Prineville District Office 

BLM

October 2008

Draft 

John Day Basin 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume I: Chapters 1-5 
As the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency, the Department 

of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public 

lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the wisest use 

of our land and water resources, 

protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national 

parks and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life 

through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to 

assure that their development is in 

the best interest of all our people. 

The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for 

people who live in Island Territories 

under U.S. administration. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

John Day Basin RMP 

3050 NE 3rd Street 

Prineville, Oregon 97754 

541-416-6700 

Email: John_Day_Basin_RMP@blm.gov 

Website: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/prineville 

Privacy 

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will 

be retained on file in the Prineville District Office as part of the public 

record for this planning effort. Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from 

public inspection, or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information 

Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written 

comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. 

All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 

businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

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

2. Cooperating Agencies/Governments: Counties containing BLM land within the planning area, State of 

Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. 

3. Draft (X) Final ( ) 

4. Administrative Action (X) Legislative Action ( ) 

5. Abstract: The Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan (JDBRMP) and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement analyze five alternatives for managing approximately 456,000 acres of land administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Central and Eastern Oregon. BLM lands within the planning area are located 

in Grant, Wheeler County, Gilliam, Sherman, Wasco, Jefferson, Umatilla, and Morrow counties. Each of the 

Action Alternatives would revise management guidance for lands managed under the 1985 John Day Resource 

Management Plan (JDRMP), the eastern portion of BLM Lands managed under the 1986 Two Rivers Resource 

Management Plan (RMP), and the southwestern portion of lands managed under the Baker RMP. The five 

alternative combinations of land use allocations and allowable uses respond to the significant issues identified 

during scoping: Landscape Health, Access and Travel Management, and management of public lands near the 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR). Much of this land was acquired as a result of the Oregon Land Exchange 

Act of 2000. Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative. 

Common to All Alternatives – Some existing management will be continued. 

Alternative 1 – Current management (No Action/No Change)
 

Common to Alternatives 2 through 5 – Some common changes to current management would be adopted 

under Alternatives 2-5, including management of vegetation, fire, and aquatic habitat; reduction in the area 

open to cross-country OHV travel; increases in the area closed to OHV travel or limited to designated roads 

and trails; management of visual resources on NFJDR lands; management of lands found to possess Wilderness 

Characteristics and identified for protection; and designation of new, or elimination of existing ACECs. Grazing 

management would be guided by a Grazing Decision Matrix. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) – Under this alternative, the interim transportation system would reduce 

open road miles by half, and the NFJDR would be recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) 

status. 

Alternative 3 – The NFJDR area would be opened to grazing, and the most miles of road would be available for 

public use. NFJDR lands would be recommended as suitable for WSR status.
1

Alternative 4 – The NFJDR would not be recommended as suitable for WSR status, and grazing allotments on 

acquired NFJDR lands would remain closed to grazing.
1

Alternative 5 – No areas would be open to cross-country OHV use.
 

6. Date comments on the draft must be received: Comments will be accepted for ninety (90) calendar days 

following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register. 

Comments must be filed at the Prineville District Office attention: John Day Basin RMP Team Lead at the 

address below or at the following e-mail address: John_Day_Basin_RMP@blm.gov. You may also respond via 

fax to (541) 416-6798. 

Responsible Official: Christina Welch, Central Oregon Field Manager, Prineville USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Authorizing Official: Ed Shepard, State Director, Oregon-Washington USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

For further information contact: 

Bureau of Land Management 

John Day Basin RMP Team Lead
1

Prineville District Office
1

3050 NE 3rd Street
1

Prineville, Oregon 97754
1

Telephone: (541) 416-6700
1
United States Department of the Interior
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
	

Prineville Field Office
	

3050 NE Third St.
	

Prineville, OR 97754 

In reply refer to: 1610 

October 2008 

Dear Reader: 

Attached for your review and comment is the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS) for the Oregon Bureau of Land Management 

Prineville Field Office. BLM prepared this document in consultation with cooperating agencies, 

and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), implementing regulations, the BLM’s land 

use planning handbook (H-1601-1), and other applicable law and policy. 

The planning area consists of about 5,450,225 acres of land which includes about 456,609 acres 

of public lands managed by the Prineville Field Office. BLM lands within the planning area are 

located in Grant (156,714 acres), Wheeler (140,271 acres), Gilliam (56,748 acres), Sherman 

(37,930 acres), Wasco (26,402 acres), Jefferson (23,926 acres), Umatilla (11,1143 acres), and 

Morrow (3,478 acres) counties. When approved, this RMP will replace the Baker, John Day, and 

Two Rivers Resource Management Plans for the lands within the planning area and will guide 

the management of public lands administered by the Prineville Field Office into the future. The 

John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and supporting information are available on the 

project web site at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/prineville/plans/johndayrmp/index.php 

The BLM encourages the public to provide information and comments pertaining to the analysis 

presented in the Draft RMP/EIS. We are particularly interested in feedback on the proposed 

alternatives, the analysis of their respective management decisions, and any new information 

that would help the BLM as it develops the plan. In developing the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, which is the next phase of the planning process, the decision maker may select various 

management decisions from each of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS for the 

purpose of creating a management strategy that best meets the needs of the resources and values 

in this area. As a member of the public, your timely comments on the John Day Basin Resource 

Management Plan will help the BLM formulate the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Comments will be 

accepted for ninety (90) calendar days following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

publication of its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BLM can best utilize your 

comments and resource information submissions if received within the review period. 

i 
,

Comments may be submitted electronically at: John_Day_Basin_RMP@blm.gov. Comments 

may also be submitted by mail to: 3050 NE Third St, Prineville, OR 97754. To facilitate 

the analysis of comments and information submitted, we strongly encourage you to submit 

comments in an electronic format. 

Your review and comments on the content of this document are critical to the success of this 

planning effort. We request that you make your comments as specific as possible. 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal 

identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in 

your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Public meetings to provide an overview of the document, respond to questions, and take public 

comments will be announced by local media and public mailings at least 15 days in advance of 

the scheduled date. 

Copies of the Draft RMP/EIS have been sent to affected Federal, state and local government 

agencies and Tribal governments. Copies of the Draft RMP/EIS are available for public 

inspection at the Deschutes Public Library in Bend, Oregon, and the Grant County Library 

in John Day, Oregon. Copies are also available for public inspection at the following BLM 

locations: 

Prineville District Office – Bureau of Land Management 

3050 NE Third St. 

Prineville, OR 97754 

Oregon State Office – Bureau of Land Management 

333 SW 1st Ave. 

Portland, OR 97204 

Thank you for your continued interest in the John Day Basin Resource Management Plan. 

We appreciate the information and suggestions you contribute to the planning process. For 

additional information or clarification regarding this document or the planning process, please 

contact the John Day Basin RMP Team Lead at (541) 416-6700 or by e-mail at: 

John_Day_Basin_RMP@blm.gov. 

Sincerely 

Christina M. Welch 

Field Manager Central Oregon Resource Area 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

Volume I 

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
 

Other Management Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
 

Environmental and Social Consequences ..........................................................xxx
1

Purpose and Need for a Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
 

Biophysical Context and Planning Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
 

Public Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
 

Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
 

Management Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
 

Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
 

Chapter 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
 

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
 

Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
 

Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints ........................................................4
1

The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
 

Related Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
 

Purpose and Need for a Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
 

Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
1

Issues Identified During Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
 

Data Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
 

How this document is organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
 

Chapter 2 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
 

Planning for BLM Land Management in the John Day Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
 

How This Chapter Is Organized...................................................................21
 

Key Features of the Alternatives...................................................................23
 

Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
1

Description of each Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
1

Summary of Alternative Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
 

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed Further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
 

Summary of Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204
1

Chapter 3 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217
1

Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217
1

Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
 

Blue Mountains Ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220
1

Soils ..........................................................................................226
1

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
 

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
 

iii 
 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243
 

Fire ..........................................................................................245
1

Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
 

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264
1

Wild Horses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272
 

Wilderness Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273
 

Caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273
 

Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
1

Special Management Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .275
1

Paleontology Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279
 

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280
1

People in the John Day Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282
 

Resource Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305
1

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337
 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339
 

Summary of Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341
 

Analyses of Environmental Consequences by Resource or Resource Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .344
1

Chapter 5 Consultation and Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .501
 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .503
 

Cooperating Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .503
 

Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .507
1

List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .509
 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .513
 

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .531
 

Volume II 

Appendix A: Planning and Implementation Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1
 

Appendix D: Special Status Plants Documented or Suspected on BLM Lands 

Appendix I-1: Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1-1
 

Appendix I-2: Documentation of Wild and ScenicRiver Eligibility for the North Fork John Day River . . . . . . . . I2-1
 

Appendix I-3: Wild and Scenic River Draft Suitability Study for North Fork John Day River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3-1
 

Appendix B: Best Management Practices.............................................................. B-1
 

Appendix C: Noxious Weed Control Mitigations/Stipulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1
 

in the John Day Basin Planning Area..............................................................D-1
 

Appendix E: Biophysical Setting Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
 

Appendix F: Comparison of Current Vegetation Conditions to the Acceptable Range of Variability . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
 

Appendix G: Desired Conditions for Stream Channel Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G-1
 

Appendix H: Special Status Wildlife................................................................. H-1
 

Appendix J: Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
 

Appendix K: Recreation Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K-1
 

iv 
Table of Contents 

Appendix L: Existing Rights-of-Way.................................................................. L-1
 

Appendix M: Withdrawn Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-1
 

Appendix N: Implementation and Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-1
 

Appendix O: Priority Species Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O-1
 

Appendix P: Common and Scientific Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P-1
 

Appendix Q: Wildlife and Vegetation Species associated with Riparian Areas..............................Q-1
 

Appendix R: Social and Economic Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R-1
 

Appendix S: Snags and Salvage...................................................................... S-1
 

List of Tables 

Table ES-1. Synthesis of environmental consequences (including social, economic, and ecological) of management 

alternatives on resources and resource uses in the John Day River Basin plan area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxx
1

Table 1-1 BLM Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1

Table 2-1. Comparison of alternatives showing key differences in resource or resource use objectives among 

alternatives for management of BLM lands within the John Day Basin planning area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1

Table 2-2. Down wood densities for managed stands (total tons/acre includes large pieces) 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

Table 2-3. Measures of Attainment of ACS Objectives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

Table 2-4. Management of Riparian Areas by Function Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
 

Table 2-5: General Guidelines1 for Seasonal Restriction and Distance Buffers ............................... 75
1

Table 2-6. Minimum snag1 densities for managed stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

Table 2-7. Areas to be Managed for Wilderness Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
1

Table 2-8. Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classification (acres) by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1

Table 2-9. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
 

Table 2-10. Grazing Decision Matrix, given voluntary permit relinquishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
1

Table 2-11. Factors and Weights used in the Grazing Decision Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
 

Table 2-12. Benefits-based Recreation Setting Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
1

Table 2-13. Recreation Management by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
1

Table 2-14. Off-Highway Vehicle Designations by Alternative and Special Recreation and Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
1

Table 2-15. Interim and prescribed road density standards for Alternative 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
1

Table 2-16. Interim and prescribed road density standards for Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
1

Table 2-17. Areas subject to restrictions of Minerals, Rights-of-way, Renewable Energy, Communication Sites 

and Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
1

Table 2-18. Lands Suitable for Acquisition (carried forward from John Day River Plan) ...................... 185
1

Table 2-19 Land Tenure Zones by Alternative (acres). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
1

Table 2-20. Distribution of existing management direction for agricultural fields. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
1

Table 2-21. Distribution of management direction for agricultural fields for all of the action alternatives. . . . . . . 196
1

Table 2-22. Stipulations on withdrawing water from streams and rivers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
1

Table 2-23. Summary of Alternative Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
 

Table 2-24. Summary of key effects by resource in the John Day River Basin plan area. ...................... 204
1

Table 3-1. Ecoregion Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
1

v 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 3-2. Accreted Terranes in the Planning Area with Rock Types and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
 

Table 3-3. Sensitive Soils by Soil Associations and Subecoregion.......................................... 227
1

Table 3-4. Acres of BLM Land Zoned as Agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
 

Table 3-5. Special Status Plant Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
 

Table 3-6. Distribution of Fire Regime Types and Fire Regime Condition Class by Biophysical Setting for 

the John Day Basin Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
1

Table 3-7. Fuels Treatments.......................................................................... 249
 

Table 3-8. Stream Channel Conditions 1980s-2000s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
 

Table 3-9. Oregon Water Quality Index Status and Trends Summary (1994-2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
1

Table 3-10. 303 (d) Listed Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
1

Table 3-11. Factors that Influence Stream Surface Shade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
 

Table 3-12. Average Annual Goals for Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
 

Table 3-13. Bighorn Sheep Releases and Current Population Estimates in the John Day Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
1

Table 3-14. Population Change in Counties and Towns within the Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
1

Table 3-15. Number and Percent of Persons of Hispanic Origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
1

Table 3-16. Change in Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
 

Table 3-17. Prineville District Office Expenditures ...................................................... 290
1

Table 3-18. Salary Expenditures for BLM PersonnelWithin the Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
 

Table 3-19. Annual AUM Authorizations in the Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
 

Table 3-20. Number of Farms and Acres of Crops in the Counties of the JDBRMP Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
 

Table 3-21. Recreation Trip Expenditures.............................................................. 296
1

Table 3-22. Community Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
 

Table 3-23. Levels of Community Resilience for Columbia Basin Study Communities, With Levels of Scores 

on Scales Comprising the Community Resilience Index (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
 

Table 3-24. Summary of U.S. and State Highway Mileage within the Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
1

Table 3-25. County Transportation System in theJohn Day Basin RMP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
1

Table 3-26. Mineral Material Sites in the Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
1

Table 4-1. Synthesis of environmental consequences (including social, economic, and ecological) of management 

alternatives on resources and resource uses in the John Day River Basin plan area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
 

Table 4-2. WEPP Sediment Yield by Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
1

Table 4-3. Comparison of soil effects of alternatives for selected resource uses for the John Day River Basin 

plan area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
1

Table 4-4. Annual and 30-year Vegetation Treatment Assumptions by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
1

Table 4-5. Acres of Open, Closed and Reserve Forage Allotments in the plan area if all grazing permits 

were relinquished. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
1

Table 4-6. Summary of differences in management direction between alternatives for within vegetation 

community characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
 

Table 4-7. Suppression strategies by zone in acres....................................................... 375
1

Table 4-8. Relative Fire Hazard on BLM lands and across all ownerships in the plan area among alternatives. . . 376
1

Table 4-9. Size of VRM class zones by alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
 

Table 4-10. Comparison of water right uses between alternatives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
1

Table 4-11. Acres of OHV Designations within Riparian Management Areas by Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
 

Table 4-12. Percent of BLM lands in the plan area by livestock grazing authorization availability category 

as combined for wildlife effects analyses (see text). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
1

vi 
Table of Contents 

Table 4-13 Average Allowable Road Density**, Interim Road Density, and Approximate Priority Community 

Composition* by Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
 

Table 4-14. Acres of Key Wildlife Habitat by Prescribed Road Density Class on BLM Lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
 

Table 4-15. Acres of Key Habitats by Interim Road Density Category and Alternative on BLM Lands.......... 411
 

Table 4-16. Acres of Key Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands by Land Tenure and Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
 

Table 4-17. Comparison of management effects on Oustandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs*) of 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) by Alternative (* BLM public lands in WSR segment only). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
 

Table 4-18. Grazing Matrix Results (AUMs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
1

Table 4-19. Number of days sound from Off-Highway Vehicle Use could be heard on public land from 

Little Canyon Mountain area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
 

Table 4-20. Comparison of the Effects of Management Alternatives on Motorized and Non-motorized 

Recreation Opportunities and Development on BLM lands in the John Day River Basin plan area. . . . . . . . . 461
 

Table 4-21. Summary of Effects of Management Alternatives on Motorized and Non-Motorized Opportunities 

and Development in Little Canyon Mountain SRMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
 

Table 4-22. Summary of recreation management effects on public lands recreation in the plan area 

by alternative.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
 

Table 4-23. Average Road Density for BLM Lands (mi/mi2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
1

Table 4-24. Existing Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes and road miles within VRM Class. . . . . . . . . . 477
1

Table 4-25. Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes and BLM road miles within VRM Classes for the 

Action Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
 

Table 4-26. Estimated Outputs by Alternative1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
 

Table 4-27. Average Annual Employment1 by Program by Alternative (full and part-time jobs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
 

Table 4-28. Average Annual Labor Income by Program by Alternative (thousands of 2007 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
 

Table 4-29. Maximum and Minimum Head Months Possible with the Grazing Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
 

Table 4-30. Average Annual Employment Associated with Grazing by Alternative (Full and Part-time Jobs). . . . 492
 

Table 4-31. Average Annual Labor Income Associated with Grazing by Alternative 

(Thousands of 2007 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
 

Table 5-1. Potential and Actual Cooperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1

Table 5-2. John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC) Member list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
1

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Desired distribution of stream conditions for the John Day River Basinover the life of 

the John Day River Basin RMP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 

Figure 2-2. Linear Feature Decision Tree for Aquatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
1

Figure 3-1. Underlying Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
 

Figure 3-2. Clarno Formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
 

Figure 3-3. John Day Formation...................................................................... 222
 

Figure 3-4. Picture Gorge Basalts on top of Clarno Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
 

Figure 3-5. Coyote Willow on Bridge Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
1

Figure 3-6. Typha latifolia (Broadleaf cattail) .......................................................... 230
1

Figure 3-7. The American speedwell.................................................................. 231
 

Figure 3-8. Layering of creeping spike rush, 3-square full rush up to cockleburr on 

the mainstem John Day River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
 

vii 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 3-9. Reed canarygrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
 

Figure 3-10. Naked sedge near Burnt Ranch on the John Day River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
 

Figure 3-11. White alder in Pine Hollow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
 

Figure 3-12. Mountain alder/red osier dogwood association on Deer Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
 

Figure 3-13. Vegetation Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
1

Figure 3-14. Percent of Area by Fire Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
 

Figure 3-15. Fire Regime Condition Class on BLM Lands Across the John Day Basin Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . 245
1

Figure 3-16. Central Oregon Fire Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
1

Figure 3-17. Miles of Stream by Land Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
1

Figure 3-18. Stream Channel and Flood Plain Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
1

Figure 3-19. River Channel Evolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
 

Figure 3-20. Condition of Inventoried Stream Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
 

Figure 3-21. Evaluation of Riparian Processes on BLM Streams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
 

Figure 3-22. Factors that Affect Stream Temperature Dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
1

Figure 3-23. John Day River Surface Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
 

Figure 3-24. John Day River Basin Stream Flow Restoration Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
1

Figure 3-25. Road Density on BLM lands within the Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
1

Figure 3-26. Employment History of Grant, Wheeler, and Gilliam Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
 

Figure 3-27. Unemployment Rate of John Day Basin Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
 

Figure 3-28. Percent of Population below Poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
 

Figure 3-29. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
 

Figure 3-30. BLM Timber Harvest in Grant and Wheeler Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
1

Figure 3-31. BLM Share of Total County Harvest in Eight County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
1

Figure 3-32. Percent of County Population by Reported Race (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
1

Figure 3-33. Percent of County Population below Poverty Level .......................................... 304
1

Figure 3-34. Timber Harvesting in Oregon by Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
 

Figure 3-35. Miles of Road on BLM Land by Surface Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
1

Figure 3-36. Land Ownership in the JDBRMP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
1

Figure 3-37. Water Availability in the John Day Basin 4 out of 5 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
1

Figure 3-38. Percent Ownership of Lands supplied Water from BLM Owned Points of Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
1

Figure 4-1. FlamMap Fire Hazard for the John Day River Basin plan area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
1

Figure 4-2. Components of increases in peak flows as a result of vegetation and fire treatments for 2 year and 100 

year floods between alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
 

Figure 4-3. Change in stream channel condition for streams inventoried in 1980 and 2000 and projected to 2020 for 

the action alternatives only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
1

Figure 4-4. Riparian widths compared to results of 57 studies on minimum widths (distance) required 

to meet resource requirements of channel complexity, nutrient/sediment/temperature buffering, 

general ecosystem function, anadromous fish, mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and bird habitat 

(feet from stream channel). ...................................................................... 389
 

Figure 4-5. Sediment delivery from road crossings to stream channels by alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
1

Figure 4-6. Percent of plan area sediment delivery to stream channels at road crossings by jurisdiction. . . . . . . . 393
 

Figure 4-7. Percentage of Key Wildlife Habitats by Prescribed Road Density Class on BLM Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
 

Figure 4-8. Percentage of Key Habitats by Interim Road Density Calculated on BLM lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
1

viii 
Table of Contents 

Figure 4-9. Approximate average road density by alternative within Priority Communities -BLM Only* . . . . . . . 412
 

Figure 4-10. Percentage of Key Habitats by Road Density Category Calculated on BLM Lands Only Versus 

Cumulatively (All Roads within 1 mile of BLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
 

Figure 4-11. Percentage of Key Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands by Road Band (Yards)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
1

Figure 4-12. Percentage of Key Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands by Road Band (Yards) and Alternative*. . . . . . . 415
1

Figure 4-13. Acres of Security and Reduced Security Habitat on BLM Lands within Seasonal Closures by 

Alternative* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
1

Figure 4-14 . Acreages and Percentages of BLM Lands Designated as Open, Limited, and Closed to OHV use 

by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
1

Figure 4-15. Alternative 1 – Percentage of Key Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands by OHV Designation . . . . . . . . . 418
 

Figure 4-16. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5* – Percentage of Key Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands 

by OHV Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
 

Figure 4-17. Percentage of Key Wildlife Habitats on BLM Land by Land Tenure and Alternative.............. 421
 

List of Maps 

Map 1: John Day Basin Resource Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
1

Map 10: Grazing Allotments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108-109
1

Map 11: Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Mangement Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-123
 

Map 26: Transportation Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130-131
1

Map 12A: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Lower John Day . . . . . . . . 132-133
 

Map 12B: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Sutton Mountain. . . . . . . . 134-135
1

Map 12C: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Rudio Mountain . . . . . . . . 136-137
1

Map 12D: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - South Fork John Day . . . . 138-139
 

Map 12E: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Upper John Day . . . . . . . . 140-141
1

Map 12F: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - North Fork John Day . . . . 142-143
1

Map 13A: Alternative 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

Map 2: North Fork John Day Acquired Lands Oregon Land Exchange Act 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1

Map 3: Sensitive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-37
1

Map 4: Potential Vegetation: Biophysical Setting (BpSs) and Priority Vegetation Treatment Needs . . . . . . . . . . 44-45
1

Map 5: Fire Response Zones and Fire Regime Condition Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-51
1

Map 6: Priority Watershed Assessments and Conservation Opportunity Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-61
1

Map 7: Wilderness Charactersitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82-83
 

Map 8: Visual Resource Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88-89
 

Map 9: Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-93
 

Lower John Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148-149 

Map 13B: Alternative 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

Sutton Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-151 

Map 13C: Alternative 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

Rudio Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152-153 

Map 13D: Alternative 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

South Fork John Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154-155 

Map 13E: Alternative 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

Upper John Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156-157
1

ix 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 13F: Alternative 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

North Fork John Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158-159
1

Map 14A: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Lower John Day. . . . 160-161
1

Map 14B: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Sutton Mountain . . . 162-163
1

Map 14C: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Rudio Mountain. . . . 164-165
1

Map 14D: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

South Fork John Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166-167
1

Map 14E: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - Upper John Day . . . . 168-169
1

Map 14F: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway Vehicle Designations - 

North Fork John Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170-171
1

Map 15: Existing Land Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188-189
 

Map 16: Land Tenure - Common to All Action Alternatives.......................................... 192-193
 

Map 17: Environmental Protection Agency Ecoregions.................................................. 216
1

Map 18: Key Vegetation Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236-237
1

Map 19: 303d Listed Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256-257
1

Map 20: Wildlife Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266-267
1

Map 21: Locatable Mineral Potential.............................................................. 322-323
 

Map 22: Saleable Mineral Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326-327
1

Map 23: Oil and Gas Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330-331
1

Map 24: Geothermal Development Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332-333
 

Map 25: Transportation Erosion Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348-349
1

x 
Executive Summary
 

xi 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

xii 
Executive Summary 

Purpose and Need for a Revised Plan 

The purpose of the John Day Basin Resource Management Plan (JDB RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) is to provide direction for managing public lands in central and eastern Oregon under the 

jurisdiction of the Prineville District BLM. The JDB RMP will revise the Two Rivers RMP (1986); the John Day 

RMP (1985); and the Baker RMP (1989) which currently address management of BLM lands in the planning area. 

The JDB RMP will provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or 

restore resource conditions over the long term. 

There is a need for a new John Day Basin RMP because information and circumstances have changed since the 

original plans were approved, including: 

•	1 Changed circumstances and new information on economic, social, and biologic conditions within the 

planning area; 

•	1 New laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or supersede previous decisions; 

•	1 Changed user demands and activities that create new resource effects and user conflicts; and 

•	1 Changed acceptance of impacts. 

This Draft RMP/DEIS incorporates new information and regulatory guidance, and provides management direction 

where it may be lacking or requires clarification to resolve land use issues or conflicts. For certain activities, the 

BLM will carry forward current management direction that has proven effective and requires no change. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act is the primary authority for the BLM’s management of public 

lands. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides the basic national charter for environmental 

responsibility and requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental 

impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In concert, these 

two laws provide the guidance for all BLM activities. 

Biophysical Context and

Planning Boundaries 

The RMP planning area encompasses 5,450,225 acres (456,000 acres managed by the BLM) mostly within the 

John Day River basin of central and eastern Oregon (Map 1). Within the planning area, the BLM manages about 

456,000 acres of public land surface. The BLM managed lands fall in eight Oregon counties – Grant, Wheeler, 

Gilliam, Wasco, Sherman, Umatilla, Jefferson and Morrow. Of the surface area, 441,987 acres are in the Central 

Oregon Resource Area of the Prineville District BLM, and 14,622 acres are in the Baker Resource Area of the Vale 

District BLM. This RMP would provide direction for BLM lands within the planning area that are within the 

boundaries of both the Prineville and Baker Resource Areas. Private and county lands and lands administered by 

state or other federal governments are not subject to decisions made in this RMP. 

About 77% of BLM lands within the John Day Planning Area fall within the Blue Mountains Ecoregion, while 

about 23% are within the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Vegetation within the planning area is dominated by 

sagebrush shrubland, juniper woodland, dry and mesic mixed conifer forest, grassland, and riparian communities 

(Map 4). The primary disturbance element has been wildfire, with occasional episodes of insect/disease epidemics 

and wind and moisture driven erosion. 

xiii 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

xiv 
Executive Summary 

Public Scoping 

While formal public scoping began with publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in February 

2006, the BLM planning team actively pursued public input on planning issues and concerns both before and after 

that date in a variety of ways. A full scoping report was published in the Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS). Chapter 5 also provides more information. 

Issues 

As a result of public scoping and analysis of the adequacy of existing management to address new information and 

changed circumstances, three key planning issues were identified for the John Day Basin planning area: Landscape 

Health, Access and Travel Management, and newly acquired lands in the North Ford John Day River area. 

Issue 1: Landscape Health 

How should public land be managed to achieve healthy plant and animal communities? Where is it appropriate 

to allow Wildland Fire Use fires to burn? 

Issue 2: Access and Travel Management 

How should the BLM design a road system to efficiently deliver goods, people, and services across the 

planning area? What opportunities will BLM provide for motorized recreation, while protecting natural and 

cultural resources? 

Issue 3: North Fork of the John Day River 

How can the BLM manage newly acquired North Fork John Day River lands to protect native fish, wildlife 

habitat, and public recreation, as legislated in the Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000? 

Management Concerns 

In addition to the three key planning issues described above, other management concerns include: a) topics raised 

during scoping that require attention, but which have a lower level of controversy over management than the 

key issues identified above, or b) topics requiring guidance by BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (USDI-BLM, 

2005). Management concerns are addressed in the Draft RMP/DEIS, although the management related to them 

generally does not vary by alternative (except in select situations). Alternatives to address management concerns 

are described in more detail below. 

Management Alternatives 

Consistent with FLPMA, all alternatives analyzed under this Draft RMP/DEIS are designed to meet three broad 

goals to: 

•	1 protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

resource, and archeological values; 

•	1 preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition, provide food and habitat for fish and 

wildlife and domestic animals, and provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and 

xv 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 recognize the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands 

including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a) as it 

pertains to the public lands. 

Four Action alternatives were developed to address the identified issues and management concerns. A “No 

Action” alternative is required by law. 

Alternative 1 is the “No Action” Alternative, which would continue existing management direction. Alternative 2 

would best meet the purpose and need, and hence is the Preferred Alternative. 

The following briefly describes the main features of each of five the alternatives for resolving the key issues 

associated with managing BLM lands within the John Day Basin planning area (Landscape Health, Access and 

Travel Management, and newly acquired lands along the North Fork John Day River). Chapter 2 provides a 

comprehensive description of each alternative, including management common to all alternatives. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Some existing management guidance will be continued under any alternative. This management direction 

“Common to All Alternatives” is described in Chapter 2 for each resource or resource use. 

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) 

This alternative would continue existing management as directed under three different RMPs and their 

amendments. Key features of Alternative 1 that differ from Alternatives 2-5 (Action Alternatives) are described by 

key issue, below. 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Rangeland vegetation would be managed to achieve greater amounts of mid or late seral conditions. 

•	1 The majority of forestlands would be managed to produce timber. 

•	1 All unplanned fire ignitions would be suppressed while allowing for the safety of the public and fire 

personnel. 

•	1 All grazing allotments, except for those on newly acquired lands along the North Fork John Day River 

would be open to livestock use. 

•	1 Aquatics would continue to be managed under PACFISH 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 Over half of the BLM lands in the planning area (258,064 acres) would be designated as Open to crosscountry, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. OHV use on another 131,318 acres would be Limited to 

designated roads and trails, and 67,226 acres would be Closed to cross-country OHV use. 

•	1 An interim transportation system of 742 miles of BLM, State, County, and other agency routes across BLM 

lands would include: 572 miles of BLM routes open year-round, 61 miles of BLM routes open seasonally, 

and 250 miles of BLM routes that are currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public unless 

permission for access is acquired from private landowners. This interim transportation system, as well as 

the interim systems for each of the other four alternatives, will be in place for up to five years until a more 

specific Travel Management Plan (TMP) is completed. 

xvi 
Executive Summary 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

•	1 Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the 37 mile segment of the North Fork John Day River 

would receive interim protection without a final determination of suitability for Wild and Scenic River 

(WSR) status. 

•	1 The NFJDR grazing allotments (mostly recently acquired lands) would continue to be closed to livestock use. 

•	1 All BLM managed lands on the NFJDR would continue to be managed as Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) Class III. 

•	1 Management of other resources and uses would be consistent with either the Baker or John Day Resource 

Management Plans. 

Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) 

The following represents new management guidance that is Common to All Action Alternatives. Following this 

summary, key differences in management direction between the action alternatives are described. 

Landscape Health 

Landscape health is the product of managing a range of resources across the planning area. Vegetation, fire, and 

fuels management are key planning issues related to landscape health. Management alternatives to address other 

landscape health related issues (i.e., soils, aquatic habitat, wildlife, livestock grazing, wild horses, lands and 

realty) are described below in the section “Other Management Concerns” 

Vegetation 

•	1 Return community composition to within the Acceptable Range of Variability (ARV) for all Biophysical 

Settings (BpS) to the extent possible on BLM lands. 

•	1 Vegetation management would provide opportunities for products such as firewood, construction 

materials, or fuel for power generation when compatible with, and as a result of managing for ecosystem 

health objectives. 

•	1 Vegetation treatment priorities would be used that integrate vegetation management with other resource 

management needs (Map 4). 

Fire and Fuels 

•	1 Fires would be suppressed in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Full Suppression zone because of high 

risk to human life and property. 

•	1 In the Appropriate Management Response (AMR) zone, human life and property are not subject to as 

high a risk from wildfire as the WUI. Depending on conditions, resource availability, and anticipated fire 

behavior, the appropriate management response may range from full suppression to Wildland Fire Use. 

•	1 Maintain or increase wildlife habitat diversity, improve ecosystem integrity, and reduce fuel levels in 

order to decrease the chance of extreme habitat loss. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 Identify the following aggregate surfaced roads and main collector roads as part of the permanent 

transportation system: North Fork John Day, South Fork John Day, Franks Creek, Holmes Creek, 

Sunflower Creek, Deer Creek, Indian Creek, and Priest Hole. 

•	1 Develop a TMP within five years after a signed record of decision for this RMP that will describe the final 

transportation system. 

xvii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 If a road is changed to a trail, the trail would further be classified for a specific type of use (e.g. 

pedestrian, equestrian and other pack animals, mountain bike, OHV classification, etc.). 

•	1 Achieve prescribed road densities in the TMP as identified by Travel Management Area (TMA) based 

on the need to reduce impacts to key wildlife habitats and provide recreation consistent with recreation 

management objectives. Average prescribed road densities (miles of road per square mile) by Travel 

Management Area (TMA) for all action alternatives are as follows: 

◦ Lower John Day 1.26 

◦ North Fork John Day 2.00 

◦ Rudio Mountain 1.04 

◦ South Fork John Day 2.00 

◦ Sutton Mountain 1.35 

◦ Upper John Day 1.15 

•	1 Portions of each TMA may be above or below the average prescribed road density for the TMA as a whole. 

•	1 For public lands not in Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) or riparian management areas, parking or 

camping with motorized vehicles is permitted up to 100 feet off designated routes in areas designated as 

Limited or Closed to cross-country off road vehicle use. 

•	1 Within Open and Limited designations, the interim routes would be shared by both motorized and nonmotorized use, unless otherwise posted, until a final TMP can be prepared to designate site-specific routes. 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

Specific guidance for the North Fork John Day River area Common to All Action Alternatives and not already 

described above includes: 

•	1 Designate the North Fork John Day River corridor from Camas Creek to Wrightman Canyon an Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC; 16,837 acres) to protect visual quality, and designate it as an 

exclusion area for renewable energy and communication sites. 

•	1 Manage the proposed North Fork John Day River WSR, the proposed North Fork John Day ACEC, and 

most of JV Ranch as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II (Map 8.) 

•	1 Designate 52,033 acres of previously BLM administered and newly acquired public lands north of 

Monument and west of Highway 395 as the North Fork John Day River SRMA.
1

•	1 Include the North Fork John Day Road from Highway 395 to the end of the public easement at about river 

mile 41 in the final TMP. 

•	1 All lands in the NFJDR area would become classified Z-1 (retain in public ownership), except for a 2-acre 

parcel adjacent to private land that is difficult to manage. 

•	1 When considering private lands that may be suitable to acquire (Map 16) and place in public ownership, 

prioritize lands for acquisition that are within a 1⁄4 mile of the North Fork John Day River. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred) 

The BLM identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. In addition to guidance Common to All Alternatives 

and Common to All Action Alternatives, key features of Alternative 2 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Includes direction Common to All Alternatives and Common to All Action Alternatives. 

xviii 
Executive Summary 

Access and Travel Management 

In addition to guidance Common to All Alternatives and Common to All Action Alternatives, key features of 

Alternative 2 include: 

•	1 OHV use would be allowed in the plan area, but would be limited to designated roads and trails, with a 

few exceptions. 

•	1 Cross-country (Open) OHV use would be allowed on 4,488 acres in the Rudio Plateau area. Use adaptive 

management to allow continuance of cross-country OHV use on Rudio Plateau unless specified ecological 

or social thresholds are reached. 

•	1 OHV use on 367,298 acres would be Limited to designated roads and trails, and 84,823 acres would be 

Closed to cross-country OHV use. 

•	1 An interim transportation system of 333 miles of BLM, State, County, and other agency routes across BLM 

lands would include: 86 BLM miles open year around, 138 BLM miles open seasonally, and 9 miles of 

BLM routes that are currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public. The majority of closed roads 

under this alternative are currently inaccessible to the public. 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

•	1 Recommend the 37 mile segment of the North Fork John Day River determined eligible for inclusion 

in the WSR system as administratively suitable for designation by Congress as WSR with a Scenic 

classification with ORVs of fishery, scenery, and recreation. 

•	1 When implementing the Grazing Matrix tool, the NFJDR acquired lands would be treated as a Special 

Management Area similar in ecological value to WSAs, WSRs, Research Natural Areas (RNA), and 

ACECs. The nine allotments containing acquired lands in the NFJDR are treated as having been 

voluntarily relinquished and the Grazing Decision Matrix results would determine the proposed use. 

Two of the nine allotments containing acquired lands in the NFJDR would be available for Reserve Forage 

Allotments or Closure, and seven would remain unauthorized for grazing use (“Closed”). 

Alternative 3 

In addition to guidance Common to All Alternatives and Common to All Action Alternatives key features of 

Alternative 3 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except on the NFJDR acquired lands, the design of the Grazing Matrix would open 

allotments to grazing. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except about 5,088 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, and OHV use 

on 366,699 acres would be Limited to designated roads and trails. 

•	1 Use adaptive management to allow continuance of cross-country OHV use on Rudio Plateau unless 

specified ecological or social thresholds are reached. 

•	1 An interim transportation system of 879 miles of BLM, State, County, and other agency routes across BLM 

lands would include: 295 BLM miles open year round, 475 BLM miles open seasonally, 134 BLM miles 

of roads currently closed in the acquired lands near the NFJDR, and 250 miles of BLM routes that are 

currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public. 

xix 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

•	1 The eligible WSR segment of the NFJDR would be recommended as suitable with a Scenic and 

Recreational designation, depending on segment. The Recreational designation would be recommended 

in order to accommodate more traditional motorized vehicle use of the upper segments of the river. 

•	1 Much of the acquired lands in the NFJDR area would be open to grazing, but grazing would be excluded 

from riparian areas 

Alternative 4 

In addition to guidance Common to All Alternatives and Common to All Action Alternatives key features of 

Alternative 4 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except this alternative would apply the Grazing Matrix with a greater degree of 

sensitivity to social and ecological conflict, while maintaining the same sensitivity to livestock grazing 

demand as the other action alternatives. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 OHV designations would include: 2 acres Open, 365,242 acres Limited to designated routes (with some 

seasonal restrictions), and 91,366 acres Closed. 

•	1 The interim transportation system would be the same as Alternative 2. 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

•	1 Eligible river segments would not be recommended as suitable for designation by Congress as WSR. 

Unsuitable river segments would be managed in accordance with other RMP management objectives. 

•	1 Grazing allotments on acquired lands near the NFJDR would remain unauthorized for grazing use. 

Alternative 5 

In addition to guidance Common to All Alternatives and Common to All Action Alternatives, key features of 

Alternative 5 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 OHV use on Little Canyon Mountain near Canyon City would be more restricted than any other 

alternative. The “Golden Triangle” northwest of Mitchell would be limited to designated routes. 

OHV designations would include: No areas Open to cross-county OHV use, 371,787 acres Limited to 

designated roads and trails, and 84,823 acres Closed. 

•	1 The interim transportation system would be the same as Alternative 2. 

xx 
Executive Summary 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2. 

Other Management Concerns 

Other management concerns not already described above are addressed as follows: 

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Air quality would be managed according to existing management guidance. 

Soils 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Maintain and promote long-term, sustainable soil health and proper soil functioning condition. Restore 

function of non-functioning soils. 

Aquatics 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Implement an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). 

Wildlife 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

• Maintain or improve habitats to support healthy, productive and diverse populations and communities 

of native plants and animals appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. Where consistent with habitat 

capabilities, meet Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) management objective numbers for 

deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. 

Wild Horses 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

• Maintain the Murderer’s Creek wild horse herd at a level that maintains an ecological balance with other 

resources and resource uses, and maintains habitat in a stable or upward trend. Continue to manage for a 

herd size or appropriate management level (AML) of 50-140 horses. 

xxi 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Manage 11,929 acres in the following areas to protect Wilderness Characteristics: Pat’s Cabin, Lower John 

Day River, Spring Basin, Sutton Mountain, Clark Canyon (Dead Dog), and Big Canyon. 

Cave Resources 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Retain the natural condition of significant caves. Protect cave resource values including those contributing 

to significance, as well as others including biological deposits (e.g., middens, skeletal remains) and 

threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive plants or animals. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Provide interim protection for significant caves until a site-specific Cave Management Plan is written by 

preventing or requiring mitigations for intrusions that may damage cave resources. 

Visual Resources 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Maintain the scenic quality of river canyons, open space landscapes, cultural landscapes, and other areas 

having high quality visual resources. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Manage land according to VRM classifications shown on Map 8 and listed in Table 2-8. 

•	1 Manage the proposed North Fork John Day River WSR, the proposed North Fork John Day, Armstrong 

Canyon, and Ferry Canyon ACECs, most of JV Ranch, and areas identified for management for 

Wilderness Characteristics as VRM Class II (Map 8.) 

•	1 In the event that the existing WSAs are released from Wilderness Study by Congress, the VRM 

classification associated with those lands would be changed from VRM Class I to Class II. 

•	1 Allow all forms of vegetation and habitat management if consistent with the VRM Class objectives for the 

area, including prescribed fire, mechanical treatment and seeding. Design such projects to maintain or 

enhance VRM values. Design long-term vegetation maintenance to emulate natural processes. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) of WSRs (Map 9), and rivers determined 

to be administratively suitable for potential inclusion into the National WSR System. Provide interim 

protection and enhancement of ORVs on eligible rivers until suitability determinations are made. Largely 

follow management guidance of John Day and Two Rivers RMPs as amended, primarily by John Day 

River Management Plan (USDI-BLM 2001), except where noted in Chapter 2. 

xxii 
Executive Summary 

Wilderness 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Maintain the suitability of existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for Wilderness designation by Congress. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 In the Sutton Mountain WSA, close a short spur route (025 mile) to vehicle use to stop unauthorized 

activities and protect wilderness suitability. 

•	1 In the event that a Wilderness Study Area is released by Congress for other uses, specific guidance is 

provided pertaining to no surface occupancy, fluid mineral development, wind development, and access 

and travel management 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Protect the values for which each ACEC was designated or proposed. Allow management actions and 

resource uses within all existing and proposed ACECs provided these actions and uses are compatible 

with the values and resources for which the ACEC was proposed. 

•	1 In the Horn Butte ACEC, provide quality nesting and brood-rearing habitat for the long-billed curlew. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

•	1 In the Spanish Gulch ACEC, protect remnants of early mining activities, including an old stamp mill, 

mineshafts, and several old cabins. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Remove ACEC designation from the Spanish Gulch ACEC. 

•	1 In the Horn Butte ACEC, maintain viable populations of long billed curlew and the Washington ground 

squirrel. Preserve and protect the qualities of the Fourmile Canyon segment of the Oregon Trail that pass 

through the ACEC. 

◦	1Add 1,153 acres of public lands south of the existing Horn Butte ACEC (including the Fourmile Canyon 

interpretive site) to the ACEC. Total acreage in Horn Butte ACEC would be 7,152 acres. 

◦	1Close the Fourmile Canyon tract to new rights-of-way. Co-use of existing rights-of-way may be permitted. 

•	1 Manage 3,885 acres in the Armstrong Canyon area eliminated from wilderness review as the Armstrong 

Canyon ACEC. 

•	1 Manage 2,364 acres in the Ferry Canyon area eliminated from wilderness review as the Ferry Canyon ACEC. 

•	1 Create the Lower John Day River ACEC (40,295 acres) consisting of the existing acreage of the Lower John 

Day, North Pole Ridge and Thirtymile WSAs, if any of these WSAs are released from wilderness study. 

•	1 Create Black Canyon ACEC/RNA (6,639 acres) and manage it as a Research Natural Area (RNA). The 

area is within the center of, and would overlay, the Painted Hills Cooperative Area for the Management 

of Paleontology (CAMP); a portion of the John Day Paleontological ACEC is within the existing Sutton 

Mountain WSA. 

•	1 Designate the John Day Paleontology ACEC (38,168 acres). 

xxiii 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Back Country Byways 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Continue to manage the 50 mile South Fork John Day River Back Country Byway. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Designate the Sutton Mountain a BLM Back Country Byway or support a State Scenic Byway designation. 

This byway would consist of about 41 miles of federal, state, and county routes that circle the Sutton 

Mountain WSA. 

Native American Uses 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Honor trust responsibility to Native American Indian tribes. 

Paleontological Resources 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Preserve, protect and make available paleontological resources for viewing, education, and 

research purposes. 

Cultural Resources 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Preserve and protect the integrity of cultural resources (historic and prehistoric), and make them available 

for cultural, educational, and/or research purposes, as appropriate. 

Livestock Grazing 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public 

Lands Administered by the BLM in the States of Oregon and Washington (S&Gs 1997). 

•	1 Maintain forage production and livestock use at levels sufficient to provide a sustained flow of local 

economic benefits and to protect non-market values. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

•	1 Allow livestock grazing as shown for Alternative 1 in Appendix J. 

•	1 Do not authorize grazing on the nine allotments in the NFJDR which are predominantly acquired lands. 

xxiv 
Executive Summary 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this RMP/EIS, while considering resource conflicts, 

potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. All action alternatives would: 

◦	1Allow livestock grazing as described by alternative in Appendix J. 

◦	1Manage some allotments as Reserve Forage Allotments. 

◦	1Modify livestock grazing to reduce potential conflicts between livestock grazing and other uses and 

resources using a Grazing Decision Matrix (Grazing Matrix). 

◦	1Maintain forage production and livestock use at levels sufficient to provide a sustained flow of local 

economic benefits and to protect non-market values. 

◦	1For the nine allotments along the North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) that are composed of 

predominately acquired lands, calculate potentially permitted AUMs to protect fish, wildlife and 

recreation values as legislated by the Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000. 

Alternative 2 - Preferred 

•	1 Two of the nine allotments containing acquired lands in the NFJDR would be available for Reserve Forage 

Allotments or become unauthorized for grazing use (“Closed”), and seven would remain Closed. 

Alternative 3 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except the Grazing Decision Matrix is applied assuming that the NFJDR acquired 

lands do not have the ‘Special Management Area’ status. For this alternative the nine allotments with 

NFJDR acquired lands would be treated as being available for grazing. 

Alternative 4 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except applies a greater degree of sensitivity to social and ecological conflicts with 

livestock grazing maintaining the same sensitivity to demand. Nine NFJDR allotments would be closed 

to grazing. 

Alternative 5 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2 

Recreation Opportunities 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Manage the designated WSR Segments on the John Day River, the John Day River between Kimberly and 

Service Creek, and the North Fork John Day River between Monument and Kimberly (119,052 acres) as a 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 

•	1 Unless specifically modified by this RMP, manage the Lower John Day River according to 2001 John Day 

River Management Plan guidance for recreation. 

•	1 In WSAs, allow parking only in areas signed as available for parking and/or car camping. 

•	1 Manage areas designated as Closed to OHVs for non-motorized uses. 

•	1 Applications for special recreation permits must be submitted at least 180 days in advance of the 

proposed use to be considered, except applications for guiding sheep hunts must be submitted at least 

30 days in advance of the proposed use. Shorter time frames may be allowed upon request and approval. 

Applications would be considered and decisions made on a case-by-case basis. 

xxv 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

•	1 Manage the North Fork John Day River, Rudio Mountain/Johnson Heights, Dixie Creek and remaining 

public lands not designated as an SRMA as an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). 

•	1 Manage the North Fork John Day River, Rudio Mountain/Johnson Heights, Dixie Creek and remaining 

public lands not designated as an SRMA as an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). 

•	1 Manage 258,066 acres as OHV open, including all of Little Canyon Mountain Area 

•	1 Manage 131,320 acres as OHV limited to designated roads, trails, and routes. 

•	1 Manage 67,226 acres as Closed to OHV use. 

•	1 Restricted opportunities for Special Recreation Permits. 

Common to all Action Alternatives 

• Utilize the Benefits Based Recreation protocol to identify recreation demand and to allocate resources to 

meet demand. 

•	1 Modify the existing John Day River SRMA boundary to encompass 122,865 acres. 

•	1 Designate the following new SRMAs: 

◦	1The 52,033 acre North Fork John Day River SRMA 

◦	1The 60,678 acre Bridge Creek SRMA 

◦	1The 2,617 acre Little Canyon Mountain SRMA. 

◦	1The 55,204 acre South Fork John Day River SRMA 

•	1 All BLM-managed lands within the planning area not identified as a SRMA would be considered as 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs), designated as: 

◦	1The 59,163 acre Rudio Mountain/Johnson Heights ERMA. 

◦	1The 2,516 acre Dixie Creek ERMA. 

◦	1The 101,535 acre John Day Basin ERMA. 

•	1 Develop non-commercial recreational gold panning for public recreation on public lands in the Dixie 

Creek ERMA. 

•	1 Issue new upland-based special recreation permits (SRP) as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and 

special events on a first come basis subject to 2930 Handbook guidance. 

•	1 When opportunities arise, consider acquisition of private lands from willing sellers to provide access and/ 

or create blocks of public lands to provide recreational benefits. 

Alternative 2 - Preferred 

•	1 Designate: 

◦	1up to 280 acres within two areas in the vicinity of Kimberly and Spray for technical Class II rock 

crawling, Limited to designated routes; 

◦	1the two acre South Pit Area of Little Canyon Mountain as open to Class I and III vehicles; and 

◦	1the North Pit area of Little Canyon Mountain as trailhead parking area. 

•	1 Within the Open and Limited designated areas, interim routes will be considered shared use trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized use. 

Alternative 3 

Same as Alternative 2 except as described above in the Access and Travel Management section, and: 

•	1 Little Canyon North Pit OHV play area would be limited to Class I and Class III OHVs. 

xxvi 
Executive Summary 

•	1 Designate 602 acres as Open in an area north of Mitchell called the Golden Triangle and in the Little 

Canyon South Pit OHV play area. 

Alternative 4 

Same as Alternative 2 except as described above in the Access and Travel Management section, and: 

•	1 Designate 2 acres as Open to OHV use within the South Pit area of Little Canyon Mountain. 

•	1 OHV use in the Rudio Plateau area and the North Pit of Little Canyon Mountain would be Limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

•	1 The Golden Triangle area would be Closed to OHV use. 

Alternative 5 

Same as Alternative 2 except as described above in the Access and Travel Management section, and: 

• OHV use in the Rudio Plateau, Golden Triangle, and the South Pit Area of Little Canyon Mountain areas 

would be Limited to designated roads and trails. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Within legal constraints, and except as otherwise noted by alternative, make available all Federal mineral 

estate locatable, leasable, and salable minerals for exploration, development, and production subject to 

existing regulations and standard requirements and stipulations. 

•	1 Follow guidance in existing RMPs as amended by John Day River Plan for John Day River corridors: 

◦	1No surface occupancy restriction for leasable minerals. 

◦	1Adopt State Scenic Waterway rules (see Chapter 4), where mining would be subject to stipulations to 

protect river values. 

◦	1On BLM lands new sites for the production of salable minerals would not be permitted within State 

Scenic Waterways or Wild and Scenic Rivers unless the findings from a interdisciplinary team analysis 

shows that there will be no lasting impacts that would result in not meeting Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives (see Aquatics section) for the riparian management area. 

◦	1Close facilities, such as established campgrounds and launches to leasing and salable minerals and 

withdraw from entry under the Mining Law of 1872 for locatable minerals. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

•	1 Same as Common to All Alternatives. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

•	1 Specific Exclusion and Avoidance areas vary by alternative due to decisions made for specific resource 

values such as special designations and wilderness characteristics (see Table 2-17). 

xxvii 
 

 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Lands and Realty 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 A three zone land tenure system would be continued on lands currently managed under the John Day 

and Two Rivers RMPs. 

