, Planning

Criteria, Legal Authorities, and Relationship to other

Plans). A discussion of the LRA strategy for developing water quality restoration plans is in Appendix F3.

Water quality is important not only for human use but

also for proper ecological function. Management

practices such as grazing, mining, recreation, forest

harvesting, and ecological restoration would be designed for healthy sustainable streams and good water

quality.

Monitoring

Water quality monitoring would be conducted for

various parameters comparing water quality standards

to current condition.

Common to all Alternatives

Establishment of total maximum daily loads for CWA

section 303(d) listed water bodies is the responsibility

of the State of Oregon with approval of by EPA. It is

also the State of Oregon’s responsibility to develop a

water quality management plan which details how the

total maximum daily load would be implemented. It is

BLM’s responsibility to provide them a water quality

restoration plan for the land they manage with in a

watershed containing a water quality limited segment.

Each water quality restoration plan would identify

adverse condition that BLM can improve within the

watersheds which affect listed stream segments and

specify management actions necessary to restore water

quality and meet Oregon water quality standards.

Elements of a water quality restoration plan per USFS

and BLM guidance are shown in Appendix F3. Water

quality restoration plans would be developed for the

watersheds with water quality limited stream segments.

The State schedule would complete the Warner Valley

Subbasin total maximum daily load in 2003, and the

Summer Lake, Lake Abert, and Guano Subbasins in

2007. The water quality restoration plans would be

done proactively and could be submitted to the State

before the work is completed.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Management activities and uses would continue on

public land. Uses and activities which address water

resource-related objectives identified in existing

planning documents, such as objectives relating to

control of erosion and sedimentation, would be emphasized. Uses and activities would be managed to meet

water quality standards on streams with water quality

limited segments identified by the State of Oregon.

Implementation of existing water resource objectives

and maintenance or improvement of existing water

quality would continue. Streams and waterbodies not

meeting minimum State water quality standard or
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 58

riparian proper functioning condition would be managed to attain an upward trend in the composition and

structure of key riparian or wetland vegetation and

desired physical characteristics of the stream channel

and soils.

Uses and activities in these stream channels and

riparian or wetland areas would be adjusted if current

management would not allow for the maintenance or

attainment of water quality standards and proper

functioning condition.

Alternative B

Water resources would be managed for uses and

activities that emphasize commodity production, while

providing for the attainment and maintenance of water

quality standards, proper functioning condition, and

desired range of conditions. Public uses and activities

would be allowed along streams and around other

waterbodies, as long as there is progress toward

attainment of State water quality standards.

For streams with water quality limited segments

(impaired waters) as defined by 303 (d) of the CWA,

management activities would be implemented to

restore water quality to minimum levels that meet State

water quality standards. For water quality limited

segments, commodity production uses and activities

would be permitted along streams and riparian and

wetland areas only if they would allow progress toward

attainment of water quality standards.

Streams and waterbodies not meeting minimum State

water quality standards and/or proper functioning

condition would be managed to attain an upward trend

in condition of key riparian and wetland vegetation and

desired physical characteristics of the stream channel

and soils. This alternative focuses specifically on the

protection and maintenance of the area along and in

stream channels and within riparian conservation areas

and allows those commodity uses and activities in the

remaining watershed to occur. Any use or activity

within the riparian conservation area that would

adversely affect water quality and/or riparian or

wetland resources would be excluded from the riparian

conservation area. Implementation would be in the

form of buffered exclusion areas or the use of temporary and permanent fencing.

Alternative C

Water resources would be managed for uses and

activities that emphasize restoration, protection, or

improvement of natural values and deemphasize

commodity production. This alternative would provide

for the attainment and maintenance of water quality

standards, proper functioning condition, and desired

range of conditions of the water resources. Active

restoration, such as intensive woody riparian vegetation

plantings and the installation of checkdams or

rockbarbs, would be used in areas unable to attain

proper functioning condition and the desired range of

conditions through changes in management.

Public uses would be allowed along streams and

around other waterbodies, as long as State water

quality standards are either attained at the same or

greater rate than if the use or activity were absent. For

streams with water quality limited segments, uses and

activities would be allowed in the watershed only if

they would promote or have no effect on restoring

water quality to State water quality standards. Public

uses would be allowed along streams and around other

waterbodies, as long as State water quality standards

are either attained at the same or greater rate than if the

use or activity were absent. Management would be

adjusted as needed for those uses and activities that are

not leading to the attainment of State water quality

standards. Management activities and uses within the

watershed that adversely affect infiltration rates, soil

moisture storage, or safe release of water would be

adjusted, restricted, or limited if desired vegetation and

soil conditions cannot be attained or maintained.

Streams and waterbodies not meeting minimum State

water quality standards and or proper functioning

condition would be managed to attain an upward trend

in condition of key riparian and wetlands vegetation

and desired physical characteristics of the stream

channel and soils. Uses and activities within the

riparian conservation area and contributing upland

watershed areas that adversely affect water quality and

or lead to channel or riparian or wetland resource

degradation would be adjusted, restricted or limited if

water quality and proper functioning condition cannot

be attained or maintained with existing management.

Management options would focus on uses and activities which allow for the protection, maintenance, and

restoration of riparian conservation areas and upland

watersheds and measurable progress toward the

attainment of water quality standards and proper

functioning condition within streams and riparian

conservation areas.

Alternative D

Water resources would be managed for uses and
Management Alternatives

3 -59

activities that emphasize maintenance or improvement

of natural values while providing for commodity

production. This alternative would provide for the

attainment and maintenance of water quality standards,

proper functioning condition, and desired range of

conditions of the water resources. Public uses and

activities would be allowed along streams and other

waterbodies and associated watersheds, as long as there

is measurable progress toward attainment of State

water quality standards. For steams with water quality

limited segments, management activities would be

implemented with the intent to restore water quality to

the minimum level.

Streams and waterbodies not meeting minimum State

water quality standards and/or proper functioning

condition would be managed to attain an upward trend

in the composition and structure of key riparian and

wetland vegetation and desired physical characteristics

of the stream channel and soils. Uses and activities

within the riparian conservation area and contributing

upland watershed areas that adversely affect water

quality and or lead to channel or riparian or wetland

resource degradation would be adjusted, restricted, or

limited if water quality and proper functioning condition cannot be attained or maintained with existing

management.

Management within streams and riparian conservation

areas would focus on uses and activities which allow

for the protection and maintenance of riparian conservation areas and upland watersheds, and measurable

progress toward the attainment of water quality standards and proper functioning condition.

Alternative E

Commodity production would be excluded from all

public lands. For streams with water quality limited

segments, uses and activities would be allowed in the

watershed only if they would promote or have no effect

on restoring water quality to required State water

quality standards while protecting and enhancing

natural values.

Streams and water bodies not meeting minimum State

water quality standards and/or proper functioning

condition would be managed to attain an upward trend

in the composition and structure of key riparian and

wetland vegetation and desired physical characteristics

of the stream channel and soils. Noncommodity uses

and activities within the riparian conservation area and

contributing uplands watershed areas that adversely

affect water quality and/or lead to stream channel or

riparian or wetland resource degradation would be

adjusted, restricted, or limited if water quality and

proper functioning condition cannot be attained or

maintained with existing management.

Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Management Goal—Restore, maintain, or improve

habitat to provide for diverse and self-sustaining

communities of wildlife, fishes, and other aquatic

organisms.

Rationale

FLPMA, six Executive orders, numerous legislative

acts, and other regulations and policies direct the BLM

to manage public land to provide habitat for fish and

wildlife and to protect the quality of water resources.

The following are examples:

FLPMA places fish and wildlife management on equal

footing with other traditional land uses; requires that

part of grazing fees be spent for “range betterment,”

including aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat

enhancement, protection, and maintenance where

livestock range; and requires consideration of fish and

wildlife resources before approval of land exchanges.

The “Sikes Act” of 1974 is a congressional mandate for

the BLM to “plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate

programs for the conservation and rehabilitation of

wildlife, fish, and game.”

In addition, Executive orders for floodplain management and protection of wetlands provide further

direction for protection and management of fisheries

habitat.

Through a statewide memorandum of understanding

between the BLM and ODEQ, the BLM implements

the CWA by meeting State water quality standards.

Hydrologic basins covered by this Draft RMP/EIS

“shall be managed to protect the recognized beneficial

uses,” which include “salmonid fish (trout) rearing ,”

“salmonid fish spawning,” and “resident fish and

aquatic life.”

The BLM’s role in the management of fish and other

aquatic resources is to provide the habitat that supports

desired aquatic plants and animals. Plants, animals, and

their interactions with each other and the physical

environment are part of the ecological processes

important for the health and function of aquatic ecosys-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 60

tems as well as the overall rangeland or forest ecosystem. Species manipulations, such as introductions or

removals, are under the authority of ODFW.

Proper functioning condition (see Plant Communities,

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation section of this chapter)

alone may not meet certain desired range of conditions

known to be important for wildlife. For example,

quaking aspen-dependent bird species may require a

minimum stand size before they can become selfsustaining as a breeding population. The grazing

system necessary to reach this goal may require specific periods of rest or other measures which would

exceed that necessary to attain proper functioning

condition.

Monitoring

Monitoring aquatic habitats would include aquatic

habitat surveys, fish population surveys,

macroinvertebrate sampling, water quality assessments,

riparian trend analyses, Rosgen channel monitoring,

riparian site classification and assessment of change

over time, and assessments of riparian proper functioning condition.

Methods for measuring habitat goals, such as aerial

imagery, photo points at key areas, vegetation sampling

methodologies capable of describing age classes and

structural conditions, and habitat utilization studies

would be determined on a case-by-case basis in BLM

activity and project plans. Habitat conditions currently

being measured for evaluation may continue to be used.

Monitoring can be broken into two major categories.

First is implementation monitoring designed to assess

if designated management is being followed. An

example of implementation monitoring is: livestock

grazing compliance to assure seasons, stocking rates,

and utilization levels are being met. The second

category is effectiveness monitoring which determines

if habitat conditions are moving towards a defined

goal. There are numerous examples of effectiveness

monitoring. To determine improvement in conditions

relating to lotic proper functioning condition, monitoring methods are described for all assessment categories

(Technical Reference 1737-15). Table 3-2 shows goals

and possible monitoring methods to determine progress

toward meeting those goals; this table does not repeat

the monitoring described in the proper functioning

condition technical reference listed above.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Current management objectives for wildlife and fish

and other aquatic resources would be followed. Management emphasis would be on improving and expanding existing fisheries habitat in streams and reservoirs,

especially for redband trout, Warner sucker, and other

native fish, and the Columbia spotted frog. Existing

riparian exclosures and pastures would be maintained

or improved. Strategies identified in previous planning

documents for fish habitat restoration and improvement

(e.g., grazing reductions, new reservoir construction,

riparian fencing, instream structures, etc.) would be

implemented. Cooperation would continue with

ODFW on trout stocking in isolated reservoirs.

Alternative B

Management would emphasize habitat for fish and

other aquatic organisms important to commodity uses,

such as recreational fishing, but not at the risk of

causing extinction of native species. This includes

stocking of additional sites with trout in cooperation

with ODFW.

Management would protect, maintain, or restore

instream processes, habitat diversity, and riparian

condition to sustain aquatic organisms important for

commodity use. In addition, management would

maintain a distribution of native game and nongame

species that would promote natural dispersal and

recolonization among populations.

Although management of entire watersheds is considered important for the health and function of aquatic

ecosystems, this alternative would focus specifically on

the protection of riparian/wetland areas where land

uses or activities could have the most direct and

immediate effect on aquatic habitat. Uses or activities

allowed in riparian/wetland areas must ensure progress

toward (1) maintenance, protection, or restoration of

instream processes and habitat diversity; (2) water

quality that meets State standards for aquatic beneficial

use; and (3) attainment of proper functioning condition

and riparian management objectives.

Where habitat conditions are determined to be lacking

and the goal cannot be reached with management,

instream improvements may be initiated.
Management Alternatives

3 -61

Alternative C

Management emphasis provides wildlife and fish and

other aquatic organism habitat that maintains the

distribution of native species among subwatersheds and

supports all native species needed for self-sustaining

aquatic communities.

Management would protect, maintain, or restore

riparian condition, instream processes, and habitat

diversity so that all native aquatic species can persist in

natural assemblages within their present or historic

subwatersheds. Where nonnative species already occur,

habitat objectives would be based on the requirements

of the native species. The purpose would be to maintain

a distribution of native species that would promote

natural dispersal and recolonization among populations

and allow species interactions that are part of ecosystem processes.

Because management throughout a watershed is vital

for the health and function of aquatic ecosystems, this

alternative focuses on entire watersheds where uses or

activities may have direct or indirect effects on riparian/wetland areas. Uses or activities would be allowed

in the watershed as long as they promote (1) maintenance, protection, or restoration of instream processes

and habitat diversity; (2) water quality that meets State

standards for aquatic beneficial use; and (3) attainment

of proper functioning condition and riparian management objectives.

Where habitat conditions are determined to be lacking

and the goal cannot be reached with management,

instream improvements may be initiated, such as

installing instream structures to modify stream flow,

and planting vegetation, etc. Roads would be removed

from riparian conservation areas.

Alternative D

Management emphasis provides habitat for wildlife and

fish and other aquatic organisms to maintain the

distribution of native species among subwatersheds

while providing opportunities for commodity uses.

Nonnative species would receive less emphasis and

would be supported only where they do not interfere

with native species. Habitat would also be provided for

the native species needed for self-sustaining aquatic

communities.

Management would protect, maintain, or restore

riparian condition, instream processes, and habitat

diversity so that all native aquatic species can live in

predominantly natural assemblages within their present

or historic subwatersheds. Where nonnative species

already occur, habitat objectives would be based on the

requirements of the native species. The purpose is to

maintain a distribution of native species that would

promote natural dispersal and recolonization among

populations and allow species interactions that are part

of ecosystem processes.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 62

Because management throughout a watershed is

considered important for the health and function of

aquatic ecosystems, this alternative focuses on entire

watersheds where uses or activities may have direct or

indirect effects on riparian/wetland areas. Uses or

activities would be allowed in the watershed as long as

they ensure progress toward (1) maintenance, protection, or restoration of instream processes and habitat

diversity; (2) water quality that meets State standards

for aquatic beneficial use; and (3) attainment of proper

functioning condition, desired range of conditions, and

riparian management objectives.

Livestock grazing and related activities would be

removed from those stream segments where proper

functioning condition assessment ratings are functioning-at-risk with no apparent trend, downward trend, or

nonfunctioning and where grazing is determined to be a

factor in the current condition. This is especially

critical in the BLM riparian sites in fenced Federal

range allotments. Exclusion of livestock would

continue in these areas until systems are determined

able to support reintroduction of grazing with proper

management to improve riparian conditions.

Where habitat conditions are determined to be lacking

and the goal cannot be reached with management,

instream improvements may be initiated, such as

installing instream structures to modify stream flow,

and planting vegetation, etc.

Roads would be managed in riparian conservation

areas to improve conditions. Roads may be removed

and/or relocated where it is determined that they are

contributing to less than desirable conditions. Road

construction and maintenance would follow BMP’s to

minimize sediment input and channel effects.

Acquisition of habitat or water rights with willing

owners would be pursued. Water rights would be

converted to instream or habitat rights.

Alternative E

Commodity production would be excluded from all

public lands. Aquatic habitat conditions would be

determined primarily by natural processes. However,

where needed, management would protect, maintain, or

restore riparian condition, instream processes, and

habitat diversity so that all native aquatic species can

persist in natural assemblages within their present or

historic subwatersheds. Streams and water bodies not

meeting minimum State water quality standards and/or

proper functioning condition would be managed to

attain an upward trend in the composition and structure

of key riparian/wetland vegetation and desired physical

characteristics of the stream channel. Noncommodity

uses and activities within the riparian conservation area

and contributing upland watershed areas that adversely

affect water quality and/or lead to stream channel or

riparian/wetland habitat degradation would be adjusted,

restricted, or eliminated.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Management Goal 1—Facilitate the maintenance,

restoration, and enhancement of bighorn sheep

populations and habitat on public land. Pursue

management in accordance with Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) “Oregon’s Bighorn

Sheep Management Plan” in a manner consistent

with the principles of multiple use management.

Rationale

Section 102.8 of FLPMA states that it is policy of the

United States to manage the public land in a manner

that would protect the quality of multiple resources and

would provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and

domestic animals.

Public land supplies a high percentage of the total

available and currently unoccupied land suitable for

bighorn sheep. As the principle land-administrator of

habitat capable of supporting bighorn sheep, BLM

involvement in this program is necessary. BLM has a

policy and responsibility to cooperate with State

agencies to accommodate species management goals to

the extent they are consistent with the principles of

multiple use management.

ODFW has been pursuing a statewide effort to restore

bighorn sheep into suitable unoccupied habitat and

enhance populations in currently occupied areas. Both

the BLM and the ODFW have agency management

plans and have coordinated over the years to foster

communication between agencies and with the public.

Although the ODFW has been successfully releasing

and managing bighorn sheep on public land since the

mid-1960s, current populations and distributions are

still considered to be below their potential.

Bighorn sheep are native to eastern Oregon and their presence

contributes to the overall biological diversity and productivity

of public land. There is widespread public interest in being

able to observe them in their natural setting, and they are

highly prized as a big game animal.
Management Alternatives

3 -63

Monitoring

Monitoring would include ODFW survey data on the

general locations and numbers of bighorn sheep, and

livestock utilization and rangeland trend studies.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Bighorn sheep maintenance, restoration, and enhancement would be emphasized within existing use areas

and proposed reintroduction areas as identified in

current land use plans, wildlife habitat management

plans, and ODFW’s most current bighorn sheep

management plan. Bighorn sheep pioneering outside of

the range would only be allowed where there are no

disease transmission conflicts.

A 9-mile buffer, as recommended in “Mountain Sheep

Ecosystem Management Strategy in the 11 Western

States and Alaska” (USDI-BLM 1995), would be

required between new domestic sheep and goat permitted use areas and bighorn sheep use areas, based on

local conditions, as a mechanism to further avoid

disease transmission.

Alternative B

Same as for Alternative A, except restoration of

bighorn sheep forage production and reduction of

juniper encroachment would occur on 6,000 to 12,000

acres of bighorn sheep range on Lynch Rim (Fish

Creek Rim) (see Map V-2). Treatments would reduce

invasive western juniper by 30 to 70 percent within

each of these areas over the life of the plan. Any

treatments occurring within the WSA would be consistent with BLM’s wilderness IMP.

Alternative C

Same as for Alternative A, except domestic sheep

grazing would not be allowed within the LRA and

restoration of bighorn sheep forage production and

reduction of western juniper encroachment would

occur on 12,000 to 25,500 acres of bighorn sheep range

on Lynch Rim (Fish Creek Rim), South Warner Rim,

Coleman Rim, and South Abert Rim (see Map V-2).

Treatments would reduce invasive western juniper by

30 to 70 percent within each of these areas over the life

of the plan. Any treatments occurring within the WSA

would be consistent with BLM’s wilderness IMP.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative A, except restoration of

bighorn sheep forage production and reduction of

western juniper encroachment would occur on 12,000

to 25,500 acres of bighorn sheep range on Lynch Rim

(Fish Creek Rim), South Warner Rim, Coleman Rim,

and South Abert Rim (see Map V-2). Treatments

would reduce invasive western juniper by 30 to 70

percent within each of these areas over the life of the

plan. Any treatments occurring within the WSA would

be consistent with BLM’s wilderness IMP.

Alternative E

Bighorn sheep management would allow for natural

processes to occur. Habitat maintenance, restoration,

and enhancement would be emphasized within all

suitable range and with no limitations on public land.

Bighorn sheep occupancy would be determined by

population growth and natural dispersal. Livestock

grazing, including domestic sheep and goats, would not

be authorized; therefore, a buffer would not be required

to minimize disease transmission.

Management Goal 2—Manage big sagebrush cover

to meet the life history requirements of sagebrushdependent wildlife.

Rationale

Section 102.8 of FLPMA requires that public land be

managed to protect the quality of multiple resources

and provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and

domestic animals. Rangeland health regulations

identify the need to foster productive and diverse

populations and communities of plants and animals.

Numerous wildlife species depend on native upland

sagebrush steppe habitats to meet life history needs. In

managing uplands, the BLM needs to consider the

consequences and relationships of management to the

life history needs of wildlife.

Alternative A

Variable desired conditions of big sagebrush cover

would be determined on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with ODFW to provide mosaics of sagebrush

cover on portions of big game habitat. Limited emphasis would be placed on specifically providing habitat

for nongame wildlife species. Crucial big game and

greater sage-grouse habitat would be protected from

large-scale vegetation treatment projects or wildland

fires.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 64

Alternative B

Big sagebrush habitat would be reestablished on native

rangeland or seedings where economically important

wildlife are present.

Alternative C

Big sagebrush habitat would be managed for shrub

cover, structure, and forage values for the benefit of

game and nongame wildlife. The desired range of

conditions would include shrub cover values that meet

or exceed the requirements described in “Wildlife

Habitats in Managed Rangelands” (1984) and big

sagebrush distribution over a large enough area to

avoid the adverse impacts of habitat fragmentation.

The desired range of conditions would strive for big

sagebrush overstories that emphasize the presence of

mature, light- to moderately-stocked shrub canopies

capable of supporting diverse herbaceous understories

and that are present in a variety of spatial arrangements

important to wildlife. This would apply to all native

range or seeded areas in big sagebrush habitats

throughout the planning area.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative C, except that desired range of

conditions would apply to all areas in big sagebrush

habitats throughout the planning area.

Alternative E

Future big sagebrush conditions would be variable and

would be determined exclusively by natural processes.

Management Goal 3—Manage upland habitats so

that the forage, water, cover, structure, and security

necessary for wildlife are available on public land.

Rationale

Section 102.8 of FLPMA states that it is the policy of

the United States to manage public land in a manner

that would protect the quality of multiple resources and

provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic animals. The PRIA directs BLM to improve rangeland conditions with due consideration given the needs

of wildlife and their habitats.

The character of upland vegetation (arrangements,

densities, and age classes, etc.) greatly influences

wildlife habitat quality and productivity. Because the

character of upland vegetation can vary in response to

Federal land use authorizations, BLM needs to consider the consequences of various land uses (such as

grazing and mining) and treatments (such as forest

health projects, burning, and seeding) to the health of

wildlife habitat. The outcomes of what may be considered proper range or forest management may not

necessarily result in satisfactory wildlife habitat.

Wildlife must have a reasonable amount of protection

from the adverse impacts associated with human

disturbances. This is especially true during breeding

periods and on winter ranges, and can apply to most

kinds of human activities.

Monitoring

Monitoring includes periodic estimations or actual

measured values of vegetation. Monitoring would

normally be in concert with resource evaluations of

various geographic areas. Monitoring would determine

how closely watersheds or project areas are to meeting

desired wildlife habitat conditions.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Single-species-oriented management is emphasized in

most habitats.

Improvement of crucial big game habitat on approximately 3.2 million acres as identified in the Fort Rock/

Silver Lake, Paisley, North and South Warner Lakes

Habitat Management Plans would continue (note: total

includes overlapping habitat for elk, pronghorn, mule

deer, and bighorn sheep [see Map W-2]). Upland big

game habitat within the resource area is currently

managed to attain desired wildlife habitat conditions

over the long term. Achievement of desired wildlife

habitat conditions would include a variety of methods

to increase or decrease the big sagebrush overstory.

The present public land base within crucial big game

ranges would be retained in Federal ownership, unless

an exchange could be made that would be more beneficial to wildlife. Any proposed changes would be

reviewed by ODFW.

Ten to 15 wildlife water developments (2,000–3,000-

gallon guzzlers) would be installed where wildlife

water is deficient.

Forest, western juniper, quaking aspen, and mountain

shrub habitat types would be managed as described
Management Alternatives

3 -65

under the Shrub Steppe and Forest and Woodlands

sections of this document.

The Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range Cooperative

Road Closure with USFS and ODFW would continue.

Vehicle use in the 66,460-acre area would be limited to

designated roads and trails from December 1 to March

31. New closures would be initiated where necessary.

Alternative B

Same as for Alternative A

Alternative C

Same as for Alternative A, except that equal emphasis

would be placed on game and nongame wildlife habitat

needs in sagebrush steppe, forest and woodland habitats. To the extent possible and practical, wildlife

community connectivity and interrelationships would

be emphasized in most habitats. This approach would

stress landscape or ecosystem management and be

distinctly different from single-species management

emphasis.

In crucial wildlife habitat such as deer winter range and

greater sage-grouse ranges (Maps W-1 and -2), new

rights-of-way would be avoided and OHV’s would be

limited to existing roads and trails (Maps L-7 and R-6).

The Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range Cooperative

Road Closure area would be expanded by 34,374 to

100,834 acres. Vehicle use would be limited to designated roads and trails in this area from December 1 to

March 31.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative C, except new rights-of-way

would be avoided in greater sage-grouse breeding

habitat and crucial deer winter range (Map L-8), and

vehicles would be limited to existing roads and trails or

seasonal closures in deer winter range. A total of

275,463 acres in north Lake County would be designated OHV’s limited to existing roads and trails yearround to protect wildlife habitat (see Map R-7).

Alternative E

This alternative assumes that habitat conditions would

be determined by the consequences of natural events.

Management Goal 4—Manage forage production to

support wildlife population levels identified by the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

Rationale

Section 102.8 of FLPMA states that it is the policy of

the United States to manage public land in a manner

that would protect the quality of multiple resources and

provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic animals. The PRIA directs BLM to improve rangeland conditions with due consideration given the needs

of wildlife and their habitats.

The ODFW manages wildlife species populations

through management objectives set up in their respective management plans and the BLM manages adequate

habitat to support these numbers.

Since the original wildlife allocations set up over 20

years ago, big game populations have expanded their

range and increased in numbers. Bighorn sheep and

elk have been reintroduced into the planning area and

pronghorn and deer numbers have been allowed to

expand due to habitat changes and ODFW harvest

management.

Alternative A

Continue current allocation of 13,691 animal unit

months (AUM’s) for wildlife needs. Livestock grazing

use within crucial deer or pronghorn winter range

would not be allowed to exceed an average of 30

percent of the current year’s growth of bitterbrush.

Alternatives B–D

Allocate approximately 22,081 AUM’s of forage to

wildlife to provide for expanding elk and bighorn sheep

populations and readjust AUM’s in crucial deer and

pronghorn allotments to reflect ODFW management

number changes. This is an increase of 8,390 AUM’s

over current allocation, and would have no affect on

livestock allocations. Current and proposed wildlife

forage allocations by allotment and wildlife species are

shown in Chapter 2, Table 2-26, and Appendix E1,

Allotment Management Summaries.

Livestock grazing use within crucial deer or pronghorn

winter range would not be allowed to exceed an

average of 30 percent of the current year’s growth of

bitterbrush.

Alternative E

No special management adjustments would be required; however, site-specific projects may need to be
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 66

implemented to provide adequate forage for wildlife.

Special Status Animal Species

Management Goal—Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance populations and habitats of

special status animal species. Priority for the application of management actions would be: (1) Federal

endangered species, (2) Federal threatened species,

(3) Federal proposed species, (4) Federal candidate

species, (5) State listed species, (6) BLM sensitive

species, (7) BLM assessment species, and (8) BLM

tracking species. Manage in order to conserve or lead

to the recovery of threatened or endangered (T&E)

species.

Rationale

Section 102.8 of FLPMA requires that public land be

managed to protect the quality of multiple resources

and to provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and

domestic animals.

The “Endangered Species Act” mandates management

that leads to the conservation or recovery of federally

listed threatened or endangered species. This Act, as

well as BLM policy, encourages management to protect

special status species not currently listed as threatened

or endangered.

Most fish and wildlife assigned to a special status

category are limited in their distributions, populations,

or habitats and may be at risk over various geographic

areas. Where evidence suggests land uses are adversely affecting special status species not currently

listed as threatened or endangered, it is in the public

interest to prevent the need for Federal listing under the

“Endangered Species Act.” Listing of a species as

threatened or endangered may lead to restrictions on

land uses, and under some circumstances may cause

adverse socioeconomic impacts to commodity users. In

most cases, there are both socioeconomic and biological benefits associated with conserving species to avoid

Federal listing.

Maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of populations or habitat, as defined in the glossary of this

document, may represent appropriate BLM management depending on the habitat needs or specific

circumstances of a species. Restoration or enhancement may not always be the only clear choice for BLM

action regarding special status species. One potential

limitation that could delay restoration or enhancement

is that the biological mechanisms adversely affecting a

species may not be well enough understood to identify

needed management. Maintenance may also be a

preferred course of action where resource conditions

are exceptional.

Monitoring

Periodic surveys would determine the distribution,

resource conditions, and trends of important habitats

that support special status species. Refer to the monitoring sections of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat and

Water Resources/Watershed Health sections in this

chapter for more on monitoring.

Management Common to all Alternatives

With the exception of Alternative E, management of

Warner sucker, Foskett speckled dace, Hutton tui chub,

bald eagle, and peregrine falcon would be in accordance with recovery plans and consultation with the

USFWS. Management of greater sage-grouse would be

in accordance with current BLM management strategies as outlined in the “Greater Sage-grouse and

Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems Management Guidelines” (2000). The BLM is currently part of a working

group developing a long-term conservation strategy

plan for Oregon and Washington which would be

completed in the next 12–18 months. All BLM actions

in “The Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare

Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali

Subbasin” (1998) would be implemented (see Appendix H). Special status species management actions

would be adjucted to accommodate additions or

deletions in official listings of special status species.

Management Direction by Alternatives

Alternative A

Management would emphasize achieving desired range

of conditions that maintain, enhance, or restore habitats

or populations of any special status species regardless

of economic importance. All special status species

habitats or populations would be managed so that BLM

actions do not contribute toward the need to list these

species as federally T&E.

Management would provide habitat conditions that

meet individual species requirements. Fish and wildlife community goals would generally be secondary to

goals for individual species.

A variety of projects or other land use adjustments
Management Alternatives

3 -67

might be required to manage for special status species.

Some management for maintenance could require

avoidance or mitigation measures. Some restoration or

enhancement measures could involve very specific

remedies with the potential to lead to substantial

adjustments in customary land use practices. Because

of the variability in habitat use by special status

species, management actions could be required within

any of the habitat types described in this plan.

Alternative B

Management would emphasize achieving desired range

of conditions that maintain, enhance, or restore habitats

and populations of economically important special

status species listed in Table 2-24. All other special

status species habitats or populations would be managed so that BLM actions do not contribute toward the

need to list these species as federally threatened or

endangered. Management for these other species

would emphasize maintenance rather than restoration

and enhancement.

Management would provide habitat conditions that

favor individual special status species. Fish and

wildlife community goals would be secondary to goals

for individual species.

Management that might be required for special status

species could include avoidance or mitigation measures. Some restoration or enhancement measures

could involve very specific remedies leading to substantial adjustments in customary land use practices.

Because of the variability in habitat use by special

status species, management actions could be required

within any of the habitat types described in this plan.

Alternative C

This alternative would include the most aggressively

proactive measures for special status species management. Habitats and populations would be restored or

enhanced in all areas where biologically sound and

reasonable. Maintenance would only be considered

where habitat or population conditions are considered

to be at or near their potential. This is in contrast to

Alternatives A and B, which would include measures

for maintenance regardless of habitat or population

quality.

Management would develop habitats that support

healthy, biologically diverse communities of wildlife at

the fine scale while meeting special status species

needs. Individual species requirements would be

included in management prescriptions, but not to an

extent that overemphasizes the value of any one habitat

type. This community approach to management is

different from the single-species-driven management

indicated in Alternatives A and B.

A variety of projects or other land use adjustments

could be required to manage for special status species.

Some management for maintenance could require

avoidance or mitigation measures. Restoration or

enhancement measures could involve remedies that

lead to substantial adjustments in customary land use

practices. Because of the variability in habitat use by

special status species, management actions could be

required within any of the habitat types described in

this plan.

Alternative D

Management would emphasize achieving desired range

of conditions that maintain, enhance, or restore habitats

or populations of special status species regardless of

their economic status. All special status species

habitats or populations would be managed so that BLM

actions would not contribute toward the need to list the

species as federally T&E.

Management would be oriented toward the development of habitats that support healthy, biologically

diverse communities of wildlife at mid and fine scales

while meeting special status species needs. Individual

species requirements would be included in management prescriptions, but not to an extent that overemphasizes that value of any one habitat type. This

community approach to management is different from

the single-species-driven management indicated in

Alternatives A and B.

A variety of projects or other land use adjustments

could be required to manage for special status species.

Some management for maintenance could require

avoidance or mitigation measures. Some restoration or

enhancement measures could involve very specific

remedies leading to substantial adjustments in customary land use practices. Because of the variability in

habitat use by special status species, management

actions could be required within any of the habitat

types described in this plan.

Alternative E

Only those actions legally required to manage and

protect federally listed species would be carried out.

Management for other special status species would be
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 68

minimal. Natural processes would primarily determine

future conditions for special status species.

Livestock Grazing

Management

Management Goal—Provide for a sustainable level

of livestock grazing consistent with other resource

objectives and public land-use allocations.

Rationale

The “Taylor Grazing Act” of 1934 is the legislative

authority providing for livestock grazing on and

protection of public land. FLPMA, PRIA, and other

acts, direct the management of public land for multiple

use and sustained yield. Rangeland management

strategies would provide for the maintenance or

restoration of watershed function, nutrient cycling and

energy flow, water quality, habitat for special status

species, and habitat quality for populations and communities of native plants and animals. These management strategies have been supported by development of

regional “Standards for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the

States of Oregon and Washington” (USDI-BLM 1997).

The five standards are described in the Rangeland

Management section of Chapter 2 and in Appendix E4.

Monitoring

Monitoring of livestock grazing would include recording actual use, measurements of utilization, and continuation of collection of ecological site inventory data.

As of the end of fiscal year 2000, rangeland health

assessment’s have been completed on 12 allotments

covering 801,654 acres, and would be completed for all

remaining allotments by 2008. Monitoring data would

be utilized to determine attainment of the five standards. Conditions and trends of resources affected by

livestock grazing would be monitored to support

periodic analysis/evaluation and site-specific adjustments of livestock management actions. Monitoring

would determined when grazing would be authorized in

burned areas or prescribed burn treatments based on

attainment of resource objectives.

Management Common to Alternatives A–D

Where livestock grazing is found to be limiting

achievement of multiple use objectives, actions to

control intensity, duration, and timing of grazing and/or

provide for periodic deferment and/or rest would be

required to meet physiological requirements of key

plant species and to meet other resource objectives.

Upon determining that existing grazing management

practices on public land are contributing to the

nonattainment of resource objectives, appropriate

actions would be implemented. The intent of grazing

management is to leave sufficient herbaceous material

in most areas to provide soil and watershed protection,

to provide forage and cover for wildlife and wild

horses, and to meet other resource objectives. Known

problems pertaining to livestock grazing are not related

to existing forage allocations, but needed changes in

management such as season of use. This is addressed

in each of the alternatives. A summary of grazing

treatments is presented in Appendix E1, Allotment

Management Summaries.

The current grazing levels (Appendix E1, Allotment

Management Summaries) would be maintained until

analysis or evaluation of monitoring data or rangeland

health assessments identify a need for adjustments to

meet objectives. Applicable activity plans (including

existing allotment management plans, agreements,

decisions and/or terms and conditions of grazing use

authorizations) would be revised and implemented to

ensure that resource objectives are being met. The

level of AUM’s of specified grazing use in the alternatives is based on the average authorized AUM’s in the

resource area from 1991 to 2000 at light to moderate

levels. However, livestock permittees have the option

to license up to their full active preference for any

given year. Total active preference for the resource

area is 164,128 AUM’s. Permittees seldom use their

full active preference for a variety of reasons, including

previous agreements with BLM, management prescriptions in implemented allotment management plans,

economic factors, and forage and water availability.

Areas burned by wildland fire or prescribed fire would

be rested a minimum of two growing seasons before

they are reopened to livestock grazing. Decisions to

resume livestock grazing would be based on monitoring data. Rest for less than two growing seasons may

be justified case-by-case based on sound resource data

and experience.

Within the LRA, the Shale Rock Allotment (#435),

South Pasture, would be left unallotted to a specific

livestock operator and use would be authorized on an

emergency basis only.

In areas where livestock grazing is presently not

compatible with other uses, no grazing would be

permitted. Public land which is found not to be
Management Alternatives

3 -69

suitable for livestock grazing or containing resource

values which cannot be adequately protected from

livestock impacts through mitigating measures is not

allocated to livestock grazing. Table 2-28 and Map G-1

show areas that are currently not allotted to livestock

grazing due to conflicts with other uses.

Further, livestock grazing would be managed during

and following drought to maintain soil and vegetation

health and productivity following procedures outlined

in Appendix E1.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Continue the authorization of an average of 108,234

AUM’s per year of specified grazing use consistent

with multiple use and sustained yield objectives

identified in existing land use plans to resolve identified conflicts/concerns.

Adjustments to terms and conditions of livestock

grazing authorizations, based on monitoring and

periodic evaluation of allotments, would be implemented to progress toward meeting objectives of

existing land use plans. Administrative solutions,

including reductions in levels of authorized livestock,

changes in season of use, installation of range improvement projects, would be considered as necessary to

meet management objectives.

Forage utilization would not exceed moderate (50

percent).

Rangeland improvement projects would be implemented to minimize unacceptable livestock grazing

impacts by accessing available but underutilized forage

and improving livestock distribution. Vegetative

treatments would be implemented as identified in the

vegetative management alternatives of this document.

Standard implementation procedures for construction

of rangeland improvements are presented in Appendix

D.

Existing range improvements that support livestock

grazing use would be maintained. Projects which do

not function to meet management framework plan and

rangeland program summary objectives would be

abandoned and sites rehabilitated. Currently, about

106,416 acres are unalloted and another 136,766 acres

are excluded from grazing for various reasons.

Additional forage produced on a temporary basis

would be made available to qualified applicants

through temporary nonrenewable grazing authorization,

when consistent with existing management framework

plan and rangeland program summary objectives.

Implement enforcement of unauthorized use.

Alternative B

Emphasize livestock grazing on public land suitable for

grazing. Authorize an average of 119,057 AUM’s per

year of specified grazing use for livestock forage

consistent with multiple use and sustained yield

objectives identified in existing land use plans.

Adjustments to terms and conditions of livestock

grazing authorizations, based on monitoring and period

evaluation of allotments, would be implemented to

progress toward meeting objectives of existing land use

plans. Administrative solutions, including reductions

in levels of authorized livestock, changes in season of

use, installation of range improvement projects, would

be considered as necessary to meet management

objectives. The priority, on a case-by-case basis, would

be to maintain or enhance authorized use levels for

livestock.

Forage utilization would not exceed moderate (60

percent).

Rangeland improvement projects would be implemented to minimize unacceptable livestock grazing

impacts by accessing available but underutilized forage

and improving livestock distribution. Temporary or

permanent range improvements would be constructed

to protect resource values while retaining optimum

quantity of forage resources available for livestock (see

Table E3-1 for proposed projects by allotment).

Vegetative treatments would be implemented as

identified in the vegetative management alternatives of

this document. Standard implementation procedures for

construction of rangeland improvements would follow

BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1 and -2, and USDIBLM and USDA-FS (1988).

Existing range improvements that support livestock

grazing use would be maintained. Projects which do

not function to meet management framework plan and

rangeland program summary objectives would be

abandoned and sites rehabilitated. Areas where grazing

would be unalloted or excluded would be similar to

Alternative A.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 70

Additional forage produced on a temporary basis

would be authorized to qualified applicants through

temporary nonrenewable grazing, when consistent with

maintaining other resource values.

Alternative C

Emphasize protection of natural values by providing a

sustained yield of an average of 86,587 AUM’s per

year of specified grazing use while emphasizing

resource values, consistent with resource objectives.

Forage utilization would not exceed light (30 percent).

Within LRA, the Devils Garden Allotment (#907),

which has been available for livestock grazing on an

emergency basis only and not allotted to a specific

livestock operator, would be closed to grazing. In

addition, six of the proposed ACEC’s and one existing

ACEC, totaling 50,497 acres, would be closed to

grazing to provide protection to relevant and important

botanical and cultural values and to protect research

natural area values. In total, 131,751 acres would be

unalloted and 187,263 acres would be excluded from

grazing.

Rangeland improvement projects would be implemented only to meet resource objectives. Administrative solutions (season of use revision, stocking level

adjustment, and pasture exclusion) would be the

preferred solution to meet resource management

objectives. Range improvement projects that do not

enhance resource values and meet management objectives would be abandoned and the sites rehabilitated.

Vegetative treatments would be implemented only to

return rangelands to proper functioning communities.

Standard implementation procedures for construction

of rangeland improvements would follow BLM Manual

Handbook H-1741-1 and -2, and USDI-BLM and

USDA-FS (1988).

Temporary nonrenewable grazing would not be authorized. Additional herbaceous production would not be

allocated to livestock grazing but would be retained

onsite for values other than forage production.

Alternative D

Protect and improve natural values while providing a

sustained yield of an average of 108,234 AUM’s per

year of specified grazing use while maintaining resource values for multiple use and sustainability,

consistent with resource objectives.

Forage utilization would not exceed moderate (50

percent).

Rangeland improvement projects would be implemented only to meet resource objectives. Administrative solutions (i.e., season of use revision, stocking

level adjustment, and pasture exclusion) would be the

preferred solution to meet resource management

objectives. Range improvement projects that do not

function to enhance resource values and meet management objectives would be abandoned and rehabilitated.

Vegetative treatments would be implemented only to

return rangelands to proper functioning communities.

Standard implementation procedures for construction

of rangeland improvements would follow BLM Manual

Handbook H-1741-1 and -2, and USDI-BLM and

USDA-FS (1988).

Areas where grazing would be unalloted or excluded

would be similar to Alternative A.

Temporary nonrenewable grazing would be authorized

only if such use would not conflict with other resource

management outlined in this plan.

Alternative E

Commodity production would be excluded, eliminating

livestock grazing. Other uses would be limited and

natural values maximized.

No grazing use would be authorized. No rangeland

projects would be planned or implemented in support

of livestock grazing. All projects that support livestock

grazing would be abandoned and rehabilitated that do

not contribute to meeting other resource management

objectives. Remaining rangeland projects would be

maintained to design standards necessary to meet

management objectives. All cooperative agreements

with livestock operators would be vacated.

Wild Horses

Management Goal—Maintain and manage wild

horse herds in established herd management areas at

appropriate management levels to ensure a thriving

natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, and

other resource values.
Management Alternatives

3 -71

Rationale

The “Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act” of

1971 requires the BLM to protect and manage wild

horses in areas where they were found at the time of

the Act, in a manner designed to achieve and maintain

a thriving natural ecological balance in keeping with

the multiple use management concept of public lands.

Monitoring

Wild horses and their habitat would be monitored to

determine the timing and implementation of gatherings,

and to support existing appropriate management levels

or refine and adjust appropriate management levels as

needed. Monitoring would include periodic horse

counts to identify age and sex composition of herds,

identification of areas used by livestock and horses,

gathering climate data, conducting vegetation utilization studies, and determining vegetation condition and

trend.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Management of both the Paisley and Beaty Butte Herd

Management Areas are guided by herd management

area plans which identify specific management objectives for each herd management area. These plans

would continue in force and be revised as needed to

incorporate management direction contained in this

RMP. Horses straying outside the herd management

areas would be removed. The current memorandum of

understanding with Hart Mountain Wildlife Refuge,

whereby the BLM agrees to remove stray horses within

the refuge boundaries, would be followed.

Horses released back into herd management areas after

gathers would be animals exhibiting the special and

unique characteristics of that herd as described in Table

2-32. Horses would be selected to maintain herd

characteristics and to diversify genetic variability

within herds, especially in the Paisley Desert Herd

Management Area which has a lower appropriate

management level. Research on fertility control may

be implemented on a case-by-case basis as necessary to

continue the research in developing a safe, effective

vaccine. The fertility control vaccine (if approved for

general use by the Food and Drug Administration) may

be considered an option in management used to reduce

the frequency of gathers and benefit the health of wild

horses and rangelands.

Range improvements would be installed to encourage

horses to stay within herd management area boundaries. Improvements would be consistent with other

resource objectives of each alternative.

Management Common to Alternatives A–C

Herd management areas would initially be managed for

the established appropriate management levels of 60–

110 horses in the Paisley Desert Herd Management

Area and 100–250 horses in the Beaty Butte Herd

Management Area. Adjustments to appropriate management levels would be made as described in each

alternative. Forage allocations would be 1,320 AUM’s

in Paisley Desert and 3,000 AUM’s in Beaty Butte.

Management Common to Alternatives B–D

Forage for wild horses would be allocated to all horses

in the herd management area regardless of age. Forage

allocations for wild horses would be reduced to zero in

Allotments 400 and 426 because these allotments are

outside the herd management area boundaries.

The boundary in the Paisley Desert Herd Management

Area would be modified. A total of 31,859 acres in the

northwest corner would be maintained as an unoccupied herd area. A herd would not be reestablished or

managed in the herd area. See Map SMA-2 for location of the herd area and herd management area.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Wild horses would be allocated forage based on the

maximum number of adults with and average of 80

percent adults and 20 percent foals. A total of 1,020

AUM’s would be allocated in Paisley Desert Herd

Management Area and 2,400 in Beaty Butte Herd

Management Area as described in the “Lakeview

Grazing Management Final EIS” (1982).

Established water developments used by horses would

be maintained. Additional water developments, as

identified in existing land use plans, would be constructed. Fencing and other structures identified in

land use plans would be maintained and new ones

developed.

Approximately 9,000 acres (2 percent) of the Beaty

Butte Herd Management Area is recommended for

prescribed burning to improve ecological condition.

No burning is recommended in the Paisley Desert Herd

Management Area due to risk of weeds and nonnative

species such as cheatgrass invading the area.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 72

Alternative B

When monitoring data support a downward adjustment

in the allocation of forage resources within herd

management areas, livestock production would be

considered a higher value use of the forage, and would

be emphasized on a case-by-case basis to optimize

commodity production from the public land. When

analysis of the monitoring data identifies a need to

reduce grazing impacts, reductions in wild horse

appropriate management levels would be emphasized.

Increases in livestock use would be given first priority

when analysis of monitoring data identifies additional

forage available on a sustained-yield basis.

Established water developments used by horses would

be maintained. Additional identified water developments and range improvements would be constructed.

Existing fencing and other structures would be maintained and new projects developed. Boundary fencing

of herd management areas would be improved to assist

in managing the horses inside the herd management

areas.

Alternative C

When monitoring data support a downward adjustment

in the allocation of forage resources within herd

management areas, proportionate decreases in wild

horse appropriate management levels and authorized

active use by livestock would be implemented. This

would be done through the adaptive management

process, based on each species’ contribution to the

failure to meet management objectives or failure to

maintain an ecological balance. When monitoring data

identify additional available forage on a sustained

basis, proportionate increases between wild horse

appropriate management levels and livestock authorized active use would be emphasized, as consistent

with meeting other management objectives of Alternative C.

Established water developments and other projects

supporting wild horse populations would be maintained, as consistent with other management objectives.

Projects designed to facilitate wild horse management

that do not emphasize natural values would be abandoned and sites would be rehabilitated. Construction

of water developments and other projects which would

minimize impacts to other resources and emphasize

natural values would be considered.

Alternative D

Management under this alternative would the same as

described under Alternative C, except the initial

appropriate management level would be increased in

the Paisley Desert Herd Management Area to 60–150

horses. This represents an increase of 40 horses at

maximum appropriate management level, which is

supported by monitoring data. The increase reflects

extending the timeframe between gathers to 5 years,

consistent with the gathering cycle in Beaty Butte.

Forage allocations for Paisley Desert would be 1,800

AUM’s; the Beaty Butte allocation would remain at

3,000 AUM’s.

Alternative E

Initial forage allocations and appropriate management

levels for wild horses would be the same as Alternative

D.

Interior fencing in herd management areas would be

removed. Appropriate management levels would be

adjusted as the need is identified in monitoring data.

Appropriate management levels would reflect a range

of horse numbers in balance with available forage and

resources. Horses would be gathered when appropriate

management levels are exceeded or if horses stray

outside the boundaries of the herd management areas.

Forage allocations as such would not be made since

there would be no domestic livestock grazing under

this alternative. Restoration of unhealthy plant communities of the Great Basin Ecosystem found in the

Paisley Desert Herd Management Area would not be

done with intensive vegetation projects. Restoration

would occur through natural processes over a longer

period of time. Water developments would be maintained or new ones established only as needed for

survival of the horses.

Special Management Areas

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Management Goal—Retain existing and designate

new areas of critical environmental concern

(ACEC’s) and research natural areas (RNA’s) where

relevance and importance criteria are met and special

management is required to protect the identified

values.
Management Alternatives

3 -73

Rationale

Section 202(c)(3) of FLPMA mandates that priority be

given to the designation and protection of ACEC’s.

These areas are defined in section 103(a) as areas

where special management attention is required to

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important

values, resources, systems or processes, or to protect

life and safety from natural hazards. To accomplish

this, the following decisions are described for each

alternative:

1) Which existing areas should be retained as ACEC’s

and which proposed areas should be designated as

ACEC’s?

2) If designation is appropriate, how much area should

be included in the designation?

3) If designated, what special management should be

implemented to protect relevant and important values?

Appendix I contains a description of each existing and

proposed ACEC including the relevant and important

values of each area. The appendix also contains a map

of each area showing proposed boundaries by alternative and the OHV designations and road closures, if

any, proposed in each area.

Monitoring

ACEC’s would be assessed on a periodic schedule in

order to evaluate maintenance and enhancement of

relevant and important values and to evaluate effectiveness of management in maintaining those values.

Monitoring may include collection of both qualitative

and quantitative data.

Common Management Actions

The following narrative describes management direction that would apply to more than one ACEC and to

more than one alternative.

Summary of ACEC designation: Under Alternative A,

no new ACEC’s would be designated and existing ones

would be retained. Under Alternative B, existing

ACEC’s would be retained and only one new area,

Connley Hills, would be designated. Under Alternatives C and D, existing ACEC’s would be retained and

new ACEC’s would be designated. One existing area

would be expanded. The size and management direction for newly designated areas could vary under

Alternatives C and D. Under Alternatives C and D,

nine new RNA’s would be designated within some of

the ACEC’s. Under Alternative E all existing ACEC

designations would be revoked and no new ACEC’s

would be designated. Management under Alternative E

for these areas would be the same as that applied across

the planning area.

Research natural areas: RNA’s are managed to preserve natural features and ecosystems in as natural a

condition as can be found for research and educational

purposes which relate to the values for which the

ACEC was created; the ACEC management plan is the

manner the BLM manages RNA’s.

Special status and Bureau sensitive animals and

plants: Avoid disturbance to nesting raptors during the

nesting season (January–August, depending on species), especially Lost Forest, Lake Abert and Rim,

Black Hills, Connley Hills, Fish Creek, HawksieWalksie, and Table Rock.

Avoid disturbances to all special status plant populations in all ACEC’s where they occur. General inventories, monitoring, and research would continue for

special status plants. Conservation agreements would

be written for all Bureau sensitive plant species (the

former Federal Candidate Category 2).

Fire management in ACEC’s: Under Alternatives A, B,

C, and D, in all ACEC’s and RNA’s, wildland fires

would be managed according to appropriate management response; however, some ACEC’s would be

analyzed for possible wildland fire use. Use of heavy

equipment in ACEC’s, WSA’s and RNA’s would be

avoided and would require line officer approval. Use

of retardant would be allowed within these areas for

initial attack. Retardant use during extended attack

would be considered as a part of the wildland fire

situation analysis, considering the resource values at

risk. If used, heavy equipment would be restricted to

existing roads and trails. Prescribed fires could be used

in ACEC’s where it can be shown to preserve the

desired characteristics of the SMA and to meet management objectives.

Weed management in ACEC’s: Noxious weeds would

be aggressively controlled using integrated weed

management methods, such as biological control, sitespecific spraying, and grubbing by hand, consistent

with protection and enhancement of relevant and

important values. Some areas such as Lake Abert and

Warner Wetlands are covered by specific weed management plans. Any weed control measures proposed

in WSA’s within ACEC’s would be consistent with

wilderness IMP direction.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 74

Road management: In all ACEC’s designated closed to

OHV’s, or where OHV’s are limited to designated

roads and trails, all roads not open and not needed for

administrative access may be signed closed, physically

blocked, and/or rehabilitated. Road data sources may

include one or more of the following: USGS DLG and

DOQ data, GPS data, and field mapping. Additional,

noninventoried roads or trails may be present on the

ground. Any new roads or trails discovered in the

future would be considered open unless determined in

a subsequent analysis that they are not needed or are

causing resource damage.

WSA management in ACEC’s: Management prescriptions were developed for Alternatives B, C, and D

independently of WSA considerations. All management actions for those portions of ACEC’s within an

instant study area (ISA) or WSA would be governed by

the wilderness IMP (BLM 1995b) until such time as

Congress makes a determination regarding wilderness

designation for the area. Any WSA’s, or portions

thereof, designated an ACEC and later released from

wilderness study would be managed according to the

applicable management direction for that ACEC.

Under some alternatives, the proposed ACEC management within WSA’s may be more restrictive than the

wilderness IMP, such as closing an area to livestock

grazing or limiting vehicle use to designated roads and

trails rather than existing roads and trails.

Eight proposed or existing ACEC’s overlap with

existing WSA’s and an ISA. Table 3-4 lists the ACEC’s

and WSA’s involved and the acres of overlap in each

case.

Nondestructive research: Nondestructive research is

encouraged in all of the proposed and existing ACEC’s,

and is not limited only to those areas that have RNA’s.

Any research would need to be authorized by the BLM

in writing and where necessary, permitted. It is assumed that the resultant data and information gathered

would be shared with the BLM to help guide management of these areas.

Recreation: Commercial use or use requiring a special

permit that occurs or is proposed within ACEC’s would

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be

permitted, modified, or prohibited as needed to protect

the ACEC values.

Minerals: According to 43 CFR 3809.11, an approved

plan of operation is required prior to commencing any

operation, except casual use, involving locatable

minerals in a designated ACEC, regardless of size of

area disturbed.

Table 3-3 summarizes management for existing and

proposed ACEC’s/RNA’s.

Management Direction by Alternative—Devils

Garden ACEC

Alternative A

The existing ACEC designation and boundaries

(28,241 acres) would be retained. The ACEC and

WSA boundary are the same (Maps SMA-1 and -5).

Access roads, such as to Derrick Cave, would be

maintained as needed and as funding allowed. New

rights-of-way would be excluded from the area except

to access non-Federal property. Due to the WSA status,

the area is managed as VRM Class I. If the area is not

designated wilderness, it would be managed as VRM

Class IV.

Though locatable mineral entry is allowed under the

wilderness IMP, actions that require reclamation are

not currently allowed. This effectively closes the area

to mineral location. The area is also closed to the sale

or lease of minerals. If the area is not designated

wilderness, the ACEC would be open to all mineral

uses. Any oil, gas, or geothermal activity would be

subject to no-surface-occupancy stipulations. Locatable

mineral exploration and development would be allowed

under a plan of operation.

About half of the ACEC is unalloted. Three allotments

are located in the other half. Livestock grazing on a

temporary nonrenewable grazing basis would continue

in Allotment 907. Grazing in Allotments 906 and 910

would continue as at present. Wood cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses; and gathering vegetative

products, such as juniper boughs or berries or other

living plant material, would be prohibited. OHV’s

would be limited to existing roads and trails.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, the existing Devils Garden

ACEC would be retained. Management would be the

same as under Alternative A, except that for rights-ofway, the area would be managed as an avoidance area

rather than an exclusion area (Maps SMA-2 and -5).

Alternative C

The ACEC would be retained under this alternative

(Maps SMA-3 and -5). The area would be closed to

sale or lease of minerals. New rights-of-way would be

excluded except to provide access to non-Federal land.
Management Alternatives

3 -75
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 76
Management Alternatives

3 -77
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 78
Management Alternatives

3 -79
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 80

The entire ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing.

Visual resources would be managed as under Alternative A. Wood cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses;

and gathering vegetative products, such as juniper

boughs or berries or other living plant material, would

be prohibited. Gathering dead or down wood for onsite

camping use would also be prohibited. OHV use would

be limited to designated roads and trails as shown on

Map R-6. The road into the garden would be closed,

and the road from BLM Road 6179 to Derrick Cave

would also be closed. The ACEC would be managed

as VRM Class II if it is not designated wilderness.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, the existing Devils Garden

ACEC would be retained (Maps SMA-4 and -5).

Mineral activity would be managed the same as described under Alternative A. New rights-of-way would

be avoided unless there were no other options available.

Livestock grazing would be managed according to

existing permit stipulations. Any proposed changes in

grazing, including time and intensity of use, would be

evaluated for impacts on the relevant and important

resources and would be permitted if the values would

be maintained or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are

identified, existing livestock use would be adjusted

using a variety of methods, including, but not limited

to, fencing, reduction in livestock numbers, and

changes in grazing season of use. Proposed projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced.

All other management in the ACEC would be the same

as described under Alternative C.

Alternative E

Under this alternative the ACEC designation would be

revoked. The area would continue to be managed

according to the wilderness IMP until such time as

Congress makes a decision regarding wilderness

designation for the area.

Management Direction by Alternative—Lake Abert

ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the Lake Abert

ACEC (50,117 acres) would be retained (Maps SMA-1,

-2, -3, -4, -6, and -7). Management of the ACEC would

be according to the existing management plan (BLM

1996) summarized in Appendix I; with the following

changes:

1) Under Alternative B, the total dissolved solids

and lake-level restrictions on mining would be

removed.

2) Under Alternative C, OHV’s would be limited

to designated roads and trails. The entire westside-of-the-lake road would be closed. In the rest

of the ACEC, all existing roads would be designated open with possible seasonal closures (see

below).

3) Livestock use would continue based on existing

permit stipulations and approved grazing systems.

Any proposed changes in grazing, including time

and intensity of use, would be evaluated for

impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are

identified, existing livestock use would be adjusted

using a variety of methods, including, but not

limited to, fencing, reduction in livestock numbers,

and changes in grazing season of use. Proposed

projects would be evaluated for impacts and

permitted where relevant and important values

would be maintained or enhanced.

4) Noxious weeds in the ACEC would be managed

according to the “Abert Rim Weed Management

Area Plan.”

Alternative E

Under this alternative, the Lake Abert ACEC designation would be revoked. Management of the area would

be the same as that prescribed for the rest of the

planning area under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Lost Forest/

Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

The existing 36,120-acre ACEC, including the Lost

Forest RNA/ISA, would be retained and managed

according to the “High Desert Management Framework

Plan” (Maps SMA-1 and -8). The Lost Forest RNA/

ISA and the Sand Dunes WSA would be managed

according to the wilderness IMP until such time as

Congress makes a determination regarding wilderness
Management Alternatives

3 -81

designation for the two areas.

The mineral withdrawal on Lost Forest RNA/ISA

would be retained. The Sand Dunes WSA and Lost

Forest RNA would be closed to sale or lease of minerals. The Fossil Lake area would be open to all mineral

activity, subject to access and no-surface-occupancy

restrictions. Any locatable mineral activity in the Sand

Dunes WSA is currently subject to the “no reclamation” stipulation. Should Congress remove the Sand

Dunes WSA from wilderness study, mineral activity

would be restricted in a similar fashion as the rest of

the ACEC area.

The Sand Dunes and Fossil Lake areas are excluded

from location of new rights-of-way, except that new

rights-of-way could be placed in the existing corridor

through Fossil Lake. New rights-of-way in the Lost

Forest RNA would be avoided.

The vehicle closure on Fossil Lake would be retained.

The unfenced closure boundary would be signed.

Vehicle use in the Lost Forest RNA/ISA would be

limited to designated roads and trails; and the Sand

Dunes would remain open to OHV use. The rest of the

area within the ACEC boundary would be limited to

existing roads and trails.

The ACEC, except for Fossil Lake, would continue to

be open to camping. Cutting or collecting firewood in

any of the ACEC, including the Lost Forest RNA/ISA,

would be prohibited, as would the gathering of vegetative products such as boughs or berries. Means to

provide firewood for campers on high-use weekends

would be investigated including permitting a concessionaire to sell firewood.

The present grazing management in the ACEC would

continue: Fossil Lake is excluded from grazing; the

remainder of the area falls in several pastures of

Allotment 10103. The WSA and RNA/ISA would

continue to be managed as VRM Class I. The rest of

the area would be managed as VRM Class III.

Alternative B

The existing ACEC and RNA would be retained. The

boundary of the ACEC would be amended to exclude

the Department of Defense withdrawal along the south

boundary of the ACEC (Map SMA-2). In addition, the

northern boundary of the ACEC and the Lost Forest

RNA would be made consistent and relocated to the

southern edge of BLM Road 6141. These two changes

would reduce the size of the area to 35,575 acres. The

Lost Forest mineral withdrawal and ISA boundary

would remain as it is at present (Map SMA-8).

With the exception of the boundary changes described

above, mineral development and OHV use would be

managed as described under Alternative A. The road

through the Lost Forest would be upgraded to a singlelane road with turnouts and parking pulloffs and

surface similar to the access road to the west, Road

6151. To better accommodate recreation use, private

individual(s) would be encouraged to develop a commercial campground on private land adjacent to or near

the sand dunes. If the Sand Dunes WSA is not designated wilderness, BLM would consider developing a

campground on adjacent Federal land and charge fees

for use if no private campground is developed.

The existing electrical transmission line through the

Fossil Lake would be a utility corridor up to 2,000-feet

wide for siting future utility lines or rights-of-way.

Stipulations and tower spacing would be used to

protect relevant and important resources. Routing

rights-of-way through the ACEC outside this corridor

would be avoided unless there were no other options.

Livestock grazing, firewood collecting, minerals

activities, and VRM class would be managed as

described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

The existing ACEC/RNA would be retained and the

boundary would be realigned as described under

Alternative B (Map SMA-3). The Lost Forest ISA and

the Sand Dunes WSA would be managed according to

the wilderness IMP until such time as Congress makes

a determination regarding wilderness designation for

the two areas.

Actions would be pursued to acquire private inholdings

and adjacent private land from willing landowners and

include them in the ACEC to facilitate management of

relevant and important resources. A corridor 300-feet

wide would be identified for the existing electrical

transmission line across Fossil Lake. Any new rightsof-way would be placed within this corridor. The rest

of the ACEC would be excluded from all new rights-ofway except for any necessary to access non-Federal

land.

The entire ACEC, including the Sand Dunes, would be

closed to OHV’s. All roads in the ACEC, except the

access road, Road 6151, would be closed. Road 6151

would be closed at the Lost Forest RNA western
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 82

boundary. The ACEC/RNA would be closed to overnight camping and would be open to day use only.

Open fires and the collecting of firewood would be

prohibited in the ACEC. Tree cutting for firewood,

posts, or other uses; or the collection of vegetative

products and materials such as boughs or berries

would be prohibited throughout the ACEC. Visual

resource management would be the same as described

under Alternative A.

The mineral withdrawal on the Lost Forest ISA would

be retained. The Sand Dunes WSA, Lost Forest RNA,

and Fossil Lake areas would be closed to the sale and

lease of minerals. Fossil Lake would be open to

locatable mineral activity, subject to access restrictions

and plan of operation requirements. Any locatable

mineral activity in the Sand Dunes WSA would be

subject to the “no reclamation” stipulation. Should

Congress remove the Sand Dunes WSA from wilderness study, the area would be open to locatable minerals. Locatable mineral activity within the remainder of

the ACEC (except Lost Forest RNA/ISA) would be

subject to access restrictions and require a plan of

operation.

The entire ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing

to protect relevant and important resources. Fences

would be installed as needed to keep livestock out.

Any fence construction in the WSA or ISA would be

subject to the wilderness IMP.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, the existing ACEC/RNA would

be retained and the boundaries realigned as described

under Alternative B (Maps SMA-4 and -9). Management applicable to the ISA and WSA would be the

same as described under Alternative A.

Actions would be pursued to acquire private inholdings and adjacent private land from willing landowners and include them in the ACEC to facilitate

management of relevant and important resources. The

existing electrical transmission line through the Fossil

Lake would be identified as a right-of-way corridor up

to 1000-feet wide for future utility lines or other rightsof-way. New rights-of-way in the ACEC outside this

corridor would be avoided unless there are no other

options.

OHV’s would be managed the same as under Alternative A, except that the Fossil Lake exclosure would be

enlarged to include an additional 2,719 acres (Map

SMA-9). The boundary shown on this map is an

approximation based on a legal description. This

boundary would be refined in the Proposed RMP/Final

EIS to leave as much of the large, contiguous dunes in

the open area as possible. The road through the Lost

Forest RNA/ISA would be upgraded as described under

Alternative B to prevent widening and braiding of road

and resulting damage to relevant and important resources.

Primitive camping areas or sites would be designated in

the Lost Forest RNA, with camping allowed only in

these sites. Camping would not be allowed at Sand

Rock inside the Lost Forest. Parking areas along the

main road through the Lost Forest would be provided

for day use.

Camping areas within the Sand Dunes WSA would be

designated and camping allowed only at these sites (see

Map SMA-9). Use of these three camping/staging

areas would be managed on a rotational basis, i.e., two

of the camping/staging areas would be open and

available to use and the other area would be closed for

an indeterminant amount of time (2–6 years) to allow

natural rehabilitation to occur. The length of the

closure would be based on the following criteria: (1)

success of natural revegetation, (2) obliteration of

human activities by the natural movement of sand, and

(3) the public’s adherence to the closures. Specific

travel routes from the camping/staging areas to the

barren dunes which are open to OHV use would be

established. Adaptive management activities which

would allow the continued use of each of these camping/staging areas while protecting the natural values of

the area would be adopted as necessary to ensure their

long-term use and protection. Similar to Alternative B,

the establishment of a campground on private lands

within the Sand Dunes area would be encouraged.

Firewood cutting and collecting would be managed the

same as described for Alternative C. Minerals activities and VRM would be managed the same as described

under Alternative A.

The mineral withdrawal on the Lost Forest ISA would

be retained. The Sand Dunes WSA and Lost Forest

RNA areas would be closed to the sale and lease of

minerals. Fossil Lake would be open to locatable

mineral activity and open to mineral leasing subject to

access and no-surface-occupancy restrictions. Fossil

Lake would be closed to mineral material disposal.

Any locatable mineral activity in the Sand Dunes WSA

would be subject to the “no reclamation” restriction of

the wilderness IMP. Should Congress remove the Sand

Dunes WSA from wilderness study, mineral location

would be allowed. Mineral activity within the remain-
Management Alternatives

3 -83

der of the ACEC (except Lost Forest RNA/ISA) would

be allowed.

The grazing closure on Fossil Lake would be expanded

to include an additional 2,719 acres. This would

require construction of a fence within a WSA. Livestock use in the rest of the ACEC would continue based

on existing permit stipulations. Any proposed changes

in grazing, including time and intensity of use, would

be evaluated for impacts on the relevant and important

values and would be permitted if the values would be

maintained or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are

identified, existing livestock use would be adjusted

using a variety of methods, including, but not limited

to, fencing, reduction in livestock numbers, and

changes in grazing season of use. Proposed range

improvement projects would be evaluated for impacts

and permitted where relevant and important values

would be maintained or enhanced.

Alternative E

The Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC

designation and the Lost Forest RNA designation

would be revoked. The former ACEC would be

managed in the same manner as surrounding land.

Revocation of the Lost Forest withdrawal would

require congressional action. The Lost Forest ISA and

Sand Dunes WSA designations would continue. These

areas would continue to be managed according to the

wilderness IMP until such time as Congress makes a

decision regarding their designation as wilderness.

Management Direction by Alternative—Warner

Wetlands ACEC

Management direction common to Alternatives A–

D: Under Alternatives A–D, the existing Warner

Wetlands ACEC (53,087 acres) would be retained.

Management of the ACEC would be according to the

existing 1990 “Warner Wetlands Area of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC) Management Plan,”

except as highlighted in the alternative descriptions

below (Maps SMA-1, -2, -3, -4, and -10).

Weed management in the ACEC would be conducted

according to the 1990 “Warner Basin Weed Management Area Plan.”

The eastern half of the ACEC is currently closed to

mineral disposal, open to leasing with no-surfaceoccupancy restrictions, and is open to mineral location

subject access and seasonal restrictions along with the

need to prepare a plan of operations. The western half

is open to mineral disposal subject to access restrictions, open to mineral leasing subject to access restrictions, and open to mineral locations subject to access

restrictions and preparation of a plan of operation.

Mineral management would be the same under these

four alternatives.

Alternatives A and B

The core wetland area (potholes and acquired lands) is

currently closed to livestock grazing. The remainder of

the ACEC is grazed in accordance with an approved

allotment management plan (BLM 1990g). This would

continue under both alternatives.

Vehicles would be restricted to designated roads and

trails (Map SMA-10). The ACEC would be open to

new rights-of-way under Alternatives A and B (Maps

L-2 and -6) .

Alternative C

The 400-acre meadow management area at Hart Bar

and the southwest portion of the potholes area currently

grazed would be closed to grazing along with the core

wetland area (potholes and acquired lands). The

remainder of the ACEC would be grazed in accordance

with an approved allotment management plan (BLM

1990g).

Vehicles would be restricted to designated roads and

trails. The ACEC would be considered a right-of-way

exclusion area under Alternative C (Map L-7).

Alternative D

Most of the core wetland area (potholes and acquired

lands) would remain closed to livestock grazing. The

remainder of the ACEC would be grazed in accordance

with an approved allotment management plan (BLM

1990g). However, under Alternative D, management of

the approximately 400-acre meadow management area

at Hart Bar would be changed to manage for tall-grass

nesting bird species rather than short-grass nesting

species. This would involve incorporating the meadow

management area into the southern portion of the core

wetland acquired lands portion of the ACEC (e.g., that

portion south of Anderson Lake within the ditch and

dike system [Map SMA-10]). This area would be

divided by fencing or natural barriers. The southern

portion would utilize fire, mowing, and livestock

grazing (authorized on a temporary nonrenewable

grazing basis) to meet specific management objectives

or as a pretreatment prior to planned prescribed fire to
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 84

facilitate/enhance fuel breaks in the core wetland

acquired lands portion of the ACEC, including the

former meadow management area.

Vehicles would be restricted to designated roads and

trails (Map SMA-10). The ACEC would be considered

a right-of-way exclusion area under Alternative D (Map

L-8).

Alternative E

Under this alternative, the Warner Wetlands ACEC

designation would be revoked. Management of the

area would be the same as that prescribed for the rest of

the planning area under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Abert Rim Addition to Lake Abert ACEC

Management direction common to Alternatives A–

D: Noxious weeds would be managed according to the

direction set forth in the 1995 “Abert Rim Weed

Management Area Plan.” The area would continue to

be managed according to the wilderness IMP.

Alternative A

Under this alternative, this proposed addition would

not be added to the Lake Abert ACEC (Map SMA-1).

Livestock grazing would continue as it is currently

managed. The majority of this area is in Allotment 517

which is grazed from April through October. The south

end of the proposed add-on is within Allotments 400

and 518. Allotment 518 is grazed in summer. This

portion of Allotment 400 is unalloted and has no

grazing use.

Due to the designation as a WSA, OHV’s would be

limited to existing roads and trails. If the WSA is not

designated wilderness, it would be open to OHV’s.

Mineral management of this area is also guided by

WSA status. The area is closed to mineral leasing and

disposal. Locatable mineral activity is limited by the

“no reclamation” requirement of the wilderness IMP

(BLM 1995b). Should the area be removed from WSA

status, the area would become open to all mineral

activity.

Alternative B

The proposed addition would not be added to the

existing Lake Abert ACEC. It would be managed the

same as under Alternative A (Map SMA-2).

Alternative C

A total of 18,019 acres would be added to the existing

Lake Abert ACEC under this alternative (Maps SMA3). The add-on area lies completely within the Abert

Rim WSA and would be managed according to the

1996 “Lake Abert ACEC Management Plan” and the

wilderness IMP. OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

The area would be open to grazing. Grazing use would

be based on existing permit stipulations. Any proposed

changes in grazing, including time and intensity of use,

would be evaluated for impacts on the relevant and

important resources and would be permitted if the

values would be maintained or enhanced. Where

adverse impacts are identified, existing livestock use

would be adjusted using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing, reduction in livestock

numbers, and changes in grazing season of use. Proposed range improvement projects would be evaluated

for impacts and permitted where relevant and important

values would be maintained or enhanced.

Mineral management of this area would be guided by

the wilderness IMP. The area would be closed to

mineral leasing and disposal. Locatable mineral

activity would be limited by the “no reclamation”

requirement of the wilderness IMP. Should the area be

removed from WSA status, it would become open

mineral leasing and disposal subject to access and

special design restrictions. It would also be open to

locatable mineral activity subject to access restrictions.

Alternative D

A total of 18,019 acres would be added to the existing

Lake Abert ACEC under this alternative (Maps SMA-4

and -7). Management would be the same as under

Alternative C, except that OHV’s would be limited to

existing roads and trails.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, no additional area would be

added to the existing Lake Abert ACEC.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Black Hills ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management of the area would continue as at present.
Management Alternatives

3 -85

OHV use would be limited to designated roads and

trails. The area would be open to all mineral uses

including locatable, salable, and leasable minerals

subject to approval of a site-specific NEPA analysis.

Rights-of-way for utility lines or other uses would be

excluded. The area would continue to be managed as

VRM Class IV.

The area would be retained as part of the Paisley Herd

Management Area. Livestock grazing would continue

as presently managed. The area is in Allotment 418

which is grazed from March through May. Tree cutting

for firewood, posts, or other uses; and gathering of

vegetative products, including western juniper boughs

or berries or any living or dead plant material, would

be prohibited for both personal or commercial use.

Overnight camping in the area would be allowed.

The conservation agreement with USFWS for the

management and protection of Cusick’s buckwheat and

snowline cymopterus would be completed and signed.

The existing habitat management plan for the two

species would continue in force, as would monitoring

and research of the plants.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated. Management under

this alternative would be the same as under Alternative

A, except that new rights-of-way would be avoided

rather than excluded.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 3,049 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-3). The conservation agreement with USFWS for Cusick’s buckwheat

and snowline cymopterus would be completed, signed,

and implemented. Monitoring and research on these

two species would continue. The existing habitat

management plan for these two species would continue

in force.

The area would be closed to OHV’s. A parking area

outside the ACEC would be designated for public and

administrative use. Overnight camping in the ACEC/

RNA would be prohibited and day-use only would be

allowed.

The ACEC/RNA would be open to locatable minerals.

It would be closed to sale or lease of minerals. It

would also be closed to livestock grazing and to wild

horse use to protect sensitive plant species. Fences

would be installed if needed to exclude livestock and

wild horses. The area would then become an inactive

part of the Paisley Herd Management Area. The

ACEC/RNA would be excluded from new rights-ofway and other realty actions except to provide access to

non-Federal land. Legal access across adjacent private

land would be acquired if necessary in order to maintain administrative access. Tree cutting for firewood,

posts, or other uses; and gathering of vegetative

products, including juniper boughs or berries or any

living or dead plant material, would be prohibited. The

area would be managed as VRM Class II.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 3,049 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -11). The

conservation agreement with USFWS for Cusick’s

buckwheat and snowline cymopterus would be completed, signed, and implemented. Monitoring and

research on these two species would continue. The

existing habitat management plan for these two species

would continue in force.

OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

Overnight camping in the ACEC/RNA would be

prohibited and day-use only allowed. Vehicle parking

at the existing parking area would be allowed. Wood

cutting or gathering of vegetative products, such as

juniper boughs, berries, or any living or dead plant

material, would be prohibited. The area would be

managed as VRM Class III.

The ACEC/RNA would be open to all minerals activity.

All minerals activities would be subject to stipulations

and mitigating measures to protect relevant and important values including a no-surface-occupancy stipulation for any geothermal or oil and gas activity. New

rights-of-way would be avoided unless there were no

other options and then only with appropriate mitigating

measures to protect relevant and important values.

Legal access across private land would be obtained if

needed for public and administrative access.

Livestock grazing in the ACEC/RNA would continue

based on existing permit stipulations. Any proposed

changes in grazing, including time and intensity of use,

would be evaluated for impacts on the relevant and

important resources and would be permitted if the

values would be maintained or enhanced. Where

adverse impacts are identified, existing livestock use

would be adjusted using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing, reduction in livestock

numbers, and changes in grazing season of use. Proposed range improvement projects would be evaluated
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 86

for impacts and permitted where relevant and important

values would be maintained or enhanced. If needed,

fences would be installed to exclude livestock and wild

horse use.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Connley Hills ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

An area of 1,800 acres would continue to be managed

under the 1985 interim RNA management plan. The

intent would be to protect the western juniper/

bluebunch wheatgrass, western juniper/Idaho fescue,

and western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass plant communities. The area would be open to

OHV use. The area would be open to all minerals

activities based on approval of a site-specific NEPA

analysis. The south portion of the area is excluded

from the placement of new rights-of-way. The rest of

the area would be open to new rights-of-way. Present

grazing management would continue. The area is in

Allotment 705 which is grazed from March through

June.

Connley Hills is classified as a combination of VRM

Class III and IV. Existing roads would be kept open.

The area would be open to recreation use including

overnight camping and commercial group use of the

area. Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses

would be prohibited; however, down and dead wood

could be collected for personal use. Gathering vegetative products such as juniper boughs or berries would

be allowed.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, 3,599 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-2). The ACEC/

RNA would be open to exploration, development, and

extraction of locatable, salable, and leasable minerals.

Any geothermal or oil and gas activity would be

subject to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation. New

rights-of-way would be avoided unless there were no

other options and then only with appropriate mitigating

measures to protect relevant and important resources.

Legal access across private land would be obtained if

needed for public and administrative access.

Existing grazing use would continue. Tree cutting for

firewood, posts, or other uses would be prohibited.

Gathering vegetative products, such as juniper boughs

or berries, would be allowed. OHV’s would be limited

to existing roads and trails. Existing roads would be

kept open and erosion control measures would be

implemented where needed within the ACEC. The

ACEC/RNA would be open to overnight camping.

Visual resources would be managed similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 3,599 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-3). The area

would be closed to sale or lease of minerals, but would

be kept open for locatable mineral entry. New rightsof-way and other realty actions would be excluded

except to provide access to non-Federal land. Action

would be taken to acquire the 80-acre inholding from a

willing landowner.

The ACEC/RNA would be closed to grazing to protect

an important grass community. Fences would be

installed as needed to keep livestock out of the area.

Important sites within the area would be nominated to

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Public use of the south end of the ACEC/RNA would

be limited to day-use only. No camping would be

allowed in the ACEC. OHV’s would be limited to

designated roads and trails. Unneeded roads or trails

would be closed and rehabilitated. Tree cutting for

firewood, posts, or other uses; and gathering vegetative

products, such as juniper boughs or berries or any other

alive or dead plant material, would be prohibited. The

area would be managed as VRM Class II.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 3,559 acres would be designated as an ACEC and an RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -

12). The ACEC/RNA would be open to all mineral

uses. Leasable mineral activity would be subject to a

no-surface-occupancy stipulation. New rights-of-way

would be avoided unless there were no other options

and then only with stipulations to protect relevant and

important resources. Actions would be taken to acquire

the 80-acre private inholding from a willing landowner.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations and approved allotment management plans.

Any proposed changes in grazing, including time and

intensity of use, would be evaluated for impacts on the
Management Alternatives

3 -87

relevant and important values and would be permitted

if the values would be maintained or enhanced. Where

adverse impacts are identified, existing livestock use

would be adjusted using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing, reduction in livestock

numbers, and changes in grazing season of use. Proposed range improvement projects would be evaluated

for impacts and permitted where relevant and important

values would be maintained or enhanced.

Camping would be allowed in designated areas only.

OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

The ACEC/RNA would be managed as VRM Class III.

Wood cutting or gathering plant material and cultural

resources and research in the RNA/ACEC would be

managed the same as described under Alternative C.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Fish Creek Rim ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

No ACEC would be designated. That part of the area

within the WSA would be managed according to the

wilderness IMP until such time as Congress makes a

decision regarding wilderness designation. Management of the part of the area outside of the WSA would

continue as at present. Livestock grazing use would

continue as at present: the area is in Allotment 202

which is grazed from mid-April through mid-September.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated. Management would

be the same as that described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 8,725 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-3). Most of the

proposed ACEC/RNA is within the Fish Creek Rim

WSA, and actions in the area would be managed

according to the wilderness IMP until such time as a

decision is made by Congress regarding wilderness

designation. Grazing use would be based on existing

permit stipulations. Any proposed changes in grazing,

including time and intensity of use, would be evaluated

for impacts on the relevant and important resources and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use. Proposed range improvement projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced. Any fence construction in the WSA would

be subject to the wilderness IMP guidelines. The

spring and wetland site in the north end (outside the

WSA) of the area would be rehabilitated.

A strategy would be developed to protect and manage

the prostrate lousewort and the nodding melic grass,

two sensitive plant species.

The ACEC/RNA, outside of the WSA boundary, would

be open to locatable mineral entry under a plan of

operation. Inside the WSA boundary, mineral location

would be subject to the “no reclamation” stipulation. It

would also be closed to the sale or lease of minerals. If

the WSA is not designated wilderness, it would be open

to all mineral activity with appropriate stipulations to

protect relevant and important resources.

New rights-of-way would be excluded from the area

except for any necessary to access non-Federal property.

Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses; and

gathering of vegetative products, such as boughs or

berries or any other plant material, would be prohibited. Collecting down and dead wood for onsite camping use would be allowed. OHV’s would be limited to

designated roads and trails. The WSA is managed as

VRM Class I. If it is not designated wilderness, it

would be managed as VRM Class II.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 8,725 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -13). Since

the proposed ACEC/RNA is within the Fish Creek Rim

WSA, actions would be managed according to the

wilderness IMP until such time as a decision is made

by Congress regarding wilderness designation.

Livestock grazing and OHV’s would be managed the

same as under Alternative C.

A strategy would be developed to protect and manage

the prostrate lousewort and the nodding melic grass,

two sensitive plant species.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 88

The ACEC/RNA, outside the WSA boundary, would be

open to locatable mineral entry. Inside the WSA

boundary, mineral location would be subject to the no

reclamation stipulation. It would also be closed to

leasable and salable minerals. If the WSA is not

designated wilderness, it would be open to all mineral

activity with appropriate stipulations to protect relevant

and important resources.

New rights-of-way in the ACEC/RNA would be

avoided unless no other options are available.

Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses; and the

commercial gathering of vegetative products, such as

juniper boughs or berries, would be prohibited. Gathering vegetative products or plant material for personal

use would be allowed. Collecting down and dead

wood for onsite camping use would also be allowed.

The WSA is managed as Visual Resource Management

(VRM) Class I. If it is not designated wilderness, it

would be managed as VRM Class II.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA would be designated under this

alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Foley Lake ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no ACEC or RNA would be

designated. The area would be open to OHV’s. The

area would be open to all minerals activities based on

approval of a site-specific NEPA analysis. The area

would also be open to new rights-of-way. Livestock

grazing use would continue as at present. The area is

divided between Allotment 515, which is grazed in the

spring and lightly in the summer and fall, and Allotment 517, which is grazed from April through October.

The area would be managed as VRM Class IV as is the

surrounding area.

The conservation agreement with the USFWS for the

Columbia cress would be retained and would continue

to be followed.

Alternative B

Management under this alternative would be the same

as that described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 2,747 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-3). This alternative would include Featherbed Lake in the proposal

where Columbia cress has been located in the past.

Archeological resources are also found there. The

ACEC/RNA would be open to locatable mineral entry

closed to sale or lease of minerals. New rights-of-way

would be excluded except to provide access to nonFederal property. Livestock grazing would be excluded

to protect sensitive plant species. Fences would be

constructed as needed to exclude livestock. The

existing exclosure to protect the Columbia cress would

be enlarged. Eligible cultural sites would be nominated

to the NRHP. The ACEC/RNA would be managed as

VRM Class II. OHV’s would be limited to designated

roads and trails.

The conservation agreement with the USFWS for the

Columbia cress would be retained and would continue

to be followed.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 2,230 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -14). The

Featherbed Lake portion would be excluded since the

Columbia cress has not been seen growing in or around

the lake bed in 8 years. The boundary on the east side

of the ACEC/RNA would be set back 100 feet from the

existing county road right-of-way. New rights-of-way

in the ACEC/RNA would be avoided unless there are

no other options. It would be open to all mineral

activity with stipulations to protect relevant and

important resources.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations and approved allotment management plans.

The exclosure at Foley Lake itself would be enlarged to

protect the Columbia cress from further grazing. Other

changes in grazing use could also be necessary. Any

proposed changes in grazing, including time and

intensity of use, would be evaluated for impacts on the

relevant and important values and would be permitted

if the values would be maintained or enhanced. Where

adverse impacts are identified, existing livestock use

would be adjusted using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing, reduction in livestock

numbers, and changes in grazing season of use. Proposed range improvement projects would be evaluated

for impacts and permitted where relevant and important

values would be maintained or enhanced.
Management Alternatives

3 -89

Eligible cultural resource sites would be nominated to

the NRHP. The ACEC/RNA would be managed as

VRM Class III. OHV’s would be limited to designated

roads and trails.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA would be designated under this

alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Guano Creek/Sink Lakes ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

The area (except the Billy Burr parcel) is wholly within

the Guano Creek WSA. Resource values would be

managed according to the wilderness IMP until such

time as Congress makes a decision regarding wilderness designation. The Billy Burr parcel would be

managed the same as adjacent non-WSA land. The

conservation agreement with the USFWS for Crosby’s

buckwheat and grimy ivesia would be completed.

Monitoring and research would continue. Collection of

vegetative material for personal use would be allowed.

Commercial collection would be prohibited.

If the WSA is not designated wilderness, management

would be as follows under this alternative: OHV’s

would be limited to existing roads and trails; the area

would be open to all mineral activities based on

approval of a site-specific NEPA analysis; it would be

open to new realty actions including rights-of-way; it

would continue to be closed to livestock grazing as

prescribed by the legislation authorizing the exchange

of jurisdiction between the BLM and USFWS; and the

area would be managed as VRM Class III.

Alternative B

The proposed ACEC would not be designated under

this alternative. Management would be the same as

prescribed under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 4,936 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and as a RNA (including the Billy Burr

parcel) (Map SMA-3). The north boundary would

conform with the Hart Mountain National Wildlife

Refuge south boundary.

The area would be open for locatable mineral entry;

however, the no reclamation restriction would apply to

the WSA. It would be closed to sale or lease of minerals. New rights-of-way would be excluded except to

provide access to non-Federal property. The grazing

closure in the area would be retained as prescribed in

the jurisdictional exchange legislation.

The conservation agreement with the USFWS for

Crosby’s buckwheat and grimy ivesia would be completed. Monitoring and research would continue.

Collection of vegetative material for personal use

would be allowed. Commercial collection would be

prohibited.

OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

Commercial recreation uses would be allowed. The

ACEC/RNA would be managed as VRM Class I due to

WSA status. If the area is not designated wilderness,

the ACEC/RNA would be managed as VRM Class II.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 4,936 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -16).

Management direction is the same as for Alternative C,

except that new rights-of-way and other realty actions

would be avoided unless there were no other alternatives. If the area is not designated wilderness, the

ACEC/RNA would be managed as VRM Class III. The

WSA would be closed to salable or leasable mineral

activity. If no wilderness is designated, the area would

be open to all minerals. Any leasable mineral activity

would be subject to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Hawksie-Walksie ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

All of this proposed area is within the Hawk Mountain

WSA and would be managed according to the wilderness IMP until such time as Congress makes a decision

regarding wilderness designation.

Alternative B

No ACEC/RNA would be designated. Management

under this alternative would be the same as under

Alternative A.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 90

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 17,339 acres would be designated as an ACEC and an RNA (Map SMA-3). New

rights-of-way would be excluded from the ACEC/RNA

except to provide access to non-Federal property.

Gathering of vegetative products for personal or

commercial use would be prohibited.

Under the wilderness IMP, the area would be closed to

sale or lease of minerals. The area would be open to

locatable mineral subject to the wilderness IMP “no

reclamation” stipulation. Should the area be released

from WSA status, it would become open to mineral

sale and leasing, subject to access, no surface occupancy, and other restrictions/stipulations necessary to

protect relevant and important resources. The area

would become open to locatable mineral entry subject

to access and other restrictions.

A total of 6,786 acres in two areas would be excluded

from livestock and wild horse grazing to protect RNA

plant community values, if needed. Any fence construction would be subject to the wilderness IMP. In

the rest of the ACEC/RNA, livestock grazing use

would continue based on existing permit stipulations

and the approved “Beaty Butte Allotment Management

Plan.” Any proposed changes in grazing, including

time and intensity of use, would be evaluated for

impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use.

OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

The ACEC/RNA would be managed as VRM Class III

without wilderness designation.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 17,339 acres would be designated an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -15).

New rights-of-way in the ACEC/RNA would be

avoided unless there are no other options.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations and the approved “Beaty Butte Allotment

Management Plan.” Any proposed changes in grazing,

including time and intensity of use, would be evaluated

for impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use. Proposed range improvement projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced. Any projects constructed in the WSA would

be subject to the wilderness IMP.

Management of minerals, OHV’s, VRM, and gathering

of vegetative products would be managed the same as

under Alternative C.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

High Lakes ACEC

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

The area would be open to all minerals activities based

on approval of a site-specific NEPA analysis. The area

would also be open to new rights-of-way and other

realty actions. Grazing use would continue under the

Beaty Butte, O’Keefe Individual, and Hill Camp

Allotment Management Plans. Cultural resources

would be managed according to BLM policy. Important

cultural resources sites would be nominated to the

NRHP. Native American traditional uses of the area

would be allowed. Commercial collection of plants

and vegetative products would be allowed by permit.

The area would be open to OHV’s. The area would

continue to be managed as VRM Class IV. The berm at

the north end of Long Lake would be retained.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management would be the same as that described

under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 40,095 acres would be designated an ACEC (Map SMA-3). A small portion in the

northeast corner of this area falls within the Guano

Creek WSA and would be managed in accordance with

the wilderness IMP. The rest of the ACEC would be

open to locatable mineral entry but closed to the sale or

lease of minerals. New rights-of-way would be ex-
Management Alternatives

3 -91

cluded except to provide access to non-Federal land.

Adjacent land on the west side of the ACEC would be

acquired from a willing landowner, if such acquisition

would improve resource protection or management of

the ACEC.

Commercial collection of plants or vegetative products

would be prohibited. Collection for individual or

personal use would be allowed.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations and the approved allotment management

plans. Any proposed changes in grazing, including

time and intensity of use, would be evaluated for

impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

particularly to cultural plants (plants used for traditional Native American practices), existing livestock

use would be adjusted using a variety of methods,

including, but not limited to, fencing, reduction in

livestock numbers, and changes in grazing season.

Proposed range improvement projects would be

evaluated for impacts and permitted where relevant and

important values would be maintained or enhanced.

If the berm at the north end of Long Lake is no longer

needed, it would be removed. The ACEC would be

managed as VRM Class III. OHV’s would be limited

to designated roads and trails.

The high concentration of greater sage-grouse leks in

the ACEC would be managed to maintain the continuity of greater sage-grouse habitat and to avoid disturbance during the breeding season.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 36,755 acres would be designated as an ACEC (Maps SMA-4 and -16). The south

boundary of the ACEC would be set back 100 feet from

the north edge of the State Highway 140 right-of-way.

The ACEC would be open to all mineral activities with

stipulations to protect relevant and important resources.

New rights-of-way in the ACEC would be avoided

unless there were no alternatives. Legal access across

the private land in the vicinity of Badger Hole would

be acquired from a willing land-owner if necessary to

allow administrative and public access.

Livestock grazing would be managed the same as under

Alternative C.

Commercial collection of plants or vegetative products

would be prohibited. Collection for individual or

personal use would be allowed.

The high concentration of greater sage-grouse leks in

the ACEC would be managed to maintain the continuity of greater sage-grouse habitat and to avoid disturbance during the breeding season.

If the berm at the north end of Long Lake is no longer

needed, it would be removed. The ACEC would be

managed as VRM Class III. OHV’s would be limited

to designated roads and trails.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Juniper Mountain ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

The area would be open to all mineral activity based on

approval of a site-specific NEPA analysis. It would also

be open to new rights-of-way and other realty actions.

Livestock grazing would continue under current

management. Juniper Mountain is in Allotment 515

which is used primarily in the spring and less in

summer and early fall.

Existing wood cutting areas would remain open and

new ones would be designated according to the existing

wood cutting environmental assessment for the LRA.

The area would remain open to collection of other

vegetative products such as juniper boughs and berries.

Overnight camping would continue to be allowed. The

area would be open to OHV’s and continue to be

managed as VRM Class IV.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management of the area would be the same as described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 6,335 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-3). The ACEC

would be open to locatable mineral entry but closed to

the sale or lease of minerals. The ACEC would also be

excluded from new rights-of-way except to provide

access to non-Federal land. Actions would be taken to
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 92

acquire the 80-acre inholding from a willing landowner

and make it part of the ACEC. The existing wood

cutting areas would be closed. Future tree cutting for

firewood, posts, or other uses; and gathering vegetative

products, such as juniper boughs or berries, would be

prohibited. Collection of dead and down wood for

onsite use would also be prohibited. OHV’s would be

limited to designated roads and trails. Overnight

camping would be prohibited inside the ACEC. The

ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II.

Livestock grazing would continue based on existing

permit stipulations and approved allotment management plans. Any proposed changes in grazing, including time and intensity of use, would be evaluated for

impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use. Proposed range improvement projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 6,335 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -17). New

rights-of-way in the ACEC would be avoided unless

there are no other options. Acquisition of the 80-acre

inholding from a willing landowner would be pursued.

If acquired, it would be added to the ACEC and managed accordingly. The ACEC would be open to all

mineral activity. Any fluid minerals activity would be

subject to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation.

Livestock grazing would continue based on existing

permit stipulations. Any proposed changes in grazing,

including time and intensity of use, would be evaluated

for impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use. Proposed range improvement projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced.

The existing wood cutting areas would be closed and

future tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses;

and gathering vegetative products, such as juniper

boughs or berries, would be prohibited. Wood cutting

areas could be established east of the east-side boundary road. Collecting down and dead wood for onsite

camping use would be allowed. Camping would be

limited to designated primitive camping areas. The

ACEC would be managed as VRM Class IV. OHV’s

would be limited to designated roads and trails.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA would be designated under this

alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Rahilly-Gravelly ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

The area would be open to all mineral activity based on

approval of a site-specific NEPA analysis and stipulations to protect biological and cultural resources. The

area would be open to new rights-of-way. Livestock

grazing would be managed according to the existing

“Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment Management Plan.” The

area is in Allotment 212 which is grazed primarily from

March through mid-September. Personal collecting of

vegetative products including wood cutting would be

allowed. Commercial collection would be considered

on a case-by-case basis. The area would be open to

OHV’s. The northwest side of the area would be

managed as VRM Class III and the rest of it would be

VRM Class IV.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management would be the same as that described

under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 20,127 acres would be designated as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-3). The

ACEC/RNA would be open to locatable mineral entry

and open to leasable minerals subject to a no-surfaceoccupancy stipulation. It would be closed to the sale of

minerals. New rights-of-way would be excluded from

the ACEC/RNA except those necessary to access nonFederal land. Actions to acquire the adjacent private

land from willing landowners would be initiated if such

acquisition would enhance management of the relevant

and important resources in the ACEC.
Management Alternatives

3 -93

The high concentration of greater sage-grouse leks in

the ACEC would be managed to maintain the continuity of greater sage-grouse habitat and to avoid disturbance during the breeding season.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations and approved allotment management plans.

Any proposed changes in grazing, including time and

intensity of use, would be evaluated for impacts on the

relevant and important values and would be permitted

if the values would be maintained or enhanced. Where

adverse impacts are identified, existing livestock use

would be adjusted using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing, reduction in livestock

numbers, and changes in grazing season of use. Of

particular concern would be spring grazing of cultural

plants (plants traditionally used by Native Americans).

Proposed range improvement projects would be

evaluated for impacts and permitted where relevant and

important values would be maintained or enhanced.

OHV use would be limited to designated roads and

trails. Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses;

and the commercial collecting of vegetative products,

such as juniper berries, would be prohibited. Individual collection of vegetative products for personal

use or traditional Native American use would be

allowed. The ACEC would be identified as a traditional cultural property. The entire ACEC would be

managed as VRM Class III.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 19,648 acres would be designated as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -18).

The ACEC would be open to all mineral activities.

Any leasable mineral activity would be subject to a nosurface-occupancy stipulation. New rights-of-way in

the ACEC would be avoided unless there were no other

options. Actions to acquire the adjacent private land

from willing landowners would be initiated if such

acquisition would enhance management of the relevant

and important resources in the ACEC.

Livestock grazing would be managed the same as under

Alternative C.

The high concentration of greater sage-grouse leks in

the ACEC would be managed to maintain the continuity of greater sage-grouse habitat and to avoid disturbance during the breeding season.

OHV’s would be limited to existing roads and trails.

Management of wood cutting and vegetative products

collecting, and VRM would be the same as described

under Alternative C. The ACEC would be identified as

a traditional cultural property.

Alternative E

Under this alternative no ACEC/RNA would be designated.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed Red

Knoll ACEC (formerly Tucker Hill)

Management common to Alternatives A–D:

There are major noxious weed infestations, primarily

medusahead, in the proposed ACEC. Noxious weeds

would be treated in the area using integrated weed

management techniques with an emphasis on treatment

and rehabilitation of medusahead sites. A Greater Abert

Weed Management Area is proposed in this area which

would include all of the land in the proposed Red Knoll

ACEC. If a weed management area is established, the

plan that would be developed for it would be the

direction for weed management activities inside this

ACEC. If the weed management area is not developed,

but the ACEC becomes established, weed management

would occur according to the weed management

direction common to all alternatives for the rest of the

resource area.

Alternative A

The proposed ACEC would not be designated and

management of the area would continue as at present.

