Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

Draft Southeastern Oregon 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

and Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C

Alternatives C and D

Methodologies
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-1 

Introduction – Policy Background

BLM Manual 6320, “Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning 

Process,” was used as a guide for development of the criteria for the methodologies described in this 

appendix. Managing the wilderness characteristics resource is part of the BLM’s multiple use mission. 

Consistent with FLPMA and other applicable authorities, the BLM considers the wilderness 

characteristics of public lands when undertaking land use planning

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that a range of alternatives be identified which 

provides the public and decision makers with a reasonable set of options for future management. In 

developing the specific management associated with the alternatives, the BLM used public scoping, 

resource values and uses, and current or future trends to further develop the alternatives. In specifically 

addressing the requirements of the 2010 Settlement Agreement to analyze varying management options 

for lands identified as having wilderness characteristics, the No Action Alternative and Alternative B 

provide protection for all units with wilderness characteristics. Alternative A adds no new protections for 

wilderness characteristics. To further develop a reasonable range of alternatives, the BLM developed 

methodologies for evaluating the lands with wilderness characteristics in Alternatives C and D. The 

methodologies are described briefly in Section 2.3.2 in Chapter 2 and in detail below in this appendix. 

Both methodologies are unique to planning efforts associated with the 2010 Settlement Agreement and 

are not known to be in use by other BLM planning efforts. 

The methodology utilized for Alternative C represents the interdisciplinary team’s effort to systematically 

and consistently evaluate the 76 units found to have wilderness characteristics. The methodology utilized 

by the interdisciplinary team for evaluating the units found to have wilderness characteristics in 

Alternative D relied on input from the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Committee. The 

methodology used to evaluate the units in Alternatives C and D is consistent with the BLM’s approach of 

evaluating information in an interdisciplinary fashion. However, they do not represent a process that is 

codified or required by BLM manuals or handbooks. The goal in utilizing methodologies is to objectively 

evaluate information and clearly document the evaluation so that it can be easily understood and 

evaluated by the public. 

For each of the 76 units found to possess wilderness characteristicsin the planning area, the BLM 

examined options for management and to determine the most appropriate land use allocations for them. 

Considering wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process could result in several outcomes, 

including, but not limited to: (1) emphasizing other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness 

characteristics; (2) emphasizing other multiple uses while applying management restrictions (conditions 

of use, mitigation measures or design features) to avoid or reduce impacts to wilderness characteristics; 

(3) the protection of wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses. 

The BLM must determine how lands with wilderness characteristics will be managed over the life of the 

plan, based on present knowledge of the resources, ongoing uses, and valid existing rights in the area. 

As described in Chapter 2, NEPA requires analyzing a No Action Alternative. In this Draft RMP/EIS, the 

No Action Alternative reflects current management under the 2002 SEORMP, as amended, and within the 

commitments of the 2010 Settlement Agreement. Alternative A represents a continuation of existing 

management, in the absence of the 2010 Settlement Agreement provisions. Alternative B reflects the 

requirement of the 2010 Settlement Agreement: to analyze protecting all units found to possess 

wilderness characteristics; to close all lands with wilderness characteristics and WSAs to OHV use; and

to address management responses to voluntary permit relinquishment and where Standards for Rangeland 

Health are not met due to current livestock grazing.

The methodologies described in this appendix for Alternatives C and D utilize existing data and 

knowledge about each unit with wilderness characteristics to identify future management by incorporating 

a logical, repeatable process. The intent of utilizing this type of approach is to help organize existing 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-2 

BLM guidance for recommending to managers appropriate allocations and actions for wilderness 

characteristics, and to fully describe the rationale used to the public. 

Alternative C Methodology

The methodology considers and documents the extent to which other resource values and uses of lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be protected, forgone or adversely affected if the wilderness 

characteristics are protected. The BLM also considered the benefits that may accrue to other resource 

values and uses as a result of protecting wilderness characteristics. 

The methodology for Alternative C was internally generated using current data and interdisciplinary team 

(IDT) evaluation. The methodology is structured around five specific criteria in the following. Each 

criteria and its use is explained below. Example tables that were used to document the IDT’s evaluation of 

each criteria for each wilderness characteristics unit are provided below. 

1. The anticipated level of impact to wilderness characteristics criteria from the proposed action. 

Consideration is given to what extent a proposed activity would impact one or more of the criteria used to 

evaluate whether a unit has wilderness characteristics. Those criteria include: 1) whether the area is 

greater than 5,000 acres or meets one of the exception criteria (such as being contiguous to an existing 

Wilderness Study Area); the presence of 2) naturalness; and either outstanding opportunities for 3) 

solitude or for 4) a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. In addition, 5) supplemental values were 

reviewed to inform the wilderness characteristics determination. Supplemental values are not necessary 

for determining if a unit has wilderness characteristics.

Table C-1A. Potential impacts to wilderness characteristic criteria.

Table C-1A.1. Scoring for impacts to wilderness characteristics criteria table.

2. The impetus for the proposed action. 

This criteria evaluates the extent to which the activities being considered are discretionary, and what is 

the primary motivation or driver for the action to occur. In some cases, there is no discretion about 

whether to take the action due to legal or treaty obligations. When there is no choice but to take the 

proposed action, this must be recognized. However, it is still important to consider activities that are 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-3 

typically non-discretionary, because even though the proposed action may be non-discretionary, there will 

often be some discretion in determining how the activity is ultimately performed.

A range of possible obligations may drive the proposed activities: 1) a legal or treaty mandate, 2) 

indirectly addressing a legal obligation, 3) protecting a significant feature or value, 4) balancing 

stakeholder and economic needs, or 5) no specific obligation. 

Table C-1B. Impetus for the proposed use.

Table C-1B.1. Scoring for impetus for proposed use table.

3. The feasibility of managing the area with wilderness characteristics to preserve those 

characteristics. 