•	1 Lands decisions made in John Day River Plan amendments would be continued. 

◦	14,036 acres have been identified as potentially suitable for acquisition in and adjacent to river corridors. 

•	1 All major utility and transportation construction projects must utilize the six existing utility and 

transportation corridors. Approved rights-of-way would follow existing corridors and avoid proliferation 

of separate rights-of-way. 

•	1 There would be no new crossings of WSRs beyond the existing crossings. 

•	1 The entire plan area would be available for existing and potential development of renewable energy 

projects, communication sites, and other uses unless specifically withdrawn or listed as an exclusion area. 

◦	1Avoidance areas are available with stipulations (see Table 2-17). 

•	1 The above authorizations would not be allowed in the following exclusion areas: 

◦	1Wilderness Areas 

◦	1WSR segments 

•	1 Do not permit additional crossing sites on the BLM managed portions of the John Day River. 

•	1 The following areas would be avoided when locating facilities, rights-of-ways, or corridor routes: 

◦	1South Fork of the John Day River Canyon, from Deer Creek to the junction of the South Fork Road with 

Grant Co. Road No. 42. 

◦	1BLM lands providing bighorn sheep habitat in the vicinity of Aldrich Mountain. 

◦	1BLM lands within the Murderers Creek Cooperative Wildlife Management Area. 

•	1 Right-of-way avoidance areas: 

◦	1Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

◦	1Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

◦	1Scenic and recreation WSR segments 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

•	1 In addition to Management Common to All Alternatives and Common to All Action Alternatives, this 

alternative would: 

◦	1Continue the two zone land tenure system in the Baker RMP portion of the planning area. 

◦	1Acres by zone across the planning area 

▪	1Z-1 213,691 

▪	1Z-2 202,260 

▪	1Z-3 40,444 

▪	1Potentially Suitable for Acquisition 4,036 

◦	1Some Exclusion, Avoidance, and No Surface Occupancy areas vary from other alternatives 

(see Table 2-17) 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Create a land base that facilitates management of resource and resource use objectives. Increase the 

percentage of public land with public access by 10 percent over the life of the plan. 

•	1 The portion of the planning area previously managed under the Baker RMP would be managed under a 

three zone land tenure system consistent with the remainder of the planning area. 

xxviii 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

• Acres by Zone 

Z-1◦ 362,095 

Z-2◦ 20,563 

Z-3◦ 72,454 (# acres under FLTFA 19,000) 

◦ Potentially Suitable for Acquisition 873,660 

•	1 Some Exclusion, Avoidance, and No surface Occupancy areas vary from no action alternative 

(see Table 2-17). 

•	1 Use right-of-way requests to acquire access to public lands in the area. 

Agricultural Land Management 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Provide opportunities for local agriculture and public recreation (e.g., camping, bank fishing, swimming 

access, upland game bird and large game hunting). 

•	1 Increase riparian areas and wildlife habitat, and reduce pollution. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

•	1 Long term management of existing agricultural fields would consist of: 

◦ Convert to non irrigated natural vegetation: 500 acres 

◦ WSR- Wildlife Food and Cover: 60 acres 

◦ Agricultural Lease or Wildlife Food and Cover: 120 acres 

◦ No guidance: 520 acres 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

•	1 Long term management of existing agricultural fields would consist of: 

◦ Convert to non irrigated natural vegetation: 900+ acres 

◦ WSR- Wildlife Food and Cover: 0-100 acres 

◦ Agricultural Lease or Wildlife Food and Cover: 0-400 acres 

•	1 Adds stipulation for conditions under which water can be withdrawn for irrigation 

Hazardous Materials Management 

Common to All Alternatives 

•	1 Direction for management of hazardous materials would be the same under all alternatives, in accordance 

with laws, policies, and regulations. 

xxix 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental and Social Consequences 

Table ES-1 synthesizes environmental consequences (including social, economic, and ecological) by resource or 

resource use. It qualitatively compares how the alternatives meet the long term goal of developing management 

practices that ensure long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape, and add to community 

stability through resource use and enjoyment. 

Relative rankings in Table ES-1 are based on the comparative net differences in effects of the management 

alternatives on each specified resource or resource use. Some effects of alternative actions meet the purpose and 

need to varying degrees. These differences add-up to an overall net effect. Examples of indicators that differ in 

their outcomes across alternatives are also displayed. Detailed analyses of effects are summarized in Table 2-26 in 

Chapter 2, and described in detail in Chapter 4. 

It is difficult to address all needs across a broad range of resource values and land uses. Each of the alternatives 

involves compromise; however, Alternative 2 is preferred over the other alternatives because overall, it best meets 

the purpose and need for a revised plan. Alternative 2 is as good as, or better than other alternatives at addressing 

resource issues. The possible exception is recreation; the availability of off-road vehicle travel routes is greater in 

Alternative 3. 

Table ES-1. Synthesis of environmental consequences (including social, economic, and 

ecological) of management alternatives on resources and resource uses in the John Day River 

Basin plan area. 

To what relative degree do the alternatives meet the purpose and need, significant issues and management 

concerns, as described in Chapter 1? 

More Less 

Issue 1: Landscape Health. 

Would the plan achieve healthy plant and animal communities? Would the plan allow fire to play its 

ecological role while helping to ensure public safety from wildfire? 

Resource or 

Resource Use 

Examples of indicators that show differences 

in effects between alternatives.* 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Vegetation Difference between current ecosystem 

conditions and the Acceptable Range of 

Variability (ARV). 

Fire and Fuels Wildfire risk to communities at the wildland 

urban interface. 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Difference between current and proper 

functioning conditions. 

Wildlife Security habitat. 

Issue 2: Access and Travel Management. 

Would the plan result in a road system that would efficiently deliver goods, people, and services 

across the plan area? Would the plan provide for motorized and non-motorized recreation, while 

protecting natural and cultural resources? 

Access & Travel Access to public lands. 

Road maintenance costs. 

Recreation Availability of OHV routes and Open areas. 

Conflicts between OHV and other uses. 

xxx 
More Less 

Executive Summary 

Table ES-1 (continued). Synthesis of environmental consequences (including social, economic, and ecological) 

of management alternatives on resources and resource uses in the John Day River Basin plan area. 

To what relative degree do the alternatives meet the purpose and need, significant issues and management 

concerns, as described in Chapter 1? 

Issue 3: North Fork of the John Day River. 

Does the plan protect native fish, wildlife habitat, and public recreation on newly acquired and 

adjacent BLM lands along the North Fork John Day River? 

Resource or 

Resource Use 

Examples of indicators that show 

differences in effects between alternatives.* 

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). 

Other Management Concerns* 

Social and 

Economic Values 

Employment and labor income. 

Soils Erosion. 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Maintenance of wilderness qualities. 

Wilderness Study 

Areas 

Degree of protection of wilderness values. 

Visual Resources Visual quality. 

Caves Degree of habitat protection. 

Livestock Grazing Available AUMs. Conflicts with other uses 

or ecological values. 

(* management of the following concerns vary none or little in their effects across alternatives: Air Quality, Noxious Weeds, Wild Horses, 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Byways, Native American Values, Paleontology, Cultural Values, Lands and Realty, Agriculture 

Management, and Minerals and Energy). 

xxxi 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACEC - Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ADT - Average Daily Traffic 

AMP - Allotment Management Plan 

AMR - Appropriate Management Response 

AMS - Analysis of the Management Situation 

APHIS - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ARPA - Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

ARV - Acceptable Range of Variability 

ASCO - Archaeological Society of Central Oregon 

ASQ - Allowable Sale Quantity 

ATV - All-Terrain Vehicle 

AUM - Animal Unit Month 

BA - Biological Assessment 

BECA - Bald Eagle Consideration Area 

BEMA - Bald Eagle Management Area 

BLM - Bureau of Land Management 

BMP - Best Management Practices 

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation 

BPA - Bonneville Power Administration 

BPS (BpS) - Biophysical Setting 

BS - Bureau Sensitive 

BSC – Biological Soil Crust 

CAA - Clean Air Act 

CAFO - Confined Animal Feeding Operations 

CAMP - Cooperative Areas for the Management of Paleontology 

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations 

CFS - Cubic Feet per Second 

COA - Conservation Opportunity Area 

COFMS - Central Oregon Fire Management Service 

COFP - Central Oregon Fire Plan 

CORA - Central Oregon Resource Area 

COSSA - Central Oregon Shooting Sports Association 

CRBG - Columbia River Basalt Group 

CRI - Community Resilience Index 

CRMP - Coordinated Resource Management Plan 

CRNG - Crooked River National Grassland 

CRR - Crooked River Ranch 

CTUIR - Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

CTWSRO - Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 

CWA - Clean Water Act 

CWPP - Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

DBH - Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1

DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon)
1

DFC - Desired Functioning Condition 

DMA – Decision Management Agency 

DNF - Deschutes National Forest 

DOI - Department of Interior 

DPS - Distinct Population Segment (fish)
1

DOGAMI - Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Oregon)
1

xxxii 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

DR - Decision Record 

DRMP - Draft Resource Management Plan 

EA - Environmental Assessment 

EFU - Exclusive Farm Use (county land use zoning) 

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement 

EMS - Existing Management Situation 

EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA - Extensive Recreation Management Area 

ERU – Ecological Rating Units 

ESA - Endangered Species Act 

ESI - Ecological Site Inventory 

FCRPA - Federal Cave Resources Protection Act 

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FLPMA - Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FMU - Fire Management Unit 

FR - Federal Register 

FRCC - Fire Regime Condition Class 

FS Forest Service 

FY - Fiscal Year 

GIS - Geographic Information System 

HCA - Habitat Conservation Areas 

HCP - Habitat Conservation Plan 

HMA - Herd Management Area 

HMP - Habitat Management Plan 

HRV - Historic Range of Variability 

HUC - Hydrologic Unit Code 

IBLA - Interior Board of Land Appeals 

ICBEMP - Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project 

IDT - Interdisciplinary Team 

IM - Instruction Memorandum (BLM) 

IMP - Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review 

INFISH - Inland native strategies for managing fishproducing watersheds in eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions 

of Nevada 

ISA - Instant Study Area 

IWM - Integrated Weed Management Program 

JDB – John Day Basin (planning area) 

JDBRMP - John Day Basin Resource Management Plan 

KLA - Known Linkage Area 

LAC - Limits of Acceptable Change 

LAU - Lynx Analysis Units 

LWCF - Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MBF - Thousand Board Feet 

MLRA - Major Land Resource Area 

MMBF - Million Board Feet 

MMHOS - Millimhos (a millimho is a unit of electrical 

conductance) 

MO - Management Objectives 

MOU - Memorandum of Understanding 

MW - megawatts 

MYA - Million Years Ago 

NF - National Forest 

NFJDR - North Fork John Day River 

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOALE - Northeast Oregon Assembled Land Exchange 

NOI - Notice of Intent 

NPS - National Park Service 

NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation System 

NRHP - National Register of Historic Places 

NSO - No Surface Occupancy 

NSS - National Speleological Society 

NVUM - National Visitor Use Monitoring 

NWPCC - Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

OAR - Oregon Administrative Rules 

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 

OEF - Oregon Eagle Foundation 

OHV - Off-Highway Vehicle 

OMD - Oregon Military Department 

OHIMS - Oregon Heritage Information Management 

System 

OLEA - Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000 

ONHP - Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

OPRD - Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department 

ORV - Off-Road Vehicle or Outstandingly Remarkable 

Value 

OSU - Oregon State University 

OWQI – Oregon Water Quality Index 

OWRD - Oregon Water Resources Department 

PACFISH – Interim strategies for managing Pacific 

anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of 

California 

PEIS – Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statemement 

PFC - Proper Functioning Condition 

PILT - Payments In Lieu of Taxes 

PNC - Potential Natural Conditions 

PNW - Pacific Northwest 

PRA - Pacific Recovery Area 

PSQ - Probable Sale Quantity 

PWR - Public Water Reserve 

RAC - Resource Advisory Council 

R&PP - Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RCA - Riparian Conservation Area 

RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RD - Ranger District 

RHCA - Riparian Habitat Conservation Area 

RM - River Mile 

RMA - Riparian Management Area 

xxxiii 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

RMO - Riparian Management Objective 

RMP - Resource Management Plan 

RNA - Research Natural Area 

ROD - Record of Decision 

ROW - Right-of-Way 

RV - Recreational Vehicle 

SAR - Soil Absorbancy Ratio 

SCORP - Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan 

SF - South Fork 

S&Gs - Standards and Guidelines 

SHPO - State Historical Preservation Office 

SOC - Species of Concern 

SR - State Route 

SRMA - Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP - Special Recreation Permit 

SSURGO - Soil Survey Geographic Database 

SSW - State Scenic Waterways 

Stat. - United States Statutes at Large 

STATSGO - State Soil Geographic Database 

SUP - Special Use Permit 

SVIM - Soil-Vegetation Inventory Method 

SWCD - Soil and Water Conservation District 

TCP - Traditional Cultural Property 

T&E - Threatened and Endangered 

TGA - Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 

TNC - The Nature Conservancy 

TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMU - Timber Management Unit 

UDRMP - Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan 

USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. - United States Code 

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture 

USDC - United States Department of Commerce 

USDI - United States Department of the Interior 

USFS - United States Forest Service 

USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS - United States Geological Survey 

VQO - Visual Quality Objectives 

VRM - Visual Resource Management 

WEPP - Water Erosion Prediction Project 

WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan (State) 

WQRP - Water Quality Restoration Plan (Federal) 

WSR - Wild and Scenic River 

WSA - Wilderness Study Area 

WSRA - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

WUI - Wildland Urban Interface 

xxxiv
1
Chapter 1

Introduction
 

1 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

Overview
 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

to analyze the environmental effects that could result from implementation of a John Day Basin Resource 

Management Plan ((JDBRMP). The JDBRMP will provide direction for managing public lands in eastern Oregon 

under the jurisdiction of The Central Oregon Resource Area of the Prineville District BLM. 

Bureau of Land Management lands within the planning area (Map 1) are currently being managed under three 

plans. The Two Rivers Resource Management Plan (1986) addresses management in the western portion of the 

planning area; the John Day Resource Management Plan (1985) addresses management in most of the eastern 

portion of the planning area; and the Baker Resource Management Plan (1989) addresses management of small 

portions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties. 

The land use planning process is the key tool the BLM uses to manage resources and designate uses on public 

lands in coordination with tribal, federal, state, and local governments, land users, and interested members of the 

public. Generally, a Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision does not result in wholesale change of current 

management. Accordingly, this RMP incorporates new information and regulatory guidance, and provides 

management direction where it may be lacking or requires clarification to resolve land use issues or conflicts. 

For certain activities, the BLM will carry forward current management direction that has proven effective and 

requires no change. Existing management objectives, actions and guidelines are described in Chapter 2 under 

the sections “Management Common to All Alternatives” or “Alternative 1 – No Action.” Management within the 

planning area is also guided by public policies and legislation (see sidebar). Relevant legal authorities are briefly 

summarized in Appendix A. 

Vision 

The current RMPs guiding management of BLM-administered lands in the project area are being revised under 

the JDB RMP according to guidance in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 Code 

[USC] 1701 et seq.) and BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601.) An EIS is incorporated into this document 

as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing NEPA (CEQ 1978, 40 CFR 1500-1508). Consistent with FLPMA, all alternatives 

analyzed under this DEIS are designed to meet three broad goals to: 

•	1 Protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

resource, and archeological values; 

•	1 Preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition, provide food and habitat for fish and 

wildlife and domestic animals, and provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and 

•	1 Recognize the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public 

lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 

21a) as it pertains to the public lands. 

In conformity with FLPMA, 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. 

Overview, Vision 3 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Planning Criteria and

Legislative Constraints 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act is the primary authority for the BLM’s management of public 

lands. This law provides the overarching policy by which public lands will be managed and establishes 

provisions for land use planning, land acquisition and disposition, administration, range management, rightsof-way, designated management areas, and the repeal of certain laws and statutes. The National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) provides the basic national charter for environmental responsibility and requires the 

consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental impacts of major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In concert, these two laws provide the guidance for 

all BLM activities. 

4 Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

How BLM employees get direction to Manage Public Lands 

Direction for management of public lands administered by the BLM is multi-tiered. 

First, Congress authorized the BLM to manage lands and passed laws that provide overall 

objectives for management of those lands. While one law, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, authorizes the BLM to manage specific lands, other laws can provide direction 

to many government agencies. For example, the Endangered Species Act establishes guidance 

that must be followed by all federal agencies to protect threatened and endangered species. 

The Department of the Interior or the BLM then creates regulations and policies that describe 

how the BLM will act to implement the direction of Congress. Regulations are initially 

published in the Federal Register and subsequently in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Policy direction is then provided to the BLM staff in the form of Manuals and Handbooks. For 

teams preparing Resource Management Plans the primary references are the NEPA Manual and 

Handbook and the Planning Manual and Handbook. 

Executive Orders can also direct and guide management. These orders are issued under the 

authority of and are signed by the President. An executive order generally recognizes one or more 

laws and provides instructions for implementing those laws to one or more federal agencies. 

Laws created by congress (legislative guidance) and executive direction (executive guidance) 

provided through Department of the Interior or BLM regulations and policy and executive 

orders that apply to this planning process are listed and briefly described in Appendix A. 

Resource Management Plans establish specific objectives and guidance for managing lands 

within a defined planning area or describe specific project level stipulations. This guidance is 

described in Chapter 2 of this document (Alternatives.) 

Implementation (project level) level guidance is the equivalent of a blueprint and architect 

instructions. Depending on the size and type of project, planning at the project level may be 

almost as complex as developing a Resource Management Plan or may result in very simple 

and small document. Project specific, implementation level guidance will not be addressed nor 

described in this document. 

A final note is that certain regulations, generated by the BLM and other agencies, provide guidance 

that directly applies to day to day BLM activities. These include regulations for the management 

of cultural resources, protecting endangered species, many lands procedures, and several other 

activities. This planning process does not have the authority to modify such guidance. 

BLM Management Direction 5 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

The Planning Process 

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.4, preparation of an RMP involves interrelated steps as described in Table 1-1 below. 

Table 1-1 BLM Planning Process 

Step Description Timeframe 

Step 1 — 

Identify planning issues 

Step 2 — 

Develop planning 

criteria 

During this step, issues, concerns, and opportunities 

are identified through a scoping process that includes 

the BLM, the public, Indian tribes, other federal 

agencies, and state and local governments. During 

this step, the BLM publishes a Notice of Intent (NOI) 

in the Federal Register to inform the public of the 

planning process and begin the scoping process. 

Planning criteria are created to ensure decisions are 

made to address the issues pertinent to the planning 

effort. Planning criteria are derived from a variety of 

sources, including applicable laws and regulations, 

from existing management plans, from coordinating 

other agencies’ programs, and from the results of 

public and agency scoping. The planning criteria may 

be updated and changed as planning proceeds. 

Fall 2005 to Fall 2006. NOI 

published February 2006. 

Ongoing 

Step 3 — 

Collect data & 

BLM specialists analyze the planning area’s resources, 

environmental conditions, uses, and current 

Ongoing 

information management. 

Step 4 — 

Analyze management 

situation 

Public scoping meetings are usually held at this 

time to help identify issues and concerns. This initial 

analysis can be included in the scoping report, which 

summarizes comments from public meetings and 

other outreach, and uses this information, along with 

staff input, to refine issues and planning criteria. 

Analysis of the Management 

Situation (AMS) and Scoping 

Report published Fall 2006 

Step 5 — 

Formulate alternatives 

The BLM formulates a range of reasonable 

management alternatives to address issues identified 

during scoping. 

January 2007 to 

November 2007 

Step 6 — 

Assess alternatives 

This step involves estimating the physical, biological, 

economic, and social effects of implementing each 

alternative in order to provide a comparative 

evaluation of impacts. 

November 2007 to July 2008 

Step 7 — 

Select preferred 

alternative 

Step 8 — 

Select RMP 

The alternative that best resolves planning issues 

is identified as the preferred alternative. The Draft 

RMP/EIS is prepared, and then distributed for a 

90-day public review. 

After comments to the draft document have been 

received and analyzed, the proposed RMP/Final EIS is 

refined as needed and published and made available 

for a public protest period for 30 days. Following 

resolution by the BLM director of any protests or 

Governor’s consistency review comments, the BLM 

State Director signs the ROD to approve the RMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS October 2008 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

estimated October 2009. 

Approved RMP/ROD: 

estimated March 2010 

Step 9 — 

Implementation and 

Monitoring 

Management measures outlined in the approved plan 

are implemented on the ground, and monitoring is 

conducted to test their effectiveness in resolving the 

identified issues and achieving the desired results. 

Ongoing after RMP approval 

6 Planning Process 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

As directed by FLPMA, during development of this RMP, BLM has: 

•	1 Used and observed the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; 

•	1 Used a systematic interdisciplinary approach to integrate consideration of physical, biological, economic, 

and other sciences; 

•	1 Given priority to the designation and protection of ACECs; 

•	1 Relied, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values; 

•	1 Considered present and potential uses of the public lands; 

•	1 Considered the relative scarcity of resource values and the availability of alternative means for realization 

of those values; 

•	1 Weighed long-term benefits against short-term benefits to the public; 

•	1 Provided for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, 

noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and 

•	1 To the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinated 

land use inventory, planning, and management activities with the land use planning and management 

programs of other Federal departments and agencies, States and local governments, and Indian tribes. 

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide data collection, alternative 

formulation, and alternative selection in the RMP process. In conjunction with the planning issues, planning 

criteria assure the planning process is focused. The criteria also help guide the final plan selection and provide a 

basis for judging the responsiveness of the planning options. 

Preliminary planning criteria were developed prior to public scoping, and refined based on public input to the 

AMS. The following criteria set the focus for the planning process, and guide decision making by topic. 

•	1 The RMP planning effort will be collaborative. The BLM will strive to ensure that its management 

decisions are complementary to other planning jurisdictions and adjoining properties, within the 

boundaries described by law and federal regulations. 

•	1 The public land in the planning area will provide a diverse array of opportunities that result in a 

sustained flow of economic and social benefits to communities and provide a diversity of recreation 

opportunities while continuing to protect visual quality, wildlife and fish habitats and other resources 

and resource uses. 

•	1 The planning process will identify existing guidance and establish new guidance upon which the BLM 

will rely to manage public lands within the planning area. 

•	1 The plan will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and current policies. 

•	1 The RMP will recognize all valid existing rights. 

•	1 Resource allocations will be reasonable and achievable given available technological and budgetary 

constraints. 

•	1 As part of this RMP process, the BLM will analyze areas for potential designation as ACECs in accordance 

with 43 CFR 1610-7-2, and river corridors for recommendation and designation under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (WSR Act). 

• All previously established Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) will continue to be managed for wilderness 

values and character until Congress designates them as wilderness areas, or releases them for multiple 

use management, unless management direction as set forth in the approved RMP continues management 

for wilderness values and character regardless of their release by Congress. 

Planning Process 7 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans,

and Programs 

Since the development and approval of the three RMPs in the 1980s, there have been amendments to provide 

additional land management direction. As the land use plan guidance is put into practice on the ground, 

implementation-level planning is directed by BLM policy, program-specific guidance, and 

Best Management Practices. 

All future resource authorizations and actions will conform to, or be consistent with the decisions contained in the 

approved RMP. All existing operations and activities authorized under permits, contracts, cooperative agreements 

or other authorizations will be modified, as necessary, to conform to the final RMP within a reasonable timeframe. 

However, the plan will not repeal valid existing rights on public lands. A valid existing right is a claim or 

authorization that takes precedence over the decisions developed in this plan. If such authorizations come up for 

review and can be modified, they will also be brought into conformance with the plan. 

Related Plans 

The BLM planning regulations require that BLM plans are consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans of other federal, state, local, and tribal governments to the extent those plans are consistent 

with federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. Plans formulated by federal, state, local, and Tribal 

governments that relate to management of lands and resources have been reviewed and considered as the RMP/ 

EIS has been developed. These plans include the following: 

Federal Plans 

•	1 Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (USDA Forest Service and UFWS 2000); 

•	1 Summary of the Draft EIS, Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment (USDA Forest Service and DOI BLM 

2004); 

•	1 Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact (USDA Forest Service 1995b); 

•	1 Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (designation of West-wide energy corridors) is being 

implemented through the current development of an interagency Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS). The Final PEIS will provide plan amendment decisions that will address numerous 

energy corridor related issues, including the utilization of existing corridors (enhancements and 

upgrades), identification of new corridors, supply and demand considerations, and compatibility with 

other corridor and project planning efforts. The approved PEIS would subsequently amend the JDB RMP. 

•	1 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans for the adjacent Ochoco, Malheur, Umatilla, and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 

Tribal Government Plans and Treaties 

•	1 The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation 

consider the John Day River Management Plan (DOI BLM 2001) as the management plan for the John Day 

Wild and Scenic River (B. Cunninghame, pers. Comm. 1/2007.) 

•	1 Pine Creek Habitat Management Plan. 

•	1 Treaties of 1855. 

8 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

State and County Plans 

•	1 The Oregon Conservation Strategy (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2006) 

•	1 County Land Use Plans 

Collaboration 

The benefits of enhanced collaboration among agencies in the preparation of NEPA analyses include disclosing 

relevant information early in the analytical process, applying available technical expertise and staff support, 

avoiding duplication with other federal, state, tribal, and local procedures, and establishing a mechanism for 

addressing intergovernmental issues. Collaboration and consultation are discussed further in Chapter 5. 

Policy 

Implementation of the RMP begins when the Oregon/Washington BLM State Director signs the Record of Decision 

for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)/RMP. Implementation of decisions made in the FEIS/RMP 

will be a function of the BLM budgeting and collaborative implementation planning processes (IM 2008-041). 

Purpose and Need for a Revised Plan 

The purpose of the JDB RMP is to provide direction for managing public lands in eastern Oregon PRIMARILY 

under the jurisdiction of the Prineville District BLM. The JDB RMP will revise the Two Rivers RMP (1986); the 

John Day RMP (1985); and the Baker RMP (1989) which address management of BLM lands in the planning area. 

The JDB RMP will provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or 

restore resource conditions over the long term. It will specify where and under what circumstances particular 

activities will be allowed on BLM-administered public lands. A primary goal of the JDB RMP is to develop 

management practices that ensure long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape, and add to 

community stability through resource use and enjoyment. The JDB RMP generally will not include a description 

of how particular programs or projects will be implemented or prioritized; those decisions are deferred to 

implementation-level planning. 

There is a need for a new John Day Basin RMP because information and circumstances have changed since the 

original plans were approved, including: 

•	1 Changed circumstances and new information on economic, social, and biologic conditions within the 

planning area; 

•	1 New laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or supersede previous decisions; 

•	1 Changed user demands and activities that create new resource effects and user conflicts; and 

•	1 Changed acceptance of impacts. 

These conditions, and the fact that some of the existing plans have been amended, drive the need for an inclusive, 

comprehensive plan that provides updated, clear direction to both the BLM and the public. 

Related Plans; Purpose and Need for a Revised Plan 9 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Planning Area 

Physical Boundaries 

The RMP planning area encompasses 5,450,225 acres mostly 

within the John Day River basin of eastern Oregon (Map 1). 

Within the planning area, the BLM manages about 456,000 acres of 

public land surface. The BLM managed lands fall in eight Oregon 

counties – Grant, Wheeler, Gilliam, Wasco, Sherman, Umatilla, 

Jefferson and Morrow. 

The planning area includes all 

land within the planning boundary, 

regardless of jurisdiction. The 

decision area covers only those 

lands administered by the BLM. 

The boundary of the planning area generally follows watershed boundaries and so also includes portions of 

Baker and Malheur counties although there are no BLM lands within those two counties. Collectively, the lands 

that BLM administers (surface and mineral estate) are considered the “decision area.” Of the surface area, 441,987 

acres are in the Central Oregon Resource Area of the Prineville District BLM, and 14,622 acres are in the Baker 

Resource Area of the Vale District BLM. This RMP would provide direction for BLM lands within the planning 

area that are within the boundaries of both the Prineville and Baker Resource Areas. Private and county lands and 

lands administered by state or other federal governments are not subject to decisions made in this RMP. 

The planning area can be grouped into the following geographical areas: 

1. Lower John Day River – the land primarily in the canyon but also includes uplands north of Clarno, as 

far away as Horn Butte. 

2. Sutton Mountain/Bridge Creek – the lands upstream of Clarno to Service Creek, including the Bridge 

Creek, Bear Creek and Sutton Mountain areas. The southwestern portion of this area is outside of the 

John Day Basin, in the Deschutes watershed, but is included in the planning area for logistical reasons. 

3. Rudio Mountain/Johnson Heights – the area upstream of Service Creek to Dayville, including the Rudio 

Mountain, Squaw Creek and Johnson Heights areas. 

4. South Fork John Day River – the area from Dayville south along the South Fork of the John Day River, 

Cottonwood, Birch and Rock Creeks, but north and east of the Harney and Crook County lines. 

5. Upper Mainstem – lands in the Upper John Day Valley including Little Canyon Mountain, and Dixie 

and Standard Creeks. Three BLM parcels within the planning area are south of the John Day Basin, in the 

Silvies River watershed, but are included for logistical reasons. 

6. North Fork John Day River – lands upstream of Monument, along the North Fork of the John Day River 

to Camas Creek, and north of Highway 402. 

Social and economic setting 

Although the planning area encompasses parts of ten counties (most of Grant, Wheeler, and Gilliam, and smaller 

portions of Jefferson, Umatilla, Sherman, Wasco, Morrow, Malheur and Baker), there are different characteristics 

of human history, values and lifestyles within each. While not in the in planning area, Union and Crook counties 

are adjacent and can be considered economically and socially linked given the connecting transportation system, 

integrated markets and communities. 

Prior to European settlement, indigenous American Indians occupied and used the planning area. The northern 

portion was used by cultures oriented to the Columbia Plateau, while the southern portion was used by cultures 

influenced by the Great Basin. These two populations represent separate language groups, but the boundary 

between the two culture areas appears to have been fluid. People, goods and ideas from these adjacent cultural 

areas variously merged or contracted depending on the vagaries of climate and social conditions. Hunting, 

gathering and fishing were the traditional economic pursuits conducted by these nomadic people. 

After the arrival of Euro-Americans, treaties were signed with affected tribes within the planning area. 

Reservations and ceded land rights were established in the treaties of 1855. Those rights allowed the continuation 

of traditional social and economic pursuits within public lands through the present day. 

10 Planning Area 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

An influx of homesteaders and gold miners moved to the area in the latter part of the 19th century. As the mining 

boom subsequently declined, farming, ranching and timber grew in importance. While forest activities have 

waned in the last several decades, the area still has several lumber mills. Tourism has provided some economic 

benefit to the area and may be increasing in importance. Hunting, fishing, and rafting provide a flood of visitors 

to the basin in summer and fall as thousands of enthusiasts migrate to the area for several days to weeks at a time. 

Current cultural identity within the John Day Basin varies, as shown in a recent report from community field 

work commissioned by the BLM (Priester et al., 2006). The report suggests residents in Grant County relate in 

terms of cultural identity to Baker City and La Grande rather than to Bend for regional affiliation. In essence 

Grant County residents consider themselves part of “Eastern” Oregon. Residents in Wheeler County relate more 

to Prineville and Bend rather than to the Columbia River area or Baker County area. Wheeler County residents 

consider themselves part of “Central” Oregon, or the “High Desert” (Priester et al., 2006). 

The concerns among residents and the impacts to communities from public land management decisions vary. 

Some concerns arise simply because of the intermixed land ownership patterns where management actions (or 

inaction) on one piece of land can affect actions or values on neighboring land. Other concerns associated with the 

social and economic environment focus on changes to recreation, forestry, livestock grazing, and other land uses 

as a result of increased population, economic growth and continuing development in the planning area. 

Issues Identified During Scoping 

Scoping Process 

While formal public scoping began with publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in February 

2006, the BLM planning team actively pursued public input on planning issues and concerns both before and after 

that date in a variety of ways. A full scoping report was published in the Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS) and is available on the JDB RMP web site (http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/prineville/index.php), but a 

summary is provided below. 

One of the first outreach approaches began in fall 2005, when the BLM contracted with James Kent Associates, 

Inc. to conduct interviews with residents throughout the planning area. The subsequent report identified local 

concerns related to public land management; social and economic trends affected by land use decisions; and 

opportunities for further communication between community residents and BLM. The report also recommended 

communication strategies for each geographic area, such as the best time and place for meetings, key people to 

involve, and appropriate methods of local communication. Generally speaking, residents appreciate personal 

connection and want a planning process that builds off of local interests and includes national interests in a 

positive manner. 

In early January 2006, the BLM partnered with Wheeler County, the cities of John Day and Canyon City, and the 

Sonoran Institute to host two workshops to assess the economic profile of communities in the planning area, 

identify trends, and discuss how BLM might affect those trends. Both workshops, one in Fossil (Wheeler County) 

and the other in John Day (Grant County), were well-attended by a wide variety of local officials, business 

owners, and residents. 

In March 2006, the BLM held five public meetings (Forest Grove, Bend, John Day, Fossil, and Pendleton) to invite 

the public to help identify planning issues and concerns relating to the management of resources and resource 

uses on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The BLM also met periodically with the John Day/Snake 

Resource Advisory Council, which represents a variety of public interests and with a group of cooperating 

agencies consisting of representatives of federal agencies, American Indian tribal representatives, and state and 

local governments (40 CFR 1508.15). 

The BLM provided periodic newsletters, newspaper advertisements, news releases, and a project website, to inform 

the public of public meetings, public comment opportunities, the planning schedule, and contact information. 

Issues Identified during Scoping 11 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Following the public scoping process, and extensive 

review of the existing RMPs and new information, the 

BLM summarized the issues in the AMS, published in 

fall 2006. In spring 2007 the BLM held another round of 

public meetings (Fossil, John Day, Bend, and Salem) to 

refine the issues and gather information on criteria to use 

during development of alternatives. The refined issue 

descriptions are below. 

The land use planning process is issue driven. 

Planning issues are disputes or controversies 

about existing and potential land and resource 

allocations, levels of resource use, production, 

and related management practices. Scoping is 

a collaborative public involvement process to 

identify planning issues to be addressed. 

Issues Addressed 

Issue identification is the first step of the nine-step BLM planning process (see Table 1-1). A planning issue is a 

major controversy or dispute regarding management of resources or uses on public lands that can be addressed 

in a variety of ways. The issues drive the formulation of alternatives considered in the EIS (Chapter 2). The 

three main issues the BLM addresses in this RMP are landscape health, access and travel management, and 

management of land acquired near the North Fork John Day River. These issues are described below. 

Issue 1: Landscape Health 

How should public land be managed to achieve healthy plant and animal communities? Where is it 

appropriate to allow unplanned fires to burn? 

There are opportunities to improve sustainability and resiliency of terrestrial vegetation conditions, and 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic losses from insect and disease outbreak or severe unplanned fires through 

management actions such as thinning stands to reduce uncharacteristic densities, and use of fire to reduce 

amounts and concentrations of hazardous fuels. Determining locations and the best methods for meeting these 

desired conditions can be achieved by comparing current vegetative conditions with those conditions predicted 

to occur within historic or acceptable ranges. The alternatives display options for prioritizing areas for treatment, 

based in part on amount of deviation of current conditions from desired ones, and other resource needs. 

The JDB RMP will include new direction and science from many sources, including the: 

•	1 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 

•	1 USDA Forest Service-Department of the Interior-The Nature Conservancy LANDFIRE Project (spatial 

distribution of, and acceptable ranges of variation for Biophysical Settings (BPS); spatial data of Fire 

Regime Condition Class.) 

•	1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007.) 

•	1 National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (2001) (a 

proactive BLM OHV Strategy to determine and implement better on-the-ground motorized off-highway 

vehicle management solutions. This strategy resulted from extensive public input with a diverse 

range of interest groups interested in OHV use on BLM public land (BLM publication No. BLM/WY/ 

PL-01-006+1610. January, 2001; http://www.blm.gov/ohv/OHV_FNL.pdf). 

•	1 303d listing of stream channels which are not addressed by existing management plans. 

The BLM has coordinated with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to describe existing and 

desired winter range for big game. The alternatives include criteria for deciding where resource uses may need to 

be modified to protect, mitigate, or restore important plant communities, wildlife habitats, and sensitive species. 

Fire is an important ecological component, as well as a primary public safety concern. The RMP will identify areas 

within the planning area where desired conditions may be met through the use of fire as a management tool. 

The RMP will incorporate new local and national emphases and techniques for managing fuels within defined 

wildland urban interface areas, such as those in the National Fire Plan (August 2000) or those identified through 

local Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 

12 Issues Identified during Scoping 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

Alternatives explore ways in which this issue can be addressed in conjunction with multiple use outputs like 

livestock, biomass energy and timber production. 

Issue 2: Access and Travel Management 

How should the BLM design a road system to efficiently deliver goods, people, and services across the 

planning area? What opportunities will BLM provide for motorized recreation, while protecting natural and 

cultural resources? 

User demands have increased, particularly for recreational access and use of roads for community transportation 

needs, in some cases resulting in conflicts between uses and concerns about natural resource damage. 

Many of the BLM transportation facilities in the John Day Basin have never been designated with a maintenance 

level or assigned a maintenance schedule. 

Though actual use data for the planning area is lacking, it appears that OHV use is increasing consistent with the 

high level of OHV sales nationally (Cordell 2005). From scoping it is clear that OHV users desire to maintain and 

in some instances increase OHV opportunities. Other groups have expressed a desire to have OHV use curtailed 

in order to protect wildlife, avoid encounters on trails with rapidly moving and loud OHVs, and to decrease noise 

near their residences. Existing plans do not adequately address the impacts of widespread use by OHVs. Due to 

new OHV restrictions on National Forests in and near the planning area the BLM expects increased demand for 

use of BLM managed lands by OHV and other motorized vehicles. 

BLM policy requires all OHV area designations to be completed at the RMP level. 

There are no existing BLM designated motorized trail or motorized vehicle route systems despite increasing 

demand. There are also no existing designated hiking, horseback riding or mountain bike trails or any other 

designated non-motorized trail systems. 

Issue 3: North Fork of the John Day River 

How can the BLM manage these lands to protect native fish, wildlife habitat, and public recreation? 

Since approval of the current RMPs, BLM acquired approximately 44,000 acres of land near the North Fork 

John Day River (See Map 2). These lands were acquired by the Oregon Land Exchange Act (OLEA) of 2000, 

and they are not covered by an RMP. The Act directs that “Lands acquired...within the North Fork of the John 

Day subwatershed shall be administered in accordance with section 205(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, but shall be managed primarily for the protection of native fish and wildlife habitat, and for 

public recreation.” The OLEA also provides the foundation for future management decisions beyond the primary 

criteria: “The Secretary may permit other authorized uses within the subwatershed if the Secretary determines, 

through the appropriate land use planning process, that such uses are consistent with, and do not diminish these 

management purposes.” 

As a result of the guidance provided in the OLEA, management direction from the existing RMPs cannot be 

applied to these acquired lands. Consequently, there is no specific long-term direction for managing resources 

or resource uses; therefore, there is a long list of resource and resource use topics with issues that must be 

addressed, including: landscape health (including vegetation, noxious weeds, wildlife, special status species, 

post-fire recovery and fire/fuels management), access and travel management, recreation, Wild & Scenic River 

status suitability, visual resources, wilderness characteristics and livestock grazing. 

Issues Identified during Scoping 13 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

14 Map 2: North Fork John Day Acquired Lands 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

Management Concerns 

There are two types of management concerns: 

1.	 Topics raised during scoping that require attention, but which have a lower level of controversy over 

management than for the key issues identified above. While management concerns are addressed in the 

RMP, the management related to them generally does not vary by alternative (except in select situations). 

2.	 Guidance required by BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (USDI-BLM, 2005). Again when management 

has not been identified as an issue, guidance generally does not vary by alternative. 

Air Quality 

The BLM is obligated under the Clean Air Act to consider the potential impacts of the proposed management 

direction on air quality. Air quality issues include public health impacts from wildland and prescribed fires, and 

the need to identify area-wide standards that apply to activities authorized by the BLM. These issues were not 

raised as concerns during scoping. 

Soil 

Soil concerns focus on the need to reduce accelerated soil erosion and compaction within the decision area. 

Hydrology and Water Resources 

Many streams are lacking the physical processes necessary to properly function and will not reach this condition 

without active changes in management. Juniper stands in densities and locations beyond the range of historic or 

acceptable variability have altered hydrologic processes. Some rivers and streams within the planning area have 

been listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as water quality limited (also known as 

303d streams), meaning at least one characteristic of the water does not meet minimum standards. 

The RMP will identify criteria or thresholds for determining watersheds that may need special emphasis because 

of human health concerns, aquatic or upland ecosystem health, or public uses. 

This plan will incorporate new information to develop an aquatic conservation strategy sufficient to protect 

anadromous and other native fish in the planning area. New science on disturbance regimes and riparian area 

management may be incorporated into the standards and guidelines for riparian areas. The mechanisms to 

achieve desired conditions for fish, water quality, water quantity, stream channels and floodplains may also be 

addressed through Best Management Practices. 

The existing RMPs did not address water quality limited streams (303d streams). The JDB RMP will guide 

implementation of the Clean Water Act of 1977 to protect and restore water quality, and will support 

implementation of State-developed water quality measures (such as Total Maximum Daily Loads of sediment). 

Noxious Weeds 

Management of noxious weeds and other non-native, invasive species is a critical part of public land 

management. Noxious weeds are one of the largest threats to maintaining and restoring ecosystem health. 

They also affect local economies with regard to their detrimental impact on livestock grazing, recreation, timber 

production, wildlife habitat and scenery viewing. Noxious weeds displace native plant species and reduce 

natural biological diversity, degrade soil integrity, nutrient cycling, wildland fire dynamics and energy flow, and 

interfere with site-recovery mechanisms, such as seed banks, that allow a site to recover following disturbance 

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). The existing plans say little with regard to noxious weed management, but there 

is ample new guidance that the JDB RMP will incorporate, including the national BLM Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides Final Programmatic EIS and Record of Decision (2007), national Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands 

in Thirteen Western States Final EIS and Record Of Decision (1991), and the Prineville District Integrated Weed 

Management Environmental Assessment (1993). 

Management Concerns 15 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Wild Horses 

The Murderer’s Creek Wild Horse Territory/Horse Management Area (HMA) is the only Herd Management Area 

within the planning area. In this plan the BLM will set an HMA boundary and herd size that will allow us to 

meet resource needs and protect sensitive resources, such as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Malheur National Forest has 

primary planning responsibility for the Herd Management Area. 

Cultural Resources 

Management concerns include compliance with new laws, guidelines and directives to ensure that cultural 

resources and traditional uses are identified and evaluated prior to surface disturbing activities, and that 

appropriate mitigation occurs to protect these resources. 

Paleontology 

The John Day Basin is one of the premiere Tertiary fossil mammal and plant areas in the world. Many of the fossil 

localities are on BLM managed public lands. There is a need to identify criteria and use restrictions to ensure areas 

containing these resources are identified and evaluated prior to surface disturbing activities. There is also a need to 

make recommendations for developing and promoting the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM managed lands that have not already been identified as WSAs within the planning area have been 

assessed for the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics. Where such characteristics have been identified, 

consideration will be given to protecting them. This review included proposals for new Wilderness Study Areas 

that have been submitted by the public. 

Visual Resources 

The existing plans designated Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes for all public lands except for public 

lands in the North Fork John Day area. A new VRM Management Class designation of public lands in the North 

Fork John Day River area is part of this RMP. 

Special Designations 

The BLM will continue to manage existing designated Wild and Scenic Rivers to protect and enhance their 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) in accordance with the John Day and Two Rivers RMPs as amended by 

the John Day River Management Plan (2001). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 required an eligibility and 

suitability assessment and determination to be conducted as a part of the resource management planning process. 

The North Fork John Day River between a few miles north of Monument and the confluence of Camas Creek 

has been determined to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River Status. This planning process will determine the 

suitability of this portion of the North Fork John Day River for National Wild & Scenic River designation. Those 

river segments determined suitable will be recommended for inclusion into the National Wild & Scenic River 

System (though final designation would be an Act of Congress), and interim management will be developed. 

During the JDB RMP process the BLM will review the appropriateness of the designation and extent of the 

existing Horn Butte and Spanish Gulch ACECs, and also consider proposals for new ACECs. 

Cave Resources 

The plan will identify basic management needed to protect any caves determined to be significant under the 

standards in 43 CFR Part 37. 

16 Management Concerns 
Chapter 1 - Introduction 

Livestock Grazing 

The existing RMPs made decisions about forage allocation and areas available for livestock grazing based on 

natural resource conditions that, for the most part, are substantially unchanged. Rangeland health assessments 

have been completed on 99 of 230 allotments in the planning area. These assessments have included the vast 

majority of allotments currently known to have resource conflicts. Where physical or biological conditions have 

changed, BLM managers can use existing guidance such as 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 4180 to make 

necessary changes in livestock grazing management on a site-specific basis. 

In this planning process, the BLM will develop a set of indicators to measure potential conflicts in livestock 

grazing allotments. Conflicts are between livestock grazing and resource values and between livestock grazing 

and other uses on or adjacent to public land. When indicators reach a threshold, priorities will be established for 

actions to reduce conflicts. Actions may involve vegetation management to improve livestock forage or wildlife 

habitat, modifications, reductions, or removal of grazing use, or modification of other uses such as recreation and 

rights-of-way. 

Lands and Realty 

The BLM is required to identify lands that should be retained, disposed, or acquired to serve the national 

interest. Since the completion of the existing RMPs, significant land tenure adjustments have occurred including 

acquisition of Sutton Mountain and the North Fork John Day lands, and disposal of dozens of small parcels. Some 

current BLM land tenure zoning designations that identify whether BLM lands should be retained or disposed 

may not reflect new ownership patterns in the planning area. The alternatives also address options for providing 

rights-of-way for wind energy. 

Minerals and Energy 

The BLM Energy Policy recognizes the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, energy, and other 

resources. It also recognizes the responsibilities concerning the discovery, development, production and 

acquisition of minerals and metals. The RMP alternatives provide management options for leas able, salable, and 

locatable minerals. Biomass production is addressed in the Landscape Health section, and wind and solar energy 

are addressed as potential rights-of-way in the Lands & Realty section. 

Issues considered but not further analyzed 

During scoping, concerns were raised that are clearly of concern to the public but were beyond the scope of the 

RMP purpose; inconsistent with existing laws or regulations; or could adequately be resolved under existing law, 

regulation, or policy. Two of these issues are listed below. 

Management of the newly acquired lands in the North Fork John Day River

as Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM no longer has the authority to designate public lands as Wilderness Study Areas; however the BLM 

may manage areas to protect wilderness characteristics. BLM inventoried the acquired lands in the vicinity of 

the North Fork John Day River for wilderness characteristics, along with contiguous roadless federal lands. BLM 

found that the North Fork wilderness inventory units failed to meet the criteria for naturalness due to signs 

of past commercial logging activity, including many constructed roads and visible tree stumps. While BLM’s 

inventory findings concluded that the North Fork lands, since they lack naturalness, do not possess wilderness 

characteristics, a total of 15,156 acres of BLM lands outside of wilderness study areas within the planning area do 

contain Wilderness Characteristics. 

Management Concerns 17 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Data Standards
 

To support planning and implementation decisions the Prineville District has developed and managed an 

automated geospatial geographic information system (GIS) database. Extensive collaborative efforts in data 

collection, data standards, and data acquisition by the Prineville District and BLM Oregon State Office have 

occurred as a result of the John Day Basin RMP. Existing data was evaluated for accuracy, reliability, and 

limitations. Missing, incomplete, or outdated information was identified and updated where practical. The result 

is a significant increase in the amount and accuracy of the geospatial data available for land use planning. 

Extensive efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the data. However, accuracy varies due to the size of the 

analysis area, spatial resolution of available data, compilation of data from various sources, and the fluid nature 

of some of the mappable elements. Analysis and summary data presented in this report represent relative, not 

absolute accuracy. Data used in the analysis of the alternatives was summarized at various scales, including the 

planning area, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ecoregion, 5th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), Travel 

Management analysis area, and BLM parcel. The quality, quantity, and management of data contained within 

the GIS database have provided managers and resource professionals with the ability to analyze complex land 

management issues and scenarios. This information is provided in whole or summary in this document to assist 

the reader with evaluating the objectives, actions, and outcomes of the RMP. 

How this document is organized 

This DEIS is designed to provide a logical progression of information to the reviewer. The following four chapters 

and appendices explain the alternatives designed to address the purpose and need (Chapter 2); the current 

social, biological, and physical environment (Chapter 3); analyses of the anticipated environmental consequences 

resulting from the implementation of any given alternative (Chapter 4); and public, governmental, and tribal 

involvement in the planning process (Chapter 5). Appendix P crosswalks common and scientific names of plant 

and animal species. A glossary and list of acronyms and abbreviations are also provided to help the reader 

understand technical terms. 

18 Data Standards; How this Document is Organized 
Chapter 2

Alternatives
 

19 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

20 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Planning for BLM Land Management

in the John Day Basin 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) this chapter describes a range of alternatives 

for managing resources and activities on BLM managed lands in the John Day River Basin. These alternatives aim 

to: 1) resolve the significant issues described in Chapter 1, and 2) provide required guidance for BLM programs in 

the John Day Basin. 

Significant issues are problems identified by the BLM, the public, and other federal, tribal, state, and local 

agencies during the scoping process that cannot be resolved by following existing guidance. Alternative 

management approaches address significant issues while maintaining consistency with planning authorities. 

Some existing guidance will be continued into the future. Whenever existing management has proven successful, 

we have not proposed new management approaches. 

Bureau of Land Management lands in the John Day River Basin are currently managed under three Resource 

Management Plans: The Two Rivers (1986) which addresses management in the western portion of the planning 

area; the John Day (1985) which addresses management in most of the eastern portion of the planning area; and 

the Baker (1989) which addresses management of small portions of Morrow and Umatilla Counties. 

BLM land management is guided not only by Resource Management Plans, but also by other guidance (for 

example, BLM manuals or legislative acts). This guidance is outside the decision space for this RMP but is briefly 

described in Appendix A. 

This chapter describes five alternative management approaches. Alternative 1 is the “No Action” alternative, 

which continues existing management, and Alternatives 2-5 (the “Action” alternatives) represent different 

approaches to resolve planning issues in different ways. Alternatives provide one or more different: 

• Degrees of protection for each resource and use. 

• Approaches to management for each resource and use. 

• Mixes of allowable, conditional, and prohibited uses in various geographic areas. 

• Levels and methods for restoration. 

In order to develop criteria for the construction of alternatives, the BLM queried the public during a round of 

public meetings (see Chapter 1 for more information). While individual viewpoints vary markedly, we heard 

clearly that there is a need for more regional employment opportunities and economic development. Residents 

and visitors alike also seek expanded recreational opportunities, although the opportunities sought may vary and 

for some people are mutually exclusive. In contrast to those primarily interested in using public land resources, 

there are others primarily concerned with protecting and preserving those resources. 

