John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

Oregon

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Assessment

Clarno Unit

Paleontology Center

Sheep Rock, Sheep Rock Unit Palisades, Clarno Unit

Painted Hills Unit Painted Hills Unit

Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental Assessment 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Grant and Wheeler Counties, Oregon 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on October 26, 

1974 (Public Law 94-486). A full legislative history is found in appendix A. The last 

comprehensive management plan for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument was completed 

in 1979. Much has changed since then, including the construction of new facilities. As a result, 

visitor use has changed. Also, resource conditions continue to change and are impacted by 

visitation. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument, how the existing facilities need to be used to support these uses, how 

resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Consequently, 

a new general management plan is needed. 

This plan examines three alternatives for managing John Day Fossil Beds National Monument for 

the next 15 to 20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. 

Alternative A (no action) consists of the continuation of existing John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument management and trends, and serves as the basis for evaluating the other alternatives. 

In alternative B (preferred alternative), resource protection, research, and visitor opportunities 

would be the focus of NPS management. Management in alternative C would focus on research 

and the protection and restoration of resources while providing some different visitor facilities 

than alternative B. 

This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Assessment will be released to the public for 

a 60-day comment period. The National Park Service will determine whether the environmental 

consequences of the preferred alternative require preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service 
ii

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment (GMP/EA) are 

welcome and will be accepted for 60 days after its release. During the comment period, comments 

may be submitted using several methods as noted below.

Online: at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/joda 

We prefer that readers submit comments online through the park planning website identified 

above, so the comments become incorporated into the NPS Planning, Environment and 

Public Comment System. An electronic public comment form is provided through this 

website. 

Mail: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument General Management Plan 

 National Park Service 

 Denver Service Center – PDS 

 P.O. Box 25287 

 Denver, CO 80225 

or 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Headquarters 

32651 Highway 19 

Kimberly, OR 97848-9701 

Hand delivery: at public meetings to be announced in the media following release of this plan. 

Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and 

email addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request 

that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider 

withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. 

In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must 

demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or 

officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. 
iii

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, 

located in east central Oregon in Grant and 

Wheeler counties, was authorized in 1974 

and established in 1975. It encompasses 

14,000 acres in the John Day River valley. 

The monument features sedimentary rocks 

that contain a plant and animal fossil record 

spanning 40 million years of the Age of 

Mammals. 

The monument is geographically dispersed 

over three widely separated units: the Clarno 

Unit, the Painted Hills Unit, and the Sheep 

Rock Unit. All three units provide a variety 

of opportunities for recreation and study 

and serve to introduce the paleontological 

story of the much larger basin to the public. 

A new management plan for John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument is needed because 

the last comprehensive planning effort for 

the national monument was completed in 

1979 and much has occurred since then. 

Among the changes that have occurred, 

private land within the authorized boundary 

of the Clarno Unit was acquired; a new 

visitor/paleontology center was built; 

visitation has increased; monument staff and 

researchers have learned much more about 

the significance of the monument’s 

resources; and National Park Service (NPS) 

staff are now coordinating paleontological 

research, collection, and curation on all 

federal lands throughout the John Day 

Basin. Each of these changes has major 

implications for the management of the 

monument. 

The approved general management plan will 

be the basic document for managing John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument for the 

next 15 to 20 years. The purposes of this 

general management plan are as follows: 

• Provide a realistic vision for the 

monument’s future, setting a direction 

for the monument that considers the 

environmental as well as the financial 

impact of proposed facilities and 

programs. 

• Establish a common management 

direction for all monument divisions and 

units. 

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the monument. 

• Provide a framework for monument 

managers to use when making decisions 

about how to best protect monument 

resources, how to provide quality visitor 

uses and experiences, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in or near the 

monument. 

This planning effort has been designed to 

ensure that the plan has been developed in 

consultation with interested stakeholders 

and adopted by the NPS leadership after an 

adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, 

and economic costs of alternative courses of 

action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its management provides the fundamental direction 

for the administration of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument (and other units 

and programs of the national park system). 