Are there any outside factors that will impair our ability to manage an area with wilderness characteristics 

for the preservation of those characteristics? The manageability factors considered include 1) ownership 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-4 

of subsurface rights1, 2) surface ownership encumbrances, 3) access to inholdings 2, 4) pervasive and 

omnipresent external impacts, 3 or 5) other statutory requirements4. 

Based on the five factors, one of three manageability determinations was made 1) the area would be very 

difficult to manage, meaning that the anticipated management constraint will most likely preclude the 

wilderness characteristics area from being successfully managed to protect wilderness characteristics; 2) 

the area has some management constraints that will make it difficult to manage for wilderness 

characteristics, however managing for those constraints is not mutually exclusive with managing to 

protect wilderness characteristics; or 3) no management issues means that the wilderness characteristics 

area is not effected by the management constraint.

Table C-1C. Manageability factors for the area with wilderness characteristics.

 

1 Subsurface rights in an area owned by a party other than the Federal government may limit the BLM’s ability to 

protect wilderness characteristics on the surface. 2 Assess the potential impact of providing access to nonfederal inholdings 3 Pervasive and Omnipresent External Impacts. This aspect has been interpreted to mean an external impact that 

effects more than just the edge of the area with wilderness characteristics. The fact that incompatible activities or 

uses can be seen or heard from areas possessing wilderness characteristics should not be a determining factor when 

analyzing the manageability of such areas unless these impacts are pervasive and omnipresent. 4

 Lands managed by the BLM are subject to specific additional statutory requirements (for example, the National 

Petroleum Reserve Production Act (NPRPA) and the Oregon and California (O&C) Lands Act). Consider those 

requirements where appropriate in determining manageability of lands with wilderness characteristics.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-5 

Table C-1C.1. Scoring for the manageability factors table.

4. The suitability and need for the proposed action to occur within the area with wilderness 

characteristics. 

The criteria that assesses the appropriateness of an activity occurring in a particular wilderness 

characteristics unit. The criteria assesses whether the unit is suited to the activity (or in the case of 

conservation how much of a priority is the action), the feasibility of the action, and the relative need for 

the action to occur in this particular unit.

This criteria looked at 1) Suitability and Need Scoring for Conservation Actions (which included 

Conservation Priority for Proposed Action, Constraints or Difficulties for Proposed Action, and Other 

Factors Affecting Prioritization); 2) Suitability and Need Scoring for Consumptive uses (which included 

Suitability for Proposed Action, Development Feasibility or Prevalence of Other Locations for Proposed 

Action.) 

Table C-1D. Suitability and need for the proposed actions to occur within the area with wilderness 

characteristics.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-6 

Table C-1D.1. Suitability and need scoring for conservation actions.

Table C-1D.2. Suitability and need scoring for consumptive uses.

5. The ecological resistance and resilience of the area with wilderness characteristics.

Ecological integrity was considered when deciding whether to manage for preservation of wilderness 

characteristics. To evaluate a unit’s ecological integrity, it was determined that the “resistance and 

resilience” of the unit was the appropriate measure.

The resistance and resilience scoring is based on the following five factors: Elevation, Precipitation and 

Productivity, Presence of Woody Species, Abundance of Invasive Species or Desired Plant Composition

Invasive Annual Grass Categories: Category 5 (perennial plant communities at risk due to the presence of 

invasive annual grasses) and Category 6 (perennial plant communities that are dominated by invasive 

annual grasses). If an area with wilderness characteristics is predominantly outside of either of these two 

categories, then it is given a high resistance and resilience score.

• Category 5 includes pastures within grazing allotments where perennial plant communities are at 

risk due to the presence of invasive annual grasses. Native plant communities are still functioning 

ecologically, in spite of light to moderate levels of infestation. However, these native perennial 

plant communities are at risk of losing ecological function due to increasing invasive annual grass 

densities, the increased risk of wildfire these invasive annual grasses create, and the ability of 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-7 

these grasses to outcompete native plants following wildfires. These plant communities are still in 

a position to recover if the invasive annual grasses can be controlled.

• Category 6 includes pastures within grazing allotments where perennial plant communities are 

dominated by invasive annual grasses. The invasive annual grasses and their seed bank have 

dominated the site to the extent that their removal would be difficult and expensive, and/or the 

native plants on the site, if present, are in poor enough condition that they would not be able to 

naturally revegetate the site after invasive plants are controlled. 

Table C-1E. Resistance and resilience of the area with wilderness characteristics.

Table C-1E.1. Scoring for the resistance and resilience table.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-8 

Determining Management Trends 

For each of the five criteria, available data was reviewed to determine whether that criterion favored

managing the area with wilderness characteristics for preservation of those characteristics, or for 

management of other resources. 

Figure C-1. Summary scoring table.

To identify management trends within a unit, the average of the conservation activities and the average of 

the consumptive uses was calculated.

For this analysis, the median value for the conservation activities was 17.0, while for the consumptive 

uses it was 24.4. The average was calculated only to get an indication of whether there is a clear trend 

towards managing for other resources (or uses) or managing for wilderness characteristics. The approach 

being that if the average of the scores is either well below, or well above the median, then it creates an 

initial presumption that the unit should likely be managed accordingly. To identify what constituted “well 

above” and “well below”, the total distribution of scores was evaluated. As would be expected, the 

scoring followed a bell-shaped curve with most units clustering toward the median. Accordingly, the 

following scoring breaks were created:

• Scores that are less than 16 (for conservation) and 23.4 (for consumptive uses) create a relatively 

strong presumption that the unit should be managed for other resources. The lower the score the 

stronger the presumption.

• Scores that are greater than 18 (for conservation) and 25.4 (for consumptive uses) create a 

relatively strong presumption the unit should be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. 

The higher the score the higher the presumption.

• Scores that fall between 16 to 18 (for conservation), and from 23.4 to 25.4 (for consumptive uses) 

suggest that the scoring for the unit is inconclusive.