The area would be open to locatable mineral entry and

to the sale or lease of minerals based on approval of a

site-specific NEPA analysis with appropriate stipulations to protect or mitigate impacts to cultural and

biological resources. Grazing would continue as

currently managed. The north half of the area, Allotment 0408, is not grazed. The south half of the area in

Allotment 0404 is grazed. Rights-of-way for utility

lines, pipelines, or roads would be made available as

needed based on an environmental assessment of

impacts. Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other

uses, and the collection of vegetative material for

personal or commercial use would be allowed. The

entire area would be open to OHV use. The area would

continue to be managed as VRM Class III and Class IV.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, the proposed ACEC would not

be designated. The area would be managed as described under Alternative A.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 94

Alternative C

A total of 11,588 acres would be designated as an

ACEC (Map SMA-3). The ACEC would be entirely

south of the existing Tucker Hill mining area. BLM

would petition the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw the entire ACEC from locatable mineral entry.

The ACEC would also be closed to sale or lease of

minerals. New rights-of-way would be excluded

except for any necessary to access non-Federal land.

Actions would be pursued to acquire private inholdings

from a willing landowner.

The entire ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing

to protect cultural values and to help control further

weed infestation. The ACEC would be identified as a

traditional cultural property. Eligible cultural resource

sites would be nominated to the NRHP.

Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses, or the

commercial collection of vegetative material would be

prohibited. The collection of plants and vegetative

material for individual use would be allowed.

OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

The entire ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 11,127 acres would be designated an ACEC (Maps SMA-4 and -19). As under

Alternative C, the ACEC would exclude the Tucker

Hill mining area. The southeast boundary of the ACEC

would be set 100 feet back from existing county road

right-of-way (Willow Creek Road) to allow maintenance of the road or additional right-of-way uses

without impacting the ACEC.

BLM would petition the Secretary of the Interior to

withdraw the northwest one-third of the ACEC (approximately 600 acres) from locatable mineral entry.

This same area would be closed to the sale or lease of

minerals. The southern two-thirds of the ACEC would

be open to locatable mineral entry and to the sale or

lease of minerals with stipulations to protect relevant

and important resources. New rights-of-way in the

ACEC would be avoided unless there are no other

options.

Livestock grazing in the ACEC would continue based

on existing permit stipulations. Any proposed changes

in grazing, including time and intensity of use, would

be evaluated for impacts on the relevant and important

values and would be permitted if the values would be

maintained or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are

identified, existing livestock use would be adjusted

using a variety of methods, including, but not limited

to, fencing, reduction in livestock numbers, and

changes in grazing season of use. Proposed range

improvement projects would be evaluated for impacts

and permitted where relevant and important values

would be maintained or enhanced.

Visual resources and OHV’s would be managed as

described under Alternative C. Wood cutting and the

harvest of vegetative products would be managed as

described under Alternative A.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Spanish Lake ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

The area would be open to OHV’s. It would also be

open to all mineral activity based on approval of a sitespecific NEPA analysis. The area would be open to

new rights-of-way and other realty actions. Present

grazing management would continue. The area is in

Allotment 213 which is grazed for approximately 1

month each February. The area would be managed as

VRM Class IV.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management would be the same as that described

under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 4,699 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-3). The ACEC

would be open to locatable mineral activity under a

plan of operation. It would be closed to sale or lease of

minerals. Rights-of-way, except to provide access to

non-Federal land, would be excluded from the ACEC.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations. Any proposed changes in grazing, including time and intensity of use, would be evaluated for

impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,
Management Alternatives

3 -95

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use. Proposed range improvement projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced. The livestock watering pond in the middle

of the lake would be rehabilitated.

OHV’s would be limited to designated roads and trails.

The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class III.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 4,699 acres would be designated

as an ACEC (Maps SMA-4 and -20). New rights-ofway in the ACEC would be avoided unless there are no

other options. The ACEC would be open to all mineral

activity.

The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class IV. All

other management in the ACEC would be the same as

described under Alternative C.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

Management Direction by Alternative—Proposed

Table Rock ACEC/RNA

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

The area would be open to OHV’s except for an

existing 56-acre closed area. The area would be open

to all mineral activity subject to approval of a sitespecific NEPA analysis with stipulations to protect

biological and cultural resources. Under the existing

management framework plan, no new major rights-ofway would be placed within 1 mile of the area. Distribution lines would be allowed. The rights-of-way for

existing communication sites and access road to the

site would be retained and managed according to the

respective right-of-way grants. Livestock grazing

would continue as presently managed. The area is in

two allotments. Allotment 714 encompasses most of

the ACEC, but is currently not grazed. Allotment 708

includes the northwest portion of the ACEC and is

grazed for a month in the spring.

The conservation agreement between BLM and

USFWS for the protection and management of Cusick’s

buckwheat and snowline cymopterus would be completed and implemented. Collecting of vegetative

products such as juniper boughs or berries would be

allowed. Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other uses

would be prohibited. Collecting dead and down wood

for onsite camping use would be allowed. Overnight

camping would be allowed. The area would continue

to be managed as VRM Class IV.

Alternative B

No ACEC would be designated under this alternative.

Management would be the same as described under

Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, 5,891 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Map SMA-3). The conservation agreement for the Cusick’s buckwheat and

snowline cymopterus would be completed and implemented.

New rights-of-way, except to provide access to nonFederal land, and other realty actions in the ACEC

would be excluded. Actions to acquire the private

property adjacent to the northeast corner of the ACEC

from willing landowners would be initiated.

The ACEC would be open to locatable mineral activity

but closed to the sale or lease of minerals. The ACEC

would be closed to livestock grazing to protect RNA

values. Fences would be installed as needed to keep

livestock out of the area.

The area would be identified as a traditional cultural

property. Tree cutting for firewood, posts, or other

uses; and commercial gathering or collecting of vegetative products, such as juniper boughs or berries, would

be prohibited. Collection of plants or vegetative

products for individual or personal use would be

allowed.

In the ACEC, OHV’s would be limited to designated

roads and trails, except for the 56-acre closed area.

Recreation use would be limited to day-use only.

Camping would be limited to a designated site outside

the ACEC. The ACEC would be managed as VRM

Class II.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 5,138 acres would be designated

as an ACEC and a RNA (Maps SMA-4 and -21). The

western boundary of the ACEC would be set back 100
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 96

feet from the eastern edge of the county road right-ofway. The conservation agreement for Cusick’s buckwheat and snowline cymopterus would be completed

and implemented.

New rights-of-way would be allowed within existing

rights-of-way. New rights-of-way outside the existing

rights-of-way would be avoided unless there were no

other options. Actions to acquire the private property

adjacent to the northeast corner of the ACEC from

willing landowners would be initiated.

The ACEC would be open for locatable and leasable

minerals. Any geothermal exploration or development

would be subject to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation.

The ACEC would be closed to the sale of minerals.

Livestock use would continue based on existing permit

stipulations. Any proposed changes in grazing, including time and intensity of use, would be evaluated for

impacts on the relevant and important values and

would be permitted if the values would be maintained

or enhanced. Where adverse impacts are identified,

existing livestock use would be adjusted using a variety

of methods, including, but not limited to, fencing,

reduction in livestock numbers, and changes in grazing

season of use. Proposed range improvement projects

would be evaluated for impacts and permitted where

relevant and important values would be maintained or

enhanced.

The ACEC would be identified as a traditional cultural

property. OHV’s would be limited to designated roads

and trails except for the 56-acre closed area. Camping

would be allowed in designated areas only. The ACEC

would be managed as VRM Class II. Wood cutting or

gathering vegetative products would be managed the

same as described under Alternative C.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, no ACEC would be designated.

Wilderness Values

All alternatives would incorporate or comply with the

management direction and protections provided by the

Warner sucker biological opinion agreements, the

“Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Fishes of

the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin;” the “Standards

for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau

of Land Management in the States of Oregon and

Washington;” and the “Interim Management Policy for

Lands Under Wilderness Review” (1995).

Management Goal—BLM-administered land acquired since the wilderness inventory and determined

to have wilderness values would be included in

adjacent wilderness study areas (WSA’s). WSA’s and

WSA additions would be managed under the 1995

“Interim Management Policy for Lands Under

Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP).

Rationale

Under FLPMA, wilderness preservation is part of

BLM’s multiple use mandate, and wilderness is recognized as part of the spectrum of resource values considered in the land use planning process. Under the

wilderness review program, the existing designated

WSA’s are managed in accordance with BLM’s IMP.

The general standard for interim management is that

land under wilderness review must be managed so as

not to impair suitability for preservation as wilderness.

Wilderness characteristics and values, described in

section 2(c) of the “Wilderness Act of 1964” (Public

Law 88-577) must be protected and enhanced in all

WSA’s. The initial task of identifying areas suitable

for wilderness preservation has been completed as

mandated in FLPMA section 603, and is documented in

BLM’s 1989 “Oregon Final Wilderness EIS” and 1991

“Wilderness Study Report for Oregon.”

Lands acquired by the BLM since that time (3,043

acres via donation, exchange, or purchase) were not

included in the initial inventory for wilderness suitability. Sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA provide for

ongoing inventories of public land resources and

identification of significant areas through the RMP

process. If acquired parcels of land adjacent to WSA’s

are found recommended as suitable for wilderness

designation, these areas would be included in the

appropriate WSA and managed under authority of

FLPMA sections 202 and 302. The IMP would apply

to these areas while under wilderness consideration by

Congress.

Monitoring

Monitoring and surveillance of the parcels of land

added to existing WSA’s would be ongoing to ensure

compliance with IMP.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Management direction for all WSA’s and ISA’s is set

under the 1995 wilderness IMP until such time as

Congress makes a determination regarding wilderness

designation. The wilderness IMP takes precedent over
Management Alternatives

3 -97

all other management direction based on special

designations such as special recreation management

areas or ACEC’s when these designations overlap,

unless management of these areas is more restrictive

than the IMP, in which case the more restrictive

management would be followed. Management of any

congressionally designated wilderness areas would be

set in legislation. Management direction for any

WSA’s not designated by Congress and released from

WSA status would be based on existing RMP management direction.

According to the IMP, the use in WSA’s of “mechanical

transport, including all motorized devices as well as

trail and mountain bikes, may only be allowed on

existing ways and within open areas that were designated prior to the passage of FLPMA (October 1976).”

Existing ways are those that existed at the time of the

wilderness inventory. The wilderness inventory was

based in part on road information from published

USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Therefore, “existing roads and ways” within WSA’s are defined as those

which appear on the pre-1990 published USGS topographic maps.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

All lands acquired adjacent to or within WSA’s since

the 1991 “Wilderness Study Report for Oregon” are

required to be assessed for wilderness values. A

number of such areas have been assessed to date. This

assessment has found that some of lands meet the

criteria for identification as a WSA. However, these

lands can only be managed under the wilderness IMP if

they go through the land planning process. Under

Alternative A, a land use plan amendment would need

to be completed to accomplish this.

Alternative B

Land acquired within or adjacent to lands identified in

the1991 “Wilderness Study Report for Oregon” would

not be added to existing WSA’s and would not be

managed under the IMP, even though they may meet

the WSA criteria.

Alternatives C, D, and E

All acquired lands adjacent to or within WSA’s have

been assessed for wilderness characteristics. Under

these three alternatives, those lands possessing wilderness characteristics and meeting the criteria for identification as a WSA would be included in the adjacent

WSA and managed under the IMP to protect its wilderness values. Approximately 1,194 acres of acquired

lands determined to have wilderness characteristics

would be added to the following WSA’s: Fish Creek

Rim WSA—397 acres; Guano Creek WSA—604 acres;

and Abert Rim WSA—193 acres. See Appendix J and

Maps SMA-7, -13, and -16, for the wilderness study

process and location of these acquired lands, respectively.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Management Goal—Protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable values of rivers determined to be

administratively suitable for potential inclusion in the

national wild and scenic river system until Congress

acts.

Rationale

The “National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” (Public

Law 90-542 and amendments), section 1(b), states that

“certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their

immediate environments, possess outstandingly

remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall

be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they

and their immediate environments shall be protected

for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future

generations.” Section 5(d) requires Federal agencies to

consider potential wild, scenic, and recreational river

areas in all planning for the use and development of

water and related land resources. Section 10(a) describes the basic management requirement of protecting and enhancing the values that caused the river to be

included in the national wild and scenic river system.

In accordance with BLM policy, all eligible rivers were

evaluated for suitability. The planning determination

of suitability provides the basis for any decision to

recommend legislation. Factors to be considered (see

section 4[a] of the “National Wild and Scenic River

Act” in the suitability determination include: the

current status of land ownership and use in the area; the

reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and

water which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national WSR

system, and the values which would be foreclosed or

diminished if the river is not protected as part of the

national WSR system; other agencies, organizations or

public interested in designation or nondesignation;

administrative costs; ability of the agency to manage

and/or protect the river area; historic or existing rights.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 98

An inventory of rivers in the LRA determined that

three rivers were eligible for further study: Guano

Creek, Twelvemile Creek, and Honey Creek (see

Appendix J2 for the inventory assessment). Subsequent field checking of Guano Creek revealed that the

last 1 mile of the creek above the Shirk Ranch has

several major diversions and channels for irrigation

use. These structures do not meet the “free-flowing”

definition of the “National Wild and Scenic River Act,”

and therefore, the last mile of the creek would not be

included in the assessment. Since the Shirk Ranch is

within this stretch, the outstandingly remarkable

cultural value of the assessment is also dropped.

Guano Creek is still eligible based on its vegetation

communities.

Monitoring

Monitor use and oustandingly remarkable values within

administratively suitable rivers to ensure protection and

enhancement of oustandingly remarkable values

consistent with the “National Wild and Scenic River

Act.”

Management Common to All Alternatives

Provide interim protection of the oustandingly remarkable values of eligible and administratively suitable

rivers while awaiting a determination by Congress.

Refer to Appendix J3 for interim management policy

and guidelines. Acquisition of non-Federal lands along

the river corridors would be through voluntary willing

sellers or exchange proponents, and would be added to

eligible and suitable rivers.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the visual resources

for Honey and Twelvemile Creeks would be managed

as VRM Class II, and Guano Creek would be managed

as VRM Class I because it is located within the Guano

Creek WSA. If Guano Creek is not congressionally

designated a wilderness, the VRM class for the Guano

Creek corridor would revert to Class II.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

None of the eligible streams would be recommended

administratively suitable for potential designation by

Congress as WSR’s.

Alternative B

Same as under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Approximately 6.6 miles on Twelvemile Creek and 5.6

miles of Honey Creek would be recommended administratively suitable for potential designation by Congress as a WSR (Table 2-35 and Map R-8), with a

tentative classification as scenic. Approximately 10.6

miles of Guano Creek would be recommended administratively suitable for potential designation by Congress

as a WSR, with a tentative classification as wild.

Management guidelines and standards for scenic

classification as listed in the “Oregon/Washington

Management Guidelines and Standards for National

Wild and Scenic Rivers” would be followed while

awaiting a determination by Congress.

Alternative D

Approximately 6.6 miles on Twelvemile Creek would

be recommended administratively suitable for potential

designation by Congress as a WSR (Table 2-35 and

Map R-8 and SMA-22) with a tentative classification

as recreational. Guano Creek and Honey Creek would

not be recommended suitable for designation in the

national WSR system. Management guidelines and

standards for wild, scenic, and recreational classifications listed in the “Oregon/Washington Management

Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic

Rivers” would be followed while awaiting a determination by Congress.

Alternative E

None of the eligible streams would be administratively

suitable for potential designation by Congress as

WSR’s.

Cultural and Paleontological

Resources

Management Goal 1—Preserve and protect cultural

resources in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and Executive orders, in consultation with

Native Americans.

Rationale

The BLM is required by law, regulations, and Executive orders to manage cultural resources in such a

fashion that they would be preserved and protected

from destruction, and that the appropriate uses would

be made of such resources. Law, regulations, and
Management Alternatives

3 -99

Executive orders further require that such management

be coordinated with the appropriate Native American

Tribes and individuals.

Monitoring

Monitoring of the condition of sites on a regular basis

would be required to establish a baseline to determine

the condition of known sites of significance such as

NRHP listed or eligible sites. It would not be practical

or possible to monitor all sites within the district due to

the large number of known sites.

Actions Common to All Alternatives

All management actions on public lands and private

land projects which are federally funded, permitted, or

assisted would require completion of section 106 of the

“National Historic Preservation Act” regulations. This

would consist of a literature review, a site survey on the

ground to determine the presence or absence of sites,

and site evaluation in consultation with Native Americans as appropriate and with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as appropriate.

All sites which have currently been identified as well

as sites identified in the future would be evaluated for

placement in one of four use categories as specified in

BLM Manual 8110.4. These four uses are as follows:

1) Conservation for future use: This category places a

site in protection from destruction with the intent to

have it available at an unspecified date in the future for

use in research or public interpretation.

2) Public use: Sites placed in this category would be

used for recreation, public interpretation, education,

etc.

3) Experimental use: Sites placed in this category

would be used in scientific research. Such use may

result in the complete consumption of the site in some

cases. Site may be placed in public use as a result of

the research which is conducted.

4) Discharged sites: These are sites which no longer

exist or have been so damaged that they have no value

of any kind. Sites may have been destroyed by erosion,

consumption in research, or through destruction caused

by humans.

Alternative A

To protect against illegal artifact or fossil collecting,

site or fossil excavations, and site or fossil vandalism,

the listed, eligible, or potential NRHP sites and locations known to contain large numbers of sites would be

patrolled regularly. This would include the subbasins

of Warner Valley, Abert Lake, Summer Lake, Christmas

Valley, and Fort Rock. In addition, the uplands surrounding these basins would also be patrolled.

A monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the

success of cultural resource protection and to provide a

baseline for the present condition of sites and determine where stabilization and restoration is needed.

Other uses would be limited as necessary to preserve

and protect cultural resources. A regular schedule of

meetings with local and regional Native American

Tribes for consultation on the preservation and protection of sites would be established.

Buildings and structures on the Shirk Ranch property

located in Guano Valley would be stabilized or restored.

Alternative B

Same as Alternative A, except the following. Buildings

and structures on the Shirk Ranch property located in

Guano Valley would be restored and plans for administrative and recreation use of the property would be

developed.

The OHV closure in the Fossil Lake paleontological

area would be maintained, and exposed fossils would

continue to be collected from the location. An interpretive site for public recreational use at the location

would be developed.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative A, except the following. The

buildings and structures at Shirk Ranch in Guano

Valley would be restored.

The Fossil Lake and Sand Dunes areas would be closed

to OHV’s in order to protect exposed fossils. Year

round paleontological resource monitoring to prevent

collection of exposed fossils would be initiated.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative C, except that the historical

buildings and structures at Shirk Ranch in Guano

Valley would be stabilized.

The OHV closure at Fossil Lake would be enlarged to
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 100

9,379 acres. Paleontological resource monitoring to

determine damage to and collection of exposed fossils

would be initiated.

Alternative E

To protect against illegal artifact and fossil collecting,

archaeological site or fossil site excavation, and

archaeological site or fossil vandalism, the listed,

eligible or potential NRHP sites and locations known to

contain large numbers of sites would be patrolled

regularly.

Management Goal 2—Increase the public’s knowledge of, appreciation for, and sensitivity to cultural

resources, Native American issues, and paleontological resources.

Rationale

The BLM is required by law to preserve and protect

cultural and paleontological resources. In order to do

so, the public must be aware of their values and the

impact which their activities have upon them. Cultural

and paleontological resources are fragile and irreplaceable when damaged or destroyed by actions of the

public. Through vandalism and natural erosion, these

resources are disappearing. If the public understands

the effects of their actions and feels it has equity in the

Nation’s cultural and natural history heritage, the

resources would be appreciated and better protected

from vandalism.

Monitoring

Develop and monitor presentations to the public,

educational brochures, interpretative materials, informational materials, scientific research collections and

materials, and informational displays for the public and

scientific communities.

Actions Common to All Alternatives

Actions would be initiated to develop public appreciation and protection through public education of the

values and importance of cultural resources. All

interpretation projects would be done in consultation

with Native Americans, and implemented only if it

would not impact the values which they are concerned

with at the site.

Alternative A

Cost-share programs with universities, museums, and

researchers, and volunteers to inventory, analyze, and

research the cultural resources within the resource area

would be continued. Regular consultation with Native

American Tribes on all matters dealing with use,

protection, and preservation of cultural resources

within the resource area would continue.

Alternative B

Same as for Alternative A, except on- and offsite

interpretation of archaeological/paleontological sites

which have educational and recreational values would

be developed as long as such work does not contribute

to the deterioration or destruction of the resources

being interpreted. Work would be conducted with

museums of the region, as well as nationally, for the

creation of displays about the resources of the area. In

addition, work would be done with researchers for the

creation of brochures and books on the archaeology

and paleontology of the resource area.

Interpretive sites and publications as described above

would be developed for the Shirk Ranch Historic Site,

the Fossil Lake paleontological site, the archaeological

resources of the Fort Rock Basin and the Warner Valley

region of the resource area.

Alternative C

Actions as outlined under Alternative A would continue. Public interpretation of sites would be developed

but only if it would not impact the site or would

improve its condition.

Alternative D

Management actions would be the same as described

under Alternative C. In addition, public education

programs which would increase public awareness of

the need to preserve and protect cultural resource sites

would be developed.

Alternative E

Public interpretation and educational programs that do

not involve onsite work or require any visitation of

sites in the field would be developed.
Management Alternatives

3 -101

Management Goal 3—In consultation with local

Native American Tribes, take actions, including

designating areas of critical environmental concern

(ACEC’s), to protect traditional religious sites,

landforms, burial sites, resources, and other areas of

interest. Nominate as traditional cultural properties

those areas that qualify.

Rationale

It is Federal policy required by laws, regulations, and

Executive orders to consult with and coordinate BLM

activities with Native American Tribes so that their

rights and interests are taken into account when land

use decisions are made. In addition, American Indian

traditions and traditional uses are addressed. Specifically, the agency must comply with the “National

Historic Preservation Act,” the “Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,” the “American Indian Religious Freedom Act,” regulations 36

CFR 800, section 106 and 110, and Executive Order

13007 (Sacred Sites).

Monitoring

Develop procedures to track consultation and document

all written, telephone, electronic, and in-person communications; and review yearly for adequacy. Develop

on-the-ground monitoring of identified sites to determine condition, impacts, deterioration, and use of such

sites.

Actions Common to All Alternatives

Consultation with Native American Tribes would be

documented under all alternatives.

Ownership of the West Goose Lake Reinterment Site

(approximately 40 acres) and the Adel Paiute Cemetery

(approximately 10 acres) would be transferred to the

local Tribes.

Alternative A

All land-disturbing activities within identified Native

American religious sites or traditional cultural

propertys’s would be designed to eliminate or minimize

adverse impacts to cultural use areas. Proposed

projects or actions would be modified to avoid the site

or area, avoid time of use by Native American groups,

or be eliminated altogether. Religious sites and traditional cultural propertys would be managed for continued use by Native Americans. Native American

religious sites and traditional cultural propertys would

be retained in Federal ownership. Native American

requests to practice traditional activities on public

lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis and

would be allowed where practical and appropriate. All

treaty rights and trust responsibilities as they apply to

public lands within the resource area would be honored. Activity plans for Native American traditional

use areas, when identified in consultation with affected

Tribes, would be developed.

Alternative B

Management actions would be the same as for Alternative A, except areas would be set aside for special

management only if doing so would not restrict other

uses of same area. No areas would be removed from

mineral entry

Alternative C

The areas and acreage listed below would be designated as ACEC’s to protect cultural resource values and

traditional use areas. Eligibility of these areas as

traditional cultural propertys would be determined.

Red Knoll 11,588

Table Rock 5,891

Abert Rim Addition 18,019

High Lakes 40,095

Hawksie-Walksie 17,339

Connley Hills 3,599

Rahilly-Gravelly 20,127

Fish Creek 8,725

Total 125,383

Proposed specific management direction for each of

these areas under this alternative is described in the

ACEC section.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative C, except that the acreage of

the ACEC’s listed below would be less and management direction could vary. Proposed specific management direction for each of these areas under this

alternative is described in the ACEC section.

Red Knoll 11,127

Table Rock 5,138

Abert Rim Addition 18,019

High Lakes 36,755

Rahilly-Gravelly 19,648

Hawksie-Walksie 17,339
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 102

Connely Hills 3,599

Fish Creek 8,725

Total 120,350

Alternative E

No ACEC’s would be designated. Natural processes

would be allowed to occur on all sites. Only management and uses required by law, regulations, and Executive orders would be allowed.

Management Goal 4—In order to fulfill trust responsibilities with Tribal Peoples, manage public land to

maintain, restore, or enhance plant community health

and cultural plants. Identify traditional ecological

knowledge with humans as part of the ecosystem and

maintain habitat integrity with sustainable yields at a

landscape level.

Rationale

During the ICBEMP process, the concerns of American

Indian peoples were analyzed—specifically their

relationships with the natural environment and trends

regarding agency relations with the project’s affected

Tribal Peoples. The legal status of Tribal Peoples, the

sovereignty of Tribal governments, and the nature of

reserved Tribes rights merit separate attention from the

general public’s concerns over ecosystem management.

The BLM management actions affect resources and

areas of concern to Tribal Peoples, and the Federal

government holds certain trust responsibilities and

obligations to Tribal groups based on various legal

agreements such as BLM 8100, Information Bulletin

OR 2000-095, Executive Order 1307, the “American

Indian Religious Freedom Act,” the “Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,” 36 CFR 800

section 106, and the “National Historic Preservation

Act.” There are four recognized Tribes that have

interest in the Lakeview area: Burns Paiute, Fort

Bidwell Paiute, Warm Springs Confederated Tribes,

and the Klamath Tribes. The rights retained by Tribes

are viewed by them as an assurance by the U.S. Government to allow for the continuation of traditional

land uses. Thus, what is reserved supports a way of

life for Indian communities, not just resource uses.

The importance of native plants has received relatively

little recognition compared to other native resources.

Plants continue to be valued and their parts used for

purification, ceremonial, subsistence, commercial, and

medicinal purposes and for creating objects of personal

use, trade, gift-giving, or sale. Cultural plant lists and

plant community/habitats have been listed and given

significance by Tribal Peoples. Also, the aquatic/

terrestrial world has cultural significance to Tribes

beyond its value as a source of food, medicine, textiles

and other material resources. Its cultural significance

is much more complex, involving social values and

meaning that intertwine traditional societal, political,

religious, and economic areas of modern native cultures (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1996h).

In order to more effectively protect Tribal interests

under ICBEMP, certain guidelines were developed

between the Tribal Peoples and the Federal agencies

concerning cultural plants and communities:

“Through treaties with the Federal government and

regulatory acts signed over the past 30 years, Indian

Nations have reserved rights and recognized interests

to harvest a broad range of native plant and animal

species. Therefore, sustainable harvest levels of the

various species should be a management goal. Availability of these species is considered by Indian governments a trust responsibility of the Federal government.

Inadequate quantities can lead to substantial effects on

community well-being because numerous social

activities center on the harvest, preparation, and

consumption of the resources. This involves both the

occurrence and access to the relevant resources.

Occurrence of culturally important plant species may

be measured through linkage with existing dominant

overstory categories or associated soil types. Degree of

access is determined by judging the potential effects

that a number of anticipated impediments may be

posed by differing management actions.”

Plant communities that have cultural importance and

value were identified in the process of consultation

between the ICBEMP planners and Tribal Peoples; these

plant communities are labeled “cultural plant ethnohabitats.” These communities were rated for vulnerability

and viability. In order that resources can be protected, the

locations of these plants are not identified except in areas

where they are protected, such as in ACEC’s (Table 2-33)

and in ethno-habitats (habitats defined by Tribal people

as having human importance). There is great concern by

Tribal Peoples, anthropologists, botanists, and some land

managers of Federal lands to protect the habitats where

cultural plants are located. One conclusion from

ICBEMP analysis also has importance in the Lakeview

area: “Tribal plants occurring in nonforested habitats are

most at risk for decreases in habitat that may influence

continued harvestability.” Nonforested ethno-habitats of

critical concern in the LRA include tall sagebrush, low

sagebrush scablands, wet meadows, and riparian zones.
Management Alternatives

3 -103

Cultural plants are defined as those plants important to

Tribal groups, both past and present, for subsistence,

economic, and ceremonial purposes. Various historical

factors since European contact have affected the

availability of these plants for Tribal use within the

planning area. Noxious weeds; the exclusion of fire;

and substantial impacts from grazing, timber harvest,

and road building, among other factors, have all

contributed to declines and dislocations in many of the

plant species important to Tribes in eastern Oregon

(Hanes 1999).

Monitoring

Cultural plant lists and their respective plant communities (ethno-habitats) are considered in all NEPA procedures and botanical clearances. Also, in the proposed

ACEC’s cultural plants/ethno-habitats are given a high

priority. These plants would be evaluated over time to

determine increase/decrease of number and seasonality

of possible use of these resources. These resources are

reported and discussed with the cultural heritage

representatives at the various Tribes. Also, western

juniper woodlands are an important part of the Tribal

heritage both for cultural and religious properties and

for material values. Western juniper management

would balance both Tribal needs and commercial uses.

Alternative A

In the NEPA process, cultural plants would be inventoried to insure that management actions on the land do

not contribute to the declines of cultural plants. Meetings would be arranged with Tribal Peoples to discuss

management actions. Field trips with Tribal elders

would be arranged to view cultural plant areas and

other area for management actions. Surveys would be

conducted as needed for cultural resources related to

western juniper woodlands.

Alternative B

Same as for Alternative A

Alternative C

Plant resources, especially western juniper woodlands,

would be managed for desired range of conditions by

using a mix of protection, restoration, and enhancements measures. These measures may include prescribed fire and special considerations for wildland fire

management. Old growth western juniper would be

maintained or enhanced (see Forest and Woodlands

section). Tribal resource people would be encouraged

to contribute their concerns for management of all

cultural plants.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative C

Alternative E

Natural processes would be allowed to operate; however, wood cutting or bough collecting for commercial

purposes would be prohibited.

Human Uses and Values

Management Goal—Manage public lands to provide

social and economic benefits to local residents,

businesses, visitors, and future generations.

Rationale

Through the planning process the Lakeview District

would select a course for future actions designed to

meet existing legal requirements and other direction of

the agency.

Historically, commodity values on public lands have

been made available to private individuals or businesses through sales, permitting, or other methods.

The Federal government collects revenues when

commodities are used. These commodities also

generate private economic activity in the local, regional, national, and in some cases international

economies.

Public lands also provide or contribute to numerous

environmental amenities, such as clean water, scenic

quality, and recreational opportunities. These amenities enhance local communities as places to live, work,

or visit. Public lands also attract visitors to the area,

many of whom purchase goods and services that

generate local economic activity.

Business activities of Federal agencies also generate

economic activity in the local, regional, and national

economies as both an employer and purchaser of goods

and services.

Federal lands also contribute to local governments

where they are located. Many commodity programs

include provisions to share collections with local

governments. Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes are also

made to compensate counties because Federal lands are
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 104

exempt from local property taxes. Continuation of

programs limits disruption of existing economic

structures. Guidance within the plan defines the

amount of economic opportunity in the future, especially related to mining and recreation.

Monitoring

Use BLM records to determine the amounts of commodity uses (i.e., AUM’s, tons of minerals, board feet

of special forest and range products, etc.). Monitor

employment in related industries using public information sources. Use BLM budget information to project

spending to meet environmental quality. Determine

amounts spent on new facility construction.

Use the recreation management information system and

other site-specific measures to determine visitor use

levels. Track local versus nonlocal contracts and

purchases using BLM procurement records. Track

BLM employment levels using payroll records.

Management Common to All Alternatives

The following objectives/actions which contribute to

achieving the management goal would be the same for

all alternatives.

• Provide predictable and sustainable levels of

commodity outputs.

• Meet subsistence needs of Tribes and Tribal

communities to the greatest extent practicable.

• Provide natural resource amenities on public lands

that enhance local communities as places to live,

work, or visit (this could include water quality,

scenic views, recreation sites, wildlife viewing,

hunting, and fishing).

• Protect special areas with unique natural resource

values for the enjoyment of future generations (this

could include habitats of endangered species).

• Target government business activities associated

with public land management to the local economies to the extent permitted by the existing authorities (would need to develop a monitoring plan

to evaluate if local versus nonlocal government

spending changes over time).

In its resource management planning, the BLM selects

a balance between current and future generations, local

and regional and national interests, commodity uses

and natural values, and physical and biological and

social-economics.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Commodity use would continue at existing levels to

contribute to stability in the local livestock, mining,

and timber industries.

Natural resource amenities would continue to be

provided at levels that meet or exceed existing legal

requirements. Where needed, improve environmental

quality to meet or exceed requirements.

Existing facilities (roads, recreation sites, interpretive

sites, and range improvements) would continue to be

managed to facilitate commodity uses and continued

access and availability of natural resource amenities.

Continue existing management direction when determining the need for additional facilities.

Anticipated increases in demand for recreational

opportunities would be addressed by implementing

improvements in the Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management Area as identified in the existing

plan. Management of the Sunstone Collection Area

would continue under existing guidelines. Commercial

recreation opportunities would be encouraged through

the authorization of special recreation permits.

Existing special areas would be protected.

Existing business practices would be continued.

Alternative B

Availability of Federal forage available for use through

the permit process would be increased. The availability of sunstone-bearing areas available for mining claim

location would be increased. Maintain the existing

level of opportunity for mineral exploration and

development. Increased commodity availability would

likely contribute to the expansion of the local recreation, livestock, and mining industries.

Natural resource amenities would continue to be

provided at levels that meet or exceed existing legal

requirements. Where needed, improve environmental

quality to meet or exceed requirements using administrative or project- related solutions which minimize

impacts to commodity production and public uses.

Existing facilities (roads, recreation sites, interpretive
Management Alternatives

3 -105

sites, and range improvements) would continue to be

managed to facilitate commodity uses and continued

access and availability of natural resource amenities.

Additional facilities would be developed as needed to

support commodity uses consistent with natural

resource objectives.

Anticipated increases in demand for recreational

opportunities would be addressed by designating the

North Lake County Special Recreation Management

Area to enhance tourism and recreation opportunities.

This includes expanding existing developed and

undeveloped recreation sites to accommodate increased

visitation and developing partnerships to expand

tourism and recreation. Implement improvements in

the Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area as identified in the existing plan and continue

management of the Sunstone Collection Area under

existing guidelines as in Alternative A. Commercial

and competitive use opportunities would be emphasized through the issuance of special recreation permits.

Existing and newly designated special areas would be

protected.

Implement business practices which promote participation by local vendors and purchasers. This would

include offering contracts that are diverse in size, type,

term, and season. Operate within existing legal,

regulatory, and administrative authorities.

Alternative C

Commodity uses would be reduced from existing levels

to increase the level of protection for natural values.

New commodity use levels would be established that

could be maintained through time to contribute to

stability in the local livestock, mining, and timber

industries.

Natural resource amenities would continue to be

provided at levels that meet or exceed existing legal

requirements. Where needed, environmental quality

would be improved to meet or exceed requirements

using administrative or project related solutions which

would protect or improve natural values.

Existing facilities (roads, recreation sites, interpretive

sites, and range improvements) would continue to be

managed to facilitate commodity uses and continued

access and availability of natural resource amenities.

Eliminate or develop alternatives for existing facilities

which negatively impact natural values.

Anticipated increases in demand for recreational

opportunities would be addressed by designating the

North Lake County Special Recreation Management

Area to emphasize undeveloped, dispersed recreation

opportunities and protect natural values. Minimal

facilities would be constructed and maintained under

this alternative. Management of the Warner Wetlands

Special Recreation Management Area would be

modified to further emphasize protection of natural and

cultural values. Management of the Sunstone Collection Area would continue under existing guidelines as

in Alternative A. Issuance of special recreation permits

would be limited.

New special areas would be designated and existing

special areas would be protected.

Business practices would be implemented that promote

participation by local vendors and purchasers. This

includes offering contracts that are diverse in size, type,

term, and season. Operate within existing legal,

regulatory, and administrative authorities.

Alternative D

Commodity use would be reduced from existing levels

to increase the level of protection for natural values.

New commodity use levels would be established that

could be maintained through time to contribute to

stability in the local livestock, mining, and timber

industries.

Natural resource amenities would continue to be

provided at levels that meet or exceed existing legal

requirements. Where needed, improve environmental

quality to meet or exceed requirements using administrative or project-related solutions which minimize

impacts to commodity production and public uses

while protecting natural values.

Existing facilities (roads, recreation sites, interpretive

sites, and range improvements) would continue to be

managed to facilitate commodity uses and continued

access and availability of natural resource amenities.

Eliminate or develop alternatives for existing facilities

which negatively impact natural values.

Anticipated increases in demand for recreational

opportunities would be addressed by designating the

North Lake County Special Recreation Management

Area to emphasize undeveloped, dispersed recreation

opportunities and protect natural values. Minimal

facilities would be constructed and maintained under

this alternative. Implementation of improvements in
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 106

the Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area as identified in the existing plan and continued

management of the Sunstone Collection Area under

existing guidelines as in Alternative A. Special recreation permits would only be issued on an as-need basis

to meet demand while protecting cultural and natural

values.

New special areas would be designated and existing

special areas protected.

Business practices that would promote participation by

local vendors and purchasers would be implemented.

This includes offering contracts that are diverse in size,

type, term, and season. Operate within existing legal,

regulatory, and administrative authorities.

Alternative E

Commodity uses would be eliminated on BLMmanaged lands. This would likely contribute to the

contraction and instability of the local livestock,

mining, and timber industries. It is unlikely that these

industries would be completely eliminated because of

the availability of these commodities on private lands

and other public lands in the local area.

Natural resource amenities would continue to be

provided at levels that meet or exceed existing legal

requirements. Where needed, improve environmental

quality to meet or exceed requirements using administrative or project-related solutions which emphasize

elimination of commodity production and public uses

to protect natural values.

Minimal levels of existing facilities (roads, recreation

sites, and interpretive sites) would be maintained to

protect human health and safety and to honor existing

rights-of-way agreements. Alternatives would be

developed for existing facilities that would negatively

impact natural values. Eliminate and rehabilitate

facilities no longer needed.

Anticipated increases in demand for recreational

opportunities would be addressed by deemphasizing

tourism opportunities. Recreation would be focused

toward undeveloped types of activities while assuring a

high level of protection of natural and cultural values.

No special recreation permits would be issued for

commercial recreational uses. Site rehabilitation or

closure would be favored if resource values are being

degraded beyond acceptable levels.

Special areas would be eliminated and no new special

areas would be designated.

The overall number and value of contracts offered

would be reduced. Business practices would be

implemented that would promote participation by local

vendors and purchasers. This includes offering contracts that are diverse in size, type, term, and season.

Operate within existing legal, regulatory, and administrative authorities.

Air Quality

Management Goal—Meet the national ambient air

quality standards as described in the “Clean Air Act”

(CAA) and follow the direction and requirements of

the Southcentral Oregon Fire Management Partnership.

Rationale

Smoke is a factor that may affect a land manager’s

ability to use larger and more frequent wildland fire for

restoration and maintenance of fire-dependent ecosystems.

The CAA requires Federal agencies to comply with all

Federal, state, and local air pollution requirements.

The CAA also requires each state to develop a state

implementation plan to ensure that the national ambient

air quality standards are attained and maintained for the

criteria pollutants. The ODEQ is responsible for

producing the state implementation plan, but delegates

the smoke management portion to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). As part of the state implementation plan, ODF developed instructions and

requirements for wildland and prescribed fire emissions in the smoke management plan. Federal agencies

are required to ensure that their actions conform to

state implementation plans.

The national ambient air quality standards are described in the CAA. The national ambient air quality

standards have been established for six pollutants. Of

these six criteria pollutants, natural resource management activities largely affect only one—the production

of particulate matter. However, most particulate matter

of concern is produced from fire and most of this is less

than 10 micrometers (PM10) in diameter, which is the

size class that is regulated. Because fire and smoke are

a natural part of forest and rangeland ecosystems,

PM10 produced from fire does not seriously affect

these ecosystems. However, it does have effects on

human health.
Management Alternatives

3 -107

Land managers and the public must make choices

regarding prescribed fire and wildland fire use emissions versus emissions from wildland fires. Land

managers have little control over where, when, and

how much smoke is put into the air during wildland

fires. Through prescribed fire, smoke levels can be

better managed. For example, air quality can be

somewhat diminished in the short term so that the

probability is decreased of violating air quality standards in the long term. Although some of the alternatives call for a significant increase in emissions from

prescribed fire and wildland fire use, these emissions

would be mitigated to provide for public health and

safety.

Monitoring

An emissions information system (FASTRACS) is used

in Oregon to quantify prescribed fire emissions and to

track changes in emission productions within the State.

Federal land managers have an obligation to complete

smoke management reports and apply appropriate

mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts on air

quality (EPA 1992).

There is an air quality monitoring network developed

for Oregon that is used to determine whether the

national ambient air quality standards are met. Monitors are located in Klamath Falls yearlong, and in

Lakeview for the winter months. This monitoring

network would determine background pollution levels

which can help measure emissions increases during fire

events.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

An average of 5,000 to 20,000 acres would be burned

per year using prescribed fire.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, prescribed fire and wildland fire

use for achieving resource management objectives

would be limited to 64,000 acres per year.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, prescribed fire and wildland fire

use to achieve resource management objectives would

be limited to 64,000 acres per year. Ideally, much less

would be burned, but this would enable achieving

landscape-scale objectives in years when those opportunities were available.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, prescribed fire and wildland fire

use to achieve resource management objectives would

be limited to 480,000 acres per year. Over a 10-year

period, using prescribed fire and wildland fire use

would be limited to 1,120,000 acres.

Alternative E

Prescribed fire would not be used. Natural fire processes would be allowed to operate in the ecosystem.

Fire Management

Management Goal 1—Provide an appropriate

management response on all wildland fires, with

emphasis on firefighter and public safety. When

assigning priorities, decisions would be based on

relative values to be protected commensurate with fire

management costs.

Rationale

Protection of human life (firefighter and public safety)

is the highest priority during a wildland fire. Once

firefighters have been assigned to a fire, their safety

becomes the highest value to be protected. Property

and natural and cultural resources are lower priorities.

The “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and

Program Review” (1995) acknowledges that fire is a

critical natural process and must be reintroduced into

the ecosystem on a landscape scale. Wildland fire

management decisions are based on approved fire

management and activity level plans that are tiered to

this RMP using the best available science. The policy

further emphasizes that for natural ignitions (i.e.,

lightning caused), a manager must have the ability to

choose from the full spectrum of fire management

actions—from prompt suppression to allowing fire to

function in its natural ecological role. The “Interior

Columbia Basin Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement” (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 2000)

states that wildland fire management strategies and

suppression activities should minimize damage to longterm ecosystem function, and should emphasize

protection, restoration, or maintenance of key habitats.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 108

Monitoring

Monitoring would determine whether suppression

strategies, practices, and activities are meeting safety

standards and are meeting resource management

objectives and concerns.

Management Common to All Alternatives

The 1998 fire management plan would be revised for

the LRA within 2 years of completing the RMP. The

fire management plan would prescribe the appropriate

management response, including full suppression and

modified suppression, throughout the resource area. It

would also identify conditions and potential locations

for wildland fire use and for prescribed fires, as well as

other factors pertaining to fire management in the

LRA.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Provide for an appropriate management response of

initial attack and full suppression on all wildland fires

occurring outside of the Fort Rock Fire Management

Area. For the Fort Rock Fire Management Area,

wildland fires may be managed using limited suppression activities; this includes monitoring wildland fires

that occur within the wildland fire use area boundaries.

Use natural and human-created barriers (i.e., roads) as

available for control lines. Use of heavy equipment in

ACEC’s, WSA’s and RNA’s would be avoided and

would require line officer approval. If used, heavy

equipment would be restricted to existing roads and

trails. Use of retardant would be allowed within these

areas for initial attack. Retardant use during extended

attack would be considered as a part of the wildland

fire situation analysis, considering the resource values

at risk and public and firefighter safety.

Alternative B

Provide for an appropriate management response of

initial attack and full suppression on all wildland fires

threatening commodity areas. Use natural and humancreated barriers (i.e., roads) as available for control

lines. The use of surface-disturbing equipment and fire

retardant in WSA’s, ACEC’s and RNA’s would be

avoided. Exceptions may be granted by the field

manager to protect public and firefighter safety, other

Federal, state and private property, and commodity

areas. During times of multiple ignitions and limited

suppression resources, place highest priority on suppression resources to protect commodity areas from

wildland fire. Use of heavy equipment in ACEC’s,

WSA’s and RNA’s would be avoided and would require

line officer approval. If used, heavy equipment would

be restricted to existing roads and trails. Use of

retardant would be allowed within these areas for

initial attack. Retardant use during extended attack

would be considered as a part of the wildland fire

situation analysis, considering the resource values at

risk and public and firefighter safety.

Alternative C

Provide for an appropriate management response

utilizing the full range of suppression options from

active suppression to confining wildland fire spread by

employing direct and indirect actions and use of natural

topographic features, human-created barriers (i.e.,

roads), fuel, and weather factors. If the fire is achieving resource benefits, such as fuel reduction or restoring natural process to rangelands, the fire would be

managed using a confinement strategy, allowing the

fire to burn up to defendable natural or human-created

barriers. No particular emphasis would be placed on

protecting commodity areas. Use of heavy equipment

in ACEC’s, WSA’s and RNA’s would be avoided and

would require line officer approval. If used, heavy

equipment would be restricted to existing roads and

trails. Use of retardant would be allowed within these

areas for initial attack. Retardant use during extended

attack would be considered as a part of the wildland

fire situation analysis, considering the resource values

at risk and public and firefighter safety.

Alternative D

Provide for an appropriate management response of

initial attack and full suppression on all wildland fires

threatening other Federal, state, and private property,

commodity areas, or other sensitive areas such as T&E

species and habitat, and cultural sites. However, where

the fire can achieve resource benefits, consider confining wildland fire spread by employing direct and

indirect actions and use of natural topographic features,

human-created barriers (i.e., roads), fuel, and weather

factors. Use of heavy equipment in ACEC’s, WSA’s

and RNA’s would be avoided and would require line

officer approval. If used, heavy equipment would be

restricted to existing roads and trails. Use of retardant

would be allowed within these areas for initial attack.

Retardant use during extended attack would be considered as a part of the wildland fire situation analysis,

considering the resource values at risk and public and

firefighter safety.
Management Alternatives

3 -109

Alternative E

Provide for an appropriate management response

emphasizing initial attack, full suppression in instances

only to protect human life, and other Federal, state, or

private property. For wildland fires not threatening

human life or other Federal, state, or private property,

spend a minimal amount of time and effort on fire

suppression.

Management Goal 2—Rehabilitate burned areas to

mitigate the adverse effects of wildland fire on soil

and vegetation in a cost-effective manner and to

minimize the possibility of wildland fire recurrence or

invasion of weeds.

Rationale

The BLM’s “Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook” (H-1742-1) outlines the process for implementing emergency fire rehabilitation projects following

wildland fires and wildland fire use. Emergency fire

rehabilitation funds may be used to:

• protect life, property, and soil, water, and vegetation resources;

• prevent unacceptable onsite or offsite damage;

• facilitate meeting land use plan objectives and

other Federal laws; and

• reduce the invasion and establishment of undesirable or invasive vegetation species.

Monitoring

Monitoring studies are encouraged on all emergency

fire rehabilitation projects to determine whether

emergency fire rehabilitation objectives are being met.

Monitoring would be implemented on all projects that

employ new techniques, seed mixes, or rehabilitation

methods. Emergency fire rehabilitation funds may be

used to fund monitoring studies for up to three growing

seasons following fire control.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Currently, emergency fire rehabilitation activities are

implemented on a case-by-case basis following wildland fire. A separate environmental analysis is completed for each emergency fire rehabilitation project.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Emergency fire rehabilitation activities would be

implemented after wildland fire. Emergency fire

rehabilitation funds may be available for rehabilitation

after wildland fire use, depending on the situation.

Resource area direction for implementing emergency

fire rehabilitation projects is found in Appendix L.

Separate environmental analysis would only be completed for emergency fire rehabilitation projects that

are outside the scope of activities described in Appendix L.

Alternative E

No emergency fire rehabilitation projects would be

implemented under this alternative.

Management Goal 3—Restore and maintain ecosystems consistent with land uses and historic fire

regimes through wildland fire use and prescribed fire.

Reduce areas of high fuel loading resulting from

years of fire suppression that may contribute to

extreme fire behavior.

Rationale

Both the “Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin”

(USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1996) and the “Federal

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program

Review” (1995) recognize fire’s essential role as an

ecological process. The LRA is charged with clearly

defining fire management goals, objectives, and actions

in comprehensive fire management plans, which are

tiered to this RMP. Fire management plans would

include identification of areas for wildland fire use and

prescribed fire.

ICBEMP emphasizes that strategic watershed-scale

fuel management and fire use planning, often integrating a variety of treatment methods, would cost-effectively reduce fuel hazards to acceptable levels and

achieve both ecosystem health and resource benefits.

Fire management programs and activities should be

based upon protecting resources, minimizing costs, and

achieving land management objectives. They must also

be economically viable. ICBEMP also stresses the use

of fire to restore and sustain ecosystem health based on

sound scientific principles and information. This must

also be balanced with other societal goals, including

public health and safety, air quality, and other specific
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 110

environmental concerns. Finally, ICBEMP states that

prescribed fire should be considered in wilderness

areas where it has been determined that wildland fire

use for resource benefit would not achieve desired rates

of ecosystem maintenance or restoration.

Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire

management activities. Risks and uncertainties relating

to fire management activities must be understood,

analyzed, communicated, and managed as they relate to

the cost or consequences of either doing or not doing

an activity.

Monitoring

Monitoring would be used to determine whether

prescribed fires, hazardous fuels reduction treatments,

and wildland fire use are meeting resource objectives.

Management Common to All Alternatives

An fire management plan would be updated for the

LRA within 2 years of completion of the RMP. The

fire management plan would prescribe the appropriate

management response, including full suppression and

modified suppression, throughout the resource area. It

would also identify conditions and potential locations

for wildland fire use and for prescribed fires, as well as

other factors pertaining to fire management in LRA.

For Alternatives A, B, C, and D, prescribed fire acres

refer to those areas included in an environmental

assessment; it does not assume that 100 percent of

those acres are burned. In treating areas, the intent is to

actually burn approximately 40–70 percent, and keep

30–60 percent unburned. A goal of landscape-level

prescribed fire treatments is to break up burned and

unburned areas in a mosaic effect. The acres listed in

the alternatives are upper limits, and not targets. For

Alternatives C and D, wildland fire use may cause the

number of treated acres to vary widely from year to

year, and in some years may accomplish a very large

number of treated acres. Lightning-caused fires in

excess of 100,000 acres have occurred periodically in

the rangeland fuels on the LRA.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Use prescribed fire and mechanical hazardous fuels

reduction treatments on a case-by-case basis to improve

forage base and restore natural processes. There are no

areas designated for wildland fire use. The Fort Rock

Fire Management Area is managed for appropriate

suppression response, not currently for wildland fire

use. Many fires occurring within the Fort Rock Fire

Management Area boundaries are monitored and

allowed to be extinguished naturally. For the past 5

years, BLM has prescribed burned approximately 5,000

to 20,000 acres per year (this is approximately 0.15 to

0.6 percent of the LRA). There have been very little

mechanical hazardous fuels reduction treatments on the

LRA. Appendix B of the “Lakeview Grazing EIS”

describes mechanical/chemical treatments to shrub/

western juniper habitats, few of which have been

implemented (Map FM-1).

Alternative B

Under this alternative, prescribed fire and mechanical

hazardous fuels reduction treatments would only be

used primarily to enhance commodity production and

enhance the forage base for livestock. Therefore,

landscape level treatments would not occur under this

alternative. There would be no areas designated for

wildland fire use. No more than 2 percent of the

resource area (64,000 acres) would be treated annually

by prescribed fire or mechanically under this alternative; less than 10 percent (320,000 acres) would be

burned or mechanically treated for hazardous fuels

reduction in a 10-year period (Map FM-3).

Alternative C

Under this alternative, prescribed fire, mechanical fuel

treatments, and wildland fire use would be emphasized

to restore natural processes, and to protect, maintain,

and enhance natural resources. Emphasis would be

placed on using prescribed fire for restoration of

degraded shrublands and rangelands. Areas for possible wildland fire use would be determined under this

alternative (Map FM-4), but would be further analyzed

in the fire management plan. The Fort Rock Fire

Management Area would no longer be managed for

appropriate suppression response, but would be managed for wildland fire use. No more than 20 percent of

the resource area (640,000 acres) would be treated

annually by prescribed fire, mechanical fuel treatments,

and wildland fire use combined under this alternative.

Less than 40 percent (1,280,000 acres) would be

treated in a 10-year period.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, prescribed fire, mechanical fuel

treatment, and wildland fire use would be used to:

protect, maintain, and enhance natural resources;
Management Alternatives

3 -111

restore degraded habitats; and protect other adjacent

Federal, state and private land. Areas for wildland fire

use would be determined under this alternative (Map

FM-5), but would be further analyzed in the fire

management plan. The Fort Rock Fire Management

Area would no longer be managed for appropriate

suppression response, but would be managed for

wildland fire use. No more than 15 percent of the

resource area (480,000 acres) would be treated annually by prescribed fire, mechanical fuel treatment for

hazard reduction, and wildland fire use under this

alternative. Less than 35 percent (1,120,000 acres) of

the resource area would be treated in a 10-year period.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, there would be no prescribed

fire, no mechanical fuel treatments for hazard reduction, and no wildland fire use for resource benefit.

Recreation Resources

Management Goal—Provide and enhance developed

and undeveloped recreation opportunities, while

protecting resources, to manage the increasing

demand for resource-dependent recreation activities.

Rationale

The FLPMA provides for recreation use of public land

as an integral part of multiple use management. Dispersed, unstructured activities typify the recreational

uses occurring throughout the majority of the LRA.

Policy guidelines in BLM Manual 8300 direct the BLM

to designate special units known as special recreation

management areas. Management within these special

recreation management areas focus on providing

recreation opportunities that would not otherwise be

available to the public, reducing conflicts among users,

minimizing damage to resources, and reducing visitor

health and safety problems. Major investments in

recreation facilities and visitor assistance are appropriate in special recreation management areas when

required to meet management objectives.

Public lands not designated as special recreation

management areas, or other special designations, are

managed as extensive recreation management areas.

Management direction within extensive recreation

management areas focus on actions to facilitate recreation opportunities by providing basic information and

access. Visitors in extensive recreation management

areas are expected to rely heavily on their own equipment, knowledge, and skills while participating in

recreation activities. All areas within the LRA not

covered under a special designation, e.g., WSA’s,

special recreation management areas, ACEC’s, etc.,

would be managed as an extensive recreation management area.

In accordance with FLPMA, the “BLM’s Recreation

2000 Plan and Update” sets recreation policy on the

national level. The policy emphasizes resourcedependent recreation opportunities that typify the vast

western landscapes; striving to meet the social and

economic needs of present and future generations,

providing for the health and safety of the visitor, and

accomplishing these goals within the constraints of

achieving and maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Monitoring

Monitoring would include periodic patrols to check

boundaries, signing, and visitor use; to maintain

facilities; to ensure visitor compliance with rules and

regulations; to establish baseline data and observation

points to determine current impacts from recreation

use; to rehabilitate specific sites as necessary, including

the development of recreation facilitates to protect sites

against undue recreation use impacts; and development

of studies to help determine appropriate levels and

patterns of recreational use and the influences of other

resource uses.

Actions Common to All Alternatives

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the North Lake County

Special Recreation Management Area (Maps R-1 and -

8) and extensive recreation management area designations would become effective upon signature of the

approved RMP and record of decision. Individual

recreation area management plans outlining specific

management of special recreation management areas

would be prepared following publication of the approved RMP. An environmental assessment would be

prepared for each recreation area management plan.

Recreation area management plans would not be

prepared for the extensive recreation management area.

Specific management actions or projects in the extensive recreation management area would be included in

individual project plans or in plans written for SMA’s

following publication of the approved RMP.

Under all alternatives, any recreational use within

ACEC’s, including commercial and noncommercial

uses authorized under special recreation permits, would
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 112

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be

permitted, modified, or prohibited as needed to protect

ACEC values.

In the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC,

collection of down and dead wood and firewood

cutting would continue to be prohibited. Means to

provide firewood for campers on high-use weekends

would be investigated including permitting a concessionaire to sell firewood.

Throughout the LRA, occupancy and use for recreational camping is limited to 14 consecutive days.

Camping within 300 feet of any water source is prohibited. A water source is defined as any fenced spring

enclosure, flowing spring, man-made metal or concrete

water tank or trough, or dirt pond.

No personal water craft (e.g., jet skis and waverunners)

would be allowed in the Warner Lakes Special Recreation Management Area, except under Alternative A.

Designation of scenic byways or vehicle routes would

be considered, provided they are consistent with OHV

designations and resource concerns are addressed.

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, no wilderness

therapy groups would be authorized to camp in north

Lake County west of County Road 5-12 B (starting at

the Deschutes and Lake County line), and BLM Road

6121 (ending on County Road 5-14), with the exception of one campsite located on the north side of Bull

Lake. Only campsites within Prineville and Burns

Districts associated with wilderness therapy operations

in north Lake County (and southern Deschutes County)

would be addressed under this RMP. Campsites within

Prineville District are currently located in Sections 4,

14, and 34, T.22S., R.19E.; Sections 1 and 3, T.23S.,

R.19E.; Sections 15 and 36, T.23S., R.20E.; Sections

19, 29, and 33, T.23S., R.12E.; and Sections 5, 8, and

23, T.24S., R.21E. Campsites within the Burns District

are currently located in Sections 4, 13, 22, and 26,

T.25S., R.22E., and Section 2, T.26S., R.22E.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the designation of special

recreation management areas to enhance tourism and

recreation opportunities would be considered, and all

other public land would be managed as extensive

recreation management area. Existing developed and

undeveloped recreation sites (including trails, wildlife

viewing areas, back country byways, interpretive areas,

and campgrounds) would be expanded to accommodate

increased visitation. Opportunities for partnerships to

expand tourism and recreation would be optimized.

Visitors’ recreation experiences would be provided

through increased information and education opportunities.

Management of the existing Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area would continue and the

remaining public land throughout the LRA would be

managed as an extensive recreation management area.

If necessary, new special recreation management areas

would be established as necessary to provide tourism

and recreation opportunities.

Commercial recreation opportunities would be continued through the authorization of special recreation

permits consistent with present and future management

direction while providing for resource protection.

Special recreation permits, for both commercial and

noncommercial activities, would be authorized

throughout the LRA.

The Sunstone Collection Area would be managed

under existing guidelines, i.e., no commercial collection of stones, and only hand tools may be used.

Development of a watchable wildlife site on the north

end of Abert Lake would be considered.

Overnight camping would continue to be allowed in the

Black Hills ACEC.

Wilderness therapy schools would continue to be

authorized, through the issuance of special recreation

permits, to operate on BLM-administered lands within

the LRA and portions of the Prineville and Burns

Districts.

Total user days (defined as any calendar day, or portion

thereof, that a participant/client/student is accompanied

or serviced by an operator or permittee) for this activity

may not exceed 16,600 for combined use in Lakeview,

Prineville, and Burns Districts. Group size would be

limited to nine students, plus staff. In North Lake

County, no wilderness therapy schools would be

authorized to operate with more than two groups at any

one time within Lakeview, Burns, and Prineville

Districts. No more than five groups would be authorized to operate concurrently within north Lake County.

When possible, no campsites would be authorized

within 5 miles of any year-round residence.
Management Alternatives

3 -113

Special Recreation Management Areas

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area: Management of the Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area would remain the same

unless modified through a site-specific review, subject

to meeting NEPA requirements. Existing management

direction allows hunting and motorized boating within

the special recreation management area. Vehicles are

required to stay on designated roads and trails. The

following projects, previously approved to enhance and

provide new recreation opportunities, would be considered:

• Upgrade approximately 12–13 miles of existing

roads to provide all-weather public access to

Turpin Lake, Campbell, and Stone Corral Lakes.

• Construct small campgrounds at Turpin and

Campbell Lakes with associated boat ramps,

parking areas, and vault toilets.

• Continue to develop handicap accessible nature

trails, view points, and interpretive sites within the

special recreation management area.

• Develop and maintain foot and canoe trails and

develop self-guiding interpretive literature.

• Pursue development of a joint USFWS and BLM

campground along County Road 3-12.

Alternative B

The designation of special recreation management

areas to enhance tourism and recreation opportunities

would be optimized. All remaining public land not

under special designation status would be managed as

an extensive recreation management area. Existing

developed and undeveloped recreation sites (including

trails, wildlife viewing areas, back country byways,

interpretive areas, and campgrounds) would be expanded to accommodate increased visitation. Opportunities for partnerships to expand tourism and recreation

would be optimized. Visitors’ recreation experiences

would be enhanced through increased information and

education opportunities.

Commercial and competitive use opportunities would

be emphasized through the issuance of special recreation permits.

Specific Direction

Wilderness therapy schools would not be authorized in

excess of 16,400 user days, through the issuance of

special recreation permits, to operate on BLM-administered lands within the LRA. The 16,400 users days

would be split between the North Lake Special Recreation Management Area (8,300) and the remainder of

the LRA (8,100). The North Lake Special Recreation

Management Area would include use within the

general areas of Prineville and Burns Districts as

described under management commont to all alternatives. Group size would be limited to 12 students/

group, plus staff. No company would be authorized to

operate with more than two groups at ay one time in

the North Lake Special Recreation Management Area

and no more than five groups could operate concurrently. No more than three groups per company would

be authorized to operate within the remainder of the

LRA at any one time. When possible, no campsites

would be authorized within 5 miles of any year-round

residence.

Special Recreation Management Areas

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area: Management of the Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area would be the same as

listed under Alternative A.

North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area: The North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area would be established. Primary

values include, but are not limited to, unique geologic

features, cultural resources, wildlife resources, botanical resources, scenery, and a variety of recreational

opportunities such as hunting, fishing, hiking,

sightseeing, motorized and non-motorized OHV

activities, environmental education, and scientific

studies. The special recreation management area

would include four WSA’s (Devils Garden, Squaw

Ridge, Four Craters, and Sand Dunes), the Lost Forest/

Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC, Duncan Reservoir

Campground, West Fork Silver Creek, Buck Creek, and

the associated geologic and natural features in the area

(i.e., Black Hills, Crack-in-the-Ground, Derrick Cave,

Sand Dunes, Lost Forest, Fossil Lake, and Table Rock).

The management emphasis for this special recreation

management area would include, but not be limited to,

OHV use, increased monitoring and patrols to curb

vandalism, and encourage commercial uses (e.g.,

wilderness therapy schools, guided hunting, and nature

tours, etc.).
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 114

Management of the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil

Lake ACEC would be consistent to that under Alternative A. Collection of down and dead wood and firewood cutting in the ACEC would be prohibited. Means

to provide firewood for campers on high-use weekends

would be investigated including permitting a concessionaire to sell firewood. The main road through the

Lost Forest RNA/ISA (BLM Roads 6151 and 6141A)

would be upgraded to a single lane road with turnouts

and parking pulloffs. If the Sand Dunes WSA is not

designated wilderness, the BLM would consider

developing a campground on adjacent Federal land and

charge use fees if no private campground is developed

in the adjacent area.

The Green Mountain primitive campground would be

upgraded to a developed campground. Facilities could

include developed campsites, toilet facilities, and a

potable water system. The Duncan Reservoir Campground would be upgraded with the development of a

potable water system. Fees would be charged for the

use of these campgrounds if the proposed upgrades are

implemented.

Development of picnic area along Highway 31 (at

milepost 34.5) would be considered. Facilities could

include picnic sites with tables, vault toilets, potable

water system, and kiosks for interpretation of resources

and history within the North Lake County Special

Recreation Management Area.

Alternative C

Recreation would be focused towards undeveloped

types of activities while assuring a high level of

protection of natural and cultural values. Developed

recreation would be focused on the protection and

interpretation of cultural and natural values and for

public health and safety. If resource values are being

degraded beyond acceptable levels, site rehabilitation

or closure would be favored. Tourism opportunities

would be deemphasized. Visitors’ recreation experiences would be enhanced through increased information and education opportunities.

Special recreation management areas would be designated with an emphasis on undeveloped, dispersed

recreation opportunities and protection of natural

values. Minimal facilities would be constructed and

maintained. All lands not designated as a special

recreation management area would be managed as an

extensive recreation management area.

The issuance of special recreation permits would be

limited and the protection of cultural and natural values

would be emphasized.

The Sunstone Collection Area would be managed

under existing guidelines as listed in Alternative A.

Overnight camping would be prohibited within the

Juniper Mountain ACEC.

Commercial and noncommercial special recreation

permits would not be authorized within the RahillyGravelly ACEC/RNA.

Wilderness therapy schools would be authorized a

maximum of 10,200 user days to operate on BLMadministered lands within the Lakeview District and

portions of Prineville and Burns Districts. The 10,200

users days would be split between the North Lake

Special Recreation Management Area (4,800) and the

remainder of the LRA (5,400). Group size would be

limited to nine students/group, plus staff. No school

would be authorized to conduct operations with more

than one group at any one time, and no more than four

groups would be authorized to operate concurrently in

the North Lake Special Recreation Management Area.

Throughout the remainder of the LRA, no school

would be authorized to conduct operations with more

than two groups at any one time. When possible, no

permanent campsites would be would be authorized

within 5 miles of any year-round residence. No

wilderness therapy school would be allowed to operate

within the North Lake Special Recreation Management

Area in the winter between December 1 and March 31,

annually.

Special Recreation Management Areas

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area: The Warner Wetlands Special Recreation

Management Area would be managed to protect natural

and cultural values. Management would be modified

through a site-specific review, subject to meeting NEPA

requirements. Motorized boating within the special

recreation management area would be allowed. Vehicles would be restricted to a few designated roads

and trails. The following projects would be considered:

• Upgrade roads as necessary for resource protection.

• Close and rehabilitate roads as necessary.

• Maintain present facilities, e.g., handicap accessible nature trails, view points, and interpretive
Management Alternatives

3 -115

sites within the special recreation management

area.

• Develop and maintain foot and canoe trails and

develop self-guiding interpretive literature in

response to increased use.

• Pursue development of a joint USFWS and BLM

campground along County Road 3-12.

North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area: The North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area would be established to

include the areas as described under Alternative B.

Management emphasis would be on protection of

natural and cultural resource values.

The Black Hills ACEC would be a day-use area only

with no overnight camping. Collection of dead and

down wood and firewood cutting would be prohibited.

No camping would be allowed in the Connley Hills

ACEC. Development of designated, primitive campsites adjacent to the southern end of the ACEC would

be considered. The collection of dead and down wood

and firewood cutting within the ACEC would be

prohibited.

The Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC would

be closed to overnight camping. The entire ACEC

would be day-use only, and closed to OHV’s. Open

fires would be prohibited throughout the ACEC.

Recreation use within the Table Rock ACEC would be

limited to day-use only—no overnight camping would

be allowed. Designation of a camping area outside, but

adjacent to the ACEC would be considered.

Climbing and rappelling activities would be prohibited

in the Crack-in-the-Ground.

Alternative D

The designation and management of special recreation

management areas would focus on providing quality

recreation opportunities while protecting resource

values. Remaining public lands would be managed as

an extensive recreation management area. Management of existing recreation sites, areas, and their

associated improvements would be continued and

expansion would be allowed. New recreation sites and

areas would be established to meet increased recreation

demand and for the protection of cultural and natural

values and public health and safety. Tourism opportunities and development would be pursued only if they

are consistent with meeting other resource objectives.

Visitors’ recreation experiences would be enhanced

through increased information and education opportunities.

Special recreation permits would be issued on an as

needed basis to meet demand while protecting cultural

and natural resource values and public health and

safety.

Camping within the Juniper Mountain ACEC would be

limited to designated primitive camping areas.

The Sunstone Collection Area would be managed

under existing guidelines as listed in Alternative A.

Development of a designated, primitive campground in

the vicinity of the Sunstone Collection Area would be

considered within the next 10 to 15 years. Facilities

would include campsites and an improved vault toilet.

A fee would be charged for use of this campground.

Wilderness therapy schools would be authorized a

maximum of 12,800 user days to operate on BLMadministered lands within the LRA. The 12,800 users

days would be split between the North Lake Special

Recreation Management Area (7,400) and the remainder of the LRA (5,400). Group size would be limited

to nine students/group, plus staff. No school would be

authorized to operate more than two groups at any one

time within the North Lake Special Recreation Management Area (Lakeview, Burns, and Prineville Districts), and no more than four groups would be authorized to operate concurrently in this area. Throughout

the remainder of the LRA, permittees would be authorized to operate with no more than three groups at any

one time. When possible, no permanent campsites

would be authorized within 5 miles of any yearround

residence.

Special Recreation Management Areas

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management

Area: Management of the Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area would remain the same

under Alternative A, unless modified through a sitespecific review, subject to meeting NEPA requirements.

Motorized boating within the special recreation management area would be allowed. Vehicles would be

restricted to designated roads and trails. The following

projects would be considered:

• Upgrade roads as necessary for resource protection

only.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 116

• Close and rehabilitate roads as necessary.

• Maintain present facilities, e.g., handicap accessible nature trails, view points, and interpretive

sites within the special recreation management

area.

• Develop and maintain foot and canoe trails and

develop self-guiding interpretive literature.

• Pursue development of a joint USFWS and BLM

campground along County Road 3-12.

North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area: The North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area would be established to

include the areas as described under Alternative B.

Management emphasis would be on protection of

natural and cultural resource values.

No overnight camping would be allowed in the Black

Hills ACEC. The entire ACEC would be day-use only.

Collection of dead and down wood and firewood

cutting would be prohibited.

In the Connley Hills ACEC, camping would be allowed

in designated camping areas in the southern portion of

the ACEC only.

The main road through the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/

Fossil Lake ACEC would be upgraded as described

under Alternative B to prevent continued resource

damage. Small pulloffs would be constructed for

vehicle parking. Primitive camping areas would be

designated in the Lost Forest RNA/ISA and in areas

within the Sand Dunes WSA. Campsites located at the

base of Sand Rock (in the Lost Forest) would be closed

and rehabilitated. Parking areas along the main road

within the vicinity of the Sand Rock would be constructed for day-use activities.

There would be three camping/staging areas allowed in

the Sand Dunes WSA. Use of these three camping/

staging areas would be managed on a rotational basis,

i.e., two of the camping/staging areas would be open

and available to use and the other area would be closed

for an indeterminant amount of time (2–6 years) to

allow natural rehabilitation to occur. The length of the

closure would be based on the following criteria: (1)

success of natural revegetation, (2) obliteration of

human activities from the natural movement of sand,

and (3) the public’s adherence to the closures. Designation of specific travel routes from the camping/

staging areas to the barren dunes which are open to

OHV use would be established. Adaptive management

activities which would allow the continued use of each

of these camping/staging areas would be adopted as

necessary to ensure the long-term use and protection of

these areas. Collection of dead and down wood and

firewood cutting would be prohibited throughout the

ACEC. However, opportunities such as a concessionaire, to provide firewood for high-use weekends would

be explored.

Camping would be allowed in designated camping

areas within the Table Rock ACEC.

Climbing and/or rappelling activities would be prohibited in the Crack-in-the-Ground.

Development of a picnic area along Highway 31 (at

milepost 34.5 south) would be considered. Facilities

would include picnic sites with tables, vault toilets, and

kiosks for interpretation of resources and history within

the North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area.

Alternative E

Recreation management would be kept to a minimal

level. Recreation would be focused towards undeveloped types of activities while assuring a high level of

protection of natural and cultural values. Developed

recreation would be focused on the protection and

interpretation of cultural and natural values and for

public health and safety. If resource values are being

degraded beyond acceptable levels, site rehabilitation

or closure would be favored.

Tourism opportunities would be deemphasized. Information and interpretive education would not be provided to the visiting public. No commercial special

recreation permits would be issued and existing permits

would be terminated. Only surface collection would be

allowed in the Sunstone Collection Area.

The Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC

designation would be revoked. The former ACEC

would be managed in the same manner as the surrounding land. OHV’s would be limited to existing roads

and trails. The Lost Forest ISA and Sand Dunes WSA

designations would continue. These areas would

continue to be managed according to the wilderness

IMP until such time as Congress makes a decision

regarding their designation as wilderness.

Special Recreation Management Areas

No special recreation management areas would exist;
Management Alternatives

3 -117

all public land would be managed as an extensive

recreation management area.

Off-Highway Vehicles

Management Goal—Manage off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use to protect resource values, promote public

safety, provide OHV use opportunities where appropriate, and minimize conflicts among various users.

Rationale

Federal regulations (43 CFR Part 8340) and BLM

planning guidance require the BLM to designate all

BLM-administered land as either open, limited, or

closed in regard to off-road (now termed “off-highway”) vehicle use. These designations are to help meet

public demand for OHV activities, protect natural

resources, ensure public safety, and minimize conflicts

among users.

Monitoring

Monitoring would include periodic patrols to check

boundaries, signing, and visitor use. Closures would

be monitored to ensure public safety and protect

affected roadbeds or areas. Special recreation permits

would be issued with appropriate mitigative measures

for commercial, competitive, and other organized OHV

activities. Baseline data would be established and sites

rehabilitated or closed as necessary.

Actions Common to All Alternatives

All management actions for those portions of ACEC’s

within ISA’s or WSA’s would be governed by 1995

IMP until such time as Congress makes a determination

regarding wilderness designation. The OHV designations in WSA’s would remain in effect until Congressional release of the WSA’s, or until such time that

actual or unforeseeable use levels cause the

nonimpairment criteria to be violated, in which case

more restrictive designations may be made. Areas

released from WSA status would be managed according to the designations of the surrounding area.

Map R-1 shows the location of each WSA and Appendix J1 contains a description of each area. OHV’s are

limited to existing roads and ways within WSA’s for all

alternatives with the following exceptions: under

Alternative C, the Sand Dunes WSA would be closed

while all other WSA’s would be limited to designated

roads and ways; under Alternative D, portions of the

Sand Dunes WSA would be both open and closed;

under Alternative E, the Sand Dunes WSA would be

closed.

For the purposes of this analysis, “existing roads and

trails” are defined as those roads and trails that appear

on USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps published prior

to the 1990’s as these represent the best available road

inventory data within the LRA.

The limitations to OHV use proposed under these

alternatives do not apply to official use, any fire,

military, emergency or law enforcement vehicle when

used for emergency purposes, and any combat or

combat support vehicle when used for national defense

purposes, and any vehicle whose use is expressly

authorized under a permit, lease, license, or contract.

Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle designed

for or capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2)

any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement

vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3)

any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the

authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4)

vehicles in official use; (5) any combat or combat

support vehicle when used in times of national defense

emergencies.

Designation of scenic byways or vehicle routes would

be considered, provided they are consistent with OHV

designations and resource concerns are addressed.

Additional environmental analysis and documentation

would be required.

Any roads not designated as open may be signed and

physically closed or barricaded and restored. Priority

areas for restoration would be riparian conservation

areas, damaged watersheds, and crucial wildlife or

plant habitat.

Emergency vehicle closures previously implemented

would continue, unless located within a proposed

ACEC with a different OHV prescription. Future

emergency vehicle closures may be implemented if it is

determined that OHV’s are causing or would cause

considerable adverse effects upon resources. Such

emergency closures would be announced via a notice

published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers.

Table 3-5 shows OHV designations for the resource

area by alternative. Refer to Table 3-6 for total acres

designated for OHV use.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 118
Management Alternatives

3 -119
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 120

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Motorized vehicle use would be managed according to

current designations. Table 3-5 and Maps R-2, SMA-5,

-6, -8, -10, and -23 display the existing OHV designations in the LRA (i.e., open, limited to existing or

designated roads and trails [or ways], and closed).

Organized off-highway vehicle use would be allowed if

it is consistent with protection of resource values.

Within WSA’s, all mechanical and motorized vehicle

use would be limited to existing roads and ways, except

for the Sand Dunes WSA which would remain in the

open designation.

Alternative B

OHV use would be managed as currently designated as

listed in Table 3-5 under Alternative A and shown on

Maps R-5 and SMA-5, except for additional limited

acres in the proposed Connley Hills ACEC. There

would be an emphasis on the open designation. Opportunities for organized OHV events would be greater

under this alternative.

Within WSA’s, all mechanical and motorized vehicle

use would be limited to existing roads and ways, except

for the Sand Dunes WSA which would remain in the

open designation.

Alternative C

OHV use would be managed under open, limited to

existing or designated roads and trails (or ways), and

closed OHV use designations. There would be an

emphasis on the protection of natural values. Organized OHV events would only be allowed on existing

and/or designated roads and trails.

The Sand Dunes WSA would be closed to OHV’s.

The existing deer winter range area closure in north

Lake County would be expanded by 34,374 acres.

During the period December 1 through March 31,

annually, motorized travel would be limited to designated roads and trails. The remainder of the year,

motorized travel would be limited to existing roads and

trails.

A northern wildlife area in north Lake County would

be limited to existing roads and trails (or ways within

WSA’s) year-round in order to protect greater sagegrouse habitat.

These restrictions are shown on Maps R-6 and SMA-5

and Table 3-5.

Alternative D

OHV use would be managed under open, limited to

designated or existing roads and trails (or ways in

WSA’s), and closed OHV use designations with the

focus on protection of natural values. Organized OHV

events would only be allowed on existing and/or

designated roads and trails.

In all WSA’s, mechanical and motorized use would be

limited to existing roads and trails. Exceptions would

be for the Sand Dunes portions that would be designated open and closed, and the Devils Garden Lava

Beds which would be limited to designated roads and

trails.

The existing deer winter range area closure in north

Lake County would be expanded by 34,374 acres.

During the period December 1 through March 31,

annually, motorized travel would be limited to designated roads and trails. The remainder of the year

motorized travel would be limited to existing roads and

trails.

A northern wildlife area in north Lake County would
Management Alternatives

3 -121

be limited to existing roads and trails (or ways within

WSA’s) year round in order to protect greater sagegrouse habitat.

These restrictions are shown on Maps R-7, SMA-5, -7,

-9, -10 to -23, and Table 3-5.

Alternative E

Designations for existing ACEC’s would be revoked

and no new ones would be designated. Vehicle management in WSA’s and several other small areas would

be the same as in Alternative A, except for the Sand

Dunes which would be closed. The rest of the LRA

would be limited to existing roads and trails.

Visual Resources

Management Goal—Manage public land actions and

activities consistent with visual resource management

(VRM) class objectives.

Rationale

Section 102(8) of FLPMA declares that public land

would be managed to protect the quality of scenic

values and, where appropriate, to preserve and protect

certain public land in its natural condition. NEPA,

Section 101(b), requires Federal agencies to “assure for

all Americans... esthetically pleasing surroundings.”

Section 102 of NEPA requires agencies to “utilize a

systematic, interdisciplinary approach which would

ensure the integrated use of... Environmental Design

Acts in the planning and decision making” process.

Guidelines for the identification of VRM classes on

public land are contained in BLM Manual Handbook

8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory. The establishment

of VRM classes on public land is based on an evaluation of the landscape’s scenic qualities, public sensitivity toward certain areas (such as certain special recreation designations and WSA’s), and the location of

affected land from major travel corridors (distance

zoning).

Monitoring

Use the visual contrast rating system, described in

BLM Manual 8400, where appropriate, when assessing

proposals for projects on public land.

Actions Common to all Alternatives

WSA’s would be managed under VRM Class I. Should

a WSA not be designated by Congress, the area would

return to the original inventoried VRM class unless it

has been reclassified in a SMA (such as an ACEC,

RNA, or WSR, etc.).

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Management would continue as described under the

existing management framework plan and plan amendments. Emphasis would be given to protecting and/or

mitigating intrusions in medium and high scenic quality

areas. All developments, land alterations, and vegetative manipulations within 5 miles of all major travel

routes and recreation sights would be designed to

minimize visual impacts (unseen areas within these 5-

mile zones would not be held to this standard). Pipelines, powerlines, season-long grazing, vegetation

spraying, western juniper chaining, or other major

vegetative alteration projects would not be allowed in

high scenic quality areas. Grass seedings, shrub

plantings, tree plantings, fires, insect infestations, and

other vegetation alternations would be allowed along

major travel routes within low-quality scenic areas.

Vegetation manipulation projects would be designed to

maximize scenic quality, but minimize scenic intrusions. Visual resources in existing ACEC’s would be

managed as displayed in Table 3-3. WSA’s would be

managed under VRM Class I. The remainder of public

land would be managed under VRM classifications as

shown on Map VRM-1.

Alternative B

Visual resources in the LRA within ACEC’s would be

managed the same as under Alternative A, as shown in

Map VRM-1.

Alternative C

Visual resources within ACEC’s would be managed as

displayed in Table 3-3 and shown in Map VRM-2.

WSA’s would be managed under VRM Class I. Management of eligible or suitable WSR’s would be

managed under Class II, unless managed as Class I

under other resource prescriptions (e.g., WSA’s,

ACEC’s/RNA’s). Public land would be managed under

VRM classifications as indicated in Table 3-3.

Alternative D

Visual resources in ACEC’s would be managed as

displayed in Table 3-3. WSA’s would be managed
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 122

under VRM Class I. Should a WSA not be congressionally designated as wilderness, the area would be

managed under VRM Class III. Management of

eligible or suitable WSR’s with a potential classification of wild or scenic would be under Class II, unless

managed as Class I under other resource prescriptions

(e.g., WSA’s, ACEC/RNA’s). Public land would be

managed under VRM classifications as indicated in

Table 3-3 and shown in Map VRM-3.

Alternative E

Natural processes would occur with minimal human

intervention. Existing VRM classes would be removed

except for WSA’s, which would be managed under

VRM Class I. Should a WSA not be congressionally

designated as wilderness, the area would not be assigned any VRM management class. Public land

would be managed under VRM classifications as

indicated in Table 3-3.

Energy and Mineral Resources

Within legal constraints, all publicly-owned locatable,

leasable, and salable minerals would be available for

exploration, development, and production subject to

existing regulations and standard requirements and

stipulations. Locatable minerals would not be available in areas withdrawn from the operation of the

mining laws. Where necessary to protect important

lands and resources, mineral exploration and development would be subject to additional restrictions which,

in some cases, could include no leasing, no disposal of

mineral materials, no surface occupancy, no ground

disturbance, wilderness IMP non-impairment standard,

special design requirements, requiring preparation of a

plan of operations, access limitations, and seasonal or

other timing restrictions. Appendix N3 describes the

types of standard mineral development stipulations and

guidelines that apply to the planning area. Acres of

mineral ownership, withdrawals, and restrictions have

been generated using a geographic information system.

Table 3-7 summarizes acres of mineral restrictions

which would apply to the various alternatives.

Energy derived from the burning of biomass generated by

juniper treatment is covered in the Forest and Woodlands

section.

Management Goal 1—Provide opportunity for the exploration, location, development, and production of locatable

minerals in an environmentally-sound manner. Eliminate

and rehabilitate abandoned mine hazards.

Rationale

The general mining laws give the public the basic right

to locate and develop mining claims on public land.

The “Mining and Minerals Policy Act” of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal

government to foster and encourage private enterprise

in the development of domestic mineral resources.

Section 102 of FLPMA directs that the public land

would be managed in a manner which recognizes the

Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and

other commodities from the public lands, while managing these lands in a manner that would protect scientific, scenic, historic, archeological, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, and hydrologic values.

The Bureau’s mineral policy (1984) states that public

lands shall remain open and available for mineral

exploration and development unless withdrawal or

other administrative action is clearly justified in the

national interest.

Monitoring

Monitoring of activities on mining claims would be

conducted to ensure compliance with the 43 CFR 3802/

3809 regulations. These regulations provide for

locatable mineral activities on public lands while

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation, and

provide for reclamation of disturbed areas and coordination with State agencies. BLM policy establishes

minimum inspection frequencies for mining operations

as follows: quarterly inspections are required for all

operations using cyanide, and biannual inspections for

all other active operations. Operations in sensitive

areas or operations with a high potential for greater

than usual impacts are inspected more often.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Locatable mineral exploration and development is

regulated under 43 CFR 3802 for WSA’s, and 3809 (as

amended) for other public lands. The wilderness IMP

states that locatable mineral development and exploration activities within WSA’s can occur in accordance

with the mining laws, but are currently limited to only

those actions that do not require reclamation. This

policy restriction effectively closes WSA’s to mineral

location. However, should the wilderness IMP be

revised or Congress take action to remove some areas

from WSA status, some of these areas could eventually

be made more available for mineral location during the

life of the plan.

Locatable mineral exploration and development within

ACEC’s typically requires the preparation and approval
Management Alternatives

3 -123

of a plan of operations prior to development. In

addition, many areas within the planning area are

subject to numerous overlapping types of mineral

location restrictions or special stipulations (refer to

Appendix N3). This makes determining the amount of

area open, closed, or restricted to mineral development

difficult. For instance, an ACEC (which requires a

plan of operations) may partially overlap a WSA

(which is subject to the no reclamation stipulation).

For simplicity, such an area of overlap has been

reclassified as no reclamation allowed to reflect the

most restrictive management measure in place, regardless of how many other types of restrictions may also

apply. Any WSA’s which overlap with areas where

other mineral restrictions apply, which are later removed from WSA status, would be managed in accordance with the remaining restrictions. In the example

above, an area where a WSA overlaps an ACEC would

change from no reclamation to open to mineral location

after approval of a plan of operations if Congress

removed WSA status during the life of the plan.

The amended 3809 regulations became effective on

January 20, 2001. Acknowledging a notice (exploration operations of 5 acres or less, outside of SMA’s) is

not a Federal action that requires compliance with

NEPA, so no environmental documentation must be

prepared. The BLM does review notices to ensure that

no unnecessary or undue degradation would occur, and

that a plan of operations is not required. A plan of

operations is required for all mining activity that is not

casual use, regardless of the number of acres disturbed.

A plan is also required for all exploration activities that

disturb over 5 acres, bulk sampling which would

remove 1,000 tons or more of presumed ore for testing,

or for any surface-disturbing operations greater than

casual use in certain SMA’s and lands/waters that

contain federally proposed or listed T&E species or
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 124

their proposed or designated critical habitat. The

approval of plans of operations is a Federal action that

requires NEPA compliance. Mining claim use and

occupancy under 43 CFR 3710 also requires NEPA

compliance.

As a result of the implementation of the amended 3809

regulations, it is anticipated that LRA would receive

several plans of operations in the Rabbit Basin

sunstone area annually. Descriptions of plan filing and

processing requirements, anticipated activity, and

resulting surface disturbance can be found in Appendix

N2, Mineral Development Scenarios, Locatable

Mineral Resources. Standard mitigating measures can

be found in Appendix N3, Stipulations and Guidelines

for Mineral Operations. The Lakeview RMP/EIS

constitutes the NEPA analysis guiding the approval of

future sunstone exploration and mining plans of

operations in the Rabbit Basin sunstone area only (Map

M-4). It supplements the 2000 “Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Surface Management Regulations for Locatable Mineral Operations.” It also

amends EA No. OR-010-98-05, “Mining Use and

Occupancy—Sunstone Mining Area” (USDI-BLM

1998). Any mining plans of operations or mining claim

use and occupancy outside of the Rabbit Basin

sunstone area would require separate, and site-specific,

NEPA environmental documentation prior to approval.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Lands currently open to locatable mineral activity

would continue to be available (Table 3-7). Existing

restrictions and requirements for other resource protection would apply. The Lost Forest RNA/ISA, part of

Abert Rim WSA, and the Public Sunstone Area,

totaling approximately 17,231 acres, are currently

closed to locatable mineral entry, and would remain

closed under this alternative. Approximately 468,864

acres of additional lands located within WSA’s are

subject to the wilderness IMP nonimpairment/no

reclamation standard, and are, for all practical purposes, closed to locatable mineral entry. Mining

restrictions for non-metalliferous minerals would

continue in public water reserves totaling approximately 1,900 acres. About 1,371,538 acres are subject

to a combination of other types of protective stipulations including preparing a plan of operations, seasonal

restrictions, access limitations, and special visual

design measures. These other restrictions/stipulations

apply primarily to areas of big game crucial winter

range, areas within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks,

and VRM class II. The Public Sunstone Collection

Area would remain open to recreational collecting.

Alternative B

Locatable mineral restrictions under this alternative

would be similar to those for Alternative A with the

following exceptions. The mineral segregation on the

Public Sunstone Area would be revoked thereby

making an additional 2,540 acres of sunstone-bearing

basalt available for mining claim location. Public

water reserve withdrawals would be revoked. These

reserves could be protected by more site-specific

rights-of-way and the 43 CFR 3809 regulations. This

would open approximately 1,900 acres of public land

to non-metalliferous mineral entry.

Designation of one new SMA (Connley Hills ACEC/

RNA) would occur which would require the preparation of a plan of operations before locatable mineral

activity could occur in this area. Public land or minerals with moderate or high potential would not be

disposed of unless equal values would be obtained.

See Table 3-7 for a summary of areas affected by

mineral restrictions under this alternative.

Alternative C

The areas identified in Table 3-7 represent existing

formal withdrawals from the operation of the mining

laws (Map M-2) and areas proposed for withdrawal

under this alternative, such as Red Knoll ACEC.

(Formal withdrawal approval would be required by the

Secretary of the Interior and Congress before most of

this area could be officially closed to mineral location).

The “Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Steppe

Ecosystem Management Guidelines” call for locatable

mineral activity, where a plan of operation is required,

to avoid surface occupancy within 0.6 miles of known/

occupied greater sage-grouse habitat. This would

apply to up to 2,340,360 acres of the planning area.

About 440,916 acres would be subject to the no

reclamation stipulation under the wilderness IMP.

About 214,547 acres would be subject to a combination

of other types of protective stipulations including

preparing a plan of operations, seasonal restrictions,

access limitations, and special visual design measures.

These other restrictions/stipulations apply primarily to

areas of big game crucial winter range, suitable WSR’s,

and VRM class II.

The mineral segregation on the Public Sunstone Area

(2,540 acres) would be retained, thereby keeping the
Management Alternatives

3 -125

area open to recreational collecting by the public.

Existing public water withdrawals would be retained

(1,900 acres), closing them to nonmetaliferous mining.

Alternative D

The resource area would be open to locatable mineral

activity except for the area (21,064 acres) shown in

Table 3-7 as closed. The areas identified as closed

represent exiting formal withdrawls from the operation

of the mining laws (Map M-2) and areas proposed for

withdrawl under this alternative, such as part of Red

Knoll ACEC (about 4,600 acres). An additional

468,102 acres would be subject to the “no reclamation”

stipulation of the wilderness IMP. About 1,436,196

acres would be subject to a combination of other types

of protective stipulations including: preparing a plan of

operations, seasonal restrictions, access limitations, and

special visual design measures. These other restrictions/stipulations apply primarily to areas of big game

crucial winter range, greater sage-grouse breeding

habitat, suitable WSR’s and VRM Class II. Existing

public water reserve withdrawals would be retained

(1,900 acres). The mineral segregation on the Public

Sunstone Area (2,540 acres) would be retained thereby

keeping the area open to recreational collecting by the

public.

Alternative E

Actions would be taken to withdraw the entire resource

area from locatable mineral entry, subject to existing

rights. Because the withdrawal would exceed 5,000

acres, congressional approval would be required.

Management Goal 2—Provide leasing opportunity

for oil and gas, geothermal energy, and solid minerals

in an environmentally-sound manner.

Rationale

The “Mineral Leasing Act” of 1920, as amended, and

the “Geothermal Steam Act” of 1970, as amended,

provide the opportunity for the public to explore for,

develop, and produce publicly-owned leasable minerals. The “Mining and Minerals Policy Act” of 1970

declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal

government to foster and encourage private enterprise

in the development of domestic mineral resources.

Section 102 of FLPMA directs that the public land

would be managed in a manner which recognizes the

Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and

other commodities from the public lands, while managing these lands in a manner that would protect scientific, scenic, historic, archeologic, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, and hydrologic values.

The Bureau’s mineral policy (1984) states that public

lands shall remain open and available for mineral

exploration and development unless withdrawal or

other administrative action is clearly justified in the

national interest.

Monitoring

Inspections would be conducted to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, conditions of

leases, and the requirements of approved exploration

and development plans. Where mineral production is

occurring, inspections would ensure (1) an accurate

accounting of materials removed, (2) proper compensation to the Federal government, (3) protection of the

environment, public health and safety, and (4) identification and resolution of salable mineral trespass.

Operations in sensitive areas or operations with a high

potential for greater than usual impacts would be

inspected more frequently.

Management Common to Alternatives A–D

Oil and gas leasing and development would be regulated under 43 CFR 3100, Geothermal Resources

Leasing and Development, under 43 CFR 3200, and

Solid Mineral Leasing, under 43 CFR 3500, to ensure

that all operations are conducted with adequate consideration given to environmental and resource conservation concerns. In order to protect special resource

values and special investments, leasing would be

subject to lease stipulations shown in Appendix N3.

Although the specific wording of the stipulations could

be adjusted at the time of leasing, the protection

standards described in the appendix would be maintained.

All WSA’s would be closed to mineral leasing until

such time as Congress makes a decision regarding

designation of these areas as wilderness. Areas not

designated wilderness could be opened to mineral

leasing during the life of this plan. Many areas within

the planning area are subject to numerous, overlapping

types of mineral leasing restrictions or special stipulations (refer to Appendix N3). This makes determining

the amount of area open, closed, or restricted to

mineral development difficult. For instance, an ACEC

(which may have a no-surface-occupancy stipulation)

may partially overlap a WSA (which is closed to

leasing). For simplicity, such an area of overlap has

been reclassified as closed to reflect the most restric-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 126

tive management measure in place, regardless of how

many other types of restrictions may also apply. Any

WSA’s which overlap with areas where other mineral

restriction/stipulations apply, which are later removed

from WSA status by Congress, would be managed in

accordance with the remaining restrictions. In the

example above, an area where a WSA overlaps an

ACEC would change from closed to mineral leasing to

open to mineral leasing with no surface occupancy.

Table 3-7 summarizes mineral leasing restrictions for

each alternative.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Exploration permits and leases would continue to be

issued in those areas currently open to mineral leasing

with stipulations as appropriate to protect other resources (Table 3-7). A total of about 493,697 acres,

primarily in WSA’s, existing ACEC’s and Lost Forest

RNA/ISA, would be closed to mineral leasing. Of that

total, about 18,000 acres in the Lake Abert ACEC

would be closed only to sodium leasing. About

612,776 acres would be subject to no-surface-occupancy restrictions. These apply primarily to portions of

the Lake Abert and Warner Wetlands ACEC’s, areas

within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks, and known

raptor nesting habitat. Other restrictions/stipulations

would apply to approximately 759,214 acres of the

planning area, primarily in big game crucial winter

range, VRM class II, areas with OHV access restrictions, and the remainder of the Warner Wetlands

ACEC.

Alternative B

Mineral leasing restrictions would be similar to Alternative A with the following exceptions. The lake-level

and total dissolved solid stipulations for mineral

leasing on Lake Abert would be eliminated under this

alternative in order to facilitate future sodium mining

operations. Future leasing of lands eliminated from

wilderness consideration would be allowed during the

life of the plan. Designation of new SMA’s that could

restrict or prohibit mineral leasing would be limited to

Connley Hills ACEC/RNA.

A total of 492,812 acres would be closed to mineral

leasing, mainly within WSA’s, Lost Forest RNA, and

the northern part of Lake Abert ACEC. About 620,006

acres would be subject to no-surface-occupancy

restrictions. About 747,396 acres would be subject to

other leasing restrictions/stipulations, primarily in big

game crucial winter range, VRM class II, areas with

OHV access restrictions, and part of Warner Wetlands

ACEC. The remainder of the resource area would be

open to mineral leasing.

Alternative C

About 579,187 acres would be closed to mineral

leasing, primarily within WSA’s and some of the

proposed ACEC’s. Future leasing of lands eliminated

from wilderness consideration would be allowed with

necessary constraints to protect resource values. About

2,369,434 acres would be subject to no-surfaceoccupancy restrictions, primarily in known/occupied

greater sage-grouse habitat. An additional 290,189

acres would be subject to other restrictions/stipulations,

primarily in big game crucial winter range and areas

with OHV access restrictions,.

Alternative D

A total of 1,305,124 acres would be open to mineral

leasing. About 498,602 acres in WSA’s, WSR’s and

some ACEC’s would be closed to mineral leasing.

Most ACEC’s would be open to mineral leasing with

stipulations to protect relevant and important resources.

Future leasing of lands eliminated from wilderness

consideration would be allowed with necessary constraints to protect resource values. Another 776,436

acres would be subject to no-surface-occupancy

restrictions, primarily in some ACEC’s and all greater

sage-grouse breeding habitat. Other restrictions/

stipulations would apply to approximately 658,648

acres of the planning area, primarily in big game

crucial winter range, VRM Class II, areas with OHV

access restrictions, and the remainder of the Warner

Wetlands ACEC.

Alternative E

All mineral estate (3,238,810 acres) in the planning

area would be closed to energy and mineral leasing.

Management Goal 3—In an environmentally-sound

manner, meet the demands of local, state, and Federal agencies, and the public, for mineral material

from public lands.

Rationale

The “Materials Act” of 1947, as amended, authorized

the disposal of mineral materials such as sand, gravel,

stone, clay, and cinders. The “Mining and Minerals

Policy Act” of 1970 declares that it is the continuing
Management Alternatives

3 -127

policy of the Federal government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic

mineral resources.

Section 102 of FLPMA directs that the public land

would be managed in a manner which recognizes the

Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and

other commodities from the public lands, while managing these lands in a manner that would protect scientific, scenic, historic, archeologic, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, and hydrologic values.

The Bureau’s mineral policy (1984) states that public

lands shall remain open and available for mineral

exploration and development unless withdrawal or

other administrative action is clearly justified in the

national interest.

Monitoring

Inspections of salable minerals operations would be

conducted in accordance with BLM policy contained in

BLM Manual Section 3600, and as outlined in BLM

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 99-

021. Inspections would be conducted to determine

compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and the

requirements of approved mining plans. Where

mineral production is occurring, the goals of the salable

mineral inspection and enforcement/production verification program are: (1) an accurate accounting of

materials removed, (2) proper compensation to the

Federal government, (3) protection of the environment,

public health and safety, and (4) identification and

resolution of salable mineral trespass. Operations in

sensitive environmental areas or operations with a high

potential for greater than usual impacts would be

inspected more often.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Mineral material exploration and development is

regulated under 43 CFR 3600. Throughout the alternatives, effort would be made to work with the State and

counties to rehabilitate exhausted rock sources and

relinquish any material site rights-of-way and free use

permits no longer needed. All surface disturbance

would be reclaimed at the earliest feasible time. The

standards that govern these activities are shown in

Appendix N3. Table 3-7 shows the restrictions and

lands open and closed to mineral location under each

alternative.