As a resource management agency the BLM’s mission is twofold: To provide for resource uses, and to ensure 

that resources will be available for future generations. Given the conditions described in Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment), the long-term focus of this plan is to ensure opportunities for recreation and to ensure that 

resources will be available for future generations. The short-term focus is to seek out opportunities to create 

economic value for local communities as the BLM manages lands for the future. 

How This Chapter Is Organized 

This chapter will first summarize five management alternatives for the John Day Basin planning area. It will then 

specifically describe the objectives, actions and guidelines for each of these alternatives by resource or resource 

use. This organization allows for understanding the general differences between alternatives as a whole, as 

well as differences in alternative management approaches for each resource. Summary tables (Tables 2-23 and 

2-24) at the end of this chapter display the range of outcomes and environmental consequences (effects) for the 

alternatives across the key resources and resource uses managed by the BLM in the planning area. 

Planning for BLM Land Management; How This Chapter is Organized 21 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

In the following description of alternatives, 

•	1 “Management Common to All Alternatives” includes management from the three existing plans that will 

be carried forward regardless of which alternative is chosen and implemented. This guidance provides 

management direction that has been successful, did not raise concerns during scoping, and does not need 

adjustment. These management decisions have been subjected to public review under NEPA in the prior 

planning processes and are not open to further public scrutiny. 

•	1 The description of “Alternative 1” (or the “No Action” Alternative) combines existing management 

guidance from these three plans. If another alternative (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5) is chosen and 

implemented, the guidance described under Alternative 1 would not be carried forward. 

•	1 “Management Common to All Action Alternatives” describes new management objectives, actions, 

and guidelines that are common to Alternatives 2-5. This guidance addresses management that can be 

resolved with a single action alternative. 

•	1 Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 (the “Action Alternatives”) address issues that can be resolved in a variety of 

ways. In this DEIS, only the management of Travel, Recreation, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Livestock 

Grazing consider more than two alternatives. For all other resources or resource uses, management 

scenarios are common across all action alternatives. 

• Based on the analyses in this draft environmental impact statement, the BLM identified Alternative 2 

as the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative is the one that best meets the purpose and need 

described in Chapter 1. 

Each management alternative is described below by objectives, actions, and in some cases guidelines and “Best 

Management Practices” or BMPs (Appendix B). In many instances, examples are also provided for clarification 

purposes, but should not be considered as all inclusive. 

Objectives are desired outcomes and management requirements for resources or resource uses. They represent 

land use plan decisions. 

Actions are also required land use plan decisions, and aim to achieve the objectives of a particular resource or 

resource use. They include actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health. These actions include proactive 

measures (e.g., measures that will be taken to enhance watershed function and condition), as well as measures 

or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities occurring on public lands. Actions also establish 

administrative designations such as ACECs, recommend proposed withdrawals, establish land tenure zones, and 

determine suitability for congressional designations (such as Wild and Scenic Rivers). Actions include expected 

future activities for allowable uses such as mineral leasing, recreation, timber harvest, and livestock grazing, 

which enable analysis of effects of the various alternatives. 

Guidelines are recommendations or rules that lead or direct a course of action to achieve objectives. Guidelines are 

followed unless there is a good reason to deviate from them. Such reasons are documented in subsequent decisions. 

Best Management Practices (BMP) are a suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, management actions 

to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management practices are often developed in conjunction with land 

use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they are mandatory. 

They may be updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. BMPs can be applied 

and monitored using adaptive management techniques. Similar to guidelines, rationale must be documented for 

deviating from applicable BMPs during implementation. 

Management objectives, actions, guidelines, and best management practices set the stage for site-specific resource 

use levels. Site specific use levels are normally identified during implementation-level planning or the permit 

authorization process. 

The BLM took the overall planning vision and goals described in Chapter 1 into consideration as it developed 

alternative objectives, actions, guidelines and BMPs. The following alternatives seek to balance resource 

protection with our need to use natural resources. In eastern Oregon, the land has always provided the economic 

base for communities. The following alternatives seek to identify ways in which communities can continue 

benefit, protect, use, and enjoy public lands within the John Day Basin planning area. 

22 How This Chapter is Organized 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

If any discrepancies are encountered between the text and maps in this Draft RMP/DEIS, the text should be 

considered accurate. 

Key Features of the Alternatives 

The following briefly describes the general theme of each of five management alternatives for BLM lands within 

the John Day Basin planning area, particularly as they relate to the key management issues described in Chapter 

1 (Landscape Health, Access and Transportation, and newly acquired lands on the North Fork John Day River.) 

Following these descriptions is Table 2-1, which describes key differences between alternatives, and more detailed 

descriptions of alternatives by resource or resource use. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

This alternative would continue existing management as directed under three different RMPs and their 

amendments. Key features of Alternative 1 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Rangeland vegetation would be managed to achieve greater amounts of mid or late seral conditions. 

•	1 The majority of forestlands would be managed to produce timber. 

•	1 All unplanned fire ignitions would be suppressed while allowing for the safety of the public and fire 

personnel. 

•	1 All grazing allotments, except for those on newly acquired lands along the North Fork John Day River 

would be open to livestock use. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 Over half of the BLM lands in the planning area (258,066 acres) would be designated as Open to crosscountry OHV use (see glossary for definitions of OHV designations). OHV use on another 131,320 acres 

would be Limited to designated roads and trails, and 67,226 acres would be Closed to OHV use. 

•	1 An interim transportation system of 742 miles of BLM, State, County, and other agency routes across BLM 

lands would include: 572 miles of BLM routes open year-round, 61 miles of BLM routes open seasonally, 

250 miles of BLM routes that are currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public unless permission 

for access is acquired from private landowners. This interim transportation system, as well as the interim 

systems for each of the other four alternatives, will be in place for up to five years until a more specific 

transportation planning effort is completed. 

North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) Acquired Lands 

•	1 The North Fork John Day River would have interim protection of the scenic, recreation and fishery 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values without a final determination of suitability for Wild and Scenic 

River status. 

•	1 The NFJDR grazing allotments would continue to be closed to livestock use. 

•	1 All BLM managed lands on the North Fork John Day River would continue to be managed as Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) Class III. 

Key Features of the Alternatives 23 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) 

The action alternatives reflect changes in national policy and incorporate new science on natural resource 

protection. These address concerns expressed by a broad set of stakeholders, including support for traditional and 

motorized use of the landscape, non-motorized use, recreational use, and environmental concerns. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred) 

The BLM identified this alternative as the preferred alternative. Key features of Alternative 2 include: 

Landscape Health 

• Vegetation: Management would return community composition to within the Acceptable Range of 

Variability (ARV; see glossary) for all Biophysical Settings (BpS; see glossary) to the extent possible on 

BLM lands. Vegetation management would provide opportunities to provide products such as firewood, 

construction materials, or fuel for power generation when compatible with, and as a result of managing 

for ecosystem health objectives. 

• Fuels and Fire Management: The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI; see glossary) Full Suppression zone has 

been identified because human life and property would be at high risk if a wildfire were to occur. In the 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR) zone, human life and property are not subject to as high a risk 

from wildfire as the WUI. Depending on conditions, resource availability, and anticipated fire behavior, 

the appropriate management response may range from full suppression to taking no action and letting the 

fire burn within a desired perimeter to promote resource values while not placing life and property at risk. 

Fire and fuels management would also maintain or increase wildlife habitat diversity, improve ecosystem 

integrity, and reduce fuel levels in order to decrease the chance of extreme habitat loss. 

•	1 Range Management: A new grazing management tool would be available for reducing potential conflicts 

between grazing and social demands or environmental needs (see description of the “Grazing Decision 

Matrix” in the Livestock Grazing section). 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 OHV use would be allowed in the plan area, but would be limited to designated roads and trails, with a 

few exceptions. Cross-country OHV use (open designation) would be allowed on 4,490 acres. OHV use 

on 367,300 acres would be Limited to designated roads and trails, and 84,823 acres would be Closed to 

OHV use. 

•	1 An interim transportation system of 333 miles of BLM, State, County, and other agency routes across BLM 

lands would include: 86 BLM miles open year around, 138 BLM miles open seasonally, and 9 miles of 

BLM routes that are currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public. The majority of closed roads 

under this alternative are currently inaccessible to the public. 

North Fork John Day River Acquired Lands 

• The North Fork John Day River would be recommended as suitable for Scenic Wild and Scenic River 

(WSR) designation. 

•	1 Most of the North Fork area would be managed as VRM Class II. 

•	1 When implementing the Grazing Decision Matrix tool, the NFJDR acquired lands would be treated as a 

‘Special Management Area’ similar in ecological value to Wilderness Study Areas (WSA), Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSR), Research Natural Areas (RNA), and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Two 

of the nine allotments containing acquired lands in the NFJDR would be available for Reserve Forage 

Allotments (see glossary) or Closure, and seven would remain Closed. 

24 Key Features of the Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Alternative 3 

This alternative is the same as Alternative 2 for most resources and uses. However, this alternative addresses 

some public comments from local stakeholders differently than Alternative 2. This alternative reflects a desire to 

continue traditional uses and look of the landscape. Other key features of Alternative 3 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except the design of the Grazing Decision Matrix for this alternative would open 

allotments on the NFJDR acquired lands to grazing. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2 except about 5,088 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, and OHV use 

on 366,699 acres would be Limited to designated roads and trails. 

•	1 An interim transportation system of 879 miles of BLM, State, County, and other agency routes across BLM 

lands would include: 295 BLM miles open year round, 475 BLM miles open seasonally, 134 BLM miles 

of roads currently closed in the acquired lands near the NFJDR and 250 miles of BLM routes that are 

currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public. 

North Fork John Day River Acquired Lands 

• The eligible Wild and Scenic River segment of the NFJDR would be recommended as suitable with a 

Scenic and Recreational designation, depending on segment. The Recreational designation would be 

recommended in order to accommodate more traditional motorized vehicle use of the upper segments of 

the river. 

•	1 Most of the NFJDR acquired land would be managed as VRM Class II. 

•	1 Much of the acquired lands in the NFJDR area would be open to grazing. 

•	1 Grazing would be excluded from riparian areas 

Alternative 4 

This alternative is largely the same as Alternative 2. It meets the purpose and need with more emphasis on 

reducing conflict between social and ecological factors. This alternative would limit OHV use to seasonal periods 

on a few designated routes and there would be one area of 2 acres Open to cross country OHV use. Other key 

features of Alternative 4 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2, except this alternative would apply the Grazing Decision Matrix with a greater 

degree of sensitivity to social and ecological conflict while maintaining the same sensitivity to livestock 

grazing demand as the other action alternatives. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 OHV designations would include: 2 acres Open, 365,242 acres Limited to designated routes (some 

seasonal restrictions), and 91,366 acres Closed. 

•	1 The interim transportation system would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Key Features of the Alternatives 25 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

North Fork John Day River Acquired Lands 

•	1 Eligible river segments would not be recommended as suitable for designation by Congress as WSR. 

Unsuitable river segments would be managed in accordance with other RMP management objectives. 

•	1 Most of the NFJDR acquired land would be managed as VRM Class II. 

•	1 Grazing allotments on acquired lands near the NFJDR would remain closed. 

Alternative 5 

This alternative primarily addresses access and transportation issues related to OHV use. Key features of 

Alternative 5 include: 

Landscape Health 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2. 

Access and Travel Management 

•	1 OHV designations would include: No areas Open to cross-county OHV use, 371,787 acres Limited to 

designated roads and trails, and 84,823 acres Closed. 

•	1 The interim transportation system would be the same as Alternative 2. 

North Fork John Day River Acquired Lands 

•	1 Same as Alternative 2. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-1 summarizes key differences between alternatives by resource or resource use. Following this table is 

a detailed description of each alternative by resource or resource use. Note that the vast majority of resources 

or resource uses have only two management alternatives: one that includes current direction (Alternative 1), 

and one that modifies current direction that is identical across all action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5). Only 

management of Access and Transportation, Recreation, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Livestock Grazing considers 

more than two alternatives. 

26 Comparison of Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Comparison of alternatives showing key differences in resource or resource use objectives among alternatives for management of BLM lands within the John Day Basin planning area.Objectives that are similar across all alternatives for a particular resource are not necessarily displayed in this table. See discussion for more complete alternative descriptions by resource or resource use.

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Soils Maintain soil productivity and minimize erosion.

There are no soilsobjectives unique to Alternative 1 

Maintain and promote, or restore long-term, sustainable soil health and proper functioning condition.

Vegetation In rangelands, manage

vegetation to achieve 

greater amounts of midor late seral conditions.Manage mostforestlands to producetimber. 

Return community composition to within the Acceptable Range of Variability (ARV) for all Biophysical Settings (BpS) on BLM lands. Maintain native bunch grass and biological soil crust 

integrity. Provide commercial and non-commercial products when compatible with plan resource objectives, and as a result of managing for healthy forest systems. Provide sufficient forage for livestock and wildlife. 

Fuels Provide for firefighter and public safety from the effects of wildland fire. Restore and maintain the integrity of ecosystems.

There are no fuelsobjectives unique to 

Alternative 1. 

Wildland urban interfaces would be managed to support safe and successful suppression efforts under hot, dry summer weather conditions. Outside of WUI manage vegetation fuels to: a) trend to Fire Regime Condition Class 1; and b) be within the Acceptable Range of Variability by Biophysical Setting. 

Fire Suppress all unplanned

ignitions whileproviding for the safetyof the public and firepersonnel. 

In the Wildland Urban Interface Full Suppression zone, suppress wildfire to protect life, property, and identified resources when wildland fire occurs due to to high risk. During wildfire suppression effortsretain unburned patches of habitat that do not compromise safety or fire suppression effortsIn the Appropriate Management Response zone, implement appropriate management actions based on assessment of risk to life, property, and key ecological components upon discovery of a wildland fire. During wildfire suppression efforts retain unburned patches of habitat that do not compromisesafety or fire suppression. Wildland fire use may be considered if a Wildland Fire Use Plan is in place.

Aquatics Manage lands adjacent to major river corridors to meet state water quality requirements, satisfy obligations of the Clean Water 

Act, and protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable values, especially anadromous salmonids. Comply with water quality criteria specifically listed by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.There are no aquaticobjectives unique to Alternative 1. 

Implement an Aquatic Conservation Strategy to: maintain and restore the health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, move streams and lentic areas (see glossary) toward Properly Functioning Condition (see glossary), conserve and restore water quality to provide for beneficial uses, meet state policy, conserve and restore stream and wetland integrity and domestic water supplies, and monitor and maintain water rights necessary to meet BLM objectives and maintain beneficial uses. 

Comparison of Alternatives 27 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Wildlife Improve and maintain 

vegetative conditions 

to benefit wildlife andlivestock. 

Maintain or improve habitats to support healthy, productive and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals. Provide security habitat that benefits deer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep during sensitive periods (winter, calving/fawning and hunting seasons). Maintain, restore, and enhance bighorn sheep populations and habitat on public land. Protect and restore specialhabitat features. Identify species that have been extirpated from the planning area. Consider returning extirpated species to the plan area.

Wilderness Characteristics 

Areas found topossess Wilderness Characteristics outsideof WSAs do not receive protection under theInterim Wilderness Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, nor do they receive any special protection designed tomaintain or enhance theidentified Wilderness Characteristics. 

Maintain Wilderness Characteristics on BLM lands found to possess Wilderness Characteristics and identified by BLM for protection. 

Visual Resources All BLM managed

lands on the North ForkJohn Day River would continue to be managedas VRM Class III. 

The North Fork John Day River corridor; the proposed North Fork John Day, Armstrong Canyon, and Ferry Canyon ACECs; most of JV Ranch; and areas identified for management for Wilderness Characteristics would be VRM Class II.

Wild & Scenic Rivers (Segment of the NorthFork John Day River 

determined eligiblefor inclusion in theWSR system) 

Manage consistent witha tentative Recreation classification fromCamas Creek to MalloryCreek, and a tentative Scenic classificationfrom Mallory Creek toRiver Mile 20.4. Provide interim protection of thescenic, recreation andfishery OutstandinglyRemarkable Values (ORVs) without a final determination ofsuitability. 

Recommend the NorthFork John Day River as administratively suitable for designation byCongress as WSR, with a Scenic classification, andORVs of fishery, scenery, and recreation. 

Recommend the NorthFork John Day Riveras administratively suitable for designationby Congress as WSR.Classify as Scenic andRecreational with ORVs of fishery, scenery, and recreation. 

No eligible rivers would be recommended assuitable for designationby Congress as WSR.Manage unsuitableriver segments in accordance with otherRMP management objectives. 

Same as Alternative 2 

28 Comparison of Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Areas Of CriticalEnvironmentalConcern 

Continue to designatethe Spanish Gulch (333acres) and Horn Butte(5,999 acres) ACECs. 

Expand the Horn Butte ACEC to 7,152 acres, and remove ACEC status from Spanish Gulch. Designate the Lower John Day (42,682 acres) and Lower John Day Paleontology (38,168 acres) ACECs (see ACEC contingencies on release of WSAs by Congress for other uses, below.) Designate the Armstrong Canyon (3,885 acres) and Ferry Canyon (2,364 acres) ACECs.

Wilderness Maintain the wilderness character of existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for possible Wilderness designation by Congress. 

There are no wildernessobjectives unique to Alternative 1. 

In the event that a Wilderness Study Area is released by Congress for other uses, the BLM would allocate these released lands as follows:• North Pole Ridge, Thirtymile, and Lower John Day WSAs would be designated the Lower John Day 

ACEC for visual quality.

• Spring Basin and Pat’s Cabin WSAs would be managed under no-surface-occupancy requirements 

for fluid mineral development, closed to wind development and closed to motorized vehicles except for administrative use.

• Sutton Mountain WSA would be managed under the John Day Paleontology ACEC where it 

overlaps the Sutton Mountain WSA and managed under no-surface-occupancy requirements for fluid mineral development, and closed to wind development. Motorized vehicle use would continue to be limited to signed, designated routes except for administrative use. 

• Aldrich Mountain WSA would be managed under no-surface-occupancy requirements for fluid 

mineral development and closed to wind development. Motorized vehicle use would continue to be limited to signed, designated routes except for administrative use.

• Strawberry Mountain WSA would be closed to motorized vehicle use except for administrative use. • VRM Class for released WSAs would be changed from VRM Class I to VRM Class II.

Backcountry Byways Continue to manage the South Fork John Day River Back Country Byway paralleling the South Fork of the John Day River. 

Maintain the road surface suitable for passenger vehicles during spring, summer, and fall seasons. 

There are no byway objectives unique to Alternative 1 

Designate approximately 41 miles of federal, state, and county routes that circle the Sutton MountainWSA as a BLM Back Country Byway or recommend the state identify as a State Scenic Byway. Provide roadside viewing opportunities along the designated route. 

Comparison of Alternatives 29 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Livestock Grazing Modify grazing system, season of use, stocking density, class or type of livestock, or activity plans, or modify or install new 

range developments to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public 

Lands Administered by the BLM in the States of Oregon and Washington.Allow livestock grazing as shownfor Alternative 1 in Appendix J. Do notauthorize grazing onthe nine allotmentsin the North ForkJohn Day which arepredominantly acquiredlands. 

Modify uses to reduce conflicts between livestock and other uses and resources using a “Grazing Decision Matrix” (see description in the Livestock Grazing section). Manage some allotments as Reserve Forage Allotments (see glossary), and allow use on a temporary basis rather than allocating these permits to a specific operator. While use of this Grazing Decision Matrix is the preferred approach for reducing conflicts, BLM retains the authority and discretion to close allotments asnecessary to address non-attainment of Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines or other resourceobjectives.Apply the GrazingDecision Matrix toall allotments inthe John Day Basin.Implementation ofthe Grazing DecisionMatrix treats NorthFork John Day River acquired lands as a‘Special ManagementArea’ similar in ecological value to WSAs, WSRs, RNAs,and ACECs. 

Similar to Alternative 2, except North ForkJohn Day River acquired lands would not be treated as a ‘SpecialManagement Area’. Assumes North ForkJohn Day River acquired lands have currently occupied anadromousfish streams, andgrazing would be excluded from riparianbuffers. 

Similar to Alternative 2, but applies a greaterdegree of sensitivity tosocial and ecologicalconflict. 

Same as Alternative 2 

30 Comparison of Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

RecreationOpportunities 

Designated WSRsegments would remain 

a Special RecreationManagement Area (SRMA; see glossary),The only identifiedExtensive Recreation Management Area is the North Fork areamanaged under theBaker RMP. 

Expand the boundary of the John Day SRMA to 122,865 acres. Designate the North Fork/JV Ranch SRMA (52,033 acres), Bridge Creek SRMA (60,678 acres), Little Canyon Mountain SRMA (2,617 acres), Separate the South Fork John Day River from the John Day SRMA and create a new 55,204 acre SRMA, Rudio Mountain/Johnson Heights ERMA (59,163 acres). Designate the John Day Basin ERMA for the remaining 101,534 acres in the planning area. Protect existing recreation values and provide access to public lands. Enhance recreation management through acquisition of lands or public access easements. 

No new specialrecreation permitson BLM public landswould be considered for authorization except forselect, specified cases. 

Issue new upland-based special recreation permits according to BLM policy, as staff time allows.

Acres of OHVdesignations:

Open= 258,066;Limited=131,320;Closed=67,226 

Acres of OHVdesignations:

Open= 4,490;Limited=367,300;Closed=84,823 

Acres of OHVdesignations:

Open= 5,088;Limited=366,699;Closed=84,823 

Acres of OHVdesignations:

Open= 2;Limited=365,242;Closed=91,366 

Acres of OHVdesignations:

Open= 0;Limited=371,787;Closed=84,823 

Comparison of Alternatives 31 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Travel Management Manage an interim

transportation systemof 742 total miles ofroutes (BLM and State,County, and other 

Agency routes acrossBLM lands.), including:• 572 miles of BLM

routes open yearround. 

• 61 miles of BLM

routes openseasonally. 

• 250 miles of BLM

routes that arecurrently “landlocked” andinaccessible tothe public unlesspermission for accessis acquired fromprivate landowners.

• 475 miles of unmaintained primitive 

routes that areaccessible to highclearance or off-roadvehicles are open for public use 

The planning area isdivided into six travel management sub areas.Manage an interimtransportation systemof 333 total miles,including:• 86 BLM miles open

year around. 

• 138 miles open

seasonally. 

• 9 miles of BLM routes

that are currently“land locked” andinaccessible to thepublic. 

• 109 miles not under

BLM jurisdiction(with limitedBLM managementdiscretion) 

• 409 miles are not

part of the interimtransportation system(241 of these miles areshort, land locked,and inaccessible.) 

The planning area isdivided into six travel management sub areas.Manage an interimtransportation systemof 879 total miles,including:• 295 BLM miles open

year round. 

• 475 miles open

seasonally. 

• 250 miles of BLM

routes that arecurrently “landlocked” andinaccessible to thepublic. 

• 109 miles not under

BLM jurisdiction(with limitedBLM managementdiscretion) 

• 662 miles of primitive 

routes useable by highclearance or off-roadvehicles are open to the public. 

Same as Alternative 2 

Maintain the existingtransportation system. 

Assess present and future access needs. Evaluate existing trails, primitive roads, and roads. Use plan criteria to determine an appropriate travel and transportation system within 5 years. 

32 Comparison of Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Energy and MineralResources 

Within legal constraints, and except as otherwise noted in the alternatives, all Federal mineral estate locatable, leasable, and salable minerals would be available for exploration, development, and production subject to existing regulations and standard 

requirements and stipulations. Provide leasing opportunity for oil and gas, geothermal energy, and solid minerals in an environmentally-sound manner. Provide opportunity for the exploration, location, development, and production of locatable minerals in an environmentally-sound manner. Eliminate and rehabilitate abandoned mine hazards (locatable minerals). Table 2-17 summarizes mineral exclusion and avoidance areas.There are no mineralsobjectives unique to Alternative 1. 

In an environmentally-sound manner, create a recreational mining area where the public can pan for gold with a reasonable prospect of success.

Lands and Realty In John Day and Two Rivers RMP areas, retain Z-1 lands in public ownership; retain or exchange Z-2 lands; and retain or 

dispose of Z-3 lands through sale or exchange.

Identify 222,182 acresas Z-1, 193,769 acresas Z-2, 40,444 acres asZ-3 and acquire = 4,036acres. In the Baker RMParea, retain in publicownership Z-1 landswithin WSR boundaries, Wilderness areas, WSAs, ACECs, and RNAs.Lands zoned Z-2 in theBaker RMP area would be available for disposal. In the remainder ofthe Baker RMP area, no land sales would be permitted unless disposal of the tract would serve an important publicobjective. Transfers to other federal, stateor local agencies maytake place or exchangesmay occur to enhanceresource management orimprove public service. See Map 15 

Increase the percentage of public land with public access by 10% over the life of the plan. Identify 363,095 acres as Z-1, 20,563 acres as Z-2, and 72,454 acres as Z-3. See map 16.Within the planning area the area formerly under the Baker RMP will be managed under the 3 Zone Land Tenure Classification system used under the John Day and Two Rivers RMPs. 873,660 acres private lands, adjacent to large blocks of public lands would be identified as potentially suitable for acquisition. Actual acquisitions limited to not more than 2% of planning area. 

Comparison of Alternatives 33 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-1. (cont.)


1

Resource 

Alternative 1 -

No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Agricultural LandManagement 

Apply water to 120 acres of land associatedwith agriculturalleases. When conflictoccurs, resource values 

on public lands willbe protected. Theremaining agriculturallands are on scatteredpieces of land throughout the plan area. 

Agricultural lands provide local agriculture, riparian habitat, wildlife, pollution abatement, and publicaccess to recreation.• Maintain 0 to 400 acres in a combination of wildlife food/cover crops and potentially irrigated land 

in crop production by local farmers and ranchers.

• Restore and maintain 100+ acres of habitat for species found in rivers, floodplains or surrounding 

landscape through permanent conversion.

• Maintain all unused agricultural land water rights (100+ acres) in instream leases to achieve instream 

flow goals for fish, pollution abatement and recreation.

• Dispose of existing small (< 10 acres) parcels of agricultural fields where it is not possible for BLM to

manage separately from privately owned agricultural fields and are not publicly accessible by river, road or foot. 

34 Comparison of Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Description of each Alternative 

Soils 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective S1 

Maintain soil productivity. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective S2 

Maintain soil productivity and minimize erosion. 

Actions 

•	1 Take corrective actions where practicable to resolve erosive conditions. Continue management with no 

specific limits or measures to reduce detrimental soil disturbance other than to minimize and use best 

management practices. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective S3 

•	1 Maintain and promote long-term, sustainable soil health and proper soil functioning condition (see 

glossary). Restore function of non-functioning soils. 

•	1 Achieve proper soil functioning condition or an upward trend in condition across BLM lands in the 

planning area. 

•	1 Maintain top soil by keeping the ground covered to prevent erosion loss, improve water infiltration for 

water storage, and prevent physical crust formation in areas with annual precipitation rates less than 12 

inches. 

•	1 Maintain top soil organic matter content to provide soil structure, aggregate stability, water infiltration, 

nutrient holding capacity, and biological function. 

•	1 Maintain soil with macro and micro pore space to provide sufficient air and water availability for root 

development and soil organism function. 

Actions 

•	1 Prescribe actions and restoration work in upland areas to ensure a less than 10% probability of erosion 

exceeding the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil loss tolerance T-Factor (see glossary) 

on non-sensitive soils (see Map 3). 

• Implement, maintain and restore proper drainage and erosion control on all existing facilities, including 

but not limited to roads and trails. 

•	1 When developing or approving new facilities, trade expansion of soil disturbance area with proportional 

rehabilitation, decommissioning, or obliteration of pre-existing disturbed areas. Facilities include roads, 

trails, quarries, rights of way, recreation sites, etc. Facilities with excess erosion are priority areas to 

rehabilitate when mitigating for disturbance from new facilities. Roads and trails with a high probability 

of excess erosion are indicated on Map 25 in Chapter 4. Excess erosion includes evidence of soil loss or 

sediment movement in concentrated flow paths such as rills or ruts deeper than 6 inches (0.75 pounds per 

Soils	 35 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

36 Map 3: Sensitive Soils 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 3: Sensitive Soils 37 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

foot of average annual erosion). Design and implement rehabilitation, decommissioning and obliteration 

to restore soil function and viable protective vegetative cover within two years of the disturbance. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Limit detrimental soil impacts (see glossary), including loss of organic matter content, compaction, soil 

displacement, and erosion to less than 15% of the project area (6500 square feet per acre) on non-sensitive 

soils. This 15% disturbance includes existing and new facilities and infrastructure. Projects include, but 

are not limited to ground based timber harvest activities, juniper thinning, authorized OHV use off 

designated trails, and other activities. 

•	1 Recover and restore all management related detrimental impacts on sensitive soils. 

•	1 Retain large wood amounts (greater than 3 inches in diameter) in contact with the ground for soil health 

(see Vegetation Section and Table 2-2 for large down wood retention requirements). 

•	1 Develop grazing systems to favor and move toward a healthy native grass community with healthy 

biological soil activity. Initial assessments shall be provided by Standards and Guides for Rangeland 

Health Assessments (Information Bulletin No. OR-98-315) and/or grazing management plans. 

•	1 Restore native ecosystem function by applying appropriate erosion control measures, such as seeding 

with native perennial grasses, subsoiling, lopping and scattering cut vegetation to add extra cover for 

bare, erosion prone soils. 

•	1 Promote use of existing facilities before allowing new facilities. 

•	1 Take corrective action to fix facility drainage and erosion problems where erosion levels are exceeding 

acceptable soil loss (T-factor values from the NRCS) or where concentrated erosion is causing detrimental 

impacts to the facility. 

•	1 On closed portions of the transportation network, ensure an effective closure, restore vegetation (active or 

passive) and control erosion. Practices may include obliteration, decommissioning, and other tools. 

•	1 Apply available scientific models to identify areas with high erosion probability (modeled as exceeding 

0.75 pounds per ft average annual erosion rate, 6 inch deep rutting, and other indicators of excess erosion). 

•	1 On open portions of the transportation network with high probability of excess erosion (see Map 25 in 

Chapter 4). 

•	1 Require a change in maintenance intensity to a level where excess erosion is verified and controlled. 

•	1 After erosion is controlled, revert to a maintenance intensity required to protect adjacent BLM lands, 

designated use levels, and other resource values. 

•	1 Conduct preventative maintenance as required to keep erosion control features functioning. 

•	1 Use Best Management Practices in Appendix B as additional guidance. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would include Management Common to All Alternatives, plus new direction described 

in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. There are no differences between the action alternatives (2-5). 

38	 Soils 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Air Quality 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective A1 

Meet the national ambient air quality standards as described in the Clean Air Act. 

Guidelines: 

•	1 Consult, coordinate and comply with applicable Tribal, Federal, state and local air quality regulations, as 

required by the Clean Air Act, Executive Order 12088, and Tribal, Federal or state implementation plans. 

•	1 Follow the direction as listed in the Oregon State Smoke Management plan during implementation of all 

projects on BLM forested lands. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would include direction described above under Management Common to All Alternatives. There 

are no objectives or actions unique to Alternative 1. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

There would be no additional objectives or actions unique to the action alternatives beyond those described under 

Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would include Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Vegetation 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective V1 

Maintain and restore healthy rangeland, woodland, and forest habitats with diverse species compositions 

appropriate for the potential of the sites based on disturbance patterns and frequencies. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to use the Prineville District Integrated Weed Management (IWM) EA (OR-053-3-062). 

This district-wide EA provides a full Integrated Weed Management Program for all BLM lands, with 

provisions for more detailed weed management for Wilderness Study Areas (such as the Lower John Day 

River IWM EA.) 

•	1 Continue to use the Lower John Day River IWM EA (OR-054-3-063), which provides a fully integrated 

weed management program including all weed management practices on BLM lands along the lower 

John Day River (river mile (RM) 10 to 122). For projects proposed in Wilderness Study Areas, these 

actions are subject to site specific analysis to ensure that that they do not impair wilderness values or 

preclude WSAs or portions of WSAs from Wilderness designation as directed in the IMP. 

•	1 Use guidance in the Programmatic EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 

17 Western States (October 2, 2007) and subsequent guidance being developed through the Oregon 

Statewide Herbicide EIS. 

Air Quality 39 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

• Management practices may include preventative, manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, biological, and 

chemical actions. 

•	1 Implement maintenance and restoration treatments including but not limited to: seeding or shrub/ 

juniper reduction utilizing mechanical or prescribed fire. 

Guidelines 

Additional guidance for noxious weed control is displayed in Appendix C Noxious Weed Control Mitigations / 

Stipulations. Also refer to Appendix B in the Programmatic EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on 

BLM Lands in 17 Western States (October 2, 2007). 

Objective V2 

Conserve threatened and endangered plant species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, and do not 

contribute to the need to list a species (The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended). 

Actions 

•	1 For Special Status species (see glossary and Appendix D), determine the distribution, abundance, reasons 

for current status and habitat needs for species occurring on lands administered by the BLM and manage 

the habitat to conserve the species. 

•	1 Maintain an active inventory and monitoring program for all Special Status species. 

•	1 Consider Special Status plants prior to implementation of any BLM action. 

•	1 Involve partners to assist in writing conservation assessments and strategies and for implementing 

public education. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Monitor sensitive species sites at least once every three years. 

•	1 Inventory all project areas for Special Status plants where ground-disturbing actions are proposed. 

If during a project review by a wildlife biologist it is determined that there will be adverse impacts 

individuals or local populations of a Sensitive or Strategic species, and those adverse impacts can not be 

mitigated, the project may continue if it is determined that it will not cause a trend toward Federal listing 

as Threatened or Endangered. If the project has potential to cause a trend toward Federal listing the 

project should be abandoned or formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed before 

any project activities are undertaken. 

•	1 New road construction within riparian areas should be avoided. 

•	1 Use cable and/or aerial logging techniques when harvesting timber within riparian areas. 

•	1 Locate skid trails parallel to and outside of all drainages. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective V3 

Manage rangeland vegetation so as to achieve greater amounts of mid or late seral conditions. Manage the 

majority of forestlands to produce timber. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage commercial forestland (lands capable of producing 20 cubic feet of commercially valuable wood 

per acre per year) for the production of timber. Commercial tree species include pine, fir, spruce, Douglasfir, and larch. Manage non-commercial forestlands (lands that do not have the viable species capable of 

40 Vegetation 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

producing 20 cubic feet of commercial grade wood) primarily to provide food and cover for wildlife and 

forage for cattle. 

•	1 Outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) (see Aquatics section and glossary), manage 

timber to prevent conditions that support insect and/or disease outbreaks. Management techniques 

include overstory removal and commercial or pre-commercial thinning. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Design vegetation treatments with irregular patterns, untreated patches, and other attributes, to provide 

for an optimum edge effect (see glossary) to support ecosystem health, wildlife, visual quality and other 

resource objectives. 

•	1 Reclaim disturbed sites to as near as natural as possible. 

•	1 Manage timber using Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ). 

•	1 Within 100-300 feet (distance is dependant on steepness of side slopes) of perennial streams, and within 

50 feet of ephemeral streams, timber removal will be allowed only to prevent the risk of loss of an entire 

stand due to insect infestation, disease, or wildland fire. 

•	1 In Segments 7 and 10 (North Fork and South Fork River John Day corridors, respectively), timber removal 

will take place only when necessary to reduce the risk of loss of an entire stand due to insect infestation, 

disease, wildfire or when public safety is of concern. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective V4 

Return community composition to within the Acceptable Range of Variability (ARV) for all Biophysical Settings 

(BpS) to the extent possible on BLM lands (see Appendix E). Maintain and restore healthy rangeland, forest, and 

woodland habitats with diverse species compositions appropriate for the site’s potential based on disturbance 

patterns and frequencies, including the maintenance of native bunch grass and biological soil crust integrity. 

•	1 Under normal burn frequencies juniper occupation will be cyclical but will not persist across most of the 

planning area. The Juniper Steppe Woodland BpS identifies those sites where fire return intervals are 

much lower due to topography or soils and where juniper can occupy the site for relatively extended 

periods. These are the areas most likely to contain old growth juniper (see glossary for old growth 

definitions.) Additionally, potential old growth juniper areas are identified using soils, local knowledge, 

and existing vegetation mapping. Late seral conditions in the Mountain Big Sagebrush with Conifers, 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Semi Desert with Trees, and Stiff and Low Sagebrush with Trees BpSs have the 

potential for old growth juniper development and management. 

Actions 

•	1 Maintain or reduce juniper occupation to within the ARV for the following BpSs: Mountain Big Sagebrush 

with Conifers, Wyoming Big Sagebrush Semi Desert with Trees, and Stiff and Low Sagebrush with Trees. 

Exceptions occur in some late seral conditions within these BpSs where they have the potential for old 

growth juniper development and management. 

•	1 In order to capture the natural variability of the landscape the smallest analysis unit for ARV analysis 

would normally be 20,000 acres. It is recommended that analyses be completed at the Subecoregion level 

(see Subecoregion descriptions and Table 3-1 in Chapter 3). 

•	1 Assess effects of vegetation altering projects every 5 years across the planning area to ensure that the 

affected BpS(s) are moving to or remain within ARV. 

•	1 Restoration projects would be designed to create vegetation patches with the size, shape, structural 

elements, extent, and spatial juxtaposition expected under endemic disturbance processes (e.g., wildland 

fire) processes and to maintain or restore connectivity of priority wildlife habitats. 

Vegetation 41 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Manage vegetation and fuel loading to trend toward Fire Regime Condition Class 1 (FRCC 1; see 

glossary) to facilitate future disturbance and succession to sustain conditions within site capability. 

Example actions are detailed in the Fuels section. 

•	1 Treat juniper using full and partial cutting, prescribed fire, chaining, mowing, and/or chemical treatment. 

•	1 Where necessary, reduce understory “young” juniper within old growth juniper stands primarily through 

mechanical treatments that will not jeopardize old growth characteristics. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Existing old growth juniper trees (see glossary) and stands should be retained in all mechanical 

treatments and efforts should be made to limit loss when prescribed fire is used.
1

•	1 If new techniques, classification refinements, or site specific data are obtained, adjustments in the 

biophysical setting (BpS; see glossary) map or classification would be made. This would not change the 

objective to manage for a variety of stand conditions appropriate to the landscape potential, but would 

refine the data to more accurately reflect what is occurring on the ground. 

•	1 Restoration activities may include: seeding, salvage, hydrologic control activities and devises, noxious 

weed treatments, area closures, motorized use restrictions, repair or replacement of minor facilities, fence 

construction, mulching, hazard tree removal, tree and shrub planting, snag creation (chemical, biological, 

or mechanical), down wood placement, commercial harvest, forest health treatments, fuels treatments, 

and insect and rodent control. 

•	1 Examples of the types of projects expected under the objectives, actions and guidelines for general 

vegetation management include: 

◦	1Removing “young” juniper in areas where it exceeds ARV and is fragmenting shrub or grassland 

patch sizes. 

◦	1Seeding annual grass or weed dominated sites that are fragmenting shrub or grassland patch sizes. 

◦	1Reducing the amount of mesic (moist) forest species on ponderosa pine and dry-mixed conifer BpS by 

thinning targeted species. 

◦ Removing competing invasive coniferous species in aspen stands, followed by prescribed fire where 

appropriate. 

•	1 Vegetation treatments would be based on one or more of the following needs: 

◦	1Removal of public health and safety hazards. 

◦	1Species composition, structure or disturbance adjustments to meet ARV or FRCC objectives. 

◦	1Desired stocking densities (given site capability and ARV objectives). 

◦	1Desired basal area, or crown bulk density. 

◦	1Insect and/or pathogen disturbance. 

◦	1Excessive ladder fuels (crown bulk height). 

◦	1Desired fuel loads. 

◦	1Failure of Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines attributed in part or whole to vegetative conditions. 

◦	1A Rangeland Condition rating of “Fair” or below. 

◦	1Reduction of invasive species or noxious weeds. 

◦	1Reestablishment of native and desirable species. 

◦	1Salvage of dead or damaged trees. 

•	1 Prioritizing Vegetation Treatments 

◦	1Treatment priorities would be based on an assessment of whether a single treatment (maintenance) can 

maintain progress toward ARV or whether multiple, sequenced treatments (restoration) are necessary. 

Maintenance treatments would generally receive higher priority than restoration treatments due to 

lower amounts of inputs and higher potential for success. 

◦	1Treatment priorities would also be based on an integrated analysis of the potential multi-resource 

benefits of treatments in a particular area. Map 4 displays the current assessment of priority needs. 

42 Vegetation 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Treatment areas and priorities shown on this map were developed based on an analysis of current 

vegetation conditions and their spatial relationship to other priority resource needs. These priorities 

would provide guidance for where treatments should occur; however, annual funding and other 

priorities would be considered when making the final determination of priority treatment areas. Areas 

with higher scores based on the number of factors benefited would be addressed first unless funding 

or specific objectives are being targeted elsewhere. Prioritization shown on Map 4 was based on the 

following criteria: 

▪	1Wildland Urban Interface (would take precedence in most situations). 

▪	1Community Watersheds. 

▪	1Resource values (special wildlife habitats and presence of forest vegetation). 

▪	1Current field data indicating vegetation treatments are needed for a variety of reasons 

◦	1Additional factors to consider when determining project priorities include: 

▪	1Adjacent land owner interest in cooperative management or other partnerships. 

▪	1Areas where biomass or other products can be realized. 

▪	1Projects with targeted funding or resource objectives. 

▪	1BpS communities with the furthest departure from ARV objectives. 

▪	1Treatments that restore stand conditions consistent with objectives of allowing Wildland Fire Use (see 

glossary) within an identified Wildland Fire Use area (see Fire section of this chapter). 

•	1 Criteria for using mechanical versus prescribed fire treatments: 

◦	1Prescribed or natural fire is the preferred treatment method when site conditions allow. 

◦	1When the following conditions exist, mechanical treatments or a combination of mechanical and 

prescribed fire should be considered: 

▪	1Phase III juniper woodlands (see glossary). 

▪	1Densities of deep rooted grasses are less than 1 – 2 plants per 10 ft2 or annual grass compositions 

greater than 25%. 

▪	1Surface fuel loads sufficient to generate an active crown fire. 

▪	1Adjacency of sensitive resources. 

▪	1Potential exists for the removal of wood products that would be degraded or lost if prescribed fire 

were used. 

▪	1Potential for noxious weed expansion or dominance. 

•	1 Design vegetative treatments with irregular edges. 

•	1 Leave unburned patches within prescribed and wildland fires when they do not compromise fire fighter 

or public safety. 

•	1 Design vegetation treatments to increase existing patches that are below those characteristic of patches 

produced by average fire size described in the BpS description (on file with the Prineville District BLM). 

•	1 Create snags and down woody material to meet snag and down wood retention requirements for soils 

and wildlife within treatment areas (see Table 2-2 below and soils and wildlife sections of this Chapter). 

Create snags if necessary to meet retention requirements. 

Table 2-2. Down wood densities for managed stands (total tons/acre includes large pieces) 1 

Biophysical Setting 

Tons/acre of material 

<3” dbh 

Total tons/acre of material 

>3” dbh 

Pieces large down 

wood/acre 2 

Juniper steppe woodland N/A 1- 4 tons/acre 4.5 

Ponderosa pine, dry and mesic 3 4-10 tons/acre 2.5 

Dry montane mixed conifer 7 to 10 7-12 tons/acre 6.4 

Mesic montane mixed conifer 7 to 10 7-14 tons/acre 23.4 

Lodgepole pine 7 to 10 8-24 tons/acre 2.1 

Aspen – mixed conifer 7 to 10 7-14 tons/acre 6.4 

1

 Large down wood >19.7 in large end diameter, decay classes 1-4, and > 6.6 ft long 

2

 Site specific fuel loads would need to be developed for individual stands. 

Vegetation 43 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

44 Map 4: Potential Vegetation 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 4: Potential Vegetation 45 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Manage for multiple canopies when appropriate for the BpS and seral stage. 

•	1 Manage canopy closure appropriate for the BpS, seral stage and wildlife cover requirements. 

•	1 Where compatible with restoration and other resource objectives, manage for the long-term, sustained 

production of forest products through a program of periodic pre-commercial and commercial thinning. 

•	1 Apply the following criteria when determining the need for seeding (also see Appendix B): 

◦ Increase current densities of < 1 perennial bunch grass per 10 sq. ft. 

◦ Stabilize the site and minimize water or wind erosion. 

◦ Reduce the invasion of non-native invasive plants. 

◦ Prevent critical habitat for federal listed threatened or endangered species from being more impaired 

than if nothing was done. 

◦ Increase the diversity of wildlife habitats. 

◦ Provide a green strip (see glossary) in WUI areas. 

•	1 Develop seed mixes appropriate to the land use and location. For example, a burned area within a 

Wildland Urban Interface may warrant a mix that is predominantly non-native due to its fire resistance 

and low cost. 

•	1 Although not required, it is preferable to have a seed mix that contains native species. 

•	1 Seed species selected for a mix should be compatible, i.e., similar seed sizes, planting depth, and 

application method and timing. 

•	1 Select species that will not likely out-compete one another. 

•	1 In general, the use of a ‘nurse crop’ such as annual forbs or grasses is not recommended. If seeding is 

necessary, the use of perennial or short-lived perennial species is preferred. 

•	1 Rehabilitation would be considered whenever there is damage caused by natural or human-caused events 

such as erosion, fire, trespass, mining, road construction, and other ground disturbing activities in order 

to facilitate, maintain or move conditions toward site capability. 

•	1 Rehabilitation after disturbance events (when effects are outside the ARV) would be implemented before 

additional damage occurs to the disturbed area, down slope areas, or before undesirable vegetation 

becomes established. 

•	1 After a disturbance event which results in undesirable soil or plant conditions, review current uses, 

including to recreation, rights of way and permitted uses to determine whether the site has recovered 

sufficiently to support those uses without further degradation. 

•	1 An interdisciplinary team (IDT) will determine the need for treatments on surrounding private lands as 

they relate to the success of treatments on public lands. If treatment is deemed desirable on private lands, 

the appropriate agreements and authorities would be pursued and used. 

•	1 Following vegetation treatments or disturbance, an IDT would determine limitations on livestock grazing 

based on clearly defined and measurable recovery objectives. 

•	1 Unless recommended otherwise by an IDT, livestock are to be excluded from vegetation treatment and 

disturbed areas for the entire first year after the disturbance, through the second growing season, or until 

monitoring results documented in writing show that recovery objectives have been met. 

•	1 Recovery objectives may include those related to: biological soil crusts, species composition, seed 

production, soil stability, ground cover, and shrub establishment. 

•	1 When implementing vegetation treatments, retain diverse age and size classes appropriate for the BpS. 

Objective V5 

Provide products when compatible with plan resource objectives and result from managing for healthy forest 

systems. Provide sufficient forage for cattle and wildlife. 

46 Vegetation 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

• Allow the use of forest products on all forest lands (including juniper) in the planning area, except lands 

designated as Wilderness, WSA, and other areas that are managed to protect Wilderness Characteristics 

(with the exception of Big Canyon). 

•	1 Reduce or maintain densities of forest species, juniper, and shrubs to meet BpS characteristics. 

•	1 Restore native bunch grass communities on areas dominated by noxious weeds or annual grasses through 

treatment and reseeding. 

•	1 Use fire to increase palatability and production of herbaceous forage. 

•	1 Allow commercial and non-commercial collection of forest and juniper products within designated 

areas as identified to meet resource objectives and within sustainable limits. These products would be 

harvested by permit only and management would be guided by site specific NEPA guidance and permit 

collection regulations. Products include: commercial timber, salvage timber, post and poles, firewood, 

juniper boughs, bio-fuels, and cones. 

•	1 Lands available for forest product production would not provide an assigned allowable sale quantity 

but rather a probable sale quantity (PSQ) of commercial or noncommercial timber volume that would 

fluctuate annually depending on the amount of land to be treated that contains forest products. 

◦	1Probable Sale Quantity can be estimated but is dependant upon the size of material and number of acres 

treated. Therefore, PSQ would vary from year to year but a yearly average could be sustained over the 

long term. Commercial products include sawlogs, poles, posts, firewood and other wood fiber biomass. 

◦	1Approximately 2.54 mmbf (million board feet) could be available for every 1,000 acres treated. 

•	1 Create a 5 – 10 year forest health treatment strategy. 

•	1 Include specific types and amounts of products that will be made available from the forest health strategy. 

•	1 Create a map of forest health treatment stands that have sufficient access and are close enough to a town 

to provide biomass or firewood opportunities. 

Guidelines 

•	1 If resource objectives can be met and there is sufficient demand for wood products then mechanical 

restoration treatments should take priority over prescribed fire restoration. 

•	1 Salvage of killed and damaged trees from wildland fire, windthrow, insects, disease, and other causes 

must be consistent with snag and down wood retention guidelines and other resource objectives. 

•	1 When salvage is appropriate, high priority will be given to rapid action to minimize loss of timber value. 

•	1 Restrict cone collection within regeneration units or areas where natural regeneration is desired until 

satisfactory seedling establishment. 

•	1 Firewood and post and pole collection will be limited to material on the ground unless an area is 

designated as open to cutting standing trees.
1

•	1 Manage stocking rates and fuel loadings to allow stands to be resilient to endemic levels of fire, insects, 

and disease by using the appropriate management tool: mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, or Wildland 

Fire Use. 

•	1 In areas outside of ARV objectives and vegetation BMPs for seedling, sapling and pole densities 

(especially for shade tolerant species and juniper), use commercial or pre-commercial thinning to reduce 

competition stress to older or larger trees when there is economic demand. Consider the use of prescribed 

fire to reduce stocking, seed reserves, and reduce ladder fuels when economic demand and crown fire 

potential are low or as a follow-up treatment after mechanical thinning. 

•	1 Allow removal of large diameter (>20” dbh) trees when it can be shown that removal will benefit 

obtaining large structure (see glossary for old growth definitions), ARV, or forest health for the entire 

stand. Examples where removal of large trees may be appropriate include: 

◦	1Stocking densities are such that the stand is susceptible to bark beetle, mountain pine beetle, or root 

rot mortality. 

Vegetation 47 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

◦ Dwarf mistletoe in overstory trees will inhibit development of the understory, and risk stand loss. 

◦ Species composition adjustments are necessary to achieve ARV objectives. 

◦ An IDT identifies a need to create spatial and structural diversity within the stand. 

•	1 Harvest may be accomplished by a variety of manual and mechanized techniques including fellerbunchers, harvesters, skidders, portable chippers, chainsaws, pick-up trucks, and other wheeled or 

tracked equipment. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Fuels 

This section describes the management of vegetation with the objective of managing the risk of adverse affects of 

fire on human life and property and on ecosystem health. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective FU1 

Provide for firefighter and public safety from the effects of wildland fire. Restore and maintain the integrity of 

ecosystems. 

•	1 The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks 

to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDA et al., 2006, and the 

National Fire Plan (USDA et al., 2000) all emphasize the need to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a risk to 

Communities at Risk from the undesired effects of wildland fire. 