These numbers are not definitive, but they do provide an initial presumption based on how the unit is 

trending generally.

For units where scores were inconclusive, the BLM reviewed the summary score sheet to see whether the 

individual scores are telling a clear story as to how the unit should be managed. For the Vale District, the 

outcomes ranged from clear indications of how the unit should be managed to ambiguous results that 

highlighted the conflicting opinions regarding how to manage the unit. The results that had clear 

indications of how to manage were reviewed and verified to ensure that there were not issues that the 

tables failed to identify, or which were obscured by the overall scoring. 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-9 

In addition, for any units that were called out in the verification process, or that had ambiguous scoring 

they were debated by interdisciplinary team members to further discuss the various factors that suggested 

managing in one direction or the other.

In most instances the scores told a story about how to manage the unit. For some of these, there were 

outliers where a particular use or activity would buck the trend. Where this was the case there would be 

conversation about whether that use or activity could be accommodated within whatever management 

strategy was being proposed. However, as would be expected, for a few units there were definite conflicts 

between contrary management objectives. While the matrix could help inform and highlight the conflicts, 

the ultimate recommendation could only come from lengthy debate of the ID team. 

Alternative D Methodology

Evaluating and utilizing the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Committee 

recommendations on prioritizing management for lands possessing wilderness 

characteristics in the Southeastern Oregon RMP Amendment alternative D

Background and Objectives 

In 2012, near the completion of the wilderness characteristics inventory update, Vale District Manager 

Gonzalez requested the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Committee (SEORAC) to consider 

recommendations for prioritizing areas for management of public lands with those characteristics. A final 

recommendation, approved by the full SEORAC, was provided to BLM Management5. Those 

recommendations were subsequently shared with the Oregon State Office, BLM, and State Director, 

Jerome (Jerry) Perez. No further, formal action was taken at that time regarding the recommendation.

The SEORAC subsequently began developing additional recommendations for management actions, 

allocations and allowable activities for wilderness characteristics units that were consistent with the 

SEORAC’s prioritization recommendations. BLM management supported this additional task. The 

member composition on the SEORAC changed, and a new sub-committee took on the task, which they 

completed in March 2018. The SEORAC voted on and has signed support for their additional 

recommendations 6. Those recommendations were considered in the alternatives.

The following describes the specific process used by the BLM to implement the SEORAC prioritization 

“model.” The SEORMP Amendment interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered available information, 

digital/spatial data, and field expertise and applied the SEORAC model to each of the 76 inventory units 

with wilderness characteristics in developing Alternative D. Minor modifications to the original SEORAC 

model were made based on available information as the IDT evaluated the criteria. These are explained 

below. The model has been implemented in this SEORMP Draft EIS/Draft RMP Amendment to identify 

the set of units for protection in Alternative D. The methodology for Alternative D was developed based 

on recommendations provided by the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Committee and is unique to 

this SEORMP amendment.

Since the SEORAC finalized its recommendations in 2014, public lands in the District have experienced 

multiple management actions, events and incidents on the ground. Among them, in September 2015 the 

 

5 Letter from Chad Boyd, Chairman on behalf of SEORAC, to Don Gonzalez, Vale District Manager. June 27, 2014.

6 Letter from Jason Kesling, Chair of SEORAC, to Don Gonzalez, Vale District Manager. March 16, 2018.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-10

Greater Sage-grouse Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment was completed. 

Direction on management to protect Sage-grouse habitats affected existing management, much of which

is consistent with protecting wilderness characteristics. Additionally, updated vegetation inventories, 

extensive catastrophic wildfire, and other events have impacted many of the 76 units found to possess 

wilderness characteristics. BLM priorities, funding, and investment in restoration and rehabilitation 

projects continue to change. These changes have occasionally led to potential conflicts between: a) 

responding to National Direction to implement restoration treatments and b) remaining within the 

provisions of the 2010 Settlement Agreement. 

To remain in compliance with the 2010 Settlement Agreement until the RMP is amended, Vale BLM has 

been conservative in implementing restoration and/or rehabilitation projects and facility (roads, 

structures) maintenance efforts. The BLM has worked extensively with our partners and neighbors to 

respond to these challenges and has designed projects and methods which may be implemented within the 

parameters of the 2010 Settlement Agreement, while meeting the challenges of a changing landscape. 

Evaluating the SEORAC Prioritization Model Considering BLM Data and Current 

Management

In evaluating the SEORAC prioritization model, the IDT made every effort to incorporate the SEORAC’s 

intent to develop an “index to the potential value of lands with wilderness characteristics” while 

recognizing the unique challenges and conditions in each inventory unit with the “nature and degree of 

management inputs...”7 The SEORAC specifically developed their recommendation to provide the BLM 

flexibility in identifying the method of integrating the model’s three criteria (Vegetation, Hydrologic 

Condition, and Connectivity) into a unit’s “overall rating.” The discussion, which follows, describes how 

the SEORMP IDT implemented the model.

Overall Rating for Units

The overall rating for each unit is described in this section; deriving the ratings for each of the three 

individual criteria is described later in the document. 

The IDT developed a set of relationships among the three SEORAC prioritization criteria (see Table C-1 

below). The individual criteria (Hydrology, Vegetation, and Connectivity) ratings were integrated into a 

single Overall “High” or “Low” rating for each unit. Inventory units meeting the “High” rating were 

identified as a priority for management of wilderness characteristics. 

The Overall Rating shown in Table C-1 was incorporated into Alternative D in this SEORMP 

Amendment. Each unit was evaluated for each of the three SEORAC criteria. The Overall Rating was 

calculated based on the relationships and ratings among the three criteria as shown in Table C-1. The 

table presents how each unit’s ratings for Hydrology, Vegetation, and Connectivity are combined to result 

in the Overall Rating.