All WSA’s would be closed to mineral material disposal until Congress makes a decision regarding

designation of these areas as wilderness. Areas not

designated as wilderness could be made available for

mineral disposal during the life of the plan. Many

areas within the planning area are subject to numerous,

overlapping types of mineral disposal restrictions or

special stipulations (refer to Appendix N3). This

makes determining the amount of area open, closed, or

restricted to mineral development difficult. For

instance, an ACEC (which may have an access restriction) may partially overlap a WSA (which is closed to

mineral disposal). For simplicity, such an area of

overlap has been reclassified as closed to reflect the

most restrictive management measure in place, regardless of how many other types of restrictions may also

apply. Any WSA’s which overlap with areas where

other mineral restriction/stipulations apply, which are

later removed from WSA status by Congress, would be

managed in accordance with the remaining restrictions.

In the example above, an area where a WSA overlaps

an ACEC would change from closed to mineral disposal to open to mineral disposal with access restrictions.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Mineral material disposal would continue from existing

pits and quarries, and from potential sources currently

open to mineral material disposal. A total of about

975,044 acres would remain closed to mineral material

disposal under this alternative, primarily in WSA’s,

portions of ACEC’s, areas within 2 miles of greater

sage-grouse leks, and the Sunstone Public Collection

Area. However, use of the southern portion of the

Devils Garden lava flow as a common use area for the

sale of decorative stone would be pursued if this area is

dropped from wilderness consideration during the life

of the plan. An additional 872,192 acres would have

other types of restrictions apply, primarily associated

with big game crucial winter range, VRM class II,

raptor nesting habitat, areas with OHV access restrictions, and most of Lake Abert ACEC (Table 3-7).

Alternative B

Salable mineral disposal under this alternative would

be similar to Alternative A except as described below.

Mineral material disposal would be allowed from all

public lands, except those shown as closed under this

alternative in Table 3-7. A total of about 969,224 acres

would be closed to mineral material disposal, primarily

in WSA’s, Lost Forest RNA, areas within 2 miles of

greater sage-grouse leks, and parts of Lake Abert and

Warner Wetlands ACEC’s. However, any lands elimi-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 128

nated from wilderness consideration could be opened

to mineral disposal during the life of the plan. Should

this occur, common-use areas for the disposal of

decorative stone and cinders in the Devils Garden,

Squaw Ridge, and Four Craters lava flows would be

established, as the best quality decorative stone within

the planning area is known to occur in these areas, and

cinders are needed for local roads.

An additional 874,238 acres would have other types of

restrictions apply, primarily associated with big game

crucial winter range, VRM class II, raptor nesting

habitat, areas with OHV access restrictions, and parts

of Lake Abert and Warner Wetlands ACEC’s (Table 3-

7).

Community pits in high-demand areas would be

established when it is not possible to make sales from

state or county sources. Possible future community site

designations include Cougar Mountain pit and the

Paisley, Westside, and Summer Lake areas. Except for

the Connley Hills ACEC/RNA, no new SMA’s would

designated which would restrict or prohibit mineral

material disposal. The BLM would work with state

and county road departments to find rock sources that

meet the demand for public projects and mineral

material sale to the public.

Alternative C

Approximately 2,810,643 acres would be closed to

mineral sale, mainly in WSA’s, existing and proposed

ACEC’s, all known/occupied greater sage-grouse

habitat, and proposed WSR’s. Mineral material

disposal would be allowed on a case-by-case basis in

WSA’s eliminated from wilderness consideration in the

future, with priority consideration given to protecting

sensitive resources.

An additional 312,623 acres would have other types of

restrictions apply, primarily associated with big game

crucial winter range, areas with OHV access restrictions, VRM Class II, raptor nesting habitat, and Lake

Abert ACEC (Table 3-7).

Alternative D

The resource area would be open to mineral material

disposal, except for those areas identified in Table 3-7

as closed (1,161,052 acres) under this alternative.

Areas closed to mineral sale involve mainly WSA’s,

existing and proposed ACEC’s, greater sage-grouse

breeding habitat, and proposed WSR’s. Mineral

material disposal from lands eliminated from wilderness consideration in the future would be allowed on a

case-by-case basis with consideration given to protecting sensitive resources.

An additional 772,634 acres would have other types of

restrictions apply, primarily associated with big game

crucial winter range, VRM class II, raptor nesting

habitat, areas with OHV access restrictions, and Lake

Abert ACEC (Table 3-7).

Alternative E

The entire resource area (about 3,238,810 acres),

including existing pits and quarries, would be closed to

mineral material disposal, except where required by

law or where essential for critical road construction and

emergencies to protect human safety.

Lands and Realty

Management Goal 1—Retain public land with high

public resource values. Consolidate public land

inholdings and acquire land or interests in land with

high public resource values to ensure effective

administration and improve resource management.

Acquired land would be managed for the purpose for

which it was acquired. Make available for disposal

public land within Zone 3 by State indemnity selection, private, or state exchange, “Recreation and

Public Purpose Act” lease or sale, public sale, or

other authorized method, as applicable.

Rationale

Section 102 of FLPMA requires that public land be

retained in Federal ownership unless disposal of a

particular parcel would serve the national interest.

Acquisition of land to consolidate ownership patterns

would provide for more efficient land management and

administration for both public and private landowners.

Retention and acquisition of land containing significant

resource values would provide for long-term protection

and management of those values.

Monitoring

Progress on land tenure adjustment actions would be

monitored through normal BLM accomplishment

tracking processes. Periodic reports would be developed, identifying acres transferred within the various

land tenure zones.
Management Alternatives

3 -129

Management Common to All Alternatives

Newly acquired lands would be managed for the

highest potential purpose for which they are acquired.

Acquired lands within ACEC’s or other SMA’s which

have unique or fragile resources would be managed the

same as the SMA. Lands acquired without special

values or management goals would be managed in the

same manner as comparable surrounding public lands.

Land tenure would be based on three zones: (1) Zone 1

land is identified for retention in public ownership and

includes high values lands such as WSA’s and ACEC’s;

(2) Zone 2 land has been identified generally for

retention and consolidation of ownership and includes

BLM-administered lands outside of Zone 1 areas; and

(3) Zone 3 land generally has low or unknown resource

values and meets the disposal criteria of section 203 of

FLPMA and is potentially suitable for disposal by a

variety of means (see Appendix O1 for a complete

explanation of land tenure). Land tenure adjustments

in any of the zones would generally occur under the

authority of FLPMA; however, under certain circumstances, other authorities may be applicable as well.

The disposition of Bankhead-Jones lands would be

accomplished by FLPMA sale or exchange and not by

“Recreation and Public Purpose Act” or by State In

Lieu Selection.

Public access would be maintained or improved

through all land tenure adjustment transactions.

All past and future public lands sold or exchanged

under 43 U.S.C. 682(b) (“Small Tracts Act”), 43 U.S.C.

869 (“Recreation and Public Purposes Act”), 43 U.S.C.

(Sales), or 43 U.S.C. 1716 (Exchanges), where minerals are reserved to the United States, shall be opened to

operation under the mining laws upon the publication

of opening orders in the Federal Register informing the

public of such action.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Land tenure adjustments would be consistent with

existing land use planning with emphasis on acquiring

land with high public resource values such as lands

within ACEC’s or WSA’s, T&E species habitat, or

riparian/wetland areas, etc.

Approximately 41,500 acres of public land in Zone 3

would be available for disposal as specifically identified in existing land use planning on Map L-1, and as

described in Appendix O2. Land could be disposed of

through a variety of means including but not limited to

sale, exchange, and “Recreation and Public Purpose

Act” lease or patent.

Alternative B

Public land holdings in Zone 1 would be retained or

increased with emphasis on acquiring land that would

facilitate commodity production. Under certain

circumstances, disposal of small parcels of public land

would be permitted in Zone 1 to meet other resource

objectives.

Public land holdings in Zone 2 would be retained or

increased with special emphasis on land exchanges that

benefit commodity production. Under certain circumstances, disposal of public land may be permitted in

Zone 2 to meet other resource objectives.

Approximately 54,500 acres of public land in Zone 3 as

specifically identified on Map L-3, and as described in

Appendix O2, would be available for disposal.

Approximately 200 acres are identified for disposal by

direct sale to Lake County or other civic-related

entity(s) with county approval for Fort Rock community expansion purposes only. An additional 200 acres

is identified for direct sale to Native American Tribal

entity(s) for reinternment purposes only. The Oregon

Department of Parks and Recreation has requested

possible disposal consideration of approximately

28,750 acres of public and Bankhead-Jones land

northwest of Fort Rock, Oregon, adjacent to the

Deschutes National Forest. The purpose of the consideration is for the reestablishment of the historic Fort

Rock Ranch.

Alternative C

Public land holdings in Zone 1 would be retained or

increased with emphasis on acquiring land with high

public resource values. Actions would be pursued to

acquire lands from owners willing to dispose of private

or state lands within or adjacent to WSA’s or ACEC’s.

Under certain circumstances, disposal of small parcels

of public land would be permitted in Zone1 in order to

achieve other resource objectives.

Public land holdings in Zone 2 would be retained or

increased with special emphasis on acquiring land with

high public resources values. Actions would be pursued

to acquire lands from owners willing to dispose of

private or state lands within or adjacent to WSA’s or
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 130

ACEC’s. Under certain circumstances, disposal of

public land would be permitted in Zone 2 in order to

achieve other resource objectives.

Approximately 7,500 acres of public land in Zone 3 as

specifically identified on Map L-4, and as described in

Appendix O2, would be available for disposal.

Approximately 200 acres are identified for disposal by

direct sale to Lake County or other civic-related

entity(s) with county approval for Fort Rock community expansion purposes only. An additional 200 acres

is identified for direct sale to Native American Tribal

entity(s) for reinternment purposes only.

Alternative D

Management actions under this alternative would be

the same as under Alternative C.

Alternative E

Public land would be considered for disposal on a caseby-case basis only.

Management Goal 2—Meet public needs for land use

authorizations such as rights-of-way, leases, and

permits.

Rationale

Rights-of-way and other land uses are recognized as

major uses of the public lands and are authorized

pursuant to sections 302 and 501 of FLPMA.

Section 503 of FLPMA provides for the designation of

rights-of-way corridors and encourages utilization of

rights-of-way in-common to minimize environmental

impacts and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way.

Bureau policy is to encourage prospective applicants to

locate their proposals within corridors. Designation of

avoidance areas—those areas that would be avoided by

new rights-of-way unless there are no other options—

would provide early notice to potential applicants when

they are planning rights-of-way or other land use

projects. Only facilities and uses would be permitted

in avoidance areas which are consistent with the

special designation associated with that area. Designation of exclusion zones—those areas where no new

rights-of-way would be allowed—would provide

protection of lands and resources, which have values

which are not compatible with rights-of-way or other

land uses.

The United States’ potential liability, under various

hazardous materials statutes, would be limited if

disposal of waste, both hazardous and nonhazardous,

are prohibited on public lands. Private lands are

generally available for private waste disposal. If a

bonafide public need for new waste disposal sites arise,

land could be made available by sale or exchange.

Currently, there are no authorized waste disposal sites

on public lands in the LRA.

Monitoring

Application of this decision would be monitored as

proposals are evaluated through the NEPA process.

Individual projects would be monitored to ensure

compliance with the terms and conditions of the

authorizing document and through the normal BLM

accomplishment tracking process.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Applications for rights-of-way, leases, permits, and

other forms of land-use authorization, with the exception of rights-of-way corridors within WSA’s and

SMA’s, which are addressed separately, would be

processed in a timely manner, on a case-by-case basis,

in compliance with the NEPA process. In accordance

with current policy, land-use authorizations may not be

issued for any use which would involve disposal or

storage of materials which could contaminate the land

(i.e., landfills, hazardous waste disposal sites, etc.).

With proper NEPA compliance, the upgrading/expansion of existing rights-of-way and issuance of new

right-of-way would be allowed within existing corridors crossing designated rights-of-way exclusion and

avoidance areas. Parallel and/or perpendicular access

roads across designated right-of-way exclusion and

avoidance areas for construction and maintenance of

facilities located within existing corridors would also

be allowed. This management would be common to

Alternatives A–D.

Realty-related unauthorized uses on public land would

be detected, confirmed, and abated on all lands. Upon

resolution, unauthorized uses on public land which do

not conflict with other significant resource values

would be authorized or terminated, as appropriate.

Sites affected by unauthorized uses would be rehabilitated, as determined necessary.

Generally, there is no regulatory width that dictates

rights-of-way corridors. A width of 2,000 feet—1,000

feet each side of centerline—is considered an appropri-
Management Alternatives

3 -131

ate/reasonable width to provide engineering flexibility,

system compatibility, and reliability factors, and would

be used for purposes of this plan. Variation from the

2,000-foot width may occur within the range of alternatives.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Corridor designation would continue as necessary,

consistent with existing land-use planning.

Some WSA’s and the Buck Creek Watchable Wildlife

Site are considered rights-of-way exclusion areas

except for rights-of-way needed to provide reasonable

access to and use of non-Federal inholdings consistent

with BLM IMP. The remaining WSA’s, Lost Forest

RNA, and the Lake Abert ACEC are considered rightsof-way avoidance areas. See Table 3-8 and Map L-2

for acres of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas

by alternative.

Alternative B

Applicants for electrical transmission lines greater than

69 kilovolts, all mainline fiber optics facilities, and

pipelines greater than 10 inches in diameter would be

encouraged to locate their facilities within designated

corridors.

Portions of the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake

ACEC/RNA, Lake Abert ACEC, Connley Hills ACEC,

the Buck Creek Watchable Wildlife Site would be

rights-of-way avoidance areas. All WSA’s would be

rights-of-way exclusion areas (Map L-6). See Table 3-

8 for acres of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance

areas by alternative.

All existing transdistrict electrical transmission lines

identified by the “Western Regional Corridor Study,”

and some county roads would be designated as right-ofway corridors. Nominal corridor width would be 1,000

feet on each side of centerline of existing facilities,

except where the alignment forms the boundary of a

SMA, where the width would be 2,000 feet on the side

opposite that boundary. Corridor widths may vary

dependent upon project size and would be determined

on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative C

All linear rights-of-way for electrical transmission lines

greater than 69 kilovolts, all mainline fiber optics

facilities, and all pipelines greater than 10 inches in

diameter would be located within designated corridors.

All ACEC’s, WSR’s, the Buck Creek Watchable

Wildlife Site, NRHP Districts, and WSA’s would be

rights-of-way exclusion zones (Map L-7) except for

rights-of-way needed to provide reasonable access to

and use of non-Federal inholdings, consistent with

BLM IMP. All greater sage-grouse habitat would be

considered a right-of-way avoidance zone. See Table

3-7 for acres of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance

areas by alternative.

All existing transdistrict electrical transmission lines

identified by the “Western Regional Corridor Study,”

and some county roads would be designated as rightsof-way corridors. Nominal corridor width would be

500 feet on each side of centerline of existing facilities,

except where the alignment forms the boundary of a

SMA, where the width would be 1,000 feet on the side

opposite that boundary. Corridor widths may vary

dependent upon project size and would be determined

on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative D

New rights-of-way applications and existing rights-ofway corridors would be managed the same as Alternative B.

All ACEC’s, WSR’s, the Buck Creek Watchable

Wildlife Site, and greater sage-grouse breeding habitat

would be designated right-of-way avoidance areas

except for rights-of-way which would not conflict with

management objectives for the area. WSA’s and NRHP

districts would be considered exclusion areas (Map L8). See Table 3-7 for acres of right-of-way exclusion

and avoidance areas by alternative.

Alternative E

The entire planning area would be considered a rightof-way exclusion area, except for existing rights-ofway.

Management Goal 3—Acquire public and administrative access to public land where it does not currently exist.

Rationale

Due to the generally fragmented nature of public lands

in some parts of the resource area, the need to acquire

legal public and administrative access is required to
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 132
Management Alternatives

3 -133

ensure continued effective administration and public

use of these lands. This need becomes more acute as

public use of these lands increases and as landowners

become more aware of the value of public and private

land for recreation and other purposes. Land tenure

adjustment actions (exchanges or fee purchases) can be

a valuable tool for access acquisitions. However,

without careful review, lands actions, particularly

exchanges, can result in lost access. Other tools can

also be utilized, such as constructing new roads around

lands where access is restricted and the cost associated

with acquisition excessive, or where such acquisition is

not feasible.

Monitoring

Public access needs would be reviewed periodically.

Access acquisition would be monitored through normal

BLM accomplishment tracking processes. Periodic

reports would be developed identifying access acquired.

Management Common to All Alternatives

SMA’s would receive first priority for both fee title and

easement acquisition, with the North Lake Special

Recreation Management Area receiving second priority. Shifts in priority may occur dependent upon the

level of necessity.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Legal public or administrative access, including

conservation and scenic easements, would be acquired

from willing landowners, on a case-by-case basis as the

need arises. Emphasis would be placed on providing

access for BLM administrative facilities and programrelated activities.

New roads would be constructed around private lands

where easement acquisition is not feasible or desirable.

Alternative B

Legal public or administrative access would be acquired from willing landowners where public demand

or an administrative need exists. Emphasis would be

placed on providing administrative access to public

land with high mineral, timber, grazing, or recreational

value.

New roads would be constructed around private lands

where easement acquisition is not feasible or desirable.

Alternative C

Legal public or administrative access would be acquired from willing landowners, where public demand

or an administrative need exists.

New roads around private lands would be constructed

where easement acquisition is not feasible or desirable,

when it supports the protection of natural values.

Alternative D

Legal public or administrative access would be acquired from willing landowners, where public demand

or an administrative need exists. Emphasis would be

placed on providing access to areas containing high

public values, when it supports the protection of

natural values.

New roads would be constructed around private lands

where easement acquisition is not feasible or desirable.

Alternative E

New access rights would not be acquired unless

prescribed by law. No road construction would occur

unless prescribed by law and/or for the protection of

public health and safety.

Management Goal 4—Utilize withdrawal actions

with the least restrictive measures necessary to

accomplish the required purposes.

Rationale

Section 204 of FLPMA gives the Secretary of the

Interior the authority to make, modify, extend, or

revoke withdrawals and mandates review of withdrawals.

Interior Departmental Policy (DM 603) further requires

that:

1) All withdrawals shall be kept to a minimum, consistent with the demonstrated needs of the agency requesting the withdrawals.

2) Lands shall be available for other public uses to the

fullest extent possible, consistent with the purposes of

the withdrawal.

3) A current and continuing review of existing with-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 134

drawals shall be instituted.

Monitoring

Actions would be monitored through the normal BLM

accomplishment tracking process.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Withdrawal review continuations, modifications, and

revocations would continue in the future, as the need

arises.

Other agency requests for new withdrawals, relinquishments, and modification would be considered on a

case-by-case basis.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Requests for new withdrawals and withdrawal relinquishments or modifications would be considered on a

case-by-case basis.

Alternative B

No new lands would be withdrawn from the public

land, mining, and mineral leasing laws unless required

by law. All existing public water reserves would be

revoked upon completion of the required revocation

process, NEPA-related compliance, and with BLM

Oregon and Washington Office review and approval.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, the entire Red Knoll ACEC

would be withdrawn from the public land and mining

laws.

Alternative D

Approximately 4,600 acres of the Red Knoll ACEC

would be withdrawn from the public land and mining

laws under this alternative.

Alternative E

Withdraw the entire resource area from the public land

mining and mineral leasing laws.

Roads/Transportation

Management Goal —Maintain existing roads on the

resource area transportation plan and other roads to

provide administrative or public access to public land.

Construct new roads using best management practices (BMP’s) and appropriate mitigation to provide

administrative, permitted, and recreational access as

needed. Close roads that are not longer needed or

that are causing resource damage.

Rationale

Access is necessary for BLM personnel to administer

the various resource management programs on public

land including livestock grazing, mining, wildlife

habitat management, watershed management, recreation management, and numerous other programs.

Access is also an important factor in fire suppression

and fire management. Roads on BLM-administered

lands are used by permitted users such as miners and

livestock operators. Roads are also heavily used by

recreationists for dispersed recreation activities such as

hunting, fishing, camping, rockhounding, OHV driving,

and sightseeing, etc. Providing and maintaining access

to the public lands is an important public service

provided by BLM.

Any roads on the transportation plan which are not

needed for administrative or public access do not need

to remain open. Likewise, any roads that are causing

significant resource damage need to be closed and

rehabilitated.

Monitoring

Roads are usually monitored in conjunction with the

conduct of other programs. Roads are also monitored,

usually on an annual basis to determine maintenance

needs. This information is factored into the budget

request for the upcoming fiscal year. The amount of

road maintenance done each year is based on the

budget received by the Lakeview Resource Area

Office.

Monitoring of any closed roads would be done in

conjunction with monitoring other resources and uses

such as watershed condition or OHV use. The purpose

of the monitoring would be to ensure that closed roads

are not being used and that resource damage such as

erosion is not occurring.
Management Alternatives

3 -135

Actions Common to All Alternatives

Any roads proposed to be closed would be reviewed by

an interdisciplinary team to determine need for the

road, resource damage being caused, appropriate

closure means, alternative access available, etc. Appropriate NEPA documentation would then be completed

if it is determined the road should be closed. Closures

would consist of signing and physically blocking

access if needed. Rehabilitation could consist of

simply closing a road and allowing natural regrowth of

vegetation to occur, or it could consist of plowing or

ripping the road and seeding with an appropriate seed

mix.

The draft 2000 “Washington and Eastern Oregon

Districts Transportation Management Plan” would

serve as the LRA transportation management plan

when that document is final and approved. A supplemental transportation management plan specific to the

resource area and tiered to the larger plan may subsequently be prepared if necessary.

An estimated amount of road construction is shown for

each alternative for the the life of the paln. This

estimate is based on actual road construction for the

past 10 years and is for analysis purposes only. It is

meant to include only BLM construction and does not

include construction that may result from a major

project such as a mine devlopment, oil and gas exploration and development, or major utility line.

Any new roads constructed or trails developed as a

result of such a project would be reclaimed after the

project is completed if they are not needed for future

access such as monitoring or maintenance.

Management Direction By Alternative

Alternative A

Approximately 100 miles of roads would be maintained

annually based on priority determinations and the

amount of annual road maintenance budget. New roads

would be constructed on an as-needed basis, but new

construction would be minimal. New roads could be

constructed around private property to allow access to

public land. For analysis purposes and based on road

construction the past 10 years, new road construction is

expected to be less than 20 miles over the life of the

plan.

Existing roads would remain open. Any proposed road

closures would be considered on a case-by basis.

Alternative B

Approximately 100 miles of roads would be maintained

annually based on priority determinations and the

amount of annual road maintenance budget. Management would be the same as under Alternative A, except

that new roads would be constructed to facilitate

commodity production and recreation access. New

roads would be allowed for major projects such as

mineral development, power generating plants, electrical transmission lines, and pipelines. For analysis

purposes, it is estimated that no more than 30 miles of

new roads would be constructed by BLM over the life

of the plan. New road construction would meet BMP’s

to protect soils and watersheds. BMP’s are contained

in Appendix D

Roads that are causing resource damage and that are no

longer needed for access to facilitate commodity

production would be considered for closure.

Alternative C

Approximately 100 miles of roads would be maintained

annually based on priority determinations and the

amount of annual road maintenance budget. The

emphasis of road maintenance would be to protect and

maintain resources. New construction would be

considered on a case-by-case basis and would meet

BMP’s for road construction as outlined in Appendix

D. New roads would be allowed for major projects

such as mineral development, power generating plants,

and transmission lines, etc., if such projects are permitted. Roads could be constructed around private property to provide access to public land. For analysis

purposes, it is estimated that no more than 20 miles of

new roads would be constructed by BLM over the life

of the plan.

Roads on the transportation plan, as well as roads not

on the plan, which are no longer needed for administrative or public access or which may be causing resource

damage such as erosion, would be noted and actions

would be taken to close and rehabilitate the road or to

correct the cause of the resource damage. Approximately 450 miles of roads in ACEC’s would be closed.

Alternative D

Management under this alternative would be the same

as under Alternative C. Approximately 372 miles of

roads in SMA’s would be closed.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

3 - 136

Alternative E

Roads would be maintained only as needed to provide

for human health and safety. No new roads would be

constructed unless required by law.

Road closures would be the same as under Alternative

C.
Environmental Consequences

4 -1

Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts and

effects that are projected to occur as a result of implementing land management actions described for each

alternative in Chapter 3–Alternatives. The baseline

used for project impacts is the current condition or

situation described in Chapter 2–Affected Environment. Impacts are projected for the short term (0 to 10

years unless otherwise noted) and for the long term (10

to 20 years). A comparison of management directives

for each of the alternatives is shown in Table 3-1 in

Chapter 3. A comparison of impacts is shown in Table

S-1 in the Summary at the beginning of this document.

Each of the resource programs or management activities that could impact other resources or values are

analyzed by program. There are some programs that

would have the same impact across all alternatives, or

would have little or no effect and do not need analysis.

The analysis for each alternative is presented by

resource and organized into four sections:

Management Goals: These are defined in Chapter 3

and would be the same under each alternative.

Analysis of Impacts: This is a description of the

possible impacts, both beneficial and adverse, from

land-use allocation or management action to the

resource being analyzed. The impact or change is

compared to the current management situation, Alternative A. For ease of reading, analysis shown in Alternative A may be referenced in following alternatives with

such statements as “impacts would be the same as

Alternative A,” or “impacts would be the same as

Alternative A, except for . . .” as applicable.

Summary: At the end of each resource will be a

summary comparison of impacts under each alternative

and how each of the alternatives meet the management

goal(s).

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: The

final section under each resource is a description of

secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the past,

present, and reasonably-foreseeable future actions of

all the alternatives. This section also considers impacts

of other agency actions as well as actions on private

land within or adjacent to the planning area.

Assumptions

Several general assumptions were made to facilitate the

analysis of the projected impacts. The assumptions

listed below are common to all alternatives. Other

assumptions specific to a particular resource are listed

under that resource.

• Changes in Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

policies have been made since the current land-use

plans were approved. This includes such things as

the 1997 “Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.”

All alternatives would maintain the vegetation

resource and meet needs for water, nutrient, and

energy cycling.

• Funding and personnel would be sufficient to

implement any alternative described.

• Funding would be basically the same across all

alternatives.

• Monitoring studies would be completed as indicated and adjustments or revisions would be made

as described in the Adaptive Management section

in Chapter 3.

• Appropriate maintenance would be carried out to

maintain the functional capability of all developments.

• The resource management plan (RMP)/environmental impact statement (EIS) would remain in

effect for 15 to 20 years.

Critical Elements of the Human Environment

The following critical elements of the human environment are addressed in Chapter 4: air quality, floodplains, cultural/paleontological resources, prime or

unique farmlands, Native American religious concerns,

threatened or endangered (T&E) species, areas of

critical environmental concern (ACEC’s), designated or

potential wild and scenic rivers (WSR’s), wilderness or

wilderness study areas (WSA’s), and environmental

justice. There are no identified significant impacts to

any of these elements. The alternatives call for varying

degrees of resource use and protection. As a result,

there are varying degrees or forms of protective management or mitigation for some of these resources or
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 2

land use allocations. These critical elements will also

be considered, as appropriate, in site-specific project

design and implementation.

Plant Communities

Shrub Steppe

Management Goal 1—Restore, protect, and enhance

the diversity and distribution of desirable vegetation

communities, including perennial native and desirable introduced plant species. Provide for their

continued existence and normal function in nutrient,

water, and energy cycles.

Management Goal 2—Protect healthy, functioning

ecosystems consisting of native plant communities.

Restore degraded high-potential landscapes and

decadent shrublands.

Assumptions

Characteristics used to analyze the degree to which

vegetation communities meet the desired range of

conditions and thus rangeland vegetation management

objectives, are described in Figure 4-1.

Reduced vegetation structure and ground cover leads to

increased soil erosion rates. Soil erosion rates on shrub

steppe are highly dependent on the proportion of the

soil surface protected from raindrop impact by vegetation (Meeuwig 1970). Erosion rates increase exponentially as plant cover decreases (Meeuwig 1970).

Prescribe burn treatments would create a mosaic

pattern of islands and stringers and maintain structure

(connectivity) and desired diversity. Wildland fire may

accomplish these patterns, but because of cheatgrass

and exotic annuals, large areas are often burned instead

of a mosaic of burned and unburned areas.

The alternatives have the potential to affect vegetation

in terms of the relative abundance of species within

communities, the relative distribution of plant communities, and the relative occurrence of seral stages of

those communities. However, implementation of any

alternative would not result in the complete elimination

of a plant species, plant community, or seral stage.

Management actions would not intentionally eliminate

a special status plant species.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the ecological condition of the

shrub steppe could be improved and there could be an

increase of forage production through the development

and implementation of economically feasible grazing

systems and range improvements.

In areas such as the Beaty Butte Allotment, not all of

the animal unit months (AUM’s) are utilized; however,

livestock tend to concentrate in small areas around

available water causing concentrated overutilization.

Methods to move and disperse livestock would benefit

the diversity and condition of the steppe around such

sites. Implementation of vegetation manipulation

projects must be consistent with existing management

objectives. Full suppression of wildland fire outside of

the Fort Rock Fire Management Area would not allow

for wildland fire use to improve resources. Use of

prescribed fire would be on a case-by-case basis.

Areas that are burned by wildland fire would be

rehabilitated or revegetated to protect soil, water, and

vegetation resources or to prevent unacceptable damage (such as introduction of noxious weeds and

cheatgrass). Resting rehabilitated areas for two growing seasons allows vegetation to reestablish, allows

litter to build-up on the soil, and reduces erosion. Two

seasons of rest can also make the disturbed area less

susceptible to the invasion of noxious weeds.

Maintenance of vegetative composition of nonnative

seedings would ensure continued forage production for

the purpose established. Some stands of seeded

nonnative perennial species would continue to be

managed primarily for forage production, and would

make minimal progress toward supporting greater

species or structural diversity. Connectivity of big

sagebrush cover may be reduced.

Watershed improvement for both function and processes maintain or enhance soil conditions in most

cases. Management activities and uses for water

resources usually meet minimum construction standards as does construction and maintenance of roads.

If carried out correctly, there is minimal or no damage

to shrub steppe vegetation communities. If flooding

occurs due to natural causes or if related to construction, rehabilitation could be carried out swiftly and

effectively.

Integrated weed management actions would slow the

spread of established stands of noxious weeds and
Environmental Consequences

4 -3

reduce the establishment of new infestations. Emphasis on commodity procuction, including recreational

use, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, livestock production, mineral exploration, traffic, and other uses would

increase localized areas of soil disturbance and increase the vectors of seed dispersal, impacting sagebrush steppe communities and soils.

Exploration, location, development, and production of

locatable minerals in this alternative can cause changes

in species composition and relative abundance of

species in the vegetation on the site despite plans of

operation. Even after reclamation efforts, it would be

unlikely that environmental conditions supporting the

predisturbance plant community would be restored.

The scale of these effects would vary across the

alternatives as larger areas would have either surface

restrictions on energy and mineral exploration and

development, or no-surface-occupancy stipulations.

Mitigation measures would be programmed into the

plan of operations and soils can be “banked” for future

reclamation, and native seeds can be gathered and

grown for future seed sources from the site (such as at

Tucker Hill mine).

Under this “no action” alternative, carrying capacities

and seasons of use for livestock in some areas would

continue at a level that would provide for a diversity of

seral stages of rangeland plant communities, while

other areas would support the earlier seral stages of

rangeland vegetation types resulting from localized

problems in range management. Under this alternative,

disturbance associated with relatively high carrying

capacities and long seasons of use for livestock would

result in a landscape dominated by the low structural

diversity (dominated by annual grasses and forbs)

characteristic of the earlier seral stages of rangeland

vegetation.

The use of livestock grazing systems would have both

positive and negative impacts on vegetation, depending

on the system and the vegetation community.

The rest/rotation system is both the most common

livestock grazing system (56 percent of acres grazed) in

use in the resource area and also the system that would

be expected to most improve key species composition.

Therefore, the vegetation composition on over half the

acres in the resource area would potentially improve

under this alternative.

The key herbaceous vegetation composition would

either be improved or maintained under the other five

grazing systems; this accounts for 36 percent of the

acres under a grazing system in the resource area.

Under this alternative, about 7 percent of the acreage in

the resource area would show a short-term decrease in

species composition as a result of being grazed under a

spring/summer grazing system. This is due to the fact

that forage species would be grazed during their

growing season.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems would

result in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation such

as willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush.

These grazing systems are found on about 4 percent of

the acres that are grazed in the resource area. The

difference in the alternatives is the rate at which the

palatable woody species composition would decline.

A summary of grazing impacts to key species vegetation by type of grazing system and season of use is

shown in Table 4-1. Specific impacts of livestock

grazing to the various plant communities by grazing

system are fully discussed in Appendix E3.

Regarding biological crusts, stocking levels and season

of use should be ascertained because livestock grazing

has a different effect on crusts depending on soil types.

Livestock use that does not implement rest-rotation

strategies that minimize frequency of surface disturbance during dry seasons and maximizes periods

between disturbances should be changed to reduce

impacts to biological soil crusts (USDI-BLM and

USGS 2001).

Wild horse management areas pose different problems

and need to be kept at appropriate management levels

for all uses (horses, wildlife, plant community health,

livestock, and recreation) in order to meet specific

management objectives. Where appropriate management levels are exceeded and during drought, patches

and larger areas of shrub steppe can be destroyed. Little

information exists on the effect of horse populations on

biological crusts; however, hoof disturbances along

regular trails could be very long lasting and lead to soil

degradation, loss of crust cover, and loss of water

infiltration.

Under this alternative, no new special management

areas (SMA’s) would be designated (such as ACEC’s or

WSR’s), thus eliminating the possibility of special

protective management of new research natural areas

(RNA’s), ONHP plant community cells (emphasizing

shrub steppe), and BLM special status plant species

habitats. The habitat management plan for the Black

Hills would restrict OHV use; as would the emergency

closures for Table Rock and South Green Mountain.

All three closures are to protect BLM sensitive plant

species.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 4
Environmental Consequences

4 -5

With most of the area accessible to OHV use, the

potential for water channeling, vegetation removal,

weed dispersal, and soil disturbance would increase. A

moderate increase in localized impacts would result

within areas currently used for recreation.

Additional road construction and maintenance and

right-of-way use, to support commodity-related activities, would minimally increase soil and vegetation

impacts. Long-term impacts from roads and rights-ofway would be minimized with best management

practices (BMP’s). Short-term impacts would occur

until disturbed surfaces are contoured and revegetated.

The identification of plant communities at risk by the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP) as having cultural values has

increased consultation with the Tribal people and

awareness among resource specialists.

Alternative B

Upland native shrub steppe communities would be

managed to attain a trend toward desired range of

conditions based on site potential. Management

actions would be for maintenance of the condition

where vegetation composition and structure are consistent with desired conditions. Forage production and

other commodity values of native and nonnative

vegetation resources would be optimized.

The impacts from mineral exploration or development

would be similar to those identified in Alternative A,

except the acreage of high mineral potential land

remaining available for exploration and development

would be highest under this alternative.

Management of wildland fire and prescribed fire would

have impacts similar to those identified in Alternative

A; however, treatment configuration of prescribed

burns would emphasize commodity production such as

livestock forage as opposed to mosaics which benefit

wildlife.

Impacts resulting from vegetation manipulation,

primarily seedings, would be similar to those identified

in Alternative A; however, more use of nonnative

species might be employed. This might ensure seeding

success but would maintain less diversity. Some stands

of seeded nonnative perennial species would continue

to be managed primarily for forage production, so

connectivity of big sagebrush cover may be reduced.

Impacts for management of shrub species would be

similar to those identified in Alternative A. Connectivity of big sagebrush cover would be maintained in

native vegetation communities that provide important

wildlife habitat.

Weed management would have impacts similar to those

identified in Alternative A.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 6

Management of special status plant, fish, and wildlife

species would have impacts the same as identified in

Alternative A.

Impacts from wild horse management would be as

described in Alternative A, except impacts would

increase due to potentially greater horse numbers in

both Beaty Butte and Paisley Herd Management Areas.

Impacts from livestock management actions would be

similar to those identified in Alternative A. As a result

of optimizing livestock use of available forage, the

benefits of returning vegetation material to the soil

would be minimized. Long-term vigor and health of

vegetation communities could be maintained across the

landscape, except at localized areas of concentrated

activity.

About 8 percent of the acreage in the resource area

would show a short-term decrease in species composition as a result of spring/summer livestock grazing

during the growing season. In the long term, impacts

of spring/summer grazing would be reduced significantly when replaced by spring, deferred, deferred

rotation or rest rotation grazing systems. In the long

term, there would be less than 1 percent of the acres in

resource area under spring/summer grazing under

Alternative B.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems would

result in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation such

as willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush.

The rate of decline would be faster under this alternative than under Alternative A.

A summary of grazing impacts to key species vegetation by type of grazing system and season of use is

shown in Table 4-1. Specific impacts of livestock

grazing to the various plant communities by grazing

system are fully discussed in Appendix E3

Impacts to vegetation and soil resources from new

project construction would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, though more projects could be

constructed.

Impacts from recreation use would be similar to those

identified in Alternative A, except there would be more

development of roads, trails, and campgrounds, and

less emphasis on dispersed recreation. Recreation use

would be more concentrated; therefore, the impacts of

visitor use (such as vegetation trampling and removal)

would be more concentrated.

Impacts from OHV use would be of the same types as

identified in Alternative A, but 3,000 acres fewer

would be open.

Alternative C

Under this management, the ecological condition of the

shrub steppe could be improved with the emphasize on

natural values associated with the diverse composition

and structure of vegetation.

Areas that are burned by wildland fire would be

rehabilitated or revegetated to protect soil, water, and

vegetation resources, and to prevent introduction of

noxious weeds and cheatgrass. Livestock use of

burned areas would be deferred during the growing

season for a minimum of 2 years following rehabilitation; and wildlife use might be deferred until shrubs are

tall enough to survive browsing. This would allow the

desired vegetation to become established and litter

accumulation to have recovered to levels that are

adequate to support and protect plant community

functions.

Nonnative seedings would be allowed to change over

time to native shrubs and grasses, and in some cases

may actually be rehabilitated by prescribed fire or

physical manipulation to entirely native seedings,

especially where mosaic plant communities are desired.

Large nonnative seedings could be broken up into

mosaics of native vegetation using green stripping.

These actions would support the progress toward

supporting greater species and/or structural diversity.

Connectivity of big sagebrush cover would be encouraged especially in greater sage-grouse nesting areas.

Livestock forage production and range improvements

would be reduced. Construction of fewer new rangeland projects would limit impacts to vegetation and soil

resources and would allow for recovery of heavy use

areas around watering holes and other water sources.

With the aid of rehabilitation, less livestock grazing,

and use of prescribed fire, this alternative would

generally reduce dominance by woody species, such as

juniper and bitterbrush, and increase mosaics of diverse

structures of multiple-aged shrubs, forbs, and perennial

grasses. This would result in greater productivity and

improved natural functions and watershed stability.

Shrub reintroduction into burned sites would maintain

diversity at a moderate scale, especially within habitat

of significant sagebrush-dependent wildlife species.

Total protection from disturbance would be the easiest

way to improve microbiotic soil crusts, but this is not
Environmental Consequences

4 -7

often possible or desirable. However, protection of

relic sites as rangeland reference areas would provide

important baseline comparisons for ecological potential

and future scientific research. While biotic crusts have

not been the main criteria for proposing ACEC’s, the

proposed areas would be less disturbed allowing for the

crusts to recover naturally from damage caused by offroad vehicles and livestock grazing.

Proactive management is needed to prevent unnaturally

large and/or frequent fires in areas where fuel buildup

or exotic annual grass invasions have occurred. Such

management actions may include altering grazing

regimes to prevent annual plant invasions (such as

spring rest rotation in seedings), prescribed fire to

prevent fuel buildup (especially to reduce high woody

vegetation densities), brush beating to release forbs and

grasses and to reduce shrub densities, and/or restricting

off-road vehicle use. The benefits from healthy microbiotic crusts are nutrient inputs, better water infiltration

and soil surface stability, and in some cases, healthy

biocrusts prevent invasion of small-seeded invasive

plant species (USDI-BLM and USGS 2001).

Watershed improvement for both function and processes would enhance soil conditions in most cases.

Management activities and uses for water resources, as

well as construction and maintenance of roads, would

not have a negative effect on plant communities if they

meet minimum construction standards. In some cases,

actions such as checkdams to prevent overland flow

would be beneficial to the shrub steppe.

The impacts from mineral exploration or development

would be similar to those identified in Alternative A;

however, this alternative is the most restrictive. The

withdrawal of the proposed Red Knoll ACEC (11,588

acres) from public land and mining would be a positive

influence on maintaining the naturalness of the sagebrush steppe and for the cultural use and values of the

area.

The impacts of livestock management actions would be

similar as identified in Alternative A. However, there

would be 20 percent less AUM’s, and no authorized

temporary nonrenewable grazing use for the entire

resource area. Appropriate grazing of available forage

could retain adequate plant litter to maintain soil

productivity and limit accelerated erosion, but with

lower utilization levels, progress toward attaining

desired range of conditions would be accelerated. Less

fencing and water development would open new areas

for grazing but would require more activity in moving

the livestock away from existing water resources. The

reduced livestock grazing would beneficially return

plant litter to the soil. Long-term vigor and health of

vegetation communities; which includes maintenance

of soil stability and energy, nutrient, and water cycling;

would be maintained across the landscape; except at

small, localized areas of livestock concentrations.

Much of the reduced grazing pressures would be within

proposed ACEC’s and would help protect and enhance

the biodiversity of plant community “cells” for which

the ACEC is being proposed.

The vegetation composition on areas under rest rotation

grazing systems (56 percent of the area grazed) in the

resource area would improve under this alternative.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems would

result in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation such

as willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush.

These grazing systems are found on about 4 percent of

the acres that are grazed in the resource area. Decline

would be slowest under this alternative. Also, there

would be a decline in palatable woody species under

winter and deferred rotation grazing that would not

occur in the other alternatives.

About 6 percent of the acres in the resource area would

have a decrease in species composition under the

spring/summer grazing system. These impacts would

be in the short term or as long as the spring/summer

grazing systems are still in effect. The long term

impacts of spring/summer grazing would be reduced

significantly as this system would be replaced by

spring, deferred, deferred rotation, or rest rotation

grazing systems. In the long term, there would be less

than 1 percent of the acres in resource area under

spring/summer grazing in this alternative.

A summary of grazing impacts to key species vegetation by type of grazing system and season of use is

shown in Table 4-1. Specific impacts of livestock

grazing to the various plant communities by grazing

system are fully discussed in Appendix E3

Wild horse impacts would be similar to those under

Alternative B.

Under this alternative, recreation would emphasize

dispersed camping and recreational use, and undeveloped types of recreation, thereby lessening of the

magnitude of impacts. At the same time, dispersed

recreation use is difficult to control. Support facilities

and interpretation of natural and cultural values would

help develop a conservation ethic for the recreational

users. Rehabilitation or closure of sites where resource

values are being jeopardized would help restore the

community diversity and improve plant structure.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 8

Impacts from OHV use would be the same types as

identified in Alternative A, but cumulatively of much

less magnitude because none of the Lakeview Resource

Area (LRA) would have open designation. There

would be a 79 percent increase for limited and closed

designations. These reductions would allow more

control over the use of OHV’s in LRA and significantly

lower the negative impacts of the vehicles. By restricting off-road vehicle use, microbiotic crusts have a

chance to recover to ecological potential.

Rights-of-way and pipelines would have the least

negative impact and disturbance of all the alternatives.

Nominal corridor width would be half the size proposed in Alternative B, thus reducing the influence of

disturbance and physical disruption of soil and plants

associated with these actions. The few actions involving legal public or administrative access would be

limited and generally of little impact; however, where

new roads are constructed BMP’s would be met.

This alternative proposes a significant increase of

SMA’s in the LRA: 12 new ACEC’s, 1 existing ACEC

add-on, and 3 WSR’s. Both types of designation allow

for special management to encourage the protection of

natural resources, especially in research natural area

(RNA)/ACEC’s. This special management allows

natural plant communities to be protected from other

uses and allows those communities to reach their

potential, especially those designated as “cells” representing plant communities in the State of Oregon by the

ONHP—among these protective management ACEC

cells are 12 examples of the sagebrush steppe. These

designations would give priority management attention

to the areas.

Alternative D

This alternative is a balance between Alternative A or B

and Alternative C, so that under this management

natural values would be protected and improved while

providing commodity production. Many vegetation

communities would progress toward a reduced dominance by woody species and an increased mosaic of

multiple-aged shrubs, forbs, and perennial grasses

(both native and introduced). Long-term vigor and

health of the vegetation communities, which includes

maintenance of soil stability and energy, nutrient, and

water cycling, would be maintained across the landscape, except in localized areas of concentrated activity

and in degraded communities of weeds/cheatgrass, or

shrub-invaded crested wheatgrass seedings. Shrub

reintroduction into rehabilitated burned sites would

maintain diversity at most scales. All acreage seeded

would receive native seed mixtures and in some areas,

introduced adapted perennial grasses.

The impacts from mineral exploration or development

would be similar to those identified in Alternative B,

except the acreage of high mineral potential land

remaining available for exploration and development

would be less than Alternative A. In the Red Knoll

ACEC, a smaller area than in Alternative C—4,600

instead of 11,588 acres—would be proposed for

mineral withdrawal. In this alternative, only the lands

with higher probability of mineral location would be

withdrawn. Some of the Red Knoll ACEC would be

open to mining effects. Locatable mining activities,

leasable mineral activities, and mineral materials would

have the same impacts as Alternative C . The Sunstone

Area would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from vegetation manipulation, primarily

seedings, would be similar to those identified in

Alternative A. Use of a mixture of native and introduced species would maintain some diversity and some

degree of seeding success. The chances of establishment of mixed seedings on marginal sites and during

poor climatic conditions would be higher than using all

native species—this alternative would support the

opportunity to establish desirable perennial cover in

sites currently dominated by sagebrush, annual species,

and juniper. However, the goal would always be to

eventually support biodiverse and sustainable plant

communities.

Under this alternative, grazing AUM's of livestock

forage would not change and temporary nonrenewable

grazing use would be allowed. Administrative solutions (season of use and stocking levels, etc.) would

attempt to maintain resource values for multiple use

and sustainability. The impacts would be similar to

Alternative A, since AUM’s of use would remain at the

same level. Disturbance associated with relatively high

carrying capacities and long seasons of use for livestock would result in a landscape dominated by the low

structural diversity characteristics of the earlier seral

stage of rangeland vegetation. Maintaining the same

level of grazing would lessen plant litter for incorporation into soils, biological crusts would be less than

Alternative C, and soils would be less protected from

erosive overland flow of precipitation. Annual grasses

and forbs would dominate. Biological crusts would be

heavily, negatively impacted because of hoof action,

trailing, and other uses if livestock.

The vegetation composition on areas under rest rotation

grazing systems (56 percent of the area grazed) in the

resource area would improve under this alternative.
Environmental Consequences

4 -9

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems would

result in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation such

as willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush

across all alternatives. These grazing systems are found

on about 4 percent of the acres that are grazed in the

resource area. Rate of decline would be the same as

under Alternative A.

About 7 percent of the acres in the resource area would

have a decrease in species composition under the

spring/summer grazing system. These impacts would

be in the short term or as long as the spring/summer

grazing systems are still in effect. The long term

impacts of spring/summer grazing would be reduced

significantly as this system would be replaced by

spring, deferred, deferred rotation, or rest rotation

grazing systems. In the long term, there would be less

than 1 percent of the acres in the resource area under

spring/summer grazing in Alternative D.

A summary of grazing impacts to key species vegetation by type of grazing system and season of use is

shown in Table 4-1. Specific impacts of livestock

grazing to the various plant communities by grazing

system are fully discussed in Appendix E3

Management of wildland fire and prescribed fire would

have impacts similar to those identified in Alternative

A.

Management of special status plant species would have

the same impacts as identified in Alternative C especially with 12 ACEC's being proposed to help protect

and enhance special status plant species. The ACEC's

being proposed would help preserve plant communities

designated by the ONHP group and protect plants and

other resource values not being protected with special

management in Alternative A.

Wild horse impacts would be similar to those discussed

under Alternative B. Wild horse use of an area is much

more widespread than livestock use; horses use hilltops, ridgelines, and other areas. They also concentrate

around water holes or running water and have been

known to dig up areas in canyon bottoms where water

is running below the surface. Several factors play into

the equation for wild horse management: the herd

numbers allowed (which would not be decreased),

forage AUM's allotted for the horses, and how frequently herds are gathered. In order to maintain the

herd numbers, and because of length of time between

gathers (5 years proposed), the AUM's need to be

increased for horse use. Even though the livestock

grazing AUM's are much less in this alternative, the

decreases in livestock use are not in the herd areas.

The results would be an increase of the horse impacts

on sagebrush steppe plant communities in the Paisley

Desert and Beaty Butte Herd Management Area.

Although little or no research has been carried out on

microbiotic crusts, hoof disturbances along regular

trails and territories would be long lasting and lead to

soil degradation, loss of crust cover, and loss of water

infiltration.

Impacts form undeveloped recreational opportunities

would be similar to those identified in Alternative C,

but there would be less emphases on undeveloped,

dispersed recreation. There would be more emphasis

on establishing new recreation sites/areas and developing tourism opportunities; depending on where these

activities take place would define the effects on the

plant communities. Areas of OHV use designations of

open would be smaller than Alternative A, limited and

closed would be greater than Alternative A. This

alternative allows for more concentration of recreational activities, therefore increasing the accumulated

negative effects; but the increase of closed roads in this

alternative would mitigate those effects in some areas,

primarily ACEC’s.

Impacts to vegetation and soil resources from new

project construction would be similar to those identified in Alternative A. Roads causing resource damage

or that are no longer needed would be closed and

rehabilitated allowing the possibility of increased

biodiversity and improvement of plant communities. It

would also help to stem the introduction of invasive

weeds and plants such as cheatgrass. Concerning the

acquisition of legal public lands or administrative

access, emphasis would be placed on providing access

to areas containing high public resource values and

increasing the possibility of increased disturbance in

those areas.

This alternative would have the same impacts as

Alternative B for rights-of-way analysis; and the

exclusion areas and impacts are the same as Alternative

C. The right-of-way corridor would be limited to 1,000

feet on each side of the centerline—twice as large as

Alternative C—and would allow for weed infestation

in the disturbed corridor section.

Alternative E

The entire planning area would be withdrawn and not

available for mineral development; therefore, there

would be no negative impacts. Lack of mining activity

would have a positive effect on plant communities

because of the lack of disturbances.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 10

On average, the annual acreage burned by wildland fire

would increase significantly due to greater fuel loads

from lack of suppression and decreased grazing. The

size and frequency of wildland fire in sites dominated

by exotic annual species would increase. Increased fire

frequency, especially in sites dominated by flammable

annual species and along the tracks of frequent summer

storm activity, would maintain communities currently

vegetated by annual and shrub vegetation, with little

opportunity for the establishment and increased dominance of perennials. Similarly, communities with

perennials may degrade toward more annual species

dominance. As annual species dominance increases,

soil erosion accelerates, especially immediately following fire. Lack of rehabilitation to establish desirable

vegetation components and to protect soil resources,

would result in significant long-term impacts.

The condition of vegetation resources in areas not

subject to frequent fire would improve as the impacts

from livestock grazing are eliminated. However,

without some prescribed fires or other rehabilitation

actions, shrubs would tend to outcompete grass and

perennial understory plants. Areas dominated by

cheatgrass and other annuals would increase over

desirable perennial plant cover. Depending on the soil

type and other ecological conditions, conversion of

shrub/annual grassland and annual grassland to perennial-dominated communities would occur very slowly.

This change would probably be offset by conversion to

annual species as a result of frequent wildland fires.

Monocultures of nonnative seeded species would not

be managed to improve diversity. Some smaller stands

may contain adequate native seed to develop the

desirable mosaic of multiaged shrubs, forbs, and native

grasses as a result of natural establishment. Many

larger stands dominated by competitive nonnative

species would allow little opportunity for establishment

or increased dominance by native species.

In the absence of noxious weed control and management, weeds would continue to impact sagebrush

steppe communities and soil stability. Though a

number of actions that increase the risk of dominance

by noxious weeds would be limited by actions of

Alternative E, seed dispersal and soil disturbances

favoring undesirable plants would continue. Native

sagebrush steppe species do not compete well with

many introduced noxious weeds, even when disturbances are removed and vectors of seed dispersal are

reduced (Roche’ and Burrill 1992; Butler 1993).

Impacts to vegetation and soil resources within, and

eventually outside, of the herd management areas

would increase as wild horse populations grow to

exceed appropriate management levels. In the short

term, surrounding areas, and eventually all areas

occupied by horses, would be similarly impacted as

numbers continue to increase. Wild horse numbers

would cycle widely, with populations increasing during

mild winters and moist summers, to large die-offs when

winters are harsh or summer water becomes limited.

Existing wild horse water developments would not be

maintained, further limiting wild horse distribution

from midsummer into the fall.

With the removal of livestock grazing, those impacts

identified in Alternatives A–D would be eliminated.

The condition of areas previously impacted would

recover as allowed by competing exotic annual species

and/or lack of soil. Utilization of forage resources by

wildlife would continue. Deposition of plant litter and

incorporation of organic matter into the soil would

increase across the landscape, resulting in increased

productivity, decreased erosion caused by overland

flow of precipitation, and progress toward desired

range of conditions. On sites dominated by native

species, rates of water, nutrient, and energy cycling,

and soil movement would be restored to near natural

levels. Sites supporting shallow-rooted exotic annual

species would continue to alter water, nutrient, and

energy cycling, and accelerate rates of soil erosion.

Short-term impacts to vegetation and soil resources

would occur as existing rangeland projects supporting

livestock grazing are abandoned and structures are

removed. In the long term, areas disturbed during

project removal would revegetate naturally to resemble

surrounding vegetation communities; however, areas

around past waterholes would recover more slowly

depending on extent of impacts.

Impacts to vegetation and soil resources from recreation activities would increase within areas of concentrated activity, including developed facilities. Human

caused wildland fire may increase as recreational

activity increases, resulting in impacts to soil and

vegetation resources.

Limiting OHV use on all public land to existing roads

and trails would limit direct and indirect impacts

identified in Alternative A. Similarly, prohibition of

additional road construction, as well as restriction of

rights-of-way to existing corridors, would minimize or

eliminate long-term impacts of surface disturbance.

Limited maintenance of existing roads would increase

impacts to soil and vegetative resources as a result of

normal breakdown of roadbeds, wet weather rutting by

vehicles, and channeling of runoff.
Environmental Consequences

4 -11

Exclusion of livestock from all public land would allow

natural succession to improve the condition of many

vegetation communities, even though the process

would take longer than with active rehabilitation.

Altered vegetation communities which have reached or

passed a viable threshold and are dominated by annual

species and/or noxious weeds would not improve. Fine

fuels would increase with limited utilization of herbaceous growth resulting in increased occurrence and

frequency of wildland fire. The condition of some

vegetation communities currently dominated by a

desirable mosaic of native species and with healthy

understory of the forbs and perennials would be

maintained in those areas not subject to frequent fire.

Frequent wildland fire in healthy, native communities

would cause a decline in vegetation diversity and

health and allow for encroachment of weeds and annual

species; this would lead to a decline in natural levels of

nutrients, water, and energy cycling. Also, frequent

wildland fires may accelerate soil erosion. Diversity

and health of altered vegetation communities dominated by annual species would continue to decline with

frequent fire.

Recreational and other nonconsumptive uses would

impact soil and vegetation resources in localized areas

of concentrated activity. Wild horse populations would

be managed as under Alternative A and would have the

the same impacts. Horses would be retained at appropriate management levels which could be adjusted.

Lack of adequate measures to control the introduction

and spread of noxious weeds would reduce the

biodiversity and productivity of many shrub steppe

communities.

Shrub steppe communities over the last 150 years have

had impacts that are irreversable, such as grazing by

sheep and livestock; introduction of cheatgrass and

other nonnative aggressive weeds, suppression of

wildland fires and range improvements that help

determine where and when cattle graze in different

areas. All of these actions have changed the landscape

significantly from pre-European contact. None of the

LRA is in precontact “pristine” condition nor would the

BLM ever try to return the landscape to that state (even

if it were possible). To abandon any management of

the area as suggested by this alternative, would have

for the most part a long-term negative impact on the

shrub steppe plant communities.

Altered vegetation communities would not progress

toward desired range of conditions. Natural processes

of succession within communities dominated by annual

and woody species would rarely progress toward

desired range of conditions, even when actions impacting vegetative resources are reduced or eliminated.

Additionally, impacts resulting from increased numbers

and cyclic growth of wild horse populations, and

failure to control the establishment and spread of

noxious weeds, would not be consistent with meeting

vegetation management objectives.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, sagebrush steppe would continue

to improve in areas that are in late seral, although

recovery rates and extent of recovery would be reduced

in sagebrush areas without perennial understory and in

seedings, especially where shrubs have begun to

invade. Management would continue on a case-by-case,

site-specific basis with less consideration for the

ramifications of watershed analysis. Rangeland health

standards would be analyzed for each allotment in the

resource area. The major impacts to the sagebrush

steppe are from wildland fires (short-term impact but

possibility of annual exotic plant introduction), invasion of steppe by juniper (with loss of diversity,

especially in the understory), weed invasion, and

continued possible livestock misuse in seedings (such

as repeated spring use every year). All of these actions

would drive the threshold of site change away from

rehabilitation and towards pure stands of cheatgrass

and weeds (see Table 4-2. The management goal could

not be achieved under this alternative.

Impacts under Alternative B would be similar to

Alternative A; however, there would be an increased

impact from livestock grazing for increased commodity

yield. Improvements could occur, on a case-by-case

basis, especially with more aggressive juniper management, but would have minimal desirable impact. While

noxious weed management would emphasize protection of commodity resources, these actions would have

an indirect effect on the desirable vegetative communities. The continued use of nonnative seedings would

be counterproductive for biodiversity. The management goal for shrub steppe could not be achieved under

this alternative because of emphasis on commodity

production and public uses.

Impacts under Alternative C would be much less than

under Alternatives A or B, especially with the decrease

in livestock AUM's. Because of the wider watershedscale management approach, recovery rates could be

much faster, resulting in better conditions with greater

biodiversity and desirable vegetative communities.

Alternative C has the most aggressive prescribed

burning and wildland fire use as well as most aggressive weed and juniper management strategies. With an

aggressive emergency fire rehabilitation program, the
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 12

long-term benefits from prescribed and wildland fire

activities could be used to help restore degraded

sagebrush steppe communities. This type of fire

management along with greenstripping and other

possible mechanical treatments for thinning of sagebrush, dense stagnant stands could be rehabilitated and

desired range of condition standards met. With emphasis on protection and restoration of natural values, the

management goal for shrub steppe could be achieved

under this alternative, especially in late seral communities

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to

Alternative C; however, keeping the same livestock

AUM's, management, and livestock grazing strategies

could reduce recovery rates for late seral and other

steppe communities. The increase of wild horse

numbers and AUM's in the Paisley Herd Management

Area could reduce the recovery rates in the wild horse

areas, especially in the areas that are already in early

seral stage, brush with introduced annuals, and

seedings. The management goal for shrub steppe

possibly could be achieved but at a much slower rate

than Alternative C, but only with an aggressive program of greenstripping, active seed programs for

rehabilitation, prescribed fires, and studies to understand more about sagebrush steppe.

The rest/rotation grazing system would be expected to

most improve key species composition. As a result, the

vegetation composition on over half the acres (56

percent) in the resource area would improve under all

alternatives.

The spring/summer grazing system is the one grazing

system that would result in a decrease in key species

composition across all alternatives. The key herbaceous

vegetation composition would either be improved or

maintained under the other five grazing systems across

all alternatives—this accounts for 36 percent of the

acres under a grazing system in the resource area.

The number of acres with a decrease in species composition in the spring/summer grazing system would vary

by alternative. These impacts would be in the short

term or as long as the spring/summer grazing systems

are still in effect. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the

long term impacts of spring/summer grazing would be

reduced significantly as this system would be replaced

by spring, deferred, deferred rotation, or rest rotation

grazing systems. In the long term, there would be less

than 1 percent of the acres in resource area under

spring/summer grazing in Alternatives B, C, and D.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems would

result in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation such

as willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush

across all alternatives.

Under Alternative E, even with the elimination of

grazing, impacts resulting from increased numbers and

cyclic growth of wild horse populations and failure to

control the establishment and spread of noxious weeds

would have a negative effect on the steppe. Natural

processes would be the primary determinants of

ecosystem conditions and plant communities. However, allowing natural processes to dominate in heavily

altered ecosystems would not restore natural plant

communities, natural ecosystems, or natural fire

regimes (assuming ‘natural’ means more typical of preEuro-American settlement conditions). Instead,

entirely new ecosystems would develop. In areas

dominated by nonnative annual and biennial plants, fire

return intervals would decrease. In areas dominated by

dense stands of woody species, fire return intervals and

subsequent fire severity would increase. These new

ecosystems would likely support a different suite of

plant and animal species. Population levels of many

current species, especially those with limited distribution or already in decline, would likely decrease and

some may be extirpated. Natural processes of succession within communities dominated by annual and

woody species would rarely progress toward desired

range of conditions, even when actions are taken for
Environmental Consequences

4 -13

rehabilitation. The management goal for shrub steppe

would not be achieved during the life of the plan if

natural processes were left to determine the outcome of

habitat conditions.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

In studying the cumulative effects of the dynamics of

the sagebrush steppe over time, there have been major

impacts that are in evidence today. Since introduction

of cattle, sheep, and horses into the resource area 150

years ago, many changes have taken place; all compounded by fire and livestock grazing management.

The most drastic effect on land management was the

prevention of wildland fires and the accidental introduction of noxious weeds and nonnative annual grasses

(such as cheatgrass). The altered understory and fire

regime plus accelerated soil erosion has caused many

sites to lose the potential for management back toward

native perennial dominancy.

Eight major “states” and pathways of conditions have

been considered by researchers (Figure 4-1). These

“states” cross over the divisions of sagebrush species

and subspecies as steppe was described earlier in

document. None of the resource area is in pre-contact

“pristine” condition nor would the BLM ever try to

return the landscape to that state, even if it were

possible. There is little representation of the late seral

sagebrush steppe (State II) which is the relictual

remains of pre-European steppe—possibly 1percent of

total steppe in the resource area. Stagnant sagebrush

(State III) which consists of shrubs with depauperate or

bare understory make up 38 percent. Herb-dominated

stands (State IV) and areas where perennial native

grasses dominate do not occur except in patches in the

resource area (less than 1 percent). All four of these

“states” can be reversed and have good potential for

rehabilitation management and actions. The total of

acreage of these viable sagebrush steppe communities

is around 40 percent.

The remaining 60 percent of the sagebrush steppe

consists of “states” that have exceeded the threshold

and subsequent management requires expensive, risky,

and extensive solutions. The remaining states are:

desertified sagebrush steppe, which constitutes brush

with only introduced annuals in understory (State V—

19 percent) , introduced wheatgrass and ryegrass

pastures (State VI, such as crested wheatgrass

plantings—15 percent), introduced grass pastures with

shrub reinvasion (State VII—25 percent), and

cheatgrass/ Medusahead (State VII—1 percent).

By identifying and quantifying the described conditions

(states) of sagebrush steppe in the resource area,

management can direct the use of allotments and

rehabilitation possibilities. It is cheaper and more

feasible to foster good stewardship of the land having

late seral vegetation (manage while in States I, II, III, or

IV) rather than rely on restoration efforts after degradation has taken place (States V, VI, VII, and VIII).

The above discussion is a method for determining past

use and effects of management on the sagebrush

steppe. The major secondary, indirect, or cumulatvie

impacts to sagebrush steppe vegetation is loss of late

seral communities, destruction of understory and

perennial vegetation, loss of biodiversity, and conversion to marginal and degraded communties below the

threshold of possible rehabilitation.

 The impacts from activities implemented on adjacent

private lands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS)-, State-, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS)-

administered lands would involve fire management and

recreational use of areas. The closure of roads and

OHV use areas would have a significant impact on

sagebrush steppe communities. The loss of habitat due

to noxious weed invasion could cause severe impacts to

the sagebrush communities. Integrated weed management involving all landowners is important for protection against noxious weed invasion and establishment.

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation

Management Goal—Restore, maintain, or improve

riparian vegetation, habitat diversity, and associated

watershed function to achieve healthy and productive

riparian areas and wetlands.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Actions that maintain/improve watershed conditions,

improve ecological condition, improve vegetation

cover and condition, manage nonnative seedings, and

manage forest and woodland areas would have a

positive impact in the long term on riparian/wetland

areas by increasing vegetation cover on uplands and

reducing erosion into riparian/wetland areas. Impacts

would be minimal however, because improvement from

these actions would be slow and incremental on a

variety of sites scattered throughout the resource area.

Under current management, BMP’s are developed and

applied on a case-by-case basis. Because there are
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 14

currently no set BMP’s, they cannot be analyzed here.

Existing grazing systems have led to improved riparian/

wetland conditions and the option is available to

further adjust systems and modify or construct

exclosures to meet objectives (various grazing systems

and their effects are described in Appendix E-2).

However, objectives are defined primarily by proper

functioning condition, and as discussed in Chapter 2,

proper functioning condition is only a beginning point,

with desired range of condition usually being a much

more advance state. Hence, the level of improvement

would be limited over setting objectives based on

potential.

All wildland fires would have a negative short-term

impact on wetland/riparian vegetation as ground cover

is removed and woody species are burned. Short-term

effects from wildland fire in riparian/wetlands that are

in proper functioning condition would be less adverse,

and functionally, these areas would respond more

quickly to revegetation and rehabilitation efforts. In

the long term, if the fire results in increased perennial

ground cover and resprouting of woody species, it

would have positive effects by improving watershed

conditions. Sprouting species, some willows, and

quaking aspen would respond more quickly after fire.

Fire control activities including line construction, aerial

retardant application, and engine access can have

negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation. These

types of fire control activities cause ground disturbance

that can result in increased sedimentation and nickpoints in stream channels. Effects would need to be

determined on a case-by-case basis and mitigated or

eliminated where possible.

Rehabilitating burned areas to mitigate the adverse

effects of wildland fire on soil and vegetation in a costeffective manner and to minimize the possibility of

wildland fire recurrence or invasion of weeds would

have a positive effect on riparian/wetland vegetation

and would be beneficial by reducing soil loss and

sediment production. However, benefits may be

limited since emergency fire rehabilitation activities are

implemented on a case-by-case basis following wildland fire and a separate environmental assessment is

completed for each emergency fire rehabilitation

project.

Prescribed fire can be an effective tool for increasing

ground cover and releasing quaking aspen stands from

competition with invasive species, and would be

beneficial to riparian/wetland vegetation. At the

current level of prescribed fire activity (10,000–20,000

acres per year for the resource area) impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation are minimal and short-term.

This level, however, may be inadequate to meet the

upland vegetation requirements to return to a natural

fire cycle. Some quaking aspen sites would continue to

decline as juniper out competes quaking aspen for

water, nutrients, and space. As with wildland fire,

prescribed fire can have some short-term detrimental

effects as ground cover is removed and erosion and

sedimentation increase. These effects can be minimized by prescription design. As ground cover is

increased and better soil holding vegetation is established, as with grasses instead of shrubs, riparian

wetland sites would benefit in the long term.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration, location,

development, and production would depend on the

location and degree of disturbance. The effects would

vary from none to small-scale effects away from

riparian/wetland areas to major impacts if the exploration requires road development and disturbance in

riparian/wetland sites. The effects would be similar for

oil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, and mineral

material sales. Effects would occur from ground

disturbance that would increase erosion, remove

riparian/wetland vegetation, and alter drainage patterns

by site and road development. Release of contaminants

by development of ore or materials used in extraction

can impact vegetation. Water used in production can

dewater streams or reduce stream flows.

Rights-of-way development in, across, or near riparian/

wetland areas would have a negative impact on riparian

function. Development could result in the loss or

constriction of floodplains, disruption or restriction of

channel form, and removal of vegetation. Surface and

subsurface flows would be disrupted. Drainage patterns

could be altered creating erosion and incision of

channels. This type of impact can be observed on

several area roads where channels have incised because

floodplains have been narrowed by road construction.

Most negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation

would be long term. Rehabilitation following surface

disturbance would focus on restoring wetlands to

normal functioning.

Acquiring legal public access to riparian/wetland areas

through conservation and scenic easements would

ensure future access to these areas and allow management and monitoring of these sites, and should cause

no effects to riparian/wetland vegetation. Public use

over current levels is not expected over the life of the

plan, so impacts should not increase.

Construction of new roads or maintenance of existing
Environmental Consequences

4 -15

roads in or through riparian or wetland areas would

have a negative impact by reducing vegetation and

increasing potential for soil erosion similar to rights-ofway development. Development could result in the

loss or constriction of floodplains, disruption or

constriction of channel form, and removal of vegetation. Surface and subsurface flows would be disrupted.

This type of impact can be observed on several area

roads where channels have incised because floodplains

have been narrowed by road construction. The degree

of impact would depend on the extent of the project

within the riparian/wetland zone.

Managing for proper functioning condition only as a

minimum goal may limit further improvement towards

site potential in riparian/wetland areas. In other words,

proper functioning condition is not the ultimate goal,

but the first step in attaining desired range of condition.

Focusing specifically on the riparian/wetland areas

discounts effects at a watershed scale. Management to

promote or maintain proper functioning condition on a

minimum of 75 percent of the riparian/wetland areas

could limit further improvements toward site potential.

Maintenance of current spring developments for

livestock, wild horse, and wildlife water would have

positive effects on offsite riparian/wetland vegetation

by distributing use away from critical riparian/wetland

areas. Water availability away from other wetland

riparian sites distributes use to more locations. Maintenance of exclosure fences around spring developments

and outflows prevents grazing and trampling of vegetation at the spring site. However, by not returning

spring flows into their natural channels, loss of riparian/wetland vegetation extent would continue.

Continued adjustment of management on riparian/

wetland areas designed to lessen impacts to these sites

would be beneficial to riparian function, water quality,

and fish and wildlife habitat. Improvements could be

limited by the restricted goals and objectives permitted

under the current plans.

On USFS lands in the upper elevation of watersheds,

commercial and precommercial thinning, partial cut

and sanitation, and salvage sales, and prescribed

burning and wildland fire, could have negative impacts

to the riparian/wetland systems downstream. Cumulatively, these effects could, without proper planning,

implementation, and/or monitoring, result in decreased

ground cover and canopy opening creating earlier

runoff and higher peak flows. As discussed in Chapter

2, change in season of use and amount of peak flows

impacts downstream channels and vegetation. Increased sedimentation could result as roads and culverts are placed. However, effects would need to be

determined on a case-by-case basis and could be

minimized by mitigation and avoidance. Improving

forest health could also improve watershed conditions

thus having a beneficial effect on riparian/wetland

vegetation.

Juniper removal and prescribed burn projects could

have positive impacts on riparian/wetland vegetation

by improving ground cover (infiltration and soil

moisture storage) and watershed conditions in the

uplands. Increasing grass, forb, and (eventually) shrub

cover is expected to improve infiltration rates and soil

moisture storage.

Management of special status plant species would have

a beneficial effect on riparian/wetland vegetation

where the specific plant species depends on improved

riparian/wetland vegetation. However, emphasizing

management to the requirements of individual species

could minimize overall watershed improvement by

concentrating on local site improvement at the cost of

wider, watershed-level improvement. Incorporation of

special status plant species management into allotment

monitoring and evaluation process would be beneficial

where the plant habitat depends on improved riparian/

wetland vegetation.

Control of weeds would improve or maintain watershed and riparian conditions which would result in a

positive effect to riparian/wetland vegetation. By

reducing competition for water and nutrients, ground

cover would improve to species with better soil-holding

capabilities. Native species protect banks and survive

flood flows better than many introduced and noxious

weeds. Continued public education would be necessary to reduce weed spread.

Managing for proper functioning condition riparian/

wetland conditions that consider plant community

structure, cover, forage, and other riparian habitat

elements important to game and nongame wildlife

species could have positive effects to riparian/wetland

vegetation and associated riparian/wetland-dependant

wildlife species. Deer fawning and riparian/wetland

nesting habitat would improve.

Riparian/wetland area acquisition would increase

public land acreage of these specialized and restricted

habitats and would benefit riparian/wetland habitats

and water quality as specific management is applied to

improve these sites.

Limiting additional playa and lakebed developments

would maintain the current proper functioning condi-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 16

tion condition of affected lentic wetlands and would be

a positive impact to wetland conditions. Lakebed

development could change the water regimes onsite or

allow water to be transported offsite, thus negatively

affecting wetland vegetation. Lakebed pit construction

can penetrate the restricting layer in the lake and result

in the loss of the water-holding capability of the lake.

Implementation and maintenance of the Warner Wetlands and Abert Lake ACEC plans would maintain or

enhance the current level of proper functioning condition in these two areas and would allow the few areas

not currently in proper functioning condition to approach this condition.

Continuing the Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range

Cooperative Road Closure could have a positive effect

on riparian/wetland vegetation by limiting off-road

travel during a period when soils are saturated and

potential for erosion is greatest. Managing motorized

vehicles in accordance with existing open and limited

designations would continue to cause negative effects

on riparian/wetland vegetation on a site-specific basis

since approximately 2.5 million acres of the resource

area is designated as open to OHV’s—this allows

OHV’s to drive cross-country off existing roads.

Controlling public use has a positive effect on protecting the resource by limiting potential for channelization

and vegetation removal by OHV’s. Organized events

are only authorized if there are no effects to the riparian/wetland resources.

Riparian/wetland vegetation maintenance and restoration is designed to improve fish and aquatic habitat;

however, improvement limited only to proper functioning condition could prevent further improvement to site

potential as described above.

Impact of grazing authorization and rangeland project

implementation on riparian/wetland sites is site specific. Grazing management on many of these sites in

the resource area has been adjusted to maintain or

improve riparian sites by managing for vegetation and

stream channel improvement. Other sites still need

management adjustment. On some sites that are being

grazed without regard to utilization, grazing is having

an adverse impact to the riparian/wetland areas.

Project work would only be completed with proper

environmental analysis and mitigative measures to

protect riparian/wetland function.

Authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing use

can preclude the accumulation of surplus plant matter

for ground cover, litter development, and enhancement

of watershed conditions, riparian/wetland vegetation,

and ground nesting wildlife species.

Unauthorized grazing use in riparian or wetland

pastures can have a negative impact on these resources.

If unauthorized use is detected early, this action would

have a minimal negative effect. If use occurs over a

longer period it could have a negative effect as bankholding or wetland vegetation is removed over authorized levels.

Wild horses use the herd management areas year-round

and impact riparian/wetland sites negatively in some

areas (especially the springs in the Beaty Butte area).

These effects occur by uncontrolled removal of vegetation, and trampling. Confining horses to herd management areas reduces damage to sites outside these areas.

Keeping horses inside the herd management areas

benefits the riparian aquatic resources outside these

areas. Effects on riparian/wetland vegetation due to

water development project implementation would need

to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but generally

new developments near riparian/wetland areas would

have a negative effect if horses had free access to

remove protective vegetation. Fences and other

management structures could have a beneficial effect

by controlling use away from these areas.

Current management of Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area and the remaining public

land as an extensive recreation management area could

cause negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation

on some sites. Increased public use could have a

negative effect as more people are attracted to the area

and remove vegetation, alter drainage patterns, and

compact riparian/wetland sites. Controlling public use

could have a positive effect.

Managing public lands to primarily provide social and

economic benefits to local residents, businesses,

visitors, and future generations could have potential

future impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation. Current

recreation developments are minimal and have minimal

impact to riparian/wetland vegetation. Protection of

ACEC’s with riparian/wetland habitat values would

have beneficial impacts.

Alternative B

Actions to maintain/improve watershed conditions,

improve ecological condition, improve vegetation

cover and condition, manage nonnative seedings, and

manage forest and woodland areas would have impacts

similar to those under Alternative A. However, positive impacts would likely to be slower realized since
Environmental Consequences

4 -17

emphasis would be on the production and use of

forage, as well as other commodity uses.

Implementation of BMP’s would reduce or eliminate

some of the effects described in Alternative A. For

example, fire control BMP’s to minimize heavy equipment for fire line construction would reduce impacts to

the riparian corridor through vegetation removal. Refer

to Apendix D for anticipated benefits of BMP implementation.

Wildland fire and rehabilitation impacts would be

similar; however, short- and long-term prescribed fire

impacts could increase with the three-fold increase of

prescribed fire activity proposed.

The effects on riparian/wetland vegetation from energy

and mineral exploration, location, and development

would be similar, but would be greater under this

alternative that emphasizes commodity production.

New road construction and maintenance of existing

roads would have a greater potential for impacting

watershed health under this alternative, and therefore

have a negative impact on riparian/wetland vegetation

by increasing high flows and contributing excess

sediment, but the level of effect could be minimized by

following road construction standards for riparian/

wetlands.

Deferment of grazing for two growing seasons minimum after wildland fire or prescribed fire in upland

areas would provide residual cover necessary for

ground-nesting species and protect upland function.

Implementation of riparian/wetland restoration projects

would benefit riparian/wetland vegetation. Maintenance of spring developments could have positive

impact on riparian/wetland vegetation by distributing

use away from critical riparian/wetland area thereby

preventing grazing and trampling of vegetation.

Juniper management would have more positive effects

on riparian/wetland vegetation than Alternative A,

since up to 75 percent of early- to mid-successional

stands of juniper would be treated. It is not known at

this time what percent of this juniper management

would have a direct impact to riparian wetland areas.

However, projects associated with riparian/wetland

areas would have a high priority to produce more

improvement to the sites.

Direction to treat all quaking aspen stands within the

life of the plan would greatly improve quaking aspen

stand condition and maintain those stands that are

currently functioning.

Allowing playa and lakebed developments could

degrade the current proper functioning condition of

wetlands and would have a negative impact to wetland

conditions. These effects are described in Alternative

A.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,

cover, plant community structure, and security necessary for wildlife are available on public land would not

negatively effect riparian/wetland vegetation if wildlife

and livestock use is concentrated away from these

areas.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on open

OHV use designation and maximizing opportunities for

organized OHV events could cause more negative

impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation by directly

damaging vegetation and increasing erosion potential.

Mitigative measures and BMP’s on BLM-authorized

projects would eliminate or reduce impacts to special

status species utilizing riparian/wetland habitats.

Maximizing authorization of temporary nonrenewable

grazing use and increasing livestock grazing use by

11,657 AUM’s could further preclude the opportunities

to enhance other resource values.

Wild horses management impacts could cumulatively

impact riparian/wetland vegetation more if the increase

of domestic livestock grazing use occurs in the same

area as the wild horse use.

Optimizing the management of Warner Wetlands

Special Recreation Management Area and expanding

management of existing developed and undeveloped

recreation sites could have greater impacts to riparian/

wetland vegetation, as a result of increased visitor use

of the area.

Impacts from social and economic uses could be

intensified with emphasis on commodity production

and public use.

Alternative C

Impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation from prescribed

burn projects could have more impact since the acre

limit for prescribed fires and wildland fire combined

would increase from 20,000 to 640,000 acres per year.

Riparian/wetland areas in proper functioning condition

would respond quicker than those not functioning and
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 18

impacts would be short-term. These effects would be

as described in Alternative A.

Implementation of BMP’s would reduce or eliminate

some of the effects described in Alternative A. For

example, fire control BMP’s to minimize heavy equipment for fire line construction would reduce impacts to

the riparian corridor through vegetation removal. Refer

to Apendix D for anticipated benefits of BMP implementation.

Grazing impacts would be less from those found in

Alternatives A and B as long as minimum standards for

ecosystem health are met and suspended nonuse is not

authorized. Grazing use authorization would be

reduced by 21,647 AUM’s, emphasizing resource

values, consistent with resource objectives.

Impacts from suppression of wildland fires would be

greater under this alternative. With the increased limit

of 640,000 acres burned annually and the possible

designation of areas for wildland fire use, there is a

potential for loss of more riparian/wetland vegetation

depending on where the fires occur. Prescribed fires

could be designed to mitigate or eliminate losses and

nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areas could be identified prior to the designation of new wildland fire use

areas. Most riparian/wetland habitat loss would occur

naturally from wildland fire and would create a shortterm impact. Emergency fire rehabilitation would

continue to occur to meet resource objectives and

rehabilitate areas not functioning at the time.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration, location,

development, and production on riparian/wetland

habitats could vary from minimal with small scale

effects to major if the exploration requires road development and disturbance. Although all practical measures to maintain or restore riparian/wetland habitat are

required of all mining operations, impacts to these

resources would continue to occur in the form of

localized surface disturbance over the short term. The

effects would be similar for oil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, and solid mineral material sales. The

effects on riparian/wetland habitat from the energy and

mineral program would be assumed to be less under

this alternative that emphasizes protection of natural

values and closes certain areas to mineral entry or

extraction than either Alternatives A or B.

Impacts from disposal of public land would be less than

the other two alternatives since only 8,000 acres would be

available for disposal as opposed to 42,500 acres in

Alternative A, and 54,800 acres in Alternative B.

New road construction would have a lesser potential

for impacting watershed health under this alternative,

and therefore have minimal impacts on riparian/

wetland habitat. The level of effect could be minimized by following BMP’s and road construction and

rehabilitation standards, and adherence to resource

objectives.

Improving ecological conditions and restoration in the

uplands after a prescribed or wildland fire would have

the same beneficial impacts on riparian/wetland habitat

by maximizing vegetative production and protecting

upland function and contributing to the continued

health of the watershed. Minimum standards for

ecosystem health would be followed and seed mixes

would be limited to native perennial species only.

Rehabilitation of spring developments would have

positive effects on riparian/wetland vegetation by

returning all flow to the original channel as long as

livestock were excluded from these areas.

Exclusion of livestock in riparian/wetland habitats

would have beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland

vegetation.

The removal of all roads within riparian/wetland areas

and other unneeded roads within the resource area

would positively impact watershed conditions and

eliminate the need to perform future maintenance.

Western juniper, old growth, and snag management;

quaking aspen stand management; and bighorn sheep

management would have the same effects on riparian/

wetland vegetation as Alternative B.

Noxious weed management would have the greatest

beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland habitats by

eradication of a greater number of weeds within the

resource area.

Eliminating new playa and lakebed developments and

rehabilitating nonfunctioning sites would benefit

riparian/wetland habitats and return the sites to proper

functioning condition.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for game and

nongame wildlife species would positively benefit

riparian/wetland vegetation.

Managing livestock forage production to support the

increase of 8,390 additional wildlife AUM’s identified

by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW) would have a minimal impact on riparian/
Environmental Consequences

4 -19

wetland vegetation.

Reducing domestic livestock grazing authorization by

23,015 AUM’s and eliminating livestock grazing in

riparian conservation areas would eliminate or reduce

impacts to riparian/wetland habitats associated with

livestock use including, vegetation trampling and overuse, bank destabilization, and fouling the water.

Eliminating authorization of temporary nonrenewable

grazing use, and abandonment and rehabilitation of

rangeland projects could also benefit special status

species if adequate water is available for use.

Managing existing Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management Area and emphasizing undeveloped,

dispersed recreation opportunities in North Lake

County Special Recreation Management Area would

benefit riparian/wetland vegetation.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on limited

OHV use designation and authorizing organized OHV

events to existing roads and trails would benefit

riparian/wetland vegetation.

Alternative D

Impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation from prescribed

burn projects could be greater since the acre limit for

prescribed fires and wildland fires combined would

increase from 20,000 to 640,000 acres per year. Riparian/wetland areas in proper functioning condition

would respond quicker than those not functioning and

impacts would be short term.

Implementation of BMP’s would reduce or eliminate

some of the effects described in Alternative A. For

example, fire control BMP’s to minimize heavy equipment for fire line construction would reduce impacts to

the riparian corridor through vegetation removal. Refer

to Apendix D for anticipated benefits of BMP implementation.

If standards and compliance with the conditions of the

“Bald Eagle Management Area Cooperative Plan” with

the Fremont National Forest are followed, effects to

riparian/wetland vegetation from timber management

would be minimal (the same as Alternative C).

Grazing impacts would be the same as Alternatives A

as long as minimum standards for ecosystem health are

met. Grazing use authorization would remain at

108,234 AUM’s while emphasizing resource values,

consistent with resource objectives. Temporary nonuse

would only be authorized if conflicts with other uses

would not occur.

Impacts from suppression of wildland fires would be

the same as Alternative C.

The effects on riparian/wetland habitat from the energy

and mineral program would be assumed to be the same

under this alternative as Alternative C, although it

closes certain areas to mineral entry or extraction.

New road construction would have a lesser potential

for impacting watershed health under this alternative.

The level of effect could be minimized by following

road construction and rehabilitation standards and

adherence to resource objectives and BMP’s.

Improving ecological conditions and restoration in the

uplands after a prescribed or wildland fire would have

the same beneficial impacts on riparian/wetland habitat

by maximizing vegetative production and would

protect upland function and contribute to the continued

health of the watershed. Minimum standards for

ecosystem health would be followed and seed mixes

would not be limited to native perennial species only.

Rehabilitation of spring developments would have the

same effects on riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative B.

Implementation of livestock grazing systems that

promote the recovery or maintenance of riparian

systems to desired range of conditions based on site

potential in riparian/wetland habitats would have the

same effects as Alternative B

The removal of any roads within riparian/wetland

riparian conservation areas that are impacting the

stream and/or riparian zone would have the same

effects on watershed conditions as Alternative B, and

would reduce the need to perform future maintenance.

Western juniper, old growth, and snag management;

quaking aspen stand management; and bighorn sheep

management would have the same impacts to riparian/

wetland vegetation as Alternative B.

Quaking aspen stand management would have the same

effects on riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative B.

Noxious weed management would have the same

effects on riparian/wetland habitats as under Alternatives A and B, with greater emphasis on restoration of

infested areas.

Playa and lakebed management would have the same

beneficial impacts on riparian/wetland habitats by

returning the sites to proper functioning condition as
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 20

under Alternative C.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for game and

nongame wildlife species would have the same effects

on riparian/wetland vegetation as under Alternative C.

Managing livestock forage production to support the

increase of 8,390 additional wildlife AUM’s identified

by the ODFW would have a minimal impact on riparian/wetland vegetation.

Continuing the current domestic livestock grazing

authorization resource-area wide and implementing

domestic livestock grazing systems in riparian conservation areas that promote the recovery or maintenance

of riparian systems to desired range of conditions based

on site potential would have the same effect on riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative A. The potential

for authorization of suspended nonuse and temporary

nonrenewable grazing use could cause impacts to

riparian/wetland vegetation. The abandonment and

rehabilitation of rangeland projects that do not contribute to meeting other management objectives could

benefit riparian/wetland vegetation and allow for

restoration of sites not functioning at this time.

Management of existing Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area and North Lake County

Special Recreation Management Area would have the

same effects on riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative B.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on open

OHV use designation and authorizing organized OHV

events to existing roads and trails would have the same

effects on riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative C.

Alternative E

Prescribed burning would not be initiated under this

alternative.

Since livestock grazing would be eliminated under this

alternative, there would be no effects from grazing

management.

Impacts from wildland fires would be the greatest

under this alternative. The appropriate management

response would emphasize initial attack, full suppression only to protect human life, and other Federal,

state, or private property. Large tracts of crucial

wildlife and special status species habitat could be

burned and unuseable for the life of this plan. No

emergency fire rehabilitation would be completed

following a wildland fire. Riparian/wetland areas

currently below proper functioning condition would

not be restored after wildland fire under this alternative. Future conditions of riparian/wetland areas would

allow natural processes to define vegetation composition across the landscape and no restoration would be

conducted.

The effects on riparian/wetland habitat from the energy

and minerals program would be least under this alternative with only authorizing energy and mineral actions

required by law.

New road construction would have the least potential

for impacting watershed health under this alternative.

Only roads required by law would be constructed. The

level of impacts could be minimized further by following road construction and rehabilitation standards and

adherence to resource objectives and BMP’s.

No maintenance or rehabilitation of spring developments would occur under this alternative and would

negatively effect riparian/wetland vegetation within

nonfunctioning sites.

Roads maintenance would not occur under this alternative. Those roads negatively affecting riparian/wetland

areas would continue to cause impacts and other roads

within riparian/wetland areas would have the potential

for causing negative effects in the future without

regular maintenance.

Natural processes would regulate western juniper, old

growth, and snag management under this alternative.

Juniper expansion would continue causing negative

impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation.

Special status plant species would not be managed

under this alternative except for federally listed species

as specified in recovery plans. This action would have

a minimal effect on riparian/wetland vegetation.

Noxious weed management would focus only on high

priority areas to protect adjacent private property and

would have negative impacts on riparian/wetland

habitats currently infested or occupied in the future

under this alternative.

Bighorn sheep would be allowed to disperse naturally

and could cause negative effects on riparian/wetland

vegetation if concentration occurs.

No riparian or wetland acquisition or disposal would

occur under this alternative and would negatively effect
Environmental Consequences

4 -21

the potential for increase of riparian/wetlands in public

ownership.

Restoration of playa and lakebed habitats would not

occur under this alternative and would negatively effect

currently nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areas and

areas at risk in the future.

Full implementation and maintenance of the Warner

Wetlands and Lake Abert ACEC plans would not occur

under this alternative and would cause negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation from erosion and

flooding.

There would be no management of upland habitats

(rangeland improvements) to provide forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for game and

nongame wildlife species which would cause negative

effects on riparian/wetland vegetation due to concentrated wildlife use.

Maintenance and restoration would not occur in fish

and aquatic habitat and would continue to cause

negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation under

this alternative.

BLM-authorized projects would be limited to those

required by law and wild horse survival. BMP’s would

be implemented on any new projects.

The abandonment of all rangeland projects could

negatively impact riparian/wetland vegetation by

concentrating wildlife use.

Wild horses could cause negative impacts to riparian/

wetland vegetation if horse numbers increase above

appropriate management levels and concentration

occurs.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on limited

and closed OHV use designation and not authorizing

organized OHV events would have the same effects on

riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative C.

Social and economic uses would cause the least impact

to riparian/wetland vegetation since no commodity

production would be allowed from public land.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, riparian/wetland vegetation and

associated wildlife habitats would continue to improve,

although recovery rates and extent of recovery would

be reduced to allow for commodity uses, including

livestock, transportation, and recreation. Management

would continue on a case-by-case basis on a sitespecific level with less consideration for watershed

scale effects. The major impacts to riparian/wetland

vegetation are from wildland fire (short-term impact),

and the lack of an aggressive juniper/quaking aspen,

and weed management program (long-term impact).

The management goal for riparian/wetland vegetation

could be achieved under this alternative with the

exception of quaking aspen management and the

continuing encroachment of juniper into these stands.

Without immediate treatment, some quaking aspen

stands could be lost forever. Wetland areas could also

be taken over with noxious weeds if more effective

chemicals are not approved.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A. Because of law and policy (“Endangered

Species Act” and “Clean Water Act” [CWA], etc.)

setting a high minimum standard, the difference in

effects would be less than would occur otherwise.

Generally, minimally acceptable conditions would be

required and mitigation would occur on a case-by-case

basis rather than on a watershed scale. While improvements would occur, they would take longer and not be

as extensive as would occur under Alternative A. The

management goal for riparian/wetland vegetation could

be achieved under this alternative, although at a much

slower rate due to the emphasis on commodity production and public uses. Noxious weed management would

emphasize protection of commodity resources as

opposed to watershed resources. Juniper and quaking

aspen management would be more aggressive under

this alternative than Alternative A and would have a

beneficial impact to riparian/wetland vegetation.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less than

under Alternatives A or B. Recovery rates would be

much faster resulting in better riparian/wetland vegetation conditions. Watershed-scale effects at the levels

specified in Alternative C would result in more stable

conditions. With emphasis on protection and restoration of natural values, the management goal for riparian/wetland vegetation could be achieved under this

alternative. This alternative has the most aggressive

weed, juniper, and quaking aspen management strategies of Alternatives A and B which would be implemented resource area wide. Alternative C also has the

most aggressive prescribed burning and wildland fire

use management program which could cause greater

short-term impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation.

With an aggressive emergency fire rehabilitation

program, the long-term benefits from prescribed and

wildland fire activities could be used to restore

nonfunctioning riparian/wetland sites.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 22

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C; however, recovery rates for riparian/wetland

vegetation would require more time to achieve desired

range of condition. Slower recovery rates would be

caused by less stringent direction to restore watershed

function and processes, so somewhat less improvement

to riparian/wetland vegetation would occur. More

consideration is given to watershed scale effects than

under Alternatives A and B. The management goal for

riparian/wetland vegetation could be achieved under

this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D; however, without active restoration, currently

nonfunctioning riparian/wetland habitats may never

reach their full potential. Watershed-scale effects

would progress toward natural recovery of uplands but

increased juniper encroachment would continue to

degrade watershed level effects to riparian/wetland

vegetation and quaking aspen stands. By allowing

natural processes to determine the outcome of habitat

conditions, the management goal for riparian/wetland

vegetation may never be achieved on limited sites

under this alternative.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impacts

to riparian/wetland vegetation is habitat loss, destruction, conversion to less marginal habitat, and loss of

habitat connectivity. This habitat loss can result from

upstream impacts on other land owners property from

stand conversion, channel alteration, water withdrawal, road construction, and other vegetation treatments. The impacts from activities implemented on

adjacent and upstream USFS and private lands creates

additional cumulative impacts to BLM authorized

actions.

The cumulative effects of conversion of riparian/

wetland habitat in combination with BLM’s proposed

alternatives could have major impacts on special status

and other wildlife species dependent on these habitats.

Private landowners have converted and drained some

wetland habitats to create livestock forage and pasture.

Channelization and irrigation water withdrawal on

private lands has altered flood and late season flows,

which has impacted lower stream and wetland function.

Some private landowners have also implemented

wetland restoration projects that restore riparian/

wetland function. Activities involving prescribed

burning would have to be coordinated with adjacent

landowners to minimize cumulative, short-term impacts

caused by the combined actions.

The loss of habitat due to noxious weed invasion could

cause severe impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation and

special status and other wildlife species using these

habitats. Integrated weed management involving all

private landowners is essential to protecting these

habitats from noxious weed invasion and establishment.

Actions that have a cumulative effect on watershed

function, especially in relation to the watersheds ability

to capture, store, and slowly release water, would

ultimately effect riparian and wetland vegetation. On

most forested watersheds in the planning area, equivalent clear-cut acres from timber harvest and road

construction, along with channel incision and

channelization, has resulted in increase flood flows,

increased frequency of floods, and flood that occur

earlier in the season. The Deep Creek, Thomas Creek,

and Chewaucan Watershed Assessments have demonstrated these changes to some degree in each watershed. The change to earlier, more frequent and intense

flood flows has impacted channel form, and thereby

fish and aquatic habitat. The cumulative effects that

created our current conditions are now being reversed

as forest health improvements are implemented. The

cumulative effect of these projects would build over

time to again return to better fish and aquatic habitat

conditions.

It is anticipated that the USFS would continue to

implement forest health projects that would stabilize

watershed conditions. Private land trends are difficult

to predict, but more programs are available that assist

private land owners in implementation of on the ground

watershed improvements. With increased scrutiny of

private land management, some improvement in stream

conditions and management is anticipated.

Forest and Woodlands

Management Goal 1—In commercial (pine) forest

stands, maintain or restore forest health and meet

wildlife habitat needs.

Assumptions

Due to scattered locations, small area size, harsh sites,

and low volumes per acre, management of the commercial forest stands for programmed, sustained yield of

commercial forest products is not economically feasible. Treatment of the scattered stands outside special

areas is usually not feasible unless combined with

similar land on adjacent ownerships, or as part of an

area-wide landscape treatment. As a result, acres of
Environmental Consequences

4 -23

forest treatments and commercial production are not

predictable, and are not shown below.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A–D

Management of commercial forest lands within SMA’s

(such as ACEC/RNA’s and WSA’s, etc.) would be

directed by specific plans to protect the special values

of the area. Outside special areas, commercial forest

stands would be treated on an “opportunity” basis, as

described in the assumptions above. Wildland fires

which threaten commercial stands would be fully

suppressed in most areas. Table 4-3 shows a summary

of impacts to commercial forest land by alternative.

Alternative E

No stand treatments would be done. Forest stands, as a

result, are typically dense, overstocked, and stressed.

As ladder fuels thicken, risk of catastrophic loss of

entire forest stands from wildland fire increases with

time. Risk of catastrophic loss from insects and

disease also increases with time, as trees become more

stressed and less resilient.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A–D would have similar impacts. Table 4-

3 shows that the area of commercial forest within

special areas is the same across these alternatives

(8,739 acres, or 60 percent of the total commercial

forest land). Management of these forest lands would

be guided by, and would be subordinate to, management objectives of the special areas in which they are

located. Treatment of the scattered stands outside

special areas is usually feasible only when it can be

combined with similar land on adjacent ownerships, or

as part of an area-wide landscape treatment. Wildland

fires which threaten commercial forest stands would be

suppressed in most areas. Under Alternative E, no

stand treatments to improve forest health would be

done.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The extent of forest health treatments on commercial

forest lands, mainly by thinning and prescribed fire, is

uncertain under Alternatives A–D. Since forest stands

are all relatively small in size, any treatment will be

dependent on landscape-scale applications, or feasibility to combine with adjacent ownerships, or the overall

management objectives of special areas. Under

Alternative E, it is certain that no stand treatments

would be done. As understory densities thicken, trees

will become more stressed and less resilient. Risk of

catastrophic loss from insects and stand-replacing fires

would increase with time, with little or no natural

regeneration of trees due to destruction of the seed

source.

Management Goal 2—Restore productivity and

biodiversity in western juniper woodlands and quaking aspen groves.