Action 

•	1 Accomplish prescribed burns in accordance with approved fire management plans (see glossary), 

prescribed fire plans (see glossary), and the State of Oregon smoke management plan (ODEQ 2006a; 

ODEQ 2006b). 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would be the same as Management Common to All Alternatives. There are no objectives or actions 

unique to Alternative 1. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective FU2 

Wildland urban interfaces (WUI) that are surrounded by live and dead vegetation would be managed so that a 

wildland fire would burn with fire behavior conducive to safe and successful suppression efforts under hot, dry 

summer weather conditions. See glossary for a definition of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and WUI Zones. 

Actions 

•	1 Reduce three dimensional fuel profiles (continuous vertical and horizontal vegetation distribution) and 

reduce the risk of crown fire or uncontrollable surface fire (see the Vegetation section of this chapter for 

estimated amounts of vegetation treatments.) 

48	1 Fuels 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Design fuels and vegetation treatments to provide for human safety during a wildland fire while 

considering recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat and corridors, visual quality, air and water quality, 

and public access, including ingress and egress during emergencies. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Meet hazardous fuels reduction objectives through single or multiple fuels treatments including thinning, 

mowing, pruning, piling, prescribed fire, grazing, or other activities. 

•	1 For planning treatments, forested vegetation within the Full Suppression WUI Zone (see Map 5) would be 

subdivided into three bands with treatments designed to give desired fire behavior given 90th percentile 

(high) summer weather conditions (see glossary). The actual width of these three bands and treatment 

prescriptions would vary according to site-specific conditions such as vegetation (fuel) type, density, 

structure, proximity of homes to property boundaries, prevailing winds, topography and other natural 

fuel breaks. 

◦	1The first band, nearest to homes, private property, and along ingress and egress routes would be 

managed for conditions that are not expected to support crown fire, and are expected to result in 

surface fires with flame lengths of less than 2 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. 

◦	1Treatments in the second band would be designed to reduce the probability of crown fire initiation 

and spread, and keep surface fuel flame lengths below 3 to 4 feet under 90th percentile summer 

weather conditions. 

◦	1Treatments in the third band, farthest away from homes, private property, and ingress and egress 

routes would be designed to reduce the occurrence, size, and severity of crown fires by breaking 

up fuel continuities and limiting ladder fuels. Most wildland fires would be limited to surface fires 

with less than 4 foot flame lengths under average weather conditions, with opportunities for limited 

passive crown fire (occasional ignition and torching of individual or small groups of overstory trees). 

Stand replacement fires would be a rare occurrence. Crown fire approaching this zone would fall from 

the tree canopy to the forest floor in this area due to lack of horizontal and vertical fuel continuity. 

Treatment objectives in the third band would place a higher emphasis on ecological needs as long as 

fuel continuities and ladder fuels are reduced on at least 50 percent of the band area. 

◦	1Prescribed fire in forested habitats within Full Suppression zones would be used only for burning 

piles or broadcast burning in smaller areas where smoke and risk to property could be managed at 

acceptable levels. Larger underburns would be considered in the third treatment band. 

◦	1Based on expected forest vegetation re-growth rates, re-treatment is expected to occur approximately 

every 15 to 20 years for tree thinning and every 5 to 10 years for brush cutting/mowing within all three 

bands. Mechanical treatment would generally precede prescribed fire. 

•	1 Within rangeland or woodland vegetation (including juniper woodlands) in the Full Suppression 

WUI Zone, vegetation would be managed differently than in forested lands; they would have only 

two treatment bands with different prescriptions. As in forested areas, the actual width and treatment 

prescriptions of the two treatment bands would vary according to site-specific conditions 

◦	1The first band, nearest to homes, private property, and along ingress and egress routes may be up to 

600 feet wide. Approximately 50 to 70 percent of the area within this band would be treated to reduce 

the potential for crown fires and keep surface fuel flame lengths within 3 to 4 feet under 90th percentile 

conditions, where direct initial attack can still be effective. 

▪	1Brush treatments would be initiated when shrub canopy cover exceeds 50 percent or is greater than 2 

feet in height. 

▪	1Thinning in this area would favor leaving older juniper trees (greater than 150 years old) while 

removing younger trees. 

▪	1All naturally occurring juniper snags would be left within this band. An exception to this is snags less 

than 6 inches diameter at breast-height (dbh) in fire-killed juniper stands. In these cases, dead trees 

would be reduced to a density of 5 to 7 trees per acre. 

▪	1Remove identified hazard trees that pose a threat to property, roads or other facilities. 

◦	1The second band would extend from the outer edge of the first band to 1 1⁄2 miles.” Treatments would 

be designed to reduce the occurrence, size, and intensity of fires by breaking up fuel continuities and 

limiting ladder fuels. 

Fuels	 49 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

50 Map 5: Fire Response Zones and FRCC 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 5: Fire Response Zones and FRCC 51 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

▪	1Wildland fires would be limited to surface fires with flame lengths of 3 to 4 feet. 

▪	1Crown fires would not be expected to occur under 90th percentile summer weather conditions 

there may be an occasional ignition of individual or small groups of juniper trees under extremely 

windy conditions. 

▪	1Juniper trees less than 150 years old would be retained in small clumps where needed for hiding 

cover, and would be discouraged elsewhere. 

▪	1All old growth juniper will be retained except those that provide a risk of fire spread to a structure or 

make control efforts unsafe. 

▪	1Treatment objectives would place a higher emphasis on ecological objectives as long as fuel continuity 

and ladder fuels are reduced to minimize hazardous fire. Mosaic patterns of old juniper, shrub, and 

grass types would be emphasized. 

▪	1Prescribed fire would be used only for burning piles or broadcast burning in smaller areas where 

smoke and risk could be managed at acceptable levels. 

◦	1Based on expected rangeland and woodland re-growth rates, re-treatment is expected to occur 

approximately every 15 to 20 years. 

•	1 Fuels treatments would have priority on BLM administered lands adjacent to WUI communities that have 

the following characteristics: 

◦	1The community is physically close to BLM administered lands, with structures or other improvements 

within one mile. 

◦	1The community is actively involved in hazardous fuels reduction, matches federal efforts on private 

lands, coordinates fuels reduction or suppression capability improvements with protection agencies 

(e.g., Oregon Department of Forestry, city or rural fire districts), and takes steps to improve the 

resistance of their community to damage or destruction by wildland fire. 

◦	1A Community Wildfire Protection Plan has been completed for the community. 

◦	1Adjacent BLM administered lands exhibit heavy fuel loading and high potential for crown fire or fast 

moving surface fire under average weather conditions, especially if those fuels are “upwind” given the 

dominant summer wind directions. 

◦ Adjacent BLM administered lands provide opportunities to meet multiple objectives through fuel 

treatment activities, including improvement of wildlife habitat, enhancement of recreation or visual 

quality, restoration of ecosystem integrity, reduction of social conflicts, or outputs of marketable 

products or energy from the removal of hazardous fuels treatments. 

• Where WUI zones intersect other specially designated areas such as WSA, WSR corridors, ACECs, or 

RNAs, fuels treatments will be designed in a manner that retains or enhances the overlapping special 

management objectives to the extent practical without compromising fire fighter safety or improvements. 

Objective FU3 

Within the Appropriate Management Response (AMR) zone (see glossary), manage vegetation and live and dead 

fuel loads, distribution, and vertical continuity to trend toward Fire Regime Condition Class 1 (FRCC 1) and be 

within the Acceptable Range of Variability for the BpS (see vegetation section). Effects of disturbance would be 

consistent with those characteristic of the BpS fire in which they occur. Fuels management within the AMR Zone 

would have the same objectives and actions for vegetation management as described in the vegetation section of 

this chapter. Additional actions and guidelines related to fuels management are described below. 

•	1 Desired Fuel Loadings (tons/acre) are identified in Appendix B (Best Management Practices.) 

Actions 

•	1 Utilize prescribed fire, thinning, other mechanical, biological, chemical or other appropriate tools to meet 

fuel load objectives. 

•	1 Implement post-disturbance grazing rest requirements as described in the vegetation section. 

52	1 Fuels 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Guidelines 

•	1 Priorities for treatment would be FRCC 2 and 3 conditions, or treatments that would allow a greater 

range of management response to wildland fire. 

•	1 Select treatments that can meet objectives with the least environmental impacts and shortest recovery 

times as long as other resource objectives are met. 

•	1 Reduce crown bulk densities and increase crown base heights to a range that would limit fire behavior 

to appropriate amounts of crown loss based on the characteristic or desired fire regime and tree species. 

This would facilitate the implementation of Wildland Fire Use in the future. 

•	1 Projects will be monitored according to COFMS fuels monitoring strategy. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Fire 

This section refers to the management of responses to wildfire ignitions, and restrictions on uses that may 

increase the probability of ignitions. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective F1 

Provide for firefighter and public safety from the effects of wildland fire. 

Actions 

•	1 Conduct prescribed fire in accordance with approved fire management plans, prescribed fire plans, and 

the State of Oregon Smoke Management Plan. 

•	1 Conduct fire suppression activities under the guidelines of the Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Fire Aviation Operations (“The Red Book”.) These standards require safe fire suppression operations 

and provide the local line officer and incident commander the discretion to use the most appropriate 

suppression response. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective F2 

Suppress all unplanned ignitions while allowing for the safety of the public and fire personnel, regardless of the 

level of risk. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective F3 

•	1 In the WUI Full Suppression zone, protect life, property and identified resources (e.g. municipal 

watersheds) when wildland fire occurs.
1

•	1 In the AMR zone, implement appropriate management actions upon discovery of a wildland fire. 

◦	1Maintain or increase wildlife habitat diversity and improve ecosystem integrity through development 

of structurally diverse plant communities, multiple seral stages and increased plant and animal species 

Fire	 53 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

richness. Reduce fuel levels in order to decrease the chance of extreme habitat loss through standreplacing wildland fire. 

Actions 

•	1 Provide perimeter control, at a minimum in the Full Suppression Zones (Map 5). 

•	1 Implement AMR consistent with federal Wildland Fire Policy (USDI Bureau of Land Management et al. 

2001). 

•	1 In both WUI Full Suppression Zone and AMR zone allow unburned patches to remain whenever 

consistent with protecting life and property in order to meet vegetation and wildlife objectives.
1

•	1 Implement Wildland Fire Use (WFU) consistent with federal Wildland Fire Policy. Wildland Fire Use areas 

could be a combination of BLM land, other federal, state, and local government lands, and private lands. 

•	1 Implementation direction must be added to the Fire Management Plan (see glossary) before a fire could 

be managed for resource benefits. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Implementation of AMR would be based on considerations of safety, environmental, social, economic, 

political, and resource management objectives. Use AMR to minimize cost and maximize resource benefit. 

•	1 Appropriate Management Response of unplanned fires can take the form of four general strategies: 

◦	1Monitoring – watching or checking fire behavior, fire spread, and fire effects at periodic intervals 

without taking any significant suppression actions. Conduct monitoring via personnel at the site, 

aerially, or from a fixed point such as a lookout tower. Wildland Fire Use would use monitoring, point 

control, and perimeter control. 

◦	1Point control – controlling unplanned ignitions only at those points of the fire perimeter that threaten to 

cause unacceptable damage or loss to a specific resource or facility. This would be the preferred method 

of fire suppression throughout most of the planning area. 

◦	1Perimeter control – constructing a fireline around the fire perimeter and mopping-up to a specified 

distance from the perimeter. 

◦ Full control – constructing a fireline around the fire perimeter and completely extinguishing the fire 

(full suppression). Full control and Perimeter control would be the most common method of fire 

suppression in WUI areas. 

•	1 Utilize WFU to minimize costs and suppression impacts while maximizing resource objectives. 

•	1 Prior to implementing WFU, a site specific plan will be written for each area designated as a WFU area. 

•	1 Potential Wildland Fire Use areas to be considered include: Sutton Mountain, Pat’s Cabin, Spring Basin (in 

conjunction with Pine Creek Ranch), North Fork of the John Day (in conjunction with the Umatilla NF), 

South Fork of the John Day (in conjunction with the Ochoco and Malheur National Forests). Other areas 

may be added over time. 

•	1 Identify areas needing prior treatment to increase the probability that WFU will meet management 

objectives. 

Objective F4 

Protect life, property, and ecological components at risk of further degradation as identified by an IDT following 

prescribed fire or wildland fire. 

Actions 

•	1 Implement post-fire rehabilitation contained in the vegetation section of this chapter and the BLM Burned 

Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1). 

54	1 Fire 
 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would include Management Common to All Alternatives and Management Common to 

All Action Alternatives. 

Aquatics 

The guidelines in this section are required. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective AQ1 

In river corridors, improve water quality by complying with water quality criteria specifically listed by ODEQ in 

OAR 340-41-0605. Provide habitat for summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. 

•	1 Provide habitat to meet ODFW objectives in the Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments. 

•	1 Manage lands adjacent to the rivers to meet state water quality requirements, satisfy obligations of the 

Clean Water Act, and protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable values. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage vegetation, grazing, and agricultural lands, and water quantity and quality on public lands to 

protect fisheries resources in river corridors. 

•	1 River structures for anadromous fish would be subject to public review, and appropriate federal, state, 

and tribal consultation. 

•	1 Continue to encourage and participate in independent and cooperative efforts to achieve aquatic 

objectives.
1

•	1 The BLM adopts recommended flows identified in the John Day River Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment 

(see John Day River Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1, Table 2-J) as provisional instream 

flow goals. The agencies will continue their present individual and cooperative efforts to improve instream 

flows. The John Day River “Core Team” (BLM, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 

Oregon (CTWSRO), State of Oregon, Counties) will coordinate to identify, prioritize, and facilitate actions 

to help achieve interim instream flow goals. Identify more quantitative goals prior to adjudication. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Work cooperatively with other land holders (private, state and other federal) within the basin to take 

actions that reduce the introduction of pollutants and improve river flows and temperature. 

•	1 Existing ODEQ policy requires the formulation of a Water Quality Management Plan for all water quality 

limited rivers and streams in Oregon (ODEQ 1997). The ODEQ is scheduled to establish total maximum 

daily loads (TMDLs) for the Middle Fork, North Fork, Upper, and Lower John Day River sub-basins in 

coming years. 

•	1 Develop a Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) to guide restoration actions to improve water quality 

in those areas where BLM land management actions have an effect (see Appendix G of the John Day River 

Management Plan). 

Aquatics	 55 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective AQ2 

Implement the interim PACFISH strategy, comprised of the following components: riparian goals, interim 

riparian management objectives (RMOs), riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs), Standards and Guidelines 

(S&Gs), key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. 

•	1 PACFISH does not propose any restoration or ground disturbing actions. 

•	1 The goals of PACFISH establish an expectation of the characteristic of watersheds, water quality, riparian 

areas and habitat needed to support anadromous fish. 

•	1 Existing PACFISH management direction provides guidance at the scale of the entire Interior 

Columbia Basin. 

•	1 Goals for aquatic habitat in RHCAs are focused on the value of anadromous fish. No anadromous fish 

strongholds are identified, and all watershed with anadromous fish are key watersheds. 

•	1 Both the Two Rivers and John Day RMP include measures to protect aquatics, with emphasis on 

anadromous fish, but lack restoration actions and objectives.
1

•	1 PACFISH does not identify actions needed to attain restoration. 

Actions 

•	1 Use RMOs, which provide numeric descriptions of good habitat for anadromous fish. The RMOs set 

targets for land managers to use in land disturbing activities. They numerically describe anadromous 

fish habitat conditions for the entire Interior Columbia Basin. They are intended to halt erosion of habitat 

quality, not provide necessary habitat. 

•	1 Use interim RHCAs, which are areas where PACFISH management applies. RHCAs vary by anadromous 

fish presence, and flow periodicity. 

•	1 Implement watershed analysis prior to modification of RMOs, Rangeland Health Standards and 

Guidelines (S&Gs), or RHCAs. 

•	1 Implement aquatic-related actions in the John Day RMP, which prescribes construction of in channel rock 

structures to provide habitat structures for anadromous fish. 

•	1 The Two Rivers RMP states that riparian areas will be managed to their full potential with at least 60% 

achieving vegetative potential. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Use PACFISH Standards and Guidelines, which identify restrictions on timber, roads, grazing, minerals, 

fire/fuels management, lands, riparian areas, watershed and habitat restoration, and fisheries and wildlife 

management actions necessary to halt degradation of anadromous fish habitat. S&Gs are limited to 

halting degradation of existing anadromous fish habitat and are limited to a set of use types (timber, 

recreation, etc). 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

In the existing RMPs, the management of fish, water quantity and quality, and riparian habitat are each addressed in 

separate sections. In this RMP, management objectives, actions and guidelines for these resources are combined into 

one set of objectives, actions, guidelines and BMPs, which we refer to as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). 

The purpose of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is to allocate land for riparian management, allocate 

water for beneficial uses, and identify tools for maintaining and restoring the integrity of aquatic habitats, 

watershed processes, and quality of water resources. These purposes would be met while also continuing to 

56	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

produce commodities from BLM-administered land. The following desired conditions together encompass the 

ACS vision: 

•	1 People encounter clean water, limited erosion, and lush native vegetation along streams. People observe 

ribbons of perennial stream flows throughout the year. Diverse riparian vegetation covers stream banks 

and dominates valley bottoms. Floodplains contain layers of shrubs, trees and grasses. 

•	1 Fish and wildlife are vigorous and abundant. Pools and riffles, woody debris, water and riparian 

vegetation provide adequate and complex habitat. Fish do not contain unsafe levels of contaminants. 

Stream channels and riparian vegetation provide aquatic habitat of high ecological status. 

•	1 Livestock and crops have consistently available water and food. Deep-rooted riparian species stabilize 

stream banks and facilitate access and crossing. Vigorous vegetation provides high nutrient forage. 

Consistently available water and nutrients improve weight gain for livestock. Floodplains replenish 

groundwater for late season release and crops have water at the peak of the growing season. 

The ACS includes the following elements: 1) desired conditions (above), 2) planning criteria, 3) priorities, 

objectives, actions, guidelines and BMPs (in this section and Appendix B). Monitoring is described in Appendix N. 

The first objective below is general, as are the actions and guidelines that follow. The second objective, regarding 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), is the foundation for the remaining ten objectives. The objectives define 

desired conditions. Most start with the statement “Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and 

natural disturbance regimes,” which provides flexibility necessary to adapt conservation and restoration efforts to 

landscape variations in the plan area. “Existing” means at the time of RMP publication. 

Objective AQ3 

Maintain and restore the health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. 

Actions 

• Identify restoration priorities and aquatic strongholds, and conduct multi-scale analyses (see details 

under guidelines, below). 

•	1 Delineate Riparian Management Areas (RMAs, see glossary). 

•	1 Manage RMAs for attainment of the aquatic objectives. Other uses are allowed in RMAs as long as they 

do not retard attainment of aquatic objectives. Appropriateness of other uses will be determined through 

site-specific assessment by a BLM interdisciplinary team (IDT) considering watershed and stream 

limiting factors, reach capability, and aquatic objectives and identifying stipulations. In RMAs, an IDT 

will review all new actions (e.g., road construction, leases, rights of way, mining operations). Ongoing 

actions (e.g., grazing, existing roads, existing mining operations) will be reviewed throughout the life 

of the plan. When objectives are not being met and actions are needed, an IDT will recommend the site 

specific actions to be taken. Table 2-3 lists measures of attainment of aquatic objectives. Interdisciplinary 

teams determining activities appropriate for RMAs shall consist of at least three specialists experienced 

in quantitative measurements and analysis of soils, vegetation, and hydrology. When discussing activities 

appropriate for RMAs on fish-bearing streams, at least one member of the IDT will be a fish biologist. 

IDTs should evaluate activities appropriate for RMAs when projects, leases, rights-of-way, or other 

actions are proposed within RMAs. 

•	1 Minimum widths of RMAs include the flood prone areas and extend the following distances from the 

floodprone area: 

◦ 300 foot slope distance on both sides of the flood prone area for perennial and intermittent stream 

channels. 

◦	1300 foot slope distance from edge of wetland vegetation for lentic areas. 

◦	125 foot slope distance on both sides of ephemeral draws where average annual precipitation is less than 

14 inches. 

◦	150 foot slope distance on both sides of ephemeral draws where average annual precipitation is greater 

than 14 inches. 

Aquatics	 57 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 An IDT shall also assess (using the process described above) projects outside of stream channels, 

floodplains, and lentic RMAs for any ground disturbance activity over one acre, vegetation alteration 

more than 20 acres, and new construction or maintenance of roads, landings or other structures. 

•	1 Identify monitoring actions (see Appendix N). 

Guidelines 

•	1 Soil and water professionals within IDTs would select specific BMPs needed to protect and restore 

aquatics during project level analysis. Current best management practices are required and are outlined 

in Appendix B (BMPs). Although required, these BMPs may be modified to better meet aquatic objectives 

as new science and information becomes available. 

•	1 Identify management emphasis from objectives below. 

All 5th field hydrologic units (up to 250,000 acres) in the plan area are considered for their potential 

as population strongholds for aquatic species. For example, the population of steelhead in the North 

Fork Sub-basin is identified in the Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS, in process) as one with high 

genetic integrity, connectivity, a strong relationship of the subpopulation to the species as a whole, and 

restoration and population expansion potential into adjoining watersheds. However, funding priorities 

for aquatic restoration would be based on the Sub-basin Assessment (Map 6), Mid-Columbia Steelhead 

Recovery Plan, and as follows: 

◦ First priority – Source water protection areas for drinking water, such as the Dixie and Canyon Creek 

Watersheds. 

◦	1Second priority – ESA listed species/critical habitat and water quality limited stream channels – 

specifically priority watersheds, essential fish habitat, and strongholds identified in recovery planning 

and future efforts (see Map 6). 

◦	1Third priority – Fish bearing streams with locally important fish species or riparian areas lacking 

wildlife habitat. 

◦ Fourth priority – Stream channels with special designations, or high recreational or other values. 

58	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-3. Measures of Attainment of ACS Objectives. 

Measure of Attainment of ACS Objectives ACS Objective(s) 

Measurable attainment of water quality based on state 

and federal standards, sufficient for beneficial use and 

drinking water 

Water quality, public drinking water 

The Oregon Water Quality Index of major rivers to 

assess landscape restoration. 

Water quality 

Applicable questions from the lotic or lentic PFC 

assessment. 

Channel and sediment, surface to groundwater, water 

rights and use, lentic areas, native plant communities, 

riparian vegetation function, locally important fish, 

and habitat connectivity 

Examples of measures to be used when above measures indicate non-attainment, more information is necessary, 

or definition of “potential natural condition” is required. 

Use stream surveys, Appendix G Tables, and TMDL 

monitoring data. 

Channel and sediment, locally important fish, habitat 

connectivity 

Regional rating curves, peak crest gages, channel 

geometry studies, and other regional data 

Channel and sediment, surface to groundwater, habitat 

connectivity 

Percentage of the year streams meet State or similar 

flow goals for recreation and aquatic life Water rights and use, habitat connectivity 

At the watershed scale (5th field hydrologic unit (up 

to 250,000 acres), evaluate the percentage of stream 

routes that would pass 100 year flood with a natural 

geometry, slope, & bed stability Habitat connectivity 

Biophysical Setting descriptions and growth form 

(Kiegley and Frisina, 1998) for achievement of 

uninterrupted or released growth form. 

Native plant communities, and habitat and 

connectivity 

Objective AQ4 

Move all perennial, perennial interrupted and intermittent streams and lentic areas (see glossary) toward Properly 

Functioning Condition and achieve distribution shown (Figure 2-1). 

•	1 Allow channels in properly functioning condition to evolve to potential natural condition (see glossary). 

If natural recovery processes take longer than the life of this plan, then stream channel, floodplain and 

lentic area management shall achieve “functioning at risk with an upward trend” within 10 years of 

signing of the Record of Decision. 

Actions 

•	1 Conduct PFC assessments using an IDT that includes at least three specialists representing at least 

soils, vegetation, and hydrology resources. A fish biologist would be included in the IDT when fish 

bearing streams are being assessed. Specialists would be trained and experienced in the quantitative 

measurements behind the qualitative technique of PFC. 

•	1 Physical function will be determined based on existing site capability and the ability of BLM to direct 

conditions to an upward trend. Because BLM does not have reference sites for measuring “near natural 

rates of recovery,” BLM defines the condition of PFC or “at-risk with an upward trend” to be equal to 

“near natural rates of recovery.” 

Aquatics	 59 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

60 Map 6: Priority Watershed Assessment and Conservation Opportunity Areas 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 6: Priority Watershed Assessment and Conservation Opportunity Areas 61 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 2-1. Desired distribution of stream conditions for the John Day River Basin 

over the life of the John Day River Basin RMP. 

Objective AQ5 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, water quality to provide for 

beneficial uses and stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems, and to meet state anti-degradation policy. 

Actions 

•	1 Design water quality restoration to complement and allow natural channel altering processes to restore 

channels and floodplains. 

•	1 Restore water quality for all 303(d) listed streams in the planning area. In watersheds where BLM 

administers at least 20% of impaired stream miles, develop and continue to support joint efforts to restore 

water quality. 

•	1 Actions to restore water quality should consider water temperature, relative humidity, air temperature, 

and stream flow. 

•	1 Address dissolved oxygen, pH, biocriteria (see glossary), bacteria, temperature, and sediment through 

total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). A number of 303(d) listed streams flow through lands administered 

by other entities. The TMDL strategy provides the opportunity for source assessment to appropriately 

assign load allocations and better inform restoration actions and causes of impairment. 

•	1 Meet state water quality standards and utilize state pollution control standards (such as the Oregon 

Department of Forestry and Department of Environmental Quality Sufficiency Analysis, October 2002). 

•	1 Participate, in joint restoration efforts which will contribute to achievement of “excellent” water quality 

condition according to the Oregon Water Quality Index, or will maintain an improving trend 

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/wqimain.htm). 

•	1 Use riparian plantings, gentle stream channel restoration, and riparian oriented management to restore 

shade and natural channel geometry. 

62	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Use fire and fire suppression actions to restore water quality. Use fire to prevent stand replacement events 

that could degrade water quality and impact it beyond acceptable short-term impacts. Develop vegetation 

treatments in riparian areas to release desirable riparian species. 

•	1 Apply herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals approved for use by BLM to restore watershed function, 

while using BMPs to ensure non-impairment of water quality, soil productivity, or locally important fish. 

Participate in Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships 

(a voluntary, collaborative approach to identify problems and improve water quality associated with 

pesticide use at the local level). 

Guidelines 

•	1 Support regional data management systems that account for the state and condition of BLM administered 

lands and waters. 

•	1 Avoid introduction or use of chemical retardants, foam or additives within a distance that would result in 

delivery of harmful compounds to surface waters over the life of the plan. 

•	1 Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxicants where unanticipated releases could impair water quality. 

•	1 Prohibit biomass, solar, wind, geothermal and related transmission systems within 1⁄4 mile of flood prone 

area, lentic areas, ponding or playas unless approved after a site specific review by an ID team. 

Objective AQ6 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, stream channel integrity, 

channel processes, and sediment regimes (including the timing, volume, and character of sediment input and 

transport). 

Actions 

•	1 Where peak flows or erosion has incised stream channels, restore riparian vegetation and in-channel 

structure (i.e., large wood) appropriate to the biophysical setting (BpS; see vegetation section of this 

chapter). Across the watershed, correct conditions (i.e., roads and culverts) that contribute excess 

sedimentation or elevated peak flows to these reaches. 

•	1 Maintain vegetation in ephemeral draws appropriate to the ecology of the site. Apply BMPs (Appendix B) 

to ephemeral drainages as necessary to attain objectives on downstream intermittent and perennial streams. 

•	1 Use passive restoration and adjust management to restore vertical channel stability and stabilize 

headcuts. If passive restoration is not successful, actively restore vertical channel integrity by reducing 

stream power/energy. An IDT shall evaluate whether active restoration will introduce less risk to 

resources than allowing the headcut to persist. Active restoration of headcuts might include (in order 

of preference) riparian re-vegetation, re-contouring channel margins, channel re-design (including 

meandering), or hardening stream banks. 

•	1 Actively restore lateral channel integrity by stabilizing stream banks with a diversity of plants with 

strong, deep root systems. The amount of stream bank stabilized should allow natural erosion rates of the 

channel type. Restoration should focus on reducing erosion where it is out of balance with the landscape 

(i.e., cut banks on straight riffle sections). 

•	1 Restore stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime where facilities (e.g., roads 

and trails) cross stream channels and floodplains. 

•	1 Avoid construction of new structures in the bankfull width of streams. Exceptions will be made for road 

improvements, culvert replacements and other actions that are prescribed to meet ACS objectives. 

•	1 Maintain and secure instream flows for values of channel function, floodplain function, aquatic habitat, 

and water quality. Identify and coordinate with Federal, Tribal, state, local governments and nongovernmental organizations to secure instream flows. 

•	1 Use active restoration to reduce width to depth ratios on BLM managed segments of the South Fork, 

North Fork, and Mainstem John Day Rivers by an average of 5%. 

Aquatics	 63 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Where linear transportation features are or may be limiting perennial and intermittent stream channels or 

wetland function (e.g., PFC) use the following decision tree to evaluate the cause and potential solution 

for mitigating impacts (Figure 2-2). 

•	1 Plans of operations and reclamation bonds are required for mineral operations in RMAs. 

Figure 2-2. Linear Feature Decision Tree for Aquatics. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Prohibit activities that would degrade the sediment regime of perennial, perennial interrupted or 

intermittent stream channels. Allow activities if the long term intent of an activity is to restore stream 

physical function (e.g. juniper removal, thinning conifer encroachment, etc). The combination of BLM 

actions to restore upland watershed conditions and other landowner activities shall not risk (1% or 

100 year event) degrading sediment and flow regimes longer than 3 years. Within each 6th field sub 

watershed, limit treatment (except incidental low intensity burns backing into riparian) to less than 10% 

of the total riparian vegetation within any one year period. Low intensity burns backing into riparian 

areas will not exceed 50% of riparian area in 6th field watershed. 

•	1 Ensure that removal of vegetation or ground disturbing activities do not exacerbate headcutting. Avoid 

activities that would remove more than 50% of the watershed cover and exacerbate headcutting by 

increasing runoff. If more than 50% of the watershed cover is removed, apply watershed mitigations to 

attenuate peak flows associated with increased runoff. Apply mitigation measures such as buffers, hydroseeding, and wattles prior to fall precipitation (usually in October). 

•	1 In streams where the channel bank stability is degraded beyond a condition that natural erosion would 

create (eg. cut-banks exist on straight riffle segments), redirect sources of disturbance (e.g., recreation, 

bedding, watering, trailing) away from unstable stream banks or change management. 

•	1 For existing and planned linear features and landings, ensure that operation and maintenance avoid 

adverse effects to streams. 

64	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Avoid sediment delivery to streams by outsloping the road surface or by routing drainage away from the 

stream channel. In-slope low traffic volume roads where the road footprint or underlying soil formation 

is very rocky, but not erodible or subject to failure. 

•	1 Avoid disruption of the hydrologic flow path when constructing facilities, roads, trails, ordering mining 

and other activities. 

•	1 Minimize stream channel and floodplain crossings. Design or adjust them to accommodate 100 year 

floods, sediment and movement of large wood with a natural geometry, slope, and bed stability. Match 

bed gradation and D84 to the crossing gradient according to the most recent stream simulation science 

(like “Designing for Aquatic Organism Passage at Road-Stream Crossings” 2005 course by San Dimas 

Technology Center). Ensure that crossings provide a stable stream bed up and downstream of the site. 

Construct and maintain crossings to prevent diversion of flow out of the channel and down the road in 

the event of a crossing failure. Use ramped or low water fords at debris flow susceptible streams or any 

stream not requiring a culvert or bridge. 

•	1 Prohibit new structures (beyond crossings described above) within the bankfull width of streams. 

Existing structures within the floodprone width (elevations above 2 times max bankfull depth) must 

pass the 100 year flood and debris without degrading channel function. At structures, use natural stream 

simulation techniques to maintain the channel and floodplain continuity. Streambed diversity and 

material shall be similar to natural channel. Water velocities and depths, cover and resting areas shall be 

similar to the rest of the natural channel. Structures must be transparent to aquatic species. Structures 

include but are not limited to dams, poles, buildings, landings, houses, and docks. 

•	1 Use vegetative buffer strips to prevent sediment associated with recreation sites and linear features (see 

BLM definition) from entering the stream channel or floodplain. Ensure that a vegetated buffer strip is 

sufficiently wide and dense to filter sediment and slow water velocity (14 ft minimum). 

•	1 Use a bridge for stream crossings where stream bankfull width exceeds 20 feet, slope exceeds 6%, or 

where the movement of large debris is frequent. 

•	1 Along the 400 feet of road on either side of a road or stream crossing, construct road crossing approaches 

with flat cut slopes (less than 1:2 slope) unless the cutslope is determined by a professional geotechnical 

engineer to be stable and not susceptible to erosion. Roads with steep side slopes usually have more soil 

accumulating in the road ditches than roads with less steep side slopes (Oregon Watershed Assessment 

Manual 1999). 

•	1 Prohibit construction of new facilities (roads, trails, pipelines, utility corridors, etc) paralleling stream 

channels, except at minimal crossings. Exceptions may be granted if an ID team finds that a road or trail 

will not result in non-attainment of PFC or the 10 ACS objectives. 

•	1 Utilities shall use existing utility corridors for crossing stream channels, floodplains and lentic areas. 

•	1 At mineral lease sites, prohibit surface occupancy within perennial, interrupted perennial, intermittent, 

and ephemeral stream channels. Review and update plans of operation to eliminate impacts to stream 

channel integrity, natural sediment and natural flow regimes on a 5 year cycle. 

•	1 Prohibit new sand, gravel and recreational mining and extraction within the flood prone area (two times 

bankfull depth) and manage existing sites consistent with this ACS objective. As an exception, allow 

recreational mining at Dixie Creek and Standard Creek Area and along Canyon Creek in compliance with 

state regulations. Recreational mining sites will be spaced at least 100 feet apart, cannot use mechanized 

equipment and must not disturb area larger than channel width squared. Sluice boxes are prohibited. 

Objective AQ7 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, surface to groundwater 

interactions that support healthy riparian and wetland areas, aquatic habitats, and physical function of 

stream channels. 

Actions 

•	1 Use seeding, juniper removal, prescribed fire, wildland fire, weed removal, and other vegetation 

treatments designed to restore watershed cover and root structure that will facilitate capture, storage, and 

Aquatics	 65 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

release of water into downstream areas of the watershed. Target phase II and III juniper invasion areas for 

treatment (see Vegetation section of this chapter for area covered, and the glossary for definitions of phase 

II and III juniper). 

•	1 In low energy (Rosgen C and E type, see glossary) channels such as Priest Hole, construct side channels, 

restore riparian vegetation, fence, remove berms, enhance flows, and develop other projects to restore 

off-channel habitat. Restoration should avoid capturing the main flows and reducing stream energy short 

of potential. 

•	1 Use back-sloping, riparian planting, berm removal, large wood introduction and other projects to restore 

floodplain connectivity. Natural channels should be in equilibrium with the water and sediment supplied 

by the watershed. Prohibit or re-direct uses that are in conflict with maintenance of wetlands, floodplains, 

and off channel habitats, such as relocating camping at Priest Hole away from the river edge. Restore 

flows necessary to maintain wetland and riparian function. 

•	1 Use native woody riparian plantings and weed treatment to ensure that riparian vegetation provides food 

and cover for existing and expanding beaver colonies. Re-establish cottonwood, aspen and other woody 

riparian species with out-plantings, and secure genetic material at the nursery. 

•	1 Manage woody riparian species for unconstrained (released and un-arrested) growth forms. 

•	1 Promote activities that allow beavers to colonize in riparian areas. Reinforce the purpose and necessity for 

various restoration actions through public outreach and education. 

•	1 Where stream characteristics limit sediment supply, rely on passive restoration unless cost-effective active 

restoration techniques are available. In stream channels with adequate sediment supply, use both active 

and passive restoration (e.g., mechanized construction, riparian plantings and plant removal) to recover 

the system. 

•	1 Conduct restoration work to reduce bankfull widths on BLM managed segments of the South Fork, North 

Fork, and mainstem John Day Rivers by an average of 5% of the existing width. 

•	1 Restore compacted wet (hydric) soils. Conduct restoration when soils are not saturated. 

•	1 Use riparian planting, seeding and mulching to facilitate re-vegetation of hydric soils. Use facultative (see 

glossary) upland species where needed around the boundary of riparian plantings and seedings (facultative, 

upland, and obligate species are defined by the 1998 USFWS Wetland Plants list for each region). 

•	1 Conduct prescribed burns, cutting and use stump applications of herbicide to remove undesirable species 

which delay or prevent the attainment of ACS objectives. 

•	1 Perform watershed treatments for both short- and long-term recovery of sediment and flow regimes. 

•	1 Restore variable ranges in forest cover to maintain natural peak flows (see vegetation section of this chapter). 

Guideline 

Over the course of two years, forest cover restoration shall not result in more than 80% loss of forest cover in areas 

of less than 18”-15” annual precipitation. This 80% change applies to cumulative activities across all ownerships 

of a watershed (HUC 5). Phased treatments are preferred. Achieve landscape appropriate peak flows during 

juniper watershed treatments by lopping and scattering of limbs or similar material (see Table 2-2). 

Objective AQ8 

As necessary pursuant to state law, monitor and maintain water rights necessary to meet BLM management 

purposes and maintain all beneficial uses. 

Actions 

•	1 Water rights on BLM-administered lands are held in, or transferred to the name of the United States, 

Department of Interior, BLM. BLM will maintain all valid water rights, requiring inventory and 

cataloging of Public Water Reserve (PWR) #107 water rights for livestock and domestic water use and 

documentation of existing water rights over the life of the plan and beyond. 

66	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 By 2010, compile the history of use on BLM water rights and points of diversion. Voluntary 

relinquishment of mining water rights which are no longer valid will contribute to meeting instream flow 

goals. Complete a change-of-use for instream purposes use for each unused water right. 

•	1 Require rights-of-way to convey water across BLM land, with the exception of off-channel water for 

livestock and wildlife beneficial uses that improve watershed condition and attain ACS objectives. The 

off-channel use and rights-of-ways shall include stipulations for management to achieve PFC on the 

associated stream reach(es). 

•	1 Increase instream flows through cooperative efforts to lease water rights instream and improve irrigation 

efficiency. Apply Land and Water Conservation Funds to restore instream flows that support ecological 

and recreational resource values during periods of peak demand. 

•	1 For the North Fork John Day sub-basin, acquire and maintain instream and other water rights necessary 

to support recreational fishing, canoeing, hiking, kayaking, swimming, white water rafting, big game 

hunting, obligate diverse wildlife assemblage, and anadromous fish and bull trout habitat throughout 

pertinent life cycles. 

Guideline 

•	1 Withdrawals of water from stream systems shall be limited to those that do not contribute to degradation 

of fish and aquatic life. 

Objective AQ9 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes wetlands, lentic areas, and 

hydric soils. 

•	1 These areas have the soil and water to support facultative, wetland and obligate species as defined by 

1998 USFWS Westland Plants list for each region. 

Actions 

•	1 In order to achieve “near natural rates of recovery” appropriate for the ecoregion, vary management of 

riparian areas by physical function, as shown in Table 2-4. 

•	1 Relocate or close facilities that contribute to non-attainment of lentic PFC. 

•	1 Use decision tree (Fig 2-2) for management of linear features. 

•	1 Restore over bank or seepage flows necessary to maintain lentic function. 

•	1 Maintain expected pH based on local geology. 

•	1 If the integrity of reservoirs or other structures near lentic areas is compromised or presents a resource or 

safety concern, include the site in the deferred or other facilities maintenance schedule. 

•	1 New construction projects will be designed by a licensed professional engineer if the features exceed a 

height of 10 feet or 9.2 acre-feet or state standards. 

Guidelines 

• Locate ground disturbing activities and facilities away from hydric soils and wetlands. Ground altering 

activities should not degrade conditions beyond which 5 or more years are necessary to recover soil 

compaction and restore the local native vegetation and sediment regime. 

•	1 New structures, facilities, roads, trails, and leasable and salable mineral sites should be kept at a 

minimum in areas surrounding or characterized by hydric soils and otherwise should be prohibited in 

wetlands. New permits, rights-of-way, and easements will result in no net loss of lentic areas and avoid 

negative effects to hydric soils. 

•	1 Locate troughs associated with spring developments and off channel water on ground with a slope, 

vegetated buffer, and distance (25 feet minimum) away from stream channels, floodplains, and lentic 

Aquatics	 67 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

areas to ensure that the disturbed area does not contribute sediment to or remove vegetation from hydric 

soils, riparian or wetland areas. Use an automatic shutoff or efficiently return overflow to the source in a 

short return interval. 

• Prohibit actions that compact hydric or wetland soils, reduce site potential vegetation and thermal cover, 

and alter hydrology (e.g., infiltration). Use plantings and manage for obligate, facultative, or wetland 

species on degraded sites. 

•	1 Redirect activities away from reservoirs, wetlands, lentic areas, and hydric soils when they degrade 

surface or subsurface flow patterns or hydric soils. Remove trespass livestock or change BLM grazing 

management that is causing facultative, wetland and obligate (see glossary) species in wetland/hydric 

soils to have unnatural growth forms. 

•	1 Avoid brushing along stream channels and floodplains. Brushing may be unavoidable if it is necessary for 

human safety or to avoid threats to structural stability. Do not brush beyond 4 feet of a road as measured 

by the edge of the drivable road surface (not measured from turnouts or road shoulder). 

Objective AQ10 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, diversity and productivity 

of native riparian and aquatic plant communities. 

Actions 

•	1 Encourage native and non-native plants in riparian zones for the long-term purpose of recovering native 

riparian and aquatic plant communities. See vegetation section for related restoration actions. 

•	1 Actively restore a maximum cross sectional area (width x height) of woody riparian vegetation. Focus 

active restoration of woody vegetation in lower gradient streams where the PFC inventory indicates that 

the riparian vegetation has not achieved its potential extent (PFC Question #4; USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Technical reference 1737-15 and 11) and/or the stream lacks diverse age class distribution 

of riparian/wetland species (PFC Question #7). Where utilizing passive management, achieve a potential 

cross sectional area of woody species by managing all riparian shrubs and trees for uninterrupted or 

released growth forms (Keigley and Frisina 1998). 

•	1 Restore diversity and productivity of native riparian and aquatic plant communities by thinning 

invading conifers from riparian areas as identified by an IDT. Replant native hardwood riparian species 

appropriate to the site. Mechanical or other treatment of riparian vegetation shall not reduce shade below 

a point where stream water temperature prohibits attainment of the beneficial uses for a stream reach. 

Use nomographs or similar tools to correlate shade to topography and tree species. Retain large wood onsite to meet objectives for large wood management (Appendix G), down wood (see Table 2-2 in vegetation 

section) and pool depth/frequency desired conditions (Appendix G). If the plant community’s pipeline 

of standing and in-channel large wood, down wood and pool depth/frequency desired conditions are 

adequate, wood may be made available for other uses (e.g., forest products, biomass generation). 

•	1 In cooperation with County Weed Boards and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), target 

riparian areas for noxious vegetation treatment. Specifically address Russian olive, tamarisk, yellow star 

thistle, invasive thistles, and Dalmatian toadflax. 

•	1 Remove juniper where it has invaded stream channels, floodplains, and wetlands and where treatment 

byproducts can be used for conversion to biofuels and contribute to commodity production. 

•	1 Plant cottonwood and aspen (Popuous spp.) where current conditions are not meeting site potentials for 

these species. 

• Manage activities, such as livestock grazing, to ensure that woody riparian species are not arrested or 

retrogressed in form. 

• Change management of woody riparian species to correct for arrested and/or retrogressed growth forms 

and restore their potential stature. 

68	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Objective AQ11 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, riparian vegetation to 

provide the amount and distribution of large wood characteristic of aquatic and riparian ecosystems; provide 

adequate summer and winter thermal cover in riparian and aquatic zones; achieve rates of surface erosion, 

streambed and stream bank stability, and channel migration characteristic of historic conditions. 

Actions 

•	1 Where large wood is lacking (generally in second growth or burned-over stands), replant large wood 

source trees within the distance of one site potential tree height of riparian areas (150 feet). 

•	1 Fell hazard trees within the distance of one site potential tree height (150 feet) from the flood prone area 

of perennial, perennial intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Retain trees on site for restoration. 

•	1 Restore riparian trees along streams with the potential for riparian vegetation to provide large wood. On 

larger meandering streams, replant cottonwoods on point bars and in alder stands to improve structural 

integrity of individuals on these sites. On smaller streams, where in-channel large wood is present, restore 

pool frequency in a manner that controls the progression of large wood through the stream network. 

•	1 Design stream crossings to pass large wood. 

•	1 Where point bars are not re-vegetating with riparian vegetation, restore flow, sediment regimes, and 

hydraulic connectivity that limit re-vegetation. Use active restoration such as re-shaping and re-planting 

of point bars and floodplains to achieve potential riparian vegetation. 

•	1 Manage woody riparian species to achieve natural growth forms and stature. 

•	1 In order to achieve “near natural rates of recovery” appropriate for the ecoregion, vary management of 

riparian areas by physical function, as shown in Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4. Management of Riparian Areas by Function Rating 

Function Rating Management of Resource Uses (grazing, recreation, energy, etc.) 

Properly Functioning Condition 

or at Potential Natural Condition 

Continue management that will allow development of potential or late 

seral plant communities. Implement restoration actions to move site toward 

potential ARV by BpS (see vegetation section of this chapter.) 

Functioning-At-Risk 

with an upward trend 

Limit use and implement management that maintains upward trend in 

streambank and channel characteristics. 

Functioning-At-Risk 

with a static or downward trend 

Change management by limiting season, duration, frequency and intensity 

of resource use (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation, etc). Allow complete 

recovery of stabilizing vegetation before fall rains begin to increase stream 

flow (approx. October 1). Consider complete rest from activity for a time 

specified by IDT. 

Non-Functioning Eliminate management contributing to the Non-Functioning Rating 

Objective AQ12 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, riparian and aquatic 

habitats necessary for locally important fish stocks. 

Actions 

•	1 Restore sediment in spawning incubation areas to be less than 10% fines in gravel and less than or equal 

to 12% surface fines (pers. comm. John Morris, BLM, May 2007). 

•	1 Target phase III juniper invasion areas for treatment when erosion rates are elevated enough to degrade 

fish habitat. 

•	1 Increase and maintain pools in all perennial, perennial interrupted and intermittent streams. 

Aquatics	 69 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Use natural channel altering processes to restore stream channels and floodplains. 

•	1 Contribute to cooperative efforts to restore ESA listed fish populations and achieve TMDL load 

allocations and meet state water quality standards.
1

•	1 Restore limiting factors identified in the 2005 BPA John Day Subbasin Plan and subsequent studies. 

•	1 Restore large wood to stream channels and floodplain habitat appropriate to the BpS (see vegetation 

section) by: 1) managing forest lands within one site potential tree height of stream channels (150 feet) 

and floodplains to maintain a source of large wood; 2) re-introducing large wood to stream channels and 

floodplains; and 3) retain large wood in stream channels. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Achieve a 50% pool improvement in 3rd order streams lacking large wood. 

•	1 Allow natural channel altering processes to restore stream channels and floodplains. 

Objective AQ13 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, habitat and connectivity to 

support the resilience of riparian-dependent biotic communities. 

•	1 Stream channel crossings shall generate velocities and sediment transport rates that are stable and safely 

pass all life stages of aquatic organisms (including listed fish species) existing or historically present, and 

meet the state and federal fish passage requirements. 

Actions 

•	1 Maintain and restore corridors of riparian vegetation and re-connect flow in reaches with decreased 

stream flow. 

•	1 Restore vegetation necessary to support biotic communities that occur in the BpS (see vegetation section). 

•	1 Restore BLM managed perennial, perennial interrupted, and intermittent stream channel crossings in 

combination with the crossings of other land owners such that 90% of stream routes in each 5th field 

hydrologic unit (HUC; up to 250,000 acres) have crossings that accommodate the 100 year floods, and 

route sediment and large wood with a natural geometry, slope, and natural bed stability of the channel. 

•	1 Prohibit wind power and transmission systems within 1⁄4 mile of flood prone area, lentic areas, ponding 

or playas unless approved after a site specific review by an IDT. No surface occupancy (NSO) may be 

required if mitigation is not sufficient to achieve ACS objectives. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Retain 20% of the upland perimeter of lentic areas in vegetative species and structure needed for hiding 

cover, life cycle completion, and corridors of site riparian-dependent biotic community. This may 

translate into leaving areas untreated for fuels or other activities. The final delineation will be made by an 

ID team. 

•	1 Do not allow stream crossings to create or maintain scour, headcuts or deposition at levels not 

appropriate to the adjacent stream reaches.
1

Objective AQ14 

Conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural disturbance regimes, high quality waters that 

serve as domestic water supplies. 

Actions 

•	1 Target treatment of phases II and III juniper invasion areas in order to improve infiltration for 

groundwater that supplies public and private domestic water use. 

70	1 Aquatics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Remove legacy mine sites and prohibit new mining in source water protection areas such as the Dixie 

Creek watershed. 

•	1 Prohibit storage of toxics in Source Water Protection Areas. 

•	1 Do not apply fire retardant, herbicides or other toxics near domestic water points of diversion or 

delivery systems.
1

Guidelines 

• Use Oregon source water assessments to inform decisions about source water protection. Participate in 

and provide resources for plan area source water protection plans at the local level. 

•	1 Do not allow the introduction of volatile organic compounds into domestic waters supplies. 

•	1 Do not facilitate high risk uses in drinking water protection areas (e.g. septic, sewage, highways, streets, 

high-density housing, agriculture, and intense silviculture). 

•	1 Prohibit use or storage of insecticides, pesticides and other toxicants within 500 feet of domestic water 

points-of-diversions and wells. Exceptions include instances where written approval is obtained from 

water users or their representative and when necessary to immediately protect human life (e.g., fire 

suppression). Consider effects to local economies when weighing risks associated with using retardant, 

pesticides, herbicides and other toxicants within a quarter mile of private or community domestic waterpoints-of-diversions and wells. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

 There are no differences between Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Wildlife 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective W1 

Improve and maintain vegetative condition to benefit livestock and wildlife. 

Actions 

•	1 Wildlife escape devices will be installed and maintained in water troughs. 

•	1 Manage upland habitat for diversity to provide for a variety of wildlife. 

•	1 Maintain or improve habitat for threatened and endangered species. 

•	1 Maintain or improve winter range for deer and elk. 

•	1 Public land use by exotic animals and/or feral livestock would not be authorized and the BLM would 

support the removal of these species by the use of BLM regulations and/or cooperation and coordination 

with the Oregon Department of Agriculture, ODFW, and private landowners. 

•	1 Continue seasonal wildlife closures in the Murders Creek cooperative travel management area. 