Table C-2 lists the ratings for each of the 76 units and parcels (some units may be made up of multiple 

parcels of public land) with wilderness characteristics. This process resulted in 33 units (made up of 56 

parcels), totaling 417,196 acres being identified in Alternative D to prioritize management of wilderness 

characteristics.

 

7 Letter from Chad Boyd, Chairman on behalf of SEORAC, to Don Gonzalez, Vale District Manager. June 27, 2014. 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-11

Individual SEORAC Model Criteria Calculations

The task for the IDT was to address each of the individual criteria and then derive a summary rating for 

each unit. Each criteria is described below.

Vegetation Criteria

The SEORAC Vegetation criteria relies heavily on the presence and abundance of large perennial native 

bunchgrasses, nonnative annual grasses, and juniper. The Vale BLM does not have consistent, detailed

information on the distribution or abundance of large perennial native bunchgrasses across the planning 

area. To adjust for this planning area-wide circumstance, the BLM utilized available data to make the 

Vegetation determination. 

The following Geographic Information System (GIS) data are indicative of conditions that may influence 

the abundance and distribution of large native perennial bunchgrasses: sagebrush cover, juniper cover,

fire frequency, resistance and resilience (Chambers, Pyke, Maestas et al. 2014) of the area, and recent 

Ecological Site Inventory (ongoing NRCS/BLM partnership to inventory soils and current/potential site 

potential) data, along with recent modeling data (BLM 2016a) on invasive annual grasses.

Table C-1. SEORAC individual and overall wilderness characteristics unit ratings.

Vegetation 

Rating Operator

Hydrology 

Rating Operator

Connectivity

Rating

Final

Overall

Rating

The row immediately below is read as... “If the Vegetation Rating is ‘1’ and the Hydrology rating is ‘1’ and any 

rating for Connectivity (1, 2, or 3), then the Final Overall Rating is High.” All combinations of ratings are shown.

1 and 1 and Any High

1 or 28

and Either 

Veg or Hydro 

rating is 1

1 or 2 and 1 High

2 (High)9 and 1 or 2 and 1 High

2 (High) and 1 and 2 High

1 or

2 (High) and NR10 and 1 High

2 and 2 and Any Low

2 (Low) and Any and Any Low

Any and No Data 11 and Any Low

The final vegetation analysis approached the question from a GIS modeling process to determine the 

“deviation from potential” vegetation, or Vegetation Departure. Using an additive model, a high score 

 

8 This Overall Rating Condition may not have a “3” rating in eitherVegetation or Hydrology 9 See description in the vegetation criteria section for the “2 (High)” Vegetation Rating 10 NR – No Riparian Resources Identified in the Unit 11 ND or No Data – BLM recommends not assigning an overall rating where there is no recorded Data on – or 

internal/external available professional knowledge regarding – the presence or condition of riparian resources in the 

unit. That is, there is a need to identify the Hydrologic condition if the model is going to be used.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-12

was assigned for large percentages of juniper, sagebrush, and invasive annual grasses; high fire 

frequency; and low resistance and resilience. The higher the score the lower the probability of perennial 

grasses dominating a given area. 

A complete review of available GIS data was considered to determine the most representative approach to 

current vegetative condition. Each dataset’s relevant information was broken into categories and each 

category assigned a numeric value (GIS numerical “classification” process). For example, with fire 

frequency, the BLM identified the number of times a location had burned; each burned area received a 

numerical classification based on the burn count (years 2000–2017). A similar classification process was 

used for each of the datasets. 

Each layer was converted to a raster12 format which allowed more efficient processing. These data were 

used in an additive model and combined to derive a summary vegetation rating. The scores ranged from 

0–15. The lower the number the better the ecological condition (for example, a score of 2 would have 

more large native perennial bunchgrasses than a score of 8). 

These scores were used to further refine the model into the SEORAC’s three vegetation scores: largely 

intact (assigned a value of 1), moderately disrupted (assigned a value of 2) or severely disrupted (assigned 

a value of 3). A largely intact rating would indicate a minimal departure from potential condition. Final 

vegetation scores were assigned based on a) the natural breaks (statistical groupings) in the score 

identified in GIS, and b) additional refinements based on professional knowledge regarding specific site 

conditions within inventory units across the planning area. 

The southern half of the planning area has had Ecological Site Inventories (ESI) provisionally completed 

in the last 10 years. The BLM used this information to validate the model. Within the major soil and 

vegetation potential types, the BLM compared the ESI conditions to what is expected in the Ecological 

Site Description (ESD, the expected vegetative composition and condition baseline). This showed how 

departed a specific site is from the ESD. The BLM then compared the level of departure to the modelled 

ranking. In this validation step, the BLM found the model was consistent with what was expected from 

the ESD in areas with little or no juniper. In areas with higher densities of juniper, the model deviated 

from what was indicated by ESI. Given the small number of wilderness characteristics units with juniper 

located in a limited area within the planning area, no additional adjustments were made to the model to 

rectify this anomaly. However, those units with concentrated areas of juniper woodlands were manually 

rated by the IDT and assigned a low (severely disrupted) rating.

The IDT recognized that current site conditions in certain areas had experienced broad scale disturbance 

since the original ESI data was collected. For example, large fires in 2012 burned extensive areas which 

had been recently inventoried through ESI. In these areas, fire frequency and sagebrush cover in the 

model showed a different condition than in the ESI. The BLM records fire history, restoration and 

rehabilitation treatments, and other disturbance data. In these cases, however, the vegetation recovery is in 

the early seral stage.