Alternatives A–D

Outside historic (old growth) sites, western juniper

woodlands would be managed for the enhancement of

other resource values. In these areas, now dominated

by invasive juniper (less than 130 years old), management would be driven by the goal of maintaining or

restoring native grasses or shrubs after removal of the

juniper overstory. The concept of a sustained yield of

commercial forest products does not technically apply,

since the species itself is classified as noncommercial.

A programmed harvest of juniper products on a sustained-yield basis is not proposed for this plan. However, recovery or salvage of such products as firewood,

posts, poles, sawlogs, boughs, and biomass would take

place on many of the juniper stands which have been

burned or cut for enhancement of the other resource

values.

Management of juniper woodlands within SMA’s

would be determined by specific plans to protect the

special values of the areas. Table 4-3 shows a summary of impacts to juniper woodlands by alternative.

In treated areas, juniper dominance is generally limited

to rocky outcrops, ridges, and other historic (old

growth) sites where wildland fire frequency is limited

by lower site productivity and sparse fuels. Western

juniper occurs at low densities in association with

vigorous shrubs, grasses, and forbs (where site potential permits). Historic western juniper sites retain old

growth characteristics. Quaking aspen groves occupy

historic range and are in stable or improving condition.

Alternative E

No juniper or quaking aspen restoration treatments

would be done. Western juniper continues to dominate

invaded sites, as well as historic juniper sites. Western

juniper expansion continues. Juniper woodlands

continue to increase in density, as well as area. Historic western juniper sites continue to experience an

increase in younger trees, with increased mortality of

individual old growth juniper on the driest sites.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 24

Quaking aspen stands continue to decline and die out.

Summary of Impacts

Table 4-3 shows the area of juniper woodlands within

special areas, ranging from 16 percent in Alternative A

to 17 percent in Alternative B; 28 percent in Alternatives C and D, and 0 percent in Alternative E. Management of these juniper woodlands would be determined

by the objectives of the special areas. Alternative A

would maintain the present management practice of

meeting public demand for cutting juniper products,

while reserving snags and old growth trees on treatment areas. By maximizing harvest of juniper, and

treating up to 75 percent of early to mid-successional

juniper woodlands by fire, Alternative B would treat

the largest area of juniper and provide the greatest

release of native grass and brush. Alternatives C and D

would treat somewhat fewer acres, while Alternative E

would involve no management treatments at all.

Alternative A provided no guidelines for quaking aspen

management, while Alternatives B, C, and D prescribed

treatment of all quaking aspen stands being invaded by

western juniper. Alternative E provided no treatment

of quaking aspen stands.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Historic (old growth) juniper sites would be managed

to enhance old growth trees (by thinning or fire) under

all alternatives except Alternative E. These old growth

stands would improve in vigor by removing competitive smaller, invasive trees. In areas dominated by

invasive juniper (less than 130-years old), the greatest

improvement through release of native grasses and

brush would occur under Alternative B. Alternatives C

and D would treat fewer acres, but still improve species

composition on a large area. Alternative E would result

in continued juniper expansion and increased density in

existing invaded areas. Alternative A did not specifically address management of quaking aspen groves, but

Alternatives B, C, and D would improve condition of

aspen groves by treating all groves being invaded by

western juniper, which, in effect, is nearly all aspen

stands. Alternative E would involve no treatment and

allow juniper to take over these stands, with subsequent

decline and termination of the quaking aspen groves.
Environmental Consequences

4 -25

Special Status Plants

Management Goal—Manage public lands to maintain, restore, or enhance populations and habitats of

special status plant species. Priority for the application of management actions would be: (1) Federal

endangered or threatened (T&E) species, (2) Federal

proposed species, (3) Federal candidate species, (4)

State listed species, (5) BLM sensitive species, (6)

BLM assessment species, and (7) BLM tracking

species. Protect, restore, and enhance the variety of

plant species and communities in abundance and

distributions that provide for their continued existence and normal functioning.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The present management is driven by the requirements

of the individual plant species and would emphasize

maintenance rather than restoration and enhancement.

Conservation agreements would be written and implemented with the USFWS for selected species at highest

risk. This would leave some of the other special status

species at risk and little interest in the habitat requirements.

Locatable mining activities, leasable mineral activities,

and mineral materials activities have the potential to

impact special status plants and their habitats. The

extent of impacts would be determined primarily by the

amount of activity, location, and mining techniques.

Leasable mineral activities are subject to stipulations

which would generally result in minimal direct impacts

to special status plants. Habitat fragmentation may

cause certain long-term indirect negative impacts as

gene flows may be disrupted where sites become

unavailable for colonization and exotics and noxious

weeds are introduced to disturbed sites. Mineral

materials activities would have no impact on special

status plants because the location of mineral materials

sites would be placed well out of known occurrences or

habitats of species since field surveys would be conducted prior to project approval.

Fire management would have a variety of impacts on

special status plants. Wildland and prescribed fires

have a positive impact on some of the species—and for

many of the species there is not enough biomass or fine

fuels to carry a fire in the plant community. However,

fire suppression activities such as line construction

would avoid plant sites as much as possible, and to that

end, maps have been prepared with plant locations for

resource fire advisers to help avoid sites.

Seeding or planting of native or exotic plant species to

provide additional forage for wildlife or domestic

livestock, or to stabilize disturbed areas, could alter

habitat or affect populations of special status plant

species. These actions could increase competition for

occupation of a site and alter nutrient cycling regimes

by the extensive use of nitrogen fixing species, such as

legumes, in the plantings or seedings.

Exotic plant invasions into areas where rangeland

health has decined and where surface-disturbing

projects are developed would have a major indirect

adverse impact on special status plant populations. The

exotics would compete directly for resources and

would prevent special status plants from fully occupying their historic ranges. This would be especially true

for medusa head in buckwheat sites, one of the few

noxious weeds that invades these barren ash-soiled

sites.

The continuation of current livestock grazing practices

including seasons of use, stocking levels, and turn-out

locations could have an adverse long-term impact on

some special status plant species. Exclosure fences

have been constructed at three sites to evaluate the

effect of grazing pressures on special status species

prostrate buckwheat, Columbia cress, and Bogg’s Lake

hedge-hyssop. Repeated studies at these sites for the

past 7 years have demonstrated that all three plant

species had been negatively impacted by livestock

grazing. The prevalence of introduced plants that now

compete with native species (especially cheatgrass),

grazing on the plants, and the direct trampling impact

of livestock, suggest that overall impacts on special

status species are and would continue to be generally

adverse. Direct impacts to certain species which are

known to be palatable to livestock would continue to

be adverse unless sites are fenced or grazing impacts

are otherwise mitigated, such as season of use.

An increase in recreation use within areas of high

special status plant concentrations would result in

adverse impacts. This could occur through trampling

and subsequent weed introductions where sites are

disturbed. A potential increase in OHV activities may

result in long-term adverse impacts on special status

plant species that occur particularly on the volcanic ash

and sandy soils. Impacts would be both direct and

indirect, including destruction of habitat, destruction of

plants, and weed introductions, resulting in habitat

modification and increased competition for resources.

Overall, recreation use is anticipated to be adverse

under this alternative.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 26

Management of special status plant species/communities and cultural plant species/communities has improved vegetation community diversity. Use of heavy

equipment in ACEC’s, WSA’s, and RNA’s would be

avoided and require line officer approval. Use of

retardant would not be limited within these areas for

initial attack. Use of retardant during extended attack

would be considered as part of the wildland fire

situation analysis, considering the resource values at

risk. However, maps of SMA’s, sensitive plant species,

and cultural plant concerns would be available for

analysis during wildland fires. As a result of these

precautions, impacts to special status plants or communities from fire suppression would be minimal. Management for some special status species and cultural

plants that are not fire tolerant (unknown for some of

the species in the LRA) might constrain the use of

prescribed fire Creation of exclosures around parts of

the special status plant species areas have produced a

baseline of foraging use (domestic and wild animals)

and effects compared to nonforaging areas and protected habitat. This data helps with management of the

plant species and has added to the general biodiversity

of the communities.

Adjustments in land tenure would generally be beneficial, as BLM policy emphasizes retention of public

land with high resource values and would not permit

exchange or sale of public land occupied by special

status species unless land of equal or a higher biological value is to be acquired. Prior to approval and

issuance of any rights-of-way, lease, or permit, site

examinations for special status plants would be conducted; therefore, generally no adverse impact would

occur. However, because land use authorizations could

result in substantial surface disturbance, special status

plants could be indirectly impacted by fragmentation of

habitat and introduction of exotic plants into nearby

disturbed areas.

Alternative B

As in Alternative A, locatable mining activities, leasable mineral activities, and mineral materials activities

have the potential to impact special status plants and

their habitats. Three additions to mining are proposed

under this alternative that could have a limited effect

on the plant species. In the Devils Garden, if not

designated wilderness, all lava resources would be

available for commercial collection through the proper

process; however, no special status plants are known to

exist in the area but one rare Mimulus species may

grow there. Inventories would have to be carried out

before development of mining. Under this alternative,

Lake Abert would be open to mining salts in the lake.

This does not threaten any plant species, but extraction,

development of processes, and other disturbances

related to obtaining the salts could have an adverse

impact of special status plants.

Fire management would be the same as Alternative A,

as would the seeding or planting of native or exotic

plant species to provide additional forage for wildlife

or domestic livestock or to stabilize disturbed areas.

Vegetative treatments, including juniper control,

prescribed burning, and seedings, could impact special

status species, depending on the species, the number of

exotic species within the area, overall ecological

condition, and the likelihood that exotics would

colonize the sites following treatment. Site examinations, to the extent feasible, would be conducted prior

to treatments; however, due to the generally large size

of such treatments, species may be overlooked and

adverse impacts may result if species are uprooted

during the the physical procedures.

Increased livestock use would have a short-term impact

to special status plant species particularly through

trampling in concentrated use areas, defoliation of the

palatable species, and potential introduction of weed

seeds into new sites. Exclosure fences for protection

would be constructed to protect plant sites; some

individual sites could be lost because of the lag time

between establishing and confirming monitoring results

and construction of protective exclosures. Long-term

impacts would be slight to moderate to species as a

whole; direct long-term negative impacts to certain

species which are known to be palatable to livestock

would continue at most sites except those areas fenced

to exclude livestock.

Depending on the number of projects proposed,

construction of new projects could result in long-term

indirect adverse impacts on some species if the projects

result in moving livestock into areas that were previously little used. In some cases, special status plants

could benefit by improved dispersion of livestock.

This action may result in numerous indirect impacts to

species, particularly through introduction of weed

seeds and potential reduction in seral stages at localized sites.

An increase in recreation uses in areas of high plant

concentrations would result in adverse impacts to

special status plant species. This could occur through

trampling and subsequent weed introductions where

sites are disturbed. Overall, recreation use is anticipated to be slight to moderately adverse under this
Environmental Consequences

4 -27

alternative depending on concentrations of the recreational use. OVH activities would have the same types

of impacts as in Alternative A.

Adjustments in land tenure and rights-of-way leases or

permits would be the same as Alternative A.

Alternative C

The alternative is similar to Alternative B, except it

would manage for desired range of conditions by using

a mix of restoration and enhancement measures for

special status plant species and to use protection

measures only where there are no opportunities for

restoration. It would emphasize land management that

fosters overall community health, habitat integrity, and

landscape-level issue resolution, as well as meeting the

requirements of individual species and their habitats.

As in Alternatives A and B, conservation agreements

would be developed to protect and monitor special

status plant species and habitats.

In this alternative, 12 new ACEC areas (129,122 acres)

would be created and four existing ACEC’s would be

retained. Ten of these ACEC’s and one retained ACEC

(Lost Forest—9,047 acres) would meet ONHP cell

needs as RNA/ACEC’s. Nine of these ACEC’s (57,063

acres) have special status species growing within them.

The added protection of WSA exists for 115,652 acres.

There also would be more emphasis to conduct and

record systematic inventories of populations and

distributions of special status plant species where

baseline information does not currently exist.

Locatable mining activities, leasable mineral activities,

and mineral materials would have the same impacts as

Alternative B, except that this alternative is more

restrictive and calls for mineral withdrawal from part

of the Red Knoll ACEC area. The effects would be

that there would be less possibility of disturbance by

actual mineral extraction and roads or other supporting

activities.

Fire management impacts would be the same as

Alternative B, with special status plant species considered in all suppression actions. Prescribed fire is

recommended at Cave Springs (which is now fully

protected by fencing from grazing) as a method of

clearing vegetation which is competing with the

reestablishment of desert allocarya. Several other

methods of reestablishment have been attempted of this

extirpated species and all have failed.

Vegetation treatment impacts would be the same as

Alternative B. However, there would be fewer treatments and less acreage would be treated and impacted.

Livestock grazing in this alternative would lower

AUM’s by 20 percent and no temporary nonrenewable

grazing use would be authorized in the resource area,

thus lessening the adverse effects on the plants. This

would be especially true in areas where livestock

grazing has been documented to have a direct effect on

specific special status plants. Studies have shown,

using existing exclosure fences around part of the

communities, that special status species plants are

being threatened by grazing of wildlife, livestock, and

wild horses. Fencing would protect populations of

Bogg’s Lake hedge-nettle, prostrate buckwheat,

Cusick’s buckwheat, snowline cymopterus, and Columbia cress.

Observation and monitoring have demonstrated that the

wild horses prefer areas that are open and similar to the

ash-flow, open soils areas of sensitive plant species.

The horses tend to destructively congregate in these

areas and mark them with their dung piles. In the Beaty

Butte Herd Management Area, horse trails cross several

sensitive plant species areas.

The 41 percent expansion of wild horse AUM’s in the

Paisley and 25 percent increase of horses in the Beaty

Butte area would have a direct negative effect on

special status plants, especially Crosby’s buckwheat

near Fish Fin in Beaty Butte, and possibly Cusick’s

buckwheat and snowline cymopteris in the Black Hills.

Horses range and graze much differently than livestock; the ashy hills where the buckwheats grow are

regular areas visited by wild horses. Their hoof action

and creation of trails kill the plants that are barely

surviving in these hostile habitats.

With the OHV designation reductions, benefits to be

derived would include elimination of OHV disturbance

for specific, vulnerable special status plants and their

populations. The likelihood that OHV activity would

bring weed seed into species habitat would be reduced;

however, weed establishment may still occur through

other means. In addition, limitations in all ACEC/

RNA’s to designated road and trails would provide

protection to plant sites from direct use. Benefits would

occur to sites currently identified as especially vulnerable to OHV activity and emergency closure procedures would remain in effect and also would be used as

new conflicts would be identified. OHV activity in

parts of the volcanic ash and sand complexes, where

limitations would not be imposed, would result in

certain plants being vulnerable to direct and indirect

impacts in the short term.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 28

In all the ACEC's containing sensitive plant species,

careful consideration would be given to authorization

of activities that could have a potentially negative

effect on the plants or habitats. What may be good for

other resources (such as project developments), could

have a negative impact on the plants and habitats

significant ACEC values. WSR designation of Guano

Creek would limit activities in the area of Crosby’s

buckwheat and grimy ivesia; and it would limit mining

activity and other potentially surface-disturbing activities. Creating ACEC's with special management would

have beneficial effects for both plants and their habitats

within the ACEC boundaries.

Issuance of any rights-of-way, leases, or permits would

be the same as Alternative A.

Adjustments in land tenure would be advantageous to

special status plants. This alternative places emphasis

on acquiring land of high habitat quality and containing

other significant biological resources, including special

status species. An opportunity to acquire a private

section of Mud Creek (20 acres) through the cooperation of The Nature Conservancy, would protect Oregon

semaphore grass (Pleuropogon oregonus), the only

Federal candidate for listing in Lake County. There is

also an opportunity to reintroduce this species in other

locations on Mud Creek from grass stock grown at

Oregon State University.

Alternative D

This alternative is similar to Alternative C, except that

protection of habitats or populations would have equal

management weight with restoration and enhancement.

As in other alternatives, conservation agreements

would be developed to plan for the protection of

special status plant species and habitats. Conservation

strategies would then be written and plans developed to

help insure the continuance of these species.

In this alternative, 12 new ACEC areas would be

proposed and one ACEC area would be retained

especially to meet ONHP cell needs of plant communities. Eight of these ACEC’s have special status plant

species as part of the proposed reason to create the

ACEC. Systematic inventories of populations and

distributions of special status plant species would be

conducted as in Alternative C. Special status species

management objectives would be incorporated into

allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as in all

other alternatives.

Locatable mining activites, leasable mineral activities,

and mineral materials would have the same impacts as

Alternative C, except that there would be less area

proposed for withdrawal in the Red Butte ACEC. The

effects would be a sight increase in disturbance by

actual mineral extraction, roads, and other supporting

activities. Fire management impacts would be the same

as Alternative C, with special status plant species

considered in all suppression actions. The prescribed

fire to help with reintroduction of desert allocarya at

Cave Springs would be proposed.

Vegetation treatment impacts would be the same as

Alternative B; however, there would be fewer treatments and less acres treated or impacted.

Livestock grazing as proposed in this alternative would

be the same as Alternative A, that means that current

livestock grazing practices including seasons of use,

stocking levels, and turnout locations would have an

adverse long-term impact on some special status plant

species. Even though administrative solutions would

be emphasized for rangeland projects, fencing would

be required in several areas to protect special status

plant species and ONHP cells from grazing of wildlife,

wild horses, and livestock.

The 41 percent expansion of wildhorse AUM's in the

Paisley area and the 25 percent increase of horse

AUM's in Beaty Butte area coupled with actual increase of horses (possible 40 more horses per area)

would have a direct negative effect on special status

plant species. The Black Hills and Fish Fin Rim are

especially vulnerable.

OHV designations for this alternative for open are less

than Alternative A; for limited are substantially less

than Alternatives A or B but more than Alternative C;

and for closed are slightly more than Alternative A.

These designations, coupled with increase in recreation

use within areas of high special status plant concentrations, would result in adverse impacts. Recreation use

is anticipated to have a moderately adverse effect on

the special status plants and communities.

WSR designation of Guano Creek would benefit the

special status plant species Crosby’s buckwheat and

grimy ivesia. In all ACEC's, careful consideration

would be given to authorization of activities such as

project development that would directly affect special

status plant species. These actions combined with the

conservation agreements would provide protection for

the habitat and actual individual plant species being

protected.

Issuance of any rights-of-way, leases, or permits would
Environmental Consequences

4 -29

be the same as Alternative A.

Adjustments in land tenure would be advantageous to

special status plants and would be the same as proposed in Alternative C.

The overall impact of Alternative D on special status

plants is projected to be slightly more positive than

Alternative A. However, this alternative has several

threats to these plants and their communities—the

amount of open OHV activities throughout most of the

LRA, the same livestock grazing goals, increased

wildhorse use, and simple ignorance of the special

status plants remain. Plants and activities potentially

affecting them would need to be monitored. The new

ACEC designations and expanded existing ACEC's

would create beneficial impacts as would restoration

plans for impacted habitats, because numerous plant

populations would be given priority management

protection within adequate boundaries for species and

habitat representation within a full range of variation.

Alternative E

If prescribed fire is not allowed, many plant communities that are on the threshold of becoming decadent or

“desertified” would be lost to rehabilitation and would

eventually become cheatgrass/meduashead communities or would be overloaded with shrubs at the expense

of the grass/perennial understory. This action would

have a direct effect on special status plants, many of

which are already in soils and locations where the plant

community is marginal for survival. Fire suppression

to protect life and property may result in certain sites

burning repeatedly within a short time. This may have

an adverse effect on plant communities in an earlyseral stage and would adversely affect some special

status species. However, a beneficial impact may be

that no direct physical damage would occur to plant

sites as a result of fire suppression activities.

Absence of livestock grazing would have a beneficial

impact on special status plants currently grazed or

trampled by livestock. In addition, livestock as a

vector in moving noxious weeds into new areas would

be eliminated. With no project development or mining,

natural processes would benefit special status plant

species the most of all resources.

Lack of recreation management and uncontrolled

recreation activities would result in detrimental effects,

such as trampling, harvesting damage, and weed

introductions to special status species and their habitats. These effects would occur in areas where recreational activities such as hiking and camping are likely

to increase.

With all crosscountry OHV use eliminated, plant sites

would receive full protection from short-term trampling

and long-term trails caused by OHV activity. The

removal of OHV vehicles in the Sand Dunes would be

a positive effect—increasing the possibility that native

plants, even special status species, would return to

previously OHV disturbed areas.

Lack of aggressive weed control would have the

potential to result in severe long-term adverse impacts

to numerous species, particularly those along roads and

trails where vehicle use may import weeds. Noxious

weeds would spread into plant sites, physically displacing populations and preventing normal reproductive

processes and water competition on ash soil sites.

The overall impact of Alternative E on special status

plants is projected to be negative. Lack of aggressive

and extensive noxious weed control and lack of wildland fire suppression would be critical factors in

displacement of plants at certain sites. In habitats

where wild horse herds would run, where perennial

species would be vulnerable to repeated wildland fire,

and where noxious weeds would overtake special status

plant sites, special status plant species may decline or

remain at low levels. This situation could contribute to

the Federal listing of some plant species. The objectives for special status plants would likely not be met

for the species found in horse herd areas, areas of

repeated wildland fires, and where noxious weeds

would not be controlled.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, special status plant species and

their habitat could continue to improve, although

recovery rates and extent of recovery would vary and

could be reduced to allow for commodity uses. Generally, mitigation would occur on a case-by-case basis

rather than on a watershed or larger scale. While

improvements would occur, they would take longer.

The major impacts to special status plant species are

from wildland fire (short-term impacts and in some

cases, depending on plant species, beneficial), the weed

management program (long-term impact), grazing

impacts from wild horses and livestock, recreation

(especially OHV impacts), and possibly change in the

carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (out of BLM

control). The management goals for special status plant

species and their habitats could be achieved under this

alternative with added protection by fencing. Identified
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 30

management in Alternative A would have an overall

beneficial impact and would facilitate meeting the

objectives for most special status plants and their

habitats.

Under Alternative B, in habitats that would be heavily

impacted, special status plant species may decline or

remain at low levels, potentially contributing to the

Federal listing of some plant species. Species would

be protected individually with little regard for overall

habitat health. The objective for special status plants

may not be met for species found in heavily impacted

areas and where general ecological health is critical to

species survival. Overall, while this alternative would

provide for maintenance of special status plant species,

there is a risk that some species and sites may receive

significant adverse impacts, and require fencing or

other mitigation to meet the objectives.

The overall impact of Alternative C on special status

plants is projected to be positive. Major contributors

which constitute a threat would include OHV activities

at the most critical plant sites vulnerable to such

activity, management of livestock grazing, and project

development placement. All can be mitigated by early

planning of activities. Beneficial impacts would be

obtained with retention and establishment of ACEC's,

because numerous plant populations would be given

priority management protection within adequate

boundaries for species and habitat representation

within a full range of variation. The emphasis on

restoration or enhancement would have more importance than protection and maintenance measures.

Identified management in Alternative C would have an

overall beneficial impact and would facilitate meeting

the objectives for most special status plants and their

habitats.

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C, especially with the establishment of new

ACEC's; however, recovery rates for special status

plant species habitat would require more time to

improve.

The emphasis would be a balance of protection of

habitats and populations with equal weight on restoration and enhancement.

Impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D; however, without disturbance from permitted

activities and active restoration. There would be no

restoration or enhancement and no protective fences.

Although there would be no livestock grazing, there

would be wildlife and wildhorse negative impacts.

During the life of this plan, the management goal for

special status plant species and their associated habitats

may never be achieved under this alternative because

of allowing natural processes to determine the outcome

of habitat conditions

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impacts

to special status plant species is habitat loss, destruction of the plants, conversion to less marginal habitats

(threatening viability of populations), and lost of

habitat connectivity and variability.

The impacts from activities implemented on the

adjacent Federal and public lands creates additional

cumulative impacts on BLM lands. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) coordinates with the

BLM for spraying of noxious weeds so special status

species in vulnerable areas may be protected. The

USFS and USFWS contact the BLM for possible joint

impacts such as fence building, road maintenance, and

other actions on their respective administered lands.

The ONHP is the data steward for the State and the

BLM special status plant species; however, they are not

involved in management of those species on Federal

lands.

Feral horses in the Beaty Butte area constitute a threat

to special status plant species as they move from refuge

land in Oregon and Nevada, and State land in Oregon.

The BLM manages the herds on BLM land and coordinate with the other agencies, but the cumulative effects

are still there.

In the writing of conservation agreements, the BLM

takes into account the entire range and distribution of

special status plant species. The cumulative effects of

“threats” on the entire range of these species is important in creating conservation strategies. An example is

grimy ivesia: there are only a 31 plants in the LRA;

however, on the Sheldon National Refuge in Nevada

there are a relatively large number of them. By analyzing all populations and their ecology, conservation

strategies could be proposed.

One impact that is considered a threat in analyzing

special status plants is the gradual warming of the

atmosphere and increase of carbon dioxide; this

combination could have a long-term impact on sensitive plant species that are finely adapted to their

environment. The BLM can not change these impacts

but would consider them in viewing all impacts on

special status plant species.
Environmental Consequences

4 -31

Noxious Weeds and Competing

Undesirable Vegetation

Management Goal—Control the introduction and

proliferation of noxious weeds and competing undesirable plant species and reduce the extent and

density of established populations to acceptable limits.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Projects or activities designed to maintain or improve

watershed function, rangeland health, and wildlife

habitat would involve ongoing efforts to control weeds

to protect/restore plant diversity. Improvements in

ecological function would have a positive impact on

the weed program, and weeds would be less likely to

invade, although there would be some risk of plant

establishment. Improvement in riparian areas (and

other areas) could allow native species to better compete with introduced weeds which could result in fewer

weeds in those sites. Maintaining and restoring habitat

in good condition could reduce the risk of weed

invasion. Ultimately, improved range condition could

result in a decreased likelihood of weed establishment

and increased resiliency to weed invasion. Conversely,

any resource activity or management action which

results in ground disturbance could increase the risk of

weed invasion and establishment. Construction and

maintenance projects, use of heavy equipment, livestock grazing, fire suppression, recreation activities,

and mineral material disposal could all contribute to

the spread of existing weeds and the introduction of

new species from outside the resource area. People,

vehicles, equipment, livestock, and wildlife coming

from outside the LRA could bring weeds with them and

could spread existing infestations. Weeds could be

introduced through contaminated seed, mulch, and

forage.

Risk of weed introduction and establishment could be

mitigated by cleaning equipment prior to any maintenance or construction activity and before leaving the

job site if the site is already infested, to prevent seed

and plant part movement to other areas. The potential

impacts resulting from livestock grazing could be

mitigated by not allowing livestock in weed-infested

areas during a time when propagules can be transported

elsewhere. Livestock arriving from outside the resource

area could be held in feedlots to allow weed seed to

pass through the digestive system and fall off the coat.

Requiring certified weed-free seed, mulch, and forage

could reduce the risk of weed introduction to new

areas.

Prescribed fire could have a beneficial impact when

used as a weed control method and as a tool to stimulate reestablisment of native plants as part of an

integrated weed management prescription to achieve

resource objectives. However, some weed species are

stimulated by fire and are better able to take advantage

of the disturbance than more desirable plants. Fire

management activities including fire suppression could

introduce weeds as resources arrive from areas outside

the LRA. Existing weeds could be spread to other

areas. Emergency fire rehabilitation activities would

reduce the risk of weed invasion by reestablishing

vegetation on burned sites; however, these activities

could potentially introduce or spread weeds through

equipment and vehicle use or contaminated seed.

Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce

this possibility.

Deferring grazing following fire could reduce the risk

of weed invasion by eliminating a possible vector and

the likelihood of increased disturbance, allowing

desirable vegetation to become established. Reducing

stocking levels, maintaining nonnative seedings in a

vigorously productive state, and rehabilitating projects

that do not meet management objectives could decrease

the risk of weed invasion and establishment. However,

livestock water developments would encourage concentrated use around waterholes which would likely

result in bare ground, providing a site for weed establishment. Once established, the weeds could be easily

spread by animals to uninfested areas. Temporary

nonrenewable grazing use in weed-infested areas could

increase the risk of weed spread. The potential impacts

resulting from the authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing use could be mitigated by not allowing temporary nonrenewable grazing use in weedinfested areas during a time when propagules can be

transported elsewhere by livestock or vehicles. The low

priority for restoration of poor condition rangelands in

the Paisley Desert Herd Management Area would

contribute to deteriorated range condition and could

increase the risk of weed invasion and establishment.

Motorized vehicles could introduce weeds from

elsewhere and/or spread existing weeds along ways and

trails. Driving crosscountry could open up undisturbed

areas to weeds spread by vehicles and could establish a

conduit for weed movement. However, the increasing

demand for recreation could present an increased

opportunity to provide weed education materials.

Restricting some recreation uses/access could reduce

the risk of introduction and spread of weeds. Allowing
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 32

organized OHV events would provide an opportunity to

educate large groups about weeds. Closing roads

decreases the risk of weeds being introduced and

spread by vehicles.

Corridors and rights-of-way tend to be hot spots for

weeds—corridors are conduits for weed spread and

establishment. Acquiring access through weed-infested

properties is possible. Mitigation measures could

include locating access routes to avoid weed infested

areas, and cooperation with willing landowners to

control infestations as access is acquired.

Ten-mile maintenance buffers between domestic sheep

and goats and bighorns would preclude the use of

sheep or goats as weed control agents within the buffer

areas. Weed infested areas where sheep and goats

would be effective in controlling weeds are currently

within this 10-mile buffer. Potential for disease transmission exists for bighorns which stray outside of their

approved areas if domestic sheep and goats are being

used for weed control. A prohibition on the disturbance

of raptor nest/roost sites may preclude weed treatment

activities within a certain distance from a nest/roost,

and at certain times of the year.

Weed control in WSA’s, ACEC’s, and WSR’s would be

carried out according to special areas guidance to

protect or enhance resource values. All Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I areas would

require diligent ongoing inventory and control of

weeds. Large weed patches seen from a distance could

detract from the visual resource value. Weeds found on

acquired lands which are adjacent to or within existing

WSA’s that meet wilderness criteria would be aggressively controlled.

Awarding local contracts for projects could reduce the

risk of introduction and spread of new weeds from

outside the LRA.

Alternative B

The “Abert Rim Weed Management Area Plan” would

be expanded to provide guidance for the proposed

Greater Abert Weed Management Area. The Greater

Abert Weed Management Area would include all lands

within the Abert Basin Watershed. The plan would be

modeled after the “Warner Basin Weed Management

Area Plan.” The Abert Basin includes lands of several

jurisdictions. Noxious weeds and undesirable plants are

invading the basin, just as they are invading other parts

of the resource area. The development of a cooperative

weed management strategy for the basin would benefit

all lands in the basin. Presently, the weed infestations

are still reasonably manageable. If a cooperative effort

to control weeds basin-wide is not adopted, the weed

problem would get much worse. Losses to wildlife

habitat, water quality, forage production, silviculture,

agricultural production, and recreation values would

diminish.

Projects or activities which maintain or improve

watershed function, rangeland health, and wildlife

habitat, as well as activities or management actions

which result in ground disturbance, would have the

same impact that is described under Alternative A. The

emphasis on increased commodity production under

this alternative would provide greater opportunities for

weed introduction, spread, and establishment. As such,

the weed program would become more aggressive with

increased efforts in prevention education, early detection, and control.

Projects and activities such as installing corridor

fencing on all streams, opening areas to mineral

leasing, restoration projects to optimize forage, juniper

harvest, increased prescribed fire activity, increasing

AUM’s for livestock and wildlife, and commercial use

in the Sunstone Collection Area would cause more

disturbance to soil and vegetation and increase potential for weed invasion. Upgrading VRM classes in

WSR’s and ACEC’s would have the same impact as

described under Alternative A. People, vehicles,

equipment, livestock, and wildlife coming from outside

the LRA would have the same impact as in Alternative

A.

Reduced numbers of horses could allow for increases

in productivity and recovery of herd management

areas. The improved condition of these areas could

decrease the risk of weed invasion and establishment.

Alternative C

Impacts of developing and implementing the “Greater

Abert Weed Management Area Plan” would be the

same as described under Alternative B.

Projects or activities which maintain or improve

watershed function, rangeland health, and wildlife

habitat, as well as activities or management actions

which result in ground disturbance, would have the

same impact that is described under Alternative A. The

emphasis on protection of natural values under this

alternative would dictate that the weed program be

most aggressive. The zero-tolerance approach would

result in more eradication of weeds at existing sites and

the reestablishment of native species.
Environmental Consequences

4 -33

The projects and activities proposed under this alternative, such as fewer range improvements, less emphasis

on providing livestock forage, rehabilitation projects

using native perennials only, excluding livestock from

streams, springs, and riparian and wetland areas, no

temporary nonrenewable grazing use, removal of roads

in riparian areas, increased mineral entry closures, and

restricting OHV use to existing roads and trails across

the resource area would have a positive impact on the

weed program in that these actions would result in a

decreased likelihood that weeds would be introduced

and existing infestations would be less likely to spread.

Actions pertaining to prescribed fire would have the

same impact as in Alternative A, as would the implementation of wildland fire use. Actions pertaining to

wild horses would have the same impact as in Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts of developing and implementing the “Greater

Abert Weed Management Area Plan” would be the

same as described under Alternative B.

Projects or activities which maintain or improve

watershed function, rangeland health, and wildlife

habitat, as well as activities or management actions

which result in ground disturbance, would have the

same impact that is described under Alternative A.

Since this alternative strives to strike a balance between protecting and improving natural values while

providing commodity production, the weed program

would be expanded from present management. Inventory, control, and restoration efforts would increase.

Education and outreach efforts would be expanded to

include areas outside of Lake County in an attempt to

“head-off” species that may spread into the LRA.

Activities proposed under this alternative such as

limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails in

some WSA’s and to existing roads and trails in North

Lake wildlife area, except for SMA’s, removal of

livestock from streams which are functioning at risk or

nonfunctioning, and withdrawal of a portion of the

proposed Red Knoll ACEC from public land and

mining laws would have a positive impact on the weed

program in that these actions would result in a decreased likelihood that weeds would be introduced and

existing infestations would be less likely to spread.

Increasing AUM’s for wild horses and increasing the

appropriate management level in the Paisley Desert

Herd Management Area would cause more disturbance

to soil and vegetation and increase the potential for

weed invasion and establishment.

Actions pertaining to prescribed fire would have the

same impact as in Alternative A, as would the implementation of wildland fire use.

Alternative E

Since under this alternative uses would be limited,

commodity production excluded, and natural processes

maximized, the impacts to the weed program would be

both positive and negative. Only high priority noxious

weed species and infested areas on BLM would be

treated to protect adjacent private property. Projects or

activities which maintain or improve watershed function, rangeland health, and wildlife habitat, as well as

activities or management actions which result in

ground disturbance, would have the same impact that is

described under Alternative A. Maintaining roads for

administrative access, maintaining existing water

developments crucial to wildlife and wild horses, and

removing riparian exclosures could result in ground

disturbance which would increase the risk of weed

introduction and establishment.

The exclusion of commodity production activities

would generally benefit the weed program in that there

would be fewer opportunities for ground disturbance

and transport of plant parts by people and equipment

associated with the commodity.

The lack of active fire rehabilitation following wildland fire could have detrimental effects if the fire

passes through a weed infested area. Many weed

species are encouraged by fire and could dominate the

site following fire if no rehabilitation is implemented.

Impacts from wild horses would be the same as described in Alternative D.

Summary of Impacts

Under all alternatives the introduction and spread of

weeds would continue. Any resource activity or

management action which results in ground disturbance

could increase the risk of weed invasion and establishment. The degree to which the introduction and spread

of weeds can be controlled changes by alternative. In

Alternative A weeds would continue to invade from

areas outside the LRA, though the size and number of

existing infestations could decrease with continued

treatments. In Alternative B there is an increased risk of

weed introduction and establishment because of

increases in commodity production that would introduce equipment and people to the LRA bringing weeds
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 34

from elsewhere or spread existing infestations. In

Alternative C the short-term risk of weed introduction

and establishment is high as restoration projects are

implemented which disturb the ground surface. In the

long term, the risk of weed invasion would decrease as

improvements in ecological function are realized.

Under Alternative D the risk of weed introduction and

establishment may decrease as inventory, control, and

education efforts are expanded. The impact in Alternative E is mixed. The exclusion of permitted uses and

commodity production may provide less opportunity

for weed introduction and establishment. However, the

lack of restoration and fire rehabilitation may lead to an

increase in weed spread.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

At the present time, the Fremont National Forest, with

the exception of the Silver Lake Ranger District, does

not have a comprehensive, ongoing weed management

program. As a result, the forest would continue to be a

source of weed infestation since the headwaters of

many of the streams on the planning area are on the

forest. Weed seeds would continue to travel downstream onto BLM-administered lands. The Silver Lake

Ranger District has a weed management program

which would help to minimize weed infestation from

forest sources in the northern part of the planning area.

If the injunction against the use of certain herbicides is

lifted in the future, it would facilitate the control and

eradication of weeds on BLM-administered lands.

However, it is likely that regardless of the methods

used to control weeds, their introduction and spread

would continue for the foreseeable future.

Soils

Management Goal—Manage soil on public lands to

maintain, restore, or enhance soil erosion class and

watershed improvement and protect areas of fragile

soil using best management practices (BMP’s).

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

BMP’s (see Appendix D) are implemented on a caseby-case basis and are not always applied. As a result,

impacts to soils can occur from the construction or

maintenance of roads, range improvements, and other

surface-disturbing projects. Impacts are usually soil

compaction from vehicle or livestock or wild horse use

and loss of soil offsite by wind and water erosion.

Soils would be impacted by mining activity such as the

Tucker Hill Perlite Mine and the Oil-Dri diatomaceous

earth mining operation in Christmas Valley. Soils

could be removed offsite or lost to erosion. To minimize this impact and to aid in reclamation of mined

sites, soil would be stockpiled onsite and seeded as

needed to stablize soil movement and retain organic

matter.

Leaving 79 percent of the planning area open to OHV

use could have an impact on soils. Vehicles would be

able to drive off existing roads and ways which would

result in soil compaction, thereby slowing or preventing water infiltration and causing erosion.

Current road density in the various watersheds in the

planning area is very low to moderate (ranging from

0.02 to 1.7 miles of road per square mile of land) as

described by the ICBEMP scientific findings. This

road density is not a significant impact on soils except

in localized areas where roads pass through fragile

soils.

Domestic livestock and wild horses have negative

impacts to soils by increased compaction at waterholes

and along trails. Overuse of vegetation can degrade

soil conditions. Areas with poor soil conditions would

remain in poor condition. Vegetation and soils currently in poor condition in the Paisley Desert and

Sheeprock areas would remain a low priority for

improvement and would possibly get worse.

Burned areas would be rehabilitated on a case-by-case

basis. This would eventually provide vegetative cover

and reduce soil erosion from burned areas.

Alternative B

Implementing BMP’s (Appendix D) on all projects that

could potentially affect soils would reduce impacts to

soils. Additional road construction and maintenance

and rights-of-way use, to support commodity-related

activities, would minimally increase soil and vegetation

impacts.

Mining activity would impact soils similar to that under

Alternative A. Any stockpiled soil for reclamation

would be seeded to provide a vegetation cover to

reduce offsite soil loss from the stockpiles due to wind

and water erosion during the life of the mining operation.

Leaving 79 percent of the planning area open to OHV
Environmental Consequences

4 -35

use would have a negative impact on soils. Vehicles

would be able to drive off existing roads and ways

which would result in soil compaction, reduce water

infiltration, and cause subsequent erosion. Soil compaction and erosion would occur in areas of high

concentration of recreation users such as developed or

semideveloped sites or campgrounds. Increased

livestock use would increase soil compaction, especially around watering and salting areas, and reduce

vegetation cover and litter. These actions would

increase soil erosion potential.

Restoration of areas in poor condition such as Paisley

Desert and Sheeprock would be a high priority under

this alternative. Such restoration would improve soil

conditions.

Road closures would be few under this alternative—

but any closures would help to reduce soil compaction

and potential erosion.

Alternative C

Improvements to soil condition would be greatest under

this alternative. Use of BMP’s would be required on

all potential soil-disturbing projects. This would reduce

loss of soil during construction as well as reducing soil

loss from erosion after the project is finished. Fewer

projects would be completed under this alternative.

Mineral exploration and development activity would be

least and most restricted under this alternative; therefore, impacts to soils from mineral activity would be

minimal.

All OHV use would be limited to existing or designated roads and trails or ways. Off-road driving of any

kind would not be allowed. This would prevent

development of new trails, soil compaction, and new

erosion sources.

Areas that are burned by wildland fire would be

rehabilitated or revegetated to protect soil, water, and

vegetation resources, and to prevent introduction of

noxious weeds and cheatgrass. Livestock use of

burned areas would be deferred during the growing

season for a minimum of 2 years following rehabilitation, thereby allowing vegetation to become better

established and the soil to be stabilized.

Watershed improvement for both function and processes would enhance soil conditions in most cases.

Appropriate grazing of available forage could retain

adequate plant litter to maintain soil productivity and

limit erosion, and with lower utilization levels,

progress toward attaining desired range of conditions

would be accelerated.

Restoration of areas in poor condition such as the

Paisley Desert and Sheeprock areas would be a high

priority under this alternative. Such restoration would

improve soil conditions.

The greatest amount of existing roads would most

likely be closed under this alternative. This would

reduce soil compaction and erosion potential, especially on a watershed basis.

Alternative D

Improvements to soil condition would be greater under

this alternative than Alternatives A or B, but less than

Alternative C. Use of BMP’s would be required on all

potential soil-disturbing projects. This would reduce

loss of soil during construction as well as reducing soil

loss from erosion after the project is finished.

Mining activity would impact soils similar to that under

Alternative B, but activity would be less under this

alternative. On any mineral exploration or excavation

activity, topsoil would be stockpiled and used for

reclamation. Stockpiled soil would be seeded to reduce

loss to wind or water erosion.

Restoration of areas in poor condition such as the

Paisley Desert and Sheeprock areas would be a high

priority under this alternative. Such restoration would

improve soil conditions.

Impacts to soils from OHV use could be significant

under this alternative. Approximately 64 percent of the

planning area would be open to crosscountry travel by

OHV which would result in increased soil compaction

and increased erosion potential.

Any road closures would help to decrease soil compaction and erosion, especially on a watershed basis.

Alternative E

BMP’s would be implemented for all soil-disturbing

projects initiated under this alternative. However, very

few new projects would be done.

With the removal of livestock grazing, the condition of

areas previously impacted would recover as allowed by

competing exotic annual species and/or lack of soil.

Deposition of plant litter and incorporation of organic

matter into the soil would increase across the land-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 36

scape, resulting in increased productivity, decreased

erosion caused by overland flow of precipitation, and

progress toward desired range of conditions. On sites

dominated by native species, rates of water, nutrient,

and energy cycling, and soil movement would be

restored to near historic levels. Sites supporting shallow-rooted exotic annual species would continue to

alter water, nutrient, and energy cycling, and accelerate

soil erosion.

Short-term impacts to soil resources would occur as

existing rangeland projects supporting livestock

grazing are abandoned and structures are removed. In

the long term, areas disturbed during project removal

would revegetate naturally to resemble surrounding

vegetation communities; however, areas around past

water holes would recover more slowly depending on

extent of impacts.

Impacts to vegetation and soil resources from recreation activities would increase within areas of concentrated activity, including developed facilities. Human

caused wildland fire may increase as recreational

activity increases, resulting in impacts to soil and

vegetation resources.

Wild horses would have negative impacts to soils by

increased compaction at waterholes and along trails.

Areas with poor soil conditions would remain in poor

condition. Vegetation and soils currently in poor

condition in the Paisley Desert and Sheeprock areas

would remain a low priority for improvement and

would possibly get worse.

All OHV use would be limited to existing roads and

trails or ways. Off-road driving of any kind would not

be allowed. This would prevent development of new

trails, soil compaction, and new erosion sources.

Limited maintenance of existing roads would increase

impacts to soil and vegetative resources as a result of

normal breakdown of roadbeds, wet-weather rutting by

vehicles, and channeling of runoff.

Summary of Impacts

BMP’s to protect and manage soil would be implemented for all ground-disturbing activities, such as all

new projects, livestock fences, grazing management

projects, road maintenance, and pipelines maintenance.

BMP’s are described in Appendix D.

The soil management objective would be met under all

the alternatives; however, Alternative C would provide

the greatest amount of protection to soils followed by

Alternative D.

The greatest potential impacts to soils would be from

OHV use in open areas, mineral development, and new

road construction. The likelihood of new mineral

development is low under all alternatives. Very little, if

any, new road construction is expected, since there has

been virtually none in the past 20 years.

Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts

Watersheds, including the soil component, on the

public land have improved since the late 1800s. With

the implementation of BMP’s as standard operation

procedures under all alternatives, this improvement

would continue. However, there are some upland

vegetation and soils conditions that cannot recover

without active restoration. Such restoration projects

are provided for in several other resources across the

various alternatives.

Soil, vegetation, and watershed conditions are intricately tied together. While improving one component

can help to improve the others, the greatest benefit

comes from the synergistic effect of improving all

components. It is the intent of this plan that the

synergistic effect would be carried through the life of

the plan and beyond.

Water Resources/Watershed

Health

Management Goal 1—Protect or restore watershed

function and processes which determine the appropriate rates of precipitation capture, storage and release.

Management Goal 2—Ensure that surface water and

groundwater influenced by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) activities comply with or are making

significant progress toward achieving State of Oregon

water quality standards for beneficial uses as established by the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality (ODEQ).

Assumptions Common to Alternatives

• Water quality management plans or total maximum

daily loads would improve watershed heath.

• The “Clean Water Act” (CWA) would be implemented through the use of BMP’s and the development of water quality resource plans.
Environmental Consequences

4 -37

• Management activities that improve vegetation in

uplands and riparian areas are assumed to decrease

flood magnitude and frequency and to improve late

season flows.

• Native plant communities capture, store, use, and

release water in a processes which decreases

erosion.

• The amount of compaction in a watershed can be

estimated by the miles of roads.

Analysis of Impacts

Direct impacts: Indicators of change for direct

impacts to watershed health in this analysis are (1)

percent of the watershed in potential natural plant

communities, and (2) amount of compacted land

surface. Upland plant communities are currently being

inventoried to describe what is there and what condition it is in—this is called ecological site inventory. An

estimate can be made of plant communities and their

condition but the data would be updated with the

ecological site inventory information in the future. The

amount of compacted area in the watershed would be

estimated by the miles of roads. If a watershed has

many roads it would also have barrow pits, trails,

recreation sites, and other compacted areas in proportion to the amount of roads. Road density would be

used as a surrogate for amount of compaction.

Risk analysis: The data necessary to analyze the

indicators of change for direct impacts is currently

being collected and can not always be estimated for

Alternatives B through E. This effects analysis would

look at risk of proposed management based on total

number of acres managed, ability of management to

change the vegetation community, and ability of

management to increase compaction of bare soil. While

some management actions can have a wide range of

effects, more acres affected or more intense management would increase the risk of changing the vegetation community, increasing compaction and increasing

the amount of bare soil. An example would be OHV

use. The risk to watershed function increases with the

amount of acres open to use—not all use causes a

decrease to watershed function, but the risk is there.

Effects common to all alternatives: All alternatives

would implement the CWA by restoring and maintaining the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of

the water in the LRA. This includes meeting Oregon

State water quality standards and implementing BMP’s.

This would provide the baseline resource protection

and would protect watershed health. Over time, the

condition of watersheds would improve with implementation of the CWA.

There are 261,566 acres ungrazed within the LRA.

This management allows for natural capture, storage,

and release of precipitation. There are large areas with

little or no recreation, roads, mining, and vegetation

management (timber harvest or management). These

areas are naturally processing precipitation with little

change in infiltration or water storage capacity.

Alternative A

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focus

on maintaining current conditions and use. Restoration

is on a case-by-case basis. This would not move the

upland watershed vegetation communities towards

potential natural condition. This has a risk of changing

the rate and ability of the watershed to capture (infiltration rate), store (soil pore space), and release (plant use

or water subsurface movement). Implementation of

this alternative would maintain the upland watershed

condition, but currently there are areas in poor condition in the Sheep Rock area and Paisley Desert.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goals

and actions focus on achieving proper functioning

condition on 75 percent of the area. Restoration is on a

case-by-case basis. Proper functioning condition is the

first step towards achieving the desired range of

conditions. It would not achieve the potential natural

condition or desired conditions. Maintenance of

existing and construction of new spring developments

increase the risk to watershed function by increasing

water consumption and compaction by domestic

livestock, wild horses, and wildlife. Modification of

spring developments to allow riparian function would

improve watershed function. Construction and maintenance of water developments in intact playas and

lakebeds put these systems at risk of negative impacts

on watershed function of capture, storage, and release

because of increased compaction, loss of vegetation,

and damage to the confining layer.

The western juniper woodlands management goals and

actions focus on meeting public demand for products.

This may or may not have negative impacts, but with

undeveloped BMP’s, there is an increased risk of

negative effects to watershed function (capture, storage, and release) due to change in vegetation communities and increased compaction.

The special status plant species management goals and

actions focus on individual species and has one RNA
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 38

and ACEC, the Lost Forest. This management does not

achieve ecological or watershed goals and thus has

risks for negative effects towards watershed function.

The noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management goals and actions focus on integrated

management. The populations of noxious weeds and

competing undesirable vegetation have increased

negative effects on watershed function by decreasing

the amount of water captured and an increasing use of

water onsite.

The water resources and watershed health management

goals and actions focus on maintaining current conditions and use. This puts watershed function at risk due

to use of minimum standards for road building and

other management. Restoration would be on a case-bycase basis without watershed analysis. Because BMP’s

are prescribed on a case-by-case basis without longterm effectiveness monitoring, there is a risk to watershed functions.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals and

actions focus on instream and near stream condition

and use. Protection of fish habitat, riparian areas, and

streams do support a healthy watershed.

Under Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, management of

special status animal species focuses on maintenance,

restoration, or enhancement of habitat. This would

support watershed function by moving vegetation and

soil conditions closer to potential natural community.

Managing for a single species can put watershed

functions at risk because an ecological, holistic approach is not used and the interaction of watershed

function and multiple species needs to be addressed.

The livestock grazing management actions would

authorize 108,234 AUM’s for livestock grazing.

Temporary nonrenewable grazing use would also be

allowed. While this can be achieved with no negative

impacts to watershed function, there currently are areas

with poor vegetation and soils conditions. In these

areas, there are negative impacts to watershed functions of capture, storage and release.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus on

continuation of horses using the range near Paisley and

Beaty Butte. Wild horses have negative impacts to

watershed function by increased water consumption

and compaction at waterholes, and overuse can degrade

vegetation and soil conditions. Currently there are

areas with poor vegetation and soils condition, negatively impacting watershed functions of capture,

storage, and release. Because the restoration of poor

condition, unhealthy rangelands in the Paisley Desert

would remain a low priority, negative effects would

possibly get worse.

The SMA management goals and actions focus on

maintaining current number of special management

areas with limited increase of acreage. Areas in special

management are at lower risk of damage to watershed

function then areas under multiple use management.

This alternative has a risk for negative impacts to

watershed function.

The fire management goals and actions focus on

suppression, rehabilitation, and fuels reduction treatments. Treatments would occur on 10,000 to 20,000

acres annually. Negative impacts can occur with fire

suppression and mechanical treatments due to increased compaction. There is a risk for negative

impacts to watershed function.

The recreation management goals and actions focus on

maintaining current conditions and use with increase

development as indicated by public demand. This

alternative has 2,510,908 acres open to OHV’s. This

use increases the risk of compaction and degraded

vegetation or soil condition. This alternative has a risk

for negative impacts to watershed function.

The energy and minerals management goals and

actions focus on maintaining current conditions and

use. This use increases the risk of compaction and

degraded vegetation or soil condition. This alternative

has a risk for negative impacts to watershed function.

The lands and realty management goals and actions

focus on maintaining current conditions and use. Land

adjustments which acquire land in good watershed

condition would improve overall watershed function.

Implementation of rights-of-way for road building and

utility corridors increase the risk of compaction and

degraded vegetation or soil condition. This alternative

has a possibility of both improving and degrading

watershed function.

The roads and transportation management goals and

actions focus on maintaining current conditions and

use. Closing roads not needed or causing resource

damage would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Roads increase compaction and degraded vegetation

within and near the road bed. Currently the road

density by subbasin is shown on Map R-4.

This alternative has a risk for negative impacts to

watershed function, but this would be decreased with

the closure and obliteration of unneeded roads.
Environmental Consequences

4 -39

Alternative B

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focus

on improving forage for livestock grazing. Restoration

goal is to increase forage on degraded landscapes. This

would not move the upland watershed vegetation

communities towards potential natural community.

The desired range of condition for the schrub steppe is

a range of vegetation communities including those not

at potential natural condition. This has a risk of

changing the rate and ability of the watershed to

capture (infiltration rate), store (soil pore space), and

release (plant use or water subsurface movement).

Implementation of this alternative would maintain the

upland watershed condition. There is a risk to watershed functions because the amount of compaction and

water use by plants has been altered, negatively effecting watershed functions. The risk is greater with

implementation of this alternative as compared to

Alternative A for shrub steppe management.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goals

and actions focus on achieving proper functioning

condition. Restoration is on a case-by-case basis but

would not interfere with commodity production.

Proper functioning condition is the first step towards

achieving the desired range of conditions. It would not

achieve the potential natural community or desired

condition. Modification of spring developments to

allow riparian function would improve watershed

function. Construction and maintenance of water

developments in intact playas and lakebeds put these

systems at risk of negative impacts on watershed

function of capture, storage, and release because of

increased compaction, loss of vegetation, and damage

to the confining layer. The risk is less with implementation of this alternative as compared to Alternative A

for riparian and wetland management.

The western juniper woodlands management goals and

actions focus on maximizing allowable commercial and

public harvest. With the implementation of this

alternative, there is an increased risk of negative effects

to watershed function (capture, storage, and release)

due to increased compaction. Harvesting trees down

through a drainage also increase the risk of changing

subsurface flow to surface flow increasing erosion.

The risk is greater with implementation of this alternative as compared to Alternative A for western juniper

management.

The special status plant species management goals and

actions focus on individual species and has one RNA

and ACEC. This management does not achieve ecological or watershed goals and thus has risks for

negative effects towards watershed function. The risk

is the same with implementation of this alternative as

compared to Alternative A for special status plant

species management.

The noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management goals and actions focus on integrated

management, increased inventory, and education.

Populations of noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation may increase with this alternative, thus

causing a negative effect on watershed function by

decreasing the amount of water captured and increasing

use of water onsite. The risk is less with the implementation of this alternative than with implementation of

Alternative A for noxious weeds and competing

undesirable vegetation management.

The water resources and watershed health management

goals and actions focus on maintaining current conditions and protection of the riparian conservation area.

This puts watershed function at risk due to minimum

standards for road building and other management.

Restoration would be on a case-by-case basis with out

watershed analysis. Because BMP’s are prescribed on

a case-by-case basis without long-term effectiveness

monitoring, there is a risk to watershed functions. The

focus of management in the riparian conservation area

does not protect the uplands, thus there is a risk to

watershed functions. The risk is less with the implementation of this alternative than with implementation

of Alternative A for water resources and watershed

health management.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals and

actions focus on instream and near stream condition

and use. Protection of fish habitat, riparian areas, and

streams do support a healthy watershed, but do not

protect the uplands; thus, there is a risk to watershed

functions. The risk is greater with implementation of

this alternative as compared to Alternative A for fish

and aquatic habitat management.

Under Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, management of

special status animal species focuses on maintenance,

restoration, or enhancement of habitat. This would

support watershed function by moving vegetation and

soil conditions closer to potential natural community.

Managing for a single species can put watershed

functions at risk because the interaction of watershed

function and multiple species needs to be addressed.

The risk is the same with implementation of this

alternative as compared to Alternative A for special

status animal species management.

The livestock grazing management actions would
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 40

authorize 119,057 AUM’s for livestock grazing and

optimize temporary nonrenewable grazing use. The

increase in the amount of AUM's increases the risk of

negative impacts to watershed function. There could

be negative impacts to watershed functions of capture,

storage, and release. The risk is greater with implementation of this alternative as compared to Alternative

A for livestock grazing management.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus on

continuation of horses using the range near Paisley and

Beaty Butte. Wild horses have negative impacts to

watershed function by increased water consumption

and compaction at waterholes, and overuse can degrade

vegetation and soil conditions. Currently there are

areas with poor vegetation and soils condition. There

are negative impacts to watershed functions of capture,

storage, and release. Restoration of poor condition,

unhealthy rangelands in the Paisley Desert would

improve watershed function for that area. The risk of

negative impacts is less with the implementation of this

alternative than with implementation of Alternative A

for wild horse management, because of rangeland

restoration and changes in allocation based on monitoring.

The SMA management goals and actions focus on

increasing the number of special management areas by

adding Connley Hills with an increase in total acreage

of SMA’s. Areas in special management are at lower

risk of damage to watershed function then areas under

multiple use management. This alternative has a risk

for negative impacts to watershed function. The risk is

less with the implementation of this alternative than

with implementation of Alternative A for SMA’s.

The fire management goals and actions focus on

suppression, rehabilitation, and fuels reduction treatments. Treatments would occur on 0 to 64,000 acres

annually. With the increase of fuel treatment there

should be a decrease in wildland fire suppression.

There are more impacts from mechanical treatments

than prescribed fires. Negative impacts can occur with

fire suppression and mechanical treatments due to

increased compaction. There is a risk for negative

impacts to watershed function. The risk is greater with

the implementation of this alternative than with implementation of Alternative A for fire management.

The recreation management goals and actions focus on

increasing tourism and recreational use. This alternative has 2,507,474 acres open to OHV’s. This use

increases the risk of compaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition. This alternative has a risk for

negative impacts to watershed function. The risk is

greater with the implementation of this alternative than

with implementation of Alternative A for recreation

management.

The energy and minerals management goals and

actions focus on maximizing the amount of land and

water available for exploration and development. This

use increases the risk of compaction and degraded

vegetation or soil condition. This alternative has a risk

for negative impacts to watershed function. Revoking

the public water reserve withdrawals would decrease

our ability to provide for public multiple use and would

increase single private use. The area around Abert

Lake, especially the north end, would be impacted by

removal of lake-level and total dissolved solids stipulations on leasing in Lake Abert. Any development or

extraction of lakebed evaporites such as sodium salts

would negatively impact water resources of Lake Abert

by changing the water cycle of the lake and altering the

water chemistry. This alternative has a risk for negative impacts to watershed function. The risk is greater

with the implementation of this alternative than with

implementation of Alternative A for energy and minerals management.

The lands and realty management goals and actions

focus on maintaining current conditions and increasing

area that could be used. Emphasizing land tenure and

access acquisition for commodity production adjustments for commodity production could preclude

acquisition of high resource value property and result

in missed opportunities to facilitate management

watershed health. Rights-of-way granted in currently

excluded areas could have a negative effect by land

disturbance from construction which increase compaction and impacts vegetation condition. Expansion of

powerline corridors to 2,000 feet could have substantial

negative effects due to the increased size of the potential disturbance area. This alternative has a risk for

negative impacts to watershed function. The risk is

greater with the implementation of this alternative than

with implementation of Alternative A for lands and

realty management.

The roads and transportation management goals and

actions focus on maintaining current conditions and

use. Roads increase compaction and degrade vegetation within and near the road bed. This alternative has

a risk for negative impacts to watershed function. The

risk is greater with the implementation of this alternative than with implementation of Alternative A for

roads and transportation management. Closing roads

would reduce areas of soil compaction and potential

erosion sources.
Environmental Consequences

4 -41

Alternative C

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focus

on restoring and maintaining a diverse composition and

structure of vegetation. From a watershed perspective,

restoring degraded conditions would move the upland

watershed vegetation communities towards potential

natural condition. Implementation of this alternative

could maintain and improve the upland watershed

condition. Implementation of Alternative C has less

risk than Alternatives A or B.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goals

and actions focus on identification and development of

riparian management objectives. Restoration is on a

case-by-case basis. This would move the watershed

towards achieving the desired range of conditions.

Rehabilitation of developed springs would return flows

to channels that would improve watershed function of

capture, storage, and release. Determining feasibility

of wetland restoration in lakebeds and playas could

improve watershed function. Removing roads from

riparian conservation area would allow full development of floodplains and reduce sediment loads improving watershed condition. Implementation of Alternative C has less risk than Alternative A, which has less

risk than Alternative B.

The western juniper woodlands management goals and

actions focus on protection of resource values. This

would move the juniper ecosytems toward potential

natural community. With the implementation of this

alternative, there is a risk of negative effects to watershed function (capture, storage, and release) due to

increased compaction. Harvesting trees down in the

drainages also increases the risk of changing subsurface flow to surface flow thereby increasing erosion.

The risk is less with implementation of this alternative

than Alternative A or Alternative B for western juniper

management.

The special status plant species management goals and

actions focus on restoration and enhancement and

creates 11 RNA’s and ACEC’s. This management

moves towards ecological or watershed goals and thus

has a low risk for negative effects towards watershed

function. The risk is less with implementation of this

alternative than Alternative A, which is the same as

Alternative B for special status plant species management.

The noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management goals and actions focus on a zero

tolerance for noxious weeds. The populations of

noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation

would decrease which would have a positive effect by

helping to restore watershed function. The risk is less

with the implementation of this alternative than with

implementation of Alternative A or Alternative B for

noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation

management.

The water resources and watershed health management

goals and actions focus on reducing current impacts

and maintaining good condition. This restores watershed function due to decreased road densities; grazing

near streams, springs and wetlands; and uses in drainages where activities would adversely impact watershed function. The risk is less with the implementation

of this alternative than with implementation of Alternative B, which less than implementation of Alternative A

for water resources and watershed health management.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals and

actions focus on instream and near stream condition

and use and connectivity. Protection of fish habitat,

riparian condition, streams, and the watersheds that

support them would support a healthy watershed

function. The risk is less with implementation of this

alternative as compared to Alternative A, which is less

than implementation of Alternative B for fish and

aquatic habitat management.

The wildlife and wildlife habitat management of

special status animal species focuses on maintenance,

restoration, or enhancement of ecosystems. This would

support watershed function by moving vegetation and

soil conditions closer to potential natural community.

The risk is the less with implementation of this alternative as compared to Alternative A, which is the same

for implementation of Alternative B for special status

animal species management.

The livestock grazing management actions would

authorize 86,587 AUM’s for livestock grazing. While

this can be achieved with no negative impacts to

watershed function, there is a risk of negative impacts

to watershed functions of capture, storage, and release.

The risk is less with implementation of this alternative

as compared to Alternative A, which is less than

implementation of Alternative B for livestock grazing

management.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus on

continuation of horses using the range near Paisley and

Beaty Butte. Wild horses have negative impacts to

watershed function by increased water consumption

and compaction at waterholes, and over use can

degrade vegetation and soil conditions. There is a risk
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 42

for negative impacts to watershed functions of capture,

storage, and release. The risk is the same with the

implementation of this alternative as with implementation of Alternative B, and less than implementation of

Alternative A for wild horse management.

The SMA management goals and actions increases the

amount of SMA’s with an increase of acreage. Areas in

special management are at lower risk of damage to

watershed function then areas under multiple use

management. The amount of use, such as grazing or

recreation, increase the risk of compaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition. This alternative

has a decreased risk for negative impacts to watershed

function. The risk is less with the implementation of

this alternative than with implementation of Alternative

B, which is less than implementation of alternative A

for SMA management.

The fire management goals and actions focus on

limited suppression, native seed rehabilitation, and

fuels reduction on 0 to 640,000 acres. With the increase of fuel treatment, there should be a decrease in

wildland fire suppression. Fuels treatment would

emphasize prescribed fire. Negative impacts can occur

with fire suppression and mechanical treatments due to

increased compaction. The risk is less with the implementation of this alternative than with implementation

of Alternative A, which is less then implementation of

alternative B for fire management.

The recreation management goals and actions focus on

maintaining and enhancing natural values. With none

of the resource area designated open to OHV’s, this

alternative would begin to restore watershed function.

The risk is less with the implementation of this alternative than with implementation of Alternative A, which

is less than implementation of Alternative B for recreation management.

The energy and minerals management goals and

actions decrease the amount of land open to mining.

This use decreases the risk of compaction and degraded

vegetation or soil condition, but does not eliminate it.

This alternative has a risk for negative impacts to

watershed function. The risk is less with implementation of this alternative as compared to Alternative A,

which is less than implementation of Alternative B for

energy and minerals management.

The lands and realty management goals and actions

focus on improving current resource conditions and

use. Land adjustments would acquire land in good

watershed condition and improve overall watershed

function. Implementation of rights-of-way for road

building and utility corridors increase the risk of

compaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition.

There is an increase in rights-of-way exclusion. This

alternative has a greater possibility of improving rather

than degrading watershed function. The risk is less

with the implementation of this alternative than with

implementation of Alternative A which is less then

implementation of Alternative B for lands and realty

management.

The roads and transportation management goals and

actions focus on protecting resource values. Closing

roads not needed or causing resource damage would be

considered on a case-by-case basis. BMP’s would be

used. Roads increase compaction and degraded

vegetation within and near the road bed. This alternative has a risk for negative impacts to watershed

function, but this would decrease with protection of

resources. The risk is less with the implementation of

this alternative than with implementation of Alternative

A, which is less then implementation of Alternative B

for roads and transportation management.

Alternative D

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focus

on restoring and maintaining natural values while

providing forage production. Restoration of degraded

conditions would be from a watershed perspective.

This would move the upland watershed vegetation

communities towards potential natural condition.

Implementation of this alternative could maintain and

improve the upland watershed condition. Implementation of Alternative D has greater risk than Alternative

C, but less risk than Alternative A or Alternative B for

shrub steppe management.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goals

and actions focus on identification and development of

riparian management objectives. Restoration is on a

case-by-case basis. This would move the watershed

towards achieving the desired range of conditions. Not

allowing new water developments in intact playas and

lakebeds would decrease the risk of negative impacts to

watershed functions. Removing roads, which negatively impact streams from riparian conservation area,

would allow full development of floodplains and

reduce sediment loads improving watershed condition.

Implementation of Alternative D has greater risk than

Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative A, which

has less risk than Alternative B for riparian and wetland

vegetation management.

The western juniper woodlands management goals and

actions focus on protection of resource values. This
Environmental Consequences

4 -43

would move the juniper ecosystems toward potential

natural conditions. With the implementation of this

alternative there is a risk of negative effects to watershed function (capture, storage, and release) due to

increased compaction. Harvesting trees down in the

drainages also increases the risk of changing subsurface flow to surface flow increasing erosion. Implementation of Alternative D has greater risk than

Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative A, which

has less risk than Alternative B for western juniper

woodlands management.

The special status plant species management goals and

actions focus on restoration and enhancement and

creates 12 ACEC/RNA’s. This management moves

towards ecological or watershed goals and thus has a

low risk for negative effects towards watershed function. Implementation of Alternative D has the same

risk as Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative A,

which has the same risk as Alternative B for special

status plant species management.

The noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management goals and actions focus an integrated

approach. The populations of noxious weeds and

competing undesirable vegetation would decrease and

have a positive effect by helping to restore watershed

function. Implementation of Alternative D has greater

risk than Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative B,

which has less risk than Alternative A for noxious

weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management.

The water resources and watershed health management

goals and actions focus on reducing current impacts

and maintaining good condition. This moves towards

restoring watershed function due to implementation of

BMP’s, minimum standards for upland grazing, and

evaluation of near stream grazing. Implementation of

Alternative D has greater risk than Alternative C, but

less risk than Alternative B, which has less risk than

Alternative A for water resources and watershed health

management.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals and

actions focus on protection and restoration of instream

and near stream condition. Protection of fish habitat,

riparian condition, streams, and the watersheds that

support them would support a healthy watershed

function. Implementation of Alternative D has greater

risk than Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative A,

which has less risk than Alternative B for fish and

aquatic habitat management.

Under Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, management of

special status animal species focuses on maintenance,

restoration or enhancement of ecosystems. This would

support watershed function by moving vegetation and

soil conditions closer to potential natural community.

Implementation of Alternative D has the same risk as

Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative A, which is

the same as Alternative B for special status animal

species management.

The livestock grazing management actions would

authorize 108,234 AUM’s for livestock grazing and

have temporary nonrenewable grazing use. While this

can be achieved with no negative impacts to watershed

function, there is a risk of negative impacts to watershed functions of capture, storage, and release. Implementation of Alternative D has greater risk than

Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative A, which

has less risk than Alternative B for livestock grazing

management.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus on

continuation of horses using the range near Paisley and

Beaty Butte. Wild horses have negative impacts to

watershed function by increase water consumption and

compaction at waterholes, and over use can degrade

vegetation and soil conditions. There is a risk for

negative impacts to watershed functions of capture,

storage, and release. Implementation of Alternative D

has greater risk than Alternative A, which has greater

risks than Alternatives B and C.

The SMA management goals and actions increases the

amount of SMA’s with an increase of acreage. Areas in

special management are at lower risk of damage to

watershed function then areas under multiple use

management. The amount of use, such as grazing or

recreation, increase the risk of compaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition. This alternative

has a decreases risk for negative impacts to watershed

function. Implementation of Alternative D has greater

risk than Alternative C, but less risk than Alternative B,

which has less risk than Alternative A for SMA’s.

The fire management goals and actions focus on

limited suppression, native seed rehabilitation, and

fuels reduction on 0 to 480,000 acres. With the increase of fuel treatment there should be a decrease in

wildland fire suppression. Negative impacts can occur

with fire suppression and mechanical treatments due to

increased compaction. Implementation of Alternative

D has a greater risk than Alternative C, but less than

Alternative A, which is less than Alternative B for fire

management.

The recreation management goals and actions focus on
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 44

maintaining and developing recreational uses. This

alternative has 2,447,060 acres open to OHV’s. This

alternative has a risk of negatively impacting watershed

function. Implementation of Alternative D has a

greater risk as Alternative C, which is less than Alternative A, which is less than Alternative B for recreation

management.

The energy and minerals management goals and

actions decrease the amount of land open to mining

from the current level. This use decreases the risk of

compaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition,

but does not eliminate it. This alternative has a risk for

negative impacts to watershed function. Implementation of Alternative D has a greater risk as Alternative C,

which is less than Alternative A, which is less than

Alternative B for energy and minerals management.

The lands and realty management goals and actions

focus on maintaining current resource conditions and

use. Land adjustments would acquire land in good

watershed condition and improve overall watershed

function. Implementation of rights-of-way for road

building and utility corridors increase the risk of

compaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition.

There is an increase in rights-of-way exclusion. This

alternative has a greater possibility of improving rather

than degrading watershed function. Implementation of

Alternative D has a greater risk than Alternative C, but

less than Alternative A or Alternative B for lands and

realty management.

The roads and transportation management goals and

actions focus on protecting resource values. Closing

roads not needed or causing resource damage would be

considered on a case-by-case basis. BMP’s would be

used. Roads increase compaction and degraded

vegetation within and near the road bed. This alternative has a risk for negative impacts to watershed

function, but this would decrease with protection of

resources. Implementation of Alternative D has the

same risk as Alternative C, but less than Alternative A,

which is less than Alternative B for roads and transportation management.

Alternative E

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focus

on natural restoration. This would move most upland

watershed vegetation communities towards potential

natural community. Implementation of this alternative

could maintain and improve the upland watershed

condition. Some vegetation communities would not

move towards desired range of condition. Implementation of Alternative E has greater risk than Alternatives

D and C, but less risk than Alternatives A or B for

shrub steppe management.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goals

and actions focus on natural restoration. This would

move the watershed towards achieving the desired

range of condition. Implementation of Alternative E

has less risk than Alternative C, which is less than

Alternative D, which is less than Alternative A, which

has less risk than Alternative B for riparian and wetland

vegetation management.

The western juniper woodlands management goals and

actions focus on natural restoration. This would move

the watershed towards achieving the desired range of

conditions. Implementation of Alternative E has less

risk than Alternative C, which is less than Alternative

D, which is less than Alternative A, which has less risk

than Alternative B for riparian and wetland vegetation

management.

The special status plant species management goals and

actions focus on restoration and protection with no new

ACEC/RNA’s. This management moves towards

ecological or watershed goals and thus has a low risk

for negative effects towards watershed function.

Implementation of Alternative E has a greater risk than

Alternative D and C, but less risk than Alternatives A

and B for special status plant species management.

The noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management goals and actions are limited. Populations of noxious weeds and competing undesirable

vegetation would increase and have a negative effect

on watershed function. Implementation of Alternative

E has greater risk than all other alternatives for noxious

weeds and competing undesirable vegetation management.

The water resources and watershed health management

goals and actions focus on natural restoration. This

would move most upland watershed vegetation communities towards potential natural community. Implementation of this alternative could maintain and

improve the upland watershed condition. Some

vegetation communities would not move towards

desired condition. Implementation of Alternative E has

greater risk than Alternative C, but less risk than

Alternatives D, A, or B for water resources and watershed health management.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals and

actions focus on natural restoration. Long-term

restoration of fish habitat, riparian condition, streams,
Environmental Consequences

4 -45

and the watersheds that support them would support a

healthy watershed function. Implementation of Alternative E has less risk than all the other alternatives for

fish and aquatic habitat management.

Under Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, management of

special status animal species focuses on natural restoration. This would support watershed function by moving

vegetation and soil conditions closer to potential

natural community. Implementation of Alternative E

has less risk than Alternatives C and D, which is less

than Alternatives A and B for special status animal

species management.

There would be no permitted livestock grazing. This

reduces the risk of negative impacts from livestock

grazing. Implementation of Alternative E has less risk

than Alternative C, which is less than Alternative D,

which is less than Alternative A, which is less risk than

Alternative B for livestock grazing management.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus on

continuation of horses using the range near Paisley and

Beaty Butte. Wild horses have negative impacts to

watershed function by increased water consumption

and compaction at waterholes, and over-use can

degrade vegetation and soil conditions. There is a risk

for negative impacts to watershed functions of capture,

storage, and release. Implementation of Alternative E

has the same risk as Alternative D, which has a greater

risk than Alternative A, which has greater risk than

Alternatives B and C.

There would be no SMA’s or commodity use. The risk

of damage to watershed function is minimal because of

the decrease in commodity uses. Implementation of

Alternative E has less risk than Alternative C, which is

less than Alternative D, which is less than Alternative

B, which is less risk than Alternative A for SMA

management.

Fire managment actions would focus primarily on

protecting life and property. As a result, fire suppression activities would be reduced. Negative impacts can

occur with fire suppression due to increased compaction of soils from equipment. Implementation of

Alternative E has less risk than Alternative C which is

less than Alternatives A and D, which are less than

Alternative B for fire management.

The recreation management goals and actions focus on

maintaining or minimizing current use. This alternative has no acres designated open to OHV’s. This

alternative would help restore watershed function.

Implementation of Alternative E has less risk than

Alternative C, which is less than Alternative D, which

is less than Alternative A, which is less risk than

Alternative B for recreation management.

The energy and minerals management goals and

actions would withdraw the entire resource area from

mining. This would significantly reduce the risk to

watershed function. Implementation of Alternative E

has less risk than Alternative C, which is less than

Alternative D, which is less than Alternative A, which

is less risk than Alternative B for energy and minerals

management.

The lands and realty management goals and actions

focus on maintaining current land status with a small

amount of disposal possible. The entire resource area

would be a rights-of-way exclusion area. This would

reduce the risk to watershed function. Implementation

of Alternative E has less risk than Alternative C, which

is less than Alternative D, which is less than Alternative A, which is less risk than Alternative B for lands

and realty management.

The roads and transportation management goals and

actions focus on maintaining existing road system.

Closing roads not needed or causing resource damage

would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Roads

increase compaction and degraded vegetation within

and near the road bed. This alternative has a risk for

negative impacts to watershed function, but this would

decrease with protection of resources. Implementation

of Alternative E has greater risk than Alternative C,

which is the same as Alternative D, which is less than

Alternative A, which is less risk than Alternative B for

roads and transportation management.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, water resources and watershed

health could continue to improve, although recovery

rates and extent of recovery would be reduced to allow

for commodity uses, including livestock, transportation

and recreation. Management would continue on a caseby-case, site-specific basis with less consideration for

watershed-scale effects. The management goals for

water resources and watershed health would be difficult to achieved under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative B would be the similar to

Alternative A because of law and policy (“Endangered

Species Act” and CWA, etc.) setting a high minimum

standard. Because of the priority on commodity

production the risk of negative impacts would increase

as would the cost and effort of implementation. Mini-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 46

mally acceptable conditions would be required and

mitigation would occur on a case-by-case basis rather

than on a watershed scale. While improvements could

occur, they would take longer and not be as extensive

as would occur under Alternative A. The management

goal for water resources and watershed health would be

more difficult to achieved under this alternative then

Alternative A.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less that

under Alternative A. Recovery rates would be much

faster and the final results would be better for water

resources and watershed health conditions. Watershedscale effects at the levels specified in Alternative C

would result in more stable conditions. The management goal for water resources and watershed health

would be achieved under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative D would be less that under

Alternative A. Impacts of implementation of water

resources and watershed health guides are similar to

Alternative C, including BMP implementation but with

less stringent direction to restore watershed function

and processes. More consideration is given to watershed-scale effects than under the current management.

The management goal for water resources and watershed health could be achieved under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative E would be less that under

Alternative A, except for noxious weeds. Without

disturbance from commodity production and permitted

uses, water resources and watershed health, in most

cases, would quickly improve and would progress to a

later plant community. However, some habitats would

need some type of active restoration, such as headcut

stabilization, or vegetation restoration to acheive

recovery within a 15 to 20 years. The management

goal for water resources and watershed health could be

achieved under this alternative.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Management which has or could affect our ability to

achieve water resource and watershed health goals

include any past, present, or future land-disturbing

activities in the watersheds. This includes activities

which take place on the USFS, state, or private lands,

and includes past grazing, timber harvest, or road

building. The complex system of water diversions

including dams, diversions, canals, and the draining

and ditching of wetlands all have cumulative effects on

the land BLM manages. These activities and uses are

considered when decision are made on BLM management. The cumulative effects are the same for all

alternatives.

Since the late 1800s, the overall watershed health of

the public lands has improved. The damage can still be

observed in streams as increased peak flows, decreased

base flows, and increased sediment loads and loss of

fish habitat. The damage to upland vegetation and soils

conditions is still occurring in systems that can not

recover without active restoration.

Noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetation

is the one area that has not improved since the late

1800s. This situation overshadows all desired conditions and changes the path of evolution for specific

plant communities. It also can prevent attainment of

desired conditions if not controlled on adjacent lands.

Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Management Goal—Restore, maintain, or improve

habitat to provide for diverse and self-sustaining

communities of wildlife, fishes, and other aquatic

organisms.

Assumptions

• Analysis of effects on stream habitat also represents effects on lake or reservoir habitat.

• Management activities that improve vegetation in

uplands and riparian areas are assumed to decrease

flood magnitude and frequency and to improve late

season flows. Additionally, improvement in

riparian/wetland vegetation would have a direct

improvement on fish and aquatic habitat.

• Effects of water quality management plans or total

maximum daily loads on fish habitat under all

alternatives are expected to be positive.

• Implementation of the “Recovery Plan for the

Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner

Basin and Alkali Subbasin” would be beneficial for

all native fish in the Warner Watershed as would

compliance with biological opinions for the sucker.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Minimum standards for roads and other construction

activities would provide minimal protection for fish
Environmental Consequences

4 -47

and aquatic habitat from degradation due to erosion

and sedimentation. Watershed condition improvement

is based on specific problem areas rather than by entire

watersheds, so additional watershed-level effects from

sediment production and flood events would be greater

than potential. Closing selected roads would have

localized positive effects. Current exclosures and

grazing systems have improved many riparian areas

and this improvement is predicted to continue. Riparian objectives are determined based on proper functioning condition levels, so consideration of potential is

lacking and could result in poorer conditions. As

discussed in Chapter 2, proper functioning condition is

only a beginning point, with desired range of condition

usually being a much more improved state; so, by

setting objectives based on proper functioning condition only, development to full potential of the habitat

could be precluded or not described adequately.

Because management designed to improve water

quality and to meet ODEQ standards would result in

improved watershed, stream conditions, and water

quality, these measures would improve fish and aquatic

habitats. The goal of reducing summer temperatures

would result in less stress to stream resident fish, thus

improving survival rates. Reduced sediment loads

would improve spawning gravels.

Because of the ability to adjust development sites,

thereby avoiding fish and aquatic habitats, oil and gas

developments should have little impact unless the

access roads to the sites or crosscountry travel and

exploration are associated with these habitats. In these

cases, sediment could be increased and vegetation

disturbed. Geothermal exploration and development

would have similar impacts as oil and gas, but an

additional concern is what effects development could

have on the ground water aquifers that supply springs.

Effects could be both to temperature and flow of

springs altering the habitats. Foskett Spring is of

special concern.

Exploration for sodium salts could have impacts to the

aquatic habitats associated with the development of

drill pads and roads especially around Abert Lake.

Development of a sodium mine would impact a much

larger area and would lower lake levels altering the

water availability to the shoreline vegetation. The

springs near the lake, including XL Spring, could be

impacted by lowered water tables and directly by the

plant construction and operation. While minimum lake

levels are prescribed by the current plan, lowering the

lake to these levels in 1 year could result in lower

levels in following years because of low imput due to

drought or increased irrigation demand. Wells developed to support mine operations could have a direced

impact to the shoreline springs. Impacts would depend

on the location of the plant and direction and location

of access and shipping routes.

Impacts from locatable minerals development and

exploration would depend entirely on the location of

the work. Prospecting would have little impact.

Exploration could result in surface disturbance including road construction. Increased sediment production

could be expected. Mine development could result in

increased runoff, sediment, and contamination of water

with chemicals. The extent of impact would depend on

the location of the mine in proximity to habitats.

Expected development at Tucker Hill, Sunstone Area,

and Christmas Valley diatomite operations would have

little effect on fish and aquatic habitats. Instream

suction dredging could increase sediment production,

alter width/depth and other channel characteristics, and

disturb or remove shoreline vegetation.

Impacts from salable mineral development would

depend on the location of the development, but should

be minimal based on the ability to modify location of

the site. Reclamation of 20 sites would improve

ground cover, reducing erosion and runoff potential,

and could be beneficial to fish and aquatic habitats.

Land tenure adjustments could be made to improve fish

and aquatic habitats. These habitats are considered in

land actions to minimize adverse effects. The acquisition of parcels along Twelvemile Creek would allow

instream improvements to benefit fish and aquatic

habitats. Rights-of-way development could have

negative effects with increased sediment production

and vegetation removal and disturbance. Depending on

the location and type of rights-of-way, mitigation can

minimize effects. Rights-of-way involving roads

would have greater impacts than small powerlines for

example. Access acquisition could be beneficial if it

facilitated management of fish and aquatic habitats;

however, if roads are constructed to complete access,

increased sediment and runoff could result.

Improving ecological conditions would benefit aquatic

habitats by reducing flood frequency and flow, increasing infiltration, and extending flows later into the

season. Improving ecological conditions along streams

and other riparian habitats would have direct improvement to these habitats. The extent of impacts from

vegetation manipulation would need to be determined

on a case-by-case basis depending on the implementation method and location. While vegetation manipulation projects may have short-term negative impacts as

ground is disturbed (such as by fire and disking), and
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 48

runoff and sedimentation increases, there should be

long-term positive impacts as ground cover increases,

thereby reducing runoff and sedimentation.

Limiting improvement based on proper functioning

condition would minimize the improvement potential

of fish and aquatic habitats over what would be possible based on potential of the site, especially if the

improvement is focused on the riparian/wetland site

instead of the overall watershed. As discussed in

Chapter 2, proper functioning condition is only a

beginning point, with desired range of condition

usually being a much more advance state; so, by setting

objectives based on proper functioning condition only,

development to full potential of the habitat could be

precluded or not described adequately.

Commercial forest management would have minimal

impacts to fish and aquatic habitats due to the low

amount of commercial forest lands in the planning area

and their location compared to habitats. While some

increase in runoff and sediment could be expected, they

could be reduced by following mitigation and current

harvest standards. By improving ground cover, juniper

management would benefit fish and aquatic habitats

when runoff and erosion is reduced. Juniper management associated with riparian/wetland habitats has a

direct beneficial effect and may increase flows at

springs (refer to Management Goal 2, Forest and

Woodlands). Current prohibition of juniper management in Deep, Twentymile, and Twelvemile Creek

Canyons would continue to degrade the uplands and

associated stream conditions.

Where special status plant habitats are associated with

fish and aquatic habitats, considering the effects to the

special status species would decrease impact to the

associated fish and aquatic habitat. However, emphasizing management based on individual species instead

of habitats could limit the amount of possible improvement. Weed control would have positive effects on fish

and aquatic habitats by improving ground cover and

decreasing competition with more desirable riparian/

wetland plant species.

Limiting new livestock water developments in playas

would protect the habitats of the aquatic species that

depend on the natural conditions.

Limiting livestock use on bitterbrush to meet deer

winter range needs could result in lighter riparian use

and would be beneficial to fish and aquatic habitats.

Livestock exclosures have maximized riparian improvement and recovery rates to the extent possible

without structural work, so maintenance of the

exclosures would be beneficial.

Road closures may improve fish and aquatic habitats if

they reduce runoff and erosion. The road closures and

rehabilitation could restore floodplain functioning and

reduce direct channel impingement.

Fish and aquatic habitats associated with special status

species habitats, for listed, candidate, and Bureau

species, would benefit from targeting the special status

species habitat for improvement, including implementation of conservation agreements and recovery plans.

Emphasizing individual species over habitats and

watershed-level effects would reduce the extent and

level of improvement. Emphasizing individual species

could have the effect of benefitting one species over

another which alters the effect of improvement to fish

and aquatic habitat.

Impacts to fish and aquatic habitats from livestock

grazing authorization are site specific and closely tied

to impact on associated vegetation. Direct impact to

banks from trampling and hoof action, as well as water

contamination from livestock waste products, can also

occur. Current livestock management has improved

conditions on most aquatic habitats; however, on some

springs and streams the grazing authorization is having

an adverse impact to the riparian areas. The sites that

are adversely effected are usually small, isolated

reaches more associated with private lands. Authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing use precludes

the excess vegetation from being left for ground cover

and litter development and further enhancement of

watershed conditions and fish and aquatic habitat.

There are no fish habitats associated with herd management areas. Wild horses use the herd management

areas year-round and impact aquatic habitats negatively

in those areas, especially the springs in the Beaty Butte

Herd Management Area. Confining horses to herd

management areas prevents damage to sites outside

these areas. Control of horse numbers would have

some beneficial effect, but because of concentration of

use on the springs, the effect is limited as damage

occurs from a minimal amount of season long use and

the additional use by greater numbers has little additional effect. Unless riparian sites are addressed

specifically, restoration of poor condition, unhealthy

rangelands in the Paisley Desert Herd Management

Area would have little effect. Maintenance and construction of water developments for horses could be

disruptive to aquatic habitats. By controlling use on

aquatic habitats, fence construction to control wild

horse use could be beneficial.
Environmental Consequences

4 -49

Limiting land disturbing activities within identified

Native American religious sites or traditional cultural

properties could preclude some activities such as

vegetation manipulation, property exchange, or structural improvement that would be beneficial to fish and

aquatic habitats. Traditional uses may impact fish and

aquatic habitats by vegetation removal.

Recreation activities in special recreation management

area’s may have some effect on fish and aquatic

habitat, but the effects would be limited if current

activity levels continue. Because use tends to concentrate around aquatic habitats, recreation activities could

have negative effects through channel alteration and

vegetation removal. Effects from development of

recreation sites and tourism opportunities and special

recreation permits would be site specific and could be

minimized by design. Controlling public use with

special recreation permits would be beneficial. OHV

activity has site-specific impacts that can be severe

when associated with fish and aquatic habitats. Even

though OHV control is limited under this alternative,

any control of use, as in specific closures and WSA’s,

would be beneficial. More diverse effects occur at the

watershed scale and can result in increased sediment

production. No specific areas have been identified as

having impact from OHV, but there are numerous areas

of use scattered across LRA. Some of these areas are

on two-track roads not on the transportation plan and

others are on open areas and hill sides.

Managing WSA’s as VRM Class I could preclude some

management actions beneficial to fish and aquatic

habitats such as instream structures and watershedlevel vegetation management, especially juniper.

These effects would apply to acquired lands incorporated into WSA’s.

Current ACEC and RNA designations have no effect on

fish and aquatic habitats. Interim protection of outstandingly remarkable values for WSR’s could preclude some management actions beneficial to fish and

aquatic habitats such as instream structures and watershed-level vegetation management, especially juniper.

The effect of making contracts for services and sale of

products available to local firms would be site specific.

However, if competition is limited, the cost of projects

to improve fish and aquatic habitats could be greater so

fewer projects would be developed. Continuing

commodity production levels could result in excessive

use on some areas and continued facility operation—

especially some roads—could result in channel effects

and sedimentation.

Fire control activities including line construction, aerial

retardant application, and engine access can have

negative effects to fish and aquatic habitat values.

Effects would need to be determined on a case-by-case

basis. Emergency fire rehabilitation should be beneficial by reducing soil loss and sediment production by

fireline stabilization and increased ground cover.

Prescribed fire can be an effective tool for increasing

ground cover and releasing quaking aspen stands and

spring-associated habitats from competition with

invasive species, and would be beneficial to fish and

aquatic habitat values. The current level of activity is

inadequate to meet a return to a natural fire cycle; as a

result, some sites would continue to decline in ground

cover amounts.

Alternative B

This alternative introduces the concept of riparian

conservation areas management that would be beneficial to fish and aquatic habitat. Corridor fencing of

streams would increase maintenance and cost, but

would result in substantial improvement to currently

grazed streams.

To protect mineral development opportunities, restricting designation of management areas and land disposal

could result in increased impacts to fish and aquatic

habitats and lost opportunity to acquire valuable

habitats through exchange. The springs near Lake

Abert, including XL Spring, could be impacted by

lowered water tables and directly by the plant construction and operation, especially if current restrictions for

minimum lake level are lifted. Wells developed to

support mine operations could have a direced impact to

the shoreline springs. Impacts would depend on the

location of the plant and direction and location of

access and shipping routes.

Emphasizing land tenure adjustments for commodity

production could preclude acquisition of high resource

value property. Rights-of-way granted in currently

excluded areas could have a negative effect by land

disturbance from construction. Expansion of powerline

corridors to 2,000 feet could have substantial negative

effects due to the increased size of the potential disturbance area. Emphasizing access acquisition for

commodity production could result in missed opportunities to facilitate management of fish and aquatic

habitats. No withdrawal of mining and mineral leasing

could result in negative effects to fish and aquatic

habitats should development occur on lands that would

have been undisturbed.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 50

Optimizing forage production implies more extensive

use that could result in less ground cover and impacts

to habitats. Setting a desired range of condition would

be beneficial by recognizing the potential of the site.

Improving ecological conditions along streams and

other riparian habitats would have direct improvement

to these habitats but the improvement would be restricted because of the noninterference requirement to

commodity production.

Spring function improvement would occur but would

be limited because of the noninterference requirement

to commodity production.

The effects resulting from public and commercial use

of juniper would depend on harvest criteria and restrictions placed on harvest.

Allowing new livestock water developments in playas

could have negative impacts to the aquatic habitats

associated with intact lakes.

Road closures may improve fish and aquatic habitats if

they reduce runoff and erosion, but limiting closures to

those that would not impact commodity resources

could limit the improvement. Implementing BMP’s

would benefit fish and aquatic habitats by minimizing

impacts to these habitats and reducing erosion. Prohibiting water right acquisition could preclude opportunities for fish habitat improvement.

Impacts to fish and aquatic habitats from livestock

grazing authorization is site specific and closely tied to

impact to associated vegetation, including the allocation of additional AUM’s. Emphasizing project

construction over grazing management actions could

reduce the rate and extent of potential improvements.

Construction of additional water developments could

have a direct negative impact to aquatic habitats.

Optimizing the authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing use precludes the excess vegetation from

being left for ground cover and litter development and

further enhancement of watershed conditions and fish

and aquatic habitat.

If additional forage from adjustment of appropriate

management levels is allocated to livestock, the improvement to aquatic habitats associated primarily with

springs would be reduced over nonallocation. However,

livestock can be managed to provide seasonal rest or

deferment, so some improvement could be expected.

Maximizing OHV events could increase impacts to fish

and aquatic habitats from additional erosion and

sedimentation resulting in a loss of clean gravel sites.

Emergency fire rehabilitation should be beneficial by

reducing soil loss and sediment production by fireline

rehabilitation and increased ground cover; however,

allocation of additional forage to livestock would

reduce benefits.

Alternative C

Setting standards for watershed and soil conditions

would allow determination of progress towards meeting those standards. Closing roads would reduce

sedimentation and improve aquatic habitats, although

with some exceptions, impacts to fish habitats from

roads that could be moved are not great in the planning

area. Following BMP’s for grazing or eliminating this

use from areas not meeting objectives would improve

fish and aquatic habitats. Managing for watershed

improvement on the entire associated watershed would

result in more stable conditions and improved fish and

aquatic habitats.

Effects from closing areas to mineral entry would

depend on the location of the closure, but the effect

could be very benefical.

Limiting rights-of-way to designated corridors would

minimize additional impacts to fish and aquatic habitat.

Access acquisition could be beneficial if it facilitated

management of fish and aquatic habitats; however, if

roads are constructed to complete access, increased

sediment and runoff could result—consideration of

natural values would minimize these effects. Acquisition of high value resources, including riparian/wetland

habitat, would be a beneficial impact.

Minimizing forage production and range improvements

could improve fish habitat by reducing direct and

indirect impacts from grazing, and especially direct

effects from water developments.

Designation and management of riparian conservation

area would be beneficial to fish and aquatic habitat.

Rehabilitation of developed springs would return flows

to channels that would create additional habitats for

aquatic species. One example of this is the development at Falls Spring where most flow is diverted to a

trough, but spring snails are located in the natural

outflow channel left with the remaining water. Returning more flow to the channel would create more secure

and better habitat.

Removing roads from riparian conservation areas would

allow full development of floodplains and reduce sediment loads improving fish and aquatic habitats.
Environmental Consequences

4 -51

By improving ground cover, juniper management, as

described in Management Goal 2 of the Forest and

Woodlands section, would benefit fish and aquatic

habitats when runoff and erosion is reduced. Juniper

management associated with riparian/wetland habitats

has a direct beneficial effect and may increase flows at

springs; and from a watershed level, provides increased

and longer lasting stream flows. Limiting stand

treatment to 10 percent by wood cutting could reduce

benefits and limiting treatment to 50 percent of stands

with fire would reduce benefits. Some areas would

need treatment outside of fire to be effective.

Managing special status plant habitats based on desired

range of conditions and landscape-level effects would

stabilize improvement trends and allow for better longterm conditions over emphasizing management based

on individual species. Increased emphasis on weed

control would extend the benefits of this program.

Determining feasibility of wetland restoration in

lakebeds and playas could lead to improve aquatic

habitats.

Considering nongame species across the planning area

could result in additional positive effects to fish and

aquatic habitats over concentrating on game species

only. Many wildlife species in the Great Basin are

dependent on riparian habitat for all or part of their life

cycle needs. Improving conditions for all wildlife

species should relate directly to fish and aquatic habitat

improvements.

Restricting OHV use could benefit some fish aquatic

habitat, or prevent problems from occurring. At

Twelvemile Creek, OHV’s have eroded a hillside

which is creating a direct sediment input to the stream.

Preventing OHV use would allow the site to heal and

stop erosion and site degradation.

Emphasizing fish and aquatic habitats and only allowing use that promotes progress toward attainment of

instream processes would have direct beneficial effects,

especially related to watershed-scale effects. Acquisition of water rights for conversion to instream flows

would have substantial benefits by stabilizing flows

and maximizing riparian conditions.

Impacts to fish and aquatic habitats from livestock

grazing authorization is site specific and closely tied to

impacts to associated vegetation. Beneficial effects to

fish and aquatic habitats would occur from grazing

systems that maximize improved riparian conditions.

Allowing excess forage that would have been authorized under temporary nonrenewable grazing use to

remain ungrazed would increase ground cover and

litter development by reducing overland flow of water

and resulting erosion would have a beneficial effect on

watershed conditions and fish and aquatic habitat.

Increasing AUM’s allocated to wild horses while

maintaining numbers in the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area would reduce overall use if livestock

allocation is reduced, but there would be little change

in impact to aquatic habitats. Maintenance and construction of water developments for horses could be

disruptive to aquatic habitats. By controlling use on

aquatic habitats, fences could be beneficial. Seeding or

erosion control could provide some benefit to aquatic

habitats.

Managing WSR’s as VRM Class II could preclude

some management actions beneficial to fish and

aquatic habitats such as instream structures and watershed level vegetation management, especially juniper.

Alternative D

Because management designed to restore water quality

would result in improved watershed, stream conditions,

and water quality, these measures would improve fish

and aquatic habitats.

Impacts from implementation of energy and mineral

resources would be the same as in Alternative C, with

the possibility of development of additional acreage

causing additional effect.

Limiting rights-of-way to designated corridors would

minimize additional impacts to fish and aquatic habitats. Access acquisition could be beneficial if it

facilitated management of fish and aquatic habitats;

however, if roads are constructed to complete access,

increased sediment and runoff could result—consideration of natural values would minimize these effects.

Acquisition of high value resources in Zones 1 and 2,

including riparian/wetland habitat, would be a positive

impact.

Designation and management of riparian conservation

areas and establishing desired range of conditions and

managment objectives would be beneficial to fish and

aquatic habitat. Spring function improvement would

occur, but would be limited because of the requirement

to supply stock water. Considering watershed-level

effects and setting objectives based on desired range of

condition would be beneficial.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 52

By improving ground cover, juniper management, as

described in Management Goal 2, Forest and Woodlands, would benefit fish and aquatic habitats as runoff

and erosion are reduced. Juniper management associated with riparian/wetland habitats has a direct beneficial effect and may increase spring flows.

Managing special status plant habitats based on desired

range of conditions and landscape-level effects would

stabilize improvement trends and allow for better longterm conditions over emphasizing management based

on individual species.

Determining feasibility of wetland restoration in

lakebeds and playas could lead to improved aquatic

habitats. Limiting new livestock water developments

in playas would protect the habitats of the aquatic

species that depend on the natural conditions.