This general management plan will start with 

these laws and with the legislation that 

established John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument, and will build on them to create 

a vision for the monument’s future. The 

general management plan does not describe 

how particular programs or projects should 

be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed in future moredetailed planning efforts. All future plans 

will tier from the approved general 

management plan. 

This General Management Plan / EnvironMental Assessment examines three 
SUMMARY 

iv 

alternatives for managing John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument for the next 15 to 

20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of 

implementing each of the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan, 

no matter which alternative, will depend on 

future NPS funding levels and Servicewide 

priorities, and on partnership funds, time, 

and effort. The approval of a GMP does not 

guarantee that funding and staffing needed 

to implement the plan will be forthcoming. 

Full implementation of the plan could be 

many years in the future. 

ALTERNATIVE A, THE 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative would provide a baseline for 

evaluating changes and impacts in the other 

alternatives. In the no-action alternative, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

manage John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument as it has been managed since the 

approval of the 1979 General Management 

Plan. 

The natural resource program would 

continue to focus on inventorying and 

monitoring, resource protection and 

preservation, mitigation, and applied 

research efforts. The cultural resource 

program would continue to focus on 

protecting historic structures and 

landscapes, particularly in and around the 

Cant Ranch. 

The National Park Service would continue 

to foster partnerships with other agencies, 

primarily for resource stewardship, 

interpretation, and administrative purposes. 

The education programs would continue to 

focus primarily on schools and 

paleontology-focused organizations in the 

region. 

ALTERNATIVE B, THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

In alternative B, management would focus 

on protecting natural and cultural resources 

and increasing visitor opportunities with 

new trails and limited new facilities. In an 

effort to minimize human impacts within the 

monument, visitors would be encouraged to 

use existing designated trails. While many 

unofficial human-created trails would be 

eliminated, several throughout the 

monument would be designated as official 

trails, with accompanying improvements 

where needed. 

The resource management program would 

maintain existing research programs and 

facilities while expanding educational and 

interpretive activities concerning the 

environment, paleontology, and geology. 

The mammal quarry in the Clarno Unit 

would be opened for research and 

interpretation. 

Monument staff would focus on gaining a 

greater understanding of the monument’s 

paleontological resources through expanded 

research. In an effort to expand monument 

collections, staff would seek more 

partnerships with other research institutions 

and museums while expanding the 

permanent and volunteer research staff at 

the monument. 

The National Park Service would pursue a 

land exchange with an adjacent private 

landowner and the Bureau of Land 

Management around Cathedral Rock in the 

Sheep Rock Unit. This land exchange, 

covering about 100 acres, would protect a 

key geologic feature and important riparian 

habitat along the John Day River.

ALTERNATIVE C 

Management would focus on further 

expanding visitor opportunities with 

additional visitor facilities and trails, and 

improving natural resources through site 
Summary 

v 

restoration. A new visitor contact 

station/office would be constructed in the 

Clarno Unit, new restrooms would be 

constructed at Cant Ranch, and a new picnic 

facility would be constructed at the 

paleontology center. Several human-created 

trails throughout the monument would be 

designated as official trails, with 

accompanying improvements where needed. 

New trails would be constructed in the 

Clarno and Sheep Rock units. 

The Cant Ranch agricultural fields would be 

restored to native vegetation, and the Leaf 

Hill Trail in the Painted Hills Unit would be 

closed and the area revegetated. 

The resource management program would 

maintain existing research programs and 

facilities while expanding educational and 

interpretive activities concerning the 

environment, paleontology, and geology. 

The mammal quarry in the Clarno Unit 

would be opened for research and 

interpretation. 

As in alternative B, NPS managers would 

focus on gaining a greater understanding of 

the monument’s paleontological resources 

through expanded research. To expand 

monument collections, staff would seek 

more partnerships with other research 

institutions and museums while expanding 

the permanent and volunteer research staff 

at the monument. 

As in alternative B, The National Park 

Service would pursue a land exchange with 

an adjacent private landowner and the 

Bureau of Land Management around 

Cathedral Rock in the Sheep Rock Unit. 
vi 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment is organized in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the National Park Service’s “Park 

Planning Program Standards,” and 

Director’s Order 12 and Handbook, 

“Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Analysis, and Decision Making.” 