Finally, the BLM incorporated data on where nonnative seedlings occurred. The SEORAC recommended 

emphasizing protection of wilderness characteristics where perennial native bunchgrasses dominate (over 

66% of the area). The SEORAC also recognized the short-term ecologic value of nonnative perennial 

grasses to establish desirable vegetation to compete with invasive annual grasses and to rapidly establish 

root systems to inhibit erosion, particularly after disturbances like fire. A high percentage of nonnative 

 

12 Raster data have a single value for a “cell” (or defined area like a meter square). Values are classified for each cell 

as a combination of inputs from multiple layers, like those listed above for the vegetation calculation. 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-13

grasses, however, indicate another departure from site potential. Where nonnative perennial grasses were 

extensive due to seeding the score was adjusted to account for the departure from site potential. The final 

Vegetation criteria rating for each unit is shown in Table C-2 at the end of this appendix. 

Hydrology Criteria

The following hydrology-related GIS data were collected for each of the 76 wilderness characteristics 

units: 

• Miles of perennial and intermittent streams 

• Proper functioning condition (PFC) rating of riparian areas, where available. Miles of each 

condition class were identified. Classes are:

o PFC – System in proper functioning condition

o FARU – Functioning at Risk, with upward (that is, improving) trend

o FARN – Functioning at Risk, trend not apparent

o FARD – Functioning at Risk, downward trend

o NF – Riparian area not functioning

• Number, location, and PFC condition class of springs, if known 

• Exclosures in each of the units by type13

The IDT used the SEORAC Hydrology criteria and definitions for riparian condition to annotate the 

condition and hydrologic category of resources in each of the 76 units. The BLM documented the number 

of springs and riparian miles in each unit, identified the condition class of the springs and riparian areas, 

and then ranked them according to the three SEORAC classifications under the Hydrology criteria: 

riparian resources which were functioning or with an upward trend were assigned a value of 1; riparian 

resources largely static or functional with downward trend were assigned a value of 2; and riparian 

resources largely nonfunctional were assigned a value of 3. 

In some instances, data was limited or incomplete and in those cases, the IDT incorporated the following 

approach: 

• Where hydrologic resources were known by the BLM to exist in a unit, but the data on riparian 

condition of those resources was insufficient to assign a PFC value to the Hydrology criteria, 

team discussions derived a final PFC determination.

• Many of the units have no riparian areas. In these cases, a No Riparian (NR) label was assigned to 

the Hydrology criteria. In these cases, no numeric value was applied for hydrology.

• Where No Data existed or no confident professional awareness of the hydrologic condition of a

unit could be made, the unit was assigned a rating of “ND.” No numerical value was assigned to 

the Hydrology criteria in these cases.

 

13 Springs were included in the analysis because they are often a part of larger riparian areas and may be impacted 

by livestock, wild horses, and wildlife use.Exclosures designed to limit direct access to water sources were 

identified.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-14

The final Hydrology rating is provided in Table C-2 and in Appendix B for each wilderness 

characteristics unit. 

Connectivity Criteria

The IDT considered the SEORAC Connectivity criteria at length. An important concern was the 

understanding that the SEORAC was interested in addressing large, continuous or contiguous landscapes 

that could be managed to provide consistent, broad habitat or other resource values. The SEORAC’s 

connectivity criteria reflects the extent to which a unit with wilderness characteristics is “connected to” 

other lands with wilderness characteristics, including designated Wilderness Study Areas. Larger 

landscapes or connected landscapes with common management objectives provide greater opportunities 

for consistent management of multiple resource values. The SEORAC recognized that these connected 

landscapes “may be positively impacted by management actions relative to...”14 isolated areas with 

potentially different objectives. 

In developing the BLM’s implementation of the Connectivity criteria, the IDT considered what level of 

connectivity should be applied. The SEORAC model rated a unit higher for each additional unit with 

wilderness characteristics sharing a boundary, regardless of the length (feet or miles) of the shared 

boundary. Each additional unit added to the Connectivity score. The BLM recognized that this might 

over-rate a unit’s Connectivity rating if the additional unit shared only a corner of boundaries. For 

example, the unit might be “connected” at a single point to another unit, but provide no real connection 

for habitat, migration or movement, or other resource management application. As proposed, the 

SEORAC connectivity rating could meet the criteria, but have no/little practical connectivity. 

After extensive considerations (see alternative approaches in the addendum to this appendix) of how best 

to reflect the SEORAC’s objectives, the IDT modified the SEORAC approach and used a different shared 

boundary threshold, where 30% or more of a unit’s boundary must be shared with a WSA. This number 

was selected to: a) be consistent with the three “breaks” or ratings of 1, 2, or 3 assigned by the SEORAC 

to the Hydrology and Vegetation criteria, b) meet a common statistic for large and small units that would 

meet the SEORAC’s recommendation for a broad set of habitat management and wildlife movement 

objectives, and c) meet a common level of manageability among units/WSAs to connect them at a broader 

landscape level. 

With these points in mind, the IDT considered several scenarios to implement the SEORAC criteria. Each 

approach is described in the section below on p. C-19, “Addendum to Alternative D: Alternative 

Processesfor Evaluating the Connectivity Criteria.” The final process used by the BLM to incorporate 

Connectivity follows. 

Initial Connectivity Rating

The initial connectivity criteria was determined by: a) the unit shares a border with (defined as within 50 

feet of another unit) or b) within 50 feet of or contiguous with a WSA. The 50-foot distance was selected 

to reflect a wildlife or avian species’ ability or willingness to cross the corridor to an adjacent area with 

wilderness characteristics. The IDT discussed this ability for mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and avian 

species. Usually, this corridor is undeveloped for the most part, often only a narrow developed road being 

present. This resulted in (parts of) 24 units being selected with an acreage total of 359,890 acres being 

 

14 Letter from Chad Boyd, Chairman on behalf of SEORAC, to Don Gonzalez, Vale District Manager. June 27, 

2014. 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-15

categorized as having high Connectivity. Table C-2 shows the initial and final SEORAC Connectivity 

rating for each of the 76 units. The following summarizes the first step in determining a unit’s 

Connectivity rating: 

• Connectivity Rating/Score of 1 (Highest):If a unit was “Contiguous” (no defining feature 

remaining between the inventory unit and a WSA), or a minimum of 30% of a unit’s overall 

boundary length is within 50 feet of another wilderness characteristics unit or WSA. 