Considering nongame species across most areas could

result in additional positive effects to fish and aquatic

habitats over concentrating on game species only.

Many wildlife species in the Great Basin are dependent

on riparian habitats for all or part of their life cycle

needs. Improving conditions for all wildlife should

relate directly to fish and aquatic habitat improvements.

Additional road closures may improve fish and aquatic

habitats if they reduce runoff and erosion. The closures and rehabilitation could restore floodplain

functioning and reduce direct channel impingement.

Exclosures have maximized riparian improvement and

recovery rates, so maintenance of the exclosures would

be beneficial.

Acquisition of water rights for conversion to instream

flows would have substantial benefits by stabilizing

flows, maintaining water in habitats, and maximizing

riparian conditions. Setting objectives based on site

potential would be beneficial.

Control of wild horse numbers would have some

beneficial effect, but because of the concentration of

use on the springs, this effect would be limited as

damage occurs from a minimal amount of season long

use and the additional use by greater numbers has little

added impact. If additional forage from adjustment of

appropriate management levels is allocated to livestock, the improvement would be reduced; however,

livestock can be managed to provide seasonal rest or

deferment, so some improvement could be expected.

Increasing AUM’s allocated to wild horses while

maintaining numbers in the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area would reduce overall use if livestock

allocation is reduced, but there would be little change

in impact to aquatic habitats. Maintenance and construction of water developments for horses could be

disruptive to aquatic habitats. By controlling use on

aquatic habitats, fences could be beneficial. Seeding or

erosion control could provide some benefit to aquatic

habitats.

Managing WSR’s as VRM Class II could preclude

some management actions beneficial to fish and

aquatic habitats such as instream structures and watershed level vegetation management, especially juniper.

Alternative E

Allowing natural processes only to restore watershed

and ecological conditions could slow recovery as

opposed to using active restoration techniques, especially in pool and spawning gravel developments.

Reduction of soil erosion and associated siltation of

spawning areas could be reduced. Closing all roads,

except those required by law, if rehabilitated, would be

beneficial by reducing sediment production and

promoting full floodplain development. Elimination of

livestock use would allow full development of riparian

vegetation at a faster rate. Increased willow and other

woody vegetation cover would stabilize banks and

provide increased shading and cover. Not rehabilitating after wildland fire could reduce ground cover and

increase sediment production. Water quality and the

benefits to fish from reduced sedimentation and lower

water temperatures would be similarly impacted.

Elimination of mineral entry, energy and mineral

leasing, and mineral material disposal would preclude

any impacts to fish and aquatic habitat as described in

Alternative A.

No option is permitted for acquiring habitats, so sites

that could be better protected under Federal ownership

would be lost and further habitat degradation could

occur.

Rights-of-way exclusion would preclude any impacts to

fish and aquatic habitat as described in Alternative A.

Loss of access rights and not developing new access

roads would preclude any impacts to fish and aquatic

habitat as described in Alternative A.

Allowing natural processes only to define vegetation

composition would allow the spread of weeds that

could reduce ground cover and replace more desirable

riparian vegetation. Sites that would respond to woody

vegetation plantings would be delayed in recovery.
Environmental Consequences

4 -53

Lack of spring development maintenance would

eventually lead to the failure of the development and

the return to a natural spring function and in many

cases increased riparian habitat.

No road maintenance or closures would result in

substantial increases in sediment production and

subsequent siltation of spawning beds. Over time, the

sediment production would stop and there would be an

overall decrease in siltation and the effect of closing

and rehabilitating the roads. The effects of juniper

encroachment would occur at a watershed scale.

Lack of juniper management would result in decreased

ground cover as the juniper canopy closes. Sediment

production would increase and quaking aspen stand

conversions would continue. Some springs and their

associated aquatic habitat would decline as juniper

dewater the springs.

Increasing AUM’s allocated to wild horses in the Beaty

Butte Herd Management Area would create additional

impact to aquatic habitats associated with springs.

Maintenance and construction of water developments

for horses could be disruptive to aquatic habitats.

Removing interior fencing in herd management areas

could result in additional use and degradation of fish

and aquatic habitats.

Restricting OHV use could benefit some fish aquatic

habitat, or prevent problems from occurring.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, fish and aquatic habitats would

continue to improve, although recovery rates and extent

of recovery would be reduced to allow for commodity

uses, including livestock, transportation, and recreation. Management would continue on a case-by-case

basis on a site-specific level with less consideration for

watershed-scale effects. The management goal for fish

and aquatic habitats could be achieved under this

alternative.

Impacts from Alternative B would be the similar to

Alternative A. Because of law and policy (“Endangered Species Act,” CWA, etc.) setting a high minimum

standard, the difference in effects would be less than

would occur otherwise. Generally, minimally acceptable conditions would be required and mitigation

would occur on a case-by-case basis rather than on a

watershed scale. While improvements would occur,

they would take longer and not be as extensive as

would occur under Alternative A. The management

goal for fish and aquatic habitats could be achieved

under this alternative, although at a much slower rate.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less than

under Alternative A. Recovery rates would be much

faster and would result in better fish and aquatic habitat

conditions. Considering watershed-scale effects at the

levels specified in Alternative C, would result in more

stable conditions. The management goal for fish and

aquatic habitats could be achieved sooner and would be

the most desirable for these resources, under this

alternative.

Alternative D impacts of implementation of water

resources and watershed health guides are similar to

Alternative C, including BMP implementation, but with

less stringent direction to restore watershed function

and processes, there would be less improvement to fish

and aquatic habitat. More consideration is given to

watershed-scale effects than under the current management. The management goal for fish and aquatic

habitats could be achieved under this alternative, the

results would not be as fast nor progress as far as under

Alternative C but faster and better than Alternatives A

and B.

Alternative E would result in a mixed effect. Without

disturbance from permitted uses, fish and aquatic

habitats in most cases would quickly improve and

would progress to a later plant community. However,

some habitats would need some type of active restoration, such as headcut stabilization to prevent loss of

habitat or recovery within a 15 year period. Watershed

scale effects would also be mixed with natural recovery

of uplands progressing well, but with increased juniper

encroachment continuing to degrade watershed level

effects to fish and aquatic habitats. The management

goal for fish and aquatic habitats could be achieved

under this alternative. This alternative would achieve

goals at a rate and end point similar to Alternative C

except on areas needing active restoration.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Actions that have a cumulative effect on watershed

function, especially in relation to the watersheds ability

to capture, store, and slowly release water, would

ultimately effect fish and aquatic habitat. On most

forested watersheds in the planning area, the equivalent

clear cut acres cumulative watershed effects model

evaluations indicate that timber harvest and road

construction, along with channel incision and

channelization has resulted in increase flood flows,

increased frequency of floods, and floods that occur

earlier in the season. The Deep Creek, Thomas Creek,

and Chewaucan Watershed assessments have demon-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 54

strated these changes to some degree in each watershed. The change in the hydrograph as a result has

impacted channel form and thereby fish and aquatic

habitat. The cumulative effects that built to our current

conditions are now being reversed as forest health

improvements are implemented. The cumulative effect

of these projects would build over time to again return

to better fish and aquatic habitat conditions.

Irrigation development has impacted both habitat and

fish directly. Water withdrawal increases water temperature and may at times dewater streams removing

any fish habitat available. Diversion structures and

channelization has fragmented habitats by preventing

the access of some stream habitats by fish or by

preventing access to more secure water in times of

drought. The connection between Honey Creek and

Hart Lake is blocked by several diversions that do not

allow adequate passage for fish, and the diversions are

not screened to prevent fish from being stranded in

fields. Major modifications to Deep and Twentymile

Creeks has resulted in the loss of connectivity between

these streams and Crump Lake. Most of the diversion

structures could be modified to improve connectivity

and still provide for irrigation.

Lack of fire has impacted vegetative communities by

increased brush and conifer invasion. As canopy cover

closes, ground cover from grasses and forbes is reduced, decreasing infiltration and reducing late-season

flows. Increased erosion and sediment loads may

impact spawning sites. Grazing has added to this

process by removing fine fuels and reducing fire size

and frequency, and by reducing competition, enabling

better establishment of brush and conifers (juniper).

The introduction of predatory game fish to the planning

area has effected the ability of native fish to thrive and

in some cases survive. Crappie, bass, and bullhead in

Warner Valley have reduced the ability of native trout

and suckers to thrive in the lakes. Higher in the

watershed, brook trout compete directly with native

redband trout.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Management Goal 1—Facilitate the maintenance,

restoration, and enhancement of bighorn sheep

populations and habitat on public land. Pursue

management in accordance with Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) “Oregon’s Bighorn

Sheep Management Plan” in a manner consistent

with the principles of multiple use management.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Exploration, location, development, and production of

energy minerals such as oil, gas, and geothermal is not

likely to occur in bighorn sheep habitat because of the

steep, rocky terrain. However, if any activity did occur,

it would cause displacement of bighorn sheep from the

localized area during operation periods.

Adverse impacts from exploration, development, and

production of locatable minerals could occur on

approximately 25,000 acres of bighorn sheep habitat

that overlaps with moderate potential for occurrence of

base and precious metals. This represents about 5

percent of bighorn habitat in the resource area. Loss or

destruction of habitat could occur in the case of surface

operations. After mine closure and or reclamation,

bighorn sheep could reoccupy these areas providing the

activities do not result in invasions of undesired

vegetation or noxious weeds.

If Devils Garden is not designated wilderness, disposal

of mineral material, building stone, and cinders in that

area would impact bighorn sheep habitat.

Impacts from land acquisitions and disposals would be

minimized by retaining land with quality bighorn sheep

habitat. Impacts from authorizations of rights-of-way

and permits for large-scale powerlines, fiberoptic

cables, and pipelines could be significant if large areas

of bighorn habitat were impacted. It is expected

though, that these impacts would be kept to a minimum

based on avoiding most bighorn sheep areas and

retaining most bighorn habitat in Zone 1.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities would be beneficial to bighorn

sheep habitat. Range improvements to increase forage

would probably not occur in bighorn sheep habitat and

would have minimal impacts to bighorn sheep.

Reduction and exclusion of natural fires across the

landscape has lead to a dramatic increase of western

juniper in bighorn sheep habitat. Historically, periodic

fires removed invasive junipers and renewed bighorn

sheep forage in these areas. No specific direction exists

under current management plans for removal of juniper

in bighorn sheep habitat. If current fire suppression

activities were to continue, and invasive western

juniper is left to increase, bighorn sheep habitat would

be adversely affected. The forage base would decrease

and cover to hide predators would increase. As western

juniper cover increased, bighorn use would be concen-
Environmental Consequences

4 -55

trated in areas with less western juniper cover. Decreases of suitable habitat and excessive predation

would cause declines in bighorn sheep populations.

Historic and current fire management activities can

have dramatic positive and negative impacts on bighorn

sheep populations and habitat depending on the scope,

intensity, and timing of both prescribed and wildland

fires. Suppression of wildland fires has lead to an

increase in invasive western juniper throughout about

half of the bighorn habitat on the LRA. Fire activities

that allow for removal of invasive juniper and decadent

forage have positive impacts to bighorn sheep. Negative impacts could occur if large catastrophic fires were

to occur across an entire bighorn range within one

season, leaving the resident bighorns in that area to

either move to another location with better forage

conditions or stay and starve.

Noxious weeds are a significant threat to almost all

wildlife habitats, but currently do not pose a significant

problem in bighorn sheep habitat. Continued efforts to

control noxious weeds in these areas would be beneficial to bighorn sheep. Some limited disturbance for

short periods would occur to bighorn sheep during

weed control activities, but long-term benefits from

these activities would be beneficial to bighorns.

By placing emphasis on specific habitat needs for

individual species and on game species, management

of vegetation within bighorn sheep habitat to provide

for diverse self-sustaining communities of wildlife

would have positive impacts to bighorns. Improvements in onsite wildlife water developments would also

have beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Current livestock and wild horse management practices

have minimal effects to bighorn sheep populations and

habitat. This is mostly due to differences in habitat

use. Overlap does exist between livestock, horses, and

bighorns, especially during drought conditions when

bighorns are more likely to venture further away from

rimrock areas in search of water. Current livestock or

wild horse numbers are not considered to be limiting

factors on bighorn sheep populations. If this was to

change within the life of the plan, changes in livestock

allocations or wild horse numbers would be addressed

on a case-by-case basis and adjustments would be

made accordingly.

Maintaining a buffer of at least 9 miles between

bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats would

help to ensure that bighorns do not contact dieseases

from these animals.

Current recreation activities have minimal effects on

bighorn sheep and their habitat. Recreational viewing

and very limited hunting of bighorn sheep does occur

at several locations scattered throughout the LRA.

These impacts are minimal and are not expected to

dramatically increase over the life of the plan.

Alternative B

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration, location,

production, and development in bighorn sheep habitat

areas would be the similar to Alternative A. Negative

impacts to bighorn sheep would result from increased

human activity in the areas of the Devils Garden,

Squaw Ridge, and Four Craters lava flows. Frequent

human activities searching for cinders and decorative

stone would cause bighorn sheep displacement and

possible abandonment of habitats. Increased activity in

the north end of Abert Lake ACEC could also cause

increased negative impacts when compared to Alternative A.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities would be beneficial to bighorn

sheep habitat, providing that enhancement activities

where forage is optimized for livestock does not

overlap with bighorn sheep range.

Reduction and exclusion of natural fires across the

landscape has lead to a dramatic increase of western

juniper in bighorn sheep habitat. Historically, periodic

fires removed invasive junipers and renewed bighorn

sheep forage in these areas. The treatment of 6,000 to

12,000 acres of invasive juniper on Lynch Rim (Fish

Creek Rim) using a combination of prescribed fire and

mechanical methods would benefit bighorn sheep.

After treatment, the forage base for bighorn sheep

would increase and cover to hide predators would

decrease, thereby having a positive impact on bighorn

sheep and their habitat. Bighorn populations on

Lynch’s Rim would be expected to increase after

treatment of these areas.

Noxious weeds are a significant threat to almost all

wildlife habitats, but currently do not pose a significant

problem in bighorn sheep habitat. If efforts are shifted

from controlling weeds in bighorn sheep habitats to

control in other commodity-driven areas, then bighorn

sheep habitat would suffer negative impacts. These

impacts would probably be minor, unless major disturbances occurred and conditions were more suitable for

noxious weeds.

By placing emphasis on specific habitat needs for

individual species and on game species, management
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 56

of vegetation within bighorn sheep habitat would have

positive impacts to bighorns. Improvements in onsite

wildlife water developments would also have beneficial

impacts to bighorn sheep.

Impacts from livestock management practices would be

the same as in Alternative A.

Recreational viewing and very limited hunting of

bighorn sheep would occur at several locations scattered throughout the LRA. These impacts are minimal

and are not expected to dramatically increase over the

life of the plan.

Increased fire response and full suppression in commodity areas would have both positive and negative

impacts to bighorn sheep habitat. Fires in bighorn

sheep habitat could have positive long-term benefits to

bighorns by removal of invasive western juniper—

these fires could also have negative impacts in the short

term due to removal of forage.

Alternative C

Bighorn sheep would benefit from increased watershed

function and improved watershed condition. Closing

roads that are not needed would also benefit bighorn

sheep where this occurred in bighorn habitat. Road

closures could reduce access and thereby reduce human

disturbance of bighorns.

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration and land

acquisitions would be similar to those in Alternative A.

Adverse impacts could result from loss or destruction

of habitat during some operations, but impacts are

expected to be kept to a minimum by avoiding bighorn

sheep habitat.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities in this alternative would be

beneficial to bighorn sheep habitat. Positive impacts

would be expected to be minimal due to little or no

overlap between bighorn sheep and nonnative seedings

and grazing areas.

Active habitat restoration with a focus on bighorn

sheep habitat by removal of invasive junipers and

renewal of bighorn sheep forage along Lynch, south

Warner, and south Abert Rims would have positive

impacts to bighorn sheep. After treatment, the forage

base for bighorn sheep would increase and cover to

hide predators would decrease, thereby having a

positive impact on bighorn sheep and their habitat.

Bighorn populations within these areas would be

expected to increase after treatment.

Increased control of noxious weeds would have positive benefits to bighorn sheep. Currently, noxious

weeds occur in a few areas within the bighorn sheep

range. At this time, many of these infestations are

minor, but have potential given the right conditions to

increase. Increased emphasis on edadicating noxious

weeds would not dramatically increase bighorn sheep

populations, but would provide better quality habitat.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails across

the resource area would result in less disturbance to

bighorn sheep. Disturbance to bighorns from OHV’s

does occur in some areas, but is usually very limited

due to the rugged nature of the habitat. Reduced

disturbance from OHV’s would result in minor positive

impacts to bighorn sheep.

Recreational viewing and very limited hunting of

bighorn sheep would occur at several locations scattered throughout the LRA. These impacts are minimal

and are not expected to dramatically increase over the

life of the plan.

Impacts from fire suppression activities would be

similar to those in Alternative B. In extreme cases,

impacts from wildland fire could alter bighorn habitat

enough to have negative short-term impacts to habitat.

Habitat could also be negatively impacted if repeated

fire changed the habitat into annual exotic grasslands

through invasive grasses like cheatgrass.

As a result of fuels reduction projects as outlined in the

Fire Management section, potential fire size and

severity would decline over the life of the plan.

Alternative D

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration, location,

production, and development, and from land acquisitions, rights-of-way, and disposals would be the same

as for Alternative C.

Impacts to bighorn sheep from management of western

juniper would be the same as in Alternative C.

Impacts from noxious weed management, management

of vegetation, livestock and wild horse management,

and recreational activities would be the same as in

Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV’s would be lower than in Alternative A, due to closure of some roads along Abert Rim

and in the Devils Garden lava flows. This would lead

to increased habitat effectiveness for bighorn sheep.
Environmental Consequences

4 -57

Impacts from fire management activities and prescribed

fires would be the same as in Alternative C.

Alternative E

Assumptions common to Alternative E: Wildland

fire would be the major factor shaping wildlife habitats

on the landscape. In most areas of bighorn sheep

habitat, there would be no threats to human life or

manmade structures and therefore wildland fires would

not be suppressed. In dry years, large wildland fires

would change the structure of most wildlife habitat.

Within bighorn sheep habitat, wildland fires would

remove some western juniper and would renew bighorn

sheep forage. Some areas where exotic annual grasses

occur, could be converted to annual grasslands.

Burned areas would not be rehabilitated. Western

juniper stands with a significant shrub understory

remaining or with closed canopies would be removed

by wildland fire. Western juniper stands without a

shrub understory or closed canopy would be left on the

landscape.

Impacts: Some negative impacts to bighorn sheep

from wildland fire would occur in areas where significant annual grasses became established after fires.

Positive impacts from fire would occur from juniper

and shrub removal in bighorn sheep habitat. The

amount of habitat available would increase over the

long run from removal of invasive western juniper.

Populations of bighorn sheep would be expected to

increase slightly over the life of the plan.

Impacts from most noxious weeds would increase due

to lack of control and increased spread rates after fires.

With lack of noxious weed control and no active

restoration after wildland fires, quality of bighorn

sheep habitat is expected to decrease over the life of

the plan.

No active restoration of bighorn sheep habitats would

occur. Habitat quality and condition would be determined by natural processes.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, bighorn sheep habitat would

continue to improve over time. Active management of

invasive western juniper and noxious weeds would be

the key to success. These activities would be considered through site-specific analysis on a case-by-case

basis and would not be considered for bighorn sheep

habitats as a whole across the resource area. The

management goal for bighorn sheep would be met over

the life of the plan.

Impacts for Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, except that there would be more potential for

human disturbance to bighorn sheep habitat from rock

collectors and mineral exploration. If this disturbance

was significant, displacement of bighorn sheep from

these habitats would occur. This alternative also takes

a more active approach to managing western juniper in

some bighorn sheep habitats. If displacement of

bighorn sheep occurs under this alternative, the management goal for bighorn sheep would not be met

within these areas. The management goal would be

met in areas where increase human activity does not

take place.

Impacts from Alternatives C and D would be very

similar. Each takes a more holistic approach to western

juniper management in bighorn sheep habitat, outlining

where management activities are expected to occur

over the life of the plan. Both alternatives focus on

active restoration of degraded habitats, but Alternative

C would achieve the management goals slightly faster

than with Alternative D. Neither of these alternatives

would be effective without increased funding for

restoration. The management goal would be met under

this alternative, but timelines for meeting the management goal would be directly associated to the amount

of funds that are available for restoration.

Wildfires would not be suppressed except to protect

human life and property, and would likely burn more

acres of bighorn habitat than under the other alternatives. No emphasis on restoration would have negative

impacts to bighorn habitat if noxious weeds or exotic

annual grasses become major problems within bighorn

habitats. Management goals would be achieved under

this alternative, but control over the speed and degree

that they are achieved would rely solely on natural

processes and could vary greatly.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Historic cumulative impacts to bighorn sheep habitat

were from overgrazing at the turn of the century. This

degraded range condition allowed for invasion by

cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Decades of fire suppression also allowed a slow invasion of western

juniper in some areas of bighorn habitat. Without

major disturbances in noxious weed areas, the spread

of these would eventually stabilize, but disturbances in

this landscape are inevitable. Alternatives that support

noxious weed control, removal of juniper in a natural

mosaic and restoration of bighorn habitats would

reduce or remove these cumulative impacts. Management of bighorn sheep on the Hart Mountain Refuge

would have an effect on adjacent BLM-administered
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 58

land. If populations increase on the refuge, sheep

could move onto BLM-administered lands north and

south of the refuge. Sufficient habitat quality would be

needed to support additional animals.

Management Goal 2—Manage big sagebrush cover

to meet the life history requirements of sagebrushdependent wildlife.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Increased energy and mineral exploration would have

negative impacts on sagebrush-dependent wildlife if

these new sites occurred in sagebrush vegetation.

These effects could be mitigated by avoiding areas,

limiting surface disturbance, and limiting travel off

existing roads. However, most impacts would require a

long time to recover and a loss of habitat would result

in the short term.

New rights-of-way or utility corridors, if located away

from existing corridors and in native sagebrush habitat,

would have negative impacts on sagebrush-dependent

wildlife. New construction located near greater sagegrouse lek sites would cause habitat disturbance and

create raptor perches—this could cause major negative

effects and over time cause abandonment of the lek site

due to increased predation or habitat changes.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities would be beneficial to sagebrush-dependent species on native sagebrush range, by

increasing the quality of habitat. Maintaining large

nonnative seedings and not allowing sagebrush to

naturally reestablished these areas would have negative

impacts to sagebrush-dependent species. Large

seedings may act as a barrier to some sagebrushdependent species, thereby reducing dispersal and

movements from one habitat area to another.

Riparian areas are very important to many sagebrushdependent species because most of them also spend a

portion of their time in this habitat. Activities that

restore or improve riparian vegetation and function

would have positive impacts to sagebrush-dependent

species. The degree of these impacts would be directly

related to the degree of improvement in riparian

vegetation and function.

Reducing the amount of young western juniper in areas

where it has invaded sagebrush stands would have a

positive impact to sagebrush-dependent wildlife

provided that the area where juniper was removed is

not invaded by nondesirable plant species or noxious

weeds.

Providing for and restoring degraded and decadent

shrublands would have a positive impact on sagebrushdependent wildlife. As active management and restoration of these areas occurred, better habitat would be

available for sagebrush-dependent wildlife.

Noxious weeds are a serious threat to all wildlife

species, but especially to sagebrush-dependent species.

Most efforts to control and eradicate noxious weeds

would have positive impacts to sagebrush-dependent

wildlife. The degree of these impacts would be directly

related to the degree of decrease in noxious weeds and

the degree of restoration that occurs after weed eradication.

Current livestock and wild horse management practices

can have some negative impacts to sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Excessive utilization in some areas can

remove desirable grass and forbs that some sagebrushdependent species require. These negative impacts can

be minimized by adjustments in timing and duration of

livestock use and by close monitoring of wild horse

numbers within the herd management areas.

Historic and current fire management activities have

had a dramatic impact on sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Suppression of wildland fires along with other

factors has contributed to an increase in the density of

sagebrush stands and a decrease in the grass and forb

component within those stands. This has had a negative impact on most sagebrush-dependent species. If

current management trends continue without active

sagebrush stand restoration, populations of many

sagebrush-dependent species would continue to decline. Aggressive active fire suppression has been

implemented in areas with high ecological integrity in

order to protect remaining habitats important to sagebrush dependant species. Without this type of aggressive suppression, declines in sagebrush dependant

species would be accelerated.

Alternative B

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same as

under Alternative A, with the following differences.

Providing for and restoring degraded and decadent

shrublands would have a positive impact on sagebrushdependent wildlife. However, Alternatives B does not

provide for active restoration and does not focus on

sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Alternative B would

have small negative impacts due to conflicts between
Environmental Consequences

4 -59

optimizing forage production and trying to restore

native sagebrush communities. If an increase in forage

production occurs on decadent and degraded native

rangeland, the resulting decrease in grasses and forbs

and increase in sagebrush density would have negative

impacts on greater sage-grouse and other sagebrushdependent wildlife species.

Alternative C

Increased emphasis on native plant species, and on

reestablishing species diversity and structure in nonnative seedings, would increase both the quality and

quantity of habitat available for sagebrush-dependent

wildlife. If significant protection and restoration were

to occur across the landscape, populations of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species would be expected to

increase over the life of the plan.

Providing for and restoring degraded and decadent

shrublands would have a positive impact on sagebrushdependent wildlife. This alternative provides for active

restoration with a focus on native species. This would

have positive impacts to sagebrush-dependent wildlife.

Noxious weeds are a serious threat to all wildlife

species, but especially to sagebrush-dependent species.

Zero tolerance of noxious weeds under this alternative,

if effective, would increase habitat quality for sagebrush-dependent wildlife species.

Increased emphasis on landscape management and

ecosystem health, and less emphasis on commodity

use, would have positive impacts to sagebrush-dependent wildlife by increasing the available habitat.

Adjustments in timing and duration of livestock use

and close monitoring of wild horse herds within the

herd management areas would keep negative impacts to

a minimum level.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trials across

the resource area would result in less disturbance to

sagebrush-dependent species. Most negative impacts

to these species from OHV’s is related to direct disturbance and typically occurs during spring nesting

season. Some habitat modification could take place,

but would be limited to a few specific areas. Reduced

disturbance from OHV’s would result in slight increases to these species.

Increased protection resulting from designation of new

ACEC’s/RNA’s would have positive benefits to sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. Designation of these

areas would result in slight increases in habitat quality

and slight increases in populations of these species.

Historic and current fire management activities have

had a dramatic impact on sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Suppression of wildland fires along with other

factors has contributed to an increase in the density of

sagebrush stands and a decrease in the grass and forbs

component within those stands. This has had a negative impact on most sagebrush-dependent species. If

current management trends continue without active

sagebrush stand restoration, populations of many

sagebrush-dependent species would continue to decline.

Increased emphasis on use of prescribed fire for

restoration of degraded habitats could have negative

impacts to sagebrush-dependent wildlife species if key

habitats are burned. Treating habitats that are key to

the survival of these species should be avoided if

negative impacts are suspected to be the outcome.

All other impacts from activities under this alternative

would be similar to those in Alternative A.

Alternative D

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration, rights-ofway, riparian area management, western juniper

removal, fire suppression activities, and noxious weed

management would have the same impacts as under

Alternative A.

Impacts from protection, restoration, and enhancement

of desirable vegetation communities would be similar

to those in Alternative C. Actions to diversify the

vegetative structure on nonnative seedings would

benefit sagebrush-dependent wildlife.

Increased protection resulting from designation of new

ACEC’s/RNA’s would be the same as in Alternative C.

Providing for and restoring degraded and decadent

shrublands would have a positive impact on sagebrushdependent wildlife. As active management and restoration of these areas occur, better habitat would be

available for sagebrush-dependent wildlife.

Impacts from OHV use would be similar to those in

Alternative A. Limiting OHV use to existing roads and

trails on 275,463 acres in the northern end of the

resource area (Map R-7) would decrease impacts to

sagebrush-dependent species. This is expected to have

positive impacts to sagebrush-dependent species. Most

negative impacts to these species from OHV’s is

related to direct disturbance and typically occurs during

spring nesting season. Some habitat modification can

take place, but this is limited to a few given areas.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 60

Reduced disturbance from OHV’s would result in

slight increases to these species.

Impacts from livestock and wild horse management

would be the same as in Alternative A, except that

additional herbaceous production would be left onsite

for values other than forage production. This increase

in residual grasses and forbs would benefit sagebrushdependent species, but is not expected to cause dramatic positive impacts.

Alternative E

Assumptions common to Alternative E: Wildland

fire would be the major factor shaping wildlife habitats

on the landscape. In most areas of the sagebrush

steppe, there would be no threats to human life or

manmade structures and therefore wildland fires would

not be suppressed. In dry years, large wildland fires

would sweep over the landscape changing the structure

of most wildlife habitat within the resource area from

steppe to grassland. Sagebrush steppe that currently

has a viable understory of native and nonnative perennial grasses and forbs would probably continue to have

these perennial grasses onsite. Sagebrush steppe that

currently has an understory of exotic annual grasses or

no perennial grasses would most likely be converted to

annual grasslands. Annual grasslands, once established, would require several years without fire to

reestablish shrubs within the area. It is doubtful that

shrubs could be reestablished on many of these sites

without active restoration or rehabilitation after fire.

Wildland fires would not receive active rehabilitation.

Western juniper stands with a significant shrub understory remaining or with closed canopies would be

removed by wildland fire. Western juniper stands

without a sufficient shrub understory or closed canopies would be left on the landscape.

Impacts: Negative impacts to sagebrush-dependant

wildlife from wildland fire would be significant. The

amount of habitat available would decline over the long

run. Without active restoration and rehabilitation after

wildland fires, many habitats would most likely be

converted to semipermanent annual grasslands. Populations of sagebrush-dependant wildlife would be

expected to decline over the life of the plan.

Impacts from most noxious weeds would increase due

to lack of control and increased spread rates after fires.

With lack of noxious weed control and no active

restoration after wildland fires, wildlife habitat is

expected to decrease over the life of the plan.

Use of OHV’s would be limited to existing roads and

trails across the resource area. Impacts from OHV use

on wildlife would be minimal.

No livestock grazing would be authorized across the

resource area. Increased residual grasses and forbs

would benefit sagebrush-dependant wildlife species.

These populations would be expected to increase over

the life of the plan except that impacts from fire or

other natural processes would change habitats. No

major negative impacts from management of forage

production would occur to wildlife.

Impacts from wild horses would remain the same as in

Alternative A. Some negative impacts to wildlife

would be expected to occur, but these could be kept to

a minimum by close monitoring of wild horse herds

within the herd management areas for appropriate

management levels and by gathering excess herd

numbers on a regular basis.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, habitat for sagebrush-dependant

species would continue to decline slowly over time.

Identification, conservation, and aggressive fire suppression activities within remaining blocks of sagebrush steppe where ecological integrity in still high

would offset this decline. Some restoration of degraded sagebrush steppe would occur under Alternative

A, but this would not be the priority area of focus for

restoration. Maintaining nonnative seedings to promote forage production would support the declining

trend in sagebrush-dependant species. The management goal would be met over the life of the plan

although no significant increases in sagebrush-dependant species or habitat is expected to occur.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, except that increased emphasis would be

placed on commodity production. Restoration would

also be focused in commodity production areas.

Commodity production areas would receive fire

suppression priorities over other resources. Sagebrushdependant species would continue to decline over the

life of the plan and this management goal would most

likely not be met within the life of the plan.

Under Alternative C, remaining blocks of sagebrush

steppe where ecological integrity in still high would be

closely monitored and conserved. Restoration priorities would be given to those areas of sagebrush steppe

that are in moderate to low ecological condition before

declining natives grasses and forbs disappear from the

site. Active restoration would move these areas back

toward higher ecological integrity and offset the
Environmental Consequences

4 -61

decreasing trend. Close monitoring of grazing activities to allow for enough residual grasses to remain

onsite would also offset the declining trends. Sagebrush-dependant species would increase over the life of

the plan at a moderate rate. Alternative C would meet

the management goal faster than all other alternatives.

Alternative D would have impacts very similar to

Alternative C. Restoration of sagebrush steppe would

still be a priority, but would be achieved at a slower

rate than Alternative C. Neither Alternatives C or D

would be effective without increased funding for

restoration. The management goal would be met under

this alternative, but timelines for meeting the management goal would be directly associated to the amount

of funds that are available for restoration.

Alternative E would impact sagebrush-dependant

species the most. If the assumptions under Alternative

E are correct, wildland fire would remove a large

proportion of the big sagebrush habitats from the

planning area. No restoration would occur on lands

burned by wildland fire. This would have dramatic

negative impacts to these species. If this happens, it

would take decades for most of these habitats to

recover. Any sites with low ecological integrity and

invasive annual grasses would require much longer to

recover. This management goal would not be met

under this alternative and sagebrush-dependant species

would decline at much greater rates than they are

currently declining under Alternative A.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Historic cumulative impacts to sagebrush steppe

habitats were from overgrazing at the turn of the

century and decades of fire suppression. This coupled

with the invasion of exotic species such as cheatgrass,

has lead to a reduction in understory grasses and forbs

and has left much of the remaining big sagebrush

habitats in moderate to low ecological condition.

Without major investments in restoration, these cumulative impacts would continue to keep most big sagebrush habitats in poor condition. Alternatives that

support active management and restoration would

increase habitat for sagebrush-dependant species.

Management Goal 3—Manage upland habitats so

that the forage, water, cover, structure, and security

necessary for wildlife are available on public land.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Energy and mineral exploration and new rights-of-way

or utility corridors would have some negative impacts

on wildlife habitat within localized areas. It is not

expected that these impacts would preclude management of habitats over larger areas in order to provide all

of the habitat components necessary for wildlife.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities would be beneficial to wildlife

species where this occurred on native sagebrush range,

by increasing the quality of habitat. Maintaining large

nonnative seedings and not allowing sagebrush to

naturally reestablish in these areas would have negative

impacts to some wildlife species.

Management of commercial forest lands would only be

considered for forest health or wildlife issues. These

types of activities would have beneficial impacts to

upland wildlife species.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper in

some areas where it has invaded brush fields would

have positive impacts to wildlife. When western

juniper begins invading brush fields, the diversity of

wildlife species, mostly small birds and mammals,

increases. As juniper density continues to increase, the

density of shrubs decreases, as does diversity of species

using these sites. Eventually, shrub cover would be

mostly removed from the site, thereby greatly decreasing species diversity. Managing these sites to provide a

diversity of habitats, would provide positive impacts

for a great number of wildlife species. Reducing the

amount of invasive western juniper in bighorn sheep

habitat would have positive impacts to bighorn sheep.

Within these areas, removal of western juniper would

provide increased forage and better landscape structure

that bighorn sheep prefer.

Noxious weeds are a serious threat to all wildlife

species. When noxious weeds invade quality wildlife

habitat, forage, cover, and structure of habitats are

negatively impacted. Any efforts to control and

eradicate noxious weeds would have positive impacts

to wildlife. The degree of these impacts would be

directly related to the degree of decrease in noxious

weeds and the degree of restoration that occurs after

weed eradication.

Current livestock and wild horse management practices

can have some negative impacts to wildlife by altering

forage, cover, and/or structure of habitats directly or
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 62

indirectly. Excessive utilization in some areas can

remove desirable grass and forb cover that some

species require. These negative impacts can be minimized by adjustments in timing and duration of livestock use and by close monitoring of wild horse herds

within the herd management areas for appropriate

management levels.

Prescribed and wildland fires can have dramatic

positive and negative impacts to wildlife habitat.

These impacts depend greatly on the wildlife species

being considered and on the intensity, duration, and

timing of the fire activity. Impacts from prescribed fire

would be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to

each activity.

Current and historic suppression of wildland fires,

along with other factors, has contributed to an increase

in the density of sagebrush stands and a decrease in the

grass and forb component within those stands. This

has had a negative impact on many wildlife species. If

current management trends continue without active

sagebrush stand restoration, decreasing trends in

quality of upland habitats would continue.

Alternative B

Increased energy and mineral exploration and development on the north end of Abert Lake would have

significant negative impacts to wildlife. If sodium

settling ponds were built within the guidelines of the

mineral development scenarios (Appendix N2), wildlife would be displaced from 30 to 50 percent of the

playa habitat on the north end of the lake. Supporting

facilities such as a processing plant, powerlines, and

pipelines would also cause increased negative impacts

to wildlife through modification of habitat.

Impacts to wildlife from rights-of-way or utility

corridors and noxious weeds would be the same as in

Alternative A.

Impacts from protection, restoration, and enhancement

of desirable vegetation communities would be the

similar to Alternative A, but increased emphasis on

desirable vegetation for commodity production would

have negative impacts to wildlife species.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper in

some areas would have similar impacts as Alternative

A, but less emphasis would be placed on nongame

wildlife species where increased commodity production could be attained. Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper in bighorn sheep habitat would

occur on Lynch Rim and would have positive impacts

to bighorn sheep. Within this area, removal of western

juniper would provide increased forage and better

landscape structure that bighorn sheep prefer.

Current livestock management practices would be

similar to Alternative A, but would have increased

negative impacts due to increased emphasis on commodity production.

Impacts from prescribed fire and wildland fire would

be the same as in Alternative A. Impacts from prescribed fire would be considered on a case-by-case

basis specific to each activity. Increased treatments of

quaking aspen stands with fire to remove invasive

western juniper would have positive impacts to wildlife

species.

Alternative C

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration and new

rights-of-way or utility corridors would be the same as

those listed in Alternative A.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities would be beneficial to upland

wildlife species. Increased emphasis on native plant

species and on reestablishing species diversity and

structure in nonnative seedings would increase both the

quality and quantity of habitat available for these

wildlife species. If significant protection and restoration were to occur across the landscape, then populations of these wildlife species would be expected to

increase over the life of the plan.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper in

some areas would have similar impacts as Alternative

A, but increased emphasis would be placed on nongame wildlife species. Managing these sites to provide

a diversity of habitats would provide positive impacts

for a great number of wildlife species.

Zero tolerance for noxious weeds would benefit most

wildlife species. If sufficient time and money allowed

for a high degree of control of noxious weeds, increased habitat quality and quantity would result from

this effort.

Increased emphasis on landscape management and

ecosystem health and less emphasis on commodity use

would have positive impacts to wildlife species by

increasing the available habitat. Adjustments in timing

and duration of livestock use and close monitoring of

wild horse herds within the herd management area

would keep negative impacts to a minimum level.
Environmental Consequences

4 -63

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trials across

the resource area would result in greater security to

most wildlife species. Most negative impacts to these

species from OHV’s are related to direct disturbance.

Some habitat modification can have taken place, but

this is limited to a few given areas. Reduced disturbance from OHV’s would result in slight increases to

security and habitat effectiveness for these species.

Impacts from prescribed fire and wildland fire would

be the same as in Alternative A. Impacts from prescribed fire would be considered on a case-by-case

basis specific to each activity. Increased treatments of

quaking aspen stands with fire to remove invasive

western juniper would have positive impacts to wildlife

species.

Alternative D

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration, new

rights-of-way, management of commercial forest land,

noxious weed management, and fire suppression would

be the same as under Alternative A.

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirable

vegetation communities would have similar impacts to

those in Alternative A, except that actions to diversify

composition of nonnative seedings would have positive

impacts to wildlife species. Wildlife species diversity

is expected to increase if vegetative species composition and structure are increased in nonnative seedings.

Impacts from reducing the amount of invasive western

juniper would be the same as in Alternative C.

Impacts from livestock and wild horse management

would be the same as in Alternative A, except that

additional herbaceous production would be left onsite

for values other than forage production. This increase

in residual grasses and forbs would benefit sagebrushdependent species, but is not expected to cause dramatic positive impacts.

Limiting OHV’s to existing roads and trails on 275,463

acres in the northern end of the resource area would

benefit upland habitats in this area (Map R-7).

Alternative E

Assumptions common to Alternative E: Wildland

fire would be the major factor shaping wildlife habitats

on the landscape. In most areas of the sagebrush

steppe, there would be no threats to human life or

manmade structures, and therefore, wildland fires

would not be suppressed. In dry years, large standreplacing wildland fires would change the structure of

most wildlife habitat within the resource area from

steppe to grassland, or in forested stands, shifting older

forest stands to younger stands. Sagebrush steppe that

currently has a viable understory of native and nonnative perennial grasses and forbs would probably

continue to have these perennial grasses on site.

Sagebrush steppe that currently has an understory of

exotic annual grasses or no perennial grasses would

most likely be converted to annual grasslands. Annual

grasslands, once established, would require several

years without fire to reestablish shrubs within the area.

It is doubtful that shrubs could be reestablished on

many of these sites without active restoration or

rehabilitation after fire. Wildland fires would not

receive active rehabilitation. Western juniper stands

with a significant shrub understory remaining or with

closed canopies would be removed by wildland fire.

Western juniper stands without a sufficient shrub

understory or closed canopies would be left on the

landscape.

Analysis of Impacts: Impacts to wildlife from wildland fire would vary widely from species to species.

Most BLM special status species would be negatively

impacted from widespread wildland fire. Most of these

populations would be expected to decline over the life

of the plan. Wildlife species that prefer open grasslands would benefit from widespread wildland fire and

their populations would be expected to increase over

the life of the plan.

Impacts to juniper woodland wildlife would vary

greatly from species to species, but wildlife diversity in

these areas would be expected to decrease over the life

of the plan. Areas with the most wildlife diversity

would be the ones most likely consumed by fire due to

the shrub component in these stands.

Impacts from most noxious weeds would increase due

to lack of control and increased spread rates after fires.

With lack of noxious weed control and no active

restoration after wildland fires, wildlife habitat is

expected to decrease over the life of the plan.

Use of OHV’s would be limited to existing roads and

trails across the resource area. Impacts from OHV use

on wildlife would be minimal.

No management of commercial forest lands would

occur. It is expected that wildland fires would open

understories in ponderosa pine stands maintaining them

in open conditions. No major negative impacts to

wildlife would be expected to occur unless stand

replacement fires removed large portions of forest.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 64

No livestock grazing would be authorized across the

resource area. Maximum forage would be available for

wildlife uses. Wildlife populations would be expected

to increase slightly over the life of the plan except that

impacts from fire or other natural processes would

change habitat. No major negative impacts from

management of forage production would occur to

wildlife.

Impacts from wild horses would remain the same as in

Alternative A. Some negative impacts to wildlife

would be expected to occur, but these could be kept to

a minimum by close monitoring of wild horse herds

within the herd management areas for appropriate

management levels and by gathering excess heard

numbers on a regular basis.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, habitats for wildlife will remain

relatively static over time. Some habitats such as

Wyoming big sagebrush will continue to decline, but

others such as open grasslands will be created. This

has mixed results from one wildlife species to another

depending on the species. For the most part, under this

alternative, restoration and management of wildlife

habitats would only be considered on a case-by-case

basis and not on the landscape level. The management

goal would be met over the life of the plan although no

significant increases or decreases would be expected to

occur when considering wildlife as a whole.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, except that increased emphasis would be

placed on commodity production. Restoration would

also be focused in commodity production areas.

Commodity production areas would receive fire

suppression priorities over other resources. With

increased emphasis on commodity production, some

wildlife habitats will continue to decline. The management goal would be met within the life of the plan, but

at a slower rate than under Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, remaining habitats that are

important to priority wildlife species would be a

primary area of focus. Restoration priorities would be

given to those areas with important wildlife habitats.

Close monitoring of grazing activities to allow for

enough residual grasses to remain on site will also

benefit wildlife habitats. Alternative C will meet the

management goal faster than all other alternatives.

Alternative D would have impacts similar to alternatives A and C. Habitats that are important to priority

wildlife species would still get priority, but would be

achieved at a slower rate than Alternative C, but at a

faster rate than Alternatives A and B. The management

goal would be met under this alternative.

Alternative E will impact wildlife species the most. If

the assumptions under Alternative E are correct,

wildland fire will remove a large proportion of shrub

habitats from the planning area. No restoration would

occur on lands burned by wildland fire. This will have

dramatic negative impacts to many priority wildlife

species. If this happens, it would take decades for

shrubs to reestablish in most of these habitats. Any

sites with low ecological integrity and invasive annual

grasses would require much longer to recover. This

management goal will not be met under this alternative

and many wildlife species will decline over the life of

the plan.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Activities that allow noxious weeds and invasive exotic

plant species like cheatgrass to increase will continue

to cause cumulative impacts to wildlife habitats. At

any given moment in time, these impacts are not

significant, until some type of large disturbance like

wildland fire reduces competition with other species

allowing invasive species to increase. Without active

emphasis placed or restoring these degraded habitats,

these cumulative impacts will continue.

Management Goal 4—Manage forage production to

support wildlife population levels identified by the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The ODFW has set management objectives for most

populations of game species that occur within the LRA.

Current livestock numbers are not considered to be a

limiting factor for these species. Some negative

impacts do exist, but most can be minimized by adjustments in the timing, duration, and location of livestock

grazing during critical times of the year when these

wildlife species are present.

Current forage production on nonnative ranges has

both positive and negative impacts to game species.

Some desirable nonnative seedings, such as crested

wheatgrass, provide habitat for pronghorn and mule

deer at given times of the year. Depending on grazing

season use and duration of use, these seedings could

have both positive and negative impacts to these

species. If large seedings overlap with crucial deer
Environmental Consequences

4 -65

winter range, negative impacts for deer would occur.

Alternative B

Increased emphasis on forage production and increased

numbers of livestock could cause increased negative

impacts to game species. Direct competition between

game species and livestock for forage is expected to

remain minor due to dietary differences between

livestock and most game species. Adjustments in

timing, duration, and location of livestock grazing

would minimize other impacts to game species.

Increased control of invasive western juniper in order

to increase forage production for livestock would

probably have minor beneficial impacts to game

species if spacial arrangement of juniper treatments

were such that adequate security cover was left after

treatment.

Minor positive impacts to game species would occur

where increased emphasis on desirable vegetation was

compatible with forage that game species would utilize.

If desirable vegetation increased nonnative seedings,

this would have both positive and negative impacts to

wildlife depending on the species considered.

Alternative C

Increased emphasis on restoration and ecosystem

health and less emphasis on commodity production

would provide increased forage for game species.

Direct competition between game species and livestock

for forage is expected to remain minor due to dietary

differences between livestock and most game species.

Adjustments in timing, duration, and location of

livestock grazing would minimize other impacts to

game species.

Invasive western juniper would not be controlled in

order to increase forage production for livestock, but

could probably be removed in some areas for restoration of wildlife habitat. Removal of invasive juniper in

this manner would have beneficial impacts to game

species if spacial arrangement of juniper treatments

were such that adequate security cover was left after

treatment.

Increased emphasis on restoration and habitat diversity

in nonnative seedings would have positive impacts to

game species. These positive impacts to game species

would occur where increased emphasis on desirable

vegetation was compatible with forage that game

species would utilize.

Alternative D

Impacts from current livestock management activities

are the same as those in Alternative A.

Impacts from removal of invasive western juniper

would be the same as in Alternative C.

Impacts from OHV use would be reduced on the

northern end of the resource area where 275,463 acres

would be limited to existing roads and trails (Map R-7).

This would lead to greater security and habitat effectiveness for game species within this area.

Impacts from increased emphasis on restoration and

habitat diversity would be the same as those in Alternative C.

Alternative E

No livestock grazing would be authorized across the

resource area; therefore, no forage allocation would be

necessary. Maximum forage would be available for

wildlife uses. Wildlife populations would be expected

to slightly increase over the life of the plan except that

impacts from fire or other natural processes would

change habitat. No major negative impacts from

management of forage production would occur to

wildlife.

Impacts from wild horses would remain the same as in

Alternative A. Some negative impacts to wildlife

would be expected to occur, but these could be kept to

a minimum by close monitoring of wild horse numbers

within the herd management areas and by gathering

excess herd numbers on a regular basis.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternatives A and B, habitats for game species

will remain relatively static over time. Continued

emphasis on single species management and on game

species will ensure habitats for game species are

maintained. Alternatives A and B will both meet the

management goal, although Alternative A will achieve

this somewhat faster than Alternative B.

Under Alternatives C and D, habitats for game species

would also be maintained. Emphasis would be placed

on both game and nongame species. Increased restoration efforts in areas that are important to wildlife

species would also be a primary area of focus. Restoration priorities would be given to those areas with

important wildlife habitats. Both Alternatives C and D

will meet the management goal at about the same rate.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 66

These will be slightly faster than Alternative A.

No major direct impacts from Alternative E would

occur to game species.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Under Alternative E, indirect impacts from natural

processes would occur. If the assumptions under

Alternative E are correct, wildland fire will remove a

large proportion of shrub habitats from the planning

area. No restoration would occur on lands burned by

wildland fire. This will have dramatic negative impacts to many game species. If this happens, many

sites with low ecological integrity and invasive annual

grasses would develop into annual grasslands, decreasing the value of these lands for wildlife. This management goal will not be met under Alternative E and

many game species would be expected to decline over

the life of the plan.

Special Status Animal Species

Management Goal—Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance populations and habitats of

special status animal species. Priority for the application of management actions would be : (1) Federal

endangered species, (2) Federal threatened species,

(3) Federal proposed species, (4) Federal candidate

species, (5) State listed species, (6) BLM sensitive

species, (7) BLM assessment species, and (8) BLM

tracking species. Manage in order to conserve or lead

to the recovery of threatened or endangered (T&E)

species.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Actions that maintain/improve watershed conditions,

improve ecological condition, improve vegetation

cover and condition, manage nonnative seedings,

manage forest and woodland areas, and manage

livestock grazing would have benefits on special status

animal species by increasing vegetation cover on

uplands. Impacts would be minimal because improvement from these actions would be slow and incremental

on a variety of sites scattered throughout the resource

area. Some special status species may be negatively

impacted due to an increase in vegetative cover.

Maintaining or improving watershed conditions would

have a beneficial impact on all special status animal

species and their habitat. Aquatic species would

benefit directly from increased water yield. Increased

summer flows would result in better fish survival.

Satisfactory soil conditions would result in improved

cover and reduce the erosion potential and improve

spawning sediments by providing cleaner and better

aerated gravels.

Maintaining or improving water quality, implementing

the CWA, and complying with water quality standards

established by the ODEQ would have a direct benefit

to aquatic special status species. Cooler water temperatures would result in less stress to stream resident

fish, thereby improving survival rates, especially for

larger fish. Reduced sediment loads would improve

spawning gravels.

Continuing existing grazing systems and exclosures on

streams, springs, and riparian/wetland areas have led to

improved special status animal species habitat, and the

option is available to further adjust systems and modify

or construct new exclosures to meet special status

species objectives. However, objectives are defined

primarily by proper functioning condition, so the level

of improvement would be limited over setting objectives based on site potential and individual special

status species habitat requirements. Within the range

of Warner suckers, the grazing program has been

covered by biological evaluations, and where effects

may occur, they have been covered by a biological

opinion. Effects on other species would need to be

covered on a case-by-case basis accounting for individual species needs.

The long-term effects of wildland fires may be positive

or negative on special status animal species habitat. If

the fire results in increased perennial ground cover and

better watershed conditions, it would have positive

effects by improving watershed conditions. If the fire

results in more annual cover or reduced cover it would

have negative effects. All wildland fires would have a

negative short-term impact on special status animal

species habitat as a result of the removal of vegetation

cover. Short-term effects from wildland fire in special

status animal species habitat that are in proper functioning condition would be less adverse and functionally would respond quicker to revegetation and rehabilitation efforts. Special stipulations in the “Bald

Eagle Management Area Cooperative Plan” focus on

protection of bald eagle habitat through wildland fire

suppression and prescribed burning projects to reduce

fuel loading and the risk of catastrophic stand-replacement fires.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration, location,
Environmental Consequences

4 -67

development, and production on special status species

and their habitat could vary from minimal with smallscale effects, to major if the exploration requires road

development and disturbance in critical special status

species habitats. Although all practical measures to

maintain or restore special status species habitat are

required of all mining operations, impacts to these

resources would continue to occur in the form of

localized surface disturbance over the short term. The

effects would be similar for oil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, and solid mineral material sales. Laws,

regulations, and policies minimize the negative effects

from mineral activity on special status species.

Land tenure adjustments would have the potential to

result in a wide range of positive and negative impacts

to special status species and their habitat. Special

status species habitat is considered to be of high value

to the public and would be of priority for acquisition.

Once under public ownership, special status species

habitat would receive generally higher priority for

enhancement resulting in better vegetation conditions.

Law prohibits disposal of special status species habitat

that may jeopardize the existence of or lead to actions

to further list the species, so impacts from disposal

actions would be minimal. Rights-of-way development

around or through special status animal species habitat

could have a negative impact on the functioning of

these sites. Level of mitigation or avoidance would

determine the level of effect. Most negative impacts

would have limited or temporary impacts to the immediate vegetation. Rehabilitation following surface

disturbance should restore this habitat to its functional

state before disturbance. Acquiring access should

cause minimal effects to special status species and their

habitat; however, it could cause negative impacts due

to increased visitation and disturbance during critical

nesting and birthing periods.

Managing for proper functioning condition only as a

minimum goal may limit further improvement towards

site potential in riparian/wetland special status animal

species habitat. Management to promote or maintain

proper functioning condition on a minimum of 75

percent of the riparian/wetland areas would limit

further improvements toward site potential in special

status animal species habitat.

Implementation of specific restoration habitat projects

in areas where conditions are not recovering naturally

would benefit special status animal species.

Maintenance of spring developments could have

positive effects on terrestrial special status animal

species habitat by distributing use away from these

areas and providing a semi-permanent water supply to

these animals as well as vegetative habitat. Continued

maintenance of spring developments would continue

the restriction of riparian site development on several

springs, and lack of functioning of the spring system in

the watershed. Potential aquatic special status species,

such as spring snails, could be negatively affected by

the continued maintenance.

Forest management in the form of commercial and

precommercial thinning, partial cut, sanitation and

salvage sales, and prescribed burning and wildland fire

could have negative impacts to special status animal

species habitat. By improving forest health, watershed

conditions could be improved, thus having a beneficial

effect on special status animal species dependent upon

riparian, wetland, or aquatic habitat. All forest health

projects would comply with special conservation plans

or biological evaluations for the species.

Juniper management could have positive effects on

special status animal species habitat. By improving

ground cover, watershed conditions could be improved,

thus having a beneficial effect special status species

habitat. Juniper removal and prescribed burn projects

would have a positive effect on maintaining and

enhancing quaking aspen stands for riparian special

status animal species. Juniper-dependent special status

species could be negatively affected over the short term

by stand management.

Control of weeds would improve or maintain watershed conditions which would result in a positive effect

to special status species habitat.

Managing sagebrush cover in seedings and on native

rangeland to meet the life history requirements of

sagebrush-dependent wildlife species could have a

positive effect on special status species utilizing

sagebrush habitat by maintaining or improving watershed conditions in the uplands.

Managing for proper functioning condition riparian/

wetland conditions that consider structure, forage, and

other riparian habitat elements important to game and

nongame wildlife species could have positive effects to

special status species and their habitat and associated

riparian/wetland dependant species. Riparian/wetland

foraging, nesting, and parturition habitat would improve.

Riparian/wetland acquisition would increase public

land acreage and benefit riparian/wetland dependant

sensitive species.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 68

Limiting playa and lakebed developments would limit

the current proper functioning condition condition of

wetland special status species habitat. Some of the

current lakebed developments have changed water and

vegetative conditions onsite or broke the water-holding

seal and allowed water to travel offsite. This has had a

negative effect on special status species as well as other

wildlife populations by limiting the distribution,

abundance, and diversity of forbs found on the lakebed.

Implementation and maintenance of the Warner Wetlands and Abert Lake ACEC plans would maintain or

enhance the current level of proper functioning condition in these two areas and allow the few areas not

currently in proper functioning condition to approach

this condition. This would maintain or enhance

riparian/wetland special status species habitat.

Continuing the Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range

Cooperative Road Closure could have a positive effect

on special status species habitat by limiting offroad

travel during a period when soils are saturated and

potential for erosion is greatest. Managing motorized

vehicles in accordance with existing open designations

would continue to cause negative effects on special

status species and their habitat on a site-specific basis,

since OHV’s can travel crosscountry off existing roads

in all open areas.

There has not been any systematic inventories or

habitat monitoring of populations and distributions of

special status animal species within the resource area,

with the exception of the Warner sucker. Impacts to

special status species would be minimal and sitespecific environmental analysis and mitigation would

be used to minimize or eliminate loss of Warner sucker

critical spawning habitat, raptor nesting or roosting

sites, or parturition areas. The only current recovery

plans for special status species are for bald eagles,

peregrine falcons, and the Warner sucker and associated threatened and rare native fishes of the Warner

Basin. These plans positively affect other special

status species.

Authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing use

precludes excess vegetation from being left for ground

cover, litter development, and further enhancement of

watershed conditions, and ground nesting wildlife

species.

Wild horses use the herd management areas year-round

and impact heavy use areas negatively (especially the

springs in the Beaty Butte area). Confining horses to

herd management areas and appropriate management

levels reduces damage to sites outside these areas.

Keeping horses inside the herd management areas

cause negative impacts to special status species using

the area; however, indirectly benefit sensitive species

occurring outside these areas. Effects on special status

species due to water development project implementation would need to be determined on a case-by-case

basis, but generally new developments would concentrate wild horse use and could have a negative effect on

special status species. Fences and other management

structures could have a beneficial effect by controlling

use away from critical sensitive species use areas or

have a negative effect by concentrating use within

critical areas.

Current management of Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area and the remaining public

land as extensive recreation management area could

cause negative impacts to special status species and

their habitat. Effects would occur on a site-specific

basis. Increased public use could have a negative

effect while controlling public use could have a positive effect. Expansion of existing and development of

new recreation sites could have a negative effect on

special status species habitat. Project design or avoidance could minimize or eliminate impacts.

Retaining existing WSA’s could have a positive effect

on protecting special status species and their habitat;

however, 1995 “Interim Management Policy for Lands

Under Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP) may

preclude some management actions such as vegetation

manipulation or structural project work that would be

beneficial.

Managing public lands to provide social and economic

benefits to local residents, businesses, visitors, and

future generations could have potential future impacts

to special status species and their habitat and would

need to be determined on a case-by-case, site-specific

basis. Current recreation developments are minimal

and have minimal impact to special status species.

Protection of ACEC’s with special status species

habitat values would have beneficial impacts.

Ground disturbing wildland fire control activities

including line construction, aerial retardant application,

and engine access can have negative impacts to special

status species habitat. Effects would need to be

determined on a case-by-case basis and mitigated or

eliminated where possible through the use of the fire

management plan.

Rehabilitating burned areas to mitigate the adverse

effects of wildland fire on soil and vegetation in a costeffective manner, and to minimize the possibility of
Environmental Consequences

4 -69

wildland fire recurrence or invasion of weeds, would

have a positive effect on riparian/wetland vegetation

and would be beneficial by reducing soil loss and

sediment production. However, benefits may be

limited since emergency fire rehabilitation activities are

implemented on a case-by-case basis following wildland fire and a separate environmental assessment is

completed for each emergency fire rehabilitation

project.

Prescribed fire can be an effective tool at increasing

ground cover and releasing quaking aspen stands from

competition with invasive species and would be

beneficial to special status species. At the current level

of prescribed fire activity (10,000 to 20,000 acres per

year for the resource area) impacts to special status

species are minimal and short term. This level, however, may be inadequate to meet the upland vegetation

requirements to return to a natural fire cycle. Some

sites would continue to decline in ground cover with or

without prescribed fire and may require revegetation.

Alternative B

Maintenance and improvement of watershed and

associated soil conditions, water quality, livestock

grazing management, suppression of wildland fires,

managing riparian wetland areas for proper functioning

condition, and maintaining spring developments would

have the same impacts as under Alternative A.

Land tenure adjustments, rights-of-way development,

and acquisition of public access would have the same

impacts as Alternative A.

New road construction would have a greater potential

for impacting watershed health under this alternative,

and therefore have a negative impact on special status

species and their habitat. The level of effect could be

minimized by following road construction and rehabilitation standards.

Actions to maintain/improve watershed conditions,

improve ecological condition, improve vegetation

cover and condition, manage nonnative seedings,

manage forest and woodland areas, and manage

livestock grazing would be similar to that described

under Alternative A.

Implementation of riparian/wetland restoration projects

would benefit riparian/wetland vegetation and special

status species and their habitat.

Continued adjustment of livestock management in

riparian/wetland habitat used by special status species

would be beneficial limited to the goals and objectives

of the management action and associated biological

evaluation or conservation plan.

Road maintenance in special status animal species

habitat could have a negative impact to the species,

which could be mitigated by design modification or

relocating the roads out of the area. It is anticipated that

more road maintenance affecting sensitive species and

their habitat would be completed under this alternative.

Juniper management would have more positive and

negative effects on special status species and their

habitat than Alternative A, since up to 75 percent of

early- to mid-successional stands of juniper would be

treated for watershed improvement, big game range

enhancement, and bighorn sheep habitat enhancement.

The negative effects of this more aggressive juniper

management would probably be short term and could

be mitigated with the specific special status species

habitat requirements in mind.

Quaking aspen stand management direction to treat all

stands within the life of the plan would greatly improve

quaking aspen stand condition and maintain those

stands that are currently functioning. There may be

minimal short-term impacts to riparian dependent

special status and other species; however, the long-term

benefits of stand health would outweigh the minimal

short-term impacts imposed. Quaking aspen management would be designed to protect known sensitive

species nesting and parturition sites.

Allowing playa and lakebed developments could

degrade the current proper functioning condition

condition of wetlands and would have a negative

impact to wetland conditions and sensitive wetlanddependent wildlife species.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for wildlife are

available on public land would not negatively effect

special status species.

Continuing the Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range

Cooperative Road Closure could have a positive effect

on special status species and their habitat by limiting

offroad travel during a period when soils are saturated

and potential for erosion is greatest. Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on open OHV use designation and maximizing opportunities for organized OHV

events could cause more negative impacts to special

status species and their habitat than Alternative A.

Mitigative measures on BLM-authorized projects
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 70

would eliminate or reduce impacts to special status

species utilizing riparian/wetland habitats.

Increasing domestic livestock grazing authorization by

11,657 AUM’s could impact special status species and

their habitat depending on where the increased use

would occur. Further impacts that could directly

impact special status species are reinstatement of

suspended nonuse and further increases to full licensed

preference in areas currently below active preference.

Maximizing authorization of temporary nonrenewable

grazing use could further preclude opportunities to

enhance other resource values as described in Alternative A.

Wild horse management impacts would be similar to

Alternative A, but could cumulatively impact special

status species and their habitat more if the increase of

domestic livestock grazing authorization use occurs in

the same area as the wild horse use.

Impacts from optimizing the management of Warner

Wetlands Special Recreation Management Area and

expanding management of existing developed and

undeveloped recreation sites could be greater to special

status species and their habitat than Alternative A due

to increased visitor use to the area.

Social and economic impacts would be similar to

Alternative A; however, impacts could be intensified

with emphasis on commodity production and public

use.

Prescribed fire impacts could increase with the threefold increase of prescribed fire activity proposed,

thereby impacting special status species and their

habitat even more.

The effects on special status species and their habitat

from the energy and mineral program would be greatest

under this alternative that emphasizes commodity

production. Although all practical measures to maintain or restore special status species habitat are required of all mining operations, impacts to these

resources would continue to occur in the form of

localized surface disturbance over the short term.

Alternative C

Impacts to special status animal species from dust and

smoke created from construction or prescribed burn

projects would be the same as Alternative A, even

though the acre limit for prescribed fires and wildland

fires would increase from 20,000 to 640,000 acres per

year.

Grazing use authorization would be reduced from

108,234 to 86,587 AUM’s while emphasizing resource

values, consistent with resource objectives. Grazing

impacts would be less from those found in Alternative

A as long as minimum standards for ecosystem health

are met. Reduced livestock grazing would increase the

buildup of fine fuels and possibly lead to the loss of

more acres of sagebrush which could have a negative

impact on sagebrush-dependent special status species

over the short term.

Impacts from wildland fires could be greater under this

alternative than Alternative A. With the increased limit

of 640,000 acres burned annually and the possible

designation of areas for wildland fire use, there is a

potential for loss of more special status species habitat

depending on where the fires occur. Prescribed fires

could be designed to mitigate or eliminate losses, and

crucial habitat could be identified prior to the designation of new wildland fire use areas. Most special status

species habitat loss would occur naturally from wildland fire and would create a short-term impact. Emergency fire rehabilitation would continue to occur.

The effects on special status species and their habitat

from the energy and mineral program would be assumed to be less under this alternative that emphasizes

protection of natural values and closes certain areas to

mineral entry or extraction than either Alternative A or

B.

Land tenure adjustments, rights-of-way development,

and acquisition of public access would have the same

impacts as Alternative A. Impacts from disposal of

public land would be less than the other two alternatives since only 8,000 acres would be available for

disposal as opposed to 42,500 acres in Alternative A,

and 54,800 acres in Alternative B.

New road construction would have a lesser potential

for impacting watershed health under this alternative

and therefore have a minimal impacts on special status

species and their habitat. The level of effect could be

minimized by following road construction and rehabilitation standards and adherence to resource objectives.

Improving ecological conditions and restoration in the

uplands after a prescribed or wildland fire would have

the same beneficial impacts on special status animal

species habitat as Alternative A by maximizing vegetative production and protecting upland function, thereby

contributing to the continued health of special status

animal species habitat. Minimum standards for ecosystem health would be followed and seed mixes would be

limited to native perennial species only.
Environmental Consequences

4 -71

Restoration of nonnative seedings to diversify structure

and composition would have beneficial impacts on

shrub-dependent special status species and their

habitat.

Rehabilitation of spring developments would have

positive effects on special status animal species by

returning all flow to the original channel as long as

livestock were excluded from these areas.

Exclusion of livestock in riparian/wetland habitats

would be beneficial to special status animal species

using these habitats.

The removal of all roads within riparian/wetland areas

and all other roads within the resource area not required by law would positively impact special status

species and eliminate the need to perform future

maintenance.

Western juniper, old growth, and snag management

would have the same impacts to special status species

as Alternative B.

Quaking aspen stand management would have the same

effects on special status species and their habitat as

Alternative B.

Noxious weed management would have the greatest

beneficial impacts to special status species and their

habitats by eradication of all weeds within the resource

area.

Bighorn sheep management would have the same

effects on special status species as Alternative B.

Eliminating new playa and lakebed developments and

rehabilitating nonfunctioning sites would benefit

special status species and their habitats and return the

sites to proper functioning condition.

Implementation and maintenance of the Warner Wetlands and Abert Lake ACEC plans would have the

same effect as Alternative A.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for game and

nongame wildlife species would positively benefit

special status species.

Managing livestock forage production to support the

increase of 8,390 additional wildlife AUM’s identified

by the ODFW would have a minimal impact on special

status wildlife species and their habitat; however, this

alternative would highlight the need to consider the

importance of all wildlife species. There is a potential

for future impacts from expansion of the Lake County

elk herd but this would be on a site-specific basis.

Mitigative measures on BLM-authorized projects

would eliminate or reduce impacts to special status

species utilizing riparian/wetland habitats.

Reducing domestic livestock grazing authorization by

21,647 AUM’s could benefit special status species and

their habitat depending on where the decreased use

would occur. Eliminating authorization of temporary

nonrenewable grazing use, and abandonment and

rehabilitation of rangeland projects could also benefit

special status species if adequate water is available for

use.

Managing the existing Warner Wetlands Special

Recreation Management Area and emphasizing undeveloped, dispersed recreation opportunities in North

Lake County Special Recreation Management Area

would benefit special status species and their habitat.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on limited

OHV use designation and authorizing organized events

to existing roads and trails would benefit special status

species and their habitat.

Managing public land actions and activities in a

manner consistent with VRM class objectives would

have the same impacts on special status species and

their habitat as Alternative A.

Social and economic impacts would be similar to

Alternative A.

Alternative D

Maintenance or improvement of watershed and associated soil conditions, water quality, managing riparian/

wetland areas for proper functioning condition, forest

management, special status plant species managment,

management of Warner Wetlands and Lake Abert

ACEC’s and other SMA designations, and wild horse

management would have the same impacts as Alternative A.

Grazing impacts would be the same as those found in

Alternative A as long as minimum standards for

ecosystem health are met while maintaining resource

values for multiple use and sustainability.

Impacts from suppression of wildland fires could be

greater under this alternative than Alternative A. With

the increased limit of 480,000 acres burned annually
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 72

with prescribed and wildland fire and the possible

designation of areas for wildland fire use, there is a

potential for loss of more special status species habitat

depending on where the fires occur. Prescribed fires

could be designed to mitigate or eliminate losses, and

crucial habitat could be identified prior to the designation of new wildland fire use areas. Most habitat loss

would occur naturally from wildland fire and would

create a short-term impact. Emergency fire rehabilitation would continue to occur to meet resource objectives.

The effects would be similar for oil and gas leasing,

geothermal energy, and solid mineral material sales.

The effects on special status species and their habitat

from the energy and mineral program would be assumed to be similar to effects under Alternatives A and

B due to the designation of new rights-of-way avoidance/exclusion area within new ACEC’s.

Land tenure adjustments, rights-of-way development,

and acquisition of public access would have the same

impacts as Alternative A. Impacts from disposal of

public land would be less than the other two alternatives since only 8,000 acres would be available for

disposal as opposed to 42,500 acres in Alternative A

and 54,800 acres in Alternative B.

New road construction would have similar impacts to

watershed health as Alternative C. The level of effect

could be minimized by following road construction and

rehabilitation standards and adherence to resource

objectives and BMP’s.

Improving ecological conditions and restoration in the

uplands after a prescribed or wildland fire would have

the same beneficial impacts on special status animal

species habitat as Alternative A by maximizing vegetative production and protecting upland function, thereby

contributing to the continued health of special status

animal species habitat. Minimum standards for ecosystem health would be followed; however, nonnative

perennials may be used.

Restoration of nonnative seedings to diversify structure

and composition would have beneficial impacts on

shrub-dependent special status species and their

habitat.

Mandatory deferment of livestock grazing for 2 years

minimum after wildland fire or prescribed fire conducted in upland areas would have the same effects on

special status species and their habitat as Alternative A.

Implementation of riparian/wetland restoration projects

would have the same effect on special status species

and their habitat.

Rehabilitation of spring developments would have the

same effects on special status animal species as Alternative B by improving riparian function.

Implementation and maintenance of livestock grazing

systems in riparian/wetland habitats would be beneficial to special status animal species using these habitats

by promoting the recovery or maintenance of riparian

systems to desired range of conditions based on site

potential.

The removal of any roads within riparian conservation

area impacting the stream and/or riparian zone would

positively impact special status species and could

reduce the need to perform future maintenance.

Western juniper, old growth, and snag management

would have the same impacts to special status species

as Alternative B.

Quaking aspen stand management would have the same

effects on special status species and their habitat as

Alternative B.

Noxious weed management would have a greater

beneficial impact on special status species and their

habitats than Alternative A by increasing emphasis on

restoration.

Managing sagebrush cover in seedings and on native

rangeland to meet the life history requirements of

sagebrush-dependent wildlife species would have the

same effects on special status species and their habitats

as Alternative A.

Eliminating new playa and lakebed developments and

rehabilitating nonfunctioning sites would benefit

special status species and their habitats and return the

sites to proper functioning condition.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for game and

nongame wildlife species would positively benefit

special status species.

Managing livestock forage production to support the

increase of 8,390 additional wildlife AUM’s identified

by the ODFW would have a minimal impact on special

status wildlife species and their habitat; however, this

alternative would highlight the need to consider the

importance of all wildlife species. There is a potential

for future impacts from expansion of the Lake County
Environmental Consequences

4 -73

elk herd but this would be on a site-specific basis.

Continuing the Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range

Cooperative Road Closure could have the same effect

on special status species and their habitat as Alternative

A.

Maintenance and restoration in fish and aquatic habitat

would have the same effects as Alternative A.

Mitigative measures on BLM-authorized projects

would eliminate or reduce impacts to special status

species utilizing riparian/wetland habitats.

Continuing the current domestic livestock grazing

authorization of 108,234 AUM’s would have the same

impacts on special status species and their habitat as

Alternative A. Temporary nonrenewable grazing use

and construction of rangeland projects would not be

authorized if there were negative impacts to special

status species.

The impacts from the cultural and paleontological

resources would be similar to Alternative A.

Managing existing Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management Area and North Lake County

Special Recreation Management Area would have

similar impacts as Alternative B.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on open

OHV use designation and authorizing organized OHV

events to existing roads and trails would have the same

impacts as Alternative A.

Managing public land actions and activities in a

manner consistent with VRM class objectives would

have the same impacts on special status species and

their habitat as Alternative A.

Alternative E

There could be some negative effects to forest-dependent special status species without timber management,

especially forest health projects. Habitats could be lost

from fir and juniper encroachment or unuseable to

certain special status species.

There would be minimal effects on special status

species from grazing management under this alternative. Species dependent upon grazing or some other

disturbance may be impacted by this alternative. The

lack of grazing would allow the buildup of fine fuels

and increase the risk of large catastrophic wildland

fires, which would have a negative impact on special

status species and their habitat over the short term.

Impacts from suppression of wildland fires would be

the greatest under this alternative. The appropriate

management response would emphasize initial attack,

full suppression only to protect human life and Federal,

state, or private property. Large tracts of crucial

wildlife and special status species habitat could be

burned and unuseable for the life of this plan.

The effects on special status species from the energy

and mineral program would be least under this alternative with only authorizing energy and mineral actions

required by law.

New road construction would have the least potential

for impacting special status species habitat under this

alternative. Only roads required by law would be

constructed. The level of effect could be minimized

further by following road construction and rehabilitation standards and adherence to resource objectives,

BMP’s, and recovery/conservation plans.

The impacts from wildland fire would have the greatest

negative impact on special status species and their

habitat. No emergency fire rehabilitation would be

completed following a wildland fire. Future conditions

of special status species habitat would allow natural

processes to define vegetation composition across the

landscape and no restoration would be conducted.

Natural processes would be allowed to define vegetation composition in existing nonnative seedings and

site rehabilitation would not be conducted under this

alternative. The lack of diversity, structure, and

composition would have negative impacts on shrubdependent special status species and their habitat

without emphasis on natural values and other resource

objectives.

Spring developments would be removed under this

alternative unless needed for wildlife or wild horses.

Springs may need to be maintained or rehabilitated if

critical to special status species. Overall, the impacts

to special status species would be minimal from spring

management.

Road maintenance would not occur under this alternative. Those roads negatively affecting special status

species habitat would continue to cause impacts and

other roads within the areas would have the potential

for causing negative effects in the future without

regular maintenance.

Natural processes would regulate western juniper, old

growth, and snag management under this alternative.

Juniper expansion would continue causing negative
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 74

impacts to special status species and their habitat.

Natural processes would also regulate quaking aspen

stands under this alternative and juniper would be

allowed to replace stands and negatively effect quaking

aspen dependent special status species.

Special status plant species would not be managed

under this alternative except for federally listed species

as specified in recovery plans. This action would have

a minimal effect on special status animal species.

Noxious weed management would focus only on high

priority areas to protect adjacent private property and

could have negative impacts on special status species

habitats currently infested or occupied in the future

under this alternative.

Bighorn sheep would be allowed to disburse naturally

and could cause negative effects on other special status

species if concentration occurs.

No riparian or wetland acquisition or disposal would

occur under this alternative and would negatively effect

the potential for increase of riparian/wetland-dependent

special status species habitat in public ownership.

Restoration of playa and lakebed habitats would not

occur under this alternative and would negatively effect

currently nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areas used

by special status species.

Full implementation and maintenance of the Warner

Wetlands and Abert Lake ACEC plans would not occur

under this alternative, and would cause negative

impacts to riparian/wetland-dependent special status

species from erosion and flooding.

There would be no management of upland habitats

(rangeland improvements) to provide forage, water,

cover, structure, and security necessary for game and

nongame wildlife species, which could cause negative

effects on special status species due to concentrated

wildlife use.

Continuing the Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range

Cooperative Road Closure would have the same effect

on special status species as Alternative A.

Maintenance and restoration would not occur in fish

and aquatic habitat and could cause negative impacts to

riparian/wetland special status species under this

alternative.

Mitigative measures would be used on all BLMauthorized projects to eliminate or reduce the minimal

impacts to special status species habitat. BLM-authorized projects would be limited to those required by

law and wild horse survival.

The abandonment of all rangeland projects could

negatively impact special status species by concentrating wildlife use or eliminating available water.

Wild horses could cause negative impacts to special

status species and their habitat if horse concentration

occurs.

Special management area designation would not

continue and could cause negative impacts to special

status species in areas previously designated as closed

or limited OHV use.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on limited

and closed OHV use designation and not authorizing

organized OHV events would have the same effects on

special status species and their habitat as Alternative C.

Managing public land actions and activities in a

manner consistent with VRM class objectives would

have the same impacts on special status species as

Alternative A.

Social and economic uses would cause the least impact

to special status species, since no commodity production would be allowed from public land.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, special status animal species

habitat would continue to improve, although recovery

rates and extent of recovery would be reduced to allow

for commodity uses, including livestock, transportation, and recreation. Management would continue on a

case-by-case basis on a site-specific level with less

consideration for watershed-scale effects. The major

impacts to special status species are from wildland fire

(short-term impact) and the lack of an aggressive

juniper/quaking aspen, and weed management program

(long-term impact). The management goal for special

status species and their habitat could be achieved under

this alternative with the exception of quaking aspen

management and the continuing encroachment of

juniper into these stands. Without immediate treatment, some quaking aspen stands could be lost forever,

negatively affecting quaking aspen-dependent special

status species. Wetland areas could also be taken over

with noxious weeds if more effective chemicals are not

developed and approved. This could have a serious

effect on wetland-dependent special status wildlife

species.
Environmental Consequences

4 -75

Impacts from Alternative B would be the similar to

Alternative A. Because of law and policy (“Endangered Species Act” and CWA, etc.) setting a high

minimum standard, the difference in effects would be

less than would occur without these laws. Generally,

minimally acceptable conditions would be required and

mitigation would occur on a case-by-case basis rather

than on a watershed scale. While improvements would

occur, they would take longer and not be as extensive

as would occur under Alternative A. The management

goal for special status wildlife species could be

achieved under this alternative, although at a much

slower rate (longer than the life of this plan) due to the

emphasis on commodity production and public uses.

Juniper and quaking aspen management would be more

aggressive under this alternative than Alternative A,

and would have a beneficial impact on those species

dependent on quaking aspen and potential negative

impacts to species dependent on juniper habitats.

Quaking aspen and juniper projects would be designed

to minimize or eliminate impacts to special status

wildlife species. Noxious weed management would

emphasize protection of commodity resources as

opposed to watershed resources and could have a

severe negative effect on special status wildlife species

and their habitat.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less than

under Alternatives A or B. Recovery rates would be

much faster, resulting in better special status wildlife

species habitat conditions. Considering watershedscale effects at the levels specified in Alternative C

would result in more stable conditions. With emphasis

on protection and restoration of natural values, the

management goal for special status wildlife species

could be achieved under this alternative. This alternative has the most aggressive weed, juniper, and quaking

aspen management strategies of Alternatives A and B,

which would be implemented resource area wide.

Alternative C also has the most aggressive prescribed

burning and wildland fire use management program

which could cause greater short-term impacts to special

status wildlife species and their habitat. With an

aggressive emergency fire rehabilitation program the

long-term impacts from prescribed and wildland fire

activities could restore marginal special status species

habitat.

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C; however, recovery rates for special status

wildlife species habitat would require more time to

improve. Slower recovery rates would be caused by

less stringent direction to restore watershed function

and processes, so there would be less improvement to

specific special status wildlife species habitat. More

consideration is given to watershed-scale effects than

under Alternatives A and B. The management goal for

special status wildlife species and their habitat could be

achieved under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D; however, without disturbance from permitted

activities and active restoration, marginal special status

wildlife species habitats may never reach their full

potential and currently occupied habitats could become

unusable. Watershed-scale effects would progress

toward natural recovery of uplands, but increased

juniper encroachment would continue to degrade

watershed-level effects on riparian/wetland-dependent

special status wildlife species habitat. By allowing

natural processes to determine the outcome of habitat

conditions for special status wildlife species, the

management goal for special status wildlife species and

their associated habitat may never be achieved under

this alternative.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impacts

to special status wildlife species is habitat loss, destruction, conversion to less marginal habitat, and loss of

connectivity. The impacts from activities implemented

on the adjacent USFS- and USFWS-administered

lands, as well as private and state lands, creates additional cumulative impacts to BLM-authorized actions.

Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge utilizes

prescribed burning and juniper cutting to meet the

management objectives in their comprehensive management plan.

The cumulative effects of treating this amount of

juniper and sagebrush in combination with BLM’s

proposed alternatives could have major impacts to

special status species utilizing these habitats. Private

landowners and the USFS are also treating juniper and

sagebrush habitats, although at a reduced amount.

Future treatments would have to be closely coordinated

with other Federal and state agencies, and private

landowners to provide optimal habitat and connectivity

for sensitive wildlife species. Coordination would also

be required with other Federal and state agencies in fire

planning to highlight and protect crucial sensitive

wildlife species habitats and corridors. All future BLM

authorized juniper and sagebrush manipulation projects

would be designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to

special status wildlife species and consider the cumulative impacts from other non-BLM projects that may

effect special status wildlife species and their habitat.

Timber management on adjacent Fremont National

Forest lands would have minimal effect on special
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 76

status species if the “Bald Eagle Cooperative

Managment Plan” is followed.

Livestock Grazing Management

Management Goal—Provide for a sustainable level

of livestock grazing consistent with other resource

objectives and public land-use allocations.

Assumptions

The management of livestock grazing would have an

impact on the vigor and reproduction of key plant

species. Actions which enhance plant species vigor and

reproduction cause an increase in the number and size

of that species in a plant community. Conversely, if the

action adversely affects a plant’s vigor and reproduction, the species affected would decrease in number

and size in a plant community. Any change in the size

or number of a species would be known as a change in

the composition. For the purpose of analysis it is

assumed that all available nutrients and water are

essentially fully utilized by the present vegetation.

Therefore, any change in the amount of one species

would result in an opposite change in the amount of

some other herbaceous species. Significant changes in

species composition reflect changes in other vegetative

characteristics such as production, range condition and

trend, ground cover, and T&E plants.

The three components of livestock grazing that impact

vegetation are vegetation allocation, grazing systems,

and range improvements. The vegetation allocation

across allotments was determined in the “Lakeview

Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement” using 50 percent utilization as the standard,

except in the crested wheatgrass seedings where 65

percent utilization was the standard. The vegetation

allocation is adjusted following monitoring and allotment evaluation and S&G’s assessments which are

conducted on each allotment. The vegetation allocation is set so the impacts from utilization are similar

across allotments. However, the time and duration of

the utilization, which is determined by the grazing

system and the range improvements, has a significant

impact on the vegetation.

Table 4-1 shows how key species composition would

be generally impacted by each grazing system under

each alternative. The key species composition is also

an indicator of plant cover, plant production, plant

vigor, reproduction, and litter cover. The grazing

systems are described in detail in Appendix E2, which

also contains a detailed description of grazing impacts

on vegetation communities within the resource area.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Management of plant communities under Alternative A

would likely maintain or increase the quality and

quantity of forage available to livestock. Rehabilitated

areas would be excluded from grazing for 2 years after

the project. This forage loss would be short term and

rehabilitation projects would likely increase the

quantity and quality of forage available. Changes in

grazing systems and seasons of use may be used to

promote or maintain proper functioning condition.

Maintenance and improvement of watershed function

and the continuation of existing grazing systems and

exclosures would have several impacts to livestock

grazing. Water sources for livestock have the potential

for longer-lasting impacts, assuming animals have

access to the areas. Forage in exclosures would remain

unavailable to livestock and decrease livestock distribution. This would result in a quantity and quality

forage decrease. Impacts from the management of fish

and aquatic habitat would be similar to those stated

above.

Most management actions for wildlife, wildlife habitat,

and special status animal species under Alternative A

would have little impact to the current livestock

grazing program. The potential for changes in grazing

systems and seasons of use would remain. However,

most necessary changes to livestock management have

been taken and no major future actions are anticipated.

Livestock grazing management would remain a sustained yield of 108,234 AUM’s annually. Based on

past land use plans, there is potential to construct 62

additional miles of pipeline, 37 reservoirs, and 32

waterholes. Approximately 10,000 acres that were

proposed to be treated and seeded in the resource area

have not been completed to date. These remaining

rangeland improvement projects in addition to temporary nonrenewable grazing use would make additional

forage available to livestock. Management of wild

horses would have no impact to livestock grazing.

The management of ACEC’s, WSA’s, WSR-eligible

streams, and caves would not change from the current

management actions. The impacts to current livestock

grazing may include loss of forage through changes in

grazing systems and seasons. Most major changes to
Environmental Consequences

4 -77

livestock grazing management are already being

implemented.

Use of prescribed fire and rehabilitation of the treated

areas could result in an increase in forage quality and

quantity available to livestock. Fire treatment areas

would have a decrease in forage available for livestock

use in the short term, requiring changes in livestock

grazing use. Short-term impacts of emergency fire

rehabilitation include grazing exclusion following the

rehabilitation. There is potential for an increase in

forage quality and quantity available to livestock in the

long term.

At the current levels of recreational use in the area,

there would be no impact to livestock grazing. Any

designated open OHV use has the potential to decrease

forage availability. There is a potential for loss in

animal condition if OHV use is in the vicinity of

livestock and causes stress to the animals.

Historically, land exchanges and acquisitions have not

had an impact on the forage available to livestock.

However, any acquisition or exchange of lands has the

potential to increase or decrease the forage available to

livestock. Under Alternative A, 42,500 acres of land

would be made available for disposal. These lands are

present in seven allotments and make up a substantial

part of 6 allotments. Two of these six allotments would

have the potential of being completely disposed,

resulting in a loss of availability of 1,485 AUM’s. Land

acquisition may include lands that would have forage

available for livestock. This has the potential to increase the forage available to livestock grazing.

Alternative B

Management of plant communities under Alternative B

would likely increase the available forage to livestock.

Forage production would be increased through restoration of existing nonnative seedings, and decadent,

disturbed, and degraded sites. Allowing access to

rehabilitated areas prior to two growing seasons, if

consistent with management objectives, may increase

forage availability. Springs and water developments

would be managed to allow riparian function while

providing livestock watering access, increasing potential distribution and available forage. Restoration of

riparian/wetland areas would be done in a manner that

does not impact livestock grazing. Impacts to livestock

grazing from the management of special status plant

species under Alternative B would be similar to those

under Alternative A. Increased inventory and detection

of noxious weeds to protect commodity resources, and

an increase in public education, would likely increase

or maintain current levels of forage available to livestock.

Under Alternative B, most impacts to livestock grazing,

if management for water resources and quality, and fish

and aquatic habitat is implemented, would be similar to

impacts under Alterative A. Corridor fencing of all

streams would decrease the available forage to livestock. This would occur through direct loss of forage

and a decrease in the potential distribution of animals.

Most management actions for wildlife, wildlife habitat,

and special status animal species under Alternative B

would be similar to the impacts from Alternative A.

Reestablishment of big sagebrush habitat on seedings

could decrease the forage available to livestock.

Livestock grazing management would increase the

sustained yield from the current level of 108,234 to

119,057 AUM’s annually—a gain of 10,823 AUM’s of

forage. These additional AUM’s combined with

temporary nonrenewable grazing use authorized in

years of favorable growing conditions, and the use of

range improvement projects to meet resource objective

needs, would result in an increase in forage available to

livestock grazing. Wild horse management under

Alternative B would have no impact to livestock

grazing.

ACEC’s, WSR’s, and caves would be managed similar

to the current strategies resulting in impacts that are

similar to those discussed in Alternative A.

Alternative B would result in a combination 64,000

acres of prescribed burn treatments and wildland fires

allowed annually. The compliance with air quality

standards under each alternative would result in no

impact to livestock grazing. Use of prescribed fire and

rehabilitation of the treated areas to optimize the forage

base would result in an increase in forage quality and

quantity available to livestock. Fire treatment areas

would have a decrease in forage available for livestock

use in the short term, requiring changes in livestock

grazing use. Short term-impacts of emergency fire

rehabilitation include grazing exclusion following

rehabilitation. There would potentially be an increase

in forage quality and quantity available to livestock.

Development of recreational opportunities and OHV

use may decrease forage available to livestock. There

is a greater potential for loss in animal condition with

all the resource area being open to OHV use and an

increased potential for stress to the animals.

Historically, land exchanges and acquisitions have not
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 78

had an impact on the forage available to livestock.

However, any acquisition or exchange of lands has the

potential to increase or decrease the forage available to

livestock. Under Alternative B, land that would facilitate commodity production would be emphasized for

acquisition. This has the potential to increase the

forage available to livestock grazing. Disposal would

include land within 14 allotments. One of these allotments would lose most of its land mass and result in

the unavailability of 1,970 AUM’s to livestock.

Alternative C

Permanent closure of an additional 50,497 acres

(compared to Alternatives A, B, and D) to grazing in

order to emphasize natural values in plant communities

would directly decrease the availability of forage for

livestock. Indirectly, a decrease in the development of

range improvements would likely result in decreased

livestock distribution and a loss of forage available to

livestock. The reestablishment of native species in

areas where nonnative species of high forage value

currently exist, as well as the permanent or temporary

closures associated with these projects, may result in a

decrease of forage available to livestock. If the areas

that would be rehabilitated to native species currently

contain species of little or no value to livestock, and the

areas would eventually be reopened to grazing, there

would likely be an increase in forage available to

livestock. Native seeding would still result in more

forage available to livestock than if no rehabilitation

was conducted. There may be an increase in time an

area is excluded from grazing following rehabilitation,

however this would be short term and would not

ultimately effect available forage. Depending on the

type of treatment of quaking aspen stands, changes in

livestock grazing use may be required. Increased

amount and quality of forage may be available for

livestock use after treatments have been applied. By

increasing the inventory and detection of weeds and

eradicating and restoring all existing sites, there would

be an increase in available forage. Expanding public

education efforts would be beneficial to livestock

through a decrease in weed spread and introduction.

This increased forage availability could potentially lead

to more allocation of forage to livestock, or an increase

in forage quality, allowing better condition and health

of the animals.

The impacts to livestock grazing in regards to special

status plant species would be applicable to a broader

area in Alternative C than in either Alternatives A or B.

The decrease in available forage would likely be

greater in the amount of forage, length of time areas

may be closed to grazing, and the size of areas closed

to grazing. This would also be true for the 10 areas that

are proposed to be designated as ONHP ACEC/RNA’s.

Grazing would be excluded from five of these areas

resulting in a decrease in forage available to livestock.

The protection and restoration of watershed function

and processes, and meeting the surface and groundwater water quality standards, would impact livestock

grazing in several ways. Initially, management efforts

to attain these goals may require changes in the frequency, intensity, and season of livestock use. Animals

may have limited access to water, decreasing livestock

distribution and indirectly decreasing forage availability. The long-term impacts may include improved

animal health due to improved range condition, the

opportunity to increase livestock numbers in rehabilitated areas, continued changes in forage available to

livestock, and increases in water availability due to

improved watershed health. Exclusion of grazing from

all streams, springs, riparian areas, wetlands and their

associated riparian conservation area would result in a

direct decrease to forage available for livestock.

Indirectly, loss of access to water sources may limit

distribution in areas where grazing can continue and

ultimately decrease forage availability. The exclusion

of livestock from all riparian areas would directly

decrease the quantity and quality of forage available by

making the forage in those areas inaccessible to the

animals. This loss may be more significant in quality of

forage than quantity.

Providing for aquatic habitat may result in adjustments

to livestock grazing use and potentially require changes

in frequency, intensity, and season of use. Grazing

systems and livestock exclusion necessary to manage

for instream processes and habitat diversity, state water

quality standards for fish or other aquatic beneficial

uses, proper functioning condition, riparian potential

and riparian management objectives would potentially

result in one or a combination of the following:

changes in frequency, intensity, and season of livestock

use; decreased or increase forage availability for

livestock; and/or increase water availability for livestock. Closures to grazing would result in a permanent

loss of forage available to livestock. If stream habitat

goals and objectives are not being met, livestock

grazing use may be adjusted in appropriate areas of

concern. Implementing BMP’s to limit sediment

loading in streams would improve water quality and

water availability to livestock. If wetlands acquired are

a continuation of wetlands and riparian areas present in

adjacent BLM land, water availability to livestock has

the potential to increase and persist. Opening existing

riparian exclosures to livestock grazing would increase

the available forage for livestock use. Distribution of
Environmental Consequences

4 -79

livestock would be improved with more rangeland

available for livestock use.

Reestablishment of native big sagebrush wildlife

habitat could decrease the available forage for livestock

grazing on native rangeland or seedings, depending on

current conditions. Grazing systems and livestock

exclusion necessary to manage for desired future

habitat conditions would potentially result in one or a

combination of the following: changes in frequency,

intensity, and season of livestock use; and changes in

forage availability for livestock. There would be no

potential to increase available forage if there is no

development of new water sources. This could also

impact the quality and quantity of current available

forage by limiting the opportunity to increase livestock

distribution in an area.

Management of upland wildlife habitat would potentially require changes in frequency, intensity, and

season of use. Depending on the desired condition,

forage available to livestock could increase or decrease. Adjustments to livestock grazing use in 46

allotments containing pronghorn winter forage and 81

allotments containing mule deer winter forage are

possible. If management includes exclusion of grazing,

there could be a loss of forage availability. Ultimately,

a loss in forage for livestock during specific seasons

would occur—most likely a decrease in fall use. This

would have minimal impact as there are few permits

currently issued for fall grazing. There would be no

authorization of domestic sheep grazing resulting in a

complete loss of forage availability for that species.

This would not impact the current forage available to

livestock grazing as all permits are currently for cattle.

The allocation of additional forage for elk, deer, and

bighorn sheep, and the readjustment of total AUM’s in

allotments with mule deer and pronghorn habitat,

would have no effect on the current AUM’s allocated to

livestock grazing. Livestock grazing would be implemented to incorporate the management of special status

animal species and corresponding habitats and to

incorporate the “Recovery Plan for the Threatened and

Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali

Subbasin.” Potential impacts would be changes to

current livestock grazing intensity, frequency, and

season of use. The impacts from management of

wildlife under Alternative C would result in broader

impacts to livestock grazing than those from Alternatives A and B because of the emphasis on landscapescale resolution in Alternative C.

Livestock grazing management would lower the annual

sustained yield from the current level of 108,234 to

86,587 AUM’s, a loss of 21,647 AUM’s of forage. By

not authorizing temporary nonrenewable grazing use,

there would be no additional AUM’s available for

livestock above those licensed. Indirectly, the abandonment of projects would decrease the available

forage for livestock by decreasing the ability to promote the distribution necessary to utilize forage in

specific areas. Restoration activities to plant communities in the Paisley Desert Herd Management Area

would increase forage available for livestock grazing;

however, the forage allocated for livestock would

probably reflect the current allocation. Any additional

water developments constructed for horses would aid

in the distribution of livestock, depending on placement. The abandonment of established water developments and other projects that do not emphasize natural

values would reduce the water available to livestock,

decreasing distribution opportunities and available

forage.

A total of seven ACEC’s would be closed to grazing

and create a loss of 11,011 AUM’s of forage available

to livestock on 96,171 acres. The Devils Garden

Allotment would no longer be available for emergency

livestock grazing. In order to incorporate the management of eligible WSR’s, livestock grazing use would

potentially require changes in frequency, intensity, and

season of use, and may be limited in certain areas,

resulting in a loss of forage available to livestock.

Limiting OHV events to existing roads and trails, and

not designating any acres to open OHV use, would

prevent the potential decrease in forage availability and

would decrease the probability of animal condition loss

due to animal stress that may occur under other alternatives. Visual resource management would have no

impact on forage available to livestock.

Limiting land-disturbing activities within identified

Native American religious sites or traditional cultural

properties may include closure of areas to grazing. This

would decrease the forage available to livestock,

potentially resulting in a reduction of AUM’s. Management of cultural plants would potentially require

changes in frequency, intensity and season of use of

livestock grazing, also resulting in reduced available

forage and AUM’s. There is also a potential for decreasing the quality of forage available to livestock.

Under Alternative C, the amount of acres available for

prescribed fires and the subsequent rehabilitation of

these areas would result in the greatest potential

increase in forage quality and quantity available to

livestock in areas not excluded to grazing. Fire treatment and wildland fire areas would have a decrease in

forage available for livestock use in the short term,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 80

requiring changes in livestock grazing use. Short-term

impacts of emergency fire rehabilitation include

grazing exclusion following the rehabilitation. The

length of time an area would be closed to grazing may

be increased under Alternative C, depending on individual site conditions found during monitoring. The

decrease in forage availability would still be temporary.

In the long term, vegetation may return with improved

species diversity and increased forage quantity and

quality available for livestock grazing. The emphasis

on natural landscapes and processes in Alternative C

could potentially provide less forage available to

livestock than the practice of using nonnative and

native/nonnative seed mixtures as outlined in Alternatives A, B, and D. However, this is site dependent, and

ultimately, any rehabilitation would increase favorable

site conditions following a fire, and may provide more

forage than is currently available in degraded and

senescent plant communities.

Any expansion or development of recreation sites that

exist within grazing allotments has the potential to

decrease the forage available for livestock use.

Acquisition of lands with emphasis on land with high

public resource values may increase or decrease the

forage available for livestock grazing, depending on the

public values at the time. Historically, land exchanges

and acquisitions have not had an impact on the forage

available to livestock. Nineteen allotments include

land that has been marked for disposal under Alternative C. Significant forage loss is unlikely due to the fact

that the total amount of land that may be disposed is

minimal in each allotment. Reduction in commodity

use to increase the level of protection for natural values

would likely have a direct impact to livestock in the

form of reduced forage availability. By establishing

new commodity use levels meant to establish stability

to the local livestock industry, there may be an initial

loss in forage availability that could result in higher

probability of forage available to livestock in the

future.