•	1 To protect California Bighorn Sheep, no sheep or goat permits (domestic or non-native) will be allowed 

in the future on BLM allotments within and adjacent to Segments 1, 2, 3, or 10 of the John Day River 

Corridor. Conversion of permits from cattle or horses, to sheep or goats will not be allowed in the future 

in Segments 1, 2, 3, and 10. Any use of domestic sheep or goats for weed control will be closely monitored 

and done in accordance with the Bighorn Sheep Management Guidelines. No reduction in present 

livestock permit levels are proposed to accommodate bighorn sheep, just a restriction on livestock class. 

Currently, there are no active domestic sheep or goat permits in Segments 1, 2, 3, 10. 

•	1 Formal and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be initiated on all proposed 

actions that may affect any Federally listed or candidate threatened or endangered species. No activities 

Wildlife	 71 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

will be permitted in threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat that would jeopardize the 

continued existence of such species. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Design vegetation manipulation and revegetation projects in crucial wildlife areas to create a 

vegetation mosaic. 

•	1 All new fences will be built to standard BLM wildlife specifications to allow wildlife passage, with the 

exception of fences built specifically to keep wild ungulates out of an area or fences built to meet specific 

public safety or other administrative purposes. Existing fences not meeting standard BLM wildlife 

specification will be modified to meet the standard when major reconstruction is done or as funding allows. 

•	1 Design and implement management activities to be consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: August 2005 (Hagen 2005) and BLM National Sage 

Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy; Guidance for the Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities 

for Sage Grouse Conservation, November 2004 (USDI 2004) or more current adopted science or policy. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective W2 

Improve and maintain vegetative condition to benefit livestock and wildlife. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage upland vegetation through grazing management and range/wildlife habitat development to 

achieve maximum wildlife habitat diversity. 

•	1 Forage would be provided to meet ODFW management objective numbers for deer and elk. Additional 

forage may be allocated to livestock whenever present big game population objectives are exceeded. 

•	1 Habitat management plans would be written for selected areas of wildlife habitat, and specific wildlife 

objectives would be included in all activity plans. 

•	1 Seasonal restrictions would continue to be applied to mitigate impacts of human activities on important 

seasonal wildlife habitat. 

•	1 Areas where major vegetation manipulation or conversion occurs will be rested from livestock grazing 

for at least two growing seasons following treatment. 

•	1 Areas disturbed during project construction will be reseeded with a mixture of grasses, forbs and shrubs 

to meet site specific needs or habitat requirements. 

•	1 Utilize existing road systems and limit new permanent road entries to protect wildlife habitat. 

Objective W3 

Protect habitat inhabited by, or potentially inhabited by any listed or considered for listing species. See Appendix 

H for the list of Special Status Wildlife. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective W4 

Maintain or improve habitats to 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. Where consistent with habitat capabilities, meet ODFW management objective numbers for deer, 

elk, and pronghorn. 

72	1 Wildlife 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Maintenance or improvement of habitats should consider habitat patch size, disturbance, quality and 

connectivity of habitats required to sustain wildlife. Provide effective wildlife habitat for individual 

species, groups of species, or habitats. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage vegetation to provide habitats for the appropriate associated wildlife species within the limits of 

ARV as defined in Vegetation Objective V4. 

•	1 Maintain or improve habitats using a variety of techniques, such as mowing vegetation, planned and 

unplanned fire, livestock grazing, commercial timber harvest, non-commercial tree cutting, planting, 

seeding, and water developments. 

•	1 Incorporate patch size and connectivity into project design as appropriate for the Biophysical Setting(s). 

•	1 Maintain or establish connectivity of sagebrush habitats at mid and fine scales to maintain, increase, or 

decrease the overstory as needed. 

•	1 Increase desirable big game browse species where appropriate. 

•	1 Reduce western juniper and shrub encroachment into rangeland sites that threaten Washington ground 

squirrel and sage grouse habitats or populations. 

•	1 Establish green strips in order to diminish the chances for further loss of quality grassland or sagebrush 

habitats to wildfire. This would especially be applicable to quality habitats that adjoin fire prone, annual 

grass-dominated areas (e.g., cheatgrass). 

•	1 Retain current BLM administration of public lands within special status or locally important species 

habitats in Federal ownership, unless an exchange would be more beneficial to special status wildlife and/ 

or locally important species (also see Lands and Realty Objective LR4). 

Guidelines 

General 

• Wildlife populations would be allowed to expand naturally or through transplants in coordination 

with ODFW. 

•	1 The BLM will work with ODFW to meet future big game habitat demands during any change to 

game animal management objectives, which are identified through ODFW’s Management Objective 

setting process. 

•	1 Place a higher priority on activities that increase browse species in critical winter range. 

Habitat Modification 

• Areas disturbed during project activities will be seeded as directed in the vegetation section of this 

chapter. 

•	1 Consider elk satisfactory cover, marginal cover (see glossary), and forage needs within geographically 

distinct winter or summer ranges when assessing spatial arrangements of treatments to meet ARV objectives. 

◦	1Utilize topographic relief when designing vegetative treatments to provide cover from open roads or trails. 

◦	1Prioritize cover retention between 100 – 550 yards of open roads and within 200 yards of forage or 

riparian areas, and gentle topography associated with calving areas. 

◦	1Retain cover blocks in irregular shapes, 200 to 400 yards wide, with blocks of 250 acres or larger 

provided throughout forested winter and summer ranges. 

Structural Developments 

•	1 In suitable habitats, where important nesting structures are absent, consider installing nesting platforms, 

nest boxes, and other structures to improve habitat conditions for snag dependent species. 

•	1 Where natural springs exist and are developed, water troughs will be designed to accommodate use 

by wildlife and livestock. Additional requirements are addressed in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(objective AQ9) in this chapter. 

Wildlife	 73 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Where pipelines are developed to deliver water more than two miles from an existing water source, the 

water system will be designed to provide water for wildlife between July and October. 

•	1 Guzzlers (structures that collect, store, and distribute rain water) will be installed only where they 

facilitate distribution of related wildlife species. Maintenance of existing guzzlers will receive priority 

over the development of new guzzlers, except when managing for special status species. 

•	1 To the maximum extent feasible, new guzzlers will be located away from existing designated trails to 

avoid the potential for seasonal trail closures or rerouting of trails. 

Disturbance Actions 

•	1 Utilize existing road and skid trail systems when not prohibited by cost, access, or other RMP objectives. 

•	1 Close roads and skid trails where open road densities exceed those described in the Access and 

Transportation section of this chapter. 

◦	1Items to consider for prioritization of roads to select for closure include but are not limited to the roads 

adjacent to: special habitat features, areas > 1,182 yards from an open road, cover blocks, riparian areas 

(especially those at PFC), and connectivity areas. Increase the spatial distribution of areas >1,182 yards 

from a road across the landscape. 

•	1 Limit new and reconstruction of roads or skid trails in or adjacent to the highest security habitat 

(graduated band distances from open roads as described in Rowland, (2005) available within one mile of a 

project. Additional avoidance considerations include those listed above for prioritization of road closure. 

•	1 During the development of management facilities (e.g., mineral sites, access roads, etc.) or infrastructure 

(e.g., trails) emphasize maintenance of relatively large un-fragmented habitat patches. The term 

“relatively large un-fragmented habitat patches” means the size of the patch in relation to the size of the 

BLM parcel(s) in the area and the goal is to minimize the amount of human disturbance of wildlife and 

human influence on the physical condition of the habitat. 

•	1 Rehabilitate big game winter range habitat degraded by wildfire through seeding, alteration of livestock 

grazing or other methods as needed (see the vegetation section - Rehabilitation and Restoration for 

additional direction). 

•	1 Manage important wildlife habitats to minimize human disturbance by maintaining seasonal closures 

throughout the sensitive period (See Table 2-5 for a list of species that may require seasonal restrictions, 

the restriction dates, and distance buffers). 

•	1 For nest or breeding sites, seasonal closures may be ended early if, through monitoring, the site is 

determined to be unoccupied. However, the closure period must include dates that will allow late nesting 

birds. Prior to disturbing activities, conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of special status 

species; allow the action to proceed if a field exam indicates that the nest is inactive. 

74	1 Wildlife 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-5: General Guidelines1 for Seasonal Restriction and Distance Buffers 

Species Habitat Spatial Buffer Restriction Dates 

Bald eagle Nest 1⁄4 mile non-line of sight, 

1⁄2 mile line of sight, 

1 mile for blasting 

January 1 - August 31 

Winter roosts 1⁄2 mile December 1 - April 1 

Golden eagle Nest 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile February 1 - August 31 

Northern goshawk Nest 1⁄4 mile March 1 - August 31 

Peregrine falcon Nest 1 mile January 1 - August 15 

Prairie falcon Nest 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile March 15 - August 15 

Ferruginous hawk Nest 1⁄2 mile direct line of sight, 

1⁄4 mile with visual buffer 

March 1 - August 31 

Swainson’s hawk Nest 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile April 1 - August 31 

Flammulated owl Nest 1⁄4 mile April 1 - September 30 

Burrowing owl Nest 1⁄4 mile March 1 - August 31 

Great gray owl Nest 1⁄4 mile March 1 - July 31 

Sage grouse Lek (breeding) 0.6 mile March 1 - May 15 

Nesting, brooding and rearing Not applicable (N/A) April 1 - July 31 

Winter habitat N/A November 15 - March 15 

Mule deer Winter range N/A December 1 - April 15 

Rocky mountain elk Winter range N/A December 1 - April 15 

Calving N/A May 15 - June 30 

Antelope Winter range N/A December 1 - April 15 

Bighorn sheep Occupied habitat N/A yearlong 

Long Billed Curlew Nesting N/A March 15 - May 30 

Spotted bat Roosting cliffs 1⁄4 mile May 1 - August 31 

Cave-dwelling bats 

(Townsend’s big-eared, 

Pallid, fringed myotis) 

Hibernaculum N/A November 1 - April 15 

Nursery N/A April 15 - October 31 

1

 These general guidelines are only examples of typical restrictions. Specific dates and distances may vary depending on the type of action 

proposed and the local breeding chronology of species or the local weather patterns. 

Objective W5 

Provide security habitat that benefits deer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep during sensitive periods (winter, 

calving/fawning and hunting seasons). Wildlife habitat is a primary management consideration in these areas. 

Actions 

•	1 Seasonal area closures for motorized use to protect wintering animals will be applied in elk winter crucial, 

mule deer winter concentration, bighorn yearlong and antelope winter ranges. The dates applied will be 

from December 1 to April 15, unless adjusted site specifically to meet coordinated resource management. 

These closures would be applied to all secondary and primitive roads that are under BLM jurisdiction 

within the seasonal closure area. Closure would generally not apply to county, state or federally 

designated routes. Roads with seasonal closures are designated as Open Road Seasonally on Maps 12a-14f. 

Wildlife	 75 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Guidelines 

•	1 Maintenance or improvement of existing security areas (> 1,182 yards from any open road) will be 

considered during planning for any management action. 

•	1 Group use restrictions may be applied in some areas or during some seasons. 

•	1 Roads and driveways that access private land and are not needed for general public access may be gated 

to limit use only to land owners. Consider building roads and driveways to the minimum standard 

necessary that allows reasonable access and has the least impact on wildlife resources possible. 

Objective W6 

Facilitate the maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of bighorn sheep populations and habitat on public land. 

Action 

•	1 Pursue management in accordance with the 2003 “Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat 

Management Plan” (OBSMP) in a manner consistent with the principles of multiple use management. 

•	1 Improve poor quality habitat in identified historic range where needed to meet recovery or 

reintroduction objectives.
1

•	1 If ODFW determines that excess animals are available, transplants out of the herds would be authorized. 

•	1 To protect California Bighorn Sheep, no new sheep or goat leases (domestic or non-native) will be allowed 

in the future on BLM lands. Existing cattle or horse leases would not be converted to sheep (domestic or 

non-native) leases on BLM lands, and if relinquished sheep leases will be converted to cow or horse leases. 

•	1 Non-renewable leases for sheep or goats will be allowed to achieve resource objectives when the risk of 

disease transmission is mitigated by the distance to occupied habitat, season of use, or other reasonable 

mitigating conditions as specified in the BLM “Revised Guidelines for Management of Domestic Sheep 

and Goats in Native Wild Sheep Habitats” (1998). 

Guidelines 

•	1 Coordinate with ODFW on population management of bighorn sheep. Transplants, reintroductions, and 

natural expansion of bighorn sheep would be allowed. Plan bighorn sheep occupancy outside of domestic 

sheep use areas to avoid conflicts associated with disease transmission. 

•	1 Where needed, manage juniper density on occupied bighorn sheep range to maintain suitable habitat. 

Objective W7 

Conserve federally listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend (BLM Manual 6840, p.0.1). Ensure 

that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are consistent with the conservation needs of special 

status species and do not contribute to the need to list any special status species under provisions of the ESA, or 

designate additional special status species under provisions of BLM Manual 6840. 

Actions 

•	1 Special status species will continue to be identified according to BLM Manual 6840 and BLM OR/WA 6840 

policy and criteria in IM-OR-2007-072 or subsequent IM updates. See Appendix H for the current list of 

Special Status Wildlife. 

• Design and implement relevant management activities to be consistent with BLM adopted recovery 

plans, conservation assessments and strategies, and other appropriate documents. 

•	1 Management activities in the habitat of federally listed, candidate threatened or endangered species 

will maintain or improve habitat conditions and/or not prevent or retard attainment of future desirable 

habitat conditions. 

76	1 Wildlife 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Evaluate all projects for their effects to special status species and their habitats when authorizing 

activities. Conduct an assessment of the wildlife resources. The assessment should be commensurate to 

the level of anticipated impacts and include consideration of: 

◦	1Species and/or habitat presence. 

▪	1Review wildlife observations databases, available vegetation data sets, and/or conduct field surveys 

during appropriate seasons. In situations where data are insufficient to make an assessment of 

proposed actions, surveys of potential habitats will be completed prior to action being taken, or 

presence will be assumed. 

◦ Determination of project effects including discussion of consistency with applicable recovery plans, 

conservation assessments and strategies, and other appropriate documents. 

◦	1Necessary mitigation measures and habitat enhancement opportunities. 

• As appropriate adjust clearances and mitigation requirements to all ongoing or planned projects when 

new information becomes available for populations, habitats, or special status listing. 

◦	1Include the following or similar contract specification: “The Government may direct the Contractor 

to discontinue all operations in the event that listed or proposed threatened or endangered plants 

or animals protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, or Federal candidate, 

sensitive or state listed species, identified under BLM Manual 6840, are discovered to be present in or 

adjacent to the project area. Actions taken under this paragraph shall be subject to the Suspension of 

Work clause in Section I, FAR 52.242-14.”. 

•	1 Formal and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be initiated on all proposed 

actions that may affect any Federally listed or candidate threatened or endangered species. 

•	1 In coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and ODFW, determine whether habitat 

conditions exist to allow the successful reintroduction of locally or regionally extirpated species such as 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Determine whether habitat improvements, if any, are needed to create 

suitable habitat for reintroductions. 

•	1 Enhance health of roost and nest trees by reducing competing vegetation. 

•	1 Enhance conditions for future large perch/nest trees. 

Guidelines 

• Take action to determine the distribution, abundance, and management needs of special status species 

occurring on BLM administered lands. 

◦	1Document observations of special status species. 

◦	1Survey for special status bat species and assess habitat potential within all caves and identify which 

caves (if any) contain potentially suitable habitat for bats (especially, Townsend’s big-eared bat). 

•	1 Conduct periodic surveys of potential raptor habitats and monitor active and historic sites to determine 

occupancy and management consistency. 

•	1 Design or redesign travel routes to contribute to the long term conservation of special status species. 

•	1 Balance the need for restorative actions to address long-term threats to special status species with the 

short-term need to protect special status species and their habitats. 

•	1 Individual species requirements would be included in management prescriptions but not to an extent that 

overemphasizes the value of any one habitat. 

•	1 Develop a Site Management Plan (see glossary) when programmatic direction is insufficient to protect an 

individual site or population. 

•	1 Protect special status species and habitats through activity buffers and seasonal restrictions including 

those described in objective W4 and Table 2-5. 

•	1 Management to meet long-billed curlew and Washington ground squirrel habitat needs in the Horn Butte 

ACEC would include to: 

◦	1Utilize grazing, prescribed fire, or mechanical means (excluding heavy machinery) to manage grass 

stubble heights at < 3.94 inches tall in or adjacent to identified long-billed curlew nesting habitat during 

the reproductive season 3/15 – 5/30. 

Wildlife	 77 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

◦	1Seasonally restrict grazing within the Hi Meadow (#2644) and Horn Butte (#2571) allotments between 

4/15 and 8/15. 

◦	1Manage sagebrush densities within or adjacent to identified long-billed curlew nesting habitat at < 10% 

canopy cover. 

◦	1Avoid ground compacting activities, especially in drainages and the Four Mile area. 

Objective W8 

Protect and restore special habitat features. These special habitat features include, caves, cliffs, playas, riparian 

areas and wetlands, foraging areas, snags and down wood. 

•	1 Special habitat features are often limited across the landscape, and thus are more important to those 

species that depend upon those features for some portion of their lifecycle than more abundant features 

of the landscape. The special habitat features described here were identified as critical to the long-term 

conservation of a variety of species in Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior 

Columbia Basin (USDA & USDI, 2000a), the Assessment of Ecosystem Components (USDA & USDI, 1997, 

p. 64, modified, and the BLM Learning Network). 

Actions 

•	1 Maintain and/or recruit adequate numbers, species and sizes of snags and levels of downed wood to 

contribute meaningfully to the needs of wildlife, invertebrates, fungi, bryophytes, saprophytes, lichens, 

other organisms, long-term soil productivity, nutrient cycling, carbon cycles and other ecosystem 

processes (See also the Vegetation section of this chapter). 

•	1 Also see specific management direction in the Caves section. 

•	1 Allow dead tree removal for safety reasons or after fire if snag and down log requirements listed in Tables 

2-2 and 2-6 are met. 

•	1 Management actions to maintain, enhance, or create special habitat features include: digging or blasting 

ponds, spring developments, gating cave entrances, mowing or burning playas, road or trail closure or 

reroute, down wood placement, and snag creation. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Avoid special habitat features (nests, cavities, etc.) when authorizing activities. If avoidance is not 

possible, provide reasonable mitigation by reducing, restoring or compensating for important special 

habitats that are altered by management actions such as mineral material mining, road construction, etc. 

See Table 2-5 and associated guidelines for distance buffers and seasonal restrictions. 

•	1 Except where public safety is a concern, forest and woodland management activities will retain an 

adequate number of snags and large down wood in treatment areas based on forest type and seral stage. 

◦	1Retain all soft snags. 

◦	1Retain scattered hard snags and large live trees, and where available leave in clumps. Avoid leaving 

snags within 300 feet of open roads, and within one tree length of skid trails, skyline corridors, 

and improvements. 

◦	1Trees retained for current and future snags and as “legacy trees” will be chosen from the largest 

trees available. Species that remain standing longer are priority for retention in the following order: 

ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, estern larch, white/grand fir, and lodgepole pine as appropriate for the site 

potential and BpS. 

◦	1Minimum snag density retention amounts in treatment areas are shown in Table 2-6 (Johnson and 

O’Neil, 2001, Chapter 24, p. 596, Tables 1, 2 and 3). Large snag requirements are included in total snag 

requirements. Minimum snag densities and large snag requirments may be revised with updated science. 

78	1 Wildlife 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-6. Minimum snag1 densities for managed stands 

Forest type 

Middle Successional Stage Late Successional Stage 

Total snags/acre Large2 snags/acre Total snags/acre Large snags/acre 

Western juniper 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 

Ponderosa pine 2.0 1.1 2.1 0.6 

Mixed conifer 8.7 1.7 8.4 3.2 

Lodgepole pine 11.2 0.9 8.0 0.5 

1

 Snags are ≥ 10 in dbh and ≥6.6 ft tall
1 2

 Large snags ≥ 19.7 in dbh and ≥ 6.6 ft tall
1

◦ Forest health or timber sale treatments occurring on lands previously treated within the last 20 years 

would retain all snags. 

◦	1Snags of all decay classes count toward the minimum density standards; however, > 50% will be in 

decay class 1 and 2 (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001, Chapter 24, p. 580, Figure 3). 

◦	1Appendix S provides guidelines for determining the amount of area to exclude from salvage logging 

after high severity disturbance to meet snag retention objectives. Snag densities in Table 2-6 will be 

retained on salvaged acres. 

◦	1Where snag densities are below the established, desired range, initiate management activities to 

increase snag levels (USDA-BLM and USDI-BLM, 2000a, p. 48). 

◦	1To the extent compatible with reforestation objectives, fire hazard reduction standards, and public 

safety/trail use, large down wood will be retained in amounts that are appropriate for the plant 

community (see down wood table (Table 2-2) in Vegetation section). 

◦	1Large down wood will be left in place across treatment areas rather than piled and burned (unless 

precluded for safety reasons, see Fire/Fuels Management section). 

Disturbance actions 

• Mineral material mining may be allowed on cliffs or talus slopes not occupied by special status species 

provided that special habitat features are provided in appropriate amounts and arrangements across the 

landscape to support species needs. 

•	1 Minimize activities that could adversely influence wildlife use of special habitat features by using one 

or more techniques appropriate to the species’ needs and status. These techniques may include: seasonal 

restrictions, distance buffers, signs, closures, and relocating disturbance (i.e., moving trails, etc.). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Wild Horses 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective HB1 

Maintain the Murderer’s Creek wild horse herd at a level that maintains an ecological balance with other 

resources and resource uses, and maintains habitat in a stable or upward trend. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to manage the Murderer’s Creek wild horse herd jointly with the Malheur National Forest 

under the guidance of the Murderer’s Creek Wild Horse Territory/Horse Management Area (HMA) 

Wild Horses 79 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Management Plan (October 2007 or current version). Approximately 75 percent of the HMA is National 

Forest land and the remaining 25 percent is managed by BLM. 

◦	1Continue to manage for a herd size or appropriate management level (AML) of 50-140 horses. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Use the following criteria when considering adjustments in herd size: 

◦	1Extraordinary circumstances such as wildfire, extreme drought, disease, or circumstances warranting 

quarantine may require the removal of animals to maintain animal health or an ecological balance with 

the available habitat. 

◦	1Excess animals may require removal to comply with court orders. 

◦	1If wild horses stray outside of their designated boundaries (HMA) and the landowner requests their 

removal, remove them as required by law. 

◦	1When concentrations of horses result in unacceptable impacts on resources, such as riparian areas, 

remove small groups of horses. 

◦	1When population levels surpass the upper end of AML, schedule gather activities and remove excess 

horses. The number of horses removed would be those necessary to bring the population down to the 

lower end of the AML range. 

•	1 Fertility control measures such as the use of the drug porcine zona pellucida can be used to control rate of 

population increase. 

•	1 Gather and remove excess horses as described in the Murderer’s Creek Wild Horse Territory/HMA 

Management Plan (October 2007 or current version) using approved techniques such as helicopter drive 

trapping, horseback herding to a trap, roping, bait trapping, chemical capture, or net gun capture. 

•	1 Determine herd health, habitat condition and herd size through habitat monitoring and pre- and postgather censuses. 

•	1 Coordinate with local, state, federal and private organizations to maintain ecological values. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would include Management Common to All Alternatives. There are no objectives or actions unique 

to Alternative 1. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives would be the same as Management Common to All 

Alternatives. There are no actions unique to the action alternatives that are not already contained in Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be the same as Management Common to All Alternatives. There would be no 

additional management guidance under these alternatives. 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM reviewed and updated the wilderness inventory of public lands outside of designated Wilderness Study 

Areas, including the BLM lands contained in 13 citizens’ wilderness proposals. The wilderness inventory update 

considered size, naturalness, and the opportunity for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. BLM found a 

total of 15,156 acres of BLM lands to contain wilderness characteristics. 

80 Wilderness Characteristics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

There is no management direction common to all alternatives for Wilderness Characteristics. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective WC1 

Management of Wilderness Characteristics is limited to previously identified Wilderness Study Areas. See the 

Special Designations section of this chapter for a description of management of Wilderness Study Areas. Areas 

found to possess Wilderness Characteristics outside of Wilderness Study Areas do not receive management 

protection under the Interim Wilderness Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, nor do they 

receive any special protection designed to maintain or enhance the identified Wilderness Characteristics. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective WC2 

Maintain Wilderness Characteristics on BLM lands found to possess Wilderness Characteristics and identified by 

BLM for protection. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage for Wilderness Characteristics the BLM lands listed in Table 2-7 that are not within WSAs 

(Lands with Wilderness Characteristics maintained under special management) and shown in Map 7 

(Lands with Wilderness Characteristics). Such areas that are less than 5,000 acres in size were found to 

possess Wilderness Characteristics in association with adjacent Wilderness Study Areas or, in one case, 

a Forest Service semi-primitive non-motorized recreation area. Retain lands managed for Wilderness 

Characteristics in public ownership. 

•	1 Designate lands with Wilderness Characteristics as VRM Class II and rights-of-way exclusion areas. 

•	1 Close lands to construction of new buildings and new temporary or permanent roads. 

•	1 Lands would be available for mining operations provided that the proposed use would not impair 

Wilderness Characteristics. 

•	1 Manage lands under no-surface-occupancy requirements for fluid mineral development and close to 

wind development. 

•	1 Close lands to certain commercial permits (e.g. forest products and decorative stone sales). 

•	1 Designate lands OHV Closed or Limited to designated routes as shown in the OHV Management section 

of this chapter. 

•	1 Evaluate on a case-by-case basis proposed projects and uses such as fuels treatments, noxious weed 

control, riparian or wildlife habitat improvements, wild horse management, livestock improvements and 

commercial recreation to ensure that any reductions in Wilderness Characteristics are temporary, and to 

protect Wilderness Characteristics over the long term. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Wilderness Characteristics 81 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

82 Map 7: Wilderness Characteristics 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 7: Wilderness Characteristics 83 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 2-7. Areas to be Managed for Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM Lands Acres 

Identified Wilderness Characteristics 

Naturalness 

Outstanding 

Opportunities 

for Solitude 

Outstanding 

Opportunities for 

Primitive, Unconfined 

Recreation 

Pat’s Cabin 4,325 X X X 

Lower John Day River* 841 X X X 

Spring Basin* 275 X X X 

Sutton Mountain* 404 X X X 

Clark Canyon (Dead Dog)** 4,927 X X X 

Big Canyon* 1,157 X X X 

TOTAL 11,929 

* These areas are less than 5,000 acres in size, but were found to possess Wilderness Characteristics in association with adjacent Wilderness 

Study Areas or, in the case of Big Canyon, a Forest Service semi-primitive non-motorized recreation area. 

**Although slightly less than 5,000 acres in size, Clark Canyon possesses the indicated characteristics and BLM determined the area can be 

successfully managed to protect these characteristics.
1

Cave Resources 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Existing guidance outside the scope of this plan includes the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 

(FCRPA; P.L. 100-691; 16 U.S.C. 4301), which directs federal agencies to inventory reported cave locations, prepare 

and maintain a list of significant caves, and protect cave resources determined to be significant. Procedures 

for determining the significance of caves are in 43 CFR Part 37. Significance is determined based on criteria for 

biotic, cultural, geologic, mineralogical, hydrologic, recreational, educational, or scientific values, features, or 

characteristics as defined in 36 CFR, Part 290.3 (c) and (d). 

Objective CR1 

Retain the natural condition of significant caves. Protect cave resource values including those contributing to 

significance, as well as others including biological deposits (e.g., middens, skeletal remains) and threatened, 

endangered, and/or sensitive plants or animals. 

Actions 

• Permit recreational and other human activities consistent with protecting cave resource values. 

• For caves where significance has not yet been determined, protect all values. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would be the same as Management Common to All Alternatives. There are no objectives or actions 

unique to Alternative 1. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective CR2 

Retain the natural condition of significant caves. Protect cave resource values including those contributing to 

significance, as well as others including biological deposits (e.g., middens, skeletal remains) and threatened, 

endangered, and/or sensitive plants or animals. 

84 Cave Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

•	1 Complete a site-specific Cave Management Plan for all significant caves. Until a Cave Management Plan 

is written, preclude all administrative actions that would cause changes to the micro climate, visibility, 

physical structure, or amount of recreational use of the cave area 1/4 mile of any opening or entrance. 

•	1 Within 350 feet of significant caves, design vegetation treatments to provide seclusion, shading, and other 

resource benefits associated with the cave. 

•	1 Do not allow mining for mineral materials and locatable minerals or surface occupancy for fluid mineral 

leasing within 1⁄2 mile from the entrance and 1⁄2 mile on each side of the centerline along the length of any 

significant cave. 

•	1 Prohibit new rights-of-way within 1⁄2 mile of entrance(s) to any significant cave unless no reasonable 

alternative routes are available. Where a new ROW cannot be reasonably accommodated outside of the 

1⁄2-mile buffer, consider locating first along existing utility corridors, county roads, or BLM system roads. 

•	1 Implement seasonal restrictions and use buffers specified in Table 2-5 until a survey confirms that the 

cave is not being used by bats as a hibernaculum (see glossary) or nursery. 

•	1 Restrict access in significant or nominated caves to foot travel only. 

•	1 Group and commercial use of caves would follow direction from the recreation section of this chapter. 

•	1 Prohibit the following actions in significant caves: 

◦ Willfully defacing, removing, or destroying plants or their parts, soils, rocks, minerals, or other cave 

resources. 

◦ Drawing, painting, or otherwise adding any graphic elements to any cave surface. 

◦ Smoking. 

◦ Possessing, discharging, or using any kind of fireworks or other pyrotechnic devices. 

◦ Possessing a domestic animal. 

◦ Depositing or disposing of human waste. 

◦ Digging, excavation, or displacement of natural and/or cultural features. 

◦ Building, maintaining, ending, or using any fire, campfire, or stove. 

◦ Camping or overnight use. 

◦ Mountain bike, horse, or motor vehicle use. 

◦ Use of chalk or hand drying agents for climbing which are not naturally appearing. 

◦ Geocaching. 

◦ Possession and use of alcoholic beverages as defined by state law. 

◦ Use of glass containers. 

◦ Possession and use of paintball guns. 

◦ Firearm Discharge. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no differences between the action alternatives (2-5). 

Cave Resources 85 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Visual Resources 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective VR1 

Maintain the scenic quality of river canyons, open space landscapes, cultural landscapes, and other areas having 

high quality visual resources. Manage visual resource values in accordance with Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) objectives: 

•	1 Preserve the existing character of VRM Class I landscapes (Wilderness Study Areas). This class provides 

for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level 

of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and should not attract attention. 

•	1 Retain the existing character (low change) of VRM Class II landscapes (WSR segments, most nondesignated segments of the river, and portions of some tributaries). Management activities in VRM Class 

II may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat 

the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

•	1 Partially retain the existing character of VRM Class III landscapes (moderate level of change). VRM Class 

III allows management activities that may attract attention, but their results should not dominate the 

view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

• VRM Class IV allows management activities which may require major modification of the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. Management 

activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, attempts should 

be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repeating the basic elements of the landscape. 

Actions 

•	1 Before the BLM initiates or permits any major surface disturbing activities on public land, complete an 

analysis using the Visual Contrast Rating Process to determine adverse effects on visual qualities. Do not 

permit activities that would result in significant, long-term, adverse effects on the visual resources of the 

John Day River Canyons in areas normally seen from these rivers. 

•	1 All BLM resource uses, management activities, and other implementation decisions would meet VRM 

objectives and be consistent with VRM classifications. Visual resource design techniques and best 

management practices would be utilized to mitigate short- and long-term impacts within VRM Class 

objectives (43 U.S.C. 1701, Section 102 (a) (8)). 

•	1 Manage recreational developments and agricultural land management in river segments with a VRM 

Class II designation as Class III “islands.” New recreational development within these segments must 

meet VRM Class III standards. 

•	1 Maintain the scenic beauty, open space landscapes, and other high-quality visual resources within the 

planning area. Generally maintain the existing “footprint” of cultural landscapes (facilities, projects, and 

improvements) (43 U.S.C. 4321, Section 101 (b)). 

•	1 Necessary road maintenance would occur regardless of VRM Class. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective VR2 

Maintain the scenic quality of river canyons, open space landscapes, cultural landscapes, and other areas having 

high quality visual resources. Manage visual resource values in accordance with VRM class objectives (as 

described in detail under Management Common to All Alternatives, above). 

86 Visual Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

•	1 Manage land according to VRM classifications shown on Map 8 and listed in Table 2-8. 

•	1 Continue to manage all BLM managed lands on the North Fork John Day River as VRM Class III, 

including those lands acquired in 2002 under the Land Exchange Act of 2000. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective VR3 

Maintain the scenic quality of river canyons, open space landscapes, cultural landscapes, and other areas having 

high quality visual resources. Manage visual resource values in accordance with VRM class objectives (as 

described in detail under Management Common to All Alternatives, above). 

Actions 

•	1 Manage land according to VRM classifications shown on Map 8 and listed in Table 2-8. 

•	1 Manage the proposed North Fork John Day River WSR, the proposed North Fork John Day, Armstrong 

Canyon, and Ferry Canyon ACECs, most of JV Ranch, and areas identified for management for 

Wilderness Characteristics as VRM Class II (Map 8.) 

•	1 In the event that the existing WSAs are released from Wilderness Study by Congress, the VRM 

classification associated with those lands would be changed from VRM Class I to Class II. 

•	1 Allow all forms of vegetation and habitat management if consistent with the VRM class objectives for the 

area, including prescribed fire, mechanical treatment and seeding. Design such projects to maintain or 

enhance VRM values. Design long-term vegetation maintenance to emulate natural processes. 

Table 2-8. Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classification 

(acres) by Alternative 

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2-5 

VRM Class I (Highest Scenic Value) 95,755 95,755 

VRM Class II 101,987 146,304 

VRM Class III 175,092 164,235 

VRM Class IV (Lowest Scenic Value) 83,548 50,285 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There are no differences between the Action Alternatives (2-5). 

Visual Resources 87 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

88 Map 8: Visual Resource Management 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 8: Visual Resource Management 89 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Special Management Designations 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

During scoping the BLM determined that the identification of the North Fork John Day River as both eligible and 

suitable for Wild and Scenic River status was not controversial and therefore not an issue. An eligibility study 

determined that the Northfork John Day was the only river within the planning area, not already designated a 

Wild and Scenic River, that contained Outstandingly Remarkable Values that made it eligible for Wild and Scenic 

River Status. The BLM interdisciplinary planning team differed from the recommendation in the eligibility report 

concerning the Wild and Scenic River classification. Consequently the eligibility recommendation is described 

in Alternative 3. There is an Alternative 4 displayed in order to describe the consequences of not managing the 

river consistent with the Wild and Scenic River Act. This is because once the Eligibility Report is accepted (which 

occurred outside of this planning process) the BLM is required to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable values 

that make the river eligible until either the BLM determines the river is not Suitable for Wild and River Status or 

if recommended for wild and scenic river Status congress determines that it will not designate a river as Wild and 

Scenic. As a result of this requirement under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative the BLM would continue to 

manage the North Fork John Day River to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values that were identified in 

the Eligibility Report. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Under the Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Act, rivers are classified by Congress as Recreational, Scenic, and/or Wild 

depending on the extent of development and access along each river at the time of designation. Federal land 

management agencies must conduct eligibility evaluations for rivers within their jurisdiction during the RMP 

process. In 2005, a BLM interdisciplinary team identified and evaluated 567 waterways totaling approximately 1,400 

miles. Nineteen waterways were determined to need further evaluation. In 2006, BLM completed the eligibility 

inventory. The North Fork John Day River from Camas Creek to River Mile 20.4 was the only river segment found 

to contain ORVs (see Appendix I-1 Final Report, Prineville District Office Eligibility Inventory of Potential Wild and 

Scenic Rivers in the John Day Basin Resource Management Plan Planning Area). This segment is about 37 miles, and 

the eligibility determination applies only to public lands within 1⁄4 mile on both sides of the river. 

Objective WSR1 

Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) of Wild and Scenic Rivers (Map 9), and rivers 

determined to be administratively suitable for potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) 

System. Provide interim protection and enhancement of ORVs on eligible rivers until suitability determinations 

are made. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to manage 148 miles of the Lower John Day and 47 miles of the South Fork John Day WSRs 

according to the 2001 John Day River Plan, which was developed with interagency partners. Manage both 

WSRs to protect and enhance ORVs. The ORVs for both the Lower John Day and South Fork John Day 

are scenic, recreation, fish, and wildlife. Additional ORVs for the Lower John Day WSR include geology, 

paleontology, archeology, and history; an additional ORV for the South Fork is botanical. 

Alternative 1 

Objective WSR2 

Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) of existing Wild and Scenic Rivers (Map 9) and 

rivers determined to be administratively suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) 

System. Provide protection and enhancement of ORVs on eligible rivers until suitability determinations are made. 

90 Special Management Designations-Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

•	1 For the 37 mile segment of the North Fork John Day River determined eligible for inclusion in the WSR 

system, continue a tentative Recreation classification from Camas Creek to Mallory Creek, and a tentative 

Scenic classification from Mallory Creek to River Mile 20.4. Provide interim protection of the scenic, 

recreation and fishery ORVs without a final determination of suitability. This applies only to public lands 

within 1⁄4 mile of both sides of the 37 mile eligible segment. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

This would include direction described above under Management Common to All Alternatives. There is no 

additional direction common to all action alternatives. 

Alternative 2 

Objective WSR3 

Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) of existing Wild and Scenic Rivers (Map 9) 

and rivers determined to be administratively suitable for potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

River (WSR) System. Provide interim protection and enhancement of ORVs on eligible rivers until suitability 

determinations are made. 

Actions 

•	1 Recommend the 37 mile segment of the North Fork John Day River determined eligible for inclusion 

in the WSR system as administratively suitable for designation by Congress as WSR with a Scenic 

classification and ORVs of fishery, scenery, and recreation. The suitability determination would apply to 

lands within 1⁄4 mile of both sides of the 37 mile segment, and determinations of suitability would follow 

the guidance in BLM manual 8351 section .33, pages 20-23. 

Alternative 3 

Objective WSR4 

Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) of existing and newly designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (Map 9), and rivers determined to be administratively suitable for potential inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System. Provide interim protection and enhancement of ORVs on eligible 

rivers until suitability determinations are made. 

Actions 

•	1 For the 37 mile segment of the North Fork John Day River determined eligible for inclusion in the WSR 

system, recommend it as administratively suitable for potential designation by Congress as WSR. Classify 

the Mallory Creek to RM 20.4 segment (about 18 miles) as Scenic, and the Camas Creek to Mallory 

Creek segment (about 19 miles) as Recreational. The ORVs would be fishery, scenery, and recreation. The 

suitability determination would apply to lands within 1⁄4 mile of both sides of the 37 mile segment, and 

determinations of suitability would follow the guidance in BLM manual 8351 section .33, pages 20-23. 

Alternative 4 

Objective WSR5 

Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) of existing and newly designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (Map 9), and rivers determined to be administratively suitable for inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic River (WSR) System. 

Special Management Designations-Wild and Scenic Rivers 91 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

92 Map 9: Special Management Areas 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 9: Special Management Areas 93 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Actions 

•	1 The North Fork John Day river would not be recommended as suitable for potential designation by Congress 

as WSR. Manage unsuitable river segments in accordance with other RMP management objectives. 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Wilderness 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective WN1 

Maintain the wilderness character of existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for possible Wilderness designation 

by Congress. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage Wilderness Study Areas following the “Interim Management Policy (IMP) for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review” (BLM 1995). The following Wilderness Study Areas are located within the planning 

area: Aldrich Mountain, Strawberry Mountain, Spring Basin, North Pole Ridge, Thirtymile, Lower John 

Day, Sutton Mountain, and Pat’s Cabin (See Maps 6 and 9.) 

Guideline 

•	1 Monitor each WSA to deter, detect, and identify mitigation needs for unauthorized uses and development 

to maintain their Wilderness Characteristics and suitability for wilderness designation. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would be the same as Management Common to All Alternatives. There are no objectives or actions 

unique to Alternative 1. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective WN2 

Maintain the wilderness character of existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for possible Wilderness designation 

by Congress. 

Actions 

•	1 See Appendix N for required monitoring direction. 

•	1 Obtain voluntary compliance with the IMP by public land users. Where such actions fail, promptly 

initiate additional appropriate action to achieve immediate compliance with the IMP. 

•	1 In Sutton Mountain WSA, close a short spur route (.25 mile) to vehicle use to stop unauthorized activities 

and protect wilderness suitability. 

•	1 Immediately reclaim impacts caused by any unauthorized action to a level as close as possible to the 

original condition, or at least to a condition that is substantially unnoticeable. 

•	1 Reduce the frequency of WSA violations by implementing actions from the following list in WSAs where 

violations are occurring. 

94 Special Management Designations-Wilderness 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

◦	1Improve access to public information about WSAs; what they are, where they are located, how they 

are managed differently from non-WSA lands, and what is expected of the WSA visitor or neighbor. 

Provide this information on the BLM website and in brochures and maps distributed to adjacent 

landowners, permittees, local communities, and posted at WSA portals and BLM offices. 

◦	1Since operators often change over time, notify holders of valid existing rights who operate within WSAs 

about IMP requirements on a regular and continuing basis. Insert relevant IMP requirements into 

grazing lease agreements and special recreation permits where the area of use includes WSA lands. 

◦	1Through the media, notify the public about WSA violations when they occur, seek volunteer help to 

reclaim impacts, and offer tips on how to care for WSAs (such as “Leave No Trace” outdoor skills). 

Contingent Actions 

In the event that a Wilderness Study Area is released by Congress for other uses, the IMP would no longer apply 

to these lands and the BLM would allocate these released lands as follows: 

•	1 Designate the lands contained within the existing North Pole Ridge, Thirtymile, and Lower John Day 

WSAs as the Lower John Day ACEC (see the ACEC section of this chapter.) 

•	1 Manage the lands contained within the existing Spring Basin WSA under no-surface-occupancy 

requirements for fluid mineral development and close to wind development to protect their scenic 

value. To protect the opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation, continue to close these lands to 

motorized vehicle use except for administrative use. 

•	1 Manage the lands contained within the existing Sutton Mountain WSA under the management proposed 

for the John Day Paleontology ACEC that overlaps the Sutton Mountain WSA. Manage these lands under 

no-surface-occupancy requirements for fluid mineral development, and close them to wind development. 

Motorized vehicle use would continue to be limited to signed, designated routes except for administrative 

use (see the ACEC section of this chapter.) 

•	1 Manage the lands contained within the existing Pat’s Cabin WSA under no-surface-occupancy 

requirements for fluid mineral development and close to wind development to protect scenic values. To 

protect the opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation and to protect highly erosive soils, continue 

to close these lands to motorized vehicle use except for administrative use. 

•	1 Manage the lands contained within the existing Aldrich Mountain WSA under no-surface-occupancy 

requirements for fluid mineral development and close to wind development to protect their scenic value. 

Continue to limit motorized vehicle use to signed, designated routes except for administrative use, to 

slow the spread of noxious weeds. 

•	1 Continue to close the lands contained within the existing Strawberry Mountain WSA to motorized vehicle 

use except for administrative use, to reduce the potential for motorized incursions into the adjacent USFS 

Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area. Continue to close these lands to grazing until they are released 

from WSA status, at which time grazing would be considered. Continue to consult with the Malheur 

National Forest to identify ways to more efficiently manage this area. 

•	1 If existing WSAs are released from wilderness study by Congress, change the VRM Class for these lands 

from VRM Class I to VRM Class II (See Visual Resource Management section of this chapter). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Special Management Designations-Wilderness 95 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Table 2-9 compares the number of ACEC designations and acres by alternative. All guidelines in this ACEC 

section are mandatory. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective AC1 

Protect the values for which each ACEC was designated or proposed. Allow management actions and resource 

uses within all existing and proposed ACECs provided these actions and uses are compatible with the values and 

resources for which the ACEC was proposed. 

Action 

• Prepare summaries for each ACEC which outlines specific management direction for each. Make these 

summaries available to resource specialists for reference when planning projects within the ACECs. 

Objective AC2 

Horn Butte ACEC: Provide quality nesting and brood-rearing habitat for the long-billed curlew. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to designate and manage the existing Horn Butte ACEC (5,999 acres). 

•	1 Maintain nesting and brood-rearing habitat which included a shrub canopy cover of less than 10% and 

minimal disturbance during nesting. 

•	1 Acquire additional habitat through exchange. 

•	1 Improve the riparian area along Eightmile Canyon. 

•	1 Modify livestock grazing if it is not compatible with the values for which the ACEC was proposed. 

•	1 Acquire private land in adjacent sections 13, 15 and 16. 

•	1 Close the area to off-highway vehicles (OHVs) from March 15 through May 30. 

•	1 Develop an additional livestock and wildlife water source. 

•	1 Maintain existing grazing permits with a seasonal change for sheep in the Horn Butte allotment and 

implementation of a deferred rotation system. 

•	1 Use noxious weed control to eliminate yellow star thistle. 

•	1 Use fire to keep the average sagebrush ground cover at less than 10%. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective AC3 

Spanish Gulch ACEC: Protect remnants of early mining activities including an old stamp mill, mineshafts, and 

several old cabins. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to designate Spanish Gulch ACEC (333 acres). 

96 Special Management Designations-ACEC 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Guidelines 

•	1 Protect the area by limiting vehicle travel to existing roads and trails and requiring plans of operation 

from mining claimants before beginning any mining operations in the area. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective AC4 

Spanish Gulch ACEC: Upon publication of the RMP, remove from ACEC designation any ACECs that are no 

longer needed, or no longer meet the relevance and importance criteria. 

Actions 

•	1 Remove Spanish Gulch ACEC from ACEC designation. 

◦ Adequate protection is already in place due to the site’s eligibility as a National Register site and lack of 

public access. 

• Manage Spanish Gulch to meet other plan objectives and match land allocations of similar adjacent 

landscapes. 

Objective AC5 

Manage all ACECs to protect the values for which they were designated. Increase public awareness and develop 

support and partnerships for maintenance of ACEC values. 

Actions 

•	1 Increase the availability of public information concerning ACECs (boundaries, management guidelines, 

reasons for designation, etc.) to provide for better public support of these areas. This could include, but 

not be limited to perimeter signing/identification, the publication and dissemination of educational/ 

interpretive brochures, news releases, and field trips. 

•	1 Prepare an implementation schedule for each ACEC. The schedule shall identify the priority, sequence, 

and costs of implementing activities associated with protection of the ACEC resources or values, 

including monitoring activities (BLM Manual 1613 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern). 

•	1 Where new ACEC designation occurs wholly within existing WSAs, management guidance 

would continue under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). 

Implementation of ACEC standards and guidelines would occur if Congress removes a WSA from 

wilderness consideration. For new ACECs that are not within a WSA, implementation would begin upon 

approval of the John Day Basin RMP/ROD. 

•	1 Provide educational material concerning ACEC designations in the planning area, proposed projects, 

opportunities for public involvement and other pertinent information in an ACEC section on the 

District’s website. 

•	1 Identify all ACEC boundaries on the ground. 

Guidelines 

•	1 See Appendix N for monitoring guidelines. 

•	1 Pursue opportunities for education and interpretation of the special values within the ACEC. 

•	1 Do not allow on-site development of energy sources (including wind and solar). 

•	1 Continue livestock grazing if consistent with ACEC goals and in accordance with Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Maintain and develop fences, watering 

sources and other management facilities as needed. 

Special Management Designations-ACEC 97 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Surface mining of common variety mineral materials is a discretionary activity and would not be allowed. 

Mining pursuant to the 1872 mining laws would require that a plan of operation be filed prior to any 

authorization by BLM. The exploration and development of oil, gas, and geothermal resources would be 

subject to “no surface occupancy” (NSO) that would maintain or enhance special values of the ACEC 

(see Table 2-17). 

•	1 Limit OHV use and other mechanized vehicles (e.g. mountain bikes) to designated routes unless specific 

authorization is obtained from the Field Manager. 

•	1 Exclude rights-of-way needed to access private land on existing roads unless no practical alternative is 

available. Helicopter use may be required. Underground utilities would be required. Evaluate all new 

construction for their potential to adversely impact the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

•	1 Allow personal rockhounding using non-motorized equipment, except in the John Day Paleontological ACEC. 

•	1 Allow all forms of vegetation and habitat management, including prescribed fire, mechanical treatment 

and seeding. Design such projects to maintain or enhance the ACEC values and as an integral part of 

ACEC management. Emphasize restoration or improvement of native plant communities and habitat for 

raptors, fish, Neotropical birds and threatened, endangered or other special status plants and animals. 

Design long-term vegetation maintenance to emulate natural processes. 

•	1 Allow all forms of noxious weed management, including mechanical control, the use of herbicides 

and hand pulling, such that they are consistent with the objectives for this ACEC. Allow insect control 

consistent with ACEC objectives. 

Objective AC6 

Horn Butte ACEC: Maintain viable populations of long billed curlew and the Washington ground squirrel. Preserve 

and protect the qualities of the Fourmile Canyon segment of the Oregon Trail that pass through the ACEC. 

•	1 Although the status of the long-billed curlew has been lowered since initial Horn Butte ACEC designation 

(it is now considered “vulnerable”), it would continue to be considered. However, the management focus 

would shift toward the Washington ground squirrel, listed as “Threatened” by the State of Oregon and a 

Candidate for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Washington ground squirrel habitat within 

the Horn Butte area has been determined to have more than local importance and would therefore be 

protected while allowing compatible uses. The Fourmile Canyon tract contains additional Washington 

ground squirrel habitat of more than local importance and traces of the Oregon Trail, which is of national 

historic significance (see Oregon Trail Management Plan: Prineville District 1993). 

Actions 

•	1 Add 1,153 acres of public lands south of the existing Horn Butte ACEC (including the Fourmile Canyon 

interpretive site) to the ACEC. Total acreage in Horn Butte ACEC would be 7,152 acres. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Continue to maintain the Fourmile Canyon interpretive site. 

•	1 Grazing strategies would continue or be implemented which would maintain or improve Washington 

ground squirrel habitat. 

•	1 Close the Fourmile Canyon tract to new rights-of-way. Co-use of existing rights-of-way may be permitted 

as long as features and viewshed of the Oregon Trail are protected. 

•	1 Special consideration will be given to the Fourmile Canyon tract to eliminate or minimize vegetation 

management actions that would impair the visual and scenic qualities of the Oregon Trail. 

•	1 Do not allow mechanical noxious weed control in the Fourmile Canyon tract. 

•	1 Follow provisions of the Oregon Trail Management Plan: Prineville District (1993) and update them to 

address issues with VRM (e.g., wind development, transmission lines, etc) and the characteristics that 

make this Trail segment significant. VRM management class should be upgraded to a VRM Class II for 

the Fourmile Canyon tract. 

98 Special Management Designations-ACEC 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Objective AC7 

Armstrong Canyon ACEC: Protect visual quality in areas removed from wilderness review due to their size. 

• The visual quality of this area has been determined to have more than local importance and would 

therefore be protected while allowing compatible uses. 