• Connectivity Rating/Score of 2: Between 5% and 30% of a unit’s overall boundary is within 50

feet of another wilderness characteristics unit or WSA. These units received a value of 2 

(Moderate)

• Connectivity Rating/Score of 3: Less than 5% of a unit’s total perimeter length is within 50 feet

of a wilderness characteristics unit or WSA. These units received a value of 3 (Low or No 

Connectivity) 

The initial connectivity rating was recorded and incorporated with the other two criteria into what became 

the Final Overall Rating as described below.

Final Modification for the Overall Rating Based on Contiguous Wilderness Study 

Area Management

The initial overall rating – based on the above three criteria – was modified to reflect the importance of 

consistent management of neighboring public lands. The BLM revised the initial overall rating by 

evaluating the fragmentation of management with neighboring management of the wilderness resource. In 

this approach “Fragmentation” evaluates the extent to which the neighboring areas (shares a border with) 

have the same or similar management priorities. The goal of this approach was to avoid the division or 

separation of large, continuous, similarly-managed blocks of land into smaller, more isolated remnants.

To adjust for the importance the SEORAC placed on common management over landscapes which share 

similar resource challenges, the IDT’s approach was to integrate the connectivity criteria into the overall 

rating. The fragmentation calculation was then run on only those units that were initially selected as 

management emphasis on resources other than wilderness characteristics, but which were contiguous to a 

WSA. The initial rating was locked for all units that were not contiguous or were already prioritized for 

management of wilderness characteristics. For units which are contiguous only to WSAs, and the initial 

overall rating was to prioritize management for resources other than protecting wilderness characteristics, 

the unit was reassessed using the following filter: an edge-to-area ratio (miles of perimeter relative to 

acres in the unit) was calculated for each unit 15 to determine the level of fragmentation which would 

result based on the management priority chosen (emphasizing wilderness characteristics or other 

resources). 

The concept was to identify whether a unit predominantly shared its boundary with geographic 

neighbor(s) that were either: a) another unit prioritized for management of wilderness characteristics from 

the initial SEORAC model, or b) areas prioritized for management of other, non-wilderness 

characteristics. In other words, the management priority (wilderness values or “other” resources) resulting 

in the highest ratio of the unit’s perimeter length-by-area shared with one of the two management 

priorities was selected to be the preferred management priority, because it would result in the least 

 

15 This fragmentation approach considered the entire boundary of a unit; non-BLM managed lands were considered 

as managed for “other” resources.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-16

amount of edge—creating large, continuous, similarly managed blocks of land. Still another way to 

consider this is that a high ratio of managing to emphasize other resources would suggest that the unit’s 

neighbors were likewise emphasizing other resources and thus provide consistent management across the 

two landscapes.

Of the 44 units run through the filter, 24 were changed from a rating of low to a rating of high. Each 

contiguous wilderness characteristics unit was assigned the management emphasis that created the least 

edge. This resulted in 33 units with a total area of 417,196 acres.

Rationale for Selecting this Method: The process was focused on units which are contiguous with 

WSAs and which would “inherit” similar management emphasis for wilderness characteristics. While 

WSAs are specifically designated by Congress and have different management objectives and restrictions, 

areas outside WSAs which possess wilderness characteristics share those values. Recognizing landscapes 

which share similar objectives is a fundamental objective of the SEORAC model and are consistent with 

broad, landscape level land use planning emphases.

Final Ratings for Individual Wilderness Characteristics Units

Final results for individual units is provided in Table C-2.

Table C-2. Individual wilderness characteristics unit ratings.

Unit Name Unit 

Number Hydrology Vegetation Connectivity 

Initial 

Overall 

Rating

Final 

Overall 

Rating

Alcorta Rim OR-036-030 1 2 1 1 1

Alvord Desert 

Contiguous16 A OR-036-093 NR17 1 1 1 1

Alvord Desert 

ContiguousB OR-036-093 NR 2 1 2 1

Antelope Creek OR-034-018 2 3 2 2 2

Bannock Ridge OR-034-095 2 2 1 2 2

Big Grassy OR-036-069 NR 2 1 2 2

Black Butte OR-036-008 NR 2 1 2 1

Blue Canyon 

Contiguous A OR-034-113 NR 2 1 2 1

Blue Canyon Cont.B OR-034-113 NR 2 1 2 2

Blue Canyon Cont.D OR-034-113 NR 2 1 2 1

Blue Canyon Cont.E OR-034-113 1 2 1 1 1

Blue Mountain OR-036-039 ND18 2 1 2 2

Board Corral 

Mountain OR-034-016 2 3 1 2 2

Board Corral Spring OR-034-015 2 2 1 2 2

Broken Rim OR-034-027 2 2 2 2 2

Burnt Mountain OR-034-024 2 2 1 2 2

 

16 “Contiguous” refers to a wilderness characteristics unit with no physical feature (that is, a constructed road) 

between the unit and an adjacent WSA.