Alternative D

Changes in grazing management to attain a trend

toward the desired range of conditions in the upland

native shrub steppe communities may decrease the

forage available to livestock in the short term. These

management changes should benefit livestock grazing

in areas that currently contain invasive and undesirable

plant species. Although the management of nonnative

seeding to maintain seeding production, improve

structural and species diversity, and maintain forage

production may not change the current quantity of

forage available for livestock, it may make the current

amount of forage available to livestock persist for a

longer period of time. The long-term impact of rehabilitation efforts in areas that include annual, weedy,

invasive woody, and decadent species is an increase in

the forage available to livestock. These efforts would

result in short-term forage loss due to changes in

grazing management immediately after the projects.

Using a mixture of native and nonnative seeds for

rehabilitation would result in more forage available to

livestock than if no seeding was done. However, the

amount of increase would depend on the success of the

rehabilitation. Riparian and wetland vegetation management may include management actions that exclude

grazing or change the grazing system and season of

use, both short and long term, to promote the recovery

of riparian systems. Continuing the current integrated

management of noxious weed species while expanding

efforts to inventory and detect new infestations, would

benefit livestock by decreasing the opportunity for

undesirable species to displace quality forage. The

impacts to livestock grazing in regards to special status

plant species would be similar to the impacts in Alternative C.

Impacts to livestock grazing with implemented water

resource/watershed health management under Alternative D would be similar to those in Alternative C.

Exceptions include six allotments in the resource area

that currently have stream reaches determined to be

functioning-at-risk or nonfunctioning. These allotments

would be impacted in the short term by excluding

grazing for 5 years, decreasing the quality and quantity

of forage available to livestock. If the previous grazing

system is determined to be a contributing factor to the

undesirable condition, changes would be incorporated

into the grazing system to promote riparian recovery.

The long-term impacts may include improved animal

health due to improved range condition, the opportunity to increase livestock numbers in rehabilitated

areas, continued changes in forage available to livestock, decreases in forage availability depending on the

grazing system changes, and increases in water availability due to improved watershed health. Management

for fish and aquatic habitat under Alternative D may

require changes in grazing management including

decreases in the quantity and quality of forage available to livestock grazing due to changes in grazing

systems, including exclosures.

Bighorn sheep management and the allocation of an

additional 8,390 AUM’s to wildlife would not have an

impact on livestock grazing. These additional AUM’s

are currently unalloted for any specific use. Management of upland habitat would have impacts similar to
Environmental Consequences

4 -81

those outlined in Alternative C. Current livestock

grazing management would potentially require changes

in frequency, intensity, and season of use to incorporate

management of upland wildlife habitat. Resulting

impacts include a decrease in forage available to

livestock and the exclusion of grazing in specific areas.

Adjustment to livestock grazing use in 46 allotments

containing pronghorn winter forage and 81 allotments

containing mule deer winter forage are possible.

Ultimately, a loss in forage for livestock during specific

seasons would occur, most likely a decrease in fall use.

This would be minimal as there is currently not a large

amount of fall livestock use in the resource area. The

allocation of additional forage for elk, deer, and

bighorn sheep, and the readjustment of AUM’s in deer

and pronghorn allotments, would have no effect on the

current AUM’s allocated to livestock grazing.

Most impacts to livestock grazing due to management

of special status animals species under Alternative D

would be similar to those from Alternative A. Under

Alternative D, management would emphasize landscape-level resolution rather than single species

resulting in some impacts similar to Alternative C. Any

impacts to livestock grazing would be broader than

those from Alternatives A and B because of the emphasis on landscape scale resolution.

Under Alternative D, the current authorization of

108,234 AUM’s would continue. Administrative

solutions to meet resource management needs would

not effect the quantity of forage available to livestock.

Although temporary nonrenewable grazing use would

be authorized, there may not be as much forage available to livestock as in Alternative A. Additional herbaceous production may be retained for values other than

forage production. Increasing the gather cycle for wild

horses and the subsequent increases of the appropriate

management level by 40 horses may effect forage

available to livestock in the Sheeprock and Christmas

Lake Allotments. Horse numbers have exceeded this

appropriate management level in the recent past and

any impact to livestock grazing through this increase

would be minimal.

The Devils Garden Allotment would no longer be

available for emergency livestock grazing, reducing

AUM’s available to livestock. Closure of the Arrow

Gap Allotment to grazing would result in a loss of 160

AUM’s to livestock. In order to incorporate the

management of eligible WSR’s, livestock grazing use

would potentially require changes in frequency, intensity, and season of use, and may be limited in certain

areas resulting in a loss of forage available to livestock.

Impacts from SMA’s proposed under Alternative D are

similar to those in Alternative C. WSA and cave

management under Alternative D would have the same

impacts as Alternative A.

Impacts to livestock grazing by proposed cultural and

paleontological resource management under Alternative D would be similar to the impacts from Alternative

C.

Reduction in commodity use to increase the level of

protection for natural values would likely have a direct

impact to livestock in the form of reduced forage

availability. By establishing new commodity use levels,

meant to establish stability to the local livestock

industry, there may be an initial loss in forage availability that could result in an increase in the future forage

available to livestock.

In areas not excluded to grazing, wildland fires and

prescribed fires followed by rehabilitation would result

in an increase in forage available to livestock. Shortterm impacts of emergency fire rehabilitation include

grazing exclusion following the rehabilitation. In the

long term, vegetation may return with improved species

diversity and increased forage available for livestock

grazing. Fire treatment areas would have a decrease in

forage available for livestock use in the short term

requiring changes in livestock grazing use. In the long

term, these same fire treatment areas would have an

increase in quantity and quality of forage available for

livestock use.

Although there would still be no OHV events outside

existing and/or designated roads and trails, there would

be 2,038,044 acres designated open to OHV’s under

this alternative, creating a higher potential to decrease

forage through OHV use and increase loss of animal

condition due to stress. Any expansion or development

of recreation sites that exist within grazing allotments

has the potential to decrease the forage available for

livestock use. Livestock grazing use would potentially

require changes in frequency, intensity, and season of

use, and may be limited in these recreation areas.

Historically, land exchanges and acquisitions have not

had an impact on the forage available to livestock.

Nineteen allotments include land that has been marked

for disposal under Alternative D. Significant forage

loss is unlikely, due to the fact that the total amount of

land that may be disposed is minimal in each allotment.

However, any acquisition or exchange of lands has the

potential to increase or decrease the forage available to

livestock.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 82

Alternative E

The impact to livestock grazing under Alternative E

would be a complete loss of forage available to livestock. Livestock grazing permits authorizing an average 108,234 AUM’s annually would be canceled. No

rangeland projects in support of livestock grazing

would be planned or implemented. Rangeland projects

that support livestock grazing only and are not needed

for other purposes would be abandoned and rehabilitated.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A would allow the management goal for

livestock grazing to be met. Management practices

outlined under this alternative would support the

S&G’s. If livestock are the causative agent in

nonattainment of a standard, then corrective actions

would be taken. Management actions that could result

in reductions in forage available to livestock and loss

of management flexibility, as well as management

actions that could increase forage and retain management flexibility, are present under this alternative. The

actions proposed would generally allow for grazing

management flexibility. Permitted AUM’s would

remain the same as currently permitted under the

present management. Impacts to livestock grazing

would be minimal under Alternative A, with the

potential to slightly increase or decrease forage availability.

Alternative B would allow the management goal for

livestock grazing to be met. Management practices

outlined under this alternative would support the

S&G’s. If livestock are the causative agent in

nonattainment of a standard, corrective actions would

be taken. Management actions that could result in

reductions in forage available to livestock and loss of

management flexibility, as well as management actions

that could increase forage and retain management

flexibility, are present under this alternative. The

actions proposed would generally allow for grazing

management flexibility. Permitted AUM’s would

reflect a 20 percent increase from those permitted

under the present management. Impacts to livestock

grazing would be minimal under Alternative B, with

the potential to increase forage availability due to the

emphasis on commodity production.

Alternative C would allow the management goal for

livestock grazing to be met. Management practices

outlined under this alternative would support the

S&G’s. If livestock are the causative agent in

nonattainment of a standard, then actions would be

taken. Management actions that could result in reductions in forage available to livestock and loss of

management flexibility, as well as management actions

that could increase forage and retain management

flexibility, would occur. The actions proposed would

generally allow for grazing management flexibility.

Permitted AUM’s would reflect a 20 percent decrease

from those permitted under the present management.

Impacts to livestock grazing under Alternative C would

likely be more apparent and longer lasting than the

impacts from Alternatives A and B. This is due to the

actions under Alternative C emphasizing natural values

and processes over commodity production. Although

this emphasis can be achieved with grazing continuing

in the resource area, there would be more constraints

on this use and a loss of forage available to livestock.

Alternative D would allow the management goal for

livestock grazing to be met. Management practices

outlined under this alternative would support the

S&G’s. If livestock are the causative agent in

nonattainment of a standard, then actions would be

taken. Management actions that could result in reductions in forage available to livestock and loss of

management flexibility, as well as management actions

that could increase forage and retain management

flexibility, would occur. The actions proposed would

generally allow for grazing management flexibility.

Impacts to livestock grazing under Alternative D would

likely be more apparent and longer lasting than the

impacts from Alternatives A and B, but not as drastic as

those in Alternatives C and E. This is due to the actions

under Alternative D protecting and improving natural

values while providing commodity production.

Implementation of Alternative E would eliminate

livestock grazing on public lands in the planning area,

and thus, would have the most detrimental impact to

livestock grazing of all the alternatives. The management goal for livestock grazing would not be met.

Cumulative, Indirect, and Secondary Impacts

Although impacts to livestock from any individual

management action under Alternative A are negligible,

there is potential for actions to have a greater impact

when considered cumulatively. It is anticipated that the

recreational use of public lands in the resource area

would continue to increase. There is potential for

impacts to livestock grazing, and loss of forage, if

individual users have conflicts with the livestock or

resource damage increases with the recreational use.

Livestock grazing in areas with heavy recreational use

may need to be modified. Presently, management of elk

and bighorn sheep does not impact livestock grazing.
Environmental Consequences

4 -83

Future management of greater sage-grouse habitat may

include actions that impact livestock grazing. Any

changes to the management of wildlife species by the

ODFW may result in the need to change grazing

systems and seasons of use. When combined, management of OHV use, mineral development, cultural,

paleontological, and land disposal may decrease the

available forage for livestock if multiple actions were

taking place in the same allotment.

Under Alternative B, impacts to livestock grazing

would generally increase the forage available to

livestock. Increased opportunity for prescribed fire to

optimize the forage base, and rehabilitation using high

forage value species, would increase the forage available to livestock. These efforts, combined with rangeland improvements, would promote use of currently

unavailable or undesirable areas. Commodity production in this alternative includes actions that would

impact livestock grazing in situations where other

commodities are emphasized. Where other commodity-based resources are present, cumulative impacts

may result in a loss of forage. Presently, management

of elk and bighorn sheep does not impact livestock

grazing. Any changes to the management of wildlife

species by the ODFW may result in the need to change

grazing systems and seasons of use. Future management of greater sage-grouse habitat may include actions

that impact livestock grazing. When combined, management of recreation, OHV use, mineral development,

cultural, paleontological, and land disposal may

decrease the available forage for livestock if multiple

actions were taking place in the same allotment.

The cumulative impacts to grazing under Alternative C

could be significant. Allotments that have the most

potential of being impacted are those where grazing is

the causative agent in nonattainment of S&G’s or any

other standards set by resource professionals for

multiple resources. These areas may contain special

status plants and wildlife, aquatic habitat, wildlife

habitat, streams, riparian areas, and recreational

opportunities, and are in need of rehabilitation. Impacts

would be greater if management activities require

complete livestock exclusion and/or loss of present

forage base. Closure of an area to recreation use may

increase recreation use in other areas. This may result

in decreased forage availability and use conflicts.

Under Alternative D, impacts to livestock grazing

would generally not affect the total AUM’s available to

livestock. In a case-by-case basis, there may be cumulative impacts to the forage selection and quality of

forage. Management actions that include wildlife such

as greater sage-grouse, elk, and bighorn sheep, combined with other resource issues in an area, may

decrease the forage available to livestock. Any closure

to recreation in one area may not directly impact

livestock grazing. Indirectly, use in other areas may

increase and impact forage availability for livestock.

Under Alternative E, livestock grazing would be

eliminated from the resource area. As a result, there

would be no secondary, indirect, or cumulative impacts

to the program.

Wild Horses

Management Goal—Maintain and manage wild

horse herds in established herd management areas at

appropriate management levels to ensure a thriving

natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, and

other resource values.

Assumptions

All wild horses removed from the herds would be

placed in BLM’s adoption program or otherwise placed

for long-term care. Under Alternative B, increases in

livestock grazing would not result in improper rangeland management. Therefore, more intensive grazing

systems and range improvement projects would be

required under this alternative.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The watershed health goals benefit wild horses by

providing a stable or increased forage production and

availability. Existing grazing systems and exclosures

on streams, springs, and riparian/wetland areas benefit

wild horses in the long term, when improved health of

streams, springs, and riparian/wetlands provide a

longer time period of water availability and improved

forage production and availability.

Construction of new boundary fences or strengthening

existing fences would encourage horses to stay inside

herd management areas.

Fencing designed for watershed restoration, fire

rehabilitation, range improvement, livestock management, or protection of special status species temporarily restricts movement of wild horses until they

become accustomed to the change. During drought

years, fences may prevent horses from reaching water
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 84

sources, and actions, such as leaving gates open and

water hauling, may be necessary to maintain the herds.

Fencing affects the entire Paisley Desert Herd Management Area, which has approximately 46 miles of

interior fencing. Grazing allotments within the boundaries of the herd management area include Allotments

418, 419, 428, and 10103. Fencing is less of an impact

to the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area which has

only 9 miles of interior fencing in one allotment (600).

The fencing in the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area

is constructed so that horses may move around the

fence on the east side. No further interior fencing is

expected in either herd management area under this

alternative.

Aggressive initial attack and full suppression of

wildland fires would minimize short-term impacts to

horses, such as loss of forage and habitat associated

with wildland fire. Prescribed fire would reduce

availability of forage and habitat on 9,000 acres in the

Beaty Butte Herd Management Area in the short term

until vegetation recovers from direct fire impacts. In

the long term, vegetative productivity of herbaceous

species and diversity of plant species may be maintained or increased with prescribed fire. An increase in

herbaceous vegetation would benefit wild horses by

increasing the available forage. Prescribed fire or

wildland fire in the Paisley Desert Herd Management

Area could reduce the amount of forage available in

both the short and long term due to the risk of invasion

from cheatgrass and noxious weeds.

Mineral exploration, development, and production has

a low probability of occurrence within herd management areas; therefore, minimal impacts are expected.

However, these activities could potentially occur

anywhere in the LRA. Diatomite mines exist in the

Paisley Desert Herd Management Area. Potential

impacts from mineral activity include displacement of

horses, interruption of normal movements, and change

in normal areas of use.

Grazing systems and range improvements designed to

improve ecological condition, increase forage production and provide a stable environment for wild horses,

as long as increased forage production is not entirely

consumed by livestock. Under these conditions,

appropriate management levels can be maintained and

overall health of the herds would improve providing an

overall beneficial impact. When livestock use is

balanced with forage production, horses would have

adequate forage during the summer and prior to winter.

Adequate forage would help maintain the health of the

herds and assist in maintaining viability. Livestock

grazing is managed under rest rotation in both herd

management areas. Based on previous studies, rest

rotation grazing resulted in the significantly better

conditions than all other systems. Changes in forage

production as a result of changes in livestock grazing

are expected to take 15 to 20 years before they are a

significant benefit to wild horses. Vegetation changes

are expected to benefit wild horses as herbaceous

vegetation increases. Most change would occur on

rangelands in fair condition in the Paisley Desert Herd

Management Area, and on lands rated in mid seral in

the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area. The herd

management areas have different levels of vegetative

survey: Paisley Desert information is based on forage

condition, while Beaty Butte has a complete ecological

site inventory; therefore, the herd areas are not directly

comparable to each other.

Vegetation management designed for rehabilitation and

restoration of disturbed lands including seedings, brush

control, and prescribed or wildland fire, would reduce

forage availability and habitat on approximately 20,000

acres in the short term, pending vegetative recovery

from the initial disturbance. In the long term, vegetative productivity and diversity would be maintained or

improved, and the viability and health of the herds

would be maintained. Appropriate management levels

could be increased if forage is increased.

Nonnative seedings within herd management areas

benefit wild horses by providing a stable forage base

and reducing competition with domestic livestock for

nonnative forage.

Special status species occur in both herd management

areas. Management designed to benefit special status

species may limit opportunities to enhance wild horses

and may conflict with the needs of wild horses, especially if protective fencing is used.

Weed management actions could limit the spread of

noxious weeds, reducing impacts on forage production

in the herd management areas.

Forage needs of wildlife, livestock, and wild horses are

met under current management strategies. Bighorn

sheep are managed in both herd management areas. In

most instances, the habitats of bighorn sheep, livestock,

and wild horses do not overlap. An exception would be

near waterholes where animals would concentrate. In

the future, if management objectives for wildlife,

livestock, and wild horses are not met or achieved,

adjustments in appropriate management levels may be

necessary to meet other resource objectives. Current

livestock levels could be maintained without reductions

in appropriate management levels. As wild horse
Environmental Consequences

4 -85

numbers increase above appropriate management level,

with no corresponding reduction in livestock numbers,

key areas become overgrazed and forage production

and availability decrease. Impacts to resources are

compounded during periods of drought, resulting in

decreased health of wild horses.

Water developments benefit wild horses, as well as

livestock, because water is more limiting than forage in

the herd management areas. Livestock operators

maintain water developments used by livestock,

wildlife, and wild horses. No further water developments are recommended in the Paisley Desert Herd

Management Area. As many as nine water projects are

recommended for the Beaty Butte Herd Management

Area under this alternative. Water development could

allow for increased appropriate management level,

better health of animals during periods of drought, and

increase the area used by horses.

Wild horses would be maintained within the boundaries

of both herd management areas; therefore, all impacts

from wild horse use would be confined to the herd

management areas.

Viable herds of wild horses would be maintained in

balance with the forage and other resources. Herd

characteristics described in Table 2-32 would be

maintained. Horses from outside the herd management

areas may be introduced to maintain genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity would improve the health of the

herds. Returning the highest quality horses after

gathering ensures that the herds are highly reproductive

and is one of the most significant factors influencing

the viability of the herds.

The present forage allocation underestimates the needs

of wild horses as the upper end of the appropriate

management level is reached. Forage is allocated for

80 percent of the animals in the herd management

areas, but no forage is allocated for foals. If horses are

not gathered exactly at the time the upper limit of the

appropriate management level is reached, horses

consume more than the allotted forage. Since gatherings are scheduled outside the normal foaling season,

in most cases, forage is allocated to all horses at the top

end of appropriate management level.

Alternative B

Fire, both wildland fire and prescribed fire, energy and

mineral exploration and development, and noxious

weed treatments would have the same impacts as

Alternative A.

Vegetation treatments would benefit livestock more

than wild horses. Competition for available forage

would be increased. Periodic adjustments in appropriate management levels may be necessary, and the

potential for appropriate management level adjustments

would be greater than Alternative A as more emphasis

is placed on livestock use of the forage.

Temporary nonrenewable grazing use would benefit

livestock rather than horses, but would not negatively

impact horses.

Management for special status species would have the

same impacts as Alternative A. The need to fence

special status plants may be greater under this alternative; therefore, the impacts described in Alternative A

are more likely to occur.

Viable herds of horses would be maintained in both

herd management areas.

Alternative C

Impacts from most resources would be similar to those

under Alternative A, except the majority of negative

impacts would be reduced. A significant positive affect

to horses would result. Emphasis on natural values

would limit the opportunities to enhance wild horses

because appropriate management levels would not be

maximized.

Conflicts with livestock for available forage and water

would be reduced. Grazing systems and range improvements, designed to improve ecological condition,

would have similar impacts to Alternative A, except

that adjustments to wild horse appropriate management

levels and livestock authorized use would be proportional.

Maintaining utilization levels in the light range on

uplands would assure adequate forage availability for

horses. Slight long-term increases in birth rates could

be expected, along with increased winter forage,

decreased winter deaths, and a general improvement in

herd health. Herd characteristics would be maintained.

Road closures may limit the time during which gathering could be scheduled and the placement of trap sites.

The potential for wild horse and human interactions

would be reduced to the benefit of wild horses.

The impact from short-term forage loss as a result of

proposed vegetation and restoration projects would have

less of an impact than Alternative A because less emphasis would be placed on livestock use of the forage.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 86

There would less potential for project development and

less impacts to horses from project development.

Fencing would have the same impacts as Alternative A,

although the amount of fence necessary for livestock

management could be reduced.

Protection of springs in the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area may result in loss of water for wild horses.

This could be offset by water developments elsewhere

in the herd management area.

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A,

except that adjustments to wild horse appropriate

management levels and livestock authorized use would

be proportional.

Grazing systems and range improvements, designed to

improve ecological condition, would have similar

impacts to Alternative A, but would benefit wild horses

as well as livestock.

The viability of wild horse herds would be maintained

consistent with other uses. Established appropriate

management levels would be increased initially and

then maintained. Appropriate management levels may

increase slightly in the long term as vegetation improves. Slight long-term increases in birth rates could

be expected, along with increased winter forage,

decreased winter deaths, and a general improvement in

herd health. Herd characteristics would be maintained.

Alternative E

Competition between livestock and wild horses for

available forage would be eliminated. Appropriate

management levels would initially increase, and

potentially increase further. Wild horses would be

managed within the existing boundaries of herd management areas. Wild horse herds would be managed

within the capabilities of the resources. Appropriate

management levels would continue to be revised until a

level of thriving ecological balance is determined.

Resource deterioration from overgrazing would not be

allowed.

Restrictive fencing would be removed, maximizing the

area in which horses could roam freely. Healthy viable

herds would be maintained. The potential to increase

appropriate management levels is greatest under this

alternative.

Gathers of excess horses would continue, but the time

period between gathers could potentially be increased.

New project construction would be almost nonexistent—water developments would be considered if

survival of the horses depended on the water.

Potential for loss of habitat from wildland fire is

highest under this alternative.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, the objectives would be met with

viable populations of wild horses maintained in all herd

management areas. Appropriate management levels

would remain constant in both herd management areas

over the long term. In some instances, conflicts with

livestock production and special status species may

occur.

Under Alternative B, wild horse herds would be

impacted more than in Alternative A because forage

would be allocated to livestock before wild horses.

Periodic adjustments of appropriate management levels

may be necessary to ensure that wild horses are managed consistent with meeting other management

objectives. Gathering of excess horses would likely

occur more often than in the past in order to meet

objectives commodity production. Increased gathering

would increase stress on the herds.

Under Alternative C, the objectives for wild horses

would be met and viable populations of wild horses

would be maintained. Conflicts may occur on a sitespecific basis. Herd health would be improved. The

appropriate management levels would remain constant

or could potentially increase.

Under Alternative D, the overall impacts to wild horses

would be slight and positive. The objectives for wild

horses would be met and viable populations of wild

horses would be maintained. Conflicts may occur on a

site-specific basis. Herd health would be improved as

vegetation improves and forage is increased.

Under Alternative E, wild horse appropriate management levels could be maximized under this alternative

because there would be not competition from livestock

grazing. Viable healthy herds of horses would be

maintained. Few conflicts would occur. The highest

threat would be loss of habitat from wildland fire.

Implementation of Alternatives A, C, D, with constraints on livestock management, limited additional

fence construction, and appropriate management of
Environmental Consequences

4 -87

wildland fire and range improvement projects, would

best meet management objectives to maintain and

manage viable herds of horses in established herd

management areas, considering multiple use objectives.

Proposed emphasis on livestock production, recreational use, and other commodity values in Alternative

B, would increase disturbance of wild horses. Forage,

habitat, and water sources for horses could be restricted. Wild horse herds could be maximized under

Alternative E consistent with maintaining their habitat

and forage resources to support viable, healthy herds of

horses in the long term.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Indirect impacts to horses generally occur after a stress

event such as gathering. Indirect impacts may include

spontaneous abortions, increased social displacement

of band members, and conflicts such as brief skirmishes between studs.

Cumulative impacts under all alternatives would result

in an annual average increase in horse numbers of 20

percent. Horses would be expected to adapt to changes

such as increased vehicle use over time. Horses would

adapt to changes in availability and distribution of

critical habitat components of food, shelter, water, and

space. Since the horses would be monitored and

gathered periodically under all alternatives, they should

be able to remain healthy within their existing herd

areas. Increases in livestock numbers above that

described in Alternative B could impact wild horse

numbers in the long term and require downward

adjustments in appropriate management level numbers—otherwise horses would remain at current

appropriate management level.

Wild horses may cause cumulative impacts to unfenced

private land in the Beaty Butte Herd Management

Area. Approximately 9 percent of the herd management area is private land, characterized as rangeland

similar to that described for BLM land. Many of the

springs in the herd management area occur on private

land. Private lands provide a good forage base for

horses, but grazing competition is at a high level.

Cumulative impacts may occur as horses move to and

from the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Even

though fencing along Highway 140 isolates most bands

of horses from the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

south of the highway, some interchange between herds

does occur. If bands from the refuge mix with those in

the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area, populationwide impacts, such as modification of age and sex

ratios and separation of members of individual bands,

may occur. The horses may be removed from the

refuge in the future. If this occurs, horses from the

Beaty Butte Herd Management Area could move onto

the refuge in spite of the highway fencing.

Special Management Areas

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Management Goal—Retain existing and designate

new areas of critical environmental concern

(ACEC’s) and research natural areas (RNA’s) where

relevance and importance criteria are met and special

management is required to protect the identified

values.

Appendix I contains a description of each existing and

proposed ACEC including the relevant and important

values of each area. Existing and proposed miles of

road closures in each ACEC under each alternative are

shown in Table 4-4.

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Wildland fires would be suppressed primarily by hand

in the existing ACEC’s. Using heavy equipment would

be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the area

manager/designee. This prohibition would help to

protect the relevant and important resource values in

the ACEC’s. Any rehabilitation of wildland fires

would be done using native seed mixtures in order to

retain the naturalness of the ACEC’s. The use of

prescribed fires in ACEC’s would promote their

naturalness by reintroducing fire into the ecosystem.

Under the alternatives and in those ACEC’s where

grazing would be allowed, livestock use would continue based on existing permit stipulations and approved allotment management plans. Any proposed

changes in grazing, including time and intensity of use,

would be evaluated for impacts on the relevant and

important values and would be permitted if the values

would be maintained or enhanced. Existing livestock

use would be adjusted where adverse impacts are

identified using a variety of methods, including but not

limited to fencing, reduction in livestock numbers,

changes in grazing season, and no livestock grazing

permitted. Proposed projects would be evaluated for

impacts and permitted where relevant and important

values would be maintained or enhanced.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 88

Analysis of Impacts: Devils Garden ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Closing the road into the Devils Garden in the center of

the lava flow and to Derrick Cave (Map SMA-5) would

protect these areas from impacts of vehicle use, soil

compaction and disturbance to natural character, and

return them to more natural conditions.

Prohibitions on temporary nonrenewable grazing use,

wood cutting, mineral material sales, and excluding

new rights-of-way would protect the area’s naturalness

and scenic character.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, no impacts would be expected

as long as the area is in WSA status. If the area is not

designated wilderness, and it is removed from WSA

status, the integrity and scenic quality of the south end

of the Lava Flow would be impacted as a result of

mineral material disposal. OHV use on existing roads

in the garden would continue to impact the naturalness

of that area.

Analysis of Impacts: Lake Abert ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the Lake Abert

ACEC would be retained. Under Alternatives A and B,

the size of the ACEC would not increase. Retaining

the ACEC designation would continue to provide

protection and management direction for cultural

resources within the existing ACEC area.

Under Alternative B, Lake Abert would be open to

exploration, development, and mining of lakebed

evaporite mineral salts. This would most likely occur

at the north end of the lake. Such activity would have a

negative impact on the water cycle of the lake, alter the

water chemistry, and negatively impact shorebird

habitat that has recently gained world-wide recognition.

Under Alternatives A, B, and D, increased protection of

resources would be provided by limiting OHV use to

existing roads and trails. Under Alternative C, a

greater level of protection of resources would be

provided by limiting OHV use to designated roads and

trails. Some of the existing roads and trails would be

closed, further limiting the possibility of damage by

vehicles as well as limiting access to certain areas with

large numbers of cultural sites or artifacts.

Alternative E

The ACEC designation would be revoked thereby

removing special management to protect cultural,

scenic, and biological values. The national historic

district would remain in effect protecting cultural

values. Lake Abert would be open to exploration,

development, and mining of lakebed evaporite mineral

salts. Impacts from mineral activity would be the same

as under Alternative B.

Analysis of Impacts: Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil

Lake ACEC/RNA

Alternative A and B

The Sand Dunes would continue to be open to OHV

use. This would result in continued impacts from

camping use such as tree cutting for fire wood, obliterating vegetation, disturbing soil, and vandalizing and

shooting trees and rock formations in the Lost Forest

RNA, particularly around Sand Rock. Development of

a campground under Alternative B, either by BLM or a

private party, would help to reduce these impacts.

Impacts would be contained and concentrated in an

area specifically designed for high use.

Under Alternatives A and B, the ACEC would be

retained, thereby providing protection for the paleontological and cultural resources associated with Fossil

Lake. The existing Fossil Lake protective fenced

exclosure would continue to protect palentological and

cultural sites from damage by OHV’s, livestock trampling, and other disturbances. However, there would

be no protection for newly-discovered paleontological

and cultural sites which have been found in the sand

dunes outside the existing fenced exclosure.

Under Alternative B, upgrading Road 6151 through the

Lost Forest would reduce impacts from vehicles

driving off road to avoid muddy or rocky areas, reduce

soil compaction and damage to vegetation, and reduce

erosion

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, maximum protection of paleontological and cultural resources would result from

eliminating OHV use from the ACEC, limiting the size

of the existing electrical powerline corridor, retaining

the mineral withdrawal in the Lost Forest RNA, and

removing livestock grazing from the entire area.
Environmental Consequences

4 -89
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 90

Implementing these actions would reduce the possibility of surface disturbance of cultural sites or artifacts

by up to 90 percent.

The limited effects of past grazing would be eliminated

by prohibiting grazing within the ACEC’s, thus improving the soils for microbiotic crusts, improving survival

of grasses and forbs (perennial and annual), returning

plant litter to the soil, and providing for greater productivity.

Closing the Lost Forest section of the ACEC to camping (day use only) would reduce vehicle and human use

in fragile disturbed areas, especially around Sand Rock.

This would also help eliminate the illegal cutting of

trees for firewood and vandalism of trees and rocks in

the area. OHV activity would be prohibited in the

entire ACEC by designating all the areas closed to

OHV use. This would have a positive effect on the area

as vehicle and human negative effects on the dunes, on

dune vegetation, and in the Lost Forest would be

eliminated.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the size of the Fossil Lake

Closure area would be increased to 9,379 acres to

prevent damage to paleontological resources by OHV

use in the area. The expanded closure area would be

fenced, which would protect artifacts that are currently

being found outside the existing fenced area. Outside

the enlarged fenced area, the sand dunes would still be

open to OHV use which could result in cultural and

paleontological sites and artifacts being unearthed and

destroyed. Protection of cultural and paleontological

resources would be less than under Alternative C, but

more than under Alternatives A and B. Livestock could

also damage these resources since livestock grazing

would continue under Alternative D.

Within the existing exclosure of Fossil Lake, native

vegetation has returned and is stabilizing the enclosed

area. This stabilization would be expected to occur in

the enlarged exclosure area of low dunes. Rotating use

of the camping and staging areas in the dunes would

give those areas a chance for rehabilitation and vegetation. The inner dunes would have a chance to recover

from damage including soil disturbance, erosion, and

destruction of vegetation caused by activities associated with OHV use. Development of a campground

either by BLM or a private party would further reduce

these impacts. Impacts would be contained and

concentrated in an area specifically designed for high

use. Providing designated access routes between a

campground and the dunes would further limit impacts

to soil and vegetation caused by OHV’s.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the impacts to cultural and

paleontological resources as well as biological resources would be similar to those under Alternative C,

since the Sand Dunes would be closed to OHV’s.

Analysis of Impacts: Warner Wetlands ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Under Alternative A, B, C, and D, the ACEC would be

retained and management direction and protection of

the cultural resources would continue as at present. No

changes or additions to this ACEC are proposed which

would cause impacts to cultural resources under these

alternatives. Changing the grazing use in the meadow

management area would not impact the ACEC as a

whole. Limiting OHV use to designated roads and

trails would result in 28–60 miles of roads being closed

(Map SMA-10), thereby reducing soil compact and

erosion on these roads. Reducing OHV access would

also reduce disturbance to wildlife.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the ACEC designation would be

revoked and some fences not needed to protect wildlife

habitat would be removed. This could open the area to

more vehicle and people access which could result in

more disturbance soil and vegetation, disturbance to

wildlife, and vandalism and illegal collecting of

artifacts at cultural sites.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Abert Rim Addition to

Lake Abert ACEC

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, Abert Rim would not be

added to the existing ACEC. This would not provide

special management direction and protection of the

ACEC to the cultural and traditional cultural properties

which have been identified in the adjacent area.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 18,027 acres would be added to

the ACEC, providing special management direction and

protection for significant cultural and traditional

cultural properties located within the addition area.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails would
Environmental Consequences

4 -91

result in18.5 miles of roads being closed, thereby

reducing soil compact and erosion on these roads.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those

under Alternative C, except that grazing would be

allowed to continue, reducing the protection of cultural

sites from trampling by livestock.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the existing ACEC designation

would be revoked and no new ACEC would be designated. This would eliminate any special protection and

management for cultural resources in the area. However, cultural resources would be generally protected

since neither livestock grazing nor any other commercial activities would be allowed. Recreation use would

continue; therefore, there could be damage to cultural

sites from illegal artifact collecting and vandalism.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Black Hills ACEC/

RNA

Alternatives A and B

Black Hills would not be designated an ACEC under

either of these alternatives. The area would continue to

be impacted by recreation use resulting in trash being

left in the area, individuals vandalizing the parking area

fence and interpretive sign, OHV’s being driven off the

existing road, and firearms shooters targeting trees,

rocks, and signs. The special status plants Cusick’s

buckwheat and snowline cymopterus would benefit

from management and protection provided by the

conservation agreement with USFWS; however, they

would be vulnerable to damage from the above described activities.

Alternative C

Plant or plant material collecting for personal use

would be closed. This would have some short-term and

long-term positive impacts on biological resources, but

it would depend on ease of access to the area. Closing

the area to OHV use would reduce impacts of the road

into the area and trails created by OHV’s driving off of

this road. The road would be closed, reclaimed, and

eventually revegetated. Closing the road would also

eliminate most impacts from recreation use described

under Alternatives A and B. Individuals would still

have access to the area, but would not be able to do so

with a vehicle. Closing the ACEC to livestock grazing

and wild horse use would eliminate potential impacts

special status plants from these sources.

Alternative D

The Black Hills have medium potential for occurrence

of geothermal resources. However, the area would be

open with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation, which

would ensure protection of the relevant and important

resources from this activity.

Impacts from recreation use of the area would continue

but would be reduced by limiting OHV’s to designated

roads and trails. Limiting OHV use to designated roads

and trails would result in 5 miles of roads being closed

(Map SMA-11), thereby reducing soil compact and

erosion on these roads. Livestock grazing would be as

described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Alternative E

The ACEC would not be designated. Impacts would be

the same as for Alternatives A and B.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Connley Hills ACEC/

RNA

Alternative A

The ACEC/RNA would not be designated under this

alternative. Current uses and associated impacts would

continue. The four ONHP plant cells identified in the

area (see Appendix I) would not be provided special

management or protection. These cells could possibly

be lost in the long term under continued present

management.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 3,599 acres would be designated

as an ACEC. Special management and protection

would be afforded to cultural resources as a result of

designation. Limiting OHV use to existing roads and

trails, requiring no surface occupancy for any oil and

gas or geothermal exploration and development, and

prohibiting any woodcutting would reduce surface

disturbance, reduce vegetation destruction, and reduce

soil compaction and subsequent runoff and erosion.

Alternative C

Under Alternatives C and D, 3,675 acres would be

designated as an ACEC/RNA. Limiting OHV use to

existing roads and trails, closing some roads, removing

camping from the area, excluding new rights-of-way,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 92

and restricting the sale and lease of minerals would be

a positive impact for cultural resources by limiting

access, use, and potentially site disturbing activities in

the area. These actions would also reduce the impacts

identified in Alternative B, above.

Acquiring the 80-acre inholding from a willing

landowner(s) would facilitate managing the ACEC as a

whole unit and eliminate any potential management

conflicts with the private land. Closing the ACEC to

grazing would eliminate gazing impacts to the four

bunchgrass cells, the protection and management of

which is the primary reason for designation of the

ACEC/RNA.

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as for Alternative C, except

that grazing would be allowed but would be carefully

monitored to assess impacts to the bunch grass communities (see Impacts Common to All Alternatives).

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, no ACEC would be designated.

This would eliminate any special protection and

management for cultural resources in the area. However, cultural resources would be generally protected

since neither livestock grazing nor any other commercial activities would be allowed. Recreation use would

continue; therefore, there could be damage to sites

from illegal artifact collecting and vandalism. No

designation would mean no special provision would be

made for protection or management of the four ONHP

cell plant communities; however, since no grazing or

commercial activity would occur, the cells would exist

in a more natural situation. The plant communities

would be monitored and impacts determined over time.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Fish Creek Rim

ACEC/RNA

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources. The

four ONHP plant cells identified in the area as well as

the two special status plant species (Appendix I) would

not receive special management or protection, and

could be lost in the long term. Continued management

of the WSA would provide some protection to these

botanical values.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 8,725 acres would be designated

as an ACEC. Management actions prescribed for the

ACEC would provide management direction and

protection of the cultural resources. Limiting OHV use

to designated roads and trails, closing the area to sale

and lease of minerals, excluding new rights-of-way and

prohibiting certain types of vegetation removal and

manipulation would benefit cultural and botanical

resources including the four ONHP cells and two

sensitive plant species. These actions would reduce

surface disturbance and direct destruction of cultural

artifacts, thereby maintaining the integrity and, hence,

the scientific value of cultural sites. This action would

also maintain the integrity of the special plants and

plant community habitats by reducing surface disturbing activities and direct destruction of vegetation by

vehicles. Livestock grazing would be as described

under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 8,725 acres would be designated

as an ACEC/RNA. Closing the area to sale or lease of

minerals, avoiding new rights-of-way, and limiting the

OHV use to existing roads and trails would benefit

both cultural and botanical values in the ACEC/RNA.

Livestock grazing would be the same as Alternative C.

However, protection would not be as great as under

Alternative C, where these uses are more restricted or

eliminated altogether.

Alternative E

No designation would mean no special provision would

be made for the protection or management of the four

ONHP cell plant communities and the two special

status plant species; however, since no grazing or other

commercial activity would occur, these plants and plant

communities would exist in a more natural situation.

The ONHP cell plant communities and special stautus

plants would be monitored and impacts determined

over time. Likewise there would be no special protection for the cultural resources in the area. However,

cultural resources would be generally protected since

neither livestock grazing nor any other commercial

activities would be allowed. Recreation use would

continue, therefore, there could be damage to sites from

illegal artifact collecting and vandalism.
Environmental Consequences

4 -93

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Foley Lake ACEC/

RNA

Alternative A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made, therefore, no special management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources. The

one ONHP plant cell identified in the area (Appendix I)

would not receive special management or protection,

and could be lost in the long term under continued

present management. Maintaining the conservation

agreement with the USFWS for Columbia cress and the

existing exclosure would help to ensure the continued

existence of this special status plant species.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 2,747 acres would be designated

and ACEC/RNA. Excluding grazing, excluding new

rights-of-way, limiting OHV’s to designated roads and

trails, and excluding the sale or lease of minerals would

have a positive impact on the condition and continued

existence of the ONHP cell plant community and

Columbia cress. Enlarging the exclosure to protect the

cress from grazing and surface disturbing activity and

continuing the USFWS conservation agreement would

be a significant benefit to Columbia cress. Research

over the past 12 years supports closing the entire playa

to wildlife and livestock grazing.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 2,230 acres would be designated

and ACEC/RNA. Impacts under Alternative D would

be similar to Alternative C, however, the area would be

open to livestock grazing and all mineral activity (see

Impacts Common to All Alternatives). The black

sagebrush/bunchgrass cell community would be

monitored to determine any impacts from grazing.

Mineral activity is not likely since the area has only

moderate potential for geothermal resources. Impacts

to Columbia cress would be the same as identified

under Alternative C since the population would be

fenced to protect it from grazing.

Alternative E

No designation would mean no special provision would

be made for the protection or management of the one

ONHP cell plant community; however, since no

grazing or of commercial activity would occur, the cell

would exist in a more natural situation. The plant

community would be monitored and impacts determined over time. The conservation agreement with the

USFWS would provide some special management to

Columbia cress.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Guano Creek/Sink

Lakes ACEC/RNA

Alternative A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made, therefore, no special management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources. The

two ONHP plant cells identified in the area (Appendix

I) would not receive special management or protection,

and could be lost in the long term. However, continued

management of the area as a WSA would provide some

protection to the two cells. Implementing the conservation agreement with the USFWS would benefit two

spacial status plants, Crosby’s buckwheat and grimy

ivesia.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 4,963 acres would be designated

and ACEC/RNA. Locatable mineral development in the

ACEC is unlikely due to low potential. Closing the

area to all other mineral activity would prevent impacts

of road building, vegetation removal, and vehicle

traffic to the relevant and important resources in the

ACEC.

Limiting OHV’s to designated roads and trails, excluding new rights-of-way, closing the area to sale or lease

of minerals, and maintaining the current grazing

closure would benefit the condition and continued

existence of the two plant cell communities and the two

special status plants. These healthy representations of

natural systems would have a better chance of surviving and representing biodiversity where no grazing is

allowed and other surface disturbing activities are

limited. Implementing the conservation agreement with

the USFWS would be an additional benefit for the two

special status plants.

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative C.

Alternative E

No designation would mean no special provision would

be made for the protection or management of the two

ONHP cells; however, since no grazing or of commercial activity would occur, the cells would exist in a
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 94

more natural situation. The ONHP cell plant communities and special stautus plants would be monitored and

impacts determined over time. Implementing the

conservation agreement with the USFWS would

benefit two special status plants, Crosby’s buckwheat

and grimy ivesia. Continued management of the area

as a WSA would provide some protection to the

botanical values.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Hawksie-Walksie

ACEC/RNA

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources. The

two ONHP plant cells identified in the area as well as

the high quality grasslands unique to that area (Appendix I) would not receive special management or protection, and could be lost in the long term. However,

continued management of the area as a WSA would

provide some protection to the two cells as well as the

grasslands.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 17,339 acres would be designated

as an ACEC/RNA. Management actions prescribed for

the ACEC would provide management direction and

protection of the cultural resources. Excluding rightsof-way, removing livestock grazing, limiting OHV use

to designated roads and trails, and closing some roads

and trails would protect cultural sites from surface

disturbance, direct destruction of artifacts, and human

access. Livestock grazing would still be allowed (see

Impacts Common to All Alternatives), but parts of the

ACEC’s would be fenced to protect the grass cell

components. These actions would significantly benefit

the integrity and scientific value of cultural sites.

These actions would also protect the two ONHP cells

and the high quality grasslands. Fencing areas in the

ACEC to exclude livestock and wild horses would be a

significant benefit to the botanical resources in the

ACEC/RNA. These healthy representations of natural

systems would have a better chance of surviving and

containing biodiversity where no grazing is allowed

and fences are constructed to limit wild horse access.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 17,339 acres would be designated

as an ACEC/RNA. Management directions prescribed

for the ACEC would provide special management

direction and protection similar to Alternative C,

especially fencing of part of the ACEC to protect plan

cells from livestock grazing. The unfenced part of the

ACEC would be monitored to determine any impacts

from grazing.

Alternative E

No designation would mean no special provision would

be made for the protection or management of the two

ONHP cells or the high quality grasslands; however,

since no grazing or of commercial activity would occur,

these sites would exist in a more natural situation. The

ONHP cell plant communities and special status plants

would be monitored and impacts determined over time.

No ACEC/RNA designation would eliminate any

special protection and management for cultural resources in the area. However, cultural resources would

be generally protected since neither livestock grazing

nor any other commercial activities would be allowed.

Recreation use would continue, therefore, there could

be damage to sites from illegal artifact collecting and

vandalism.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed High Lakes ACEC

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the cultural resources

and cultural plants in the area (Appendix I).

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 40,095 acres would be designated

as an ACEC. Management actions prescribed for the

ACEC would provide protection and management

direction for cultural resources. Closing the area to

sale and lease of minerals, allowing no new rights-ofway, closing the area to livestock grazing, and limiting

OHV’s to designated roads and trails, and closing other

roads and trails would protect cultural sites from

surface disturbance, direct destruction of artifacts, and

vandalism often resulting from human access. Livestock grazing would be allowed, but under the restrictions as listed in Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

These actions would significantly benefit the integrity

and scientific value of cultural sites. Limiting surface

disturbing activities and adjusting grazing use to meet

the needs of cultural plants would also benefit these

species and help to ensure their abundance and contin-
Environmental Consequences

4 -95

ued survival. This would be a benefit to local Tribes

who desire to be able to harvest these plants for traditional or ceremonial uses.

Acquisition of adjacent private land could facilitate

management of the area by providing a more easily

definable boundary for the ACEC and ensuring access

to the west side of the area. However, acquisition of

the land would not be necessary to manage the area as

an ACEC.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 36,755 acres would be designated

as an ACEC. ACEC management actions would

provide additional protection and management direction for cultural resources. Protection would be

provided by limiting mineral extraction, livestock

grazing, and rights-of-way. OHV use would be limited

to designated roads and trails and some roads would be

closed (Appendix I), thereby limiting access to some

areas and reducing the vandalism often resulting from

human access. Other impacts would be similar to those

under Alternative C, but to a lesser degree since actions

under this alternative would be less restricted.

Impacts to cultural plants and Native American use of

the area and plants would be the same as described

under Alternative C.

Acquiring legal access across the private land on the

west side would ensure administrative access for

management on that side of the ACEC. This would

help to facilitate management of the entire ACEC.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, no ACEC would be designated.

This would eliminate any special protection and

management for cultural resources and cultural plants

in the area. However, cultural resources and plants

would be generally protected since neither livestock

grazing nor any other commercial activities would be

allowed. Recreation use would continue, therefore,

there could be damage to sites from illegal artifact

collecting and vandalism. Although Native Americans

and others would still be able to harvest cultural plants,

these plants would have no special protection or

management. Long term impacts on their continued

existence would be uncertain.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Juniper Mountain

ACEC/RNA

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources. The

one ONHP plant cell identified in the area as well as

the old growth juniper woodland unique to that area

(Appendix I) would not receive special management or

protection, and could be lost in the long term under

continued present management. Continued woodcutting in the juniper stand could have a detrimental effect

in the long term by eliminating trees, creating openings

in the stand, and changing its character.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 6,335 acres would be designated

an ACEC/RNA. All commercial wood or plant collection would be prohibited. This would have some shortterm and long-term positive impacts on biological

resources. Closing the area to wood cutting would

protect the old growth trees and the ecological and

scientific values associated with an old-growth juniper

woodland. These actions as well as closing the area to

the sale or lease of minerals, limiting OHV’s to existing roads and trails, and closing the area to camping

would maintain the woodland’s existing character and

allow natural processes to operate in a relatively

undisturbed area. This would in turn facilitate the

continued research presently ongoing in the woodland.

Grazing would continue as described in Impacts

Common to All Alternatives. Acquiring the 80 acres

around Coffee Pot Spring in the northwest portion of

the ACEC would facilitate managing the entire area in

the same manner and as one unit and eliminate any

potential conflict with management of the private land.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 6,335 acres would be designated

and ACEC/RNA. Although mineral exploration and

development is not likely due to the relatively low

potentials for occurrence in the area (low for geothermal and moderate for oil and gas), any activity would

be subject to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation. This

would protect the integrity of the woodland. All other

impacts under this alternative would be the same as

those described under Alternative C, except that

camping would be allowed. No impacts from camping

would be expected as long as green or standing trees
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 96

were not cut. Livestock grazing would be the same as

in Alternative C.

Alternative E

There would be no ACEC/RNA designation, neither

would there be any commercial activity including

woodcutting, livestock grazing, or mineral development. Therefore, no negative impacts are likely to

occur under this alternative. Recreational use of the

area including camping would continue with no

expected impact. Scientific study and research would

continue as at present.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Rahilly-Gravelly

ACEC/RNA

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the relevant and

important resources in the area. The one ONHP plant

cell identified in the area as well as the one special

status plant species unique to that area, Cooper’s

goldflower, (Appendix I) would not receive special

management or protection, and could be lost in the long

term under continued present management.

About two-thirds of the ACEC/RNA is within the

Crump Geyser Known Geothermal Resource Area

which means that geothermal exploration and development in the future is likely. This could be a significant

negative impact to the special status plant, the cultural

plants, and the cultural resource sites in the area

depending on how the activity is conducted. Stipulations would be attached to any lease issued to protect

the special resources in the area as much as possible.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 20,127 acres would be designated

as an ACEC/RNA. Management actions prescribed for

the ACEC would provide management direction and

protection for cultural resources. Specifically, protection would result from limiting OHV use to existing

roads and trails, allowing no sale of minerals, restricting removal or manipulation of vegetation, and restricting recreational uses. These actions would significantly benefit the integrity and, hence, the scientific

value of cultural sites.

The area would be open to mineral leasing under a nosurface-occupancy stipulation. This would mean that

any geothermal exploration or development would

have to be done from outside the area which would

eliminate any impacts to cultural resources or plant

communities and special status species.

Limiting surface disturbing activities and adjusting

grazing use to meet the needs of cultural plants would

also benefit these species and help to ensure their

abundance and continued survival. Allowing collecting

of vegetative material including cultural plants would

allow Native Americans to continue to use the area for

traditional purposes. It would ensure having one more

area available to them where cultural plants are still

obtainable. This would be a benefit to the Tribes who

desire to be able to harvest these plants for traditional

or ceremonial uses. Grazing would be as described in

Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 19,648 acres would be designated

as an ACEC/RNA. ACEC management actions would

provide management direction and protection for the

resources. Protection would be provided by restricting

sand and gravel sales, lease of minerals, restricting

geothermal activity to no surface occupancy, avoiding

new rights-of way within the area, limiting OHV use to

existing roads and trails, and adjusting livestock

grazing as needed. Impacts would be similar to those

under Alternative C.

Impacts to plant cell communities and the special status

plant, and impacts to cultural plants and their use by

local Tribes would also be the same as Alternative C.

Grazing would be as described in Impacts Common to

All Alternatives.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, no ACEC would be designated.

This would eliminate any special protection and

management for cultural resources in the area. However, cultural resources, cultural plants, and other

botanical values in the area would be generally protected since neither livestock grazing nor any other

commercial activities including geothermal exploration

and development would be allowed. Recreation use

would continue, therefore, there could be damage to

sites from illegal artifact collecting and vandalism.

Although Native Americans and others would still be

able to harvest cultural plants, these plants would have

no special protection or management. Long-term

impacts on their continued existence would be uncertain.
Environmental Consequences

4 -97

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Red Knoll ACEC

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources including two special status plant species, a number of

cultural plants, and an abundance of cultural resource

sites (Appendix I).

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 11,588 acres would be designated

as an ACEC. Management actions prescribed for the

ACEC would provide management direction and

protection of the cultural resources. Withdrawing the

area from mineral entry, excluding new rights-of-way,

closing the area to livestock grazing, and limiting OHV

use to existing roads and trails would reduce surface

disturbance and direct destruction of artifacts which

would significantly benefit the integrity and, hence, the

scientific value of cultural sites.

Limiting surface disturbing activities and eliminating

grazing would prevent damage or destruction of the

cultural plants and the special status plants in the area.

Allowing collecting of vegetative material including

cultural plants for individual use would enable Native

Americans to continue to use the area for traditional or

ceremonial purposes. It would ensure having one more

area available to them where cultural plants are still

obtainable.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 11,127 acres would be designated

and ACEC. ACEC management actions would provide

management direction and protection for the resources.

Withdrawing approximately 4,600 acres of the area

(where mineral exploration and development is most

likely to occur) from mineral entry, avoiding new

rights-of-way, and limiting OHV use to existing roads

and trails would significantly benefit the integrity and,

hence, the scientific value of cultural sites. However,

the protection would not be as great as it would be

under Alternative C where these uses are more restricted or eliminated altogether.

Impacts to cultural plants and special status plants

would be similar to those under Alternative C, except

that livestock grazing would continue. However,

grazing could be adjusted to reduce impacts to cultural

plants or special status plants if necessary, and the

guidelines under Impacts Common to All Alternatives

would apply.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, no ACEC would be designated.

This would eliminate any special protection and

management for cultural resources in the area. However, cultural resources would be generally protected

since neither livestock grazing nor any other commercial activities would be allowed. Recreation use would

continue, therefore, there could be damage to sites from

illegal artifact collecting and vandalism.

No designation would mean no special provision would

be made for the protection or management of the two

special status species; however, since no grazing or

commercial activity would occur, the plants would

exist in a more natural situation. These plants would

be monitored and impacts determined over time.

Similarly, cultural plants would exist in a more natural

situation and Native Americans and others would still

be able to harvest them. However, the long term

impacts on their continued existence would be uncertain

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Spanish Lake ACEC/

RNA

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the resources. The

two ONHP plant cells identified in the area (Appendix

I) would not receive special management or protection,

and could be lost over time under continued management.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 4,699 acres would be designated

an ACEC/RNA. Limiting OHV use to designated

roads and trails, excluding new rights-of-ways, and

closing the area to sale or lease of minerals would

protect the two plant cell habitats by reducing potential

soil disturbance and vegetation destruction or removal.

Livestock grazing would not be allowed in the ACEC,

and the area would be fenced for protection from

wildlife and livestock.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 98

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 4,699 acres would be designated

an ACEC/RNA. The ACEC is in an area of moderate

potential for geothermal resources. Any exploration

and development could impact the two plant cells by

crushing vegetation or removing vegetation by vehicles

driving off-road or by constructing new roads. Any

geothermal leases would be issued with stipulations to

protect resources as much as possible.

Impacts from livestock grazing would be evaluated and

controlled through the adaptive management process

which would identify the practices that would provide

the best mitigation.

Alternative E

No designation would mean no special provision would

be made for the protection or management of the two

ONHP cells; however, since no grazing or of commercial activity would occur, the cells would exist in a

more natural situation. The ONHP cell plant communities would be monitored and impacts determined over

time.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Table Rock ACEC/

RNA

Alternatives A and B

Under Alternatives A and B, no designation would be

made and no additional management direction and

protection would be provided for the cultural resources

and cultural plants in the area (Appendix I). The

special status plants Cusick's buckwheat and snowline

cymopterus would benefit from management and

protection provided by the conservation agreement

with USFWS.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 5,891acres would be designated

as an ACEC. Management actions prescribed for the

ACEC would provide management direction and

protection of the cultural resources. Prohibiting new

rights-of-way and reality actions, closing the area to

sale and lease of minerals, closing the area to livestock

grazing, prohibiting certain types of vegetation removal

and manipulation, and limiting OHV use to existing

roads and trails would reduce surface disturbance and

direct destruction of artifacts, thereby maintaining the

integrity and, hence, the scientific value of cultural

sites. These actions would also reduce impacts to

special status plants.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 5,138 acres would be designated

an ACEC/RNA. ACEC management actions would

provide protection by avoiding new rights-of-way,

restricting the sale and lease of minerals, closing the

area to livestock grazing, and restricting OHV use to

existing roads and trails. Impacts would be similar to

those described under Alternative C; however, protection would not be as great since these uses are more

restricted or eliminated altogether under Alternative C.

Table Rock has moderate potential for development of

geothermal resources, however, the area would be open

with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation. This would

ensure protection of the relevant and important resources in the ACEC from this activity.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, no ACEC would be designated.

This would eliminate any special protection and

management for cultural resources in the area. However, cultural resources would be generally protected

since neither livestock grazing nor any other commercial activities would be allowed. Recreation use would

continue, therefore, there could be damage to sites from

illegal artifact collecting and vandalism.

The special status plants Cusick's buckwheat and

snowline cymopterus would benefit from management

and protection provided by the conservation agreement

with USFWS.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, no new ACEC’s would be designated and four existing ones would be retained. Under

Alternative B, existing ACEC’s would be retained and

only one new area, Connley Hills, would be designated. Under Alternatives C and D, existing ACEC’s

would be retained, 1 would be enlarged, and 12 new

ACEC’s would be designated. Under Alternative C

and D, nine new RNA’s would be designated within

nine of the ACEC’s. Under Alternative E all existing

ACEC designations would be revoked and no new

ACEC’s would be designated. Management under

Alternative E for these areas would be the same as that

applied across the planning area.

The overall impact on currently designated ACEC’s is

projected to be generally beneficial in Alternative A,

although lack of restrictions on certain activities in
Environmental Consequences

4 -99

some ACEC’s leaves them vulnerable to adverse

change. Twelve areas with identified relevant and

important values would not be designated as ACEC/

RNA’s, and would, therefore, not receive priority for

special management attention. The overall impact may

be adverse in those undesignated areas. The ACEC’s

objective would be met generally in the existing

ACEC’s and priority for management would be extended to these areas.

In Alternative B, the overall impact on the existing and

the one proposed ACEC’s is projected to be somewhat

beneficial, although on small acreages, minimally

representing relevant and important values for some

areas, would receive special management attention.

Eleven potential ACEC’s would not be proposed, and

the overall impact may be adverse in these

undesignated areas not receiving priority management

attention, and emphasis on commodity uses would

increase the risk of adverse impacts. The ACEC’s

objective would be met generally in the existing

ACEC’s and the Connley Hills.

In Alternative C, the overall impact on currently

designated ACEC’s is projected to be generally beneficial, although lack of restrictions on certain activities in

some ACEC’s leaves them vulnerable to adverse

change. The emphasis on management for natural

values would provide indirect benefits to the proposed

ACEC’s and special management actions that mitigate

adverse effects would be implemented for activities

with ACEC’s, and priority for management would be

extended to areas designated as ACEC’s. Alternative C

would provide the most extensive and most restrictice

management for areas identified with relevant and

important values. Overall, the ACEC’s objective

would be met for an extensive representation of

relevant and important values in the areas designated as

ACEC’s.

In Alternative C, the impacts from livestock grazing

would be significantly less because 102,412 acres

within nine existing or proposed ACEC’s would be

closed to grazing. This would provide greater protection to special status plants and plant communities in

these areas.

Under Alternative C, all ACEC’s would be closed to

mineral sale and leasing, but would remain open to

locatable minerals, except for Red Knoll where the

entire ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral

activity. Surface disturbing activity associated with

locatable mineral entry would be prohibited in ACEC’s

that overlap WSA’s. Surface disturbance requiring

reclamation is prohibited in WSA’s. These actions

would lessen or eliminate the negative effects of

mineral extraction and development such as road

building and physical changes and damage to soils and

vegetation around mine sites

Under Alternatives C and D, the protection by special

management of the 12 new ACEC’s would help preserve and protect the areas designated as ONHP cells.

These healthy representations of natural systems would

have a better chance of surviving and containing

biodiversity where no grazing is allowed and fences are

constructed to limit wild horse access. Tribal Peoples

would have access to traditional resources and use

areas in eight ACEC’s set aside partially for cultural

values and plants. This would ensure that these areas

and resources are available for traditional and ceremonial practices in the future.

The overall impact on areas of existing and proposed

ACEC’s is projected to be beneficial in Alternative D,

although lack of restrictions on certain activities in

some ACEC’s leaves them vulnerable to adverse

change. Special management actions that mitigate

effects of adverse impacts would be implemented for

activities within the ACEC’s; however, special monitoring of commodity use such as livestock grazing and

wild horse use would be necessary. Overall, the

ACEC’s objective could be met for an extensive

representation of relevant and important values in the

areas designated as ACEC’s.

In Alternative D, leasable mineral development is open

or open with no surface occupancy for the majority of

the existing and proposed ACEC’s. At Red Knoll, only

the northern section would be closed and the area

withdrawn from mineral entry. Leasable mineral

development is unlikely in most of the ACEC’s due to

low potential; however, where there is potential for

development of geothermal resources as in Black Hills,

Connley Hills, Juniper Mountain, Rahilly-Gravelly,

Sink Lakes, and Table Rock, the areas would be open

with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation. This would

protect the botanical and cultural resources in these

areas. The Rahilly-Gravelly ACEC would be the most

likely candidate for geothermal exploration and development due to the presence of the Crump Geyser

Known Geothermal Resource Area. Except for the

Lost Forest section of the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/

Fossil Lake ACEC and the northwest portion of Red

Knoll ACEC, all other ACEC’s are open to locatable

minerals; however, no disturbance could occur in those

portions of ACEC’s within WSA’s and the ISA until

they are released from wilderness study. Sale of

minerals would be closed for five of the ACEC’s.

Areas remaining open would be subject to potential
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 100

adverse impacts from mineral activities as in other

alternatives. In the withdrawal area of Red Knoll, that

portion would be fully protected from disturbances due

to mineral exploration and development and would

allow the area to be used for cultural reasons.

In Alternative E, all ACEC/RNA’s designations would

be removed from existing designated areas and no new

designations would occur. The cessation of many

activities, including livestock grazing, all mineral

activities, and all project development, would permit

natural functions and processes to occur within the

natural systems. However, the increased horse numbers, nonaggressive weed control, and no management

of woodland areas would result in long-term adverse

impacts to resource values in many of the areas where

relevant and important values have been identified.

Overall, the objective would not be met because it does

not provide the necessary protection for relevant and

important values due to long-term adverse impacts to

those values.

Under Alternative E, the management of wildland and

prescribed fire would not be beneficial to the values

identified for ACEC’s. There would be no prescribed

fires, nor would there be rehabilitation of burned areas.

Wildland fires would be allowed to burn except when

endangering life or private property. These policies

would create a repeated wildland fire regime which

could result in large stands of cheatgrass and noxious

weeds—which in turn would create a higher potential

for repeated wildland fires. This policy would cause

damage to the relevant and important values of all the

ACEC’s.

Recreation use would be expected to increase, particularly in areas which had been previously designated

such as the Lost Forest/Sand Dune ACEC’s. Unless

regulated, recreation use would result in adverse

impacts to cultural and natural values. Overall, impacts

of recreation use are anticipated to be moderate.

With limited or no noxious weed control under Alternative E, weeds may become established throughout the

project area, resulting in degradation of natural values

and severe long-term adverse impacts to natural area

communities, plant/animal interaction, and

biodiversity.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impacts

to ACEC’s is loss of relevant and important values such

as special status species, unique plant communities,

habitats, conversion to marginal plant communities,

and loss of cultural values. Up to 147,149 acres of new

ACEC’s and 167,020 acres of existing ACEC’s would

be set aside to protect and have special management for

special status species (plant and animal), cultural

values, scenic values, and unique plant communities.

Ten RNA’s within these ACEC’s would be available for

researchers and exist as examples of plant communities

for the entire State of Oregon. The impacts from

activities implemented on the adjacent USFS, USFWS,

state, and private lands, create additional cumulative

impacts to BLM-authorized actions. Especially

noteworthy is the increase of OHV recreation in the

resource area, some from the closure of sand dunes on

the Oregon coast and overflow from OHV areas in the

Prineville District. Changes in usage of the dunes

since 1939 is being studied by researchers to determine

the cumulative impacts of OHV use of the dunes.

Recreation is predicted to increase just from the

increase of population in Oregon which would have an

effect on recreation sites, roads, and would have a

special impact in areas of traditional congregation of

campsites. A positive cumulative impact would be the

use of 122,560 acres by Tribal Peoples for cultural

resources and practices; thus strengthening our trust

responsibility agreements.

Lack of weed policies and prevention on non-BLM

lands has a negative effect on biodiversity of the plant

communities within ACEC’s; both short term and long

term with loss of biodiversity.

The role of wildland fire policies in non-BLM lands

could also negatively impact the existing and proposed

ACEC’s in the long term, especially by disturbing the

connectivity of plant and animal species habitats and

by changing the wildland fire regimes.

If Congress decides that the WSA’s that overlap the

ACEC’s be declared wilderness, the values of the

ACEC’s would be greatly enhanced and would receive

maximum protection.

Wilderness Values

Management Goal—BLM-administered land acquired since the wilderness inventory and determined

to have wilderness values would be included in

adjacent wilderness study areas (WSA’s). WSA’s and

WSA additions would be managed under the 1995

“Interim Management Policy for Lands Under

Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP).
Environmental Consequences

4 -101

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Under the current situation, there have been no parcels

of land that are adjacent to, or within any existing

WSA’s assessed through the land management process

to determine if they would be suitable for wilderness

designation. Until the assessment of any acquired

lands is completed, there is a potential for the wilderness values for these areas to be impaired because they

would not be afforded the same level of protection as

they would under the wilderness IMP.

Overall, wilderness values associated with the 12

WSA’s within the LRA would not be degraded under

the current situation. The Sand Dunes WSA would

remain open to motorized uses. The opportunity for

visual solitude within the Sand Dunes WSA is greatest

within the central core where the largest dunes occur.

The opportunity for visual and auditory solitude is

diminished toward the boundary areas of the WSA;

sounds from human activities outside of the WSA

influence solitude within these areas as well. The

continued motorized use of the Sand Dunes would

preclude solitude potential, especially during periods of

high use which have typically been associated with

holiday weekends such as Memorial Day, Fourth of

July, and Labor Day. Over 1,000 people have been

observed camping and riding OHV’s within the WSA

during Memorial Day weekend. Although holiday

weekends are documented as the highest use periods,

there has been a steady increase in use in OHV recreation activities observed throughout the year. There are

three undeveloped camping areas located along the

main road access to the Sand Dunes WSA. Concentrated use from vehicle parking has caused soil compaction and impacts to vegetation within these areas.

These areas would continue to see high use during the

holiday weekends. During these high-use periods the

opportunity for solitude in these areas of the Sand

Dunes WSA would not be present. Outside of the highuse periods there are opportunities for solitude and

primitive recreation experiences in these areas, but

activities such as agriculture and other uses on adjacent

private lands would be a negative impact to some

degree. Over time, there would be more pioneered

trails leading into and out of the central dunes area

from these camping areas. There are 7 miles of fence

within the Sand Dunes WSA, including a fence along

the west side of Fossil Lake which restricts OHV’s

from entering Fossil Lake from the central core area of

the sand dunes. The Fossil Lake fence is noticeable on

the flatter open terrain in the deflation basin on the

very west portion of the WSA. However, this fence

does not substantially effect the naturalness of the area.

Alternative B

Land identified in the 1991 “Wilderness Study Report”

would not be added to existing WSA’s under this

alternative. There would be limited management

actions available to provide protection for any wilderness values and characteristics. This alternative does

not meet the management goals for potential wilderness resources.

Overall, potential impacts to wilderness values associated with the 12 WSA’s within the LRA would not vary

to any appreciable degree in comparison to Alternative

A.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, approximately 1,194 acres of

acquired lands within or adjacent to three WSA’s

(Abert Rim—193 acres, Fish Creek Rim—397 acres,

and Guano Creek—604 acres), were determined to

have wilderness characteristics and are recommended

as suitable for wilderness designation. Adding these

areas to the existing WSA’s would ensure that the

wilderness characteristics and values are adequately

protected by management under the wilderness IMP.

Under this alternative, the potential negative impacts to

wilderness values from motorized uses within all of the

WSA’s would be lower than under either Alternatives A

or B. All motorized and mechanical uses within WSA’s

under Alternative C would be limited to designated

roads and ways; whereas under Alternatives A and B

the motorized uses would be limited to existing roads

and ways. The closure of the road into the garden, and

the road from BLM Road 6179 to Derrick Cave would

eliminate access on approximately 25 miles of roads

within the Devils Garden WSA. The opportunity to

experience solitude and naturalness and primitive

recreation activities would be enhanced with these road

closures.

Closure of the Sand Dunes WSA to all OHV’s would

have a positive impact on the potential opportunities

for experiencing primitive recreation and improve

visual and auditory solitude within the central core of

the sand dunes. The opportunity for visual and auditory solitude would continue to be diminished toward

the boundary areas of the WSA, because of sounds and

visual impacts from human activities and development

outside of the WSA. With the entire area designated as

day-use only, the traditionally used camping areas

along the main access road to the Sand Dunes would
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 102

eventually revegetate and signs of human uses would

diminish. The existing pioneered trails leading into

and out of the core dunes area would be obliterated

over time from the movement of sand and natural

revegetation. Additionally, the fence separating Fossil

Lake from the central core area sand dunes would no

longer be necessary and could be removed. This would

improve the naturalness of the area as seen from the

deflation basin located on the west portion of the WSA.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,194 acres of

acquired lands within or adjacent to three WSA’s

(Abert Rim—193 acres, Fish Creek Rim—397 acres,

and Guano Creek—604 acres), were determined to

have wilderness characteristics and are recommended

as suitable for wilderness designation. Adding these

areas to the existing WSA’s would ensure that the

wilderness characteristics and values are adequately

protected by management under the wilderness IMP.

With the exception of Devils Garden and Sand Dunes

WSA’s, motorized and mechanical uses within WSA’s

under Alternative D would be limited to designated

roads and ways. Road closures within the Devils

Garden WSA would be the same as under Alternative

C, and the Sand Dunes WSA would be designated open

to OHV’s as in Alternatives A and B. However, the

total number of acres in the open designation would be

decreased by 2,719 because the Fossil Lake Closure

would be increased by a corresponding amount.

Camping adjacent to the main access road to the Sand

Dunes would be allowed to continue, but the use would

be limited to specific areas on a rotational basis.

Access into the central dunes areas would be limited to

specific routes and existing pioneered trails would be

closed. Over time, the naturalness of these camping

areas would be improved.

Overall, the management actions proposed under

Alternative D would have similar but slightly more

positive effects on wilderness values in comparison to

Alternatives A and B, whereas management actions

proposed under Alternative C would have a greater

positive effect on wilderness values in comparison to

Alternative D.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the addition of 1,194 acres of

acquired lands within or adjacent to Abert Rim, Fish

Creek Rim, and Guano Creek, would be the same as

under Alternatives C and D. Motorized and mechanical

uses within WSA’s under Alternative E would be

limited to existing roads and ways, and the Sand Dunes

WSA would be designated closed to OHV uses.

Overall, the potential effects on wilderness values from

management actions proposed under Alternative E

would be similar to Alternative C. Alternatives E and

C would possibly have a slightly greater positive effect

than under Alternatives A, B, or D because the Sand

Dunes WSA would be designated open under Alternatives A, B, and D, and designated closed under Alternatives C and E.

Summary of Impacts

Overall, the management actions proposed under

Alternative D would have similar effects on wilderness

values in comparison to Alternatives A and B; whereas

management actions proposed under Alternative C

would have a greater positive effect on wilderness

values in comparison to Alternative D.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Addition of these lands to the existing WSA’s land base

would provide protection of the wilderness characteristics and values against future development and uses

which would otherwise not be available without

recommended designation as wilderness. Management

of these areas would be guided by the wilderness IMP.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Management Goal—Protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable values of rivers determined to be

administratively suitable for potential inclusion in the

national wild and scenic river (WSR) system until

Congress acts.

Impact Analysis

Alternative A

Under this alternative, Guano Creek, Honey Creek, and

Twelvemile Creek would not be recommended administratively suitable for inclusion in the national WSR

system. Guano Creek is located within the Guano

Creek WSA which provides protection of the outstandingly remarkable values under wilderness IMP. Potential designation of Guano Creek WSA by Congress as

wilderness would provide a long-term level of protection. If Congress should act to release the Guano

Creek WSA from consideration as a congressionally

designated wilderness, the LRA would then revisit the

process to make a determination if designation of
Environmental Consequences

4 -103

Guano Creek as part of the national WSR system

would be necessary to protect the outstandingly remarkable values. As part of the Hart Mountain Jurisdictional Transfer, dated February 26, 1998, (and the

Shirk Ranch Agreement, dated September 30, 1997),

grazing is not authorized within the Guano Creek WSA

which includes the Guano Creek study corridor.

Potential designation of Guano Creek as part of the

national WSR system would not appreciably increase

the level of protection over the current level of protection provided under the wilderness IMP and the two

agreements mentioned above. The most significant

difference in the protections provided through potential

wilderness designation and potential designation in the

national WSR system is in power development. Under

a wilderness designation, power development (e.g.,

dams) could be authorized by the President, whereas

under a WSR designation, power development would

be incompatible. The potential for power development

within the Guano Creek corridor is considered to be

very low. Motorized use within the Guano Creek

corridor area is limited to existing roads and ways.

There are two existing ways within the Guano Creek

corridor, one parallels the stream along the upper 1.5

miles and the other parallels the stream along the last

1.0 mile. Under wilderness designation these ways

would be closed to motorized use. Under the existing

situation the potential negative impacts to the vegetative outstandingly remarkable values from motorized

access is negligible.

Grazing is not authorized within the Honey Creek

corridor with the exception for a water gap (water gap

allows cattle access to water for a distance of approximately 100–150 feet along the stream). There are

approximately 5.6 miles of BLM-administered public

land along a 17-mile stretch of Honey Creek which

starts at the Fremont National Forest boundary on the

west and ends at Hart Lake in the east. This public

land is interspersed with private land in a checkerboard pattern. Approximately 67 percent of the 17-

mile segment is in private ownership. This checker

board land ownership limits the ability to effectively

manage stream resources and the same would hold true

if Honey Creek was proposed for designation as part of

the national WSR system. Designation in the national

WSR system would not provide a significantly higher

level of protection to the fisheries outstandingly

remarkable values in Honey Creek which is not already

available under the “Endangered Species Act.” There

is potential for development of power, but the physical

suitability is unknown, and because of the rural and

arid nature of the area, potential for power development is considered low. Recreational use of the area is

very low. Water levels are generally too low for

boating activities and there is minimal evidence of

human use. The potential for negative impacts to the

fisheries outstandingly remarkable values within

Honey Creek from recreational uses, including motorized use, is negligible.

Designation in the national WSR system would not

provide a significantly higher level of protection to the

fisheries outstandingly remarkable values in

Twelvemile Creek which is not already available under

the “Endangered Species Act.” Recreation uses within

the Twelvemile Creek area are relatively low and the

effects of these activities on the fisheries outstandingly

remarkable values are negligible. Impacts from

motorized uses would not be significant because access

within the stream corridor is limited to three very

rough, steep jeep trails (one is on private land). The

potential for power development within Twelvemile

Creek is considered low because of the rural and arid

nature of the area. Grazing is not authorized within the

Twelvemile Creek corridor—it is physically excluded

by fencing. Although the fisheries outstandingly

remarkable values are afforded adequate protection

under the auspices of the “Endangered Species Act,”

should the Warner sucker be removed from the “Endangered Species Act” list, these protections would be

diminished.

Alternative B

Under this alternative Guano Creek, Honey Creek, and

Twelvemile Creek would not be recommended administratively suitable for inclusion in the national WSR

system. OHV designations for each of these streams is

the same as under Alternative A. Overall, there would

not be a significant increase in the potential for negative effects to occur because of the existing laws,

regulations, and policies which currently apply on each

of the three creeks as described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative Guano Creek, Honey Creek, and

Twelvemile Creek would be recommended administratively suitable for inclusion in the national WSR

system. Guano Creek would be recommended suitable

for potential designation by Congress with a tentative

classification as wild. Honey Creek and Twelvemile

Creek would be recommended suitable for potential

designation by Congress with a tentative classification

as scenic.

Under a wild classification, no power development

would be allowed within Guano Creek. However,

potential power development within Guano Creek is
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 104

considered low. Guano Creek is also located within the

Guano Creek WSA and potential development within

the stream corridor would be limited based on the WSA

status and the future potential congressional designation as wilderness. No new mining claims and mineral

leases would be allowed within 0.25 miles of the

stream. There are no mining claims or oil and gas

leases located near Guano Creek and the potential for

locatable minerals is very low. Grazing is currently not

authorized and would not be allowed with or without

designation in the national WSR system. Recreational

uses within the stream corridor is low and the restrictions on the development of recreation facilities within

the stream corridor under the wild classification would

not be necessary. Motorized travel on land and water

could be permitted under the wild classification.

However, access within the stream corridor under this

alternative for WSA’s would be limited to designated

roads and ways and the potential for impacts from

OHV use would be negligible to nonexistent. The way

located at the lower stream reach near the Shirk Ranch

would be closed to OHV travel. Because Guano Creek

is located within the Guano Creek WSA, the vegetative

outstandingly remarkable values are afforded a level of

protection under wilderness IMP which is comparable

to potential designation within the national WSR

system. Additionally, the potential designation of

Guano Creek WSA by Congress as wilderness would

provide a long-term level of protection.

Under a scenic classification, for both Honey Creek

and Twelvemile Creek, no power development would

be allowed. However, potential power development

within each of these creeks is considered to be low.

Although mining claims and mineral leases would be

allowed under a scenic designation, the mineral potential in each of these stream corridors is low—there are

no existing mining or oil and gas leases located near

these streams. The potential for negative impacts to

these stream corridors from resource extraction activities would be negligible to nonexistent. Development

of recreation facilities would be allowed within the

stream corridors, but the recreation uses within these

areas are so low that any development would not be

economically feasible nor practical. Access to these

stream corridors is limited and the potential negative

impacts to the fisheries outstandingly remarkable

values is negligible. Designation of Honey Creek and

Twelvemile Creek as part of the national WSR system,

with a potential classification as scenic, would not

provide a significantly higher level of protection to the

fisheries outstandingly remarkable values which is not

already available under the “Endangered Species Act.”

Alternative D

Under this alternative, Twelvemile Creek (6.6 miles)

would be recommended administratively suitable for

potential designation by Congress with a tentative

classification as recreational. Honey Creek and

Twelvemile Creek would both be recommended

administratively not suitable for potential designation

by Congress for inclusion in the national WSR system.

The impacts associated with the nonsuitable recommendations for these creeks would be the same as

listed under Alternative A.

Under a potential recreational designation on

Twelvemile Creek, public use and access could be

regulated, recreation facilities could be established

within the stream corridor, forest practices would be

allowed, mining could occur subject to existing regulations, rights-of-way (for transmission lines, natural gas,

and waterlines, etc.), would be avoided or restricted to

existing rights-of-way, and motorized uses would be

permitted on land and water. Recreation and OHV

(motorized uses) uses within the Twelvemile Creek

area are relatively low and the effects of these activities

on the fisheries outstandingly remarkable values are

negligible. With the exception of 90 acres, all 6.6

miles (0.25 miles on either side of the stream) of

Twelvemile Creek recommended for designation is in

public ownership. Acquisition of this private parcel

would benefit the fisheries outstandingly remarkable

values, regardless of potential designation in the

national WSR system.

The potential inclusion of Twelvemile Creek as part of

the national WSR system under a recreational classification would provide an additional, although minimal,

level of protection to the outstandingly remarkable

values above the protections already provided under

the “Endangered Species Act.” However, should the

Warner sucker be removed from the “Endangered

Species Act” list, the protection afforded through the

Act would no longer play a key role in the protection of

the fisheries outstandingly remarkable values or

associated habitat. Designation as part of the national

WSR system would ensure a long-term level of protection relating to the outstandingly remarkable values

regardless of any future role the “Endangered Species

Act” would or would not play in protection of the

fisheries. Although Twelvemile Creek was given a

tentative classification as scenic under the eligibility

assessment, the recreational classification would

provide the needed level of protection of the outstandingly remarkable values, while allowing a greater level

of flexibility in the management of the fish populations

and habitat within the stream corridor. Designation of
Environmental Consequences

4 -105

Twelvemile Creek as a recreational river within the

national WSR system would have a positive, but

minimal, impact on the fisheries outstandingly remarkable values.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, none of the eligible streams

would be recommended administratively suitable for

potential designation by Congress as WSR’s. The

impacts to the outstandingly remarkable values for

each of the streams would be the same as addressed

under Alternatives A and B. Guano Creek would

continue to be managed under the wilderness IMP and

there would be no change in the management compared

to the current situation. Management of Twelvemile

Creek and Honey Creek corridors would continue to be

avoided by the management prescriptions for the

Warner sucker. No VRM class would be assigned to

Twelvemile and Honey Creek—visual resources would

be managed to allow natural processes to determine

visual quality. Visual resources within Guano Creek

would be managed under VRM Class I because of the

WSA status. Overall, there would not be a significant

increase in the potential for negative effects to occur

because of the protections afforded by the existing

laws, regulations, and management policies which are

currently in place for each of the three creeks (wilderness IMP for Guano Creek, and the “Endangered

Species Act” for Honey Creek and Twelvemile Creek).

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternatives A, B, and E none of the eligible

streams would be recommended administratively

suitable for potential designation by Congress as part

of the national WSR system. Potential impacts to the

outstandingly remarkable values associated with the

three streams would be negligible without designation

as part of the national WSR system because of the

existing protections afforded them through the wilderness IMP and the “Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, grazing is excluded from each these streams and

the potential negative impacts on the outstandingly

remarkable values from this activity is not an issue.

Under Alternative C, Guano Creek is proposed for

designation with a tentative classification as wild,

while Honey Creek and Twelvemile Creek are recommend for designation with a tentative classification as

scenic. The potential positive impacts and protections

afforded the outstandingly remarkable values through

designation and inclusion in the national WSR system

for Guano Creek as a wild river, and Honey Creek and

Twelvemile Creek classified as scenic rivers would be

negligible in comparison to the existing situation.

Designation under a wild and/or scenic classification

would provide protection against the possibility for

hydropower development. However, the potential for

hydropower development on all three streams is

considered to be low. Additionally, given the protections provided the outstandingly remarkable values

through the wildnerness IMP (Guano Creek) and the

“Endangered Species Act” (Honey Creek and

Twelvemile Creek), designation as part of the national

WSR system would be provide little protection over

and above what is currently in place.

Under Alternative D, only Twelvemile Creek would be

administratively recommended as suitable for possible

designation by Congress at a tentative classification as

recreational. The added protection of designation as a

recreational river in the national WSR system would

have a slightly higher potential to positively impact the

outstandingly remarkable values (fisheries) in comparison to Alternatives A, B, and E, and would be comparable to Alternative C, even though the tentative

classification under Alternative C would be scenic.

Inclusion in the national WSR system under a tentative

classification of recreational would ensure long-term

protection of the fisheries outstandingly remarkable

values even if current protections under the “Endangered Species Act” would no longer be applicable.

Alternative D, which provides protection of the outstandingly remarkable values under a tentative classification of recreational, is sufficient to meet the stated

management goals for WSR’s.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Past water-resource related projects (i.e., reservoirs and

water diversion structures) on Guano, Honey, and

Twelvemile Creeks, have had an impact on each stream to

varying degrees. On Guano Creek, Jacob’s Reservoir,

which is located above the study corridor, was constructed for irrigation purposes and has had an influence

on the natural stream flows. There are several small

reservoirs located upstream of the study corridor on

Honey Creek, as well as several small diversion structures

on private lands above and below the BLM-administered

stream segments. There are also several diversion

structures above and below the study corridor on

Twelvemile Creek. Potential negative impacts to the

ORV’s from present or future projects or actions on lands

within or adjacent to the study corridors would be

considered to be negligible to nonexistent because of the

existing protections under current laws, regulations, and

policies, e.g., the wilderness IMP and possible ACEC

designation (Guano Creek) and the “Endangered Species

Act” (Honey and Twelvemile Creeks).
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 106

Cultural and Paleontological

Resources

Management Goal 1—Preserve and protect cultural

resources in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and Executive orders, in consultation with

Native Americans.

Management Goal 2—Increase the public’s knowledge of, appreciation for, and sensitivity to cultural

resources, Native American issues, and paleontological resources.

Management Goal 3—In consultation with local

Native American Tribes, take actions, including

designating areas of critical environmental concern

(ACEC’s), to protect traditional religious sites,

landforms, burial sites, resources, and other areas of

interest. Nominate as traditional cultural properties

those areas that qualify.

Assumptions

Some of the actions which are described in the alternatives may have either positive or beneficial impacts on

cultural resources; some may have negative impacts

which would have to be mitigated as required by

Federal laws and regulations. Some impacts would be

destructive and can not be mitigated (such as the

destruction of a Native American traditional cultural

property).

Significant cultural resource properties and Native

American traditional cultural properties may be protected by various management strategies designed to

preserve such sites for future scientific research,

recreational uses, educational use, or Native American

use. Examples of protected significant properties are

the Abert Lake National Register District within the

Lake Abert ACEC. Exclosures proposed by other

programs such as wildlife and range, often protect

cultural resources from cattle congregation and human

vandalism. WSA and wilderness designations help

restrict OHV use and add to the protection of sites.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A—D

Impacts to cultural resources would generally be the

same under all alternatives except Alternative E.

The management proposed for riparian zones to

improve water quality and aquatic habitat while

reducing soil erosion would benefit cultural resources.

Restricting livestock grazing along streams, stabilizing

stream banks, and closing roads in or near riparian

areas would maintain or enhance conditions of archaeological sites in these areas.

The designation of SMA’s such as RNA’s, ACEC's, and

WSR’s generally would have a positive effect upon

cultural resources and traditional cultural properties in

those SMA’s where management actions restrict

detrimental uses. This would be accomplished by

reduction or elimination of surface disturbances which

are often caused by activities such as OHV use, grazing, construction of range improvements, rights-of-way

placement, and mineral entry. Restricting these activities would result in increased ground cover leading to a

reduction in soil erosion which would help to maintain

the integrity of the cultural sites.

The most common, least expensive, and quickest form

of mitigation of adverse effects is to cancel, relocate, or

redesign a project to avoid cultural sites. This is easily

done if the project is a fence or pipeline. On more

complex projects such as highway construction, or on

projects which can only be placed in one location,

mitigation is more difficult. In these cases, the adverse

effect is mitigated by scientific excavation and data

collection by archaeologists. Such mitigation would

always be done with consultation and coordination

with Native American Tribes who might have an

interest.

Negative impacts often outweigh beneficial ones, but

can be mitigated. Livestock congregation and trampling can adversely affect cultural resources along

streambanks and around springs. Looting of important

sites is a continuing negative impact, and it is a criminal activity. Some people steal artifacts from public

land and sell them for a profit, while others maintain

private collections. Both actions impact the resource

base.

When locatable minerals are mined under a plan of

operation, provisions are made for inventory, evaluation, and sometimes mitigation of adverse effect to

cultural resources. However, the notice of intent,

which precedes a formal plan of operation, has a short

timeframe and occasionally these limited operations

have adverse impacts on cultural resources. The

operator is still responsible if his activities damage

archaeological properties and would be held accountable. Increased mining for locatable minerals could

have adverse impacts upon archaeological resources
Environmental Consequences

4 -107

and traditional cultural properties. Any mining is

governed by the regulations found at 43 CFR 3809.

The regulations prohibit the “undue degradation” of the

environment which might be used to prevent associated

mining impacts. Another vehicle for the removal of

impacts is to withdraw areas of importance from

mineral entry; however, that is a difficult action,

requiring secretarial or congressional approval and

action.

OHV activities, particularly if unregulated, can have a

negative impact upon cultural resources and traditional

cultural properties. Alternatives A, B, and D would

manage large parts of the planning area as open to

OHV use would have the greatest impacts on cultural

resources. Trails are created that cut and erode sites,

scattering and breaking artifacts. The noise level and

presence of people can impact the use of traditional

cultural properties by Native Americans. In addition,

as OHV’s take people into generally unvisited or hard

to reach areas, the integrity of prehistoric and historic

sites is at risk to vandalism and collecting. Site vandalism and illegal excavation can increase in these instances.

Prescribed fires generally would not have an impact on

cultural resources. Any flammable structures that

could be damaged or destroyed would be protected or

avoided. Fire management’s policy is to avoid cultural

sites, traditional cultural properties, and historic sites.

However, in the case of wildland fire suppression,

decisions must be made quickly, and occasionally, there

is no time to consult with a cultural resource specialist

about cultural values. As a result, cultural or historic

sites may be damaged or destroyed. Fires of low

intensity (amount of heat) generally have little or no

effect on cultural resources unless heavy equipment is

used to create firelines and firebreaks. Fire severity

(duration of heating) can adversely affect prehistoric

sites because extreme heat can damage stone tools and

lithic debris on or near the sites surface. Rock art can

be vulnerable to both fire intensity and severity on rock

types subject to spalling and in areas with high fuel

loadings. Fires of any type may expose hidden sites to

increased visibility and illegal collection. Prehistoric,

historic, and traditional cultural properties can also be

damaged by fireline construction, particularly with

heavy equipment.

Alternative E

The exclusion of grazing, construction of new range

improvement projects, all mineral activity, new rightsof-way, and all other commercial uses would have an

overall beneficial impact on cultural resources as this

would eliminate the sources of much ground disturbing

activity. Sites would not be disturbed and artifacts

would be left intact. However, the planning area would

still be open to dispersed recreation which would most

likely result in continued impacts from site vandalism

and illegal artifact collecting. This would be a significant negative impact to the integrity and scientific

value of the sites.

Excluding all commodity production from the planning

area would also have a negative impact on the cultural

resources program itself. Almost all survey or inventory work on cultural resources that is done in the

planning area is the result of doing clearance for

ground disturbing projects. Since no new projects

would be installed, there would be no need for clearances to be done and this source of information about

cultural resources in the planning area would be

essentially lost.

Summary of Impacts

The objectives for cultural/paleontological resources

would be met under the alternatives to varied degrees.

The short-term impacts of the proposed plan on cultural

resources are projected to be positive for the cultural

resource program objectives, historic property interpretation and stabilization, and for the preservation of

traditional Native American uses.

The long-term impacts of the proposed plan on cultural

resources are expected to be positive for all cultural

resource objectives, including locating and protecting

sites, increased opportunity for public education and

enjoyment of cultural and paleontological resources via

site interpretation, and systematic protection of traditional Native American land uses.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Because cultural resources are location specific,

fragile, and nonrenewable, adverse impacts are cumulative. For example, if there are 500 small lithic scatters

in an area and 1 or 2 per year are lost to erosion,

eventually none would exist. Likewise, each episode

of vandalism diminishes the educational and scientific

value of an archaeological site. Over time, the history

and prehistory of an area may be completely lost.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 108

Management Goal 4—In order to fulfill trust responsibilities with Tribal Peoples, manage public land to

maintain, restore, or enhance plant community health

and cultural plants. Identify traditional ecological

knowledge with humans as part of the ecosystem and

maintain habitat integrity with sustainable yields at a

landscape level.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

During the “National Environmental Policy Act”

(NEPA) process for management actions on the land,

insure that such actions would not contribute to the

decline of cultural plants. Consultation with the

different Tribes would be carried out concerning these

cultural plants and juniper woodlands. On an as-needs

basis, surveys for cultural properties would be conducted related to western juniper woodlands.

Impacts of any general ground-disturbing actions

(usually not specifically covered by NEPA) such as

grazing, OHV, rights-of-way, mineral exploration or

development, wild horses, and in some cases, fire,

would have a negative impacts on the cultural plants

species because of disturbance and allowing competing

weeds into the communities. Tables 2-36 and 2-37 in

Chapter 2 list those plants and plant communities at

risk from actions; however, most resource personnel

are not aware of the plants nor the prioritized communities, and plants would be lost because of ignorance or

insufficient training. Impacts from vegetation manipulation could have a negative effect if cultural plants are

not included in the seed mixes for rehabilitation. Since

few of these plants have available seed, other species

would replace them, and in the case of using crested

wheatgrass plantings, it would have an extremely

negative effect. However, replanting of both native and

introduced plant species would curb the invasion of

competing weeds.

Alternative B

Most of the impacts would be the same as in Alternative A. However, the impacts to cultural plants would

be slightly higher because of the increase in livestock

and wild horse AUM’s, especially in areas of spring

use of low sagebrush and camas meadows or riparian

areas. The increase of rangeland projects would spread

the livestock into larger areas than Alternative A, which

would slightly increase the possibility of impacts. The

possibility of cogeneration plants using juniper wood

would have a definite effect on the juniper communities—these would be covered by the NEPA process but

would need special consultation with Tribal Peoples.

Alternative C

The proposal of eight ACEC's and land addition to an

existing ACEC, especially for cultural plants, communities and resources, in this alternative would have a

significant positive effect on the resources. These

ACEC's would protect many of the plant communities

identified by Tribal Peoples in the area. The decrease

in AUM’s for livestock and decreased number of range

projects would have a positive effect on the plants and

communities. Wild horses would have the same impact

as in Alternative B. By limiting OHV use in the

resource area to existing or designated roads and trails,

the impact to cultural plants and communities would be

lessened.

Limiting juniper harvesting in the ACEC's and elsewhere in the resource area would have a positive effect

on the resources. An increase of Tribal input and

education within the BLM would have a positive effect

for management needs and direction.

Alternative D

The impacts for this alternative would be the same as

Alternative C; however, the impact of open designation

for OHV’s and the increase of livestock AUM’s would

be the same as for Alternative A. The increase of wild

horse numbers and AUM’s creates an increased threat

to cultural plants and communities within the herd

areas.

Alternative E

This alternative would not create any ACEC's, and

thus, would not have the extra management protection

of these areas. Juniper would have increased protection

with prohibition of wood and bough cutting.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and B would generally have a negative

impact on plant community health as it relates to

cultural plants. Any clearances/protection of cultural

plants would be done on a case-by-case basis. Consultation would still be carried out with the local Tribes.

Only one ACEC providing protection and management

of cultural plants would be designated.

Under Alternatives C and D, impacts to plant communities and cultural plants would be much more beneficial. Eight ACEC’s would be designated in part to

protect the traditional uses and values that are impor-
Environmental Consequences

4 -109

tant to local Tribes. Tribal Peoples would have access

to traditional resources and use areas in these eight

ACEC’s and all management of these ACEC’s would

take these values into account.

Under Alternative E, no new ACEC’s would be designated, therefore, this would preclude any special

protection and management for cultural plants and

traditional use areas. However, these resources would

be generally protected since neither livestock grazing

nor any other commercial activities would be allowed.

Native Americans and others would still be able to

harvest cultural plants; however, these plants would

have no special protection or management. Long-term

impacts on their continued existence would be uncertain.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Designating areas as ACEC’s and prescribing special

management for those areas that contain resources and

values that are important to local Tribes fulfills BLM

responsibilities. This provides a means to establish

better working relationships with the Tribes. Actions in

Alternatives C and D set aside areas that, while they

are still available for multiple use, are managed in part

to help provide for and support traditional uses and

needs of local Tribes. Areas that have traditional

importance and use are quickly disappearing or being

changed in many ways that are no longer compatible

with Tribal uses. Designating these areas will help to

assure that at least a few areas will survive unchanged

for the foreseeable future.

Human Uses and Values

Management Goal—Manage public lands to provide

social and economic benefits to local residents,

businesses, visitors, and future generations.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations,” requires each Federal

agency to make achievement of environmental justice

part of its mission by identifying and addressing

disproportionately high adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and

activities on minority and low-income populations.

Native Americans are a minority population of concern

within the planning area because of historic and current

uses of public lands for traditional cultural practices.

This RMP contains alternatives which preclude collection of vegetative products for personal use within

specific ACEC’s and/or RNA’s (see Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern section and Table 3-3). Closure of these specific ACEC’s to collection of vegetative products for personal use would reduce opportunities for all people equally. Native Americans would be

disproportionately adversely impacted due to traditional uses of these products. Cultural resource values

and traditional use areas would be protected in eight

ACEC’s, which are proposed in part to protect and

manage cultural values and known Native American

traditional use areas. Collection of vegetative products

by Native Americans would be allowed to continue in

these areas. Alternatives A, B, and E, which do not

designate these ACEC’s, would not protect these

cultural resource values and traditional uses areas;

however, collection of vegetative products is not

precluded by these alternatives.

No other ethnic groups or low income population have

been identified as being disproportionately adversely

impacted.

Assumptions

Recreation use of BLM-managed lands generates local

economic activity in several ways. Visitors to the area

make purchases of food, fuel, lodging, and other goods

and services from local businesses. Some businesses

cater specifically to visitors and have special recreation

permits for commercial uses of BLM-managed lands.

Examples include all types if guide services and

wilderness therapy schools.

Current visitation to developed sites on BLM-managed

land is estimated at 117,500 annually (out of an estimated total annual visitation of 155,118 visitors).

Future demand for recreation opportunities is expected

to increase at about 4.0 percent annually. Population

increases are the primary driver of this trend. The

Oregon State Parks Department has projected annual

growth rates for specific activities. Of particular

concern in the Lakeview District is the projected

increases in OHV use of 2.9 percent annually (Oregon

State Parks and Recreation 1991).

The projected demand for recreation opportunities can

be met in multiple places by multiple ownerships.

Future management of lands and recreation sites would

determine the attractiveness of these areas for specific

types of recreation uses. This would determine the

distribution of recreation between regions and across

ownerships.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 110

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Agriculture and livestock use: Under Alternative A,

forage availability is expected to continue at current

levels. Overall, it is anticipated that total agricultural

sales in Lake County would be approximately $20.9

million (based on 1998 sales in the county). Grazing

fee collections would be approximately $146,116

annually if the current fee remains the same for the life

of the plan.

Mineral resources: Alternative A continues existing

mineral withdrawals for 13,400 acres. This would not

change future development opportunities as discussed

in Appendix N2 (reasonably foreseeable development

scenarios) from the current situation. Continuation of

the Public Sunstone Area would retain an important

and unique recreational resource that contributes to

tourism-related economic activity in the study area.

Under Alternative A, 433,790 acres would continue to

be closed to leasing. These closures affect about 10

percent of lands with high potential. Also, 101,433

acres would continue to be subject to no-surfaceoccupancy stipulations. These stipulations affect 11

percent of acres with high mineral potential. The

current management direction moderately limits

opportunities for future mineral development as

discussed in Appendix N2. In the event lands are

eliminated from wilderness consideration by future

congressional action, these lands would be reopened

for mineral leasing unless constrained by other designations or specific closures. Necessary constraints

would be implemented to protect resource values.

Alternative A continues present management of existing pits and quarries and allows for establishment of

new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.