•	1 Visual quality is related to canyon landscape and wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage 3,885 acres in the Armstrong Canyon area eliminated from wilderness review (due to insufficient 

size between roads and a natural gas transmission line) as the Armstrong Canyon ACEC immediately 

after publication of the Record of Decision for the John Day Basin RMP. In the future should any number 

of the WSAs comprising the proposed Lower John Day River ACEC be released from Wilderness Review, 

the Armstrong Canyon ACEC would be consolidated as part of this larger ACEC. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Existing disturbances, maintenance, and all authorized activities associated with the Pacific Gas 

Transmission line (Pine Hollow and Thirtymile areas) would continue as needed, consistent with other 

resource objectives. 

Objective AC8 

Ferry Canyon ACEC: Protect visual quality in areas removed from wilderness review. 

• The visual quality of this area has been determined to have more than local importance and would 

therefore be protected while allowing compatible uses. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage 2,364 acres in the Ferry Canyon area (eliminated from wilderness review due to insufficient size 

and the presence of roads) as the Ferry Canyon ACEC immediately after publication of the Record of 

Decision for the John Day Basin RMP. 

•	1 In the future should any number of the WSAs comprising the proposed Lower John Day River ACEC 

be released from Wilderness Review, the Ferry Canyon ACEC would be consolidated as part of this 

larger ACEC. 

Objective AC9 

Lower John Day River ACEC: Provide a contingent designation of ACEC for three WSAs (John Day, North 

Pole Ridge, Thirty Mile) that possess high visual quality in the event these areas are released by Congress from 

wilderness review. 

• The visual quality of this area has been determined to have more than local importance and would 

therefore be protected while allowing compatible uses. 

Actions 

•	1 Create the Lower John Day River ACEC (40,295 acres) consisting of the existing acreage of the Lower John 

Day, North Pole Ridge and Thirtymile Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 

•	1 If Congress releases any or all of these WSAs from wilderness study designate and manage as an ACEC. 

The acreage shown assumes all three would be released. 

• Additionally, the Armstrong Canyon (3,885 acres) and Ferry Canyon (2,364 acres) ACECs, immediately 

designated upon publication of the ROD, would be integrated into this larger Lower John Day River 

Special Management Designations-ACEC 99 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

ACEC at the time of release (maximum potential size of 46,567 acres if all 3 WSAs were released from 

wilderness study). 

Guidelines 

•	1 Existing disturbances, maintenance, and all authorized activities associated with the Pacific Gas 

Transmission line (Pine Hollow and Thirtymile areas) would continue as needed. These areas would be 

included within the ACEC where under WSA status they created the boundaries. 

Objective AC10 

Black Canyon ACEC/RNA: Protect and provide educational and research opportunities to study specific native 

plant communities and a state-listed Threatened plant species (arrowleaf thelypody.) 

•	1 The proposed ACEC/RNA contains a representative of seven plant community cells that could be 

included in the statewide RNA system, one of which is not represented elsewhere (big sagebrush/Thurber 

needlegrass). Additionally the area contains a high density of endemic plant species. 

Actions 

•	1 Create Black Canyon ACEC/RNA (6,639 acres) and manage it as a Research Natural Area (RNA). The area 

is within the center of, and would overlay, the Painted Hills Cooperative Area for the Management of 

Paleontology (CAMP), a portion of the John Day Paleontological ACEC, and is within the existing Sutton 

Mountain WSA. 

•	1 Exclude livestock grazing. 

•	1 Exclude OHV use, including non-motorized vehicles. 

•	1 Do not authorize Rights-of-way. 

Guidelines 

•	1 See Appendix N for monitoring guidelines. 

•	1 Generally do not allow vegetation and habitat management, including prescribed fire, mechanical 

treatment and seeding. Emphasize natural processes. However, make evaluations of the need for 

vegetation management on a site- and species-specific basis, weighing the need for management with the 

emphasis on natural processes and the values for which the ACEC/RNA was designated. 

•	1 Generally do not allow noxious weed management, consistent with the objectives for this ACEC/RNA. 

Make evaluations of the need for control on a site- and species-specific basis, weighing the need for weed 

control with protection and maintenance of the values for which the ACEC/RNA was designated. 

•	1 Make the area available for non-destructive research and prepare a guidebook summarizing the values of 

the area and the research opportunities available. 

•	1 In the long term, exclude livestock grazing using natural topographic barriers and/or changes in 

management. New fence construction is generally not permitted within WSAs.
1

Objective AC11 

John Day Paleontology ACEC: Preserve/protect paleontological resources while allowing for their extraction, 

research and other scientific and educational uses. These resources have been determined to be of more than 

local significance and are currently co-managed under agreement with the NPS, John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument (No. IA9325-8-0001, as amended). 

• The visual quality of Sutton Mountain has been determined to have more than local importance and 

would therefore be protected while allowing compatible uses. 

100 Special Management Designations-ACEC 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

•	1 Designate the John Day Paleontology ACEC (38,168 acres). Due to the sensitive nature of the specific 

ACEC locations, three Cooperative Areas for the Management of Paleontology (CAMPs) - Sheep Rock, 

Painted Hills and Clarno (Map 9) - have been created for geographic reference only. The management 

objectives for these CAMPs refer to BLM lands only and do not encumber any private, State or other 

agency lands contained therein. 

•	1 Within the Painted Hills CAMP is a parcel currently designated as the Sutton Mountain WSA. Manage lands 

within the WSA (28,894 acres) according to the IMP until released from wilderness review by Congress. 

•	1 Do not make available to the general public the exact locations of paleontological resources within the 

ACEC, but encourage research. 

•	1 Close the ACEC to rockhounding. 

Guidelines 

•	1 All paleontology work conducted within the WSA would be consistent with the Interim Management 

Policy and guidance provided in the BLM 8270 Manual Paleontological Resource Management and 

Handbook, H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. 

•	1 Within the boundaries of the Painted Hills CAMP, and therefore overlaying the John Day Paleontology 

ACEC, is the 6,640-acre Black Canyon ACEC/RNA. Follow specific management direction for this area, as 

specified in Objective AC10. 

•	1 Continue to encourage partnerships with local entities such as the John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument (NPS), Hancock Field Station Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI), Oregon Paleo 

Lands Institute, and Monument High School. The BLM already maintains MOUs with the NPS and OMSI. 

•	1 On-site development of energy sources, such as oil, gas, wind and geothermal may be authorized except 

on lands within the Sutton Mountain WSA. If released from wilderness review, manage the Sutton 

Mountain WSA block under no-surface occupancy requirements for fluid, salable, leasable and locatable 

mineral development and close to renewable energy development or communication sites. 

•	1 Within the Sutton Mountain WSA continue to manage livestock grazing according to the Sutton Mountain 

CRMP and the IMP. 

•	1 Limit OHV and motorized vehicle use to designated routes except for administrative use, unless 

otherwise designated as “Open” within this management plan. 

•	1 Within the Sutton Mountain WSA vegetation and wildlife habitat management would be consistent with 

IMP guidance. If released from wilderness review, ACEC management guidance common to all action 

alternatives would apply. 

•	1 Within the Sutton Mountain WSA noxious weed and pest management would be consistent with IMP 

guidance. If released from Wilderness consideration, management common to all action alternatives 

would apply. 

•	1 Pursue objectives within the ACEC that are important for increasing scientific understanding. These 

would include, but not be restricted to, mapping the stratigraphy of the individual ACEC units, obtaining 

low level aerial photography (3,000’) for each individual ACEC unit for the purpose of locating specimens 

recovered for science, securing permanent access to isolated ACEC units, and placing “No Collecting” 

signs at each ACEC unit. 

Objective AC12 

North Fork John Day River ACEC: Protect visual quality along North Fork John Day River 

•	1 A large portion of public land within this proposed ACEC was acquired through the Oregon Land 

Exchange Act of 2001. The visual quality of this area has been determined to have more than local 

importance and would therefore be protected while allowing compatible uses. 

Special Management Designations-ACEC 101 
 

 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Actions 

•	1 Designate the North Fork John Day River corridor (essentially within the viewshed of the river) from 

Camas Creek to Wrightman Canyon an ACEC (16,837 acres). 

Guidelines 

•	1 ACEC Management guidelines Common to All Alternatives would apply to this ACEC. 

Table 2-9. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative 

ACEC Name 

Acres by Alternative 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2-5 

Existing 

Horn Butte 5,999 7,152 

Spanish Gulch 333 -

Proposed
1

Armstrong Canyon1 - 3,885 

Ferry Canyon1 - 2,364 

John Day Paleontology - 38,168 

Black Canyon RNA2 - (6,639) 

Lower John Day River1 - 40,295 contingent 

North Fork John Day River - 16,837 

Total acres (immediate) 6,333 74,827 

Total acres (contingent) 40,295 

Grand Total 115,122 

1

Immediate and Contingent: The Lower John Day River ACEC would only be designated if the 

WSAs in the area (Lower John Day, North Pole Ridge and Thirtymile) are released from Wilderness 

review. Should this happen, they would immediately be designated as the Lower John Day River 

ACEC. One or all WSAs could be released and designated as ACEC; the acreage shown assumes all 

three would be released. Armstrong Canyon and Ferry Canyon ACECs would also be added to this 

ACEC at that time. 

2

Black Canyon RNA overlays a portion of the John Day Paleontology ACEC and to avoid double 

counting is therefore not included in the total acres. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There are no differences between Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Back Country Byways 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective B1 

Identify safe motorized routes for scenic viewing of areas of high scenic, natural and interpretive quality in 

partnership with State, County, National Park Service and other partners. 

102 Special Management Designations-Back Country Byways 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to manage the South Fork John Day River Back Country Byway. This 50 mile byway parallels 

the South Fork of the John Day River through a scenic canyon between Dayville and the Ochoco National 

Forest Boundary. 

•	1 Maintain road surface suitable for passenger vehicles during spring, summer, and fall seasons. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would be the same as Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective B2 

Identify safe motorized routes for scenic viewing of areas of high scenic, ecological and interpretive quality in 

partnership with State, County, National Park Service and other partners. 

Actions 

•	1 Designate the Sutton Mountain a BLM Back Country Byway or support a State Scenic Byway designation. 

This byway would consist of about 41 miles of federal, state, and county routes that circle the Sutton 

Mountain WSA. The byway would provide opportunities to discover the geological, paleontological, 

ecological and historic resources of the area; view narrow canyons, seasonal waterfalls, and the John 

Day Wild and Scenic River; glimpse wildlife such as deer, bobcat, elk, and mountain lion in their natural 

habitat; observe sustainable farming and ranching operations; and access the Painted Hills portion of the 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

•	1 Work with the State Department of Transportation, Wheeler County Road Department, Mitchell, and the 

National Park Service to develop interagency agreements (per BLM Byway Manual 8357.1) to provide 

roadside viewing opportunities along the designated route. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would include all direction currently contained in Alternative 1 (see Management 

Common to All Alternatives), plus new direction described in Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

There are no differences between Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Native American Uses 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective N1 

Honor trust responsibility to Native American Indian tribes. 

•	1 This responsibility derives from the historical relationship between the federal government and Native 

American Indian tribes as expressed in treaties and other components of federal Indian law. The trust 

responsibility requires BLM to conduct its activities consistent with the obligations set forth in treaties, 

federal court decisions, federal legislation, and in various secretarial and executive orders. 

•	1 Documents defining the relationship between the BLM and Native American Indian tribes in the context 

of Native American Indian uses are included in Appendix A, Legal Authorities. 

Native American Uses 103 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Actions 

•	1 Continuing existing management. 

•	1 Emphasize improving relations and understanding between the BLM and the tribes at all levels. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 direction is described above under Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

There is no new guidance for this resource. All of the action alternatives would be the same as Alternative 1 

(described in Management Common to All Alternatives). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Paleontological Resources 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective P1 

Paleontological resources are preserved, protected and made available for viewing, education and research 

purposes, as appropriate. 

The management of fossil resources on public lands in the John Day basin is directed by existing laws, 

regulations, and agreements (see Appendix A). Example direction: 

•	1 Vertebrates may be collected only by bona fide scientific researchers and institutions under permit 

authority. 

•	1 Commercial collection of any fossils (including vertebrates) without a permit constitutes unauthorized use. 

•	1 Common invertebrates and most botanical fossils may be collected for noncommercial purposes without 

a permit, unless within Wilderness or a WSA, where permits are required. 

•	1 Limited quantities of petrified wood may also be collected for noncommercial purposes under terms and 

conditions consistent with the preservation of significant deposits as a public recreational resource. 

•	1 A permit for collection of petrified wood is required for single specimens over 250 pounds, for removal of 

more than 25 pounds per day per person and for removal of more than 250 pounds per year. 

•	1 A special permit must be obtained for collection of petrified wood for sale. 

Actions 

•	1 Conduct reactive inventory, recording and evaluation on a project-specific level. 

•	1 Maintain files and maps. 

•	1 Conduct periodic public outreach and education. 

•	1 Consult with the NPS at the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument on all proposed actions that might 

affect fossil resources. 

•	1 In coordination with NPS, conduct inventory and systematic collecting at all potential fossil localities. 

•	1 Coordinate with the NPS and other outside entities to conduct appropriate scientific research on 

identified localities within the corridor.
1

104 Paleontological Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Develop and implement appropriate interpretive/public outreach/educational techniques. 

•	1 Pursue development of partnerships with external entities to accomplish any or all of the above. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 direction is described above under Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

There is no new guidance for this resource. All of the action alternatives would be the same as Alternative 1 

(described in Management Common to All Alternatives). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be the same as Alternative 1. This is described under Management Common to 

All Alternatives. There would be no differences between the action alternatives (2-5). 

Cultural Resources 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective C1 

The integrity of cultural resources (both historic and prehistoric) are preserved, protected, and made available for 

cultural, educational and/or research purposes, as appropriate. 

The BLM’s management of cultural resources consists of applying protection and preservation measures in 

accordance with treaty trust responsibilities, federal law, and BLM policy (see Appendix A). There are specific 

laws that deal with Native American religious freedom and graves protection. Measures to meet the legal 

authorities include: 

•	1 Monitor sites and conduct law enforcement patrols to discourage vandalism and check site conditions. 

•	1 Develop partnerships to gather information about or protect key resources, general or site-specific 

interpretation, and public outreach/education efforts. 

•	1 Conduct reactive inventory, recording and evaluation on a project-specific level. 

•	1 Maintain files and maps. 

•	1 Periodically monitor for ARPA violations and site condition. 

•	1 Conduct periodic outreach and education efforts. 

Actions 

•	1 Involve tribal groups (beyond that required by law) in on-the-ground management actions. 

•	1 Re-record known sites. 

•	1 Evaluate sites for appropriate BLM Use Categories/National Register eligibility. 

•	1 Conduct intensive and complete inventory in areas of high probability and/or potential high use not 

previously inventoried and which are not necessarily associated with specific projects. 

•	1 Conduct limited site testing/salvage excavation where appropriate. 

•	1 Apply appropriate rehabilitation/stabilization techniques to sites as needed. 

•	1 Develop and implement appropriate interpretive/public outreach/educational techniques. 

Cultural Resources 105 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Pursue development of a more active role for tribal involvement (beyond that required by law) in any or 

all of the above (e.g., participating in the rehabilitation of a damaged site). 

•	1 Pursue development of partnerships with various internal and external entities (e.g., Indian tribes, nongovernment organizations, amateur groups, volunteer work groups) to accomplish any or all of the above. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 direction is described above under Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

There is no new guidance for this resource. All of the action alternatives would be the same as Alternative 1 

(described in Management Common to All Alternatives). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be the same as Alternative 1. This is described under Management Common to 

All Alternatives. There would be no differences between the action alternatives (2-5). 

Livestock Grazing 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective L1 

Meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington (S&Gs, 1997). 

Status of completed S&Gs is shown in Appendix J. 

Actions 

•	1 Modify grazing system, season of use, stocking density, class or type of livestock, or activity plans 

(including existing allotment management plans, agreements, decisions and/or terms and conditions of 

grazing use authorizations) (43 CFR §4120.2, §4130.3, §4180.2); or modify existing or install new range 

developments (§4120.3). Adjustments can be made to meet the goals and objectives in this and other 

sections of this RMP/DEIS. 

Objective L2 

Maintain forage production and livestock use at levels sufficient to provide a sustained flow of local economic 

benefits and to protect non-market values. 

Actions 

•	1 Allow permitted livestock grazing at the use levels (AUM) described in Appendix J, and in the areas 

shown as allotments on Map 10: Grazing Allotments, except where specifically noted in other sections of 

this plan. 

•	1 Make forage available on a temporary basis to qualified applicants through temporary nonrenewable 

grazing authorization, when consistent with RMP goals and objectives (i.e., to facilitate rangeland 

restoration and recovery on a landscape scale). 

106 Livestock Grazing 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Objective L3 

Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this and other sections of this RMP/EIS, while considering 

resource conflicts, potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. 

Actions 

•	1 Allow prescribed livestock grazing to control weeds, reduce fire danger, or accomplish other 

management objectives, regardless of parcel status (including vacant allotments, areas of discontinued 

grazing, or outside of grazing allotments). 

•	1 Manage livestock grazing during and following drought in accordance with “Oregon and Washington 

Drought Policy” to maintain soil and vegetation health and productivity following procedures outlined in 

Appendix I. 

•	1 Carry forward decisions regarding season of use from previous plans when those actions continue to 

meet plan objectives. 

◦	1An example action is, in the John Day River and major tributaries, continue to manage grazing to 

protect and enhance ORVs. Season of use would primarily be late winter and early spring, not to exceed 

two months. Within these corridors, spring grazing would not be authorized in pastures with riparian 

areas when flows drop below 2,000 cfs, to aid in protection of riparian vegetation. Winter grazed, the 

2000 cfs restriction is an interim measure (see Monitoring). Establish compliance, utilization and trend 

standards for continued grazing. If grazed riparian areas within designated corridor are not improving 

at same rate as similar ungrazed areas within 10-15 years, exclude grazing permanently. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 includes direction listed above under Management Common to All Alternatives. Current direction 

for livestock grazing would be carried forward in all alternatives, with the exception of the actions noted below. 

Objective L4 

Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this and other sections of this RMP/EIS, while considering 

resource conflicts, potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. 

Actions 

•	1 Allow livestock grazing as shown for Alternative 1 in Appendix J. 

•	1 Do not authorize grazing on the nine allotments in the NFJDR which are predominantly acquired lands. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective L5 

Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this and other sections of this RMP/EIS, while considering 

resource conflicts, potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage some allotments as Reserve Forage Allotments (see explanation below under Guidelines). Allow 

use on a temporary basis rather than allocating these permits to a specific operator. 

•	1 Allow livestock grazing as described in Appendix J. 

•	1 Modify livestock grazing to reduce potential conflicts between livestock grazing and other uses and 

resources using a “Grazing Decision Matrix.” See Table 2-10, Grazing Decision Matrix, and Table 2-11, 

Grazing Decision Matrix Factors, and the explanation below under Guidelines for Resolving Conflicts. 

Livestock Grazing 107 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

108 Map 10: Grazing Allotments 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 10: Grazing Allotments 109 
 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

While use of this Grazing Decision Matrix is the preferred approach for identifying conflicts, BLM retains 

the authority and discretion to close allotments as necessary to address non-attainment of Rangeland 

Health Standards and Guidelines or other resource objectives. (note: while the use of the Grazing 

Decision Matrix is Common to All Action Alternatives some elements of the Matrix vary by alternative) 

•	1 For the nine allotments in the North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) watershed that are predominately 

acquired lands managed according to Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000 (OLEA) guidance, potentially 

permitted AUMs have been calculated on a conservative basis to further protect values identified in OLEA. 

Table 2-10. Grazing Decision Matrix, given voluntary permit relinquishment. 

See guidelines for “Resolving Conflicts” for an explanation of how this matrix is used. 

Degree of 

Conflict 

SOCIAL & ECOLOGICAL RATING 

Low Ecological Moderate Ecological High Ecological 

Low 

Social 

Mod 

Social 

High 

Social 

Low 

Social 

Mod 

Social 

High 

Social 

Low 

Social 

Mod 

Social 

High 

Social 

DEMAND RATING 

Low 

Demand 

RFA1 or 

Close 

RFA or 

Close 

RFA or 

Close 

RFA or 

Close Close Close Close Close2 Close2 

Moderate 

Demand Open Open RFA Open RFA or Close Close RFA or Close Close Close 

High 

Demand Open Open Open or RFA Open Open or 

RFA 

Open3

 or 

RFA 

Open or 

RFA 

Open3 or 

RFA 

Open3, 

Close or 

RFA 

1

 RFA = Reserve Forage Allotment 

2

 In these two cases only, regardless of permit relinquishment, discontinue livestock grazing for the life of the plan unless conflicts are 

mitigated. BLM would provide two years notice of cancellation unless waived by permittee.
1

3

 In these cases, the allotment would remain “Open” only if social and/or ecological conflicts could be mitigated. 

Guidelines 

In accordance with BLM policy (Instruction Memorandum No. 2007-067), the Draft John Day Basin RMP proposes 

use of a management tool, the Grazing Matrix (Table 2-10), which has been designed to identify and weigh 

resource demands and potential conflicts when grazing permits are voluntarily relinquished. As the policy 

states, grazing permit relinquishments are an increasing concern because: 1) permittees/lessees are requesting 

relinquishments (for personal or financial reasons) as a result of the expanding urban interface or other resource 

demands on public lands, and 2) there is some expectation that the public land forage associated with permit 

relinquishment will be devoted to uses other than livestock grazing. The policy indicates that if a livestock 

forage allocation is made available due to a relinquishment, it subsequently may be allocated to other grazing 

use applicants. However, before taking that action, the BLM “should document whether continued livestock 

use meets rangeland health standards and if that continued use would be compatible with achieving land use 

plan management goals and objectives.” The proposed Grazing Matrix, designed for the conditions and issues 

specific to the John Day Basin planning area, provides a means to consider resource conflicts, potential for 

allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints while meeting the land use plan’s multiple use goals and 

objectives. It should be noted that grazing permit relinquishments are a relatively uncommon occurrence in the 

John Day Basin planning area. To-date, two permits out of a potential 230 have been relinquished over the last 10 

years (less than 1% of permits and less than 0.05 percent by area). 

When BLM processes a voluntary relinquishment, any resource conflicts identified in the Grazing Matrix can be 

resolved by modifying use (grazing, recreation, others), installing projects (cattle guards, fences), or taking other 

actions. If the permit is voluntarily relinquished, some of the options for forage allocation may include mitigating 

110 Livestock Grazing 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

any conflicts and making the forage available for other applicants, establishing a reserve forage allotment, or 

leaving the allotment vacant (not authorizing subsequent grazing applications). The term “Close” is used in the 

Matrix to refer to allotments where livestock grazing would not be authorized. Allotments with relinquished 

permits that are not authorized for grazing would not be permanently “closed” or unavailable; JDBRMP direction 

would allow for reauthorizing grazing use if ecological sensitivities, social issues or grazing demands change 

through time. For all categories where conflicts are identified, the matrix provides for mitigating those conflicts to 

move an allotment into another category. 

The primary rating factors used in the Grazing Matrix are described in more detail below. 

Estimating potential for human/livestock conflicts 

•	1 In Alternatives 2 - 5, the potential for this conflict is estimated using the following factors: (1) cumulative 

percentages of allotment within special management areas (i.e., acres in WSA plus the acres in ACEC plus 

the acres in WSR plus the acres in RNA plus the acres of NFJDR acquired lands divided by the acres of 

public land in allotment) and (2) potential for recreational use. Factor 2 (recreation) is scored as 100 if at 

least 1,000 acres are legally accessible to the general public, either by foot, car, or boat. Scores of less than 

100 indicate percentage of acres less than 1,000 that are legally accessible. These two factors are weighted 

equally in determining this conflict score. 

Estimating potential for demand 

•	1 In Alternatives 2 - 5, potential for demand is estimated using the following factors: (1) cumulative 

percentages of allotment within special management areas (see above), (2) potential for recreational use 

(see above), (3) waiting list for grazing preference, (4) amount of seasonal restrictions on grazing, (5) 

relative amount of forage (AUMs) in allotment, (6) administrative efficiency, (7) cumulative percentages 

of allotment containing important deer, elk, sage grouse, Washington ground squirrel habitats and 

waterfowl refuge, (8) relative amount of anadromous fish habitat in unacceptable condition, and (9) 

rangeland health. 

•	1 Factors 1 and 2 are calculated the same as described above for estimating potential for human/livestock 

conflict. Factor 3, waiting list, is based on professional judgment of Prineville District BLM Rangeland 

Management Specialists. Factor 4 is the percentage of authorized use (AUMs) restricted to 90 days or 

less. Factor 5 is the percent of public land forage in an allotment compared to three times the median 

public land forage for all allotments in the basin, capped at 100. Factor 6 gives a rating of 0.25, 1.0, 1.5, or 

2.0 based on the amount of forage in the allotment and percent of public land. Factor 7 is the acres with 

important deer habitat plus the acres with important elk habitat plus the acres of important sage grouse 

habitat plus the acres of Washington ground squirrel habitat plus the acres of lower John Day waterfowl 

refuge divided by acres of public land in allotment. Factor 8 is amount of anadromous fish spawning 

and rearing habitat with an unacceptable PFC rating that is attributable to current livestock management 

relative to the amount basin-wide. Factor 9 is 75 for allotments that fail any rangeland health standard 

due to causes other than grazing, and 0 for all other allotments. Demand factors are weighted as follows: 

#1, #2, #4, #8 and #9 are each 12 percent of the total demand score, #3 is 20 percent, #5 and #7 are each 10 

percent, and the sum is multiplied by #6. 

Estimating potential for ecological conflict 

•	1 Potential ecological conflict is estimated using the following factors: (1) cumulative percentages of 

allotment within special management areas (acres in ACEC plus the acres in WSR plus the acres in RNA 

divided by the acres of public land in allotment), (2) cumulative percentages of allotment containing 

important deer, elk, sage grouse, Washington ground squirrel habitats and waterfowl refuge, (3) relative 

amount of anadromous fish habitat in unacceptable condition, and (4) percent of the allotment failing to 

meet Standards for Rangeland Health (20 points for each standard that fails and livestock are a causal 

factor, 0 if meeting standards, or if livestock are not a causal factor in the failure, or if rangeland health 

assessment has not been completed). The factors are weighted equally. 

Resolving Conflicts 

• Use a formula to estimate potential for conflict (between livestock and humans, and between livestock and 

natural resources) and potential demand (from ranchers) for specific allotments. Potential conflicts and 

Livestock Grazing 111 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

demand are classified as low, moderate or high (described below). The BLM would set maximum allowable 

conflict and demand thresholds, and take actions as necessary to keep management costs and conflicts 

below those thresholds. The estimates would be used to prioritize work, and help make decisions about 

where conflicts might be high enough to warrant modifying or discontinuing grazing or other uses now or 

in the future. 

•	1 Based on the combination of conflict and demand, each allotment would be placed in a specific 

management category. The outcome for specific allotments is provided in Appendix J. The matrix 

outcomes vary by alternative, as described below. 

•	1 Outcomes of the matrix are, in most cases, dependent upon voluntary permit relinquishment. There is 

one matrix category that would not be dependent on permit relinquishment, and in this case grazing 

would be discontinued in the allotment(s) upon approval of this plan. Note that permit relinquishment is 

allowed in all alternatives; it is provided for in the grazing regulations (43 CFR), and can not be changed 

at the RMP level. Lessees are under no obligation to relinquish their permits. If they wish to discontinue 

grazing, they have the option to relinquish their permit, or transfer it to another qualified applicant. 

•	1 The matrix presented in this document is a snapshot in time illustrating the best information available. 

Administration of the recommendations of the Grazing Decision Matrix will be performed following 

an updating of the information to allow consideration of changes in Grazing Decision Matrix factors, 

management opportunities, and technologies that occur over time. 

112 Livestock Grazing 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-11. Factors and Weights used in the Grazing Decision Matrix. See guidelines for “Resolving Conflicts” for an explanation of how this matrix is used.

Factor Title What Factor Measures How Factor is Calculated 

Weight of Factor

Social Demand Eco. 

Special Mgt Areas % of allotment in WSR, ACEC, WSA, 

RNA and NEOALE 

(# acres in SMAs / # acres in allotment) X 100 for each SMA{Eco = SMA - WSA acres} 

0.5 0.12 0.25 

Recreation Potential for recreational use ((#acres in allotment w/ legal access) / (1000 acres)) X 100 0.5 0.12 Wait list Rancher interest in allotment Professional judgment; (range from 1 where lots of people

want to graze it, to 100 where no one wants to graze it) 

0.20 

Seasonal Amount of seasonal restrictions on

grazing 

(# AUMs restricted to <90 days / # AUMs in allotment) X 100 0.12 

Forage Relative amount of forage in allotment, 

compared to other allotments in theplanning area 

(1 – (# permitted AUMs in allotment) / 120)) X 100 (120 is from 3x median AUMs per allotment in the basin) 

0.10 

Administrative Efficiency 

Relative amount of forage and public land in an allotment 

2: > 3x median AUMs, and > median AUMs and > 90% PL. 1.5: > median AUMs and between 50 and 90% PL. 

0.25: < median AUMs and < 50% PL. 1: all other allotments 

Multiply

sum by

this factor 

Wildlife % of allotment containing important

deer, sage grouse, elk, WA ground 

squirrel habitat and waterfowl refuge 

For each allotment, (% of acres deer winter range + % acressage grouse habitat + % acres elk winter range + % acres WAground squirrel habitat + waterfowl refuge) 

0.10 0.25 

ESA fish Existence of endangered fish species

within the allotment 

If stream within allotment provides spawning and rearinghabitat and has a PFC rating of At Risk Static or worse and 

non-attainment is due to current livestock management # of miles of stream failing / # miles of stream in the allotment 

0.12 0.25 

Rangeland HealthAssessment –Demand 

Poor grazing conditions for allotments failing assessment due to reasons otherthan grazing 

Failing for reasons other than grazing = 75; all others = 0 0.12 

Rangeland HealthAssessment –Ecological 

% of standards not met thru rangelandhealth assessment due to grazing 

Number of failing standards attributable to grazing:1=20, 2=40, 3=60, 4-80, 5=100 

0.25 

Livestock Grazing 113 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Reserve Forage Allotments 

•	1 In Alternatives 2-5, some allotments would be placed in Reserve Forage Allotment (RFA) status. These 

allotments would not be allocated to one specific grazing operator. The BLM would allow temporary, 

non-renewable use to facilitate rangeland restoration and restoration and recovery on a landscape scale. 

RFAs could be a source of replacement forage. For example, an RFA could be made available to lessees 

to allow their home allotment to build up sufficient fine fuels to carry a prescribed burn. Lessees can be 

reluctant to embrace these projects when they have no replacement forage. Grazing use that would be 

available in an RFA would lessen economic and operational impacts to grazing lessees by offsetting the 

temporary forage loss that is inherent to resting all or a portion of an allotment from grazing. 

•	1 In addition to the management flexibility that RFAs allow for planned events, RFAs could be used for 

unplanned events such as wildland fire induced forage loss and may provide limited relief for regional 

events such as drought, flood, insect damage, or disease. All use that occurs in the RFA would meet RMP 

objectives from this section and all others, and if applicable, AMP goals. Administration and management 

of the RFAs would follow the development of a site specific grazing management plan through the 

cooperation, consultation, and coordination with the land owner, local governments, and interested publics. 

North Fork John Day Acquired Lands 

•	1 Any of the nine allotments managed according to OLEA guidance would have an allotment specific plan 

(for each allotment or group of allotments) developed that addresses native fish and wildlife and public 

recreation as directed by OLEA prior to being made available for grazing. Results of these plans may 

dictate either annual or long term authorizations. Grazing preference for these vacant allotments would 

be made available to applicants based on existing regulations, with priority given to adjacent landowners, 

adjacent Forest Service permit holders, and applicants who have grazed within the allotments in the past. 

Alternative 2 

Objective L6 

Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this and other sections of this RMP/EIS, while considering 

resource conflicts, potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. 

Actions 

•	1 Allow livestock grazing as shown for Alternative 2 in Appendix J. 

•	1 Two of the nine allotments containing acquired lands in the NFJDR would be available as “RFA/Close” 

and seven would be “Close.” 

Guidelines 

These guidelines are in addition to those listed above under, “Management Common to All Action Alternatives.” 

Resolving Conflicts 

•	1 Alternative 2 applies the Grazing Decision Matrix to all allotments in the John Day basin, and treats 

NFJDR acquired lands as a ‘Special Management Area’ similar in status to WSAs, WSRs, RNAs, and 

ACECs. In this alternative, ‘low’ conflict/demand is defined as values less than the fiftieth percentile, 

‘medium’ is defined as values between fiftieth and ninety-fifth percentile, and ‘high’ is defined as values 

above the ninety-fifty percentile. 

North Fork John Day Acquired Lands 

•	1 For this alternative the nine allotments are treated as having been relinquished and the Grazing Decision 

Matrix results determine the proposed use. 

114 Livestock Grazing 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Alternative 3 

Same as Alternative 2 except for variations shown under this alternative that affect only grazing on the NFJD 

newly acquired lands. 

Objective L7 

Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this and other sections of this RMP/EIS, while considering 

resource conflicts, potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. 

Actions 

•	1 Allow livestock grazing as shown for Alternative 3 in Appendix J. 

•	1 For this alternative the nine allotments with NFJDR acquired lands would be treated as being available 

for grazing. 

Guidelines 

These guidelines are in addition to those listed above under Management Common to All Action Alternatives (2-5). 

North Fork John Day River Acquired Lands 

•	1 Alternative 3 applies the Grazing Decision Matrix assuming that the NFJDR acquired lands do not 

have the ‘Special Management Area’ status. The rest of the Grazing Decision Matrix calculations are the 

same as in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 assumes that a 1/8 mile buffer on each side of currently occupied 

anadromous fish streams in NFJDR acquired lands would be excluded from livestock grazing. Actual 

implementation may vary due to use of existing fences, season of use, herding, natural barriers, or 

adjustments in allotment boundaries to exclude fish streams. Grazing preference for vacant allotments 

would be made available to applicants based on existing grazing regulations, with priority given to 

adjacent landowners, adjacent Forest Service permit holders, and applicants who have grazed within the 

allotments in the past. 

Alternative 4 

Objective L8 

Meet multiple use goals and objectives as stated in this and other sections of this RMP/EIS, while considering 

resource conflicts, potential for allotment improvement, and agency funding constraints. 

Actions 

There would be no additional actions other than those already listed above under Management Common to All 

Alternatives and Management Common to All Action Alternatives. 

•	1 Allow livestock grazing as shown for Alternative 4 in Appendix J. 

•	1 All nine allotments in the NFJDR acquired lands would be closed to grazing. 

Guidelines 

These guidelines are in addition to those listed above under, “Management Common to All Action Alternatives.” 

Resolving Conflicts 

•	1 Alternative 4 uses the same Grazing Decision Matrix as Alternative 2, but applies a greater degree of 

sensitivity to conflict (that is, social and ecological values) while maintaining the same sensitivity to 

demand. For social and ecological values, Alternative 4 defines ‘low’ as values less than the fiftieth 

Livestock Grazing 115 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

percentile, ‘medium’ as values between the fiftieth and sixty-sixth percentile, and ‘high’ as values above 

the sixty-sixth percentile. 

North Fork John Day Acquired Lands 

•	1 For this alternative the nine allotments are treated as having been relinquished and the Grazing Decision 

Matrix results determine the proposed use. 

Alternative 5 

This alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Recreation Opportunities 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective R1 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities 

in Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas (see glossary), and contribute to meeting recreational 

demand and quality visitor experiences. 

Actions 

•	1 Prohibit motorized vehicle operation, including parking or camping, in closed areas. 

•	1 In WSAs, allow parking only in areas signed as available for parking and/or car camping. 

•	1 Manage areas designated as Closed for non-motorized uses. 

•	1 Maintain all recreation facilities and recreation use areas for public safety and aesthetics. 

•	1 Manage the designated Wild and Scenic River Segments on the John Day River, the John Day River 

between Kimberly and Service Creek, and the North Fork John Day River between Monument and 

Kimberly (119,052 acres) as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 

•	1 Unless specifically modified by this RMP, manage the Lower John Day River according to 2001 John Day 

River Management Plan guidance for recreation, including: 

◦	1Improve or upgrade existing developed recreation facilities when needed to protect resources. 

◦	1At the Oregon Trail interpretive site (west side), clarify and mark pubic access routes, improve parking, 

and pursue a Cooperative Management Agreement with the Sherman County Historical Society to 

manage and maintain this site. 

◦	1Near McDonald Crossing (east side), clarify and mark public access routes. 

◦	1Near Clarno, improve the BLM road on west bank of the river from Clarno to Clarno Homestead, 

seasonally close this road to vehicle traffic north of the Clarno Homestead during the first 10 days of 

pheasant season, and identify a designated area on west bank for dispersed camping. 

◦	1On the South Fork John Day River, identify preferred camping areas and install signs and parking 

barriers to protect vegetation. Re-evaluate the need for a campground near Ellingson Mill with toilet, 

tables, information board, signs, and parking barriers. 

◦	1Use Limits of Acceptable Change identify areas where dispersed recreation is contributing to nonattainment of RMP resource objectives or recreation experience, or both. Actions to protect resources, 

such as campsite hardening, rehabilitation or closure, may be taken at any time, if necessary. 

◦	1Boating use levels, boating use allocation and motorized boating would continue to be managed 

according to the 2001 John Day River Management Plan. 

116 Recreation Opportunities 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Objective R2 

Provide opportunities for commercial, competitive, educational, and organized group recreational activities. 

Actions 

•	1 Applications for special recreation permits must be submitted at least 180 days in advance of the 

proposed use to be considered, except applications for guiding sheep hunts must be submitted at least 

30 days in advance of the proposed use. Shorter time frames may be allowed upon request and approval. 

Applications would be considered and decisions made on a case-by-case basis. 

•	1 Continue to manage river-based commercial recreation permits according to the 2001 John Day River 

Management Plan. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective R3 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities 

in Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas (see glossary), and contribute to meeting recreational 

demand and quality visitor experiences. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to manage those lands not in the SRMA as an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). 

◦	1Dispersed Recreation use on the North Fork John Day River, Rudio Mountain/Johnson Heights, Dixie 

Creek and other public lands not designated as an SRMA would be subject to limited management. The 

only exception may be during big game hunting seasons when public trespass is highest during the year. 

◦	1BLM would continue to provide basic public information through maps of public lands and provide 

information regarding recreation opportunities and public safety. No facilities would be available away 

from the John Day River. 

•	1 Continue designations (as shown in Tables 2-14, 2-25, and Maps 12A-12F) from the Two Rivers, John Day, 

and Baker Records of Decision and subsequent Federal Register Notices, that identify: 

◦	1258,066 acres of BLM administered lands as Open (see glossary for definitions of “Open,” “Limited” 

and “Closed”), including all of Little Canyon Mountain area. 

◦	1In these areas, allow motorized use off highway and on designated or undesignated routes (cross 

country) without restriction. Open areas are located throughout the planning area, but are concentrated 

in the Rudio mountains and public lands near John Day, Kimberly and Monument. 

◦	1131,320 acres as Limited. Typically, OHV use in these areas must be on designated routes (usually 

primitive roads and trails) but restrictions may also be on season of use and/or time of day to prevent 

trail damage or disturbance to wildlife, non motorized users, or nearby residents. 

◦	167,226 acres as Closed to OHV use. In special management areas (e.g., Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers) an area may be closed to OHV use to protect the values for which the areas were created. 

Objective R4 

Provide opportunities for commercial, competitive, educational, and organized group recreational activities. 

Actions 

•	1 Issue new Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) for commercial, competitive, or organized group use when 

they fall into one or more of the following categories: 

◦	1Activities regulated by the John Day Wild and Scenic River Management Plan; 

◦	1Renewal or transfer of existing SRPs. 

Recreation Opportunities 117 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

◦	1Activities or events that would not exceed seven consecutive days in length annually, and would not 

require preparation of an environmental assessment. 

◦	1Guide services for the holder of a John Day River bighorn sheep tag issued by the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. These SRPs would be temporary, and the term of the permit would not exceed the 

length of the hunt authorized by ODFW. 

◦	1Multi-district proposals where the authorized use area includes small portions of lands under 

management by the Prineville District, and the SRP would be issued by an adjacent BLM district. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective R5 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities in 

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, and contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality 

visitor experiences. 

•	1 New BLM guidance requires the application of a Benefits-Based Recreation (BBR) protocol that involves 

the identification of the Recreation Niche, Appropriate Marketing Strategy, Management Objectives, 

Setting, and Actions. Table 2-12 summarizes BBR Attributes and Settings, and the distribution of 

Settings across the planning area. The purpose of BBR management is to provide a variety of quality 

non-motorized and motorized recreation opportunities and experiences within specific areas of public 

lands referred to as Special or Extensive Recreation Management Areas (SRMA or ERMA). SRMAs are 

areas where BLM will focus and invest time, management, funding and facilities. ERMA management is 

limited to protecting resource values and minimizing user conflicts. 

Actions 

•	1 Modify the existing John Day River SRMA boundary from 119,052 to 122,865 acres, including selected 

contiguous lands outside of the WSR Boundary. 

•	1 Identify specific Recreation Management Zones (RMZs; see Map 11 and glossary) within SRMAs. 

Appendix K summarizes each SRMA, and Table 2-13 summarizes recreation management by alternative. 

•	1 Designate the following new SRMAs: 

◦	1The 52,033 acre North Fork John Day River SRMA consisting of public lands acquired as a result of 

the Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000 and previously owned lands north of Monument and west of 

Highway 395. 

▪	1Developed campgrounds on the North Fork will be seasonally closed from December 1 thru April 15. 

◦	1The 60,678 acre Bridge Creek SRMA consisting of public lands south of the John Day River SRMA, west 

of State Route 207, north of Highway 26, and west to just beyond the Jefferson/Wheeler county line. 

◦	1The 2,617 acre Little Canyon Mountain SRMA near Canyon City. 

◦	1The 55,204 acre South Fork John Day River SRMA consisting of public lands on both sides of the river, 

south of Highway 26. 

•	1 Manage ERMAs as a Recreation Niche for the undeveloped recreation-tourism market to provide 

opportunities for local residents and visitors to pursue land based activities in an unconfined, natural 

setting, with an emphasis on hunting, backcountry recreation, while providing some opportunities for 

motorized Class I, II and III (ATV, vehicle, and motorcycle) trail riding. 

•	1 Ensure there is directional signing to and within ERMAs for public safety and service and to promote 

better understanding of the safety hazards and risks associated with recreation activities (e.g., big game 

hunting in the Rudio Mountain and Johnson Heights ERMA and potential hazards associated with 

mining in the Dixie Creek Area.) 

•	1 Ensure public land boundary are clearly signed to reduce trespass onto private lands, particularly where 

there has been a history of trespass. 

◦	1Work with adjacent private land owners in the Rudio Mountain and Johnson Heights and Dixie Creek 

ERMAs to identify public and private land boundaries. 

118 Recreation Opportunities 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

•	1 Provide recreation sites and facilities that promote resource value protection, public safety and health, 

visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value based returns. 

•	1 Ensure all recreation site and access development conforms with and does not change the Recreation 

Setting (see definition in Table 2-12). 

Guidelines 

•	1 When designing developed sites, use Universal Design Standards to the extent practicable while 

maintaining the character of the site. 

•	1 Evaluate partnership opportunities with Oregon State Lands to potentially enhance Class II Rock 

crawling opportunities in the planning area. 

Objective R6 

Provide opportunities for commercial, competitive, educational, and organized group recreational activities. 

Actions 

•	1 Issue new upland-based special recreation permits (SRP) as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and 

special events on a first come basis subject to 2930 Handbook guidance. Decision to issue new uplandbased recreation permits would be dependent upon BLM’s ability to complete required NEPA analyses 

and to administer and monitor existing and new permit proposals. Analyze proposals for new permits 

for compatibility with recreation zones and travel plans, use allocations, resource protection, health and 

safety of visitors, social conflict management, and the public need for services. Permits may be issued 

by competitive prospectus. Priority for consideration of recreation permit applications would be for 

environmental education activities and for backlogged permit applications consistent with Recreation 

Management Zone objectives. 

◦	1If the number of available permits is less than the number of qualified applicants for an activity or use 

area, permits would be issued by competitive prospectus. 

•	1 Within wilderness study areas group size is limited to 12 persons except within the Wild and Scenic River 

Boundary (16 person limit for boating parties). 

•	1 Outside wilderness study areas groups of more than 16 persons for overnight use or more than 20 

persons for day use are required to obtain permits. 

Objective R7 

Protect and enhance recreation opportunities through acquisition of lands or public access easements. 

Actions 

•	1 Identify public lands where no legal public access exists yet there are important recreational opportunities. 

When opportunities arise, consider acquisition to provide access and/or create blocks of public lands (see 

criteria for access easements and lands suitable for acquisition (Z-1) under Lands alternatives). 

Alternative 2 

Objective R8 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities in 

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, and contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality 

visitor experiences. 

Recreation Opportunities 119 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Actions 

•	1 Designate OHV areas (per 43 CFR 8342.1) as shown in Tables 2-14, 2-25, Maps 13A-13F and described below: 

◦	14,488 acres in the Rudio Plateau area as Open for off-road motorized use. 

▪	1Respond to specific concerns of cooperators and ensure protection of natural resource values and 

public safety by using adaptive management to allow continuance of cross-country OHV use unless 

specified ecological or social thresholds are reached. This area is usually “closed” by snow to all 

vehicles except snowmobiles during the winter. The 4,488 acre Rudio Plateau area would remain 

open to cross-country motorized use unless one or more of the following triggers are exceeded, 

at which point the area would be closed to off-route travel and limited to designated routes. The 

triggers for limiting all use to designated routes are: 

•	1 When unmitigated motorized use for > 1 year will cause sensitive species to become listed as 

threatened or endangered, currently listed threatened or endangered species to be “taken”, or 

streams to become listed as 303d listed for not providing water quality for beneficial uses, 

•	1 When BLM or its partners cannot afford to protect public safety or resource objectives, or resolve 

most conflicts with users or adjacent lands (see BMPs), 

•	1 When detrimental soil disturbance exceeds 15 percent of the Rudio OHV area, 

•	1 When, for three consecutive years, the number of elk damage complaints verified by ODF&W 

increases and/or there is an undesirable distribution change in the wintering elk herd. ODF&W 

will verify if damage from elk on adjacent property is associated with the identified wintering 

population. An “undesirable” distribution change would be present if typical winter use patterns 

are not observed within 1/2 mile of the Open Area. The intention of the three consecutive year 

threshold is to help rule out changes in elk behavior due to affects of short term climatic events. 

•	1 If BLM or its partners are no longer monitoring motorized use, special status species, soil 

disturbance or other relevant resource values in this area. 

◦	1367,300 acres as Limited to designated routes and trails or other restrictions. 

▪	1Up to 280 acres technical Class II rock crawling areas within two areas in the vicinity of Kimberly 

and Spray 

•	1 The two acre South Pit Area of Little Canyon Mountain limited to Class II vehicles. 

•	1 North Pit area would serve as trailhead and parking area. 

•	1 Motorized use at Little Canyon Mountain Limited to 9am-6pm daily. 

◦	184,823 acres as Closed. 

▪	1All motorized use would be limited to designated roads and trails except for within the designated 

Open areas. 

•	1 Within the Open and Limited designated areas, the interim routes will be considered shared use trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized use until a full transportation management plan can be prepared to 

address site specific routes. 

Alternative 3 

Objective R9 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities in 

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, and contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality 

visitor experiences. 

Actions 

Same as Alternative 2 except: 

•	1 Designate: 

◦	1602 acres as Open in an area north of Mitchell called the Golden Triangle and Little Canyon Mountain 

South Pit OHV play area. 

120 Recreation Opportunities 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

◦	1366,699 acres designated as Limited, including technical class II rock crawling areas and off designated 

Routes, Class I and III permitted in Little Canyon Mountain North Pit (2 acres). 

◦	1Motorized use at LIttle Canyon Mountain would be limited to 9 am to dusk. 

Alternative 4 

Objective R10 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities in 

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, and contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality 

visitor experiences. 

Actions 

Same as Alternative 2 except: 

• Designate: 

◦	12 acres as Open to OHV use within the South Pit area of Little Canyon Mountain. 

◦	1365,242 acres as Limited to designated roads and trails, including the Rudio Plateau area. 

◦	191,366 acres as Closed, including the North Pit at Little Canyon Mountain and the Golden Triangle area. 

◦	1Motorized use at Little Canyon Mountain would be limited to 9am to 6pm Monday, Wednesday, Friday 

and Saturday. 

Alternative 5 

Objective R11 

Provide diverse opportunities for dispersed motorized, non-motorized and water-based recreation activities in 

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, and contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality 

visitor experiences. 

Actions 

• Designate: 

◦	1371,787 acres as Limited to designated routes and trails, including 4,488 acres on the Rudio Plateau, and 

a 600 acre area north of Mitchell called the Golden Triangle. 

◦	184,823 acres as Closed, including the South and North Pit areas of Little Canyon Mountain. 

◦	1Motorized use at Little Canyon Mountain would be limited to 9am to 6pm Monday, Wednesday, Friday 

and Saturday. 

◦	1All other actions are the same as for Alternative 2. 

Recreation Opportunities 121 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

122 Map 11: Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 11: Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 123 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-12. Benefits-based Recreation Setting Criteria. Attribute Setting Primitive (P) Back-Country (BC) Middle Country (MC) Front Country (FC) Rural (R) Urban (U) Examples in JDB planning area Sutton Mountain WSA + WSAs in the lower John Day River Unroaded areas around Sutton Mountain North + South Forks of the John Day River + Rudio Mtn/ Johnson Heights areas Dixie Creek area + Golden Triangle area north of Mitchell Little Canyon Mountain area near John Day + Canyon City This class does not currently exist on BLM managed public land in the planning area Physical Character Natural environment of fairly large size Generally natural or natural appearing environment of moderate-large size Generally natural or natural appearing environment of moderate-large size Generally natural appearing environment with moderate human evidence (sights and sounds) Substantially modified natural environment; sights + sounds of humans clearly evident Substantially urbanized environment; sights + sounds of humans on-site are common Vegetation Undisturbed natural landscape Naturally appearing landscapes having modifications not readily noticeable Naturally appearing landscape except for obvious primitive roads Landscape partially modified by roads, utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural landscape features Natural landscape substantially modified by development Urbanized developments dominate this landscape Remoteness Some portions of primitive areas are 3 miles from any road No open roads. Access to perimeter via primitive native surface routs Primitive motor 

vehicle routes 

may occur withinperimeter but atleast 1⁄2 mile from allimproved roads 

On or nearimproved country 

roads, but most ofarea is 1⁄2 mile fromhighway 

On or near primaryhighways, but still within a rural area 

On or nearprimary highways, municipal streets, +roads within townsor cities 

Access Routes May have trails Constructed or user

trails 

Primitive native surface routes; maybe bladed 

Bladed native or gravel surfaced 

passenger car routes 

Paved roads Paved highways 

Facilities Rustic bridges,

rustic signs 

Rustic bridges,rustic signs,primitive sanitary facilities. 

Maintained +marked trails,simple trailheaddevelopments, improved signs, may have small, primitive campgrounds withvault toilets 

Facilities such ascamp grounds,rest rooms, trails,interpretative signs common. Trailhead developments. 