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the 

framework for the entire document. It 

describes why the plan is being prepared and 

what needs it must address. It gives guidance 

for the management alternatives that are 

being considered—guidance that is based on 

the national monument’s legislation, its 

purpose, the significance of its resources, 

special mandates and administrative 

commitments, servicewide laws and policies, 

and other planning efforts in the area. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts; the alternatives in the 

next chapter address these issues and 

concerns. This chapter concludes with a 

statement of the scope of the environmental 

assessment—specifically what impact topics 

are or are not analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing 

the management zones that would be used to 

manage the national monument in the 

future. It includes the continuation of 

current management practices and trends in 

the national monument (alternative A - no 

action). Two alternatives for managing the 

monument, the preferred alternative 

(alternative B) and alternative C, are next 

presented. Mitigation measures proposed to 

minimize or eliminate the impacts of some 

proposed actions in the alternatives are 

described, followed by a discussion of future 

studies or implementation plans that would 

be needed. The environmentally preferable 

alternative is identified next, followed by a 

discussion of alternatives or actions that 

were considered but dismissed from detailed 

evaluation. The chapter concludes with 

summary tables of the alternatives and the 

environmental consequences of 

implementing those alternatives. 

Chapter 3: The Affected Environment 

describes those areas and resources that 

would be affected by implementing the 

actions contained in the alternatives. It is 

organized according to the following topics: 

natural resources, cultural resources, visitor 

use and experience, and national monument 

operations. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. Methods 

that were used for assessing the impacts in 

terms of the intensity, type, and duration of 

impacts are outlined at the beginning of the 

chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination describes the history of 

public and agency coordination during the 

planning effort, including Native American 

consultations, and any future compliance 

requirements. It also lists agencies and 

organizations that will be receiving copies of 

the document. 

Appendixes, a Glossary, Selected 

References, and a list of Preparers and 

Consultants are found at the end of the 

document.
vii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN 3

General Management Planning 3

Brief Description of the Monument 4

Purpose of and Need for the Plan 7

The Next Steps 7

Implementation of the Plan 8

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 9

Purpose and Significance 9

Fundamental Resources And Values 10

Interpretive Themes 10

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 11

American Indian Relations 12

Servicewide Laws and Policies 12

Wilderness Eligibility 13

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 37

Planning Issues and Concerns 40

Impact Topics: Resources and Values At Stake in the Planning Process 42

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES 59

Formulation of the Alternatives 59

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 60

Potential for Boundary Adjustments 60

Implementation of the General Management Plan 60

Management Zones 61

User Capacity 65

ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION 70

Concept 70

Management Zoning 70

User Capacity 70

Management of Specific Areas 70

Boundary Adjustments 72

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 72

Estimated Costs 72

ALTERNATIVE B, THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 79

Concept 79

Management Zoning 79

User Capacity 80

Management of Specific Areas 80

Boundary Adjustments 82

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 82

Estimated Costs 82

ALTERNATIVE C 91

Concept 91

Management Zoning 91

User Capacity 92
CONTENTS 

viii 

Management of Specific Areas 92

Boundary Adjustments 94

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 94

Estimated Costs 94

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 103

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 104

Natural Resources 104

Cultural Resources 107

Visitor Safety And Experiences 108

Socioeconomic Environment 108

Future Studiesand Implementation Plans Needed 109

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 110

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 111

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 112

CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 127

NATURAL RESOURCES 128

Paleontological Resources 128

Soils 132

Prime And Unique Farmlands 133

Vegetation 134

Wildlife 138

CULTURAL RESOURCES 141

Overview 141

Archeological Resources 142

Historic Structures And Cultural Landscapes 142

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 146

Introduction 146

Visitor Use 146

Visitor Information, Access, And Circulation 148

Visitor Activities And Opportunities 148

Visitor Experience 150

NATIONAL MONUMENT OPERATIONS 152

Introduction 152

Office Of The Superintendent 152

Interpretation Division 152

Resource Protection Division 152

Paleontology Division 153

Resource Management Division 153

Maintenance Division 153

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 156

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 158

Natural Resources 158
ix 

Cultural Resources 159

Visitor Use And Experience 159

Monument Operations 159

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 163

Actions And Projects Inside John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 163