Under this alternative, 467,323 acres, encompassing

existing ACEC’s and WSA’s, are closed to mineral

material disposal. Several sites of high quality decorative stone and cinders are included within the closed

acreage. This alternative identifies one potential site

(Devils Garden) for establishment of a common use

area if that particular area is dropped from wilderness

consideration by future congressional actions. This

alternative has a high level of lands available for

mineral materials use. The current needs and anticipated future demands of both public users and county,

state, and Federal agencies can be met under this

alternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative A does

not declare an allowable sale quantity for the forest and

woodlands within the resource area. Instead, commercial forest products would be a byproduct of management treatments designed to reduce overstocking,

control competing vegetation, remove invasive juniper

or white fir, reduce ground and understory ladder fuels,

improve forest health, and increase resistance to insect

and disease outbreaks and wildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting is an important

existing use that would be used to address some forest

and woodland treatment needs, especially in invasive

juniper stands, in Alternative A. It is unlikely the

demand for commercial and public wood cutting can

completely address the identified need for treatment of

invasive juniper stands over the life of the plan. Alternative A meets existing demand and anticipated future

demand for commercial and public wood cutting

opportunities. Other forest and woodland treatments

(culturing, cutting, mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire) are likely to provide employment opportunities to various contractors and seasonal employees.

The extent of these employment opportunities is

dependent of future funding of forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative A develops tourism

opportunities. Under this alternative, new recreation

sites would be developed to meet increased recreation

demand and to protect cultural and natural value and

public health and safety. This alternative would meet

current and future demands and would pursue opportunities to further expand recreation use and opportunities through developments, partnerships, and increases

visitor information and education.

Motorized and mechanical vehicle use would be

managed under open, limited to designated or existing

roads and trails, and closed designations. The Sand

Dunes WSA would be designated as open, allowing a

significant recreational use to continue. Special

recreation permits would be issued for organized

events consistent with protection of resource values

under this alternative. Existing and future demand for

motorized vehicle use would be met under this alternative.

Special recreation permits would be issued under this

alternative. Existing commercial recreational uses and

organized recreational activities would continue.

Existing guided uses and wilderness therapy schools

would be able to use BLM-managed lands. Existing

tourism-related firms would continue and have opportunities to expand in the future under this alternative.
Environmental Consequences

4 -111

Management of the Sunstone Collection Area would be

continued under the existing guidelines. Future development of a primitive camping area in the vicinity

would support additional visitor use in the area.

Sunstone collection is a unique recreational opportunity within the LRA. No commercial uses would be

permitted.

Federal agency activities: The business activities of

the Federal government are not anticipated to change

significantly under this alternative. With appropriated

funding, current program emphasis would continue to

generate local economic activity through direct Federal

employment, local and regional purchases and contracting, and provision of commodities and recreational

opportunities. The level of employment associated

with restoration is expected to be unchanged.

Revenue sharing: None of the alternatives would

result in significant changes in Federal ownership

patterns in the study area. Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes

are anticipated to increase due to Public Law 103-397,

which authorized increased payments. Actual increases

are dependent on congressional action to fund these

authorized increases. Future land exchanges would be

assessed to determine specific impacts—including

impacts to Federal revenue sharing programs.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends would

dominate future population and age distribution

conditions within the study area. Alternative A maintains current levels of economic uses of the public

lands. This includes economic activity associated with

Federal grazing use, mining activity, recreation, and

restoration. Alternative A maintains the current level of

economic opportunity for future development. This

includes potential for growth in mining and recreation.

Alternative B

Agriculture and livestock use: Under Alternative B,

forage availability is expected to increase by 10,823

AUM’s. Overall, it is anticipated that total agricultural

sales in Lake county would increase by approximately

$360,000 or 1.73 percent (based on 1998 sales in the

county). Grazing fee collections would increase by

approximately $14,611 if the current fee remains the

same for the life of the plan.

Mineral resources: Alternative B opens an additional

4,440 acres to mining claim location through revocation of existing withdrawals. These areas include the

current Public Sunstone Area (an area of high interest)

and public water reserves (areas of low interest).

These changes would not measurably change future

development opportunities as discussed in Appendix

N2. Revocation of the Public Sunstone Area would

eliminate an important and unique recreational resource within the planning area, potentially reducing

tourism-related economic activity in the study area.

Alternative B slightly increases acreage open to leases

from the current situation. Approximately 18,000 acres

in the Lake Abert Area would be available for leasing

without special stipulations that currently preclude

sodium development. This is an area of high potential.

Closures under the alternative total 415,790 acres.

These closures affect 36 percent of lands with high

potential. Also, 105,108 acres are subject to no-surfaceoccupancy stipulations. These stipulations affect 52

percent of acres with high mineral potential. With

exception of greatly increased opportunity for development of sodium leasing in the Lake Abert area, this

alternative does not appreciably change future mineral

development opportunities as discussed in Appendix

N2.

Alternative B continues present management of existing pits and quarries and allows for establishment of

new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.

This alternative identifies four specific sites for possible future community use areas. Under this alternative, 467,323 acres, encompassing existing ACEC’s and

WSA’s are closed to mineral material disposal. Several

sites of high quality decorative stone and cinders are

included within the closed acreage. This alternative

identifies three potential sites (Devils Garden, Squaw

Ridge, and Four Craters) for establishment of a common use area if those particular areas are dropped from

wilderness consideration by future congressional

actions. This alternative has a high level of lands

(about 85 percent) available for mineral materials use.

The current needs and anticipated future demands of

both public users and county, state and Federal agencies can be met under this alternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative B does

not declare an allowable sale quantity for the forest and

woodlands within the resource area. Instead, commercial forest products would be a byproduct of management treatments designed to reduce overstocking,

control competing vegetation, remove invasive juniper

or white fir, reduce ground and understory ladder fuels,

improve forest health, and increase resistance to insect

and disease outbreaks and wildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting is an important

existing use that would be used to address some forest

and woodland treatment needs, especially in invasive
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 112

juniper stands, in Alternative B. It is unlikely the

demand for commercial and public wood cutting can

completely address the identified need for treatment of

invasive juniper stands over the life of the plan. Alternative B meets existing demand and anticipated future

demand for commercial and public wood cutting

opportunities. Other forest and woodland treatments

(culturing, cutting, mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire) are likely to provide employment opportunities to various contractors and seasonal employees.

The extent of these employment opportunities is

dependent of future funding on forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative B emphasizes the

development of tourism opportunities. Under this

alternative new recreation sites would be developed to

meet increased recreation demand and to protect

cultural and natural values and public health and safety.

This alternative would meet current and future demands and would pursue opportunities to further

expand recreation use and opportunities through

developments and promotions.

Motorized and mechanical vehicle use would be

managed under open, limited to designated or existing

roads and trails, and closed designations. This alternative increased the area designated as open from the

existing conditions, which may attract additional use

from other ownerships (primarily USFS) and other

regions which offer fewer opportunities for use in areas

designated as open. The Sand Dunes WSA would be

designated as open, allowing a significant recreational

use to continue. Special recreation permits would be

issued for organized events under this alternative.

Special recreation permits would be issued under this

alternative. Existing commercial recreational uses and

organized recreational activities would continue.

Existing guided uses and wilderness therapy schools

would be able to use BLM-managed lands. Existing

tourism-related firms would continue. Existing and

new firms would have opportunities to expand in the

future under this alternative.

The Sunstone Collection Area would be managed to

encourage commercial use through issuance of special

recreation permits. Sunstone collection is a unique

recreational opportunity within the LRA. Opportunities would exist to expand tourism-related businesses to

include outfitting and guided tours for the collection of

sunstones.

Federal agency activities: The business activities of

the Federal government are anticipated to increase

slightly under this alternative. With appropriated

funding, program emphases would shift to generate

local economic activity through increased provision of

commodities and recreational opportunities. The level

of employment associated with restoration is expected

to be unchanged.

Revenue sharing: None of the alternatives would

result in significant changes in Federal ownership

patterns in the study area. Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes

payments are anticipated to increase due to Public Law

103-397, which authorized increased payments. Actual

increases are dependent on congressional action to fund

these authorized increases. Future land exchanges

would be assessed to determine specific impacts—

including impacts to Federal revenue sharing programs.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends would

dominate future population and age distribution

conditions within the study area. Alternative B maintains current levels of economic uses of the public

lands. This alternative also includes several proposals

to enhance visitor services and access on public lands.

Economic activity associated with visitors to public

lands would increase. Alternative B maintains the

current level of economic opportunity for future

development. This is includes potential for growth in

mining, livestock use, and recreation.

Alternative C

Agriculture and livestock use: Under Alternative C,

forage availability is expected to decrease by 21,647

AUM’s over the life of the plan. This would result in

marginal to modest reductions in herd size for affected

permittees, reducing productive capacity and sales.

Overall it is anticipated that total sales in Lake County

would be reduced by approximately 3.47 percent, or

about $724,000 (based on 1998 sales in the county).

Permittees who experience reductions in or loss of

Federal grazing privileges would be required to restructure their existing operations to utilize existing private

resources more efficiently or acquire new resources to

replace those no longer provided by public lands.

Changing the season of use would also require similar

restructuring of livestock operations. Restructuring of

this kind favors large, diversified agricultural operations with capital reserves or resources. Smaller, less

diversified operations and operations relatively small

privately-owned land bases would be at greater risk of

foreclosure or bankruptcy. Grazing fee collections

would decrease by approximately $29,223 if the

current fee remains the same for the life of the plan.
Environmental Consequences

4 -113

Mineral resources: Alternative C continues existing

mineral withdrawal for 13,400 acres and closes an

additional 18,459 acres to mineral entry. These closures would moderately reduce future development

opportunities as discussed in Appendix N2. Continuation of the Public Sunstone Area would retain an

important and unique recreational resource that contributes to tourism-related economic activity in the

study area.

Alternative C moderately decreases acreage open to

leasing from the current situation. Closures under the

alternative total 532,403 acres. These closures affect

98 percent of lands with high potential. Also, 119,460

acres are subject to no-surface-occupancy stipulations.

These stipulations affect 1 percent of acres with high

mineral potential. This alternative moderately reduces

future mineral development opportunities as discussed

in Appendix N2.

Alternative C continues present management of existing pits and quarries and allows for establishment of

new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.

Under this alternative, 600,598 acres, encompassing

existing and proposed ACEC’s and WSA’s, are closed

to mineral material disposal. Several potential sites for

high quality decorative stone and cinders are included

within the closed acreage. This alternative reopens all

areas dropped from wilderness consideration by future

congressional actions to mineral material disposal on a

case-by-case basis. This alternative has a high level of

lands (about 82 percent) available for mineral materials

use. The current needs and anticipated future demands

of both public users and county, state, and Federal

agencies can be met under this alternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative C does

not declare an allowable sale quantity for the forest and

woodlands within the resource area. Instead, commercial forest products would be a byproduct of management treatments designed to reduce overstocking,

control competing vegetation, remove invasive juniper

or white fir, reduce ground and understory ladder fuels,

improve forest health, and increase resistance to insect

and disease outbreaks and wildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting is an important

existing use that would be used to address some forest

and woodland treatment needs, especially in invasive

juniper stands, in Alternative C. It is unlikely the

demand for commercial and public wood cutting can

completely address the identified need for treatment of

invasive juniper stands over the life of the plan. Alternative C meets existing demand and anticipated future

demand for commercial and public wood cutting

opportunities. Other forest and woodland treatments

(culturing, cutting, mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire) are likely to provide employment opportunities to various contractors and seasonal employees.

The extent of these employment opportunities is

dependent of future funding on forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative C deemphasizes

tourism opportunities. Under this alternative, minimal

new recreation sites would be developed to provide

visitor services. Opportunities for recreation in primitive and remote locations would occur unless resource

values are being degraded beyond acceptable levels.

Specific area closures and use limitations are proposed

to protect resource values and human safety. Some

current uses would no longer be allowed and future

demand for developed site recreational opportunities

would not be met by this alternative. This could

marginally impact existing recreation-related businesses and limit future opportunities to develop recreational related businesses.

OHV use would be managed under open, limited to

designated or existing roads and trails, and closed

designations. The Sand Dunes WSA would be designated as closed, precluding a significant existing

recreational use. Current visitation of 11,000 generates

an estimated $263,000 of visitor spending locally and

throughout the region (Johnson el al. 1995). Displacement of these visitors to sites outside the Christmas

Valley area would eliminate local spending generated

by these visitors. Special recreation permits would be

issued for organized events under this alternative, but

use would be limited to designated or existing roads

and trails. Some existing visitation may be shifted to

other ownerships (primarily forest service) in the area

and to other regions which offer greater opportunities

for use in areas designated as open.

Issuance of special recreation permits would be limited

under this alternative. Existing guided uses and

wilderness therapy schools would be able to use BLMmanaged lands. Opportunities to develop new recreation related businesses would be reduced.

Management of the Sunstone Collection Area would be

continued under the existing guidelines. No commercial uses would be permitted.

Federal agency activities: The business activities of

the Federal government are anticipated to increase

slightly under this alternative. With appropriated

funding, program emphasis would shift to generate

local economic activity through direct Federal employ-
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 114

ment, local and regional purchases and contracting,

improved recreational opportunities, and restoration

activities. Restoration activities are expected to

increase under this alternative and have the potential to

increase local employment. The extent is dependent on

future budget allocations and the extent contracts used

and additional Federal employees are hired to accomplish restoration objectives.

Revenue sharing: None of the alternatives would

result in significant changes in Federal ownership

patterns in the study area. Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes

are anticipated to increase due to Public Law 103-397,

which authorized increases in payments. Actual

increases are dependent on congressional action to fund

these authorized increases. Future land exchanges

would be assessed to determine specific impacts—

including impacts to Federal revenue sharing programs.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends would

dominate future population and age distribution

conditions within the study area. Alternative C decreases current levels of economic uses of the public

lands. This alternative also includes several proposals

to enhance visitor services and access on public lands.

Economic activity associated with visitors to public

lands would increase because of underlying population

increases, but BLM would not provide new facilities or

opportunities to attract additional recreational users to

the area. Alternative C decreases the level of economic

opportunity for future development. This includes

decreased acreage available for mineral development,

decreased livestock use authorizations, and limited

availability of special use permits.

Alternative D

Agricultural and livestock use: Under Alternative D,

forage availability is expected to continue at current

levels. Overall, it is anticipated that total agricultural

sales in Lake County would be approximately $20.9

million (based on 1998 sales in the county). Grazing

fee collections would be approximately $146,116

annually if the current fee remains the same for the life

of the plan.

Mineral resources: Alternative D continues existing

mineral withdrawal for 13,400 acres and closes an

additional 7,442 acres to mineral entry. These closures

would slightly reduce future development opportunities

as discussed in Append N2. Continuation of the Public

Sunstone Area would retain and important and unique

recreational resource that contributes to tourism-related

economic activity in the study area.

Alternative D slightly decrease acreage open to leases

from the current situation. Closures under the alternative total 440,232 acres. These closures affect 10

percent of lands with high or moderate potential. Also,

159,920 acres are subject to no-surface-occupancy

stipulations. These stipulations affect 9 percent of

acres with high or moderate mineral potential. This

alternative does not appreciably change future mineral

development opportunities as discussed in Appendix

N2.

Alternative D continues present management of

existing pits and quarries and allows for establishment

of new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.

Under this alternative, 473,765 acres, encompassing

existing ACEC’s and WSA’s, are closed to mineral

material disposal. Several potential sites for high

quality decorative stone and cinders are included

within the closed acreage. This alternative reopens all

areas dropped from wilderness consideration by future

congressional actions to mineral material disposal on a

case-by-case basis. This alternative has a high level of

lands (about 85 percent) available for mineral materials

use. The current needs and anticipated future demands

of both public users and county, state and Federal

agencies can be met under this alternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative D does

not declare an allowable sale quantity for the forest and

woodlands within the resource area. Instead, commercial forest products would be a byproduct of management treatments designed to reduce overstocking,

control competing vegetation, remove invasive juniper

or white fir, reduce ground and understory ladder fuels,

improve forest health, and increase resistance to insect

and disease outbreaks and wildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting is an important

existing use that would be used to address some forest

and woodland treatment needs, especially in invasive

juniper stands, in Alternative D. It is unlikely the

demand for commercial and public wood cutting can

completely address the identified need for treatment of

invasive juniper stands over the life of the plan. Alternative D meets existing demand and anticipated future

demand for commercial and public wood cutting

opportunities. Other forest and woodland treatments

(culturing, cutting, mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire) are likely to provide employment opportunities to various contractors and seasonal employees.

The extent of these employment opportunities is

dependent of future funding of forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative D develops tourism
Environmental Consequences

4 -115

opportunities when consistent with other resource

objectives. Under this alternative, new recreation sites

would be developed to meet increased recreation

demand and to protect cultural and natural values and

public health and safety. Alternative D develops

tourism opportunities when consistent with other

resource objectives. This alternative would meet

current and future demands but would not pursue

opportunities to further expand recreation use and

opportunities through developments or promotions.

Motorized and mechanical vehicle use would be

managed under open, limited to designated or existing

roads and trails, and closed designations. The Sand

Dunes WSA would be designated as open, allowing a

significant recreational use to continue. Special

recreation permits would be issued for organized

events under this alternative, but use would be limited

to designated or existing roads and trails. Some

existing visitation may be shifted to other ownerships

(primarily USFS) in the area and to other regions

which offer greater opportunities for use in areas

designated as open.

Special recreation permits would be issued under this

alternative. Existing commercial recreational uses and

organized recreational activities would continue.

Existing guided uses and wilderness therapy schools

would be able to use BLM-managed lands. Existing

tourism-related firms would continue and have opportunities to expand in the future under this alternative.

Management of the Sunstone Collection Area would

continue under the existing guidelines. Future development of a primitive camping area in the vicinity would

support additional visitor use in the area. Sunstone

collection is a unique recreational opportunity within

the LRA. No commercial uses would be permitted.

Federal agency activities: The business activities of

the Federal government are anticipated to increase

slightly under this alternative. With appropriated

funding, program emphasis would shift to generate

local economic activity through direct Federal employment, local and regional purchases and contracting,

improved recreational opportunities, and restoration

activities. Restoration activities are expected to

increase under this alternative and have the potential to

increase local employment. The extent is dependent on

future budget allocations and the extent contracts used

and additional Federal employees are hired to accomplish restoration objectives.

Revenue sharing: None of the alternatives would

result in significant changes in Federal ownership

patterns in the study area. Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes

are anticipated to increase due to Public Law 103-397

which authorized increases in payments. Actual

increases are dependent on congressional action to fund

these authorized increases. Future land exchanges

would be assessed to determine specific impacts—

including impacts to Federal revenue sharing programs.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends would

dominate future population and age distribution

conditions within the study area. Alternative D maintains current levels of economic uses of the public

lands. This alternative also includes several proposals

to enhance visitor services and access on public lands.

Economic activity associated with visitors to public

lands would increase. Alternative D decreases the level

of economic opportunity for future mineral development. Future opportunties for development of commodity use and recreation opportunities would remain

the same as the existing situation.

Alternative E

Agricultural and livestock use: Alternative E eliminates livestock use on BLM-managed lands. This

would result in the loss of 108,234 AUM’s with

implementation of the plan. This would result in

modest to significant reductions in herd size for

affected permittees, reducing productive capacity and

sales. Overall it is anticipated that total sales in Lake

County would be reduced by approximately 17.34

percent, or about $3,621,000 (based on 1998 sales in

the county). Permittees who experience loss of Federal

grazing privileges would be required to restructure

their existing operations to utilize existing private

resources more efficiently or acquire new resources to

replace those no longer provided by public lands.

Grazing operators may also choose to use private

resources more intensively. Restructuring of this kind

favors large, diversified agricultural operations with

capital reserves or resources. Smaller, less diversified

operations and operations on relatively small privatelyowned land bases would be at greater risk of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Grazing fee collections of

$146,116 would be foregone under this alternative.

Mineral resources: Alternative E would withdraw the

entire resource area from mineral entry, precluding any

future development. Existing mineral claims would

continue as valid existing rights. Revocation of the

Public Sunstone Area would eliminate an important

and unique recreational resource within the planning

area, potentially reducing tourism-related economic

activity in the study area.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 116

Alternative E closes the entire resource area to mineral

leasing and precludes future development of mineral

resources. Existing mineral leases would continue as

valid existing rights.

Alternative E closes existing pits and quarries and

closes the entire resource area to mineral material

disposal, except where required by law or where

essential for critical road construction and emergencies

to protect human safety. Current needs and anticipated

future demands of both public users and county, state,

and Federal agencies would not be met under this

alternative. In particular, state and county agencies

who receive material site rights-of-way and free use

permits would face difficulty finding the mineral

materials needed to build and maintain public roads. In

addition, these agencies would face much higher costs

when obtaining these materials from private sources.

Mineral material site rights-of-way and free use permits

would still be available on USFS and other Federal

agency lands within the area.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative E

precludes all forest and woodland treatments, and thus,

any auxiliary commercial products. Alternative E does

not meet existing or anticipated future demand for

commercial and public wood cutting. Forest and

woodland treatment activities would not provide

employment opportunities in the future.

Recreation resources: Alternative E deemphasizes

tourism opportunities. Under this alternative, no new

recreation sites would be developed to provide visitor

services. Existing sites would be closed or rehabilitated. Opportunities for recreation in primitive and

remote locations would occur unless resource values

are being degraded beyond acceptable levels. Area

closures would be the primary management response

when necessary to protect resource values and human

safety. Current and future demand for developed site

recreational opportunities would not be met by this

alternative.

The entire LRA would be limited to existing roads and

trails except for 19,996 acres, including the Sand

Dunes WSA which would be designated as closed, and

66,460 acres of deer winter range which would be

limited to designated roads. No special recreation

permits would be issued for organized events under this

alternative. This alternative does not provide for

existing levels and types of use and does not meet

anticipated future demands for OHV use. Some existing visitation would be shifted to other ownerships

(primarily USFS) in the area and to other regions

which offer greater opportunities.

Special recreation permits would not be issued under

this alternative. This precludes commercial recreational uses and organized recreational activities.

Existing guided uses and wilderness therapy schools

would be unable to use BLM-managed lands, negatively impacting existing recreation related firms.

Public use of the Sunstone Collection Area would be

limited to surface collection. No commercial uses

would be permitted.

Federal agency activities: The business activities of

the Federal government are anticipated to decrease

significantly under this alternative. With appropriated

funding, program emphasis would shift to resource

protection and enforcement. Local economic activity

through direct Federal employment, local and regional

purchases and contracting, recreational opportunities,

and restoration activities would be reduced. Federal

lands would no longer provide commodities for uses

that generate economic activity. Mining, grazing, and

special recreation permits would be curtailed. Forest

and rangeland treatment would be limited to those

necessary to protect human health and safety.

Revenue sharing: None of the alternatives would

result in significant changes in Federal ownership

patterns in the study area. Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes

are anticipated to increase due to Public Law 103-397

which authorized increases in payments. Actual

increases are dependent on congressional action to fund

these authorized increases. Future land exchanges

would be assessed to determine specific impacts—

including impacts to Federal revenue sharing programs.

Conclusion: Alternative E, which would trigger

employment losses and reduce opportunities for future

economic growth associated with Federal land commodities, is expected to intensify pressures contributing

to outmigration from the area.

Alternative E reduces opportunities for employment

associated with restoration in the future. This is

because of the focus on allowing natural processes to

function and determine the rate of improvement.

Alternative E reduces opportunities for developed site

recreation and OHV use. Underlying growth trends for

visitor use would continue; however, management

actions would not be responsive to this demand. OHV

designations would seriously reduce the amount and

quality of opportunities for OHV use. Users would be

displaced to other area of the state or to other ownerships such as USFS lands. Some users would no

longer participate in the activity due to longer travel
Environmental Consequences

4 -117

times to suitable sites.

Alternative E maintains existing levels of mining use

on public lands. Valid existing rights (mineral leases

and mining claims) would continue. Closure of the

remaining acres to leasing and mineral entry precludes

opportunities for future mineral development. Opportunities for energy and mineral development would

remain on private lands in the area.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, underlying demographic and regional and national economic trends will

be the primary determinants of economic activity in the

future. Alternative E disrupts existing uses on public

lands and precludes future development of mineral

resources. This would reduce existing levels of economic activity and negatively impact future economic

growth in the study area.

Recreation growth in the area is expected to continue.

The BLM will continue to provide developed and

dispersed recreational opportunities on its lands under

Alternatives A through D. Alternative B particularly

emphasizes economic activities on public lands through

the increased emphasis on special use permits and site

development. The future economic impact of recreation in the study area is highly dependent on the

ability of local businesses to provide goods and services demanded by existing and additional visitors.

Alternative E does not address the existing levels or

future demand of recreationists.

The impacts to the livestock sector of the economy

vary by alternative. Alternatives A and D continue to

provide existing levels of Federal forage. No changes

in economic activity are anticipated under Alternatives

A and D. Alternative B slightly expands livestock use

on BLM allotments. This creates additional economic

opportunities for affected permittees. Alternative C

would negatively affect the livestock sector in Lake

County by reducing forage availability. Impacts are

anticipated to be moderate overall with some permittees experiencing significant reductions. Alternative E

eliminated all grazing of BLM lands. Impacts are

anticipated to be severe overall with all BLM permittees experiencing the elimination of current permitted

use.

None of the alternatives will impact existing levels of

mineral activity, because existing mineral claims and

leases are unaffected by the alternatives. The alternatives impact the potential for future development and

associated economic activity. Alternatives C and E

severely reduce or eliminate the potential for future

development through closure and withdrawal of lands

to leasing and mineral entry. Alternative B has a high

impact on future mineral leasing through closures and

no-surface-occupancy stipulations on significant

percentages of lands with high potential. Alternative D

has a moderate impact on future mineral leasing

through closures and no-surface-occupancy stipulations

on lands with high potential. Alternative A continues

the present situation.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Anticipated recreational growth will increase the

demand for recreation across all ownerships. Alternatives which close lands to OHV use or close developed

facilities will cause demand to be shifted to other

ownerships, in particular to lands managed by the

USFS. With expanding recreation demand, opportunities exist for private sector business growth to meet the

increasing demand for recreational opportunities,

especially for developed sites (campgrounds).

Reduced AUM’s in Alternatives C and E would place

additional grazing pressure on private lands and/or

increase the demand for hay and other forage alternatives. Other public lands, in particular the USFS, are

not anticipated to increase grazing use as a result of

increased demand for alternative forage.

The BLM is not a major contributor to economic

activity in the lumber and wood products sector, and

the alternatives do not change this. In the future,

increased juniper utilization could reduce the costs and

increase the feasibility of certain landscape treatments

proposed under Alternatives A–D.

Air Quality

Management Goal—Meet the national ambient air

quality standards as described in the “Clean Air Act”

(CAA) and follow the direction and requirements of

the Southcentral Oregon Fire Management Partnership.

Assumptions

• The national ambient air quality standards and

“Oregon Smoke Management Plan” would not

become more stringent.

• The maximum number of acres of prescribe fire are

ignited for each alternative over a 10-year span.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 118

• The acres of potential wildland fire are the same as

stated in the Fire Management impacts.

• The amount of particulate matter (PM) and direction of smoke dispersion can be managed in

prescribe fire, but not wildland fire.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

This alternative has the potential to put between 5,000–

7,500 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere

over a 10-year period from wildland fire. Another

10,000 tons of particulate matter could be produced by

prescribe fire.

Alternative B

This alternative has the potential to put between 6,250–

8,750 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere

over a 10-year period from wildland fire. Another

16,000 tons of particulate matter could be produced by

prescribe fire.

Alternative C

This alternative has the potential to put between 7,500–

15,000 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere

over a 10-year period from wildland fire. Another

32,000 tons of particulate matter could be produced by

prescribe fire.

Alternative D

This alternative has the potential to put between 7,500–

15,000 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere

over a 10-year period from wildland fire. Another

24,000 tons of particulate matter could be produced by

prescribe fire.

Alternative E

This alternative has the potential to put between

10,000–20,000 tons of particulate matter into the

atmosphere over a ten-year period from wildland fire.

No prescribe fire would be done.

Summary of Impacts

The alternatives all would emit varying amounts of

particulate matter, but because of the ability to manage

emissions in prescribe fire, the air quality goal should

be met. Wildland fire is a random event and the alternatives with larger amounts of particulate emissions have

the potential to exceed the stated management goal of

air quality. But due to the relative isolation of the area

and the predominant wind patterns for smoke dispersion, the probability is low to degrade the airshed.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Smoke from prescribed or wildland fires burning

simultaneously on the adjacent national forests—

Modoc, Fremont, Winema, Deschutes—and adjacent

BLM districts—Alturas Field Office, Surprise Field

Office, Burns District, and Prineville Districts—and on

private and state lands, would have a significant impact

on the air quality of southcentral Oregon. Prevailing

winds in the area are south and southwesterly. As a

result, multiple fires could degrade air quality in north

Lake County and the Bend, Prineville, and Burns areas.

It is not likely that several prescribed fires would occur

at the same time since burn plans are coordinated with

other BLM, USFS and Oregon Department of Forestry

(ODF) offices. However, large wildland fires or

escaped prescribed fires could occur in a number of

areas at one time resulting in significant air quality

degradation.

Fire Management

Management Goal 1—Provide an appropriate

management response on all wildland fires with

emphasis on firefighter and public safety. When

assigning priorities, decisions would be based on

relative values to be protected commensurate with fire

management costs.

Assumptions

The most efficient level of suppression resources is

funded over the time period being assessed. The acres

burned assumptions are from the latest initial attack

analyzer (IIAA) calculations.

Human life (firefighter and public safety) is highest

priority during a wildland fire. Once firefighters have

been assigned to a fire, their safety becomes the highest

value to be protected. Property and natural and cultural

resources are secondary priorities.

For Alternatives A, B, C, and D, prescribed fire acres

refer to those areas included in an environmental

analysis; it does not assume that 100 percent of those

acres are burned by the fire. In treating areas, the

intent is to actually burn approximately 40–70 percent,
Environmental Consequences

4 -119

and keep 30–60 percent unburned. A goal of landscape-level prescribed fire treatments is to break up

burned and unburned areas to result in a mosaic effect.

The acres listed in the alternatives are upper limits, and

not targets. For Alternatives C and D, wildland fire use

may cause the number of treated acres to vary widely

from year to year, and in some years may accomplish a

very large number of treated acres. Lightning-caused

fires in excess of 100,000 acres have occurred periodically in the rangeland fuels on the LRA.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A and B

Firefighter and public safety is maximized in these

alternatives because of the ability to attack fires when

small and the use of direct tactics. The time spent on

individual fires is reduced, minimizing exposure and

fatigue. Aerial resources are not utilized as often or for

as long of a duration. The percentage of large fires is

smaller and public exposure is minimized. Large fire

costs and resource damage would be smallest of the

alternatives. Potentially 100,000–150,000 acres could

be burned by wildland fire over a 10-year period in

Alternative A, and 125,000–175,000 acres in Alternative B.

Alternatives C, D, and E

Firefighter safety is compromised due to the large size

of fires when action is taken. Public safety is compromised due to large fires burning unchecked. Large fires

take longer to extinguish, which leads to more exposure time for firefighters. More aerial resources would

be used and for longer durations. A higher percentage

of fire starts would become large incidents. Total fire

costs and resource damages would be much higher.

About 150,000–300,000 acres could be burned by

wildland fire over a 10-year period in Alternatives C

and D, and 200,000–400,000 acres in Alternative E.

Management Goal 2—Rehabilitate burned areas to

mitigate the adverse effects of wildland fire on soil

and vegetation in a cost-effective manner and to

minimize the possibility of wildland fire occurrences

or invasion of weeds.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

This alternative would be the most cost effective over

the short term, except for Alternative E. Rehabilitation

would be on an as-needed basis and the acres burned

would be the smallest.

Alternative B

More acres would be rehabilitated than under Alternative A. All wildland fires would be rehabilitated with

emphasis on forage production. In the long term,

rehabilitation would benefit upland vegetation, wildlife

habitats, and soil and watershed conditions by increasing species diversity and improving ground cover.

Alternatives C and D

The costs would be higher in these alternatives due to

the amount of acreage burned. The acres of ground

disturbed would also allow for the invasion of weeds.

The conversion to a short fire regime would allow for

more wildland fire occurrence.

Alternative E

No rehabilitation would occur under this alternative.

Any rehabilitation of wildland fire would be the result

of natural processes.

Management Goal 3—Restore and maintain ecosystems consistent with land uses and historic fire

regimes through wildland fire use and prescribed fire.

Reduce areas of high fuel loading resulting from

years of fire suppression that may contribute to

extreme fire behavior.

Assumptions

• The funding levels for prescribe fire would be

sufficient to treat the acres called for.

• Air quality regulations would not become so

stringent as to hamper the program.

• The number of qualified people available would be

sufficient to carry out the program.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The number of acres that are converted to a historic fire

regime and the reduction of high fuel loadings are

small in this alternative. The option to manage fires in

the Fort Rock Fire Management Area is still available.

This option has the potential to save thousands of

dollars in suppression costs.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 120

Alternative B

The number of acres that are converted to a historic fire

regime and the reduction of high fuel loadings would

be larger than Alternative A in this alternative. The

areas that may need the most treatment to reach the

stated management goals may not be the same acres

that are treated for forage and commodity production.

The option to manage fires in the Fort Rock Fire

Management Area would not be available. Loss of this

option would potentially cost thousands of dollars in

suppression costs and tie up resources that could be

available for higher priority fires.

Alternative C and D

These alternatives would treat the most acres to meet

the stated management goals. Areas designated for

wildland fire use would have to have easily defendable

boundaries. Prescribe fire would be the preferred

method of restoration but would not be nearly as cost

effective as wildland fire use. With the large amount of

burned acres, the potential for an escaped fire increases, as does the potential for noxious weed establishment.

Alternative E

This alternative would slowly meet the above objectives for restoring historic fire regimes, unless nonnative short-interval species were to establish. But the

reduction of high fuel loadings would be a random

event and the resulting high intensity fire behavior

would most probably change the historic fire regime.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and B provide the highest safety for

firefighters and the public, and the costs of firefighting

and fire rehabilitation are the lowest (with Alternative

A lower than Alternative B because of the Fort Rock

Fire Management Area). The availability of burned

area is the smallest for the invasion of weeds. The

restoration of fire regimes and reduction of fuel loading

would take longer.

Alternatives C, D, and E rate lower over the life of the

plan for firefighter and public safety. This could

change, as fire regimes and fuel loadings are changed.

The costs for suppression and rehabilitation would

increase over the over the life of the plan as more acres

would be burned. The chances for escapes of prescribe

and wildland fire use would increase. The air quality

could be impacted due to the large volume of burning.

Alternatives C and D would restore the historic fire

regime sooner with the availability of prescribed fire.

The randomness and variability of fire occurrence in

Alternative E would hamper ecosystem restoration and

the lack of rehabilitation could lead to the dominance

of nonnative short-interval species.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Increased use of prescribed fire and wildland fire use

would ultimately result in smaller and fewer wildland

fires due to reduced fuel loadings. Fire severity and

intensity would also be reduced. These actions would

also begin to include fire as part of natural ecosystem

processes and result in more natural potential vegetation groups across the landscape. Since prescribed

fires and wildland fire use would also be occurring on

the adjacent Fremont National Forests, Hart Mountain

and Sheldon National Wildlife Refuges, and adjacent

BLM districts, a more natural form of wildland fire in

the ecosystem would begin to occur not just in the

planning area but over several million acres in southeast Oregon.

Recreation Resources

Management Goal—Provide and enhance developed

and undeveloped recreation opportunities, while

protecting resources, to manage the increasing

demand for resource-dependent recreation activities.

Impact Analysis

Alternative A

Management actions aimed at protecting, restoring, or

enhancing watershed functions, riparian/wetland areas,

vegetative communities, wildlife habitats and wildlife

populations, and forest health and biodiversity would

not create significant effects on recreation. In some

instances, recreation may benefit from these actions by

increasing aesthetic values and through increased fish

and wildlife populations providing opportunities for

wildlife viewing and enhancing sport fishing and

hunting. Area or road closures would have minimal

negative effects on dispersed recreation because they

would typically be on a site-specific basis.

Management actions relating to the extraction of

mineral materials, oil and gas and geothermal exploration, and the development and production of locatable

minerals would have minimal effects on recreation.
Environmental Consequences

4 -121

Negative effects on recreation relating to land acquisitions, the issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits

would not be significant.

The creation of SMA’s such as ACEC’s and RNA’s

could negatively affect dispersed recreation activities

through restrictions on activities such as camping,

firewood gathering, and through area and road closures.

Restriction of access in the mule deer winter range in

north Lake County would have minimal negative

effects on dispersed recreation and may provide greater

opportunities of solitude for hikers and crosscountry

skiers during periods of adequate snow.

Recreation may be negatively impacted from management actions relating to the maintenance, restoration,

and protection of populations and habitats for special

status plant and animal species. The degree of the

effects on recreation would be dependent on the

intensity of the actions. In particular, management

actions initiated for the protection of greater sagegrouse and habitat, may potentially have negative

effects on dispersed recreation because of area and

road closures. Hunting would be the recreation activity

with the greatest potential to be negatively impacted.

Habitat of the types which are crucial to the various life

stages of the greater sage-grouse are known to occur

over large areas of the LRA.

Actions initiated to protect cultural resources would

have minimal negative impacts on recreation. Any

restrictions, such as area or road closures, would

typically be on a site-specific basis. Opportunities for

interpretation and permitted commercial tours may

exist which would positively affect recreation.

Through interpretation and education, resource degradation may be mitigated by public awareness and

appreciation gained for these valuable resources.

Wilderness therapy schools operating in the LRA create

conflicts with other users of public lands and ranchers/

residents, and damage roads on a seasonal basis.

Hunters would be the primary recreation user group to

be negatively impacted. However, the impacts are

confined to localized areas where the therapy groups

are authorized to camp and the overall negative effects

on hunters would be nonsignificant. In north Lake

County, wilderness therapy schools are authorized to

utilize 29 campsites within an area covering approximately 230 square miles east of Fredericks Butte Road.

Given established group size limitations and limits on

the number of groups authorized to operate within this

area, the maximum number of campsites used at any

one time would be five.

There have been conflicts between ranchers/residents

living in the north Lake County area where three

wilderness therapy companies have conducted operations in the past. Runaway students have been the focal

point of concern for many of these ranchers/residents.

To reduce the potential for future conflicts relating to

runaway students, there have been a number of permit

stipulations initiated. When possible, wilderness

therapy groups have been moved at least 5 miles from

any year-round residents/ranches, there must be a

minimum of one staff member for each three students,

and a runaway protocol was initiated to notify ranchers/residents of runaways.

During periods when roads are wet there is a potential

for resource impacts to occur. The impacts to roads are

typically confined to the late fall, winter, and early

spring seasons.

Alternative B

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watershed

functions, riparian/wetland areas, vegetative communities, wildlife habitats and populations would not

increase significantly compared to the current situation.

Overall, these actions would improve aesthetic values

while increasing fish and wildlife populations providing opportunities for wildlife viewing and enhancing

sport fishing and hunting. Negative effects to recreation based on actions to improve forest health and

biodiversity may increase slightly over the current

situation because the size and number of juniper

treatment stands would be maximized. However, these

impacts would typically be short-term and site-specific

during periods of rehabilitation and revegatation.

There would be no appreciable difference in impacts to

recreation from management actions relating to the

issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits compared

to the current situation. Greater emphasis on acquisition of lands with high recreational values would

enhance recreation opportunities in comparison to the

current situation.

Impacts to recreation relating to the extraction of

mineral materials, oil and gas and geothermal exploration, and the development and production of locatable

minerals would not change appreciably from the

current situation except for recreational sunstone

collecting. The proposal to revoke the mineral segregation and allow mining claim location on the Public

Sunstone Area would create significant negative effects

on recreational collection of sunstone because any
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 122

claims would prohibit access by the public.

Actions relating to the maintenance, restoration, and

protection of populations and habitats for special status

plant and animal species would not differ appreciably

in comparison to the current situation. The negative

effects on recreation should be minimal. However, to

accurately predict the level of significance of any

actions would be dependent on the intensity and

duration of the proposed actions.

Impacts associated with management actions under this

alternative, which are aimed at maintaining, restoring,

and enhancing wildlife and wildlife habitats, would not

vary to any appreciable degree from the current situation. Improving habitats for game and nongame

animals would have a positive impact on recreation by

increasing wildlife viewing opportunities as well as

providing for quality sport hunting opportunities.

Management actions could include restricting access

and area closures. These actions would have a negative

impact on nonmotorized and motorized recreation

activities, with the greatest negative impact to motorized recreational activities.

With no change in the mule deer winter range closure

in north Lake County the impacts on recreation activities would be the same as under the current situation.

Management actions proposed under this alternative

for the protection and improvement of fish habitats

would continue to enhance sport fishing opportunities,

while possible area or road closures would negatively

impact dispersed recreation activities.

The impacts to recreation from management actions

aimed at protection of special status animal species

would potentially be the same as for actions proposed

under the current situation. Management actions

initiated to protect greater sage-grouse and habitat,

would continue to have a negative impact on motorized

and nonmotorized recreation because of area and road

closures. The significance of the impacts would be

dependent on the degree or level of the restrictions

imposed through specific management actions.

Impacts to recreation relating to the protection of

cultural resources would be similar in comparison to

the current situation. Overall, negative impacts would

be minimal because area and road closures initiated to

protect cultural resources would typically be on a sitespecific basis. Access to cultural sites for interpretation and education purposes would be given greater

emphasis under this alternative compared to the current

situation and there would be a corresponding increase

in the positive effects on tourism and the economy of

local communities.

Under this alternative, the total number of authorized

user days for wilderness therapy operations would be

16,400, a decrease of 200 user days compared to the

current situation. Of this total, 8,300 user days would

be available for use within the north Lake County area

and the remainder (8,100) would be available for use in

other areas of the LRA. The total number of groups

authorized to operate at any one time in the north Lake

County area (five groups) would not change from the

current situation. The number of authorized campsites

in north Lake County would not vary appreciably from

the number currently authorized (29). Given the

proposed use levels and group limitations, the level and

type of potential impacts associated with wilderness

therapy operations under this alternative would be

similar in comparison to the current situation.

Alternative C

Impacts on recreation relating to actions to protect,

restore, or enhance watershed functions, riparian/

wetland areas, vegetative communities, wildlife

habitats and populations would not vary significantly

from Alternatives A and B under this alternative.

Negative effects to recreation based on actions to

improve forest health and biodiversity would be lower

in comparison to Alternative B (only 50 percent of the

invasive juniper stands would be treated under Alternative C, whereas 75 percent would be treated under

Alternative B, and commercial and public wood cutting

would be maximized). Again, any impacts would

typically be short-term and site-specific during periods

of rehabilitation and revegatation.

There would be no appreciable difference in impacts to

recreation from management actions relating to the

issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits in

comparison to Alternatives A and B. Similar to Alternative B, recreation opportunities would be enhanced

with an emphasis on the acquisition of lands with a

high public value.

Designation of 134,214 acres as new SMA’s (e.g.,

ACEC’s) would preclude the extraction of mineral

materials, oil and gas and geothermal exploration, and

development and production of locatable minerals

would result in slightly lower negative effects to

recreation under this alternative in comparison to

Alternatives A and B. The mineral segregation on the

Public Sunstone Area would be retained under this

alternative which would allow public use. There would

be no negative effects on recreational collection of
Environmental Consequences

4 -123

sunstone as is the case under Alternative B.

Actions relating to the maintenance, restoration, and

protection of populations and habitats for special status

plant and animal species would not differ appreciably

in comparison to either Alternative A or B. The

significance of any actions would be dependent on the

intensity and duration of the proposed actions.

Impacts associated with management actions under this

alternative which are aimed at maintaining, restoring,

and enhancing wildlife and wildlife habitats, would not

vary to any appreciable degree in comparison to

Alternatives A and B.

Approximately 35,300 acres would be added to the

deer winter range closure located in north Lake County.

The dispersed recreation activities such as hiking and

crosscountry skiing would be enhanced with increased

opportunities for solitude. The Northern Wildlife Area

would restrict access to existing roads and trails within

275,463 acres in the northern portion of the North Lake

County Special Recreation Management Area. These

restrictions would have both negative and positive

effects on dispersed recreation activities. Access

would be restricted for motorized recreation activities,

but nonmotorized recreationists would have a greater

opportunity to experience solitude. There would be

greater negative effects on recreation under this alternative compared to either Alternative A or B, because

of the increased restrictions for wildlife protection on

over 300,000 acres.

Management actions proposed under this alternative

for the protection and improvement of fish habitats

would continue to enhance sport fishing opportunities

as under Alternatives A and B.

Management actions intended to protect special status

animal species would have impacts similar to Alternatives A and B. Actions which would be initiated to

protect greater sage-grouse and crucial habitat would

be the same as under Alternatives A and B—any

impacts to recreation activities would be dependent on

the degree or level of the restrictions imposed.

Impacts to recreation relating to actions for the protection of cultural resources under this alternative would

not vary from Alternatives A and B.

The total number of authorized user days (10,200) for

wilderness therapy operations resource area-wide under

this alternative would be 6,400 less than under Alternative A, and 6,200 less than under Alternative B. Of the

total available user days, 4,800 user days would be

authorized within the North Lake County Special

Recreation Management Area–a decrease of 3,500 user

days within the North Lake County Special Recreation

Management Area in comparison to Alternative B.

There would be 5,400 user days available for the

remainder of the resource area—a decrease of 2,700

compared to Alternative B. Under Alternative A, the

total number of user days (16,600) were not split

between North Lake County Special Recreation

Management Area and the remainder of the resource

area. Considering group and group size limitations,

upwards of 13,500 user days could be utilized in North

Lake County Special Recreation Management Area

under Alternative A, whereas under Alternative C,

approximately 8,700 could be utilized. Only four

groups would be authorized to operate within North

Lake County Special Recreation Management Area at

any one time under Alternative C, one less than would

be allowed under Alternatives A and B. The number of

authorized campsites under this alternative would not

vary from Alternatives A and B.

Negative impacts to other user groups within the North

Lake County Special Recreation Management Area

under this alternative would be significantly less than

under Alternatives A and B. The level of potential

negative impacts to other user groups from wilderness

therapy operations in the remainder of the resource

area would be higher under Alternatives A and B in

comparison to Alternative C because of the higher

number of available user days. Because of the seasonal

use limitations within the North Lake County Special

Recreation Management Area under this alternative,

the potential for damage to roads would be significantly less than compared to Alternatives A and B.

There is a higher potential for negative impacts to

roads in the remainder of the resource area because

there would be no seasonal limitation on wilderness

therapy operations.

Under this alternative, overnight camping would not be

allowed in the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake

ACEC (35,566 acres), Juniper Mountain ACEC (6,334

acres), Black Hills ACEC (3,048 acres), Connley Hills

ACEC (3,675 acres), and Table Rock ACEC (5,073)

acres. Additionally, the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil

Lake ACEC would be closed to OHV’s. The restrictions within the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake

would have the greatest negative effect on motorized

recreation uses. This area has traditionally received the

highest concentration of recreational use in the LRA

because of the OHV use of the sand dunes within Sand

Dunes WSA. The no camping restrictions within the

Juniper Mountain, Black Hills, Connley Hills, and

Table Rock ACEC's would not have a significant
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 124

negative effect on recreation because overnight camping opportunities exist adjacent to the boundaries of the

ACEC's. Hunters would be the user group most

impacted because primitive hunting camps which have

historically been used would no longer be accessible.

The overall negative effects on recreation under this

alternative would be greater than under Alternatives A

and B because of these restrictions, especially in

relation to the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake

ACEC.

Alternative D

Impacts on recreation relating to actions to protect,

restore, or enhance watershed functions, riparian/

wetland areas, vegetative communities, wildlife

habitats and populations would not vary significantly

from Alternatives A, B, and C. Negative effects to

recreation based on actions to improve forest health

and biodiversity would be lower in comparison to

Alternative B, but similar to Alternative C. Again, any

impacts would typically be short-term and site-specific

during periods of rehabilitation and revegatation.

There would be no appreciable difference in impacts to

recreation from management actions relating to the

issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits in

comparison to Alternatives A, B, and C.

Effects on recreation from the extraction of mineral

materials, oil and gas and geothermal exploration, and

development and production of locatable minerals

under Alternative D would be similar to Alternatives A

and B, but slightly higher than under Alternative C,

which closes most ACEC’s to mineral leasing. The

mineral segregation on the Public Sunstone Area would

be retained under this alternative and there would be no

negative effects on recreational collection of sunstone

as is the case under Alternative B.

Actions relating to the maintenance, restoration, and

protection of populations and habitats for special status

plant and animal species would not differ appreciably

in comparison to Alternatives A, B, and C. The significance of any actions would be dependent on the

intensity and duration of the proposed actions.

Impacts associated with management actions under this

alternative which are implemented to maintain, restore,

and enhance wildlife and wildlife habitats, would not

vary to any appreciable degree in comparison to

Alternatives A, B, and C.

Impacts to recreation relating to the deer winter range

and the Northern Wildlife Area would be the same as

described under Alternative C.

Management actions proposed under this alternative

for the protection and improvement of fish habitats

would continue to enhance sport fishing opportunities

and would not differ from Alternatives A, B, and C.

Management actions intended to protect special status

animal species would be the same as described under

Alternatives A, B, and C.

Impacts to recreation relating to actions taken to

protect cultural resources would not vary from Alternatives A, B, and C.

The total number of authorized user days for wilderness therapy operations resource area-wide under this

alternative would be 12,800. This would be 3,800 user

days less than Alternative A, 3,600 user days less than

Alternative B, and 600 user days more than Alternative

C. Of the total (12,800) available user days, 7,400 user

days would be authorized within the North Lake

County Special Recreation Management Area. Specific to the North Lake County Special Recreation

Management Area, this represents an increase of 2,300

user days over Alternative C, a decrease of 900 user

days in comparison to Alternative B, and a decrease of

6,400 user days in comparison to Alternative A. There

would be 5,400 user days available for the remainder of

the resource area—the same as under Alternative C,

and 2,700 user days less than under Alternative B. The

number of groups authorized to operate at any one time

in the North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area would be the same as under Alternative C,

which is two less than under Alternatives A and B, and

one less than under Alternative A. No more than three

groups would be authorized to operate in the remainder

of the LRA at any one time. Negative impacts to other

user groups within the North Lake County Special

Recreation Management Area under this alternative

would be less than under Alternatives A and B, and

slightly higher than under Alternative C. The level of

potential impacts to other user groups in the remainder

of the resource area would be the same in comparison

to Alternative C, and less than under Alternatives A or

B. The potential for damage to roads is higher than

under Alternative C (Alternative C has the seasonal

restriction on operations in the North Lake Special

Recreation Management Area). Compared to Alternatives A and B, the potential for negative impacts to

roads is slightly lower number of groups for this

alternative because of the lower of groups authorized to

operate at any one time and the lower number of

authorized user days.
Environmental Consequences

4 -125

Under this alternative, no overnight camping would be

allowed in the Black Hills ACEC (3,048 acres), and the

southern portion of Connley Hills ACEC. Camping

adjacent to the sand dunes (located within the Sand

Dunes WSA) would be limited to three designated

areas, with camping at one of the three areas closed on

a rotational basis. Impacts to recreation activities, and

in particular motorized recreation uses, would be

significantly lower when compared to the management

actions proposed for the sand dunes area under Alternative C. In comparison to Alternatives A and B, there

would be no appreciable differance in the impacts to

recreation uses in the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil

Lake ACEC, other than the inconvenience of not being

able to camp in traditionally used areas adjacent to the

open sand dunes.

Alternative E

Impacts to recreation from actions to protect, restore,

or enhance watershed functions, riparian/wetland areas,

vegetative communities, wildlife habitats and populations would not vary significantly from under all

alternatives. Natural process would be allowed to

regulate (e.g., fire) forest health and biodiversity and

there would be no impacts relating to recreation.

The entire resource area would be considered a rightsof-way exclusion area (except for existing rights-ofway) which would have a positive effect on dispersed

recreation.

Actions would be taken to withdraw the entire resource

area from mineral entry, closed to energy and mineral

leasing, and closed to mineral material disposal. All of

these actions would have a positive effect on recreation

activities.

Impacts to recreation relating to the deer winter range

in north Lake County would be the same as under

Alternatives A and B.

Impacts to recreation relating to actions taken to

protect cultural resources would not vary from Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

No special recreation permits would be issued under

this alternative which would eliminate all commercial

uses of public lands including guided hunting, nature

tours, and wilderness therapy group uses, etc. Overall,

this would impact recreation because it would preclude

segments of the population from using and enjoying

public lands.

All existing ACEC's designations would be revoked

and no new ACEC's would be designated. The effects

on recreation would be less than described under

Alternatives C and D, and similar to Alternatives A and

B.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A allows for increased dispersed and

developed recreation opportunities while protecting

resources. Developed recreation sites would be

maintained and expanded as necessary to meet increasing demands for resource-dependent recreation activities. Protection of special status plant and animal

species and their habitats would negatively impact

dispersed recreation through area and road closures on

a case-by-case basis. The management goal for recreation resources would be met under this alternative.

With the exception of several site-specific management

actions, impacts to recreation resources from Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A. Revocation

of the mineral segregation on the Public Sunstone Area

would have significant negative effects on recreational

collection of sunstone by the public under Alternative

B. Impacts associated with wilderness therapy groups

operating with the north Lake County area would

potentially decrease slightly under Alternative B

because total authorized user days would be capped at

8,300, annually.

Impacts to recreation resources would increase slightly

under Alternative C in comparison to Alternatives B

and C. Changes in OHV designations for the protection of wildlife, i.e., seasonal road restrictions on

motorized access because of the deer winter range and

the Northern Wildlife Area would change the composition of dispersed recreation from motorized to

nonmotorized. This would have both negative (to

motorized recreation) and positive (greater opportunities for solitude) effects on recreation resources.

Impacts associated with wilderness therapy groups

would be less under Alternative C than in both Alternatives A and B because of the decreased number of

authorized user days, and because of the seasonal

restrictions in the North Lake County Special Recreation Management Area. Restrictions within the Lost

Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC would have

significant effects on recreation resources under

Alternative C in comparison to Alternatives A, B, and

D.

Overall, impacts to recreation resources under Alternative D would be less than under Alternative C and

slightly higher than under Alternatives A and B.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 126

Impacts to recreation uses within the Lost Forest/Sand

Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC would be lower under

Alternative D than under Alternative C, but similar to

both Alternatives A and B. There would be slightly

higher impacts associated with wilderness therapy

operations under Alternative D in comparison to

Alternative C, but lower than compared to Alternatives

A or B.

Impacts to recreation resources under Alternative E

would be the lowest of any alternatives, except in

relation to commercial uses and motorized access. No

commercial uses would be allowed throughout the

resource area which would have higher impacts than

any of the other alternatives. Over 99 percent of the

resource area would be designated as limited to existing roads and trails for motorized access. This would

impact recreation resources slightly less than under

Alternative C, but would have greater impacts than in

comparison to Alternatives A, B, or D.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

When taken in concert, future management actions

relating other resources on lands within and adjacent to

the LRA could negatively impact recreation resources.

Although the population base within the boundaries of

the LRA is fairly steady, urban growth and increases in

populations in surrounding areas, and in particular the

Bend/Redmond area would have the potential to

increase recreation uses especially winhin the north

Lake County portion of the resource area.

Off-Highway Vehicles

Management Goal–-Manage off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use to protect resource values, promote public

safety, provide OHV use opportunities where appropriate, and minimize conflicts among various users.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Under this alternative the greatest amount of public

land would be open to OHV use (2,510,908 acres).

Limited designations include 130,323 acres limited to

designated roads and trails, and 511,642 acres would be

limited to existing roads and trails. Only 8,543 acres

would be closed to OHV uses. Collectively, the limited

designations and areas closed to OHV use would not

significantly restrict motorized recreation (see Table 4-

5).

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,

riparian/wetlands areas, vegetative communities,

wildlife and wildlife habitats, special status plant and

animal species, and forest health and biodiversity have

the potential to negatively affect motorized recreation.

The significance of the effects would be dependent on

the intensity and duration of the proposed actions.

Future management actions focusing on the protection

of greater sage-grouse and habitat could have significant negative impacts on motorized recreation. Habitat

critical to various life stages of the greater sage-grouse

are known to occur over large areas of the LRA. Area

and road closures would result in reduction in areas

open to motorized uses. Potential negative effects

relating to greater sage-grouse issues not withstanding,

it is anticipated that the negative impacts to motorized

uses would not be significant because potential area

and road closures would be on a site-specific basis.

The creation of SMA’s such as ACEC's and RNAs

would negatively affect motorized recreation activities

by restricting access.

The extraction of mineral materials, oil and gas and

geothermal exploration, and the development and

production of locatable minerals would have minimal

negative effects on motorized recreation, and may

possibly provide motorized recreational opportunities

in the long-term through the development of new roads

and trails.

In many instances, land acquisitions, the issuance of

rights-of-way leases, and permits, and the construction

of roads may benefit motorized recreational activities

by providing more opportunities for access.

The mule deer winter range closure in north Lake

County would negatively impact motorized recreation

activities, but these impacts are not significant because

the closure only restricts access on a seasonal basis.

Access is not restricted during hunting seasons. Snowmobile activities are negatively impacted, but the

extent of the impacts is dictated by the presence or lack

of snowfall.

Actions to protect cultural resources could negatively

affect motorized uses because of road and area closures. Overall, these impacts would be minimal

because these closures would be on a site-specific basis

The wettest periods during the year typically occur in

the late fall, winter, and early spring seasons; it is at

this time when roads and areas designated as open have

the greatest potential for resource damage to occur.
Environmental Consequences

4 -127

Alternative B

There would be virtually no difference in the impacts

to OHV’s under this alternative in comparison to the

current situation. There would be a net loss of 3,434

acres under the open designation in comparison to

Alternative A—a change of only 0.1 percent. Total

acres under the open designation in Alternative B

would be 2,507,474. Acres limited to designated roads

and trails would not differ appreciably from Alternative

A, and the number of acres limited to existing roads

and trails would increase by 3,599 acres (see Table 4-

5).

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,

riparian/wetlands areas, vegetative communities, fish

and wildlife and wildlife habitats, and special status

plant and animal species would have the same level of

impacts as management actions proposed under the

current situation. The significance of the effects would

continue to be dependent on the intensity and duration

of the proposed actions. Future management actions

focusing on the protection of greater sage-grouse and

habitat would have the same potential to negatively

impact motorized recreation as under Alternative A.

There would be no appreciable difference in the

impacts of actions relating to the extraction of mineral

materials, oil and gas and geothermal exploration, and

the development and production of locatable minerals

in comparison to the current situation. Opportunities

for increased motorized recreation could be slightly

higher compared to the current situation because of the

potential for increased development under this alternative, especially in the long term.

There would be no appreciable difference in impacts to

motorized recreation from management actions under

this alternative to that of the current situation relating

to the issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits.

With greater emphasis on acquisition of lands with

high recreational values motorized recreation would

potentially be enhanced over the current situation.

Negative effects on motorized recreation uses may

increase slightly over the current situation from management actions to enhance forest health and

biodiversity. Existing and newly-created cutting areas

would be maximized; up to 75 percent of early- to midsuccessional western juniper stands would be treated.

However, it is anticipated these impacts would be for

the short term because area and road closures would

only be implemented during treatment and rehabilitation efforts.

With no changes in the mule deer winter range closure

in north Lake County the impacts to motorized recreation would be the same as under the current situation.

Impacts to OHV uses relating to cultural resources

under this alternative would be similar to those addressed under the current situation. The protection of

cultural resources could negatively affect motorized

recreation because of road and area closures. Overall,

these impacts would be minimal because closures

would be on a site-specific basis.

Alternative C

There would be no open designation for motorized use

within the LRA under this alternative. The negative

impacts to motorized recreation in comparison to

Alternatives A and B would be significant. Motorized

access within the LRA would be restricted to either a

limited designation (24.4 percent designated roads and

trails and 74.3 percent existing roads and trails) or

closed (1.3 percent). Under Alternatives A and B,

approximately 79 percent of the LRA would be under

the open designation, and the limited designations

would account for approximately 20 percent. Although

the percentage of the total acres closed under this

alternative would only increase by approximately one

percent in comparison to Alternatives A and B, the

Sand Dunes WSA would be included in these closures.

The Sand Dunes WSA receives the highest OHV

recreational use throughout the entire LRA and closure

of this area in conjunction with the 99 percent of the

LRA designated as either limited to existing roads and

trails (74.3 percent) or designated roads and trails,

(24.4 percent) would severely curtail motorized recreation uses.

The use of all-terrain vehicles in conjunction with the

collection of deer and elk antlers in north Lake County

(including the deer winter range area and the proposed

Northern Wildlife Area) has been increasing in popularity over the past several years. With motorized

access limited to designated roads and trails and

existing roads and trails in these areas, this activity

would only be allowed to continue on foot. However,

there would a benefit to this restriction because there

would possibly be a corresponding decrease in impacts

from the use of all-terrain vehicles which could cause

rutting and soil erosion, especially during wet conditions, and the trampling of vegetation and conflicts

with wildlife, including big game animals and greater

sage-grouse. The use of motorized vehicles to retrieve

big game during the hunting seasons would be eliminated throughout the LRA. This would be a significant

negative impact on hunters, especially for elderly
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 128
Environmental Consequences

4 -129

hunters and those with physical disabilities.

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,

riparian/wetlands areas, vegetative communities, fish

and wildlife and wildlife habitats, and special status

plant and animal species would have little effect on

OHV use because there would be no areas of the LRA

designated as open.

There would be no appreciable difference in the

impacts to motorized recreation from management

actions relating to the extraction of mineral materials,

oil and gas and geothermal exploration, development

and production of locatable minerals, the issuance of

rights-of-way, leases, permits, or the acquisition of

lands in comparison to Alternatives A and B.

The impacts to motorized recreation from management

actions relating to the protection of cultural resources

would not vary significantly in comparison to Alternative A and B.

Alternative D

The percentage of land in the open designation under

this alternative (64.5 percent) is lower than both

Alternatives A and B (79.4 percent and 79.3 percent,

respectively) and higher than under Alternative C (no

open designation). Designations proposed under

Alternative C would have significantly greater impacts

to motorized recreation use compared to Alternatives

A, B, and D. Alternative D would be the least impacting of all.

The addition to the deer winter range under this

alternative is the same as under Alternative C—34,374

acres added to the existing deer winter range of 66,460,

for a total of 100,834 acres which would be limited to

designated roads and trails from December 1 through

March 31, annually. During the remainder of the year

this area would be limited to existing roads and trails.

Motorized access within the Northern Wildlife Area

would be the limited to existing roads and trails—the

same as under Alternative C. The impacts to motorized

uses under Alternative D, in relation to the deer winter

range and the Northern Wildlife Area, would be the

same as listed under Alternative C and more than under

Alternatives A and B.

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,

riparian/wetlands areas, vegetative communities, fish

and wildlife and wildlife habitats, and special status

plant and animal species would have the same level of

impacts as management actions proposed under Alternatives A and B. The significance of the effects would

be dependent on the intensity and duration of the

proposed actions, i.e., the size and duration of any road

and/or area closures. Future management actions

focusing on the protection of greater sage-grouse and

habitat would have the same potential to negatively

impact motorized recreation as under Alternatives A

and B.

There would be no appreciable difference in the

impacts to motorized recreation from management

actions relating to the extraction of mineral materials,

oil and gas and geothermal exploration, development

and production of locatable minerals, the issuance of

rights-of-way, leases, permits, or the acquisition of

lands in comparison to Alternatives A, B, and C.

Negative effects on motorized recreation uses related to

management actions to enhance forest health and

biodiversity would be similar to Alternatives A and B,

and less than under Alternative C (under Alternative C

no open designation exists). It is anticipated that the

impacts would be for the short-term because road

closures would only be implemented during treatment

and rehabilitation efforts.

Impacts to OHV uses relating to cultural resources

under this alternative would be similar to those addressed under all other alternatives. The protection of

cultural resources could negatively affect motorized

recreation because of road and area closures. Overall,

these impacts would be minimal because closures

would be on a site-specific basis.

Alternative E

Under this alternative the entire LRA would be designated as limited to existing roads and trails. Impacts to

motorized recreation would be similar, or slightly less,

in comparison to Alternative C. Under Alternative C,

the Sand Dunes WSA would be closed to OHV uses

and under Alternative E the designation of limited to

existing roads and trails would essentially close the

area also. Alternatives A, B, and D would be less

impacting in comparison to Alternative E.

Management actions relating to vegetative communities, fish and wildlife and wildlife habitats, and special

status plant and animal species would have little or no

impacts on motorized recreation. Future management

actions focusing on the protection of greater sagegrouse and habitat would have the same potential to

negatively impact motorized recreation as under

Alternatives A, B, C, and D because of possible road

closures.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 130

No organized OHV events would be authorized under

Alternative E, and this would be a greater impact than

under the other alternatives because OHV events would

not restricted.

Summary of Impacts

Common to all alternatives, future management actions

which would focus on the protection of greater sagegrouse and habitat could restrict motorized recreation

within the LRA. The significance of the impacts on

motorized recreation uses would be dependent on the

scope of the area and road closures which would be

initiated.

Alternative A provides for the highest percentage of

public land that would be open to OHV uses (79.4

percent). Collectively, the limited and closed designations would not significantly restrict motorized recreation within the LRA. There would be no appreciable

difference in the OHV designations between Alternatives A and B.

Alternative C would have much greater impacts to

motorized recreation than either Alternatives A or B.

Under Alternative C, no portion of the LRA would be

under the open designation, while approximately 99

percent would be under a limited designation. Only

Alternative E would be comparable to Alternative C in

terms of overall negative impacts to motorized recreation. Under Alternatives C and E no motorized uses

would occur within the Sand Dunes WSA.

Alternative D would have less of a negative impact on

motorized recreation uses than under either Alternative

C or E. With added restrictions relating to the deer

winter range and the Northern Wildlife Area, impacts

to motorized uses would be slightly higher under

Alternative D than under Alternatives A or B.

Management goals for OHV’s would be best met under

Alternative D. This alternative provides for the protection of resources while allowing opportunities for

motorized recreation uses throughout the resource area,

including the Sand Dunes which receives the highest

density of motorized use within the entire LRA.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Management actions, including past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions, collectively, would

impact motorized recreation uses and users within the

LRA. Past actions which restrict access and/or numbers of motorized uses at popular OHV areas (e.g., the

Oregon Coast, Millican Valley) result in users looking

else where for recreation opportunities. Uses then

increase within other areas (e.g., Sand Dunes) which

then results in increased user conflicts and potential

resource impacts. The protection of the resources then

dictate increased management which inevitably requires stricter controls on access and numbers of users.

Future management actions relating to the protection of

potential or existing threatened, endangered, and/or

sensitive plant and animal species have a high potential

for negatively impacting motorized recreation uses.

Future management actions relating to the protection of

greater sage-grouse and habitat would undoubtably

have an impact on motorized recreation uses within the

LRA and other Federal lands adjacent to the LRA.

However, the degree or level of these impacts are

unknown at this time.

The BLM’s “National Off-Highway Vehicle Initiative”

and the USFS’s “Forest Service’s Roadless Areas

Initiative” would most certainly affect motorized

recreation uses, in regards to both present and future

actions proposed or enacted. Similar to recreation

resources, the population growth that the Bend/

Redmond area is experiencing would bring about

increased motorized recreation use in the north Lake

County area of the LRA.

Visual Resources

Management Goal—Manage public land actions and

activities consistent with visual resource management

(VRM) class objectives.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Actions that promote the protection of watershed

functions, riparian/wetlands, wildlife habitat, and

vegetative communities would enhance the natural

landscape character. Such actions would include

reduced livestock grazing within riparian areas, stream

bank stabilization, and the disallowance of new developments such as building fences. However, monoculture seedings, e.g., crested wheatgrass for grazing

purposes, could create an unnatural appearance within

a characteristic landscape. Impacts from forest health

management actions should not significantly affect

visual quality if these actions are conducted on small,

localized areas.

Management actions relating to the extraction of

mineral materials, oil and gas and geothermal explora-
Environmental Consequences

4 -131

tion, and the development and production of locatable

minerals have a high potential to change the natural

character of the landscape. However, the potential for

large-scale development relating to mining is considered to be low and existing mitigation measures

relating to these activities would reduce the significance of the effects from these actions.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, and

road construction activities have the potential to

negatively impact visual resources. Restricting future

developments to designated utility corridors would help

to mitigate these impacts.

With an emphasis on aggressive initial fire attack and

full suppression of all wildland fires, there could be

negative impacts to visual qualities. Specific actions

causing adverse impacts would be from earth-moving

equipment and other vehicles driving crosscountry.

Adverse impacts from controlled burns would not be

significant if mitigation measures are followed to retain

the naturalness of the landscape.

Negative effects on visual resources could occur from

OHV activities if these uses cause loss of vegetation,

soil exposure, or erosion. Approximately 79 percent of

the LRA is designated open. Crosscountry vehicular

travel is allowable under this designation.

The construction of recreation sites or the expansion of

existing sites under this alternative would be considered if unacceptable resource degradation was occurring. It is anticipated that any such development would

not significantly impact visual qualities, and would

reduce impacts in many cases.

There are twelve WSA’s, totaling approximately

472,768 acres, which are managed under a VRM Class

I to maintain the highest level of protection for existing

visual qualities. This designation would remain in

effect until such time as Congress acts on designation.

Alternative B

Actions that promote the protection of watershed

functions, riparian areas and wetlands, protect wildlife

habitat, and vegetative communities would enhance the

natural landscape character. Such actions would

include reduced livestock grazing within riparian areas,

stream bank stabilization, and the disallowance of new

developments such as building fences. The protective

management actions under this alternative would not

vary significantly from the current situation and the

overall changes in visual qualities would be similar as

well. Changes to the landscape character could increase slightly over the current situation from management actions to enhance forest health and biodiversity.

Existing and newly-created cutting areas would be

maximized; up to 75 percent of early- to mid-successional western juniper stands would be treated.

Impacts to visual resources from management actions

relating to the extraction of mineral materials, oil and

gas and geothermal exploration, and the development

and production of locatable minerals would have a

slightly higher potential to change the natural character

of the landscape than under the current situation,

because these consumptive actions would be encourage. However, the potential for large-scale development relating to mining would still be relatively low

and existing mitigation measures relating to these

activities would reduce the significance of the effects

from these actions.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, and

road construction activities under this alternative would

have potentially the same impacts on visual resources

as under the current situation. The emphasis for land

acquisitions under this alternative would focus on

acquiring lands that would facilitate commodity

production, and these actions could potentially have a

negative effect on visual quality on a site-specific

basis.

The overall impacts to visual resources relating to

initial fire attack and suppression of wildland fires

would not vary significantly from the current situation.

The level of prescribed burns would be increased under

this alternative and this would raise the potential for

adverse impacts to occur to visual resources, but the

increase would not be significant.

Negative effects on visual resources from OHV activities under this alternative would not change appreciably from the current situation. The total number of

acres in the open designation would only decrease by

3,434 acres in comparison to Alternative A.

Any impacts to visual quality from recreation activities

under this alternative would not vary from the current

situation.

There would be no change in the VRM designations in

WSA, so there would be no difference visual qualities

from the current situation.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 132

Alternative C

Impacts to visual resource qualities from actions that

promote the protection of watershed functions, riparian

areas and wetlands, protect wildlife habitat, and

vegetative communities would not vary from those

addressed under Alternative A or B. Changes to the

landscape character from management actions to

enhance forest health and biodiversity would decrease

slightly in comparison to Alternative B, because there

is a decrease of 25 percent in the amount of early- to

mid-successional western juniper stands proposed for

treatment.

Impacts to visual resources from management actions

relating to the extraction of mineral materials, oil and

gas and geothermal exploration, and the development

and production of locatable minerals would be similar

as compared to the current situation. Compared to

Alternative B, there would be less potential for negative impacts to occur because consumptive uses would

not be encouraged under this alternative. It is anticipated that the potential for large-scale development

relating to mining would still be relatively low and

existing mitigation measures relating to these activities

would reduce the significance of the effects from these

actions.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, and

road construction activities under this alternative would

have potentially the same impacts on visual resources

as under both Alternative A and B. Land acquisitions

under this alternative would create less potential for

negative effects on visual resources compared to

Alternative B which focuses on acquiring lands with

high commodity values.

The overall impacts to visual resources relating to

initial fire attack and suppression of wildland fires

would not vary significantly from either Alternative A

or B. Reduction in fuel loads through prescribed fire,

mechanical treatments, and wildland fire are proposed

for up to 640,000 acres; this level of treatment would

cause a higher level of negative impacts to visual

resources than both Alternative A and B. Under the

current situation (Alternative A), approximately 5,000–

20,000 acres are treated annually, and approximately

64,000 acres are proposed for treatment under Alternative B.

Under this alternative, there would be no change in

VRM designations in WSA’s. Proposed ACEC designations under this alternative would provide more

protection for visual quality for additional areas of up

to180,000 acres.

Negative effects on visual resources from OHV activities under this alternative would be lower than under

both Alternative A and B. The total number of acres in

the open designation would decrease by 2,510,908

acres in comparison to Alternative A, and by 2,507,908

compared to Alternative B.

There would not be an appreciable difference in the

level of impacts from recreation activities under this

alternative in comparison to either Alternative A or B.

Alternative D

Impacts to visual resource qualities from actions that

promote the protection of watershed functions, riparian

areas and wetlands, protect wildlife habitat, and

vegetative communities would not vary from those

addressed under Alternatives A, B, or C. Changes to

the landscape character from management actions to

enhance forest health and biodiversity under this

alternative would be similar to Alternative C.

Impacts to visual resources from management actions

relating to the extraction of mineral materials, oil and

gas and geothermal exploration, and the development

and production of locatable minerals would vary

between Alternatives A, B, and C, but the differences

would not be significant. More areas within the

resource area would be open to mineral leasing in

comparison to Alternative C, but less in comparison to

Alternative B. It is anticipated that the potential for

large-scale development relating to mining would still

be relatively low and existing mitigation measures and

VRM guidelines relating to these activities would

reduce the significance of the effects on scenic quality

from these actions.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, and

road construction activities under this alternative would

have potentially the same impacts on visual resources

as under both Alternatives A, B, and C. Land acquisition would be the same between Alternatives C and D

and any impacts would be the same as described under

Alternative C.

Impacts to visual resources under this alternative

relating to initial fire attack and suppression of wildland fires would not vary significantly from Alternatives A, B, or C. Fuel treatments under this alternative

(up to 480,000 acres annually) would be lower than

under Alternative C, and higher than under Alternatives

A and B. Therefore, potential negative effects on

visual resources under this alternative would be lower

than under Alternative C, but higher than both Alternative A and B.
Environmental Consequences

4 -133

Under this alternative, there would be no change in

VRM designations in WSA’s, and proposed ACEC

designations would provide the same level of protection for visual qualities as under Alternative C.

Negative effects on visual resources from OHV activities under this alternative would not differ appreciably

in comparison to Alternative C.

There would not be an appreciable difference in the

level of impacts from recreation activities under this

alternative in comparison to Alternatives A, B, or C.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, there would be no change in the

VRM designations in WSA’s. No ACEC's would be

designated so visual qualities within these areas would

not receive the added protection as under Alternatives

C and D. All VRM designations in the remainder of

the LRA would be revoked and natural processes

would be allowed to determine visual quality. Commodity uses such as mining, grazing, commercial wood

cutting, and other resource consumptive uses would not

be allowed and the potential for negative impacts to

visual quality in comparison to all of the other alternatives would be reduced significantly.

Negative impacts to visual resources, relating to initial

attack and fire suppression, under this alternative

would be higher than Alternatives A, B, C, or D

because there would be a minimal level of time or

resources used for these actions. However, fuel

treatments would not occur under this alternative and

the impacts to visual qualities would be the lowest of

all the alternatives.

Impacts to visual quality from recreation uses would be

minimized compared to all other alternatives. Site

rehabilitation or closure would be the primary management action taken to prevent adverse impacts to visual

qualities.

Potential impacts on visual qualities from OHV uses

would be lower than under any other alternative. The

entire resource area would be limited to travel on

existing roads and trails only.

Summary of Impacts

The management goals for visual resources, which is to

manage public land actions and activities consistent

with VRM objectives, could be met under all of the

alternatives. Under all of the alternatives, with the

exception of Alternative E, there would be potential for

negative impacts to occur on a site-specific basis from

such things as proposed development, grazing, woodland treatments, OHV uses, mining, recreation activities, and fire suppression activities. However, by

following BMP’s and mitigations for specific projects,

the degree or level of negative impacts on visual

resources would be minimized.

The greatest protection for visual resources would

occur under Alternative E. Alternative B is the commodity-driven alternative and would have the greatest

potential for negatively impacting visual resources.

Overall, Alternatives C and D are similar in terms of

the potential for negatively impacting visual resources.

However, both Alternatives C and D would provide a

greater level of protection for visual resources than

both Alternative A and B.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

With the western United States experiencing increases

in population, there is a corresponding increase in the

potential for proposed development, consumptive uses,

recreation activities (motorized and nonmotorized), and

the continuation of existing uses such as grazing. It is

not anticipated that these increases, and other uses and

activities, would cumulatively have significant negative

impacts on visual resources. Following BMP’s and

mitigation for individual projects, the overall effects or

level of negative impacts on visual resources would be

minimized.

Energy and Mineral Resources

Assumptions

The allocations and management prescriptions of other

resource programs affect availability of land for

exploration and development of energy and mineral

resources differently throughout the alternatives.

Operating constraints on locatable, leasable, and

salable mineral activity vary from area to area, and

restrictively, across these alternatives.

Future trends and assumptions, along with 15 to 20-

year energy and mineral development scenarios for the

planning area, are discussed in detail in Appendix N2.

It is assumed that the same level of interest in mineral

exploration and development would be the same

through all of the alternatives.

To assess the effects of various resource allocations

and management prescriptions through the alternatives,

constraints have been divided into four categories: (1)
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 134

closures, including withdrawals; (2) no surface occupancy (for leasable minerals); (3) standard requirements or lease terms, and (4) additional restrictions,

such as seasonal operating and controlled surface use

constraints. The closures are further divided into

discretionary (under the control of BLM) and

nondiscretionary (previously imposed by law, regulation, Secretarial decision or Executive order). Tables

3-7 and 4-6 show, by alternative, the acres of mineral

estate of high, moderate, and low/unknown mineral

potential available for, as well as restricted from,

mineral exploration and development.

Management Goal 1— Provide opportunity for the

exploration, location, development, and production of

locatable minerals in an environmentally-sound

manner. Eliminate and rehabilitate abandoned mine

hazards.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A and B

These alternatives provide the most land available for

locatable mineral exploration and development with the

fewest restrictions, with Alternative B being even less

restrictive than Alternative A.

Under Alternative A, 10 percent of high-potential and 2

percent of moderate-potential locatable mineral lands

would be closed, while 11 percent of high-potential and

71 percent of moderate-potential locatable mineral

lands would be open subject to additional restrictions

(Table 4-6).

Under Alternative B, 0 percent of high-potential and 2

percent of moderate-potential locatable mineral lands

would be closed, and 11 percent of high-potential and

71 percent of moderate-potential locatable mineral

lands would be open subject to additional restrictions.

Under Alternative B, the Public Sunstone Collecting

area would be open to mineral entry, which would

make an additional 2,440 acres of high-potential

sunstone ground available for mining claim location.

An increase of 122 mining claims would be anticipated. This could equate to from 122 new, small

sunstone operations to a few new large ones. The

public would not be able to collect sunstones without

the permission of the mining claimants.

Alternative C

Except for Alternative E, this alternative is the most

restrictive to the exploration and development of

mineral resources in the planning area. Compared to

Alternatives A and B, there would be less land available for mineral exploration and development, and

more restrictions on lands that are open.

Under Alternative C, 86 percent of high-potential and

62 percent of moderate-potential mineral lands would

be closed, and 5 percent of high-potential and 34

percent of moderate-potential mineral lands would be

open subject to additional restrictions (Table 4-6).

Alternative D

This alternative would provide for more mineralrelated opportunities than Alternative C, but less than

Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 10 percent of

high-potential and 2 percent of moderate-potential

mineral lands would be closed, and 9 percent of highpotential and 70 percent of moderate-potential mineral

lands would be open subject to additional restrictions

(Table 4-6).

Alternative E

This would be the most restrictive of all of the alternatives. Under this alternative, the entire resource area

(100 percent) would be withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry (Table 4-6).

Summary of Impacts

For locatable minerals, Alternative B, followed closely

by Alternative A, would close or restrict the least

amount of public land to locatable mineral exploration/

development and, therefore, would offer the greatest

opportunity for these activities. Alternative E would

close the entire area. The remaining alternatives would

be intermediate in their overall effects to mineral

activity.

Management Goal 2—Provide leasing opportunity

for oil and gas, geothermal energy, and solid minerals

in an environmentally-sound manner.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A and B

These alternatives provide the most land available for

leasable mineral exploration and development with the

fewest restrictions, with Alternative B being even less

restrictive than Alternative A. Under Alternative A, 36

percent of high-potential and 16 percent of moderatepotential fluid and solid leasable mineral lands would
Environmental Consequences

4 -135
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 136

be closed, and 52 percent of high-potential and 40

percent of moderate-potential lands would be open

subject to the no-surface-occupancy or other stipulations (Table 4-6).

Under Alternative B, 36 percent of high-potential and

16 percent of moderate-potential fluid and solid

leasable mineral lands would be closed, and 52 percent

of high-potential and 39 percent of moderate-potential

lands would be open subject to the no-surface-occupancy or other stipulations. This would be a minimal

impact to the exploration and development of leasable

minerals in the planning area.

Alternative C

Except for Alternative E, this alternative is the most

restrictive to the exploration and development of

leasable mineral resources in the planning area. Compared to Alternatives A and B, there would be less land

available for mineral exploration and development, and

more restrictions on lands that are open. Under Alternative C, 36 percent of high-potential and 19 percent of

moderate-potential mineral lands would be closed, and

72 percent of high-potential and 81 percent of moderate-potential mineral lands would be open subject to

the no-surface-occupancy or other stipulations. This

alternative would significantly reduce the amount of

land available for exploration and development.

Alternative D

This alternative would provide for more leasable

mineral-related opportunities than Alternative C, but

less than Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative D,

36 percent of high-potential and 16 percent of moderate-potential fluid and solid leasable mineral lands

would be closed, and 52 percent of high-potential and

42 percent of moderate-potential mineral lands would

be open subject to no-surface-occupancy and other

stipulations.

Alternative E

This would be the most restrictive of all of the alternatives. Mineral leasing would not be allowed in the

entire (100 percent) planning area.

Summary of Impacts

Impacts to leasable mineral resources range from minor

to extreme. Alternative B, followed closely by Alternative A, would close or restrict the least amount of

public land to leasable mineral exploration/development and, therefore, would offer the greatest opportunity for these activities. Alternative E would close the

entire area. The remaining alternatives would be

intermediate in their overall effects to mineral activity.

Management Goal 3—In an environmentally-sound

manner, meet the demands of local, state, and Federal agencies, and the public, for mineral material

from public lands.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A and B

These alternatives provide the most land available for

salable mineral exploration and development with the

fewest restrictions.

Under both Alternatives A and B, 94 percent of highpotential and 48 percent of moderate-potential mineral

lands would be closed. About 3 percent of highpotential and 9 percent of moderate-potential lands

would be open, but subject to other restrictions.

Opening the Devils Garden to salable mineral disposal

would be a significant positive impact on the availability of decorative stone such as slab lava, should the

area be released from wilderness study.

Alternative C

Except for Alternative E, this alternative is the most

restrictive to the exploration and development of

mineral material resources in the planning area. Compared to Alternatives A and B, there would be less land

available for salable mineral exploration and development, and more restrictions on lands that are open.

Under Alternative C, 98 percent of high-potential and

94 percent of moderate-potential salable mineral lands

would be closed. About 1 percent of high-potential and

6 percent of moderate-potential lands would be open,

but subject to other restrictions. This would be a

significant reduction in the availability of salable

mineral material sites in the planning area.

Alternative D

This alternative would provide for more leasable

mineral-related opportunities than Alternative C, but

less than Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 94

percent of high-potential and 45 percent of moderatepotential salable mineral lands would be closed.

About 2 percent of high-potential and 25 percent of

moderate-potential lands would be open, but subject to
Environmental Consequences

4 -137

other restrictions. Areas would still be open to meet

public demand.

Alternative E

This would be the most restrictive of all of the alternatives. All of the planning area (100 percent), including

existing pits and quarries would be closed. The

disposal of salable minerals would be allowed only for

critical road construction and in case of emergencies,

such as flood-fighting or erosion control.

Summary of Impacts

Impacts to salable mineral resources range from minor

to extreme. Both Alternatives A and B would close or

restrict the least amount of public land to salable

mineral exploration/development equally and, therefore, would offer the greatest opportunity for these

activities. Alternative E would close the entire area.

The remaining alternatives would be intermediate in

their overall effects to mineral activity.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The most favorable condition for exploration and

development of mineral resources would be with as

few restrictions as possible. Individuals and companies

involved in exploration and development face numerous environmental obligations in order to comply with

standard requirements and lease and sale terms. Any

additional measures for mitigation of disturbance to

lands and nonmineral resources bring about even

greater impacts to mineral exploration and development. Compliance with applicable environmental laws

and regulations can add costs and delays resulting in

adverse effects to exploration and mining that cannot

be avoided. The imposition of discretionary mitigation

measures generally adds more costs to mineral exploration and developmenmt, thereby increasing the adverse

effects to these programs. No-surface-occupancy

stipulations may be appropriate for small areas where

directionally drilling may be feasible (up to 0.5 miles).

For large areas covering many square miles, such as the

proposed Rahilly-Gravelly ACEC and existing Abert

Lake ACEC, no-surface-occupancy stipulations effectively close the area to mineral operations. In addition,

seasonal restrictions could result in access times being

too short for effective exploration and development.

When one considers land currently closed to mineral

operations, such as wildlife refuges, military withdrawals,

and new special management proposals that restrict or

preclude mineral operations such as WSA’s and ACEC's,

it is clear that cumulative impacts are significant.

Numerous mining notices, plans of operations, and

occupancies could occur in the sunstone area. With

every additional notice/plan/occupancy, impacts to the

vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources of the area

increase. Due to the open nature of the landscape, this

area is visible for considerable distances. As the

number of occupancies increase, the area could become

a fairly obvious visual element from viewpoints on

Hart Mountain and along various roads. In addition,

the accumulation of impacts from these mining-related

activities, grazing, and recreation could be substantial.

It is difficult to project the actual number of acres that

would be impacted from all of these activities. However, as mentioned previously, in 20 years the total

cumulative surface disturbance from exploration,

mining, and occupancy combined could reach 660

acres. Because of concurrent reclamation, it is unlikely

that more than 160 acres of unreclaimed surface

disturbance would exist at any given time.

The planning area would be open to mineral entry

under Alternatives A through D. As long as the prospector/miner met the requirements of the general

mining laws and “Federal Land Policy and Management Act” (FLPMA) and the relevant regulations,

exploration, mining, and occupancy could not be

denied. However, compliance with relevant laws,

regulations, the proposed action, and the mitigating

measures, would minimize cumulative adverse impacts.

The only irreversible and irretrievable commitment of

resources would be the amounts of mineral commodities actually removed, such as sand, gravel, perlite,

sunstones, and diatomite. Geothermal energy (heat) is

a renewable resource that, over time, is replenished by

the decay of radioactive minerals and heat-producing

chemical reactions.

Lands and Realty

Management Goal 1—Retain public land with high

public resource values. Consolidate public land

inholdings and acquire land or interests in land with

high public resource values to ensure effective

administration and improve resource management.

Acquired land would be managed for the purpose for

which it was acquired. Make available for disposal

public land within Zone 3 by State indemnity selection, private or state exchange, “Recreation and

Public Purpose Act” lease or sale, public sale, or

other authorized method, as applicable.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 138

Assumptions

The Lands and Realty program is a support function of

other resource programs. Consequently, impacts to the

program are a direct result of the emphasis of other

resource programs. Land tenure actions would be

directed to a point ranging from fully developing

commodities to preserving natural values as dictated by

other resource programs.

Lands being considered for disposal occur in Zone 3

and are specifically identified by alternative on Maps

L-1, -3, -4, and -5 and Appendix O2. Contingent upon

site-specific analysis and inventory for resource values

in accordance with NEPA, any of the land identified as

suitable for disposal could be transferred from Federal

ownership during the life of the plan. Disposal would

usually be by exchange or sale, however the preferred

method of disposal would be by exchange. Any

acquired land or acquired interest in land would be

managed for the purposes for which it was acquired or

in the same manner as adjacent or comparable public

land.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Under this alternative, land sales would be limited to

those parcels identified in existing management

framework plans (approximately 42,500 acres). Land

sales could increase county(s) tax revenues by adding

land to the tax rolls, and could increase management

flexibility in resolving situations involving survey

errors and hiatuses and unauthorized uses. Land tenure

adjustment by exchange would be allowed when there

is no significant resource conflict on the selected BLMadministrative parcels and the offered land possess

desirable resources. An emphasis on acquiring land

with high resource values such as lands within WSA’s

or ACEC's, T&E species habitat, riparian or wetland

areas, etc., would be of primary consideration.

Proposals involving the consolidation of split-estate

would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, the major emphasis of land

tenure adjustment would be for commodity production.

Decisions to retain or dispose of public land or to

acquire private land would be based on the opportunity

to enhance commodity production. Exchanges may not

result in the acquisition of land possessing high public

resource values. In some cases resource values (i.e.,

riparian and wildlife habitat) could be lost from public

ownership if shown to benefit commodity production.

Implementation of this proposal would limit disposal

opportunities to approximately 54,800 acres, which is

an increase above the level of Alternative A. The

benefits derived from land sales under this alternative

would be similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for

Alternative A, except the major emphasis of land

tenure adjustment would be retention/acquisition of

land with high public resource value. Decisions to

retain or dispose of public land or to acquire private

land would be based on the quality of public resource

values. Implementation of this proposal would reduce

the disposal opportunities to approximately 8,000

acres, lower than either Alternative A or B. The

benefits derived from land sales would also be reduced.

Under certain circumstances disposal of small parcels

of public land would be permitted in Zones 1 and 2.

The consolidation of split-ownership surface and

subsurface estates would be pursued on a case-by-case

basis to facilitate the efficient and effective management of public land.

Alternative D

Same as for Alternative C, except the main emphasis

for land tenure adjustment would be to protect and

improve natural values while providing commodity

production.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, public land would be retained

throughout the resource area and only considered for

disposal on a case-by-case basis.

Summary of Impacts

Management goals would be achieved under all

alternatives except under Alternative E. Land sales

opportunities would be greatest in Zone 3 under

Alternatives A and B, approximately 42,500 acres and

54,800 acres, respectively. Exchanges and acquisitions

in other land zones would be allowed to meet other

resource objectives. Implementing Alternative B, land

tenure adjustments would emphasize retention/acquisition of commodity producing land. Significant public

resource values such as riparian and wildlife habitat

may potentially be lost from public ownership. Under
Environmental Consequences

4 -139

Alternatives C and D, land tenure adjustments would

emphasize retention/acquisition of land high in resource value. Disposal opportunities would be greatly

reduced from Alternatives A and B, which in turn

would limit the potential for private land acquisition by

limiting the pool of public disposal lands necessary to

maintain the required public/private land ownership

ratio in the resource area. Under Alternative E, there

would be little to no land acquisitions, and the majority

of the public lands would be retained and only considered for disposal on a case-by-case basis.

Management Goal 2—Meet public needs for land use

authorizations such as rights-of-way, leases, and

permits.

Assumptions

Section 503 of the FLPMA provides for the designation

of rights-of-way corridors and encourages use of rightsof-way in common to minimize environmental impacts

and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way. BLM

policy, as described in BLM Manual 2801, is to encourage prospective applicants to locate their proposals

within corridors. However, when rights-of-way

corridor proposals are in conflict with SMA’s such as

WSA’s and ACEC's, these areas should be avoided.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

There would be no impacts to the continued designation of public land for rights-of-way corridors. However, those areas currently identified as exclusion/

avoidance areas places severe restrictions on the

location of rights-of-way, other land use authorizations

and limits or eliminates certain land disposals and

exchanges.

Management of special status species, either plant or

animal, could place severe restrictions on the location

of rights-of-way, other land use authorizations, and

limit or eliminate certain disposals and exchanges.

Rights-of-way may not be granted or have to be

rerouted, resulting in additional disturbance to the

landscape. Land tenure adjustments may not be

allowed in order to protect special status species

habitat.

Management of wildlife or wildlife habitat and fish and

aquatic habitat under this alternative would impact

rights-of-way and other land use authorizations. In

order to protect certain habitats, rights-of-way may not

be granted or have to be rerouted making them more

costly and resulting in additional disturbance to the

landscape. Land tenure adjustments may not be carried

out in order to retain high value habitat in Federal

ownership.

Managing areas as VRM Class I would eliminate the

placement of rights-of-way and other land use authorizations for powerlines and pipelines, since these

actions would be a visible change to the landscape.

These types of activities would have to be relocated to

other areas which could result in longer lines, additional cost, and greater total disturbance to the landscape.

Management of ACEC’s, WSA’s or other SMA’s would

have a minimal impact on the placement of rights-ofway since most of the planning area would still be open

to new rights-of-way.

Alternative B

Implementation of this alternative would voluntarily

restrict the location of facilities if applicants are

encouraged to locate within designated corridors.

Centralizing could make the facilities more vulnerable

to destruction through terrorist activities, but would

also confine surface and visual disturbance to existing

corridors and rights-of-way. Under this alternative,

there would be an increased number of SMA’s that

would further restrict the location of rights-of-way

across the resource area. However, there would be no

exclusion areas within the planning area under this

alternative.

Impacts from management of special status species,

wildlife and wildlife habitat, and fish and aquatic

habitat would be the same as for Alternative A.

Management of VRM Class I areas and SMA’s would

impact rights-of-way the same as under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under this alternative all linear rights-of-way for

electrical transmission lines greater than 69 kilovolt, all

mainline fiber optics facilities, and all pipelines greater

than 10 inches would be confined to designated corridors. This would centralize all major energy-related

transmission facilities, making them more vulnerable to

terrorist activities; but would confine surface and

visual disturbance to existing corridors. Implementing

this alternative would designate all existing electrical

transmission lines identified in the “Western Utilities

Corridor Study” and some county roads as rights-ofway corridors and reduced the minimum standard
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 140

corridor width to 1,000 feet.

The impacts associated with management of special

plant and animal species, fish and aquatic habitat,

cultural and paleontological resources, VRM Class I

and human uses and values would be the same as for

Alternative A.

Under this alternative management of wildlife and

wildlife habitat and SMA’s would consider all greater

sage-grouse habitat as rights-of-way avoidance areas

and there would be an increase in the number of SMA’s

over both Alternatives A and B. Also, under this

alternative, SMA’s would be considered rights-of-way

exclusion areas.

Alternative D

The impacts associated with this alternative would be

similar to Alternative B, except that greater sage-grouse

breeding habitat would be considered rights-of-way

avoidance areas. However, rights-of-way which do not

conflict with management objectives for the area may

be allowed.

Alternative E

Implementation of this alternative would not meet

management goal objectives. The entire planning area

would be considered a rights-of-way exclusion area.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A is a continuation of the present situation

and is the least restrictive of all the alternatives.

Alternative B creates more acreage of SMA’s than

Alternative A, but fewer than Alternatives C, D, and E.

All SMA’s under Alternative B are considered avoidance areas, but there are no exclusion zones within the

planning area. This alternative designates all existing

transmission lines in the “Western Utilities Corridor

Study” and some county roads as rights-of-way corridors and establishes a minimum standard corridor

width of 2,000 feet. Alternative C is the most restrictive of all the alternatives relative to SMA’s, except

Alternative E which considers the entire planning area

as a rights-of-way exclusion area. This alternative

includes all greater sage-grouse habitat as a rights-ofway avoidance area and mandates the location of all

new large energy-related transmission facilities within

designated corridors. It also reduces the minimum

standard corridor width to 1,000 feet. Alternative D is

similar to Alternative B, except under this alternative

all SMA’s and all greater sage-grouse breeding habitat

would be considered rights-of-way avoidance areas.

Rights-of-way may be allowed if they do not conflict

with management objectives. Under Alternative E, the

entire planning area would be considered a rights-ofway exclusion area where no new rights-of-way would

be allowed. Management goals would be met under all

alternatives, except for Alternative E.

Management Goal 3—Acquire public and administrative access to public land where it does not currently exist.

Assumptions

Section 205 of the FLPMA authorizes the Secretary to

acquire lands and interests in lands consistent with the

mission of the department and with applicable departmental land-use plans. Any acquired interest in land

would be managed for the purposes for which they

were acquired or in the same manner as adjacent or

comparable public land. All roadways/improvements

constructed as a result of the acquisition of lands or

interests in lands would be subject to NEPA review/

analysis prior to actual construction.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Implementing this action would ensure the continued

access to public land for administrative purposes,

thereby allowing management of resources on all

parcels of public land. Constructing new roads around

private lands where easement acquisition is not feasible

would provide management the flexibility to create

access to public lands as necessary.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, the emphasis for acquisition

would shift from providing access for administrative

purposes to acquiring access to public lands high in

commodity value. This would allow access for management, extraction, or use of commodity resources on

all the public lands. Implementing this proposal would

emphasize constructing new roads around private lands

to facilitate commodity development and forego

opportunities to access public land with significant

public resource values.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, the BLM would acquire access

where public demand and administrative need exists,

and to construct roads around private land, if necessary
Environmental Consequences

4 -141

to secure access. Emphasis for access acquisition

would be for the protection of natural values.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, access would be acquired where

public demand and administrative need exists and to

construct roads around private land, if necessary to

secure access. Emphasis for access acquisition would

be to provide access to public lands containing high

public resource values.

Alternative E

Under this alternative new access rights would only be

acquired and road construction performed as prescribed

and mandated by law and/or for public health and

safety.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A is a continuation of the present situation

as it currently exists in the management framework

plans. Access acquisition emphasizes providing access

to BLM-administrative facilities and program-related

activities. Alternative B would provide for acquiring

access to public lands high in commodity value;

Alternatives C and D would provide for acquiring

access to protect natural values and to areas containing

high public resource values; and Alternative E would

provide for acquiring no new access unless prescribed

and mandated by law. All alternatives provide for

constructing new roads around private lands when

easement acquisition is not feasible. Management

goals could be met under all alternatives. However,

under Alternative E, meeting the goal would be met

only where access is required by law or for public

safety.