17 NR – No Riparian Resources Identified in the Unit 18 ND – No Data available to determine riparian condition.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-17

Unit Name Unit 

Number Hydrology Vegetation Connectivity 

Initial 

Overall 

Rating

Final 

Overall 

Rating

Cairn "C" OR-036-003 1 2 (High) 1 1 1

Cherry Well A OR-036-032 NR 2 1 2 1

Cherry Well B OR-036-032 NR 2 1 2 2

Cherry Well C OR-036-032 NR 2 1 2 2

Clark Ranch OR-034-060 ND 2 1 2 1

Clarks Butte 

Contiguous A OR-036-057 NR 3 1 2 2

Clarks Butte 

ContiguousB OR-036-057 NR 2 1 2 1

Cold Spring OR-034-061 ND 2 3 2 2

Coyote Wells OR-036-015 NR 2 1 2 2

Deadhorse OR-036-029 2 2 1 2 2

Deadman Creek OR-034-071 NR 2 3 2 2

Deer Flat OR-036-005 1 1 1 1 1

Disaster Peak 

Contiguous OR-036-094 NR 2 1 2 2

Double Mountain OR-034-040 1 2 3 2 2

Dry Creek Buttes 

Contiguous OR-034-117 NR 2 1 2 1

Granite Creek OR-034-075 ND 1 3 2 2

Grassy OR-036-068 NR 2 2 2 2

Hanson Canyon OR-036-016 NR 2 1 2 2

Hog Creek OR-034-063 2 2 2 2 2

Honeycomb 

Contiguous OR-034-116 NR 2 1 2 1

Hunter Creek OR-034-044 1 2 2 2 2

Hunter Spring OR-034-039 2 2 3 2 2

Indian Creek OR-034-036 2 2 3 2 2

Jordan Crators 

Contiguous A OR-036-092 NR 3 1 2 2

Jordan Crators 

ContiguousB OR-036-092 NR 2 1 2 2

Juniper Creek OR-034-047 1 2 2 2 2

Keeney Creek OR-034-035 1 2 1 1 1

Little Groundhog 

Reservoir OR-036-095 1 2 (High) 3 2 2

Lower Cow Lake A OR-036-052 NR 2 (High) 1 1 1

Lower Cow Lake C OR-036-052 NR 1 1 1 1

Lower Cow Lake D OR-036-052 NR 1 1 1 1

Lower Cow Lake E OR-036-052 NR 1 1 1 1

Lower Cow Lake F OR-036-052 NR 1 1 1 1

Lower Cow Lake G OR-036-052 NR 2 1 2 2

Lower Owyhee 

Canyon Contiguous A OR-034-115 NR 2 1 2 1

Lower Owyhee 

Canyon Contiguous D OR-034-115 1 2 1 1 1

Lower Owyhee 

Canyon ContiguousE OR-034-115 NR 2 1 2 1

Lower Owyhee 

Contiguous OR-036-077 NR 2 1 2 1

McIntyre Ridge OR-034-014 ND 2 1 2 2
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-18

Unit Name Unit 

Number Hydrology Vegetation Connectivity 

Initial 

Overall 

Rating

Final 

Overall 

Rating

McNulty OR-034-053 NR 1 1 1 1

Monuments OR-034-069 ND 1 3 2 2

Oregon Butte OR-036-004 1 2 1 1 1

Oregon Canyon 

Contiguous A OR-036-035 NR 2 1 2 1

Oregon Canyon 

ContiguousB OR-036-035 NR 2 1 2 2

Oregon Canyon 

ContiguousC OR-036-035 1 1 1 1 1

Oregon Canyon 

Contiguous D OR-036-035 1 2 1 1 1

Oregon Canyon 

ContiguousE OR-036-035 NR 2 1 2 2

Oregon Canyon 

Contiguous F OR-036-035 2 2 1 2 1

Oregon Canyon 

Mountain OR-036-050 1 2 1 1 1

Owyhee River 

Contiguous A OR-036-091 NR 2 1 2 2

Owyhee River Cont.B OR-036-091 NR 2 1 2 2

Owyhee River Cont.C OR-036-091 NR 2 (High) 1 1 1

Owyhee River Cont.D OR-036-091 NR 1 1 1 1

Owyhee River Cont.E OR-036-091 NR 2 1 2 1

Owyhee River Cont.F OR-036-091 ND 2 1 2 1

Owyhee River Cont.G OR-036-091 NR 3 1 2 1

Owyhee River Cont.H OR-036-091 ND 2 1 2 1

Prava Peak OR-034-042 1 1 1 1 1

Quartz Mountain OR-034-051 1 2 1 1 1

Rattlesnake Creek OR-036-028 1 2 1 1 1

Red Mountain OR-036-047 3 2 3 2 2

Rinehart Creek OR-034-059 NR 2 1 2 1

River A OR-034-106 NR 1 3 2 2

River B OR-034-106 NR 2 2 2 2

Rocky Basin OR-02-17 NR 1 3 2 2

Rookie Creek OR-034-019 ND 2 1 2 2

Rufino Butte OR-034-043 2 2 1 2 2

Sacramento Hill OR-036-014 1 2 1 1 1

Saddle Butte Cont. OR-034-120 NR 2 1 2 2

Sand Hollow OR-034-023 2 2 1 2 2

Schnable Creek OR-034-057 ND 2 2 2 2

Selle Gap OR-034-107 ND 2 2 2 2

Slaughter Gulch OR-034-073 1 2 3 2 2

Sourdough Mountain OR-034-030 NR 2 2 2 2

Spanish Charlie Basin OR-034-092 NR 3 2 2 2

Sperry Creek Cont. OR-034-119 1 2 1 1 1

Spring Mountain OR-034-096 2 2 3 2 2

Squaw Creek OR-034-034 1 2 1 1 1

Steamboat Ridge OR-034-058 2 3 1 2 2

The Tongue OR-034-054 2 2 1 2 2

Three Fingers Rock 

North OR-034-056 NR 2 1 2 2
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-19

Unit Name Unit 

Number Hydrology Vegetation Connectivity 

Initial 

Overall 

Rating

Final 

Overall 

Rating

Trail Creek OR-034-031 1 2 2 2 2

Twelve Mile Creek 

Contiguous A OR-036-044 NR 2 1 2 2

Twelve Mile Creek 

ContiguousB OR-036-044 NR 3 1 2 1

Twelve Mile Creek 

ContiguousC OR-036-044 1 2 1 1 1

Twin Butte OR-036-002 NR 2 1 1 1

Wall Rock Ridge OR-034-052 2 2 1 2 1

West Fork Bendire OR-034-007 1 2 (High) 2 1 1

Whitehorse Butte A OR-036-045 1 2 1 1 1

Willow Creek 

ContiguousE (Border) OR-036-087 ND 1 1 1 1

Willow Creek 

Contiguous A OR-036-087 1 2 1 1 1

Willow Creek 

ContiguousB OR-036-087 NR 2 1 2 1

Willow Creek 

ContiguousC OR-036-087 NR 2 1 2 1

Willow Creek 

Contiguous D OR-036-087 1 1 1 1 1 

Addendum to Alternative D: Alternative Processes for

Evaluating the Connectivity Criteria

The IDT considered several different processes to incorporate the Connectivity criteria. These are 

provided for public review. Each of the processes is explained and the rationale used leading to not being 

selected in the final process.