Modern facilitiessuch as campgrounds, groupshelters, boatlaunches, occasionalexhibits 

Elaborate fullservice facilitiessuch as laundry, groceries, bookstores 

124 Recreation Opportunities 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-12. (cont.)


1

Attribute 

Setting 

Primitive (P) Back-Country (BC) 

Middle Country

(MC) 

Front Country

(FC) Rural (R) Urban (U) 

Group Size < or = 3 people 4 - 6 people 7 - 12 people 13 - 25 people 26 - 50 people > 50 people 

Contacts(encounters/day) 

< 6 7-15 Less than 30 on

travel routes 

30+ on travel routes People can be 

seen everywhere, but contact is stillintermittent 

Other peopleconsistently in view 

Evidence of Use Footprints may be

observed, occasion 

trampling ofvegetation (single imprints). Possible trampling atpopular campsites 

Footprints plusslight vegetation 

trampling atcampsites + travel routes; infrequentlitter 

Vehicle tracks + occasional litter +soil erosion in roadcuts; vegetation 

becoming worn 

Well-worn soils + vegetation, but often 

gravel surfaced for erosion control;litter may befrequent 

Paved routes protect soils and vegetation, but noise, litter, + facility impacts arepervasive 

A busy place with what seems likeconstant noise;unavoidable litter 

Mechanized Use None Mountain bikes

+ perhaps othermechanized use, butall is non-motorized 

4WD, ATV, dirt bikes, orsnowmobilesin addition tonon-motorizedmechanized use 

2WD vehicles predominant,but also 4WD +non-motorizedmechanized use 

Ordinary highway auto + truck traffic ischaracteristic 

Wide variety of street vehicle + highway traffic is ever present 

Overall Administrative 

Characteristics 

Restrictions andcontrols in place toprotect primitive character; motorizeduse not permitted 

Restrictions andcontrols in placeto protect BackCountry character;motorized use notpermitted 

Minimum on-sitecontrols; restrictionspresent but subtle;motorized use isallowed 

Conventional motorized useprovided forin constructionstandards + designof facilities 

Considerablenumber of facilitiesdesigned for useby large number ofpeople; facilities forparking provided 

Facilities for highlyintensified motor use + parking available with forms of masstransit to carrypeople through site

Visitor Services None available Basic maps, but area

personnel seldomavailable 

Area brochures +maps; personneloccasionallyavailable 

Informationdescribes areas +activities; personnelperiodicallyavailable 

Many opportunitiesfor facilitateddiscovery; personnel do on-site education 

Same as R, plusregularly scheduledon-site outdoorskills clinics, demos 

Recreation Opportunities 125 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-12. (cont.)


1

Attribute 

Setting 

Primitive (P) Back-Country (BC) 

Middle Country

(MC) 

Front Country

(FC) Rural (R) Urban (U) 

ManagementControls 

Trailhead Kiosks; occasional signing,enforcementpresence very rare 

Signs/kiosks atkey access points,rare enforcementpresence 

Occasionalregulatory signing;motorized +mechanized userestrictions posted;random enforcement presence 

Rules clearlyposted on signsand at informationkiosks; periodicenforcementpresence 

Regulationsprominent; routineenforcementpresence 

Continuousenforcement to+ reduce userconflicts, hazards,resource damage 

Table 2-13. Recreation Management by Alternative

Alternative 1

No action 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Special Recreation Management Areas (# / acres) 

1 / 119,052 acres 5 / 293,397 acres 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (# / acres) 

1/ 337,558 acres 3 / 163,214 acres 

Recreation Developments 15 campground

facilities 

Up to 18 campground facilities (includes existing)

Areas Open year-round to off-road use 258,066 acres 4,488 acres 5,086 acres 2 acres 0 acres Area/miles where OHV use is allowed with limits (Limited) 

131,319 acres /

572 miles 

367,300 acres /

333 miles 

366,699 acres /

879 miles 

365, 242 acres /

333 miles 

371,787 acres /

333 miles 

Areas Closed year-round to off-road motorized use 

67,226 acres 84,823 acres 91,366 acres Same as 2 & 3 

Class II Rock Crawling areas 0 acres Up to about 280 acres 

126 Recreation Opportunities 
 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-14. Off-Highway Vehicle Designations by Alternative and Special Recreation and 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 

SRMA/ERMA Sub-Unit 1 2 3 4 5 

John Day River 

SRMA 

Horn Butte Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Four Mile, John Four Mile Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Day & McDonald Limited; 

Crossings others Open 

River Corridor Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

North of 

Cottonwood Bridge 

WSAs Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed 

River Corridor Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Butte Creek to 

Clarno 

River Corridor 

Clarno to Kimberly 

Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

South Fork (No sub-unit) Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

John Day River 

SRMA 

North Fork River Corridor Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

John Day River Kimberly to 

SRMA Wall Creek 

JV Ranch Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Remaining Upland 

Areas 

Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Bridge Creek 

SRMA 

Sutton WSA Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Pat’s Cabin WSA Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed 

West Pat’s Cabin Limited Closed Closed Closed Closed 

Clark Canyon Limited Closed Closed Closed Closed 

Sand Mountain Limited Closed Closed Closed Closed 

Golden Triangle Limited Limited Open Closed Limited 

Gable Creek Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Little Canyon Motorized Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Mountain Emphasis 

SRMA North Pit Open Limited 

Use as 

Limited 

Class I + 

Closed Closed 

parking area 

+ trail head 

Class III 

OHV only 

South Pit Open Limited Open Open Closed 

Class II 

OHV only 

Rudio Mountain/ 

Johnson Heights 

ERMA 

Rudio Plateau Open Open Open Limited Limited 

Rest of Rudio Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Johnson Heights Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Dixie Creek 

ERMA 

(No sub-unit) Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Recreation Opportunities 127 
 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 2-14. (cont.) 

SRMA/ERMA Sub-Unit 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

John Day Basin 

ERMA 

Class II Rock Climb 

Area 

(w. of Kimberly 

Open Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Other Areas Open/ 

Limited 

Limited Limited Limited Limited 

Limited means motorized travel limited to designated roads and trails unless otherwise noted. 

Travel Management 

Travel management alternatives for the planning area are displayed in Maps 12A-F, 13A-F, and Maps 14A-F. 

Maps “A” cover the Lower John Day Area, maps “B” cover the Sutton Mountain Area, Maps “C” cover the Rudio 

Mountain/Johnson Heights Area, Maps “D” cover the South Fork John Day Area, Maps “E” cover the Upper John 

Day River Area, and Maps “F” cover the North Fork John Day Area. Map 26 displays how the different Travel 

Management areas are dispersed across the planning area. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective T1 

Manage the travel and transportation system to support the accomplishment of wildlife management objectives. 

Actions 

•	1 Utilize existing road systems and limit new permanent road entries to protect wildlife habitat. 

•	1 Manage: 

◦ 26 miles of aggregate surfaced roads. 

◦ 82 miles of improved natural surface roads with graded surfaces and drainage features. 

•	1 All routes with active legal encumbrances would remain part of the designated transportation system and 

would continue to be managed according to those agreements. Some of these routes may be restricted to 

administrative access only, based upon the legal restriction in those encumbrances. 

•	1 Existing seasonal motorized use restrictions may be continued and may be adjusted to protect winter 

habitat for big game species (see Wildlife section and Maps 12A-12F) or other sensitive resource values. 

Objective T2 

Maintain public access while protecting and enhancing river values. 

Actions 

•	1 Grade, surface, or widen roads as needed, including the BLM road on the west bank from Clarno to 

Clarno Homestead, and the road to Priest Hole. 

•	1 Continue to consolidate public land ownership patterns through purchase or exchange, acquisition of 

easements, and through partnership agreements with willing landowners to resolve public access issues 

and provide access to high value recreation opportunities. Acquire a river access point from a willing 

seller to replace the current private access at Twickenham. 

•	1 Coordinate with Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to ensure that road and access improvements 

are consistent with State Scenic Waterway regulations, where applicable. 

•	1 Continue to improve the ditches and culverts on the South Fork Road as needed. 

128 Travel Management 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Objective T3 

Maintain the existing travel and transportation system to support the agency’s mission, management of land and 

resource programs and their goals and objectives, provide for appropriate public and administrative access, and 

provide for a variety of recreational purposes. 

Actions 

•	1 Manage an interim transportation system of 742 total miles of routes (see Table 2-23), including: 

◦	1572 miles of BLM routes open year-round, 

◦	161 miles of BLM routes open seasonally, and 

◦	1109 miles under other jurisdictions open year-round. 

•	1 Of these 742 miles of existing routes, 250 miles are currently “land locked” and inaccessible to the public 

unless permission for access is acquired from private landowners. 

•	1 Within these, 475 miles are un-maintained primitive routes (see Maps 12A-12F). 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective T4 

Provide public and administrative access in a manner that attains resource objectives and supports the 

agency’s mission. 

The interim transportation network is derived from the Prineville District Geographic Information System 

(GIS) data base, published maps showing state, county, and Forest Service roads, and local knowledge of route 

conditions, source (power line, fence line, pipe line, etc.) and level of use. 

•	1 The final transportation network (Transportation Management Plan or TMP) will assess present and 

future access needs, and evaluate existing trails, primitive roads, and other roads. 

Actions 

•	1 Identify the following aggregate surfaced roads and main collector roads as part of the permanent 

transportation system: North Fork John Day, South Fork John Day, Franks Creek, Holmes Creek, 

Sunflower Creek, Deer Creek, Indian Creek, and Priest Hole. 

•	1 Develop a TMP within five years after a signed record of decision for this RMP. The TMP will describe the 

final transportation system. 

•	1 Criteria for prioritizing areas to be analyzed first will be: 

◦	1Areas with large blocks of public lands with legal public access. 

◦	1Areas with high public demand. 

◦	1Areas not attaining resource objectives (e.g., interim road densities are currently higher than those 

prescribed for the final transportation system in the Upper John Day Travel Management Area for all 

action alternatives (Tables 2-15 and 2-16). This area currently has the highest concentration of ROW for 

mining and private access). 

•	1 Each route and its management objective will be assessed and one or more of the following 

determinations will be made: 

◦	1Keep the road. 

◦	1Rehabilitate (see definition in glossary) all or parts of the road. 

◦	1Obliterate (see glossary) all or parts of the road. 

◦	1Fully decommission (see glossary) all or parts of the road. 

◦	1Close the road. 

Travel Management 129 
MOUNTAIN

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement LOWER
 JOHN


D

AY


NORTH

FORK 

SUTTON

RUDIO UPPER MOUNTAIN 

130 Map 26: Transportation Management Areas 
UPPER

RUDIO

UPPER

RUDIO

MOUNTAIN
 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

MOUNTAIN

JOHN

SOUTH

D

AY 

FORK 

Map 26: Transportation Management Areas 131 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

132 Map 12a: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Lower John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 12a: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Lower John Day 133 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

134 Map 12b: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Sutton Mountain 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 12b: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Sutton Mountain 135 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

136 Map 12c: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Rudio Mtn./Johnson Heights 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 12c: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Rudio Mtn./Johnson Heights 137 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

138 Map 12d: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-S. Fork John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 12d: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-S. Fork John Day 139 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

140 Map 12e: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Upper John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 12e: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-Upper John Day 141 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

142 Map 12f: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-N. Fork John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 12f: Existing Travel Management and OHV Designations-N. Fork John Day 143 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

◦	1Place seasonal restrictions on the road. 

◦	1Change the use classification of the road (e.g. road, primitive road, trail.) 

◦	1Set maintenance intensity that is reflective of management objective. 

•	1 If a road is changed to a trail, the trail will further be classified for a specific type of use (e.g., pedestrian, 

equestrian and other pack animals, mountain bike, OHV classification, etc.). 

•	1 When making determinations of which routes will be part of the final transportation plan, balance 

impacts to resources (e.g., aquatics, soil erosion, wildlife habitat) with the need to provide access (for 

public use, grazing allotments, fire suppression activities, recreation opportunities, timber hauling, site 

specific ROW actions, etc.). Criteria used to make these determinations include: 

◦	1Apply ACS decision tree (see the Aquatics section). 

◦	1Provide motorized and non-motorized loop opportunities with opportunities for non-repeated use. 

◦	1Provide access to recreation sites, trail heads and river access points. 

◦	1Provide a range of difficulties and experiences for motorized and non-motorized users. 

◦	1Provide for public access to large tracks of public lands including opportunities to link with other 

agencies’ roads (e.g., USFS, County, State, etc.) 

◦	1Keep routes with existing ROW or easements, and rehabilitate as needed. 

◦	1Provide for emergency ingress and egress needs. 

◦	1Screen roads within 0.25 miles of streams, springs, and rivers for cultural resource and wildlife protection. 

◦	1Keep access to tribal resource sites: Usual and accustomed fishing locations, plant gathering areas and 

religious sites, where known. 

◦	1Keep historic use sites. 

◦	1Close routes where there is an opportunity to expand wildlife refugia. 

◦	1Close routes that conflict with wildlife connectivity (see glossary or Wildlife section) areas. 

◦	1Close routes adjacent to sensitive plants. 

◦	1Close routes adjacent to key wildlife habitat (caves, cliffs, and nests). 

◦	1Close duplicate routes that service the same areas. 

◦	1Look for opportunities to improve visual resources. 

◦	1Be consistent with special management area goals. 

◦	1Keep routes needed to maintain facilities and range improvements. 

◦	1Consider future proposed management actions. 

◦	1Utilize road density standards (see Table 2-15) and high road density “hot spots”. 

◦	1Avoid known cultural/paleontological sites. 

◦	1Apply WEPP model to filter area with high erosion probability and close or mitigate roads with 

active erosion. 

◦	1Close or mitigate roads in sensitive soil areas. 

• When creating Travel Management Plans for areas or assessing individual routes, consider the following 

criteria to decide if a route should be a shared use or single use: 

◦	1Consistency with the “Social Qualities” from the Recreation Setting Matrix for the Recreation Setting. 

◦	1Increasing amount or unacceptable reports of conflict (e.g. accidents, close calls, disgruntled users, 

traffic counts, etc.) which cannot be mitigated. 

◦	1User displacement from either a shared use or single use designation. 

◦	1Route management should be consistent with connecting public routes managed by other agencies. 

•	1 To provide direction for the future Transportation Management Plan, prescribed road densities were 

identified by Travel Management Area based on the need to reduce impacts to key wildlife habitats and 

provide access consistent with recreation management objectives. Average prescribed road densities 

(miles of road per square mile ) by Travel Management Area for all action alternatives are as follows(note 

144 Travel Management 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

that within the Travel Management Area specific areas, e.g., key wildlife habitats, may have road 

densities of 0.00 while other areas within the Travel Management area or an area containing several 

roads that intersect may have a road density much greater than the average road density for the Travel 

Management Area.): 

◦ Lower John Day 1.26 

◦ North Fork John Day 2.00 

◦ Rudio Mountain 1.04 

◦ South Fork John Day 2.00 

◦ Sutton Mountain 1.35 

◦ Upper John Day 1.15 

◦	1Tables 2-15 and 2-16 display these average prescribed road densities for Alternatives 2 and 3, and the 

average road densities that would result from each alternative’s interim transportation systems (Maps 

13a-f and 14a-f). Alternatives 4 and 5 are the same as Alternative 2. Prescribed road densities are 0 or 

2 miles per square mile. Within these areas the road density can be higher or lower, but the BLM land 

within the prescribed area will average at or below the prescribed maximum. 

•	1 Provide routes for administrative uses. 

•	1 Use Best Management Practices (BMPs) for road construction and maintenance (see Appendix B). 

•	1 Develop a user map for each ERMA, with numbered routes to help visitors avoid trespass on these 

private lands. 

•	1 In the Dixie Creek area, designate roads and trails for shared use and non-motorized trails, particularly 

mountain bike trails if conflicts with private lands occur, or demand for recreation opportunities increases. 

•	1 Except in WSAs, vehicles may travel up to 100 feet from roads in areas closed to off road use or limited to 

designated roads in order to park or camp. 

◦	1In WSAs, designated parking and camping areas will be signed. 

•	1 Within the Open and Limited designated areas, the interim routes would be shared by both motorized 

and non-motorized use, unless otherwise posted, until a final transportation management plan can be 

prepared to designate site-specific routes. Road and trail placement in the final transportation plans for 

specific areas would take into account the concerns of landowners living adjacent to the area. 

Guidelines 

•	1 Closed roads that are not part of the interim or final transportation system may be used administratively 

by the United States of America and its assigns to conduct official business if the road is determined to be 

suitable for the proposed use. An assign includes but is not limited to government contractors, grazing 

permittees, right-of-way permittees, timber sale purchasers, mining claimant, etc. Administrative use by 

persons other than federal employees will require a limited use entry permit to be issued by the BLM. 

Alternative 2 

Objective T5 

Provide public and administrative access in a manner that attains resource objectives and supports the 

agency’s mission. 

Actions 

•	1 Designate an interim travel management system containing 333 miles of routes open for public use, 

as shown on Maps 13A-13F, and listed in Table 2-23. This total includes 109 miles of routes that cross 

BLM managed land but are managed by other agencies, the state, or counties. Of the 224 miles that are 

managed by the BLM, 

◦	1Maintain as open year-round 86 miles of gravel surfaced and natural improved surface roads. 

◦	1Maintain as open seasonally 138 miles of primitive roads. 

Travel Management 145 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Manage as closed (do not include as part of the interim transportation system) 409 miles of routes. Of 

these 409 miles, 

◦	1241 are short segments surrounded by private land with no public access rights. 

◦	120 are duplicate routes providing access between the same starting points and the same ending points. 

◦	1148 consist of short, ill-defined, user created routes, utility routes, short dead end routes, or routes 

leading to private land but not currently authorized as rights-of-way. 

•	1 Criteria for exclusion or selection of interim roads: 

◦	1If portions of a road limit the physical function of a stream, then that road is excluded from 

transportation system and an alternate route is identified. Routes identified for closure, rehabilitation or 

rerouting due to aquatic concerns are shown on Maps 13A-13F. 

◦	1If a road has already been closed on an interim basis then the road is excluded from the interim 

transportation system. 

◦	1If a road is a two-track user created primitive route that is ill-defined on the ground, the road is excluded. 

◦	1If multiple roads start and end at the same location, only one road is selected for the interim system 

based on BLM specialist knowledge of the roads. 

◦	1If a road dead ends at private land holding and there is no ROW, the road is excluded until a ROW 

is issued. 

◦	1Do not include roads on small parcels that have no public/BLM access. 

◦	1Include roads on large BLM parcels that have no public/BLM access. 

•	1 Interim and prescribed road density standards (limits) under this alternative are shown in Table 2-15. 

•	1 Road density standards include all roads across BLM lands regardless of road jurisdiction (e.g. BLM, 

State, County, etc.) Apply these road density standards on a project by project basis to the interim 

transportation system until the final transportation management plan is written. Until either of these 

occurs all interim routes will remain open to public use. Where actual road densities are lower than the 

road density standards for an area, the BLM has the flexibility to designate additional routes providing 

final transportation plan decision criteria are applied to the process. 

Table 2-15. Interim and prescribed road density standards for Alternative 2. 

Travel Management 

Area 

Interim Road Density 

(mi/mi2)* 

Average Allowable Road Density 

(mi/mi2)** 

Lower John Day 0.4 1.26 

Sutton Mountain 0.7 1.35 

Rudio Mountain 0.4 1.04 

South Fork John Day 0.6 2.00 

Upper John Day 1.5 1.15 

North Fork John Day 0.8 2.00 

* Interim roads are identified on Maps 12a-f, 13a-f, and 14a-f. Interim road densities are not an objective 

or standard, rather a way to represent the amount of roads that were selected as interim for this 

alternative. 

** Prescribed road densities are displayed on Maps 12a-f, 13a-f, and 14a-f. Average Allowable road 

density is an average across the analysis area based on prescribed road density standards (0 mi/mi2 or 2 

mi/mi2

), and depicts the average if all lands are managed at the maximum allowable density. 

Alternative 3 

Objective T6 

Provide public and administrative access in a manner that attains resource objectives and supports the 

agency’s mission. 

146 Travel Management 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Actions 

•	1 Include 879 total miles in the interim travel management system, which includes BLM routes and State, 

County and other agency routes across BLM lands (see Table 2-23). See Maps 14A-14F for routes that will 

remain open for public use. 

•	1 Of the total miles in Alternative 3 about 662 miles are primitive routes usable only by high clearance or 

off road vehicles. Over 250 miles of these interim routes currently cannot be accessed from existing public 

routes and would require the public to acquire private landowner permission to cross private roads to 

access public lands. 

•	1 Of the BLM controlled routes, 295 miles are open for use year around and the other 475 miles are 

opened seasonally. 

•	1 Criteria for exclusion or selection: 

◦	1If portions of a road limit the physical function of a stream, then that road is excluded from 

transportation system and an alternate route is identified. Routes identified for closure, rehabilitation or 

rerouting due to aquatic concerns are shown on Maps 14A-14F. 

◦	1If a road has already been closed on an interim basis then the road is excluded from the interim 

transportation system. 

◦	1Within the North Fork John Day area, all routes on public land will be available for public travel, except 

those routes identified for closure due to hydrologic concerns. Some of the routes that are now closed 

by existing management decisions would be made available for public travel. 

•	1 Interim and prescribed road densities under this alternative are shown in Table 2-16. 

•	1 Road density includes all roads across BLM lands regardless of road jurisdiction (e.g. BLM, State, County, 

etc.). Road density standards will be applied on a project by project basis to the interim transportation 

system until the final transportation management plan is written. Until either of these occurs all 

interim routes will remain open to public use. Where actual road densities are lower than the road 

density standards for an area, the BLM has the flexibility to designate additional routes providing final 

transportation plan decision criteria are applied to the process. 

Table 2-16. Interim and prescribed road density standards for Alternative 3. 

Travel Management 

Area 

Interim Road Density 

(mi/mi2)* 

Average Allowable Road Density 

(mi/mi2)** 

Lower John Day 1.1 1.26 

North Fork John Day 2.3 2.00 

Rudio Mountain 1.4 1.04 

South Fork John Day 1.6 2.00 

Sutton Mountain 1.3 1.35 

Upper John Day 3.5 1.15 

*Interim roads are identified on Maps 12a-f, 13a-f, and 14a-f. Interim road densities are not an objective or 

standard, rather a way to represent the amount of roads that were selected as interim for this alternative. 

** Prescribed road densities are displayed on Maps 12a-f, 13a-f, and 14a-f. Average allowable road 

density is an average across the analysis area based on prescribed road density standards (0 mi/mi2 or 2 

mi/mi2

), and depicts the average if all lands are managed at the maximum allowable density. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 

Alternatives 4 and 5 would be the same as Alternative 2, which also includes Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Travel Management 147 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

148 Map 13a: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Lower John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 13a: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Lower John Day 149 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

150 Map 13b: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Sutton Mountain 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 13b: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Sutton Mountain 151 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

152 Map 13c: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Rudio Mtn./Johnson Heights 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 13c: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Rudio Mtn./Johnson Heights 153 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

154 Map 13d: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-S. Fork John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 13d: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-S. Fork John Day 155 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

156 Map 13e: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Upper John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 13e: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Upper John Day 157 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

158 Map 13f: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-N. Fork John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 13f: Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 Travel Management and OHV Designations-N. Fork John Day 159 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

160 Map 14a: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Lower John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 14a: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Lower John Day 161 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

162 Map 14b: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Sutton Mountain 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 14b: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Sutton Mountain 163 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

164 Map 14c: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Rudio Mtn./Johnson Heights 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 14c: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Rudio Mtn./Johnson Heights 165 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

166 Map 14d: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-S. Fork John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 14d: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-S. Fork John Day 167 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

168 Map 14e: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Upper John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 14e: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-Upper John Day 169 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

170 Map 14f: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-N. Fork John Day 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 14f: Alternative 3 Travel Management and OHV Designations-N. Fork John Day 171 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

The direction below applies to all alternatives, but there are differences between alternatives in exclusion and 

avoidance areas (see Table 2-17). 

Objective EM1 

Within legal constraints, and except as otherwise noted in the alternatives (see below), all Federal mineral estate 

locatable, leasable, and salable minerals would be available for exploration, development, and production subject 

to existing regulations and standard requirements and stipulations. 

•	1 Locatable minerals would not be available in areas withdrawn from the operation of the mining laws. 

•	1 Where necessary to protect important lands and resources, mineral exploration and development would 

be subject to additional restrictions which 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, and seasonal or other timing restrictions. 

•	1 Appendix B describes the types of standard mineral development stipulations and guidelines that apply 

to the planning area. 

Actions 

•	1 Exclusion and avoidance areas common to all alternatives are shown in Table 2-17. 

•	1 Follow guidance in existing RMPs as amended by John Day River Plan for John Day River corridors: 

◦	1No surface occupancy restriction for Leasable Minerals. 

◦	1Adopt State Scenic Waterway rules (see Chapter 4), where mining would be subject to stipulations to 

protect river values. 

◦	1On BLM lands new sites for the production of salable minerals would not be permitted within State 

Scenic Waterways or Wild and Scenic Rivers unless the findings from a interdisciplinary team analysis 

shows that there will be no lasting impacts that would result in not meeting Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives (see Aquatics section) for the riparian management area. 

◦	1Close facilities, such as established campgrounds and launches to leasing and salable minerals and 

withdraw from entry under the Mining Law of 1872 for locatable minerals. 

•	1 All public lands are open to recreational mineral collection consistent with state rules unless there are 

prior rights, such as mining claims. 

•	1 River Corridors include the land within the John Day Wild and Scenic River Boundary and within the 

State Scenic Waterway (at time of publication) of the remaining segments of the Mainstem, North Fork, 

Middle Fork, and South Fork John Day Rivers. Within these river corridors: 

◦	1Locatable mineral activity shall conform to the State Scenic Waterway requirements or the regulations 

of the federal government, whichever requirements are more stringent. Locatable mineral entry shall 

be subject to stipulations that protect water quality and native vegetation. Stipulations include, but 

are not limited to, those for screening and road building restrictions in the State Scenic Waterways as 

published in the Chapter 4 of the John Day Wild and Scenic River Plan of 2001. All current or proposed 

administrative sites, existing power site withdrawals, riparian plant cultivation areas, campgrounds, 

day use, and boat ramp areas would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. 

◦	1For salable minerals, no new sites would be permitted. When existing salable mineral permits expire, 

they will either not be renewed or would be renegotiated. Salable mineral activity on BLM managed 

lands would be phased out as soon as regulations allow. Ongoing salable mineral activity on lands 

acquired in the future shall be phased out as soon as legally possible. 

◦	1Leasable minerals and energy require No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations, including future 

acquisitions. 

•	1 Within the Designated Wild and Scenic River Segments all locatable and leasable mineral activities, 

including road construction, must meet screening standards prescribed in State Scenic Waterway 

(SSW) Rules (See Chapter 4). All lands in the WSR corridor are subject to a Plan of Operations under 

172 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

the regulations at 43 CFR 3809. Additional guidance for energy and mineral resources is found in the 

Two Rivers and John Day RMPs, BLM Manual 8351 (USDI-BLM, 1992c) for Wild and Scenic Rivers, the 

Technical Report of the Interagency WSR Coordinating Council and BLM Manual H-8550-1 (USDI-BLM, 

1995b) for WSAs. 

•	1 Where BLM owns only the subsurface mineral management, BLM will defer to the Land Management 

Plan of the surface manager. If the surface manager’s Land Management Plan does not address BLM’s 

planning criteria in Appendix A, BLM will apply the resource protection provided for similar lands in 

this Land Use Plan. 

Objective EM2 

Provide leasing opportunity for oil and gas, geothermal energy, and solid minerals. 

Actions 

•	1 A No Surface Occupancy stipulation for fluid minerals exploration and development is maintained on 

lands identified as nationally significant or visually sensitive within or visible from the river corridor. 

Objective EM3 

Provide opportunity for the exploration, location, development, and production of locatable minerals. Eliminate 

and rehabilitate abandoned mine hazards (locatable minerals). 

•	1 Areas not specifically withdrawn from mineral entry under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, 

would continue to be open under the mining laws to help meet the demand for minerals. Mineral 

exploration and development on public land is regulated under 43 CFR 3809 to prevent unnecessary 

or undue land degradation. Under the 43 CFR 3809 regulations all mining in river corridors requires a 

Plan of Operations. Navigability for the John Day River from Tumwater Falls, upriver to Kimberly was 

determined in 2005 and upheld in court. Outcomes from State land ownership of the bed and banks of 

this river are currently unknown. This plan recognizes State navigability, but does not attempt to predict 

potential actions approved by the State of Oregon that could enhance, or degrade river values, or alter 

BLM management. The BLM would continue to work proactively with State agencies to manage this river 

corridor consistent with Federal and State regulations. State Scenic Waterway rules for dredging are set 

by ORS 390.835(2) (Appendix A for details.) 

•	1 A permit from the ODEQ is also required for suction dredges. Under that permit, suction dredging is 

prohibited on the John Day mainstem, North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork for all but six weeks 

of each year. Suction dredging is permitted only between July 15 and August 31, in order to protect 

anadromous fish. 

Objective EM4 

Respond to the needs of local, state, and federal agencies, and the public, for salable mineral materials. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to make available salable minerals, including common varieties of sand, gravel, and stone, at 

15 sites on BLM managed lands within the John Day Basin Planning area. The salable mineral program 

involves several quarries where state and county road departments obtain rock for road surfacing 

material. New quarry sites may be developed on a case-by-case basis if requested by the state, counties, 

or other governmental entities. In all cases, they would be approved only if they are consistent with the 

protection of other values in the river corridor. 

•	1 Within river corridors new sites for production of salable minerals will not be permitted and existing sites 

within the river corridor will either not be renewed when they expire or will be renegotiated. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 173 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 1 

Objective EM5 

All Federal mineral estate locatable, leasable, and salable minerals would be available for exploration, 

development, and production subject to existing regulations, standard requirements and stipulations. 

•	1 Table 2-17 indicates areas available for mineral use under this alternative. 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective EM6 

Within legal constraints, all Federal mineral estate locatable, leasable, and salable minerals would be available 

for exploration, development, and production subject to existing regulations and standard requirements and 

stipulations. 

•	1 Table 2-17 summarizes mineral exclusion and avoidance areas for these alternatives. 

Objective EM7 

In an environmentally-sound manner, create a recreational mining area where the general public can pan for gold 

with a reasonable prospect of success. 

Actions 

•	1 An IDT would identify a 20 acre area where the public can visit and recreationally pan for gold. One area 

that could potentially offer such an experience is along Standard and Dixie Creeks. Once identified on the 

ground the area would be recommended for closure and withdrawal from the general mining laws. The 

ID team would design and implement a site-specific plan for the area. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be the same as described above under Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives, except for differences in exclusion and avoidance areas shown in Table 2-17. 

174 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-17. Areas subject to restrictions of Minerals, Rights-of-way, Renewable Energy, Communication Sites and Facilities. Restrictions include Exclusion, Avoidance, No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Stipulations, and Terms and Conditions. (More specific guidance may be provided by specific resource and resource use discussions in Chapter 2.)

Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives

1⁄2 mile from entranceand 1⁄2 mile on eachside of centerline alonglength of any significant 

cave 

Salable/Locatable Available with

standard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations.

Leasable Available with

standard stipulations 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, 

available with standard stipulations.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, first consider locating along existing utility corridors, county roads, or BLM system roads.

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. Prohibit new uses within 1⁄2 mile of entrance(s) to any cave unless no reasonable alternative routes are available. Where a new ROW cannot be reasonably accommodated outside of the 1⁄2-mile buffer, first consider locating along existing utility corridors, county roads, or BLM system roads.

Wildlife security areas (2⁄3 mile from existingroads and facilities) 

Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with

standard stipulations.There are no wildlifesecurity areasindentified. 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Designate uses on existing routes; obliterate existing lineardisturbances to mitigate road densities; avoid areas with good habitat 

security. 

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Designate uses on existing routes; obliterate existing lineardisturbances to mitigate road densities; avoid areas with good habitat security. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Designate uses on existing routes; obliterate existing lineardisturbances to mitigate road densities; avoid areas with good habitat security. 

Areas within 200 yards of known sensitive 

plant populations 

Salable/Locatable Available with

standard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B).

Leasable Available with

standard stipulations 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B)

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and specific BMPs (see Appendix B).

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and specific BMPs (see Appendix B). 

Energy and Mineral Resources 175 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-17. (cont.) Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives Old growth forest or juniper woodland Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: No permanent structures. Avoid loss of old growth trees - mitigation may include permanent protection of other unprotected old growth areas. Renewable Energy and Communication Sites Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: No permanent structures. Avoid loss of old growth trees - mitigation may include permanent protection of other unprotected old growth areas. Facilities and Rights of Way Available with standard terms and conditions Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard terms and conditions plus: No permanent structures. Avoid loss of old growth trees - mitigation may include permanent protection of other unprotected old growth areas. Areas within 1 tree length from identified snag patches Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and specific BMPs (see Appendix B). Renewable Energy and Communication Sites Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and specific BMPs (see Appendix B). Facilities and Rights of Way Available with standard terms and conditions Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and specific BMPs (see Appendix B). Areas within 0.6 miles of sage grouse lek Salable/Locatable Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B). Limit construction of features that create habitat for sage grouse predators (e.g., perches) Leasable Available with standard stipulations No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B). Limit construction of features that create habitat for sage grouse predators (e.g., perches) Renewable Energy and 

Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and specific BMPs (see Appendix B). Limit construction of features that create habitat for Sage Grouse predators (e.g., perches).

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with terms, conditions, and specific BMPs (see Appendix B). Limit construction of features that create habitat for Sage Grouse predators (e.g., perches). 

176 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-17. (cont.) 

Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives

Sensitive Soils Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with

standard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible available with standard stipulations plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B). Obliterate an equivalent footprint 

area of disturbance elsewhere in the plan area. Require 2 years of follow up monitoring of erosion control measures and re-vegetation success. Irrigation and more mature plant sizes may be required to improve probability of planting success.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible available with standard stipulations plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B). Obliterate an equivalent footprint area of disturbance elsewhere in the plan area. Require 2 years of follow up monitoring of erosion control measures and re-vegetation success. Irrigation and more mature plant sizes may be required to improve probability of planting success.

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible available with standard terms and conditions plus: Follow BMPs (see Appendix B). Obliterate an equivalent footprint area of disturbance elsewhere in the plan area. Require 2 years of follow up monitoring of erosion control measures and re-vegetation success. Irrigation and more mature plant sizes may be required toimprove probability of planting success.

Developed recreation sites in SRMAs 

Salable All management

carried forward 

Closed 

Locatable/Leasable All management

carried forward 

Closed 

Proposed Developed Recreation Sites inSRMAs 

Salable/Locatable/Leasable Proposed sites not in

Alternative 1 

Closed 

BLM lands providingbighorn sheep habitatin the vicinity ofAldrich Mountain. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible available with standard stipulations.

BLM lands withinthe Murderers CreekCooperative Wildlife 

Management Area. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible available with standard stipulations. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 177 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-17. (cont.) Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives Recreational Mining site near Dixie and Standard Creeks (2-5 only) Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with standard stipulations. No Recreational Mining Site in Alt 1. Closed. Allow only recreational gold mining as follows: Seasonal and disturbance area restrictions may be applied to protect Bull Trout and Salmonid habitat. No dredging. Gold panning must be in compliance with state regulations and is further limited to recreational non-mechanized gold panning use. Permits must allow access for recreational gold panning. Disturbance areas limited to one cubic yard per 100 ft of stream length. Renewable Energy and Communication Sites Available with standard stipulations. No Recreational Mining Site in Alt 1. Available with standard stiuplations Facilities and Rights of Way All management carried forward. Available with standard terms and conditions Areas within PACFISH Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas Salable/Locatable/Leasable Avoid. Stipulations include attainment of PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives. Avoid. See below RMA discussion. Areas within RMAs, see additional direction for River Corridors. Salable/Locatable/Leasable Avoid. Stipulations include attainment of PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives. Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: required ID team review, BMPs are mandatory (see Appendix B). Mineral activities must not retard att ainment of Aquatic Objectives. Exclude mineral use within floodprone areas. Survey for cultural resources prior to action; cease work and/or mitigate effects if resources found. Facilities and Rights of Way Avoid. Terms and conditions include attainment of PACFISH Riparian Management

Objectives. 

Avoid. BMPs are mandatory (see Appendix B). Rights of way which interact with stream channels, floodplains and lentic areas must not prohibit attainment of ACS objectives. Cultural clearance of the area is required for initial approval and subsequently encountered cultural resources would require cessation and mitigation for affected cultural resources.

Areas within 1⁄4 mileof perennial andintermitt ent stream channels and lenticareas. A narrower site specific avoidance area could be identifiedand reviewed by an ID team if allresources objectives are measurable achieved. 

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Generally closed. BMPs are mandatory (See Appendix B). Rights of way which interact with stream channels, floodplains and lentic areas mustnot prohibit attainment of ACS objectives. Cultural clearance of the area is required for initial approval and subsequently encountered cultural resources would require cessation and mitigation for affected cultural resources. 

178 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-17. (cont.) 

Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives

PWR 107 water sources Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with

standard stipulations 

Withdrawn and Avoid. Maintain water right for public livestock and domestic use as specified in original withdrawal order

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Withdrawn and Avoid. Maintain water right for public livestock and domestic use as specified in original withdrawal order

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Withdrawn and Avoid. Maintain water right for public livestock and domestic use as specified in original withdrawal order

Source Water Protection Areas 

Salable/Locatable/Leasable Available with

standard stipulations 

Avoid. Available with standard stipulations plus: Mineral operations 

are not allowed if they use mercury, cyanide, or other toxics. Mineral operations cannot facilitate high risk uses in Source Water Areas. High risk uses include but not limited to, high density housing, mining withtoxic chemicals, and other uses.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations and BMPs (see Appendix B). Prohibit introduction of contaminants to or disruption of source ground water during the interception of precipitation, infiltration of surface water, and transport or storage of ground water. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

Available withstandard terms andconditions 

Avoid. The right of way cannot facilitate high risk uses in Source Water Areas. High risk uses include but not limited to, high density housing,mining with toxic chemicals, and other uses. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 179 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-17. (cont.) Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives Domestic Water Sources (all domestic water sources not covered under the Source Water Protection Avoidance Area) Salable/Locatable Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Use BMPs (see Appendix B). Prohibit introduction of contaminants to or disruption of source ground water during the interception of precipitation, infiltration of surface water, and transport or storage of ground water. Leasable Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Use BMPs (see Appendix B). Prohibit introduction of contaminants to or disruption of source ground water during the interception of precipitation, infiltration of surface water, and transport or storage of ground water. Renewable Energy and Communication Sites Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Use BMPs (see Appendix B). Prohibit introduction of contaminants to or disruption of source ground water during the interception of precipitation, infiltration of surface water, and transport or storage of ground water. Facilities and Rights of Way Available with standard terms and conditions Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with terms and conditions plus: Use BMPs (see Appendix B). Prohibit introduction of contaminants to or disruption of source ground water during the interception of precipitation, infiltration of surface water, and transport or storage of ground water. River Corridors (Wild and Scenic Rivers and State Scenic Waterways) Salable All management carried forward Closed to new sites. Renegotiate existing salable minerals permits, or do not renew them at expiration. Within 1⁄4 mile of river manage consistent with State Scenic Waterway Rules as published in Chapter 4 of the John Day Wild and Scenic River Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 2000 Locatable All management

carried forward 

Within 1⁄4 mile of river manage consistent with State Scenic Waterway Rules as published in Chapter 4 of the John Day Wild and Scenic River Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 2000. Must protect water quality, native vegetation and ORVs of WSRs. Prevent sediment from entering river or tributaries, protect riparian vegetation, prevent noxious weed establishment and spread, and protect recreation facilities.

Leasable All management

carried forward 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Within 1⁄4 mile of river manage consistent with State Scenic Waterway Rules as published in Chapter 4 of the John Day Wild and Scenic River Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 2000 

180 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-17. (cont.) 

Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives

Facilities andRights of Way 

All managementcarried forward 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, only use existing utility and rightsof-way corridors. Protect and enhance the most sensitive of visual, recreational, fish, wildlife and outstandingly remarkable values. Protect and enhance free-flowing nature of rivers and streams.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

All managementcarried forward 

Closed to Wind Development in WSRs. 

Suitable Wild and Scenic River – North 

Fork John Day 

Salable/Locatable/Leasable All management

carried forward 

See River Corridors. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

All managementcarried forward 

Withdrawn and Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, only use existing utility and rights-of-way corridors. Protect or enhance the most sensitive of visual, recreational, fish, wildlife and outstandingly remarkable values. Protect or enhance free-flowing nature of rivers and streams.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Available withstandard stipulations 

Protect and enhance ORVs.

WSAs Salable/Locatable/Leasable All management

carried forward 

Closed. IMP (see Wilderness section). Conduct site specific analysis and protect values of WSA. Section 202 WSAs are available for Locatable 

minerals use. 

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

All managementcarried forward 

Conduct site specific analysis for protection of values of WSA. Use Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP).

Facilities andRights of Way 

All managementcarried forward 

Conduct site specific analysis for protection of values of WSA. Use Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP).

John Day Paleontology ACEC within SuttonMtn WSA. Sutton MtnACEC contingentupon underlying WSAlands being droppedfrom consideration forWilderness by Congress 

Salable/Locatable/Leasable All management

carried forward 

Closed. 

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

All managementcarried forward 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Closed. Manage under InterimManagement Policy (IMP) until all or part of the underlying WSA lands 

are dropped from consideration for wilderness by Congress.

Facilities andRights of Way 

All managementcarried forward 

Closed. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 181 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-17. (cont.) Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives John Day Paleontology ACEC outside Sutton Mtn WSA Salable/Locatable Not identified in Alternative 1. Available with standard stipulations Avoid if possible, if not, available with standard stipulations plus: Inventory proposed action area to mitigate loss of paleontological resources. Leasable Not identified in Alternative 1. Available with standard stipulations No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Inventory proposed action area to mitigate loss of paleontological resources. Renewable Energy and Communication Sites Not identified in Alternative 1. Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, conduct paleonotological inventories of proposed action area to mitigate for loss of paleontological resources due to site disturbance at construction or during subsequent use. Facilities and Rights of Way Not identified in Alternative 1. Available with standard stipulations Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, conduct paleonotological inventories of proposed action area to mitigate for loss of paleontological resources due to site disturbance at construction or during subsequent use. Horn Butte ACEC outside Fourmile Track Salable All management carried forward Closed. If avoidance is not possible, available if consistent with ACEC 

values with Stipulations to protect Washington Ground squirrel and 

curlew. 

Leasable/Locatable All management

carried forward 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available if consistent with ACEC values with Stipulations to protect Washington Ground Squirrel and curlew.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

All managementcarried forward 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available if consistent with ACEC values with Stipulations to protect Washington Ground Squirrel and curlew.

Facilities andRights of Way 

All managementcarried forward 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, first consider locating along existing utility corridors, county roads, or BLM system roads.

Black Canyon ACEC/RNA 

Salable Not identified

in Alternative 1. 

Managed as part ofSutton Mountain WSA 

Closed. 

Leasable/Locatable Not identified

in Alternative 1. Managed as part ofSutton Mountain WSA 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Do not disturb natural 

processes and conditions of vegetative community for current and future research needs. 

182 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-17. (cont.) 

Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Not identifiedin Alternative 1. 

Managed as part ofSutton Mountain WSA 

Do not disturb natural processes and conditions of vegetative community for current and future research needs.

Facilities andRights of Way 

Not identifiedin Alternative 1. 

Managed as part ofSutton Mountain WSA 

Closed. Do not disturb natural processes and conditions of vegetative community for current and future research needs.

North Fork John DayACEC 

Salable Not identified

in Alternative 1. 

Available withstandard stipulations. 

Closed. 

Locatable/Leasable Not identified

in Alternative 1. Available withstandard stipulations. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Protect or enhance the most 

sensitive of visual, recreational, fish, and wildlife values. Protect or enhance free-flowing nature of rivers and streams.

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Not identifiedin Alternative 1. 

Available withstandard stipulations. 

Closed. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

Not identifiedin Alternative 1. 

Available withstandard stipulations. 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: protect or enhance the most sensitive of visual, recreational, fish, 

and wildlife values. Protect or enhance free-flowing nature of rivers and streams. 

Armstrong Canyon (except existing PGEpipeline ROW), FerryCanyon, and Horn 

Butte Four Mile ACECs additions 

Salable Not identified

in Alternative 1. 

Available withstandard stipulations. 

Closed. 

Locatable/Leasable Not identified

in Alternative 1. Available withstandard stipulations. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Generally Closed. 

Available if consistent 

with ACEC values. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

All managementcarried forward. 

Closed. Manage under Interim Management Policy (IMP) until all or part of the underlying WSA lands are dropped from consideration for wilderness by Congress. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 183 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-17. (cont.) Public Lands Uses Alternative 1 Common to All Action Alternatives Lower John Day ACEC (excepting existing PGE pipeline right-of-way) Contingent upon underlying WSA lands being dropped from consideration for Wilderness by Congress Salable All management carried forward. Closed. Locatable/Leasable All management carried forward. No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Manage under Interim Management Policy (IMP) unless all or part of the underlying WSA lands are dropped from consideration for wilderness by Congress, and require a plan of operations. Renewable Energy and Communication Sites All management carried forward. Manage under Interim Management Policy (IMP) until all or part of the underlying WSA lands are dropped from consideration for wilderness by Congress. Facilities and Rights of Way All management carried forward. Closed. Manage under Interim Management Policy (IMP) until all or part of the underlying WSA lands are dropped from consideration for wilderness by Congress. Areas where

Wilderness 

Characteristic will beprotected 

Salable Not identified

in Alternative 1. Available withstandard stipulations 

Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Conduct site specific analysis and protect wilderness characteristicof specific area. 

Locatable/Leasable Not identified

in Alternative 1. Available withstandard stipulations 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). Avoid. If avoidance is not possible, available with standard stipulations plus: Conduct site specific analysis and protect wilderness characteristic of specific area

Renewable Energy and Communication Sites 

Not identifiedin Alternative 1. Available withstandard stipulations 

Closed. Conduct site specific analysis for protection of wildernesscharacteristic of specific area. 

Facilities andRights of Way 

Not identifiedin Alternative 1. Available with termsand conditions 

Closed. Conduct site specific analysis for protection of wildernesscharacteristic of specific area. 

Action Alternatives Terms and Conditions on Facilities and Rights-of-way: Build according to BLM standards. Right of way holders are required to maintain the roads and facilities to BLM standards and achieve resource objectives. BMPs are mandatory but selected during site specific right of way review. Pursue reciprocal public rights of way where they increases public access to public land. Require administrative access. Areas with weed populations shall be treated for a minimum of two years and as needed through the duration of the right of way to avoid the right of way functioning as a vector for weeds. Road berms and any disturbance areas associated with construction will be reseeded according to seeding guidelines in the vegetation section. Re-route to mitigate and minimize for fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Seasonal access limitations mirror the area specific restrictions identified in the Transportation and OHV management sections. Steep disturbed areas will be revegetated to the structure and composition characteristic of the surrounding landscape. Additional stipulations and conditions will be applied by an ID team at application and reviewed for approval by appropriate BLM ID teamNote: Where BLM does not own the subsurface minerals no surface occupancy may be required as specified in this table. BMPs are required in surrounding areas (see Appendix B). Restrictions only apply where the landscape has high potential for the use (minerals, energy, etc.) 

184 Energy and Mineral Resources 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Lands and Realty 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective LR1 

Create a land base that facilitates attainment of resource and resource use objectives. 

Actions 

•	1 Classify land as Zone 1 (Z-1), Zone 2 (Z-2) or Zone 3 (Z-3), as shown on Map 15. Z-1 applies to lands with 

high public values. Z-2 lands are not as valuable, and can be retained or exchanged for lands with higher 

public value. Z-3 lands have low public value, or are small or isolated (also see Glossary). 

◦	1Retain Z-1 lands in public ownership. 

◦	1Retain Z-2 lands, or exchange them for lands with higher public value. Lands in Z-2 would be available 

for exchange to enhance public resource values, improve management capabilities, or reduce the 

potential for land use conflict; or where the public expressed specific interest for land exchanges (e.g., 

Rudio Mountain, Johnson Heights, and Muddy Creek). 

◦	1Dispose of Z-3 lands (sell or exchange them for lands with higher public value). Small and isolated 

parcels which do not serve the national interest would be available for disposal (FLPMA Section 102(a) 

(1)). Disposal requires site specific analysis based on the criteria identified for each zone. 

◦	1Lands identified for disposal (Z-3) in a BLM land use plan prior to July 25, 2000, and still identified as 

Z-3 in current plan, would be available for disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

of 2000 (FLTFA). This allows receipts from sale of the land or interests in the land to be retained by BLM. 

•	1 BLM administered lands within WSR are withdrawn from disposal via sale. Public lands may be 

exchanged for private lands of equal or greater value that are within the boundaries of the WSR. Table 

2-18 summarizes land suitable for acquisition. 

•	1 Identify lands that may be acquired to meet Objective LR1 

◦	1Following lands were identified as suitable for acquisition in the John Day River Plan: 

Table 2-18. Lands Suitable for Acquisition (carried forward from John Day River Plan) 

Parcel # Location Est. Acres Comment 

1 T 9S R 23 E 

Section 18, SE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 

5.83 Acquire Service Creek launch site from 

ODOT as agreed. 

1a T 9S R 22E 

Section 28, Portions of E 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 South of JDR 

Section 32, SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 E 1⁄2 

NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 

248 Consolidate public lands. 

1b T 9S R 22E 

Section 23, SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

40 Consolidate public lands. 

1c T 9S R 22E 

Section 32, SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 

40 Consolidate Public lands. 

1d T 9S R 22E 

Section 13, portions of NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

SE 1⁄4 

80 Consolidate Public lands, recreation site 

potential. 

1e T9S R22E Section 23, NE 1⁄4 

SW 1⁄4 

40 Consolidate Public lands, acquire for 

campsites. 

Lands and Realty 185 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 2-18. (cont.) 

Parcel # Location Est. Acres Comment 

1f T9S R22E 

Section 22, S 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 

Section 27, NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

Section 28, N 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 

200 Consolidate Public lands, acquire for 

campsites. 

2 T 10S R 22E 

Section 6, NW 1⁄4 

60 Acquire for campsites. 

6 T 1S R 19E 

Section 14, S 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 

Section 15, NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 

Section 22, S 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

Section 23, W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

440 Consolidate public lands. 

7 T 1S R 19E 

Section 4, SW 1⁄4 

Section 9, NW 1⁄4 N 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 

Section 16, NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 

440 Acquire access. 

8 T 1S R 20E 

Section 6, SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 

Section 7, E 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 W 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 

Section 8, N 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

600 Acquire access. 

9 T 1N R 19E 

Section 3, S 1⁄2 S 1⁄2 

160 Acquire Oregon Trail Segment 

2a T 10S R 22E 

Section 5, NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 

40 Consolidate public land. 

3 T 9S R 21E 

Section 32, Portions of N 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 , north of 

the river 

15 Consolidate public lands, acquire for 

campsites. 