Management Goal 4—Utilize withdrawal actions

with the least restrictive measures necessary to

accomplish the required purposes.

Assumptions

Section 204 of FLPMA gives the Secretary of the

Interior the authority to make, modify, extend, or

revoke withdrawals, and mandates review of withdrawals. Department of the Interior Policy (DM 603)

requires that: (1) all withdrawals be kept to a minimum, (2) lands shall be available for other public uses

to the fullest extent possible, and (3) a current and

continuing review of existing withdrawals shall be

instituted.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Alternative A is a continuation of the present situation

as it currently exists in the management framework

plans.

Alternative B

This alternative would be the least restrictive and not

impact commodity- or recreational-related activities.

This alternative, however, would afford the least

protection of those resources where withdrawal may be

deemed necessary.

Alternative C

Withdrawal of the Red Knoll ACEC would render

approximately 11,600 acres unavailable for operation

under the public land and mining laws, but would be

available for mineral leasing.

Alternative D

Withdrawal of these lands would render approximately

4,600 acres unavailable for operation under the public

land and mining laws, but would be available for

mineral leasing.

Alternative E

Under this alternative the entire resource area would be

withdrawn from the public land, mining and mineral

leasing laws. This alternative would provide the most

resource-related protection.

Summary of Impacts

In accordance with departmental policy, management

goals would be achieved under Alternatives A, C,and

D. Alternatives B and E are considered to be inconsistent with both management goals and departmental

policy. Alternative B would not allow any new lands to

be withdrawn unless required by law, and would revoke

all existing water reserves. Under Alternative C, the

entire Red Knoll ACEC (11,588 acres) would be

withdrawn from the public land and mining laws.

Under Alternative D, 4,600 acres would be withdrawn.

Alternative E would withdraw the entire resource area

rendering it unavailable for operation under the public

land, mining, and mineral leasing laws. This alternative would provide the most resource-related protection.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 142

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Generally, the BLM and other Federal land management agencies operate under a no net loss policy in

regard to land tenure adjustments. Therefore, the

secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts relative to

this management goal are considered negligible. Most

Federal land management agencies having land tenure

adjustment programs strive to maintain the private/

public land ownership ratio within their respective

jurisdictional areas. State land management agencies

may not operate under a no net loss policy, and if so,

the disposal of state lands without replacement would

increase the private land base within the Resource

Area.

Generally, with the exception of Alternative E, the

secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated

with the location of rights-of-way is similar for all the

alternatives. Alternatives A through D do not prevent

the location of rights-of-way, but restricts the location

of some kinds of rights-of-way in certain areas within

the resource area to protect resource values. Excluding

or avoiding certain areas for the location of rights-ofway may lessen the impact to a particular resource

considered of public value, but would not lessen the

physical alteration of the landscape necessary to

accommodate rights-of-way. The cumulative impact

associated with rights-of-way is a function of demand,

the number of and acres occupied by the rights-of-way

issued. Implementation of any Alternative A through D

would not affect the demand for or number of rights-ofway, but only relocate the physical impact of those

rights-of-way authorized. The more rights-of-way

granted by the land management agencies (Federal and

state), as well as private easements, the more cumulative impact to the landscape. Alternative E would

presumably not allow the location of new rights-of-way

anywhere in the resource area, and therefore, secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be negligible.

The secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts

associated with the acquisition of access rights (easements) and the holders of such rights would include

Federal and state land management agencies as well as

private entities. Again, implementing any Alternative A

through D would not necessarily increase the demand

for access acquisition, but would establish the motivation for acquisition. The more easements acquired,

through all sources, the more potential for road construction, and consequently, more cumulative impact to

the landscape. Alternative E applies exclusively to

BLM and would only allow access rights to be acquired as prescribed and mandated by law or necessary

to protect public health and safety. Under Alternative

E, the secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts are

considered negligible.

BLM is the only Federal agency with the authority to

withdraw public lands, therefore all withdrawal requests from other Federal agencies are processed

through the BLM. The level of impact associated with

withdrawals is relative to the number of acres withdrawn, the restrictiveness of the withdrawal, and the

public’s position on the issue. Public lands are withdrawn either to set an area aside for a specific use or to

afford valuable resources additional protection. Generally, withdrawals will exclude the land from appropriation under the public land, mining, and mineral leasing

laws, commodity production, and other human-related

uses of the areas.

Roads/Transportation

Management Goal —Maintain existing roads on the

resource area transportation plan and other roads to

provide administrative or public access to public land.

Construct new roads using best management practices (BMP’s) and appropriate mitigation to provide

administrative, permitted, and recreational access as

needed. Close roads that are not longer needed or

that are causing resource damage.

Assumptions

• Based on past and present road maintenance

budgets, approximately 100 miles of roads would

be maintained each year regardless of the alternative.

• Not all roads on the transportation plan would be

maintained over the life of the plan.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Continuation of existing management would have no

impact on the maintenance of existing roads. An

average of approximately 100 miles of roads would

continue to be maintained each year. Total number of

miles actually maintained would be based on the

amount of funding received in the road maintenance

budget. Roads not maintained would deteriorate which

could result in resource damage such as erosion. Nonmaintained roads could also be used less since they

would be more difficult to drive thereby providing less
Environmental Consequences

4 -143

access to the planning area.

New roads would be constructed on a case-by-case, asneeded basis. Construction of roads around private

lands to access BLM-administered lands would provide

legal public access for recreationists as well BLM

personnel. This could reduce conflicts with private

landowners and reduce damage to private lands. New

roads could be constructed across BLM-administered

land by other land holders under a rights-of-way grant

to access non-Federal land. In any case, it is not

expected that total new construction would exceed 20

miles over the life of the plan.

Roads would be closed on a case-by-case basis under

this alternative. Generally, only those roads or portions

of roads causing major resource damage would be

closed. Approximately 235 miles of road would

continue to be closed under this alternative (Table 4-4).

Alternative B

Impacts of road maintenance and new road construction under this alternative would be similar to those

under Alternative A. Priorities for maintenance would

be those roads that would facilitate commodity production in the planning area. Under this alternative, any

new roads constructed on BLM-administered land,

whether constructed by BLM, another agency, or a

private individual, would be constructed according to

BMP’s (see Appendix D) to protect adjacent land and

resources.

Impacts of road closures would be the same as under

Alternative A (Table 4-4).

Alternative C

Under this alternative the priorities for road maintenance would be those roads that are causing resource

damage such as erosion. As a result resource damage

caused by roads would decrease. Construction of roads

around private lands to access BLM-administered lands

would provide legal public access for recreationists as

well BLM personnel. This could reduce conflicts with

private landowners and reduce damage to private lands.

New road construction whether for BLM needs or to

access non-Federal land would be minimal under this

alternative and would likely not exceed 10 miles over

the life of the plan. Any new roads constructed on

BLM-administered land, whether constructed by BLM,

another agency, or a private individual, would be

constructed according to BMP’s to protect soil, watershed, riparian areas, and other resources. New roads

would not be constructed in or near riparian conservation areas. This would limit to a small extent the

placement of new roads.

There would be a concerted effort to close unneeded or

damaging roads under this alternative. As a result, road

closures would be greatest under this alternative.

Approximately 502 miles of roads would be closed in

SMA’s (Table 4-4). Roads closed but not rehabilitated

could still be used for authorized or permitted purposes. Roads closed and rehabilitated, either naturally

or artificially would be closed to any future traffic.

This would reduce vehicle access to certain parts of the

planning area, particularly ACEC’s.

Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative C,

except that road closures would be less. An estimated412 miles of roads in SMA’s would be closed

under this alternative (Table 4-4).

Alternative E

Impacts under this alternative would be minimal since

maintenance would occur only to protect human health

and safety or only on those roads required by law to be

open. This criteria would apply to very few roads in

the planning area. New roads would not be constructed

unless required by law or to provide access to nonFederal property. Such construction would not exceed

20 miles over the life of the plan. Any new roads

constructed on BLM-administered land, whether

constructed by BLM, another agency, or a private

individual, would be constructed according to BMP’s

to protect soil, watershed, riparian areas, and other

resources.

With the removal of livestock grazing and all range

improvements, a number of unneeded roads, ways, and

trails could be closed under this alternative. Up to 10

percent of existing roads could be closed over the life

of the plan.

Summary of Impacts

Impacts would be similar under all alternatives with the

fewest impacts occurring under Alternative E and the

most potentially occurring under Alternative B. Priorities for maintenance would vary across the alternatives

but would depend primarily on the road maintenance

budget each year. Not all roads would be maintained

over the life of the plan under any of the alternatives.

As a result, some roads could deteriorate to the point of

causing resource damage or being impassable.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 144

New road construction would not exceed 20 miles

under any alternative, but would be least under Alternatives C, D, and E. In Alternatives B–E, new construction or reconstruction would be done according to

BMP’s to protect adjacent resources.

The management goal would be met under all the

alternatives except for Alternative E.

Road closures would occur under all alternatives with

the most miles of closure occurring under Alternative

C. Most of these closures would be associated with

special management areas such as ACEC’s.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Roads that are not maintained over the life of the plan

because of lower priorities could deteriorate to the

point that they would be impassable thereby reducing

access to some parts of the planning area. Often these

types of roads eventually cause resource damage such

as erosion.

New road construction could open parts of the planning

area that currently do not have access. This could

result in increased use by recreationists that could

result in wildlife disturbance, soil and vegetation

disturbance that could increase erosion, and loss of

solitude in an area.

The Fremont National Forest has an active ongoing

program of closing roads that are not needed for

commercial or administrative purposes or that may be

causing resource damage. This program coupled with

road closures that BLM would do could have a significant positive impact on particular watersheds by

reducing access resulting in less compaction, less

vegetation disturbance, and less erosion. These effects

would be most beneficial in those watersheds shared by

both BLM and the Fremont National Forest.
Consultation and Coordination

5 -1

Chapter 5 — Consultation and Coordination

Introduction

The Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement (Lakeview RMP/EIS)

was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of resource

specialists from the Lakeview District Office. Initial

preparation for the plan began in 1997. The planning

process began in earnest in early 1999 with the training

of the interdisciplinary team (February) and the hiring

of an interdisciplinary RMP team leader. A scoping

packet was developed and mailed to the public, local

governments, and organizations. In July 2000, the

“Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation” was mailed to agencies, organizations, and

individuals.

Public Participation

The official start of the preparation of the Lakeview

RMP/EIS was initiated with the publishing of a “Notice

of Intent” to prepare an RMP/EIS in the Federal

Register on June 21, 1999. This notice also included

an invitation to the public to suggest issues to be

addressed in the RMP and to provide comments

concerning management of the public lands. In addition, approximately 500 public information or scoping

packets, providing information about the planning

process and inviting comments, were mailed to agencies, organizations, and individuals. News releases

were sent to newspapers and radio stations in both

Klamath Falls and Lakeview. Paid notices announcing

the scoping period and meetings were placed in the

legal notices sections of the two newspapers. The

“Notice of Intent,” news releases, and legal notices

identified the beginning of the EIS scoping period and

the location, date, and time of the public scoping

meetings. The comment period extended from June 21

through July 31, 1999.

The public scoping meetings were held at the interagency office in Lakeview on July 13, 1999, and at the

North Lake School on July 14, 1999. Seven people,

including private citizens, mining company managers,

representatives of two State agencies, and a newspaper

reporter attended the meeting in Lakeview. No one

attended the meeting in North Lake County. Six

written comments or letters were received at the

meetings or during the comment period. These comments dealt primarily with designation of special

management areas, preserving and protecting the

naturalness of the resource area, and maintaining air

quality in relation to prescribe burning. These comments were incorporated into the alternatives and the

impact analysis of the Lakeview RMP/EIS.

Although technically not part of the public participation process, a subbasin review was conducted prior to

completing the “Analysis of the Management Situation.” The subbasin review was a multi-agency collaborative effort to “step down” to the local level the

findings and assessments of the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) (see

Appendix A). In other words, did the findings from

ICBEMP have any meaning to the Lakeview RMP

planning area? The subbasin review group determined

that many of them did, and these were incorporated

into the issues addressed in this plan.

The “Summary of the Analysis of the Management

Situation” was prepared after the subbasin review and

mailed to the planning mailing list in July 2000. It

contained a description of the preliminary issues,

alternatives, and planning criteria, as well as the

resource area profile, existing management situation,

and management opportunities. The public was

requested to comment on the information in the document, particularly the issues, alternatives, and planning

criteria. The RMP team received approximately 60

comment letters and emails. The majority of these

comments dealt with the management opportunities

identified for the Public Sunstone Collecting Area.

Other comments dealt with potential management

actions under the proposed alternatives. All comments

were considered in developing the alternatives for the

draft Lakeview RMP/EIS. See Table 5-1 for a summary of key events.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

5 - 2
Consultation and Coordination

5 -3
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

5 - 4

Agencies and Organizations Contacted or

Consulted

Oregon Department of Wildlife

Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribal Council

Burns Paiute Tribal Council

Klamath Tribes Executive Committee

Lake County Commissioners

Harney County Court

Southeastern Oregon Resource Advisory Committee

Wildlife Management Institute

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Oregon Natural Resources Council

State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

U.S. Forest Service, Fremont National Forest

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals on

Mailing List

The resource area mailed the public scoping packet to

approximately 500 agencies, organizations, and individuals. The “Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation” was mailed to the same number. The

current mailing list includes approximately 1,000

names of agencies, organizations, and individuals to

which this draft Lakeview RMP/EIS was sent. The

following list is representative of the entities on the

mailing list:

Elected Officials

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden

U. S. Senator Gordon Smith

Congressman Greg Walden

Governor John Kitzhaber

State Senator Eugene Timms

Harney County Judge and Court

Klamath County Commissioners

Lake County Commissioners

Humboldt County Board of Commissioners

Modoc County Commissioners

Tribal Groups

Klamath Tribes Tribal Council

Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribal Council

Burns Paiute Tribal Council

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

Fort McDermitt Tribal Council

Agencies

Bureau of Reclamation

Bonneville Power Administration

Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Oregon Department of Wildlife

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Department of Water Resources

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon Division of State Lands

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

State Historic Preservation Officer

U.S. Geological Survey

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

U.S. Forest Service, Region 6

U.S. Forest Service, Modoc National Forest

Oregon Department of Transportation

Organizations

American Lands Rights Association

American Rivers Council

Desert Research Institute

Ducks Unlimited

Oregon High Desert Museum

The Nature Conservancy

Oregon Cattleman’s Association

Oregon Natural Resources Council

Sierra Club

National Wildlife Federation

Wildlife Management Institute

Minerals Exploration Coalition

Society for Range Management

Southern Oregon Timber Industry Association

The Wilderness Society

Western Forest Industries Association

Wild Horse Organized Assistance

Oregon Natural Desert Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Klamath Soil and Water Conservation District

Beaty Butte Grazing Association

Izaak Walton League

Oregon Trout

Public Lands Council

Native Plant Society of Oregon

Trout Unlimited

Audubon Society

Others

Livestock grazing permittees

Special recreation permittees

Recreation users

Interested public

Various businesses
Consultation and Coordination

5 -5

Preparers

Table 5-2 lists the primary members of the Lakeview

District Interdisciplinary Team who were responsible

for the preparation of this document.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

5 - 6
Consultation and Coordination

5 -7
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

5 - 8
Chapter 6

6 -1

Chapter 6 — Glossary, References, and Index

Glossary

Active preference ~ That portion of the total grazing

preference for which grazing use may be authorized.

Activity planning ~ Site-specific planning which

precedes actual development. This is the most detailed

level of BLM planning.

Actual use ~ The amount of animal unit months

(AUM’s) consumed by livestock based on the numbers

of livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator and confirmed by periodic field checks

by the BLM.

Adit ~ A horizontal, or nearly horizontal, passage from

the surface by which a mine is worked or dewatered.

Adjustments ~ Changes in animal numbers, periods of

use, kinds or class of animals or management practices

as warranted by specific conditions.

Allotment ~ An area of land where one or more

livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments

generally consist of BLM lands but may also include

other federally managed, state owned, and private

lands. An allotment may include one or more separate

pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are

specified for each allotment.

Allotment categorization ~ Grazing allotments and

rangeland areas used for livestock grazing are assigned

to an allotment category during resource management

planning. Allotment categorization is used to establish

priorities for distributing available funds and personnel

during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective

improvement of rangeland resources. Categorization is

also used to organize allotments into similar groups for

purposes of developing multiple use prescriptions,

analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts, and

determining trade-offs.

Allotment management plan ~ A written program of

livestock grazing management, including supportive

measures if required, designed to attain specific

management goals in a grazing allotment.

Allowable sale quantity ~ formerly “allowable cut”;

the volume that a sustained yield unit can produce

annually under an approved land use plan.

Analysis of the management situation ~ Step 4 of the

BLM’s land use planning project; it is a comprehensive

documentation of the present conditions of the resources, current management guidance, and opportunities for change.

Animal unit month (AUM) ~ A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for 1 month

(approximately 800 pounds of forage).

Appropriate management level ~ The optimum

number of wild horses and burros that contributes to a

thriving natural ecological balance on public lands and

protects the range from deterioration.

Appropriate management response ~ Specific

actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement protection and fire use objectives.

Aquatic ~ Living or growing in or on the water.

Archaeological quarry sites ~ Places where minerals

occur which were a source of raw material for prehistoric/historic industries.

Area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) ~

Type of special land use designation specified within

the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act”

(FLPMA). Used to protect areas with important

resource values in need of special management.

Avoidance areas ~ Areas with sensitive resource

values where rights-of-way and Section 302 permits,

leases, and easements would be strongly discouraged.

Authorizations made in avoidance areas would have to

be compatible with the purpose for which the area was

designated and not be otherwise feasible on lands

outside the avoidance area.

Back country byways ~ Vehicle routes that traverse

scenic corridors utilizing secondary or back country

road systems. National back country byways are

designated by the type of road and vehicle needed to

travel the byway.

Best forest management practices ~ General forest

management practices which are consistent for all

timber harvest and treatment activities.

Best management practices (BMP’s) ~ A set of

practices which, when applied during implementation
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 2

of management actions, ensures that negative impacts

to natural resources are minimized. BMP’s are applied

based on site-specific evaluations and represent the

most effective and practical means to achieve management goals for a given site.

Biomass ~ Vegetative material leftover from stand

treatments. This term usually refers to such material

that can be gathered and transported to cogeneration

plants, and there utilized for production of electricity.

Board feet ~ A unit of solid wood one foot square and

one inch thick.

Broad scale ~ A large, regional area, such as a river

basin; typically a multi-state area.

Browse ~ To browse (verb) is to graze a plant; also,

browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs and leaves of

trees and shrubs often used as food by livestock and

wildlife.

Buffer strip ~ A protective area adjacent to an area of

concern requiring special attention or protection. In

contrast to riparian zones which are ecological units,

buffer strips can be designed to meet varying management concerns.

Bunchgrass ~ Individual grasses that have the characteristic growth habit of forming a “bunch” as opposed

to having stolens or rhizomes or single annual habit.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ~ Government

agency with the mandate to manage Federal lands

under its jurisdiction for multiple uses.

Bureau sensitive species ~ Species eligible as federally listed or candidate, state listed, or state candidate

(plant) status, or on List 1 in the Oregon Natural

Heritage Database, or otherwise approved for this

category by the State Director.

Candidate species ~ Any species included in the

Federal Register notice of review that are being

considered for listing as threatened or endangered by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Carrying capacity ~ The maximum stocking rate

possible without damaging vegetation or related

resources.

C Category ~ Custodial management (see “selective

management categories”).

CCC ~ Consultation, cooperation and coordination: an

interactive process for seeking advice, agreement, or

interchange of opinions on issues, plans, or management actions from other agencies and affected

permittee(s) or lessee(s), landowners involved, the

district grazing advisory boards where established, any

state having lands within the area to be covered by an

allotment management plan and other affected interests.

Channel ~ An open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously

contains moving water or forms a connecting link

between two bodies of water.

Channel stability ~ A relative term describing erosion

or movement of the channel walls or bottom due to

waterflow.

Cinnabar ~ The mineral mercuric sulfide; an ore of

mercury.

Class I cultural inventory ~ An inventory of the

existing literature and a profile of the current data base

for cultural resources; frequently utilized to guide field

inventories.

Class II cultural inventory ~ A sample-oriented field

inventory which is representative of the range of

cultural resources within a finite study area.

Class Ill cultural inventory ~ An intensive field

inventory designed to locate and record, from surface

and exposed profile, all cultural resources within a

specified area.

Climax ~ The culminating stage in plant succession for

a given site where vegetation has reached a highly

stable condition.

Closed area designation ~ An area where off-highway

vehicle (OHV) use is prohibited. Use of OHV’s in

closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons;

however, such use shall be made only with the approval

of the authorized officer.

Commercial (productive) forest land ~ Forest land

which is producing, or has a site capable of producing,

at least 20 cubic feet/acre/year of a commercial tree

species.

Commercial tree species ~ Tree species whose yields

are reflected in the allowable cut: pines, firs, spruce,

Douglas-fir, and larch.
Chapter 6

6 -3

Competitive forage ~ Those forage species utilized by

two or more animal species.

Conditional suppression ~ Suppression actions based

on predetermined, stringent conditions, i.e., fire

location, weather condition, forces available, and fire

size. Monitoring must be done throughout the fire’s

duration and direct suppression will be taken if any one

condition is exceeded.

Critical growth period ~ A specified period of time in

which plants need to develop sufficient carbohydrate

reserves and produce seed (approximately the months

of May and June for bluebunch wheatgrass).

Critical habitat ~ The area of land, water, and airspace

required for the normal needs and survival of a federally listed threatened or endangered species.

Cultural plants ~ Plants traditionally used by Native

Americans for subsistence, economic, or ceremonial

purposes.

Cultural resources ~ Fragile and nonrenewable

elements of the physical and human environment

including archaeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural

values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred

places, traditionally utilized raw materials, etc.).

Cultural site ~ Any location that includes prehistoric

and/or historic evidence of human use, or that has

important sociocultural value.

Dacite ~ A fine-grained extrusive rock with the same

composition as its intrusive equivalent, granodiorite.

Dead-end road ~ A road that extends into a wilderness

study area (WSA) but is excluded from the WSA by

means of drawing the WSA boundary around the road.

Deferment ~ The withholding of livestock grazing

until a certain stage of plant growth is reached.

Deferred grazing ~ Discontinuance of livestock

grazing on an area for specified period of time during

the growing season to promote plant reproduction,

establishment of new plants, or restoration of the vigor

by old plants.

Deferred rotation grazing ~ Discontinuance of

livestock grazing on various parts of a range in succeeding years, allowing each part to rest successively

during the growing season. This permits seed production, establishment of new seedlings, or restoration of

plant vigor. Two, but more commonly three or more,

separate pastures are required.

Diatomite ~ An accumulation of microscopic siliceous

skeletons of aquatic plants (diatoms).

Discretionary closures ~ Areas where the BLM has

determined that energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or

disposal, even with the most restrictive stipulations or

conditions would not be in the public interest.

Dispersed/extensive recreation ~ Recreation activities

of an unstructured type which are not confined to

specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of

these activities may be hunting, fishing, off-road

vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. Minimal management actions related to the Bylaws’ stewardship

responsibilities are considered adequate in the areas

where extensive recreation takes place and explicit

recreation management is not required.

Disposal ~ Any BLM authority which transfers title out

of public ownership.

Distribution ~ The uniformity of livestock grazing

over a range area. Distribution is affected by the

availability of water, topography, and type and palatability of vegetation as well as other factors.

Drainage (internal soil) ~ The property of a soil that

permits the downward flow of excess water. Drainage

is reflected in the number of times and in the length of

time water stays in the soil.

Ecological site inventory ~ The basic inventory of

present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands.

Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of

significant differences in kind, proportion, or amount

of plant species present in the plant community.

Ecological site inventory utilizes soils, the existing

plant community, and ecological site data to determine

the appropriate ecological site for a specific area of

rangeland and to assign the appropriate ecological

status.

Ecological status ~ Ecological status is the present

state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the

potential natural community for that site. It is an

expression of the relative degree to which the kinds,

proportions and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the potential natural plant community for the site. Four classes are used to express the

degree to which the production or composition of the

present plant community reflects that of the potential

natural community (climax). Departures from climax
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 4

can enhance or depreciate the value of the resultant

plant community for various uses.

Ecological status (seral stage) ~ Percentage of

present plant community that is climax for the range

site:

Potential natural community 76–100

Late seral 51–75

Mid seral 26–50

Early seral 0–25

Ecosystem ~ A complete, interacting system of living

organisms and the land and water that make up their

environment; the home places of all living things,

including humans.

Ecosystem management ~ The use of a “wholelandscape” approach to achieve multiple use management of public lands by blending the needs of people

and environmental values in such a way that these

lands represent diverse, healthy, productive, and

sustainable ecosystems.

Endangered species ~ A plant or animal species whose

prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy, as designated by the Secretary of the

Interior, and as is further defined by the “Endangered

Species Act.”

Environmental assessment ~ One type of document

prepared by Federal agencies in compliance with the

“National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA) which

portrays the environmental consequences of proposed

Federal actions which are not expected to have significant impacts on the human environment.

Environmental impact statement (EIS) ~ One type

of document prepared by Federal agencies in compliance with NEPA which portrays the environmental

consequences of proposed major Federal actions which

are expected to have significant impacts on the human

environment.

Ephemeral stream ~ A stream that flows only after

rains or during snowmelt.

Erosion ~ The wearing away of the land surface by

running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents.

Exchange of use ~ Grazing authorization issued to a

permittee free of charge for unfenced, intermingled

private lands within an allotment.

Exclusion area ~ Areas with sensitive resource values

where rights-of-way and 302 permits, leases, and

easements would not be authorized.

Existing management situation ~ A component of the

analysis of the management situation; a description of

the existing management direction governing resource

management programs of a planning area.

Extensive recreation management area ~ Areas

where significant recreation opportunities and problems are limited and explicit recreation management is

not required. Minimal management actions related to

the Bureau’s stewardship responsibilities are adequate

in these areas.

Evaporite ~ A sedimentary rock composed primarily

of minerals produced from a saline solution as a result

of extensive or total evaporation of seawater or inland

lakes.

Federal candidate species ~ See “special status

species.”

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(FLPMA) ~ Public Law 94-579. October 21, 1976,

often referred to as the BLM’ s “Organic Act,” which

provides the majority of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction, policy, and basic management guidance.

Fine scale ~ A single landscape, such as a watershed or

subwatershed.

Fire management plan ~ A strategic plan that defines

a program to manage wildland and prescribed fires and

documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the plan is supplemented by

operational procedures such as preparedness plans,

preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans, and

prevention plans.

Fire preparedness ~ Activities that lead to a safe,

efficient, and cost-effective fire management program

in support of land and resource management objectives

through appropriate planning and coordination.

Floodplain ~ The relatively flat area or lowlands

adjoining a body of standing or flowing water which

has been or might be covered by floodwater.

Forest land ~ Land that is now, or has the potential of

being, at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees (based

on crown closure) or 16.7 percent stocked (based on

tree stocking).

Fossil ~ Mineralized or petrified form from a past
Chapter 6

6 -5

geologic age, especially from previously living things.

Grazing system ~ The manipulation of livestock

grazing to accomplish a desired result.

Greenstripping ~ The practice of establishing or using

patterns of fire resilient vegetation and/or material to

reduce wildland fire occurrence and size. This practice

also breaks up monocultures such as cheatgrass areas,

and creates some biodiversity.

Ground cover ~ Vegetation, mulch, litter, rock, etc.

Groundwater ~ Water contained in pore spaces of

consolidated and unconsolidated surface material.

Habitat ~ A specific set of physical conditions that

surround a species, group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major constituents of

habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and

living space.

Herd area ~ The geographic area identified as having

been used by wild horse or burro herds as their habitat

in 1971.

Herd management area ~ Public land under the

jurisdiction of the BLM that has been designated for

special management emphasizing the maintenance of

an established wild horse herd.

Herd management area plan ~ An action plan that

prescribes measures for the protection, management,

and control of wild horses and burros and their habitat

on one or more herd management areas, in conformance with decisions made in approved management

framework or resource management plans.

Historic ~ Refers to period wherein nonnative cultural

activities took place, based primarily upon European

roots, having no origin in the traditional Native American culture(s).

I Category ~ Improve management (see “selective

management categories”).

IMP ~ (Wilderness) interim management policy for

lands under wilderness review.

Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) ~ An ongoing project

examining the effects (on a large, regional scale) of

past and present land use activities on the Interior

Columbia River Basin ecosystem and a small part of

the Great Basin ecosystem.

Intermittent stream ~ A stream which flows most of

the time but occasionally is dry or reduced to pool

stage.

Initial (fire) attack ~ An aggressive fire suppression

action consistent with firefighter and public safety and

values to be protected.

Instant study area ~ A BLM primitive or natural area

designated before November 1, 1975, subject to

wilderness review under section 603(a) of FLPMA.

Interdisciplinary ~ Involving more than one discipline

or resource management program; promotes resource

management at a plant community, landscape, or

ecosystem level.

Intermediate ~ Said of an igneous rock that is transitional between basic and silicic; an intermediate rock

generally has a silica (silicon dioxide) content of 54 to

65 percent.

Invasive juniper ~ Juniper stands less than 130 years

old, which have expanded to other vegetative sites due

mainly to human-induced exclusion of natural fire.

Issue ~ A subject or question of widespread public

discussion or interest regarding resource area management, identified through public participation.

Lacustrine ~ Pertaining to, formed in, growing in, or

inhabiting lakes.

Land classification ~ A process required by law for

determining the suitability of public lands for certain

types of disposal or lease under the public land laws or

for retention under multiple use management.

Land treatment ~ All methods of range improvement

and soil stabilization such as reseeding, brush control

(burning and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water

spreading, etc.

Land use authorizations ~ Those realty-related

authorizations such as leases, permits, and easements

authorized under section 302(b) of FLPMA and the

“Recreation and Public Purpose Act.”

Leasable minerals ~ Minerals that may be leased to

private interests by the Federal government; includes

oil, gas, geothermal, coal, and sodium compounds.

Limited area designation ~ An area restricted at

certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 6

generally be accommodated within the following

categories: number of vehicles, types of vehicles, time

or season of vehicle use, permitted for licensed use

only, use on existing roads and trails, use on designated

roads and trails, and other restrictions.

Livestock forage condition ~ Based on percent of

desirable forage in the composition for livestock and

the existing erosion condition of a site. Condition of

the range must include consideration of vegetation

quality and quantity and soil erosion characteristics.

Livestock operation ~ The management of a ranch or

farm so that a significant portion of the income is

derived from the continuing production of livestock.

Locatable minerals ~ Minerals subject to exploration,

development, and disposal by staking mining claims as

authorized by the “Mining Law of 1872,” as amended.

This includes deposits of gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.

Management concern ~ Procedures or land-use

allocations that do not constitute issues but, through the

resource management plan/EIS preparation process, are

recognized as needing to be modified or needing

decisions made regarding management direction.

Marlaceous ~ Containing calcareous clay or mixture

of clay and particles of calcite or dolomite, usually

contains fragments of shells.

Management framework plan ~ Older generation of

land use plans developed by the BLM; this generation

of planning has been replaced by the RMP.

Management opportunities ~ A component of the

analysis of the management situation; actions or

management directions that could be taken to resolve

issues or management concerns.

M Category ~ Maintain management (see “selective

management categories”).

Microbiotic crusts ~ Lichens, mosses, green algae,

fungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria growing on or just

below the surface of soils.

Mineral entry ~ The location of mining claims by an

individual to protect his right to a valuable mineral.

Mineral estate ~ Refers to the ownership of minerals

at or beneath the surface of the land.

Mitigation measures ~ Methods or procedures committed to by BLM for the purpose of reducing or

lessening the impacts of an action.

Monitoring and evaluation ~ The collection and

analysis of data to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of on-the-ground actions in meeting resource

management goals and objectives.

Motorized equipment ~ Any machine activated by

nonliving power source except small battery-powered,

hand-carried devices such as flashlights, shavers,

Geiger counters, and cameras.

Motor vehicle ~ Any vehicle which is self-propelled or

any vehicle which is propelled by electric power

obtained from batteries.

Multiple use ~ The management of the public lands

and their various resource values so that they are

utilized in the combination that will best meet the

present and future needs of the American people;

making the most judicious use of the land for some or

all of these resources or related services over areas

large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic

adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and

conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse

resource uses that takes into account the long-term

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to,

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife

and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical

values; and harmonious and coordinated management

of the various resources without permanent impairment

of the productivity of the land and the quality of the

environment with consideration being given to the

relative values of the resources and not necessarily to

the combination of uses that will give the greatest

economic return or the greatest unit output.

“National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA) ~

1969 law requiring all Federal agencies to evaluate the

impacts of proposed major Federal actions with respect

to their significance on the human environment.

National Register of Historic Places ~ A register of

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects,

significant in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture, established by the “Historic Preservation Act” of 1966 and maintained by the Secretary of

the Interior.

National register potential ~ Status of a cultural

resource which is deemed qualified for the National

Register of Historic Places, prior to formal documenta-
Chapter 6

6 -7

tion and consultation; managed as if it were actually

listed.

National wildlife refuge ~ An area administered by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the

purpose of managing certain fish or wildlife species.

Naturalness ~ Refers to an area which “generally

appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially

unnoticeable” (from section 2[c], “Wilderness Act”).

Noncommercial forestland ~ Forestland which is not

capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of wood

per year of commercial tree species.

Noncommercial tree species ~ Species whose yields

are not reflected in the allowable cut, regardless of

their salability. Includes all hardwoods, juniper and

mountain mahogany.

Nondiscretionary closures ~ Areas specifically closed

to energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or disposal by

law, regulation, Secretarial decision, or Executive

order.

Nonoperable ~ Forestlands unsuitable for any type of

timber harvest activity due to their (1) physical features; for example, extremely rocky, boulder fields, rim

rocks, rock outcrops and unsafe for logging operations

and/or (2) forestlands on which logging activity will

result in the loss of the site’s potential for producing

commercial tree species; for example loss of soil

through erosion, slope failure and/or the inability to

reforest the site within acceptable time limits (usually 5

to 15 years) even with special reforestation techniques.

Nonproblem site ~ A subclass of commercial forestland which requires no special harvesting, reforestation

or other restrictive measures in order to be managed on

a sustained yield basis.

Nonrestricted forestland ~ Nonproblem sites in the

timber base on which no special techniques are required for harvest, reforestation, and other management

practices.

Nonuse ~ Available grazing capacity in AUM’s which

is not permitted during a given time period.

Noxious weed ~ According to the “Federal Noxious

Weed Act” (Public Law 93-629), a weed that causes

disease or has other adverse effects on man or his

environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the

agriculture and commerce of the United States and to

the public health.

Off-road vehicle ~ Any motorized vehicle capable of,

or designed for, travel on or immediately over land,

water or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any

nonamphibious registered motorboat, (2) emergency

vehicles, and (3) vehicles in official use.

Old growth ~ Forested stands meeting, or with the

capability to meet, the following criteria:

• Be at least 40 contiguous acres.

• Contain mature trees with at least 15 trees per acre

greater than 20 inches in diameter.

• Having a multilayered canopy with two or more

age classes.

• Contain snags and down woody material.

• Contain understory plants.

Open area designation ~ Any area where all types of

vehicle use are permitted at all times, anywhere in the

area subject to the operating regulations and vehicle

standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Paleontology ~ A science dealing with the life forms of

past geological periods as known from fossil remains.

Percentage of use ~ Grazing use of current vegetation

growth, usually expressed as a percentage of volume

removed.

Perennial (permanent) stream ~ A stream that

ordinarily has running water on a year-round basis.

Period of use ~ The time of livestock grazing on a

range area based on type of vegetation or stage of

vegetative growth.

Perlite ~ A siliceous volcanic glass having numerous

concentric spherical cracks that give rise to an onionskin structure. The material can be heated and expanded to form a solid, foam-like material used in

ceiling tiles, potting soil, and other applications.

Permit/leases (grazing) ~ Under section 3 of the

“Taylor Grazing Act,” a permit is a document authorizing use of public lands within grazing districts for the

purpose of grazing livestock. Under section 15 of the

“Taylor Grazing Act,” a lease is a document authorizing livestock grazing use of public lands outside

grazing districts.

Permit value ~ The market value of a BLM grazing

permit which is often included in the overall market

value of the ranch.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 8

Petroglyph ~ A figure, design, or indentation carved,

abraded, or pecked into a rock.

Pictograph ~ A figure or design painted onto a rock.

Playa lake ~ A shallow lake that is seasonally dry;

soils on the lake bottom are usually quite alkaline.

Potential natural community ~ The biotic community

(living organisms) that would become established if all

successional sequences were completed without

interferences by man under the present environmental

conditions.

Preferred alternative or plan ~ The alternative in the

Draft RMP/EIS which the agency has initially selected

that best fulfills the agency’s statutory mission and

responsibilities and offers the most acceptable resolution of the planning issues and management concerns.

Prehistoric ~ Refers to the period wherein Native

American cultural activities took place which were not

yet influenced by contact with historic nonnative

culture(s).

Prescribed fire ~ The introduction of fire to an area

under regulated conditions for specific management

purposes (usually vegetation manipulation).

Presuppression ~ All actions involved in the location

or allocation of suppression resources in order to be

prepared to suppress wildland fires.

Proper use ~ The degree and time of use of the current

year’s plant growth which, if continued, will either

maintain or improve the range condition consistent

with conservation of other natural resources.

Proper use factor ~ The degree of use a kind of

grazing animal will make of a particular plant when the

range is properly grazed.

Public lands ~ Any land and interest in land (such as

mineral estate) owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the

BLM. May include public domain or acquired lands in

any combination.

Range betterment fund ~ A fund established by

Congress in FLPMA comprised of 50 percent of the

grazing fees collected by the U.S. Treasury. This fund

is to be used for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection, and improvement of the public lands that will

arrest rangeland deterioration and improve forage

conditions with resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed protection, and livestock production.

Range improvement ~ A structure, excavation,

treatment or development to rehabilitate, protect, or

improve public lands to advance range betterment;

synonymous with range improvement.

Range seeding ~ The process of establishing vegetation by mechanical dissemination of seed.

Range trend ~ The direction of change in range

condition and soil.

Raptor ~ Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly

curved beaks (such as hawks, owls, vultures, and

eagles).

“Recreation and Public Purposes Act” ~ This act

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to lease or

convey public lands for recreational and public purposes under specified conditions of states or their

political subdivisions, and to nonprofit corporations

and associations.

Recreational opportunity ~ Those outdoor recreation

activities which offer satisfaction in a particular

physical, social, and management setting in the EIS

areas; these activities are primarily hunting, fishing,

wildlife viewing, photography, boating, and camping.

Recreational river areas ~ Those rivers or sections of

rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad,

that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment

or diversion in the past.

Research natural area (RNA) ~ An area where

natural processes predominate and which is preserved

for research and education; under current BLM policy,

these areas must meet the relevance and importance

criteria of ACEC’s and are designated as ACEC’s.

Residual ground cover ~ That portion of the total

vegetative ground cover that remains after the livestock

grazing season.

Resource area ~ The on-the-ground management unit

of the BLM comprised of BLM-administered land

within a specific geographic area.

Resource area profile ~ A component of the analysis

of the management situation; a description of the

current condition, amount, location, use and demands

of the natural resources in a planning area.
Chapter 6

6 -9

Resource management plan (RMP) ~ Current

generation of land use plans developed by BLM under

the FLPMA; replaces the older generation management

framework plans; provides long-term (up to 20 years)

direction for the management of a particular area of

land, usually corresponding to a BLM resource area,

and its resources.

Retort ~ A vessel used for the distillation of volatile

materials.

Rhyolite ~ A group of extrusive igneous rocks with the

same composition as its intrusive equivalent, granite.

Right-of-way ~ A permit or an easement which

authorizes the use of public lands for certain specified

purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone

lines, electric lines, reservoirs, etc.; also, the lands

covered by such an easement or permit.

Right-of-way corridor ~ A parcel of land that has

been identified by law, Secretarial order, through a land

use plan or by other management decision as being the

preferred location for existing and future right-of-way

grants and suitable to accommodate one type of rightof-way or one or more rights-of-way which are similar,

identical or compatible.

Riparian habitat ~ Riparian habitat is defined as a

specialized form of wetland restricted to areas along,

adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams; also, periodically,

flooded lake and reservoir shore areas, as well as lakes

with stable water levels with characteristic vegetation.

Rock art sites ~ Petroglyphs or pictographs

Rockshelter ~ Naturally-formed recess in a rock

formation which provided shelter to prehistoric occupants.

Road ~ A vehicle route which has been improved and

maintained by mechanical means to endure relatively

regular and continuous use.

Roadless ~ For the purpose of the wilderness review

program, this refers to the absence of roads which have

been improved and maintained by mechanical means to

ensure relatively regular and continuous use. A way

maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not

constitute a road. Words and phrases used in the above

definition of roadless are defined as follows:

Improved and maintained ~ Actions taken

physically by man to keep the road open to vehicular traffic. “Improved” does not necessarily mean

formal construction. “Maintained” does not

necessarily mean annual maintenance.

Mechanical means ~ Use of hand or power

machinery or tools.

Relatively regular and continuous use ~ Vehicular use which has occurred and will continue to

occur on a relatively regular bases. Examples are

access roads for equipment to maintain a stock

water tank or other established water sources,

access roads to maintained recreation sites or

facilities, or access roads to mining claims.

Runoff ~ The water that flows on the land surface

from an area in response to rainfall or snowmelt. As

used in this RMP/EIS, runoff from an area becomes

streamflow when it reaches a channel.

Salinity ~ A measure of the mineral substances dissolved in water.

Salable minerals ~ High volume, low value mineral

resources including common varieties of rock, clay,

decorative stone, sand, gravel, and cinder.

Satisfactory big game habitat condition ~ Big game

habitat which does not have any habitat component

deficiencies.

Scablands ~ These are areas with low sagebrush and

other forb communities on extremely shallow, stoney

soils usually subtended by basalt or clay.

Scenic byways ~ Highway routes which have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, or

historic value. An essential part of the highway is its

scenic corridor. The corridor may contain outstanding

scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other

natural elements.

Scenic river ~ A river or section of a river that is free

of impoundments and whose shorelines are largely

undeveloped but accessible in places by roads.

Scenic quality ~ The degree of harmony, contrast and

variety within a landscape.

Scoping ~ The process of identifying the range of

consideration, issues, management concerns, preliminary alternatives, and other components of an environmental impact statement or land-use planning document. It involves both internal and external, or public,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 10

involvement.

Seasonal (season long) grazing ~ Grazing use

throughout a specific season.

Sediment ~ Soil, rock particles and organic or other

debris carried from one place to another by wind, water

or gravity.

Selective management categories ~ Three categories

broadly defining rangeland characteristics, potential,

opportunities, and needs. The three categories are

maintain, improve and custodial. The criteria for each

category are:

Maintain category criteria:

• Present range condition is satisfactory.

• Allotments have moderate or high resource

production potential, and are producing near

their potential (or trend is moving in that

direction).

• No serious resource-use conflicts/controversy

exist.

• Opportunities may exist for positive economic

return from public investments.

• Present management appears satisfactory.

• Other criteria appropriate to EIS area.

Improve category criteria:

• Present range condition is unsatisfactory.

• Allotments have moderate to high resource

production potential and are producing at low

to moderate levels.

• Serious resource-use conflicts/controversy

exist.

• Opportunities exist for positive economic

return from public investments.

• Present management appears unsatisfactory.

• Other criteria appropriate to EIS area.

Custodial category criteria:

• Present range condition is not a factor.

• Allotments have low resource production

potential, and are producing near their potential.

• Limited resource-use conflicts/controversy

exist.

• Opportunities for positive economic return on

public investment do not exist or are constrained by technological or economic factors.

• Present management appears satisfactory or is

the only logical practice under existing resource conditions.

• Other criteria appropriate to EIS area.

Seral community ~ A successional plant community

that differs in species composition from the climax or

potential natural community.

Seral stage ~ See “ecological status.”

Shrub ~ A low, woody plant, usually with several

stems, that may provide food and/or cover for animals.

Siliceous ~ Containing silica (silicon dioxide).

Silicic ~ Containing silica in dominant amount.

Silviculture ~ The science and art of producing and

tending a forest.

Slash ~ The branches, bark, tops, cull logs and broken

or uprooted trees left on the ground after logging has

been completed.

Solitude ~ The state of being alone or remote from

habitations; isolation; a lonely, unfrequented, or

secluded place.

Special recreation management area ~ Areas which

require explicit recreation management to achieve the

Bureau’s recreation objectives and provide specific

recreation opportunities. Special management areas

are identified in the RMP, which also defines the

management objectives for the area. Major Bureau

recreation investments are concentrated in these areas.

Special status species ~ Includes the following:

(1) Threatened and endangered (T&E) species are

those officially listed as threatened or endangered

by the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of the “Endangered Species Act.” A final

rule for the listing has been published in the

Federal Register.

(2) Proposed species are species that have been

officially proposed for listing as threatened or

endangered by the Secretary of the Interior. A

proposed rule has been published in the Federal

Register.

(3) Candidate species are those species designated

as candidates (Categories 1 and 2) for listing as

threatened or endangered by the USFWS/National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). A list has been
Chapter 6

6 -11

published in the Federal Register.

(4) State listed species are those proposed for

listing or listed by a state in a category implying

potential endangerment or extinction. Listing is

either by legislation or regulation.

(5) Bureau sensitive species are those designated

by a State Director, usually in cooperation with the

state agency responsible for managing the species,

as sensitive. They are those species that are either:

(1) under status review by the FWS/NMFS; (2)

whose numbers are declining so rapidly that

Federal listing may become necessary; (3) with

typically small and widely dispersed populations;

or (4) those inhabiting ecological refugia or other

specialized or unique habitats.

(6) Assessment species are species which are not

presently eligible for official Federal or state status

but are of concern in Oregon and may need protection or mitigation in BLM actions (special status is

defined in IM-OR-91-57, “Oregon-Washington

Special Status Species Policy”).

Species diversity ~ The number, different kinds of, and

relative abundances of species present in a given area.

State listed species ~ Any plant or animal species

listed by the State of Oregon as threatened or endangered within the State under Oregon Revised Statutes

496.004, 498.026, or 564.040.

Step-down ~ The process of applying broad-scale

science findings and land use decisions to site-specific

areas using a hierarchical approach (subbasin review)

of understanding current resource conditions, risks, and

opportunities.

Stocking rate ~ The amount of animal units on a

specified area at a specific time, usually expressed in

acres/AUM.

Streambank (and channel) erosion ~ This is the

removal, transport, deposition, recutting and bedload

movement of material by concentrated flows.

Subbasin review ~ An interagency, collaborative

consideration of resources, resource management

issues, and management recommendations for one or

more subbasins or watershed drainages approximately

800,000 to 1,000,000 acres in size.

Suitable for preservation as wilderness ~ Refers to a

recommendation that certain Federal lands satisfy the

definition of wilderness in the “Wilderness Act” and

have been found appropriate for designation as wilderness on the basis of an analysis of the existing and

potential uses of the land.

Sunstone ~ A semiprecious gemstone.

Suspended nonuse ~ Temporary withholding of a

grazing preference from active use.

Sustainable annual harvest ~ The yield that a forest

can produce continuously from a given level of management.

Sustained yield ~ Maintenance of an annual or regular

periodic output of a renewable resource from public

land consistent with the principles of multiple use.

Thermal cover ~ Vegetation or topography that

prevents radiational heat loss, reduces wind chill

during cold weather, and intercepts solar radiation

during warm weather.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ~ Private national

organization dedicated to the preservation of biological

diversity.

Threatened species ~ Any plant or animal species

defined under the “Endangered Species Act” as likely

to become endangered within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range;

listings are published in the Federal Register.

Thriving natural ecological balance ~ The condition

of the public range that exists when management

objectives have been achieved that will: (1) sustain

healthy populations of wild horses and burros, wildlife,

and livestock on public land, and (2) protect the desired

plant community from deterioration.

Timber base ~ Commercial forestland judged to be

environmentally and economically suitable and available for the continuous production of timber; the land

from which the allowable cut is calculated and harvested.

Timber production capability classification ~ The

process of partitioning forestland into major classes

indicating relative suitability to produce timber on a

sustained yield basis.

Total dissolved solids ~ The dry weight of dissolved

material, organic and inorganic, contained in water.

Total preference ~ The total number of animal unit
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 12

months of livestock grazing on public lands, apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee. The active preference

and suspended preference are combined to make up the

total grazing preference.

Tradition ~ Longstanding, socially conveyed, customary patterns of thought, cultural expression, and

behavior, such as religious beliefs and practices, social

customs and land or resource uses (e.g. root gathering).

Traditions are shared generally within a social and/or

cultural group and span generations.

Turbidity ~ An interference to the passage of light

through water due to insoluble particles of soil, organics, microorganisms and other materials.

Unallotted lands ~ Public lands open to grazing which

currently have no livestock grazing authorized.

U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) ~ Government

department which oversees the BLM and many other

agencies.

User day ~ Any calendar day, or portion thereof, for

each individual accompanied or serviced by an operator or permittee on the public lands or related waters;

synonymous with passenger day or participant day.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ~ Government agency responsible for managing fish and wildlife

and their habitats.

Unsatisfactory big game habitat condition ~ Big

game habitat which has a deficiency in one or more of

the major habitat components.

Utilization ~ The proportion of the current year’s

forage production that is consumed or destroyed by

grazing animals. This may refer either to a single

species or to a whole vegetative complex. Utilization

is expressed as a percent by weight, height, or numbers

within reach of the grazing animals.

Value-at-risk classes ~ Six value classes (1–6, low to

high) derived through interdisciplinary team evaluation

of resource values for an area. Point values given an

area by individual disciplines are combined to determine general values-at-risk classification for an area.

Vandalism ~ Willful or malicious destruction or

defacement of public or private property. As used here,

this includes damages done for personal gain, particularly unauthorized destructive activities that damage

archaeological sites.

Vegetation manipulation ~ Alteration of present

vegetation by using fire, plowing, or other means to

manipulate natural successional fields.

Visitor-day ~ Twelve visitor-hours, which may be

aggregated continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously by one or more persons. Visitor-days may

occur either as recreation visitor-days or as

nonrecreation visitor-days.

Visual resource(s) ~ The land, water, vegetation,

animals, and other features that are visible on all public

lands.

Visual resource management classes (VRM) ~ The

degree of alteration that is acceptable within the

characteristic landscape. It is based upon the physical

and sociological characteristics of any given homogenous area.

VRM Class I (preservation) provides for natural

ecological changes only. This class includes

primitive areas, some natural areas, some wild and

scenic rivers and other similar sites where landscape modification activities should be restricted.

VRM Class II (retention of the landscape character) includes areas where changes in any of the

basic elements (form, line, color, or texture) caused

by management activity should not be evident in

the characteristic landscape.

VRM Class III (partial retention of the landscape

character) includes areas where changes in the

basic elements (form, line, color, or texture) may

be evident in the characteristic landscape. However, the changes should remain subordinate to the

visual strength of the existing character.

VRM Class IV (modification of the landscape

character) includes areas where changes may

subordinate the original composition and character;

however, they should reflect what could be a

natural occurrence within the characteristic landscape.

Water quality ~ The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular use.

Watershed ~ All lands which are enclosed by a

continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lie upslope

from a specified point on a stream.

Watershed cover ~ The material (vegetation, litter,
Chapter 6

6 -13

and rock) covering the soil and providing protection

from, or resistance to, the impact of raindrops and the

energy of overland flow, and expressed in percent of

the area covered.

Way ~ A vehicle route which has not been improved

and maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and continuous use. These vehicle routes

are associated with WSA’s.

Wetlands ~ Permanently wet or intermittently flooded

areas where the water table (fresh, saline, or brackish)

is at, near, or above that soil surface for extended

intervals; where hydric wet soil conditions are normally exhibited and where water depths generally do

not exceed 2 meters.

Wilderness ~ An area that is essentially natural in

character that has been designated by congressional

action in order to preserve that naturalness.

Wilderness characteristics ~ Key characteristics of a

wilderness listed in section 2(c) of the “Wilderness

Act” of 1964 and used by BLM in its wilderness

inventory. These characteristics include size, naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, outstanding opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation, and special features.

Wilderness study area (WSA) ~ Public land under the

jurisdiction of the BLM which has been studied for

wilderness character and is currently in an interim

management status awaiting official wilderness designation or release from WSA status by Congress.

Wildfire ~ Any unwanted wildland fire.

Wildland fire ~ Any nonstructure fire, other than

prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland fire situation analysis ~ A decision-making

process that evaluates alternative management strategies against selected safety, environmental, social,

economical, political, and resource management

objectives as selection criteria.

Wild river areas ~ Those rivers or sections of rivers

that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines

essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These

represent vestiges of primitive America.

Withdrawal ~ Withholding of an area of Federal land

from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or

all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting

those laws in order to maintain other public values in

the area or reserving the area for a particular public

purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an

area of Federal land from one department, bureau, or

agency to another.

Woodland ~ A forest community occupied primarily

by noncommercial species such as juniper, mountain

mahogany, or quaking aspen groves; all western juniper

forest lands are classified as woodlands, since juniper

is classified as a noncommercial species.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 14
Chapter 6

6 -15

References

Aikens, C.M.; Jenkins, R. 1994. Archaeological

Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock

Archaeology Since Cressman. University of Oregon

Anthropological Papers 50, Department of Anthropology and State Museaum of Anthropology,

Eugene, OR. 628 p.

Aikens, C.M. 1986. Archaeology of Oregon. Second

Edition. USDI-BLM, Portland, OR.

Air National Guard Readiness Center. 1993. Environmental Assessment: Juniper Low Military Operations Area. 142nd Fighter Group, Oregon Air National Guard, Department of the Air Force.

Allen, M. 1992. Lake Abert Waterfowl and Waterbird

Counts. Unpublished USDI-BLM inventory files,

Lakeview District, Oregon.

Allen C.; Atkins, A; Stern, M.; Munhall, A. 1994.

Sheldon Tui Chub (Gila bicolor eurysoma) Investigations in Lake County Oregon, 1994. Unpublished

report prepared for USDI-BLM Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR.

Allison, I.S.; Mason, R.S. 1947. Sodium Salts of Lake

County, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries, Short Paper 17. 12 p.

Anderson, E.W. 1993. Prescription Grazing to Enhance

Rangeland Watersheds. Rangelands 15(1):31–35.

Anderson, E.W.; Borman, M.M.; Krueger, W.C. 1998.

The Ecological Provinces of Oregon. Oregon

Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR.

Baldwin, E.M. 1964. Geology of Oregon. Third

Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,

Dubuque, Iowa. 170 p.

Barnett, J.K.; Crawford, J.A. 1994. Pre-laying Nutrition of Sage Grouse Hens in Oregon. Journal of

Range Management 47:114–118.

Boula, K.; Jarvis, R.L. 1984. Foraging Ecology of FallMigrating Waterbirds, Lake Abert, Oregon. Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1993. Regional Economic Information System, CD-ROM. United States

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Bonneville Power Administration. 2000a. Transmission

System Vegetation Management Program Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Department of Energy, Portland, OR.

Bonneville Power Administration. 2000b. Transmission

System Vegetation Management Program Record of

Decision. Department of Energy, Portland, OR.

Butler, T. 1993. Leafy Spurge. USDI-BLM/Oregon

Department of Agriculture Weed Watcher. 1(3)

Salem, Oregon. 4 p.

Caldwell, M.M.; Richards, J.H.; Johnson, D.A.;

Nowak, R.S.; Dzurec, R.S. 1981. Coping with

Herbivory: Photosynthetic Capacity and Resource

Allocation in Two Semiarid Agropyron Bunchgrasses. Oecologia 50:14–24.

Cannon, B. J. Personal Communication to Leslie

Frewing-Runyon. 1999. USDI-BLM, Portland, OR.

CenturyTel of Eastern Oregon, Inc. 1998. November

1998–99 Lake County, Klamath County Yellow

Pages.

Childs, S.; Shade, S.; Miles, D.; Shepard, E.; Froehlich,

H. 1989. Soil Physical Properties: Importance to

Long-Term Forest Productivity. Maintaining LongTerm Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest

Ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Cook, C.W. 1971. Effects of Season and Intensity

of Use on Desert Vegetation. Utah State Experiment

Station Bulletin 483. Utah State University, Logan

UT.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Forty Most

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal

Register 46(55):18026–18038.

Conte, F.P.; Conte, P.A. 1988. Abundance and Spatial

Distribution of Artemia salina in Abert Lake,

Oregon. Hydrobiologia 158:167–172.

Cowardin, L.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.; LaRoe, E. 1979.

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats

of the United States. USDI-USFWS, Office of

Biological Services, Washington, D.C. 103 p.

Crawford, J.; Swanson, N. 1999. Beaty Butte Allotment

Final Report, 1998. Oregon State University, Game

Bird Research Program, Corvallis, OR. 24 p.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 16

Crawford, John A.; Bliss, T.H.; McDowell, M.K.D.

2000. Habitat Use by Sage Grouse at South

Steens—Final Report. Oregon State University,

Corvallis, OR.

Cronquist, A.; Holmgren, A.; Holmgren, N.; Reveal, J.

1972. Intermountain Flora, Volume One. The New

York Botanical Garden, NY.

Cross, [X]. 1976. A Survey of Bat Populations and

Their Habitat Preferences in Southern Oregon.

Curry, B. 1984. Age of High Rock and Summit Lake

Landslides, and Overflow History of Their Associated Basins, Humboldt County, Nevada. Masters

Thesis, Purdue University, Purdue, IN.

Dayton, W. 1960. Notes on Western Range Forbs.

Agriculture Handbook 161, U.S. Government

Printing Office.

DeBano, L. 1991. The Effect of Fire on Soil Properties.

In: Proceedings—Management and Productivity of

Western Montane Forest Soils; April 10–12; Boise,

ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280, USDA-FS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Department of Land Conservation and Development.

1994. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. 1994

Edition. Salem, OR. 36 p.

DeLeo, G.A.; Levin, S. 1997. The Multifaceted Aspects

of Ecosystem Integrity. Conservation Ecology

1(1):3 (online).

Delong, D. 1996. Defining Biodiversity. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 24(4):738.

Devaurs, W. 1982. Raptor Nesting Inventory. Unpublished USDI-BLM inventory files, Lakeview

District, OR.

Devaurs, W. 1990. Winter Raptor Counts and Trend

Routes. Unpublished USDI-BLM inventory files,

Lakeview District, OR.

Edmunston, B. 1998. Population Estimates for Oregon:

July 1, 1998. Center for Population Research and

Census, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CPRC/pbsrv1.html

Edmunston, B. 2001. April 1, 2000 Census and Revised

Estimates for July 1, 2000, for Oregon, Its Counties

and Cities. Center for Population Research and

Census, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CPRC/2000rev.PDF

Eglitis, A; Maffei, H. 2000. Forest Insect and Disease

Considerations for the Forested Areas of the Summer Lake, Lake Abert, Warner Lake, and Guano

Subbasins. USDA-FS, Central Oregon Insect and

Disease Service Center, Bend, OR. 12 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. 1973. Natural Vegetation

of Oregon and Washington. Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA-FS

General Technical Report PNW-8.

Fremont, J.C. 1956. Narratives of Exploration and

Adventure. Nevins, A., Ed. Longsmand, Green &

Company, NY.

Frewing-Runyon, L. 1999. Environmental Justice

Screening in NEPA Analysis for Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. USDI-BLM Oregon

State Office, Portland, OR. 17 p.

Garrison, G.A. 1953. Effects of Clipping on Some

Range Shrubs. Journal of Journal of Range Management 6:309-317. Cited in: Stoddart, Smith and Box

1975.

Hanson, W. R. and L. A. Stoddart. 1940. Effects of

Grazing upon Bunch Wheatgrass. Journal of the

American Society of Agronomists 32:278-289.

Hanson, W. R. and L. A. Stoddart. 1940. Effects of

Grazing upon Bunch Wheatgrass. Journal of the

American Society of Agronomists 32:278-289.

Hawksworth, F.G.; Hinds, T.E. 1964. Effects of Dwarf

Mistletoe on Immature Lodgepole Pine Stands in

Colorado. Journal of Forestry 62:27–32

Haynes, R. 1999. Personal Communication to FrewingRunyon, L. USDI-BLM, Portland, OR.

Haynes, R.; Graham, R.; Quigley, T.; Eds. 1996a. A

Framework for Ecosystem Management in the

Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. USDA-FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 46 p.

Haynes, R.; Graham, R.; Quigley, T.; Eds. 1996b.

Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem

Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and

Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. USDAFS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,

OR. 197 p.
Chapter 6

6 -17

Herbst, D.B. 1988. Comparative Population Ecology of

Ephydra Hians (Diptera: Ephydridae) at Mono

Lake (California) and Abert Lake (Oregon).

Hydrobiologia 158:145–166.

Herbst, D.B. 1994. Aquatic Ecology of the Littoral

Zone of Abert Lake, Oregon: Defining Critical

Lake Levels and Optimum Salinity for Biological

Health. A report prepared for ODFW and USDIBLM, Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory,

Mammoth Lakes, CA. 38 p.

Herbst, D.B.; Castenholz, R.W. 1994. Growth of the

Filamentous Green Algae Ctenocladus circinnatus

(Chaetophorales, Chlorophycaea) in Relation to

Environmental Salinity. Journal Phycology 30:588–

593.

Herbst, D.B., Bradley, T.J. 1989. Salinity and Nutrient

Limitations on Growth of Benthic Algae from Two

Alkaline Salt Lakes of the Western Great Basin

(USA). Journal Phycology 25:673–678.

Hopkins, W.E.; Goheen, D.J.; Goheen, E.M.; Forry, K.

1988. Evaluation of Annosus Root Disease on

Ponderosa Pine in the Fremont National Forest. R6-

Ecol-79-004. USDA-FS, Pacific Northwest Region.

Portland OR.

Hormay, A.L. 1970. Principles of Rest Rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land Management. USDIBLM and USDA-FS, Berkeley, CA.

Housley, L.; Hanes, R. 1998. The Role of Ethnobotany

as a Linkage Between the Worlds of Ecosystem

Management and Native Americans. Proceedings,

Society of Ethnobiology, Santa Barbara, CA.

Hubbs, C.L.; Miller, R.R. 1948. The Zoological

Evidence: Correlation Between Fish Distribution

and Hydrographic History in the Desert Basins of

Western United States. In: The Great Basin with

Emphasis on Glacial and Postglacial Times. Pages

17–166. Bulletin, University of Utah 38.

Hungerford, R.M.; Harrington, K.R.; Niehoff, G. 1991.

Influence of Fire on Factors that Affect Site Productivity. In: Proceedings—Management and Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils; April 10–

12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA-FS

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Hunter, C. 1978. A Faunal Survey of Aquatic Habitats

in Lake County, Oregon. Unpublished report, USDIBLM, Lakeview, OR. 104 p.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1994. W-160-R21, September.

Johnson, R.; Litz, V.; Cheek, K.A. 1995. Assessing the

Impacts of Outdoor Recreation in Oregon. College

of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Kagan, J.; Caicco, S. 1996. Manual of Oregon Actual

Vegetation. Oregon Natural Heritage Program,

Portland, OR.

Keister, G.P. 1992. The Ecology of Lake Abert: Analysis of Further Development. Technical Report #92-

5-02, ODFW, Portland, OR. 34 p.

Kelly, I.T. 1932. Ethnography of the Surprise Valley

Paiute. University of California publication, In:

American Archaeology and Ethnology 31(3): 67-

210.

Kostick, D.S. 1989. Soda Ash. USDI-BOM.

Kristensen, K.; M.; Stern, M.; Morowski, J. 1991.

Birds of North Lake Abert, Lake County, Oregon.

Oregon Birds 17(3):67–77.

Lake County. 1979. Land Use Atlas. A Comprehensive

Plan Supplement. Prepared by Lynn D. Steiger &

Associates, Inc. for Lake County Planning Department, Lakeview, OR. 141 p.

Lake County. 1983. Amendments to the Lake County

Atlas, a Supplement to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. Lake County Planning & Building

Office, Lakeview, OR. 21 p.

Lake County. 1989a. Comprehensive Land Use Plan,

Lake County, Oregon. Housing, Economic, and

Population Elements, Goal Exceptions and Buildable Land Inventories. Originally prepared by Lynn

D. Steiger & Associates, Inc.; Revision prepared by

A. R. Brown Planning Consultant for Lake County

Planning Department, Lakeview, OR. 197 p.

Lake County. 1989b. Lake County Zoning Ordinance.

Lake County, Lakeview, OR. 146 p.

Lake County. 1989c. Lake County Land Development

Ordinance of 1980. Lake County, Lakeview, OR. 41

p.

Lake County. 1992. Lake County Emergency Ordinance and Interim Public Land Management Plan.

Lake County, Lakeview, OR. 17 p.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 18

Lesh, E.W. 1971. Acclimatization of Salton Sea Fishes

to Abert Lake. Unpublished report, California

Department of Fish and Game, Chino, CA. 9 p.

Lindaman, T. 2000. Personal Communication to

Frewing-Runyon, L. USDI-BLM, Portland, OR.

Marshall, D.B. 1988. Status of the Snowy Plover in

Oregon. ODFW, Portland, OR.

Marshall, D.B. 1992. Sensitive Vertebrates of Oregon.

ODFW, Portland, OR.

Meeuwig, R.O. 1970. Sheet Erosion on Intermountain

Summer Ranges. USDA-FS, Research Paper INT85.

Miller, R.F.; Wigand, P.E. 1994. Holocene Changes in

Semiarid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. BioScience

44(7).

Miller, R.; Rose, J. Historic Expansion of Juniperus

occidentalis (Western Juniper) in Southeastern

Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 55(1):37–45.

Mueggler, W.F. 1972. Influence of Competition on the

Reponse of Bluebunch Wheatgrass to Clipping.

Journal of Range Management 25:88–92.

Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land

Board. 1993. Oregon Natural Heritage Plan. Salem,

OR. 158 p.

Newton, V., Jr. 1982. Geology, Energy, and Mineral

Resources Appraisal. Unpublished report. 20 p.

Nyquist, D. 1963. The Ecology of Eremichthys Acros,

an Endemic Thermal Species of Cyprinid Fish from

Northwestern Nevada. M.S. Thesis, University of

Nevada, Reno, NV. 247 p.

Oil-Dri Production Company. 1998. Plan of Operation—Oil-Dri Christmas Valley, Oregon 1998–2003.

Christmas Valley, OR. 13 p.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ). 1996. ODEQ’s 303(d) List of Water

Quality Limited Waterbodies and Oregon’s Criteria

Used For Listing Waterbodies.

ODEQ. 1999. Alkali Lake Site Cleanup Project Bulletin, Community Outreach Information Packet (Lake

County Area), Voluntary Cleanup Program. Active

Project Status Update, January.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997.

Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, 1992–

1997. Portland, OR. 30 p.

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

1982. Geothermal Resources of Oregon. Map.

Oregon Natural High Desert Association. 1998. Proposal for the Nomination of the Pronghorn Area of

Critical Environmental Concern. Portland, OR. 26

p.

Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council. 1998. 1998

Oregon Natural Heritage Plan. State Land Board

and Natural Heritage Advisory Council, Salem, OR.

138 p.

Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base. 1989. Rare,

Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of

Oregon.

Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 1991.

Recreational Needs Bulletin. Salem, OR.

Oregon State University. 1995. Lake County Economic

Report: An Input-Output Analysis. April.

Oregon State University, Extension Information Office.

1997. Commodity Data Sheet—Cattle. Report 9140-

96, August. Corvallis, OR. 6 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1992. 1991

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1993. 1992

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1994. 1993

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1995. 1994

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1996. 1995

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1997. 1996

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.
Chapter 6

6 -19

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1998. 1997

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1999. 1998

Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Special Report 790. Corvallis, OR. 13 p.

Oregon Tourism Commission. 1997. Oregon Travel

Impacts and Visitor Volume, 1991–1997. Prepared

by Dean Runyan Associates, Salem, OR. 109 p.

Page, G.; Bruce, C. 1989. Results of the 1988 Summer

Survey of Snowy Plover in the Interior of the

Western United States. ODFW Unpublished report,

Point Reyes Bird Observatory, OR.

Pagel, J.E. 1999. Habitat Analysis of Some Lands in

Southcentral and Southeast Oregon for Peregrine

Falcons. USDI-BLM, Lakeview, OR. 92 p.

Patten, D.T.; Conte, F.P.; Cooper, W.E.; Dracup, J.;

Dreiss, S.; Harper, K.; Hunt, G.L.; Kilham, P.;

Klieforth, H.E.; Malack, J.M.; Temple, S.A. 1987.

The Mono Basin Ecosystem. National Academy

Press, Washington, D.C.

Patterson, R. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming.

Sage Books, Denver, CO. 341 p.

Perkins, [X]. 1986. Central Oregon Survey for

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat.

Phillips, K.N.; Van Denburgh, A.S. 1971. Hydrology

and Geochemistry of Abert, Summer, and Goose

Lakes, and Other Closed-Basin Lakes in SouthCentral Oregon. USGS Professional Paper 502-B.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Platts, W.S. 1984. Proceedings of the Bonneville

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Archer,

D.L., ed. Pages 78–84.

Platts, W.S. 1991. In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their

Habitats. Meehan, W.R., ed. American Fisheries

Society Special Publication.

Ponzetti, J.M. 2000. Biotic Soil Crusts of Oregon’s

Shrub Steppe. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University,

Corvallis, OR.

Press, F.; Siever, R. 2001. Understanding Earth. Third

Edition, W.H. Freeman & Company, NY. 517 p.

Pyle, W. 1992. Response of Brood-Rearing Habitat of

Sage Grouse to Prescribed Burning in Oregon.

Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,

OR.

Quigley, T.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.; technical

eds. 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for

Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia

Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. PNW-GTR-385, USDA-FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p.

Redente, E.F. 1977. Important Characteristics of Native

and Introduced Plant Species and Their Suitability

to Various Ecosystems in the Western U.S. for Use

in Revegetating Mined Lands. Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, CO.

Reyna, N. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of

Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics

of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an

Estimation of Effects on Communities from the

Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia

River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements. USDA-FS and USDI-BLM, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla

Walla, WA. 121 p.

REO. 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed

Scale. Version 2.1. Regional Ecosystem Office,

Portland, OR. 188 p.

Richards, J.H. 1984. Root Growth Response to Defoliation in Two Agropyron Bunchgrasses: Field

Observations with an Improved Root Periscope.

Oecologia 64:21–25.

Ricks, M. 1995. A Survey and Analysis of Prehistoric

Rock Art of the Warner Valley Region, Lake

County, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Portland State

University. 247 p.

Roche, C.; Burrill, L.C. 1992. Squarrose Knapweed.

Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW 422.

Corvallis, OR. 2 p.

Schmitt, C.L.; Goheen, D.J.; Goheen, E.M.; Frankel,

S.J. 1984. Effects of Management Activities and

Dominant Species Type on Pert-caused Mortality

Losses in True Fir on the Fremont and Ochoco

National Forests. Unpublished impact evaluation,

USDA-FS, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Sherlock, M.G.; Gettings, M.E.; King, H.D.; Neumann,

T.R. 1988. Mineral Resources of the Abert Rim
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 20

Wilderness Study Area, Lake County, Oregon. U.S.

Geological Bulletin 1738-C. 16 p.

St. Clair, L.; Johansen, J. 1993. Introduction to the

Symposium on Soil Crust Communities. Great

Basin Naturalist 53.

Stage, A.R. 1973. Prognosis Model for Stand Development. Research Paper INT-137. USDA-FS Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Ogden, UT. 32 p.

State of Oregon, Department of Forestry. 1985–1998.

Various Annual Reports, Oregon Timber Harvest

Report. Salem, OR. 1p.

State of Oregon, Employment Department. Undated.

1998 Regional Economic Profile: State of Oregon.

Salem, OR. 98p.

State of Oregon, Employment Department. Undated.

1998 Regional Economic Profile: Region 11.

Salem, OR. 55p.

State of Oregon, Employment Department. Various

Years. Resident Labor Force, Unemployment, and

Employment Tables. Salem, OR. (Archived electronically by L. Frewing-Runyon)

Stern, M., C.; Tait, E.; Mulkey, A.; Munhall, A.; Pyle,

W.H. 1993. Inventory of the Sheldon Tui Chub in

Lake County, Oregon. Unpublished report prepared

for USDI-BLM Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

Stern, M.A.; Kristensen, K.A.; Morowski, J.F. 1988.

Investigations of Snowy Plovers at Abert Lake,

Lake County, Oregon. Final report for ODFW,

Nongame Program Contract 88-5-03.

Stern, M.A.; Kristensen, K.A.; Morowski, J.F. 1990.

Investigations of Snowy Plovers at Abert Lake,

Lake County, Oregon. Final report for ODFW,

Nongame Conditional Grant Agreement 89-05-03.

Stern, M.A.; Morowski, J.F.; Marr, V.; Bidstrup, F.C.

1991. Distribution, Abundance, and Movements of

Snowy Plovers in Southeast Oregon, 1990. Final

report to ODFW, Nongame Program and Lakeview

District, USDI-BLM.

Stephenson, G.; Boydstun, E. 1994. The Growth of

Lake County, Oregon. The Lake County Historical

Society, Book Partners, Inc., Wilsonville, OR.

Stewart, J.; Carlson, J. 1978. Geologic Map of Nevada.

USGS and Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.

Stoddart, L.A.; Smith, A.D.; Box, T.W. 1975. Range

Management. Mcgraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Sunset Publishing Corporation. 1995. Western Garden

Book. Sixth Edition. Menlo Park, CA. 624 p.

Tennyson, M.E.; Parrish, J.T. 1987. Review of Geologic and Hydrocarbon Potential of Eastern Oregon

and Washington. USGS Open-File Report 87-450-0.

41 p.

Tonsfeldt, W.; Shevlin-Hixon Summit Ling. 1987.

Reconnaissance report for Fremont National Forest,

November 1987.

Tonsfeldt, W. 1988. An Industrial Frontier: Railroad

Logging on the Fremont National Forest 1928–46.

USDA-FS Pacific Northwest Region.

Turner, B. D.; Chamberlain, G.; Delaney, R.; Hathaway,

D.; Knutson, F.; Obllermiller, J.; Tanaka, B.;

Eleveld; Riggs, W. 1996. Enterprise Budget. EM8656, Oregon State University, Eugene, OR. 4 p.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS). 1987. Rangeland Grasshopper Cooperative Management Program Final Environmental

Impact Statement. 552 p.

USDA-APHIS. 1994. Animal Damage Control. Final

Environmental Impact Statement. Three Volumes.

USDA-APHIS, Washington, D.C.

USDA-APHIS. 1995a. Site-Specific Environmental

Assessment Tiered to the 1987 Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Rangeland Grasshopper

Cooperative Management Program, Klamath and

Lake Counties, Oregon. Assessment Number OR04-95. USDA-APHIS, Portland, OR. 28 p.

USDA-APHIS. 1995b. Wildlife Damage Management

in the Roseburg ADC District in Southwestern

Oregon Including the Counties of Coos, Curry,

Douglas, Deschutes, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath,

Lake, and Lane. (Includes ROD and FONSI).

USDA-APHIS, Portland, OR.

USDA U.S. Forest Service (USDA-FS). 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource

Management Plan, Fremont National Forest, Lake and

Klamath Counties, Oregon. USDA-FS Pacific Northwest

Region, Portland, OR. Four Volumes.
Chapter 6

6 -21

USDA-FS. 1995. Forest Service Map, Fremont National Forest. Geometronics Service Center, Salt

Lake City, Utah.

USDA-FS. 1997. Proceedings: Using Seeds of Native

Species on Rangelands. General Technical Report

INT-GTR, Forest Service Intermountain Research

Station, Ogden, UT.

USDA-FS; U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)

Bureau of Land management (BLM). Undated.

Chewaucan River Report, Fremont National Forest.

USDA-FS and USDI-BLM, Lakeview, OR. 26 p.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1995. Final Wild and Scenic

River Eligibility Determination for Honey and Little

Honey Creek. USDA-FS Fremont National Forest

and USDI-BLM Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

33 p.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1996a. Status of the Interior

Columbia Basin: Summary of Scientific Findings.

USDA-FS Pacific Northwest Research Station and

USDI-BLM General Technical Report PNW-GTR385, Portland, OR. 144 p.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1996b. Final Wild and Scenic

River Eligibility Determination for Deep Creek.

USDA-FS Fremont National Forest and USDI-BLM

Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 33 p.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1997. Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, Eastside Draft

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA-FS,

Pacific Northwest Research Station, and USDIBLM. Portland, OR.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1998. Environmental Assessment: 304th Rescue Squadron Helicopter Landing

Zones. Pacific Northwest Region, Oregon/Washington. 10 p.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1999. Ecosystem Review at

the Subbasin Scale (Subbasin Review): A Guide for

Mid-scale Ecosystem Inquiry. Volume One: The

Process. Version 1.0, Draft, USDA-FS, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, and USDI-BLM.

Portland, OR.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 2000a. Interior Columbia

Basin Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. USDA-FS and USDI-BLM, Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

Two Volumes.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 2000b. Interior Columbia

Basin Final Environmental Impact Statement.

USDA-FS and USDI-BLM, Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project. One Volume.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 2000. Interior Columbia Basin

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed

Decision USDA-FS and USDI-BLM, Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

126+ p.

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. Undated. Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Spatial

Data: [online at http://www.icbemp.gov/spatial].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

1999. 1990 U.S. Census Data: C90STF3B (by zip

code). [http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup

(downloaded 9-7-99)].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis. 2001. Local Area Personal Income: Table

CA05. http://www.bea.doc.gov/regional/reis/

U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1984. Construction

and Operation of the West Coast OTH-B Radar

System, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Air

Force Systems Command, Electronic Systems

Division. 359 p.

USDI. 2001. Wild Land, Healthy Land: Interior’s

Cohesive Strategy to Improve Land Health and

Reduce Catastrophic Wildland Fire (draft report).

USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, BLM, Bureau of

Reclamation, National Park Service, USFWS,

USGS, Washington, D.C. 25 p.

USDI; USDA. 2001. A Collaborative Approach for

Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and

the Environment: 10-Year Strategy. Washington,

D.C. 21 p.

USDI-BLM. 1991–1998. Various Years, BLM Facts:

Oregon and Washington. USDI-BLM, Oregon State

Office, Portland, OR.

USDI-BLM. Undated a. High Desert Off Road Vehicle

(ORV) Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. Undated b. Warner Lakes Off Road

Vehicle (ORV) Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 22

USDI-BLM. Undated c. Environmental Analysis

Record, Surprise and Warner Valleys, Proposed

Geothermal Leasing. Susanville District, Susanville,

CA., and Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 148 p.

USDI-BLM. 1975. Hill Camp Allotment Management

Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR.

USDI-BLM. 1976. Summer Lake Basin Geothermal

Leasing, Environmental Analysis Record. Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 114 p.

USDI-BLM. 1977. Beaty Butte Wild Horse Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Warner

Lakes Resource Area, Beaty Butte Planning Unit,

Lakeview, OR. 28 p.

USDI-BLM. 1979. Wilderness Review Initial Inventory—Final Decision on Public Lands Obviously

Lacking Wilderness Character and Announcement

of Public Lands to be Intensively Inventoried for

Wilderness Characteristics, Oregon and Washington. USDI-BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland,

OR. 164 p.

USDI-BLM. 1980. Visual Resource Management

Program. GPO 0-302-993. USDI-BLM, Washington

Office, Washington, DC.

USDI-BLM. 1980a. Wilderness Review Intensive

Inventory—Final Decision on 30 Selected Units in

Southeastern Oregon and Proposed Decisions on

Other Intensively Inventoried Units in Oregon and

Washington. USDI-BLM, Oregon State Office,

Portland, OR. 429 p.

USDI-BLM. 1980b. Wilderness Inventory— Oregon

and Washington Final Intensive Inventory Decisions. USDI-BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland,

OR. 429 p.

USDI-BLM. 1980c. Fort Rock-Silver Lake Habitat

Management Plan (Revision). USDI-BLM,

Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 10 p.

USDI-BLM. 1980d. Warner Sucker/Warner Potholes

Habitat Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 38 p.

USDI-BLM. 1981. High Desert Habitat Management

Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR. 15 p.

USDI-BLM. 1981b. Black Hills Habitat Management

Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1981c. Goose Lake Valley Geothermal/Oil

and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment.

Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 34 p.

USDI-BLM. 1982a. Lakeview Grazing Management

Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM,

Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 263 p.

USDI-BLM. 1982b. Rangeland Program Summary

Record of Decision, Lakeview EIS Area. USDIBLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 24 p.

USDI-BLM. 1982c. Wilderness Studies Management

Framework Plan Amendments, Summary of Land

Use Alternatives. USDI-BLM, Oregon State Office,

Portland, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1983a. Warner Lakes Management

Framework Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. Two Volumes.

USDI-BLM. 1983b. High Desert Resource Area

Management Framework Plan. USDI-BLM,

Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1983c. Lost River Resource Area Management Framework Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1983e. High Rock Cultural Resources

Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Surprise Resource

Area, Cedarville, CA.

USDI-BLM. 1983f. Cowhead/Massacre Management

Framework Plan. USDI-BLM, Susanville District,

Susanville, CA.

USDI-BLM. 1984a. North Warner Lakes Area Habitat

Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 15 p.

USDI-BLM. 1984b. Paisley Habitat Management Plan.

USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 25

p.

USDI-BLM. 1985a. BLM Manual Handbook H1741.1,

Fencing. USDI-BLM, Washington Office, Washington, D.C.

USDI-BLM. 1985b. Northwest Area Noxious Weed

Control Program—Final Environmental Impact

Statement. USDI-BLM, Oregon State Office,

Portland, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1986a. South Warner Lakes Area Habitat
Chapter 6

6 -23

Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 14 p.

USDI-BLM. 1986b. Warner Lakes Aquatic Habitat

Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 18 p.

USDI-BLM. 1987a. Supplement to the Northwest Area

Noxious Weed Control Program—Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM, Oregon

State Office, Portland, OR. 151 p.

USDI-BLM. 1987b. Interim Management Policy and

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review.

Update Document H-8550-1. USDI-BLM, Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 56 p.

USDI-BLM. 1987c. Fish and Wildlife 2000: A Plan

for the Future. Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

USDI-BLM. 1988. 1613—Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Resource Management Planning

Guidance. USDI-BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC. 22 p.

USDI-BLM. 1989a. Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM, Oregon State

Office, Portland, OR. Four Volumes, 2190 p.

USDI-BLM. 1989b. Warner Lakes Plan Amendment

for Wetlands and Associated Uplands—Plan

Amendment and Environmental Assessment for the

Warner Lakes Management Framework Plan and

Decision Record. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 46 p.

USDI-BLM. 1989c. Decision Record—Warner Lakes

Plan Amendment for Wetlands and Associated

Uplands. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR. 7 p.

USDI-BLM. 1989d. Brothers/LaPine Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision, and Rangeland

Program Summary. USDI-BLM, Prineville District,

Prineville, OR. 133 p.

USDI-BLM. 1989e. Non-Renewable Grazing Use. EA#

OR-010-87-19 (Amendment). Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR 17 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990a. Livestock Grazing On Western

Riparian Areas. USDI-BLM, Public Information.

USDI-BLM. 1990b. Warner Wetlands Area of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC) Management Plan.

USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 57 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990c. Draft Environmental Assessment

for Warner Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental

Concern Activity Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 24 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990d. Decision Record/FONSI— Warner

Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Environmental Assessment and Management Plan. USDI, BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 4 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990e. Warner Wetlands Habitat Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 41 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990f. Warner Wetlands Cultural Resource Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 12 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990g. Warner Wetlands Allotment

Management Plan (AMP), Warner Lakes Allotment

#0523. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR. 21 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990h. Warner Wetlands Habitat Management Plan for Vegetation. USDI-BLM, Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 20 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990i. Warner Wetlands Recreation Area

Management Plan . USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 26 p.

USDI-BLM. 1990j. Warner Wetlands Geology Area

Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 6 p.

USDI-BLM. 1991a. Wilderness Study Report—

Statewide Overview. USDI-BLM-OR-EA-91-45-

8561.6. USDI-BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland,

OR. 12 p.

USDI-BLM. 1991b. Vegetation Treatment on BLM

Lands in Thirteen Western States Final Environmental Impact Statement. BLM-WY-ES-91-022-4320.

USDI-BLM, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, WY.

USDI-BLM. 1991. Programmatic Environmental

Assessment for Fuelwood and Other Minor Forest

Products, EA# OR-010-90-14. Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 11 p.

USDI-BLM. 1992. Three Rivers Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision, and Rangeland
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 24

Program Summary. USDI-BLM, Burns District,

Hines, OR.

USDI-BLM 1993a. Process for Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition. BLM Technical Reference

1737-9. USDI-BLM, Washington Office, Washington D.C.

USDI-BLM. 1993b. Analysis and Evaluation, Lake

Abert Proposed ACEC. USDI-BLM, Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 13 p.

USDI-BLM. 1993c. Oil-Dri Plan of Operations

#OR48717, EA#OR-015-03-03). Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 16 p.

USDI-BLM. 1993d. Rosebud/Edmunds Well Habitat

Management Plan. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 32 p.

USDI-BLM. 1994b. O’Keeffe Individual Allotment

#0216 Allotment Management Plan Revision.

USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 5 p.

USDI-BLM. 1994d. Integrated Noxious Weed Control

Program EA# OR-013-03-01, Lakeview Resource

Area. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR. 43 p.

USDI-BLM. 1994e. Beaty Butte Allotment Evaluation

Report. USDI-BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR.

USDI-BLM. 1994f. Process for Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland

Areas. BLM Technical Reference 1737-11. USDIBLM, Washington Office, Washington D.C.

USDI-BLM. 1994g. Wild Horse Utilization Monitoring

Plan/Schedule, Beaty Butte Herd Management

Area. Lakeview District files, Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1995a. Rangeland Reform ’94 Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision.

Washington, DC. 45 p.

USDI-BLM. 1995b. BLM Manual 8550: Interim

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands

Under Wilderness Review. Washington Office,

Washington D.C.

USDI-BLM. 1995c. Lakeview District Wild Horse

Gather, EA#OR-010-95-10. Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR. 98 p.

USDI-BLM. 1995e. Weed Management Plan for the

Lake Abert Area (draft). Lakeview District,

Lakeview, OR

USDI-BLM. 1995f. Klamath Falls Resource Area

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan

and Rangeland Program Summary. Klamath Falls

Resource Area, Klamath Falls, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1995g. Treaties, Spirituality, and Ecosystems—American Indian Interests in the Northern

Intermontane Region of Western North America.

Social Assessment Report for the ICBEMP, Science

Integration Team, Eugene, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1995h. Fish and Wildlife 2000: Mountain Sheep Ecosystem Management Strategy in the

11 Western States and Alaska. Denver Service

Center, Denver, CO. 79 p.

USDI-BLM. 1996a. Utilization Studies and Residual

Measurements. Interagency Technical Reference,

USDI-BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730.

USDI-BLM. 1996b. Sampling Vegetation Attributes.

Interagency Technical Reference, USDI-BLM/RS/

ST - 96/002 + 1730.

USDI-BLM. 1996c. High Desert Management Framework Proposed Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Abert Area of

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Lake

County, Oregon. Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

42+ p.

USDI-BLM. 1996d. High Desert Management Framework Plan Amendment and Record of Decision for

the Lake Abert Area of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) in Lake County, Oregon.

Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 30 p.

USDI-BLM. 1996e. Final Environmental Impact

Statement—Atlas Perlite, Inc., Tucker Hill Perlite

Project. Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 25+ p.

USDI-BLM. 1996f. Record of Decision and Plan of

Operation Approval for Atlas Perlite, Inc., Tucker

Hill Perlite Project. Mining Plan of Operation and

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Lakeview

District, Lakeview, OR. 9 p.

USDI-BLM. 1996g. Fort Rock Fire Management Area

Fire Management Plan, EA# OR-010-96-04.

Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 26+p.
Chapter 6

6 -25

USDI-BLM. 1996h. Integrated Scientific Assessment

for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. Quigley, T.; Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.;

technical eds. Oregon/Washington State Office,

Portland, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1996i. The Ecology and Management of

Microbiotic Soil Crusts in the Great Basin and

Snake River Plain. Workshop Proceedings, October

29–30, Boise, ID.

USDI-BLM. 1997a. Recommended Versions of Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 63 p.

USDI-BLM. 1997b. Standards for Rangeland Health

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

for the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Area

of Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of

Land Management in Northwest Nevada. Washington Office, Washington D.C.

USDI-BLM. 1998b. Draft Southeast Oregon Resource

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.

Burns and Vale Districts, Hines and Vale, OR. Two

Volumes.

USDI-BLM. 1998d. Rangeland Health Standards and

Guidelines for California and Northwestern Nevada

Final Environmental Impact Statement. California

State Office, Sacramento, CA.

USDI-BLM. 1998e. Lakeview District Fire Management Plan—Phase 1. Lakeview District, Lakeview,

OR. 28+ p.

USDI-BLM. 1998f. Public Land Recreation: A Management Strategy for Special Recreation Management Areas in Oregon and Washington. Oregon/

Washington State Office, Portland, OR. Two

Volumes.

USDI-BLM. 1998h. Mining Use and Occupancy in the

General Sunstone Mining Area, EA# OR-010-98-

05. Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. 1999a. Standards for Rangeland Health

Assessment for O’Keeffe Individual Allotment

#0216. Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 7 p.

USDI-BLM. 1999b. Area of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Nomination Analysis for the

Proposed Pronghorn ACEC. Lakeview District and

Burns District, Oregon; Surprise Field Office,

California; and Winnemucca Field Office, Nevada.

48 p.

USDI-BLM. 1999c. Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

Report for the Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview

Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. 10 p.

USDI-BLM. 1999d. Decision Record: Fuelwood

Areas—Lakeview Resource Area, EA#OR-010-90-

14. Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 2 p.

USDI-BLM. 2000. Lakeview Resource Area Area of

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and

Research Natural Area (RNA) Nomination Analysis

Report, draft. Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.

65+ p.

USDI-BLM. 2000b. Analysis of the Management

Situation. Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.

USDI-BLM. 2000c. Surface Management Regulations

for Locatable Mineral Operations (43 CFR 3809)

Final EIS. Washington Office, Washington, D.C.

Two Volumes.

USDI-BLM; USDA-FS. 1988. Fences. Vegetation

Rehabilitation and Equipment Workshop, Missoula

Technology & Development Center, Missoula, MT.

210 p.

USDI-BLM; USDA-FS. 1994. Rangeland Reform ‘94,

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington

Office and USDA-FS, Washington, DC. 201 p.

USDI-BLM; USFWS. 1998a. Beaty Butte Allotment

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact

Statement. Lakeview District, and USFWS Hart

Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Lakeview,

OR. 154 p.

USDI-BLM; USFWS. 1998b. Record of Decision for

the Beaty Butte Allotment Management Plan and

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Lakeview

District, and USFWS Hart Mountain National

Antelope Refuge, Lakeview, OR. 11+ p.

USDI-BLM; USFWS; USDA-FS; Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife; Oregon Department of State

Lands. 2000. Greater Sage-Grouse and SagebrushSteppe Ecosystems. Management Guidelines. 27 p.

USDI-BLM; USGS. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts:

Ecology and Management. Technical Reference

1730-2, National Science and Technology Center,
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

6 - 26

Denver, CO. 110 p.

USDI-USGS. 1980. Preliminary Report on the Geology

of the Lakeview Uranium Area, Lake County,

Oregon. Open-File Report 80-532.

USFWS. 1980. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Renewable Natural Resource Management Plan,

Final EIS. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, OR.

USFWS. 1985. Management Guidelines for the Western Snowy Plover. USFWS, Portland, OR..

USFWS. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants. 50 CFR 17.11, GPO, Washington, DC.

USFWS. 1991a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as

Endangered or Threatened Species, Proposed Rules.

Federal Register 56 (225):58804–58836.

USFWS. 1992. Status of Waterfowl & Fall Flight

Forecast: 1992. In coordination with the Canadian

Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C.

USFWS. 1994a. Hart Mountain National Antelope

Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan, Final

Environmental Impact Statement. Lake County, OR.

USFWS. 1994b. Record of Decision, Hart Mountain

National Antelope Refuge Comprehensive Management Plan. USFWS, Lake County, OR. 34 p.

USFWS. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of

the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin: Warner

Sucker (Threatened) Catostomus warnerensis,

Hutton Tui Chub (Threatened) Gilia bicolor spp.,

Foskett Speckled Dace (Threatened) Rhinichthys

osculus spp. USFWS, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 86 p.

USFWS; USDI-BLM. 1998a. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Jurisdictional Land Exchange

Between Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge,

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Lakeview District,

Bureau of Land Management, Draft Amendment,

Warner Lakes Management Framework Plan,

EA#OR-010-97-05. USFWS, Hart Mountain

National Antelope Refuge, and USDI-BLM,

Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. 40 p.

USFWS; USDI-BLM. 1998b. Finding of No Significant Impact, Jurisdictional Land Exchange Between

Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Fish and

Wildlife Service, and Lakeview District, Bureau of

Land Management, Draft Plan Amendment, Warner

Lakes Management Framework Plan, EA#OR-010-

97-05. USFWS, Hart Mountain National Antelope

Refuge, and USDI-BLM, Lakeview Resource Area,

Lakeview, OR. 40 p.

U.S. West. 1998. US West Dex Yellow Pages: Portland, Oregon. Oregon Zip Codes. US West Dex,

Inc., Englewood, CO

Vander Schaff, D. 1992. Final Report: Natural Area

Inventory for the Lakeview Resource Area,

Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management.

The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 25 p.

Van Denburgh, A.S. 1975. Solute Balance at Abert and

Summer Lakes, South-Central Oregon. Geological

Survey Professional Paper 502-C. 29 p.

Vavra, M.; Sneva, F. 1978. Seasonal Diets of Fur

Ungulates Grazing the Cold Desert Biome. Presented to the First International Rangeland Congress.

Walker, G.W.; Repenning, C.A. 1965. Geologic Map of

the Adel Quadrangle, Lake, Harney, and Malheur

Counties, Oregon. USGS Miscellaneous Geological

Investigations, Map I-446, Scale 1:250,000.

West, N.E. 1999. Synecology and Disturbance Regimes

of Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems. Sagebrush Steppe

Ecosystems Symposium, Boise State University,

Boise, Idaho, June 21–23.

Western Utility Group. 1993. Western Regional Corridor Study. 100 p.

Williams, J. E.; Bond, C.E. 1981. A New Subspecies of

Tui Chub (Osteichthyes: cyprinidae) from Guano

Basin, Nevada and Oregon. Southwestern Naturalist

26(3):223–230.

Wineburg, H. 1998. Population Estimates for Oregon:

July 1, 1997. Center for Population Research and

Census, Portland State University, Portland, OR. 26 p.

Winward, A.H. 1994. Management of Livestock in

Riparian Areas. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, Volume 1:49–52.

Westenskow-Wall, K.J.; Krueger, W.C.; Bryant, L.D.;

Thomas, D.R. 1994. Nutrient Quality of Bluebunch

Wheatgrass Regrowth on Elk Winter Range in Relation to

Defoliation. Journal of Range Management 47:240–244.
Chapter 6

6 -27

Index

Alkali Lake ................................................................. 2-7, 2-21, 2-29, 2-98, 3-9, 3-55, A-152, A-246, A-294, A-297

Allowable sale quantity ................................................................................... 2-11, 3-47, 4-110, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114

Back country byway ...................................................................... 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-82, 2-84, 3-112, 3-113, A-249

Biomass .................................................................................................... 2-11, 3-48, 3-49, 3-122, 4-23, 4-25, A-295

Cabin Lake Mule Deer Winter Range ................................................................. 3-65, 4-16, 4-68, 4-69, 4-74, A-234

Crack-in-the-Ground............................................................................ 2-79, 2-82, 3-113, 3-115, 3-116, A-40, A-254,

Diatomite ................................................................................... 2-84, 2-85, 4-47, 4-84, 4-137, A-292, A-296, A-307

Doherty Slide Hang-gliding Launch Sites ............................................................................................................ 2-79

Fort Rock Area Fire Management Plan ................................................................................................................ 2-72

Green Mountain Campground .............................................................................................................................. 2-78

Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge ........................................... 2-48, 2-52, 2-79, 3-8, 3-89, 4-75, A-21, A-236

ICBEMP ..................................................................................... S-1, 2-14, 2-21, 2-28, 3-1, 3-2, 3-6, 3-102, 4-5, A-1

“Lakeview Grazing Management EIS” ................................................... 1-1, 1-8, 2-48, 3-10, 3-43, 3-71, 4-76, A-20

Lost Forest ISA........................................................ 2-3, 2-11, 2-48, 2-49, 2-59, 2-77, 2-79, 2-82, 2-83, 2-116, 3-81,

Mining claims ... 2-85, 2-86, 3-122, 4-104, 4-117, 4-134, A-19, A-248, A-263, A-270–273, A-292, A-305, A-313, A-314

North Lake Special Recreation Management Area ............................................... 3-113, 3-114, 3-132, 4-124, A-289

Northern Wildlife Area ............................................................................... 3-120, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-130, 4-135

“Oregon Smoke Management Plan”.............................................................................. 1-69, 1-72, 2-69, 2-72, 4-117

“Oregon Final Wilderness EIS”...................................................................................... 1-7, 2-51, 3-96, A-20, A-274

Perlite .................................................................................... 2-84, 2-85, 4-137, A-245, A-248, A-292, A-296, A-307

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... 2-48, 2-78, 3-8, 4-30, 4-87, 4-120, A-21, A-257, A-259

Tucker Hill ....................................................... 2-58, 2-85, 3-93, 3-94, 4-3, 4-35, 4-47, A-248, A-292, A-295, A-306

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation Management Area ......................... 2-80, 2-82, 3-104, 3-105, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115,

4-16, 4-17, 4-19, 4-68, 4-70, 4-71, 4-73, A-208, A-289

Water quality restoration plan ................................................................................. 2-29, 3-57, A-204, A-205, A-206

“Wilderness Study Report for Oregon” ................................................................................ 3-96, 3-97, 4-101, A-274

Wilderness therapy schools ................................... 2-78, 2-82, 2-83, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-114, 4-109, 4-110,

4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-120, 4-121, A-3, A-6