Process 1: Revise the initial Overall Rating to High if a Dominant Percent of a Unit 

is Adjacent to Another Wilderness Characteristics Unit.

The initial model was run, followed by a modified overall ranking described as follows. Units that were 

not selected for protection of wilderness characteristics (management emphasis for other resources) but 

shared at least 85%19 of the border (within 500 feet) with lands that were selected for protecting the 

wilderness characteristics, of a border received a High overall rating. All other polygons retained their 

original SEORAC rating. This resulted in 42 (10 additional) units with an acreage total of 407,349 acres 

would be categorized as high priority to protect wilderness characteristics.

Rationale for not selecting this alternative approach: The IDT determined that this effectively led to 

too much of an emphasis on lands with wilderness characteristics. The initial determination on wilderness 

characteristics would unnecessarily have rated units emphasizing wilderness characteristics twice.

 

19 The IDT initially reviewed 90%, but 85% showed a clearer statistical break of the data. 
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-20

Process 2: Revise the Initial Overall Rating to High in All Cases Where a Unit is 

Contiguous to WSAs.

The initial SEORAC Model was rated so that any wilderness characteristics unit that is contiguous to a 

Wilderness Study Area (including non-WSAareas identified in the 1991 Wilderness Study Report as

suitable for wilderness designation) received a High Overall Rating. In this case, the fact that the unit was 

contiguous was weighed higher than any other rating; the IDT discussion argued that management would 

be more consistent with WSAs when no boundary separated the unit from a WSA. The argument for this 

scenario is that when there is no physical, developed separation between a WSA and a unit with 

wilderness characteristics, the unit inherits most/all of the WSA’s criteria. This does not suggest that the 

unit is managed as a WSA; different management is prescribed, but they share the same characteristics.

All other polygons retained the initial SEORAC rating. This resulted in 80 wilderness characteristics 

units/parcels with an acreage total of 527,088 acres categorized as high priority to protect for wilderness 

characteristics.

Rationale for not selecting this alternative approach: The IDT agreed that the emphasis on prioritizing 

a unit on being contiguous with a WSA overestimated the Connectivity criteria and was beyond the intent 

of the SEORAC Model.

Process 3: Revise the Initial Overall Rating to High for All Units Sharing a 

Moderate Percentage of the Boundary With Other Areas With Wilderness 

Characteristics.

The initial SEORAC Model was run as above, after which, any wilderness characteristics units that 

shared (within 500 feet) at least 30% of its border with other area(s) possessing wilderness characteristics 

(includes WSAs and inventoried lands with wilderness characteristics) received a High overall rating. All 

other polygons retained the original SEORAC rating. This resulted in 87 units with an acreage total of 

684,946 acres being categorized as high priority to protect for wilderness characteristics.

Rationale for not selecting this alternative approach: This approach was determined by the IDT to be 

unsupportable; we had no strong rationale for what percentage of shared boundary to use for the 

connectivity score. There were no natural breaks to the distribution and only an unsupportable break using 

a 30/30/30 split (as in other SEORAC criteria). This approach was dropped after reviewing the product; 

however, this did lead to a modification of the shared (within 500 feet) boundary value (from the original 

90% to 85%) for the Modified SEORAC (Approach 2) based on the natural breaks in the histogram for 

the shared boundary values.

Process 4: Revise the Initial Overall Rating by Evaluating a Modification to 

Fragmentation Model (BLM’s selected model in the Final) of Areas with 

Wilderness Resource Values.

This approach dropped the initial model’s connectivity determination and used a modified fragmentation 

approach for all units sharing a border with both WSAs and units with wilderness characteristics. Each 

unit with wilderness characteristics was evaluated if it shared a boundary with either another unit(s) with 

wilderness characteristics or a WSA. If the edge/boundary shared (using a distance of adjacent within 500 

feet to another unit, or contiguous to a WSA) a dominance (possessing a higher boundary to area ratio) 

with other areas with wilderness characteristics, the Connectivity criteria was ranked High (value of 1).

As with the final process adopted by the BLM, this model results in less fragmentation of common 

management. If the unit shared (had a higher ratio) with other areas (includes all other management 

emphases and agencies, private lands, and areas without wilderness characteristics, including non-WSAs) 

it receives a Low (value of 3 indicating that the adjacent management is focused on values and uses other 

than wilderness characteristics), again to reduce the amount of fragmentation of management.
Draft SEORMP Amendment and EIS Appendix C

C-21

Rationale for not selecting this alternative approach: This approach was rejected for several reasons. 

First, a unit which is contiguous with a WSA is assumed to be a higher priority for management of the 

wilderness resource than a unit which is within 500 feet of another unit. WSAs are congressionally 

designated and managed under specific direction to avoid activities that could impair the wilderness 

resource. Contiguous areas subsequently inventoried and found to possess wilderness characteristics share 

common resources and are areas where the BLM can enhance protection of both WSAs and lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Second, when Congress eventually makes a wilderness decision on WSAs, the 

adjacent lands with wilderness characteristics afford Congress additional options for which areas to 

release from WSA designation or designate as Wilderness. Finally, units which share a greater edge with 

management for other resources (development, nonfederal lands, habitat requirements) could be grouped 

together and ignore higher priority direction to protect wilderness resources.