3a T 9S R 21E 

Section 32, N 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 

Section 33, NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 All north of JDR 

31 Consolidate public lands, acquire for 

campsites. 

3b T9S R21E 

Section 28, SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 north of the JDR 

6 Consolidate public land. 

4 T 75 R 19E 

Section 32, SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 

1.86 Acquire Clarno Launch/Landing from 

OPRD as agreed. 

5 T 1S R 19E 

Section 17, SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 

1 Small sliver of private land between BLM 

and OPRD. 

5a T 1S R 19E

 Section 17, SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 

7.12 Acquire cottonwood launch/landing 

from OPRD as agreed. 

9a T 1N R 19E 

Section 11, NW 1⁄4 

20 Provide additional parking and boat 

launch. 

10 T 4S R 18 E 

Section 11, W 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

Section 14, NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

160 Consolidate public land in Wilderness 

study area. 

11 T 3S R 18E 

Section 35, S 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 

T 4S R 18E 

Section 2, NW 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 

160 Consolidate public land in Wilderness 

study area. 

186 Lands and Realty 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-18. (cont.) 

Parcel # Location Est. Acres Comment 

12 T 3S R 18E 

Section 14, N 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 

160 Consolidate public land in Wilderness 

study area. 

13 T 2S R 18E 

Section 13, SW 1⁄4 SW 1/4 

Section 24, W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 

NW 1⁄4 S 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 

320 Consolidate public land in Wilderness 

study area. 

14 T 8S R 19E 

Section 36, NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

40 Acquire poor condition land for 

rehabilitation and campsite potential. 

15 T 5S R 19E 

Section 30, NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 

40 Consolidate public land in wilderness 

study area. 

16 T 1S R 19E 

Section 19, LOT 7, 8 and 12 

Section 30, NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

SE 1⁄4 LOT 1 and 7 

320 

16a T 1S R 19E Section 32, SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 40 

16b T 1S R 19E 

Section 32, SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 E 1⁄2 

SW 1⁄4 W 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4 

240 

17 Cherry Creek Preserve undeveloped character of the 

area. 

Total Acres (Approximate) 4,036 

Objective LR2 

Assure legal and physical access to public lands with important resource values. Maintain the availability of 

public lands for use, occupancy and development. 

•	1 Properly authorize all uses of BLM public lands within the planning area. 

•	1 Existing rights-of-way are shown in Appendix L. 

•	1 Review applications on an individual basis for conformance with the RMP to minimize conflicts with 

other resources or users. Approved authorizations must be consistent with the objectives of the RMP. 

•	1 Process applications in a timely manner on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the NEPA and other 

applicable laws. 

Actions 

•	1 Continue to make public lands available for local rights-of-way, including multiple use and single use 

utility or transportation corridors following existing routes, and roads. 

•	1 Leases and/or patents would continue to be available under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 

Other permits or leases for development of public lands would also continue. 

•	1 Map 8 and the Lands and Realty description in Chapter 3 identify the six existing utility and 

transportation corridors. All major utility and transportation construction projects must utilize the exiting 

utility and transportation corridors. Corridor widths vary but are less than 2,000 feet and or as specified 

in existing site-specific documentation. 

•	1 Approved rights-of-way would follow existing corridors; avoid proliferation of separate rights-of-way. 

•	1 There would be no new crossings of Wild and Scenic Rivers beyond the existing crossings. 

•	1 Encourage location of new facilities (including communication sites) adjacent to existing facilities to the 

extent possible. 

Lands and Realty 187 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

188 Map 15: Existing Land Tenure 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 15: Existing Land Tenure 189 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 The entire plan area would be available for existing and potential development of renewable energy 

projects, communication sites, and other uses unless specifically withdrawn or listed as an exclusion area. 

◦	1Avoidance areas are available with stipulations (see Table 2-17). 

•	1 The above authorizations would not be allowed in the following exclusion areas: 

◦	1Wilderness Areas 

◦	1Wild river segments 

•	1 Do not permit additional crossing sites on the BLM managed portions of the John Day River. 

•	1 The following areas would be avoided when locating facilities, rights-of-ways, or corridor routes: 

◦	1South Fork of the John Day River Canyon, from Deer Creek to the junction of the South Fork Road with 

Grant Co. Road No. 42. 

◦	1BLM lands providing bighorn sheep habitat in the vicinity of Aldrich Mountain. 

◦	1BLM lands within the Murderers Creek Cooperative Wildlife Management Area. 

•	1 Right-of-way avoidance areas: 

◦	1Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

◦	1Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

◦	1Scenic and recreation river segments 

Guidelines 

•	1 Approved rights-of-way would use Best Management Practices (BMPs, Appendix B). 

Objective LR3 

Protect lands that have important resource values or substantial levels of investment by withdrawing them, 

where necessary, from the implementation of nondiscretionary public land and mineral laws. 

Actions 

•	1 Proposed withdrawal areas, including existing withdrawals to be continued, modified or revoked are 

included in Appendix M. The table also indicates how lands would be managed if the withdrawals were 

relinquished and an opening order issued (see 43 CFS 2300). 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

In addition to Management Common to All Alternatives this alternative would continue the two zone land tenure 

system in the Baker RMP portion of the planning area: 

•	1 Z-1—Lands with higher public values would be retained except: 

◦	1Transfers to other federal agencies 

◦	1Transfers to State and local agencies (R&PP) and other actions) 

◦	1State exchanges 

◦	1Private exchanges to acquire other Z-1 lands that would enhance resource management or improve 

public service 

•	1 Z-2—Lands that are inefficient to manage because of their small size, are isolated, or have no known or 

lower resource values would be available for disposal through sale or exchange. 

◦	1Included are two 40 acre parcels now contiguous with or surrounded by lands acquired as a result of 

the Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000. 

(See Map 15, and Table 2-17) 

190 Lands and Realty 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective LR4 

Create a land base that facilitates management of resource and resource use objectives. Increase the percentage 

of public land with public access by 10 percent over the life of the plan. Table 2-19 summarizes amount of the 

planning area by land tenure zone and alternative. Map 16 displays land tenure zones and areas where lands 

suitable for acquisition are likely to be located. 

Action 

•	1 Place lands in Z-1 based on the following criteria: 

◦	1Access is an important consideration, but access alone is not sufficient. Land must provide access to values. 

▪	1Currently there is access, or 

▪	1No access now, but it is possible to get, and the public desires access. 

◦	1Social and economic community uses & values: Contribution to community character, R&PP potential, 

transportation corridors, grazing, timber, energy, minerals and other use compatibilities, and utility 

corridors. 

◦	1Cultural, historic, archeological, or tribal values. 

◦	1Open space and visual quality. 

◦	1Recreation use. 

◦	1Critical habitat for sensitive, threatened, endangered species. 

◦	1Important wildlife habitat or ACEC quality. 

◦	1Contribution to vegetation objectives. 

◦	1Water quality, riparian function, or protection and enhancement of Wild & Scenic Rivers. 

◦	1Wilderness, WSA, and Wilderness Characteristics values. 

◦	1National Landscape Conservation System designated lands. 

◦	1Research Natural Areas. 

◦	1Purchase or ensure that subsurface ownership does not conflict with management of surface. 

◦	1All lands blocked up in the Land Exchange Act of 2000 in the North Fork Area would become classified 

Z-1, except as noted below. 

▪	1In the North Fork area (T6SR30ES35) a parcel approximately 2 acres in size, adjacent to private land 

would be classified Z-3 in order to facilitate the sale of the parcel that is difficult to manage. (Due to 

small size of this parcel it is not displayed on Map 16.) 

•	1 When considering private lands that may be suitable to acquire (Map 16) and place in public ownership, 

prioritize lands that meet one or more of the following criteria: 

◦	1Are 640 +/- acres or result in public land blocks of approximately 640 acres or more (smaller block with 

high public value may be considered. 

◦	1Provide access to major rivers and streams. 

◦	1Possess criteria listed above for placement in Z-1. 

◦	1Are within a 1⁄4 mile of the mainstem John Day River, North Fork John Day River, or South Fork John 

Day River. This excludes portions of the mainstem John Day River upstream of Dayville. 

◦	1Are within the Blue Mountains Ecoregion (south of Butte Creek). 

◦	1Are within a WSA, ACEC, or area managed to protect wilderness character. 

◦	1Connect areas with similar uses, including but not limited to Sutton Mountain/Pine Creek areas (fish 

and recreation use), or Rudio Mountain/western portion of Malhuer National Forest (OHV uses). 

◦	1Total lands acquired may not exceed 2% of the planning area. 

•	1 Manage newly acquired lands for the purpose(s) for which they are acquired or in a manner that is 

consistent with the management objectives for adjacent BLM-administered lands. 

Lands and Realty 191 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

192 Map 16: Land Tenure – Common to All Action Alternatives 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Map 16: Land Tenure – Common to All Action Alternatives 193 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 BLM would seek to acquire subsurface mineral rights under lands managed by the BLM that do not now 

include subsurface mineral rights. 

Table 2-19 Land Tenure Zones by Alternative (acres) 

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2-5 

Z-1 222,182 363,095 

Z-2 193,769 20,563 

Z-3 

(and number of these acres 

available under FLTFA) 

40,444 

(28,000) 

72,454 

(19,000) 

Potentially Suitable for Acquisition 4,036 873,660 

Objective LR5 

Assure legal and physical access to public lands with important resource values. Maintain the availability of 

public lands for utility and transportation corridors and local rights-of-way. Maintain the availability of public 

lands for use, occupancy and development. 

Actions 

•	1 The entire plan area would be available for locating facilities, rights-of-ways, and other uses unless 

specifically withdrawn or listed as an exclusion area (see Table 2-17). 

•	1 Avoidance areas have been identified to protect resource objectives. Every effort should be made to 

avoid placing facilities, rights-of-ways, and other uses within avoidance areas. Within these areas specific 

stipulations would be required for any of the above actions to protect resource objectives or mitigate 

effects on resource objectives. 

•	1 Use right-of-way requests to acquire access to public lands in the area. 

•	1 The entire plan area would be available for existing and potential development of renewable energy projects, 

communication sites, and other uses unless specifically withdrawn or listed as an exclusion area (closed). 

◦ Avoidance Areas may be available with stipulations (see Table 2-17). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Agricultural Land Management 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective AG1 

Provide opportunities for local agriculture and public recreation (e.g., camping, bank fishing, swimming access, 

upland game bird and large game hunting); increase riparian areas and wildlife habitat; and reduce pollution. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The Two Rivers RMP discusses the application of water to 450 acres of land associated with agricultural leases, 

but does not address their location in the Draft EIS, Final EIS or RMP decision. The EIS does say that when 

conflict occurs, resource values on public lands will be protected. Sutton Mountain and the John Day River plan 

provide direction for those areas only. 

194 Agricultural Land Management 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

BLM actively manages over 700 acres of the irrigation water rights under the John Day Wild and Scenic River 

Plan and the Sutton Mountain Coordinated Resource Management Plan. The remaining agricultural lands are 

on scattered pieces of land through out the plan area, and do not have specific management direction. See Table 

2-20 for a distribution of existing agricultural fields. Since existing plans do not specify the location of agricultural 

lands, estimates were made from the spatial distribution of existing irrigation rights. 

Table 2-20. Distribution of existing management direction for agricultural fields. 

Alternative 1 (Existing Management) 

Management Area Management Action Acres 

Sutton Mountain CRMP Permanent Conversion 200 

Agricultural Lease OR Wildlife Food and Cover 120 

John Day WSR Plan Agricultural Lease (after 2011) 0 

Wildlife Food and Cover 60 

Permanent Conversion 300 

Plan Area with No Direction 520 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives 

Objective AG2 

Provide opportunities for local agriculture and public recreation (e.g., camping, bank fishing, swimming access, 

upland game bird and large game hunting); increase riparian areas and wildlife habitat; and reduce pollution. See 

Table 2-21 for a distribution of management direction for agricultural fields for all of the action alternatives. 

Actions 

•	1 Maintain 0 to 400 acres as crops for a) wildlife food and cover (shelter from sun, wind, etc.), b) commercial 

production by local farmers and ranchers, or c) both a and b. These areas may or may not be irrigated. 

•	1 Of these 0-400 acres, no more than 100 would be available for wildlife food/cover crops within the Wild 

and Scenic River Corridor, and only 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) may be diverted to irrigate those 100 

acres of wildlife food/cover crop. 

•	1 After 2011, no land would be available for irrigated commercial production within the Wild and Scenic 

River Corridor, with the exception of parcels identified for disposal (Z-3, see Lands and Realty section). 

•	1 Grow hardwood riparian stock for out planting along agricultural fields, streams and lentic (see 

glossary) areas. 

•	1 Restore and maintain 100 or more acres of habitat for species found in rivers, floodplains or surrounding 

landscape through permanent conversion. 

•	1 Use portions of agricultural lands to create off channel habitat and slow water refugia for aquatic species 

and migratory fish. Remove berms to allow more natural point bar development. Address riparian 

degradation and recreation pressure along lowland agricultural fields by creating dispersed recreation 

areas, developed recreation areas, trails and other opportunities away from flood prone area. Example 

sites include Priest Hole (RM 137) and Bill’s Place (RM 101.5). 

•	1 Maintain all unused agricultural land water rights (100+ acres) in instream leases to work toward 

instream flow goals for fish, pollution abatement and recreation. 

•	1 Maintain a filter strip between all agricultural fields and active floodplains. The minimum width would 

be 14 feet beginning from the upper edge of the terrace/cut bank, outside of the active floodplain. This 

would be subject to appropriate noxious weed control treatments which may include tilling to establish 

desirable vegetation. 

•	1 Dispose of existing small (about 10 acres or less) parcels of agricultural land that are not publicly 

accessible by river, road or foot, and where it is not possible for BLM to manage separately from privately 

owned agricultural fields 

Agricultural Land Management 195 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

•	1 Allow disposal of parcels within the Wild and Scenic River corridor only if it results in increased corridor 

ownership of equal or greater value (see Lands and Realty section). 

•	1 Maintain agricultural fields in vegetation that is not prone to weed invasion or excess erosion. 

•	1 Specify all livestock grazing treatments of leased agricultural fields in the Special Use Permit. 

•	1 For the entire first year and through the second consecutive growing season following seedings and 

plantings, do not allow uses likely to threaten seeding success. (See Vegetation section for specific 

limitations on uses such as livestock grazing). Uses that meet Objective 1 above, such as grazing, could be 

authorized once an interdisciplinary team determines that the seedings and plantings are sufficient. 

•	1 Water withdrawal for irrigation is subject to stipulations listed in Table 2-22 

Table 2-21. Distribution of management direction for agricultural fields for all of the 

action alternatives. 

Alternatives 2-5 

Management Area Management Action Acres 

Plan Area Not 

Addressed in John Day 

River Plan 

Permanent Conversion 100+ 

Agricultural Lease OR Wildlife Food and Cover 0-400 

John Day River Plan Agricultural Lease (after 2011) 0 

Wildlife Food and Cover 0-100 

Permanent Conversion 300 

Plan Area with No Direction 0 

Guidelines 

•	1 Permanent conversion is the establishment of perennial native and/or desirable non-native grasses, forbs, 

shrubs and trees that do not require irrigation after establishment. Establishment may require fencing. 

•	1 Species selected for permanent conversion would be made to benefit wildlife habitat and would require 

species able to compete with noxious weeds. Native species are preferred over non-native species. 

(See actions under ACS Objective to conserve and restore, within existing site capability and natural 

disturbance regimes, diversity and productivity of native riparian and aquatic plant communities.”) 

•	1 If new proposals for partnerships, leases, or other uses of agricultural lands may end with conditions 

prone to weeds, the project would include a bond or agreement for the user to return the area to desired 

perennial species, free of weeds. 

•	1 Within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, the following parcels are currently identified for disposal: RM 

112; T8S, R19E, Section 4, SE 1⁄4 (15.3 acres) and RM 119; T8S, R19E, Section 25, NW 1⁄4 (10.3 acres). 

•	1 Parcels identified for disposal are not subject to irrigation shut-off stipulations. 

196 Agricultural Land Management 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-22. Stipulations on withdrawing water from streams and rivers. 

When stream flows drop below 10 cfs at Bridge Creek (USGS gage 14046778), after Aug 15th on the Mainstem 

John Day River, and similar instream flow goals for fish, recreation, and pollution abatement in the plan area . . . 

USE ACTION 

Wildlife food/cover crops ...cease withdrawal from stream channel. 

Restoring riparian habitat native to rivers and floodplains ...when stipulations are reached, balance 

restoration benefits with Endangered Species Act 

and Clean Water Act compliance. 

Growing hardwood riparian stock for out planting ...when stipulations are reached, balance 

restoration benefits with Endangered Species Act 

and Clean Water Act compliance. 

Leased, stewardship, or commercial agricultural production ...cease withdrawal from stream channel. 

Converting unused agricultural fields to perennial (usually 

native) species 

when stipulations are reached, balance 

restoration benefits with Endangered Species Act 

and Clean Water Act compliance. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

There would be no additional management guidance unique to these alternatives. 

Hazardous Materials Management 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objective HM1 

All incidences of hazardous materials on public land are handled as outlined in the Prineville District’s 

contingency plan of June 2007. 

Actions 

•	1 Conduct internal and external (if appropriate) review of all actions related to land or minerals for 

compliance with federal and state regulations. 

•	1 Develop special stipulations as part of the permit or lease to safeguard human health, prevent 

environmental damage, and limit BLM liability. 

Alternatives 1-5 

Direction would be the same under all alternatives, in accordance with laws, policies, and regulations; see 

Management Common to All Alternatives. 

Hazardous Materials Management 197 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary of Alternative Outcomes 

The following table summarizes the anticipated outcomes of the alternatives described in this chapter. 

Notes: The Transportation outcome for “Total Interim Routes” for Alternative 2 includes only those roads that 

are necessary for administration of BLM lands and access for recreation. It does not include road segments that 

are not accessible by the public due to a lack of public rights of way across private lands, user-created and unmaintained or other barriers. Grazing outcomes for Alternative 1 do not include most lands in the North Fork 

John Day River area. All grazing outcomes except “Close Now” in Alternatives 2-5 are dependant upon permittee 

voluntarily relinquishing their permit (i.e., If Permit Relinquished (IPR)). 

Table 2-23. Summary of Alternative Outcomes. 

See glossary for definitions. 

Land Allocation Stratification Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Forest Product Availability Acres 35,390 74,726 

Vegetation Juniper Product Availability Acres 207,503 198,851 

Agriculture (Lease or Wildlife 

Food and Cover) 

Acres 180 Up to 400 

Wildland Urban Interface Acres 22,304 85,391 

Fire Full Supression Acres 0 22,304 

Appropriate Management 

Response (AMR) 

AMR with Wild Fire Use 

Potential 

Acres 0 434,306 

Irrigation and Wildlife cfs 5 0 - 10 

Water Rights and 

Agricultural Land 

Management 

Instream Leases cfs 11.5 12 - 17 

No Management Direction cfs 5.5 0 

Mining cfs 12 0 

Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) Ag Land Disposed cfs 2 3 

Riparian Areas 

PAC Fish Acres 51,260 N/A 

ACS Acres N/A 139,673 

Elk Winter Range Acres 42,296 209,044 

Elk Winter Critical Acres 0 109,887 

Deer Winter Range Acres 303,393 0 

Deer Winter Range Crucial Acres 0 255,038 

Wildlife Big Horn Sheep Occupied Acres 5,698 70,449 

Big Horn Sheep Potential Acres 0 71,390 

Antelope Year Round Acres 81 1,636 

Antelope Winter Range Acres 638 1,070 

Seasonal Closure Acres 86,793 328,507 328,507 332,995 332,995 

Seasonal Closure Optional Acres 23,516 0 

Wilderness 

Characteristic 

Management Designated Acres 0 11,929 

Visual 

Quality 

VRM Class I Acres 95,755 

VRM Class II Acres 101,987 146,304 

Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) 

VRM Class III Acres 175,092 164,235 

VRM Class IV Acres 83,548 50,285 

198 Summary of Alternative Outcomes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-23. (cont.) 

Land Allocation Stratification Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Wilderness Study 

Area 

Acres 95,755 

Wild & Scenic River 

Miles are across all 

ownership 

R = Recreation 

S = Scenic 

W = Wild 

Designated Miles R - 211 S - 38 W - 32 

Protect as Eligible Miles R- 19 

S - 18 

S - 37 R- 19 

S - 18 

0 S - 37 

Recommended as Suitable Defer Yes Yes No Yes 

Designated Acres 6,329 68,188

ACEC RNA Acres 0 6,639 

Contingent on WSA release by 

Congress 

Acres 0 40,295 

Grazing 

• Alt. 1 acres do not 

include some N. Fork 

lands. All actions except 

“Close Now” in Alts 

2-5 are dependant upon 

permittee voluntarily 

relinquishing their permit 

• Matrix results by 

allotment are contained in 

Open Acres 395,495 171,950 

to 

439,532 

173,564 

to 

440,016 

52,448 

to 

428,771 

171,950 

to 

439,532 

Reserve Forage Acres 0 0 

to 

185,033 

0 

to 

203,942 

0 

to 

162,510 

0 

to 

185,033 

Close Acres 0 0 

to 

252,790 

0 

to 

251,660 

0 

to 

245,895 

0 

to 

252,790 

Appendix J Close Now Acres 46,435 2,397 1,913 13,158 2,397 

Special Recreation 

Management Areas 

Acres 119,052 293,397 

Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas 

Acres 337,559 163,214 

Recreation Primitive - Setting Acres 0 108,908 

Back Country - Setting Acres 0 25,770 

Middle Country - Setting Acres 0 218,232 

Front Country - Setting Acres 0 1,949 

Rural - Setting Acres 0 2,617 

Open - Total Acres 258,066 4,490 5,088 2 0 

Limited - Total Acres 131,319 367,300 366,699 365,242 371,787 

▪ Class II only Acres 0 2 0 0 0 

OHV ▪ Class I and III only Acres 0 0 2 0 0 

▪ Limited to Designated 

Routes 

Acres 131,319 367,298 366,697 365,242 371,787 

Closed Acres 67,226 84,823 84,823 91,366 84,823 

Summary of Alternative Outcomes 199 
 

 

 

Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 2-23. (cont.) 

Land Allocation Stratification Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Total Designated Interim 

Routes 

Miles 742 333 879 * 333 333 

Open Year Round - Interim 

Routes 

Miles 681 195 404 195 195 

BLM Open Year Round Miles 572 86 295 86 86 

Other Ownership Open Year 

Round 

Miles 109 109 109 109 109 

Open (04/16 thru 11/30) 

Interim Routes 

Miles 61 138 475 138 138 

Transportation Land Locked Routes -

Designated Interim ** 

Miles 250 9 250 9 9 

(Interim Routes are part of 

the Interim Transportation 

Plan until a detailed 

Transportation Management 

Total Routes Not Designated 

as Interim 

(Closed routes in WSA and 

other areas are not included) 

Miles 0 409 0 409 409 

Plan is Developed) 

* Includes opening 137 mi. 

Land Locked Routes -

Not Designated Interim** 

Miles 0 241 0 241 241 

of closed routes in the North 

Fork. 

** Approximate values - 

Land Locked implies No 

Access without Private 

Landowner Permission. 

***Duplicate/Short/Ill 

Defined roads have limited 

Duplicate / Short / Ill Defined 

Routes*** 

Miles 0 168 0 168 168 

Existing Open Roads to be 

Permanently Closed 

Miles 0 36 

Proposed Routes to be 

Constructed 

Miles 0 5 

value toward meeting user 

demand in a transportation 

system, usually user created. 

Proposed Road Easements Miles 0 46 

Scenic By-way Miles 50 91 

Road Density 

Standard 

0 mi/mi2 Acres 95,755 125,507 

2 mi/mi2

 or less Acres 0 326,518 325,918 331,005 331,007 

(Allowable Limit) No Limit Acres 360,758 4,488 5,089 2 0 

Available Acres 92,146 15,059 

Salable Minerals 

Avoidance Acres 12,817 71,071 

Avoidance with NSO Acres 0 0 

Closed Acres 53,821 72,655 

Leaseable and 

Locatable Minerals 

(includes Oil and Gas) 

Available Acres 272,809 51,326 

Avoidance Acres 30,284 213,781 

Avoidance with NSO Acres 31,732 37,253 

Closed Acres 90,195 122,623 

Available Acres 180,663 36,267 

Leaseable Oil and Avoidance Acres 17,467 143,893 

Gas Only Avoidance with NSO Acres 12,596 18,185 

Closed Acres 55,474 67,855 

BLM Salable Minerals Private Acres 100,208 

Rights Non-BLM 

Surface Owner 

State Acres 6,336 

Federal (non-BLM) Acres 1,653,210 

200 Summary of Alternative Outcomes 
 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-23. (cont.) 

Land Allocation Stratification Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

BLM Leaseable and 

Locatable Minerals 

Non-BLM Surface 

Owner 

Private Acres 444,792 

State Acres 10,151 

Federal (non-BLM) Acres 1,798,201 

Leaseable Oil and Gas 

Only 

Non-BLM Surface 

Owner 

Private Acres 344,584 

State Acres 3816 

Federal (non-BLM) Acres 755,775 

Z1 - Retain Acres 222,182 363,095 

Lands Z2 - Retain or Exchange Acres 193,769 20,563 

Z3 - Dispose Acres 40,444 72,454 

Acquistion Acres 4,036 873,660 

Rights-of-Way, 

Communication 

Available Acres 288,946 54,380 

Avoidance Acres 33,108 228,778 

Sites, and Renewable 

Energy Development 

Exclusion Acres 32,528 38,422 

Withdrawn Acres 102,016 135,017 

Alternatives Considered but not 

Analyzed Further 

The following alternatives were considered, but not carried forward for detailed analysis because (1) they would 

not fulfill requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) or other existing laws or 

regulations, (2) they did not meet the purpose and need, (3) they were already part of an existing plan, policy, or 

administrative function, or (4) they did not fall within the limits of the planning criteria. The FLPMA requires the 

BLM to manage public lands and resources in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, 

including recognizing the Nation’s needs for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber. Moreover, the 

BLM is required by law to recognize existing valid rights on public lands and manage public lands in accordance 

with existing laws. 

Aquatics 

The BLM initially considered delineating areas allocated for attainment of ACS objectives on a site specific basis 

by an interdisciplinary (ID) team (rather than specifying a set width in the RMP). Informal consultation with 

NMFS and USFWS resulted in BLM using the widths now displayed in Aquatic section of Chapter 2. The NMFS 

rationale for this change was 1) to satisfy NMFS need to remain “risk-averse”, 2) certainty, and 3) convenience. 

BLM believes that the set but expandable widths will use ID teams more efficiently in the field by focusing field 

discussions on management actions required to meet resource objectives near stream channels, floodplains and 

lentic areas. ID team discussions of “where the line should be” would take time away from discussions on BMPs 

and management actions required to meet resource objectives. In the end, resource objectives will be achieved 

more quickly by focusing limited BLM labor on designing appropriate management actions. 

BLM also considered revoking Water Power Site (dams) withdrawals along mainstem rivers in the planning area. 

However, this alternative was dropped from further consideration because the reservations do not affect BLM’s 

management of the river at this time. 

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed Further 201 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Wilderness/Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM was requested to consider a proposal to identify 14 new or additions to existing Wilderness Study 

Areas. This proposal was not considered in detail because current BLM Policy is to identify areas with wilderness 

characteristics rather than to identify wilderness study areas. In addition much of the land identified is managed 

under the authority of the USDA Forest Service and the BLM would not have the authority to identify those lands 

as Wilderness Study areas. 

The BLM, however, did review almost 397,000 acres of BLM managed lands (including all within the above 

proposal) within the planning area for lands with wilderness characteristics and found that all but 15,156 acres 

did not have wilderness characteristics. These lands were eliminated from detailed consideration of management 

to protect wilderness characteristics in this EIS. As a result of planning area wide management it is possible 

that in the future some lands may evolve into lands with wilderness characteristics. Of the total of 15,156 acres 

(outside of areas previously identified as Wilderness Study Areas) of BLM managed lands found to contain 

Wilderness Characteristics 3227 acres were found to have other resource values that required management actions 

not compatible with managing for wilderness characteristics. These 3227 acres were therefore eliminated from 

detailed consideration of managing for wilderness characteristics. 

OHV Use 

The BLM considered designating Sutton Mountain WSA as “Closed” to OHV use, but decided instead to continue 

the “Limited” designation already in place for this area as directed in the Sutton Mountain Coordinated Resource 

Management Plan (CRMP). The CRMP limited motorized use within the WSA to three designated routes. Two 

routes, Rocky Road and Stovepipe Springs Road, provide seasonal vehicle access to parking and camping areas, 

and current use of these routes does not impair Wilderness suitability. 

The third designated route is a short spur road which leaves Meyer’s Canyon Road, enters the WSA and travels 

about 1⁄4 mile to end at a small parking and camping area. For years the BLM has been trying unsuccessfully 

to get motorized users to stop at the end of this designated route. Instead, this area has been an entry point for 

repeated OHV trespass and has been damaged by the theft of old growth juniper trees. In an attempt to stop these 

unauthorized activities and protect wilderness suitability, this spur road will be closed. 

To comply with the IMP and maintain Wilderness suitability, the BLM will close one designated route within the 

WSA, and leave the remaining two designated routes open. We did not feel the need to close the entire WSA to 

OHV use at this time, but will consider closing it in the future if motorized use cannot be successfully contained 

to designated routes. 

It was also suggested that a larger area on Rudio Mountain be identified as Open to OHV use without restrictions. 

Upon initial review of suitable topography, suitable area for unrestricted OHV use was found to be important 

winter habitat for elk. As a consequence it was necessary to modify the alternative for the Rudio Mountain area to 

Limited (off-road vehicle travel permitted with seasonal restrictions) and not consider an alternative for this area 

with a year-round Open designation. 

BLM also considered an alternative to close all public lands on Little Canyon Mountain (LCM) to motorized use. 

This alternative was not considered acceptable for the following reasons: 

•	1 The LCM area contains existing mining claims where exploration and development activities have 

occurred historically and continue to occur. There is historic and current mineral exploration and 

development on public lands high in mineral potential in this area. The use of motorized vehicles and 

motorized equipment continues as an integral part of day-to-day operations for several mining claim 

operators, providing claimants access to claims and public lands in the area for mineral exploration and 

development. 

•	1 There exists a network of access roads to several tracts of private property that will need to be 

maintained: a) the Canyon Mountain Road accesses two parcels of private property, b) the spur road off 

of Canyon Mountain Road accesses a private residence and a mining mill site, and c) a couple of roads 

202 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed Further 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

go to active mining claims off of Canyon Mountain Road. The Little Canyon Mountain Road bisects BLM 

public land, extending south to a USFS Wilderness Area trailhead and is a BLM road. 

For these reasons it would not be feasible or realistic for BLM to administratively close LCM to all motorized use, 

while still providing access to several different mining claims. However, some similar concerns are contained in 

Alternative 2 and 5. 

Lands 

Some public comments suggested BLM dispose of all public land. This is not consistent with FLPMA and was 

dropped from further consideration. 

Livestock Grazing 

Some public comments suggested that this planning effort consider eliminating livestock grazing from the 

planning area. An alternative that proposes to close the entire planning area to grazing would not meet the 

purposes and need of this RMP/Draft EIS. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies 

study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. No issues or conflicts have 

been identified during this land use planning effort which require the complete elimination of grazing within 

the planning area for their resolution. Where appropriate, closures and adjustments to livestock use have been 

incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or area basis. Since the BLM has considerable discretion, 

through its grazing regulations, to determine and adjust stocking levels, seasons-of-use, and grazing management 

activities, and to allocate forage to uses of the public lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to entirely 

eliminate grazing is not needed. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that public lands be managed on a “multiple 

use and sustained yield basis” (FLPMA Sec. 302(a) and Sec. 102(7)) and includes livestock grazing as a principal 

or major use of public lands. While multiple use does not require that all lands be used for livestock grazing 

complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire planning area would be arbitrary and would not meet the 

principle of multiple use and sustained yield. Future site-specific changes in livestock grazing at a step-down 

scale is appropriate; whether the continuation or elimination of livestock grazing is decided, it generally should 

not require a land use plan amendment, depending on the type and extent of changes (IM OR-2008-069). 

Similarly it was proposed to protect sensitive resources by not allowing livestock grazing in riparian areas. 

Existing guidance already allows for the modification or removal of livestock to protect sensitive resources. 

However, this DEIS does assess an alternative (Alternative 3) that excludes grazing from currently occupied 

anadromous fish streams on acquired lands along the North Fork John Day River. 

Minerals 

Initially the interdisciplinary planning team identified many areas for closure to mineral disposal, rights of way, 

renewable energy, locatable, salable, and leasable minerals. These areas include BLM managed land between 

1320 and 300 feet of stream channels, Public Water Reserves (107) and areas where wilderness character will be 

protected. Internal BLM Oregon/Washington State Office review of this alternative indicated that mining could 

still occur in these areas through avoidance, the use of stipulations, and Best Management Practices. 

The BLM considered using an ACEC designation and closing to mineral entry all critical habitat of ESA listed 

fish and plants in the plan area. Upon further review, it was decided that designating these as “avoidance” areas 

with special stipulations designed to protect ESA listed fish and plans would achieve the same results. The use of 

ACECs for this critical habitat was dropped from further review. 

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed Further 203 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summary of Effects Table 2-24. Summary of key effects by resource in the John Day River Basin plan area. Example indicators are also provided. See more detailed discussions in Chapter 4 for more information. Resource (Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 SOILS (erosion) Second highest soil erosion from roads and OHV use. Least favorable for soil function. Lowest soil erosion from roads and OHV use. Highest soil erosion from roads and OHV use. Lowest soil erosion from roads and OHV use. Most favorable for soil function. VEGETATION (difference between current ecosystem conditions and the Acceptable Range of Variability (ARV)) Addresses 61% of rangeland, and 35% of forestland health treatment needs over 30 years. Relatively higher risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, insects and disease. Increases surplus of early seral, and reduces surplus of late seral rangeland communities. Timber Management Units (TMU) covering 135,719 acres would contain some large trees but very few stands dominated by them. Individuals and patches of old growth juniper trees would be left within juniper cuts. The lack of designated areas for AMR (including WFU) limits natural fire starts and achievement of vegetation objectives (FRCC1). Increases risk of noxious weed spread with 258,064 acres open to OHV use. Addresses 92% of rangeland, and 82% of forestland health treatment needs over 30 

years. Moves vegetation toward an Acceptable Range of Variation (ARV), where the types, intensities and response of vegetation to natural disturbance are within acceptable limits. Vegetative treatments would address the greatest number of resource needs through integrated prioritization. Areas available for forest or juniper products (273,577 acres) would emphasize forest health. Active forest management both within and outside of areas currently identified TMUs would maintain forest densities that meet commercial, non-commercial, landscape health and other resource objectives. Apercentage of all rangeland areas with a juniper component would move toward, or be retained in old growth juniper conditions. On a case by case basis, removes up to 11,929 acres (with the exception of the Big Canyon area) from forest and juniper product availability by designating these areas to be managed for Wilderness Characteristics. Utilization of AMR to move vegetation conditions toward FRCC1 would also reduce the need to implement other treatments to meet ARV objectives. Up to 5088 acres are open to cross-country, off-road motorized use, depending on alternative, reducing risk of noxious weed spread. Less disturbance of special status plants than Alternative 1.

FIRE and FUELS(wildfire risk tocommunities at thewildland urbaninterface, ecosystemand habitatcondition) 

By 2037, 59% of the plan area will bein relatively low fire hazard conditions 

(1-3 foot flame lengths), where groundsuppression forces can operate safely. Through suppression of all wildlandfires, fuels would continue to build up and possibly lead to larger and moresevere fires. 

By 2037, 69% of the plan area will be in relatively low fire hazard conditions (1-3 foot flame lengths), where ground suppression forces can operate safely. Prescribed burning may be constrained on 6,639 acres due to RNA designation, unless it meets 

RNA objectives. Precludes mechanical fuel treatment on 10,772 acres with Wilderness Characteristics (all areas with Wilderness Characteristics except Big Canyon.) Increased contiguity of land blocks through lands and realty actions allow more latitude inapplying AMR on BLM lands. The resulting fuels reductions will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

204 Summary of Effects 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

AQUATIC RESOURCES(difference between 

current andproper functioningconditions) 

Greater short-term increases in peakflows due to potential changes inwatershed vegetative cover. Upland vegetation management less likely to improve over-winter fish survival. 100 year peak flow increases range from 0 to 21%, depending on the watershed. Improves condition ratings on 20% of streams. Forty percent of the plan areastreams would not be managed toward potential. Restricts uses negatively affecting aquatic resources. Protectsstream channels from constructionof new roads, but to date only aboutfive miles of streams have had roads decommissioned to restore streamfunction. Numeric criteria for spawninghabitat are not included. Protects keywatersheds (those with salmonid habitat), but management actions alongintermittent streams could affect streamtemperature and recruitment of largewood, increase sediment generation and reduce sedimentation of stream.Riparian Management Areas (RMA) widths vary depending on the presence of fish and whether flow is intermittentor perennial. 

Less short term increases in peak flows due to restoration of watershed cover. Enhances 113 miles of stream not enhanced in Alternative 1. Upland vegetation management is 

more likely to improve over-winter fish survival. Restoration of natural fire regimes through fuels treatments results in a maximum average of only a 6% increase in peak flows. Active restoration improves condition ratings on 35% of streams. Riparian areas would achieve an appropriate distribution of seral stages, and would be at PFC or on an upward trend, resulting in improved channel function across a larger portion of aquatic habitat than Alternative 1. Updates current restrictions on uses by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) with new science, and uses multiple scale analysisto tailor the restoration to this particular plan area. Prescribes actions to be taken torestore RMAs within the plan area. Actions and BMPs for water quality would protect beneficial uses of stream channels by moving toward PFC and potential natural conditions. Active and passive restoration of headcuts will restore vertical stability on 22 miles of stream channel. Improves timing, intensity, and duration of peak flows and late season flows to attain instream flow objectives. Numeric criteria for spawning habitat are included. Extends protection to all watersheds in the plan area, regardless of the presence or absence of fish. RMA widths address multiple resource concerns and protect multiple species.Reduces sediment delivery to streams as a function ofroad closures. 

Increases sedimentdelivery to streams 

by opening manystream crossingsthat are closedunder Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5. 

Reducessediment delivery 

to streams as afunction of roadclosures. 

Reduces sedimentdelivery to streams as afunction of roadclosures. 

Summary of Effects 205 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

WILDLIFE(security habitat) 

Continuing current trends inhabitat conditions from vegetation 

management may reduce wildlifepopulations or habitat. Less impactfrom developed recreation sites than the action alternatives. Higher livestock utilization levels, increases in the number of rangeland development projects, and more intensive grazing systems may locally reduce the amountof herbaceous cover available for priority wildlife species such as sagegrouse and the pygmy rabbit. 

Seasonal timing restrictions and/or buffer distances for priority species would help 

protect wildlife populations. Vegetation management in general would have a 

beneficial impact on wildlife species by providing a mosaic of habitat features neededby key wildlife species. Provide a greater reduction in wildlife habitat from developed recreation sites than Alternative 1. Greater amounts of rangeland fire treatments through AMR may cause more short-term reductions in habitat for individuals of selectpriority shrubland wildlife species than Alternative 1. Over 95% of all key wildlife habitats would have a prescribed road density, lowering risks to wildlife habitat from future actions. Average road densities in the Upper John Day, Lower John Day, Rudio Mountain, and Sutton Mountain areas would cause moderate reductions in wildlife security, while the North Fork and South Fork areas would cause moderate to high reductions in wildlife security.

Greater risk for reductions in to wildlifesecurity and their habitats from futureactions due to lack of road densityprescriptions. Greatest reductions inwildlife security due to higher interimroad densities, lower amounts of area 

closed seasonally. There is no upper road density limit or specific directionfor road locations as they relate towildlife habitats, and has the highestamount of OHV Open designation.Greatest likelihood of disruptions tonesting or other activities of priorityspecies such as the grasshoppersparrow by livestock grazing. All key habitats would have lower percentages of secure habitat (1,182 yards from an open road) than Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. 

All key habitats would have higher percentages of 

secure habitat (1,182 yards from an open road) thanAlternatives 1 and 3. 

2nd greatest impactnext to Alternative 1, specifically in theNorth Fork due toopening existingroad closures,which would increase potentialdisturbance to biggame includingbig horn sheep,and increase thepotential for snagloss to wood cutt ing in a key habitat area forLewis’ woodpecker. All key habitatswould have lower percentages ofsecure habitat(1,182 yards from an open road) thanAlternatives 2, 4 and 5. 

Least impactto wildlife andwildlife habitats.Least likelihoodof disruptionsto nesting orother activitiesof priorityspecies such asthe grasshoppersparrow bylivestock grazing. All key habitatswould have higher percentages ofsecure habitat(1,182 yards from an open road)than Alternatives 1 and 3. Least ofall alternatives (as well as Alternative 5) in areas opento cross-countryOHV use. 

All keyhabitats would have higher percentages ofsecure habitat(1,182 yards from an open road)than Alternatives 1 and 3. Least ofall alternatives (as well as Alternative 4) in areas open tocross-countryOHV use. 

206 Summary of Effects 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

WILDERNESSCHARACTERISTICS(Maintenance ofwilderness qualities) 

Lack of direction for the use ofWildland Fire Use (WFU) and the full 

range of AMR could result in fewer areas being effectively managed for ecosystem health and the naturalrole of fire. These areas would be managed like similar and adjacentlands and would not necessarily retain characteristic landscape qualities.Would allow energy and mineral development of these lands to continue within existing restrictions. 

Greater use of WFU and the full range of AMR may move ecosystem health closer to acceptable ranges of variation on some of these lands, where the use of mechanized 

fuel treatments would be very limited in order to protect naturalness. Designating these lands as VRM Class II would help retain the characteristic landscape and provide a balance between protecting visual resources and allowing some fuel treatments to occur including limited mechanical treatment of juniper and thinning of diseasedtimber. Limiting OHV use to signed, designated routes on all lands managed to protect wilderness character would help prevent new unauthorized routes from being created, reduce unauthorized cross-country vehicle use, and prevent the spread of noxious weeds. These lands would be available for mining operations (provided that the proposed use would not impair Wilderness Characteristics), under nosurface-occupancy requirements for fluid mineral development, and closed to wind development, helping to protect their Wilderness Characteristics. 

VISUALRESOURCES(visual quality) 

Lack of proactive vegetative and fuel treatments would result in reduced 

visual quality due to greater risks ofstand-replacing wildfire events. OHV use would reduce visual quality greater than the action alternatives. 

Retention of visual quality would be highest due to proactive vegetation and fuels treatments on forestlands, resulting in less potential for catastrophic wildfires that lower 

visual quality. Protection of existing visual quality would be upgraded in the North 

Fork John Day River area from Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III and IV to VRM Class II in the river canyon and Gilman Flat. OHV use would reduce visual quality to a lesser extenty than Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects 207 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

WILD & SCENICRIVERS (WSR)Segment of the North 

Fork John Day River (NFJDR) determinedeligible for inclusionin the WSR system.(condition ofOutstandinglyRemarkable Values (ORVs)) 

Existing recreation, scenery and fisheryOutstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) would continue to be protected by existing federal and State ScenicWaterway regulations. VRM Classes for public lands in the plan area would continue to provide interim protectionand enhancement of recreation andscenic ORVs on public lands within existing designated WSRs. Existingfederal regulations such as PacFish and Oregon State Scenic Waterway, ODFW, DEQ and other regulations would help protect the free-flowing character of theNorth Fork John Day River. 

Potential Congressional designation of the NFJDRas part of the nationalWSR system (scenic 

classification) would provide an additionallevel of protection to ORVs than provided under theState Scenic Waterway regulations, PACFISH, and the Endangered SpeciesAct. Most consistent withthe existing State ScenicWaterway classification of this river segment as an Accessible Natural River Area. The recreation ORV would be protected and enhanced by managingOHV use to allow shortand long term recreationuse within this river corridor. 

Effects the sameas Alternative 

2, except ifdesignated as aWSR, it would be classified aspart scenic andpart recreational.The recreationalclassification onpublic lands fromCamas Creek toMallory Creekwould be managed to provide moreflexibility in howall public usesare managed andallow a higherlevel of recreation development than Alternative 2. 

No federalinterim protection 

of the scenic,recreation andfishery ORVs would occur, but existingprotectionsalready providedby the StateScenic Waterway designation,PACFISH and ICBMPmanagementguidelines would continue toprovide a lower level of protection of river ORV values than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. 

Same asalternative 2. 

WILDERNESSSTUDY AREAS

(maintenance ofwilderness qualities) 

Lack of ability to use WFU and thefull range of AMR may result in 

lower ecosystem health in some WSAs than the action alternatives. If these lands are released by Congressfrom WSA status, changing the VRM Class from a VRM Class I to a VRMClass II would reduce protections to the visual resources of these lands.Limited mechanical treatments toreduce juniper encroachment could beconducted on these lands. 

WFU and use of the full range of AMR may better improve ecosystem health in some WSAs than under Alternative 1. Designating some WSAs as ACECs (see Chapter 2) 

would protect the scenic values of these lands if they were released by Congress from WSA status. If released, managing the existing Spring Basin, Sutton Mountain, Pat’s Cabin, and Aldrich Mountain WSAs under no-surface-occupancy (NSO) requirements for oil and gas development and closed to wind development would help to protect the scenic value of these lands. Continuing to close these lands to motorized vehicle use except for administrative use would protect resource values and reduce spread of noxious weeds. Managing the lands within the existing Strawberry Mountain WSA as closed to motorized vehicle use, except for administrative use, would help protect the adjacent USFS Wilderness Area from motorized vehicle intrusions. 

208 Summary of Effects 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

LIVESTOCKGRAZING(available animal 

unit months (AUMs).Conflicts with otheruses or ecologicalvalues) 

Results in the largest number of acresand AUMs remaining available for livestock grazing. Greatest potentialcontribution to local livestock sales. Lowest potential long-term effects of anticipated forage reductions onindividual lessees. Likely to have conflict levels somewhat higher than those expected for Alternative 4. Approximately 1,900 AUMs would be taken out of production each year (6.2% of the AUMs on public lands in the John Day Basin) due to restingareas following prescribed burning orrehabilitation. 

Approximately 2,300 acres would be rested each year to prepare for a prescribed burn, 4,400 acres annually would begin the first of two years of rehabilitation, and an 

estimated 1,500 acres would receive AMR treatment each year. Hence, approximately 2,820 AUMs would be taken out of production each year (9.3% of the AUMs on public land in the John Day Basin. This is 33% greater than Alternative 1. Likely to have conflict levels somewhat higher than those expected forAlternative 4. 

Likely to have conflict levels 

somewhat higherthan thoseexpected forAlternative 4. 

Lowest number of acres andAUMs remainingavailable 

for livestock grazing (about85% less thanAlternative 1.) Lowest potentialcontribution tolocal livestock sales. Highestpotential longterm effectsof anticipatedforage reductionson individuallessees. Conflictsbetween livestock grazing and otheruses on publicand adjacentprivate land are less likely thanother alternatives. 

Summary of Effects 209 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES(availability of 

OHV routes andopen areas; conflictsbetween uses) 

Overall, resource constraints on recreation opportunities are less thanthe action alternatives. Managed recreation settings only occur alongthe John Day River and WSAs. Non-motorized opportunities areonly managed in WSAs. Greatestopportunities for cross-country OHVuse. Users would continue to create routes and trails. Least area closedseasonally to motorized use, andno limits on road density to protectwildlife. Class II rock crawling areaswould continue to be user created. No time, day, or use constraints on OHV use in Little Canyon Mountain (LCM). Least restrictive alternative for OHV play in LCM pit areas. Evaluation of commercial recreation permitproposals would consider only existing management goals identified for theJohn Day River SRMA. Continuing the existing moratorium on newcommercial permits in would not address the backlog of permit requestsBLM has received and continues to receive for the plan area. 

Overall, resource constraints on recreation opportunities are more than Alternative 1. Uplands managed for motorized and/or non-motorized opportunities. Greater nonmotorized opportunities than Alternative 1. Greater area closed seasonally to motorized 

use and road density restrictions to protect wildlife than Alternative 1. Class II rock crawling areas allowed in designated areas. Evaluation of commercial recreation permit proposals would consider existing management goals identified for the John Day River SRMA, plus management goals identified for additional SRMAs and ERMAs. Discontinuing the moratorium on new commercial recreation permits would create new annual upland-based commercial permit opportunities as the BLM addresses thebacklog of NEPA analyses required for permit issuance.

Fewer opportunities for cross-country OHV use thanAlternatives 1 or 3. OHV riding opportunities in LCMreduced to specific hoursof the day and areas of use.Class I and III restrictions insouth pit of LCM. 

Fewer opportunities forcross-countryOHV use thanAlternative 1, 

but more thanAlternatives 2, 4 or 5. OHV riding

opportunities inLCM reduced tospecific hours ofthe day and specificareas of use. 

Fewer opportunities forcross-countryOHV use thanAlternative 1, 2 or 3. Fewest OHV ridingopportunitiesin LCM due tohours of the day, day of week, and specific areas ofuse restrictions. 

Fewer opportunities forcross-countryOHV use thanAlternative 1, 2 or 3. Fewest OHV ridingopportunitiesin LCM due tohours of the day, day of week, and area restrictions.Most restrictive (prohibitive) of all alternatives for OHV play in pitareas. 

210 Summary of Effects 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Table 2-24. (cont.)


1

Resource

(Example indicators) Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

TRAVELMANAGEMENT(access to publiclands; roadmaintenance costs) 

Maintenance and construction activitieswould be controlled by resource BMPs. 

The transportation system includes250 miles of roads with no legal accessand 45 miles of seasonally openedroads. 475 miles of roads are classifiedas primitive only accessible to high clearance vehicles. Seasonal road closures would occur on 86,793 acres of public lands. 

The identified transportation system would an interim system only. A Transportation Management Plan would be developed 5 years after the Record of Decision for this RMP

to address the final transportation system on a site by site basis. The determination ofwhich roads are part of the final transportation would be based on specific criteria, and average prescribed road density limits. 

Reduced road accessand lower maintenance costs when compared toAlternative 1. Average road density standards arelower than the existing road densities. Seasonal roadclosures would occur on 332,995 acres of public lands. 

Level of access and maintenancewould be similar to Alternative 1, except therewould be more miles of roadunder seasonaluse restrictions.Increases inmileage of interimroutes available for public accessis the result oflifting some ofthe closures inthe NFJDR area. Average road density is similarto Alternative 1, except in theNorth Fork JohnDay area. Seasonalroad closureswould occur on 332,995 acres ofpublic lands. 

Reduced roadaccess and lower maintenance costswhen comparedto Alternative 1. Average road density standardsare lower than the existing roaddensities. Seasonalroad closureswould occur on 332,995 acres ofpublic lands. 

Reduced roadaccess and lower maintenance costswhen comparedto Alternative 1. Average road density standardsare lower than the existing roaddensities. Seasonal road closureswould occur on 332,995 acres ofpublic lands. 

Summary of Effects 211 
Draft John Day Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

212