Actions And Projects Outside John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 163

IMPAIRMENT OF MONUMENT RESOURCES 165

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE A 166

Natural Resources 166

Cultural Resources 170

Visitor Use and Experience 172

National Monument Operations 174

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE B 176

Natural Resources 176

Cultural Resources 182

Visitor Use and Experience 184

National Monument Operations 187

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE C 189

Natural Resources 189

Cultural Resources 196

Visitor Use and Experience 199

National Monument Operations 201

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 205

Public Meetings And Newsletters 205

Consultation With Other Agencies, Officials, and Organizations (To Date) 205

Future Compliance Requirements 207

PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS 

DOCUMENT 208

APPENDIXES, GLOSSARY, SELECTED REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 213

APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AND LAND PROTECTION CRITERIA 217

APPENDIX C: CONSULTATION LETTERS 220

GLOSSARY 229

SELECTED REFERENCES 234

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 242

Planning Team Members 242

Consultants 243

Other Contributors 243

INDEX 244

 
CONTENTS 

x 

TABLES 

Table 1: Servicewide Laws and Policies Pertaining to John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 14

Table 2: Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 43

Table 3: Management Zones 61

Table 4: Summary of User Capacity Indicators, Standards, and Strategies for Monitoring 

and Management 68

Table 5: Estimated Costs, Alternative A 72

Table 6: Estimated Costs, Alternative B 83

Table 7: Estimated Costs, Alternative C 95

Table 8: Cost Comparison of the Alternatives, including Life-Cycle Costs 103

Table 9: Comparison of the Alternatives 112

Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 115

Table 11: Eight Fossil Assemblages of Relatively High Significance within or next to the Boundaries of John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 131

Table 12: Status of “High Urgency” Noxious Weeds in the Monument 136

Table 13: Total Recreational Visits, 1976–2005 146

Table 14: Visitation for 2005 148

Table 15: Impact Threshold Definitions 160

Table 16: Future Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions 207

FIGURES 

Figure 1: Vicinity Map 5

Figure 2: Map of Clarno Unit, Alternative A 73

Figure 3: Map of Painted Hills Unit, Alternative A 75

Figure 4: Map of Sheep Rock Unit, Alternative A 77

Figure 5: Map of Clarno Unit, Alternative B 85

Figure 6: Map of Painted Hills Unit, Alternative B 87

Figure 7: Map of Sheep Rock Unit, Alternative B 89

Figure 8: Map of Clarno Unit, Alternative C 97

Figure 9: Map of Painted Hills Unit, Alternative C 99

Figure 10: Map of Sheep Rock Unit, Alternative C 101
CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Painted Cove, Painted Hills Unit Agricultural Fields, Sheep Rock U

Painted Hills Unit

Painted Hills Unit

3 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 requires each unit of the National Park 

Service (NPS) to have a general management 

plan; and NPS Management Policies 2006

(§2.3.1) states “The Park Service will maintain 

a general management plan for each unit of 

the national park system.” 

The purpose of a general management plan is 

to ensure that a national park system unit 

(park unit) has a clearly defined direction for 

resource preservation and visitor use that will 

best achieve the NPS mandate to preserve 

resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations. In addition, general 

management planning makes the National 

Park Service more effective, collaborative, and 

accountable by 

• providing a balance between continuity 

and adaptability in decision making. This 

defines the desired conditions to be 

achieved and maintained in a park unit 

and provides a touchstone that allows 

NPS managers and staff to constantly 

adapt their actions to changing situations 

while staying focused on what is most 

important about the park unit. 

• analyzing the park unit in relation to its 

surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, 

and community. This helps NPS managers 

and staff understand how the park unit 

can interrelate with neighbors and others 

in ways that are ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable. Decisions made 

within such a larger context are more 

likely to be successful over time. 

• affording everyone who has a stake in 

decisions affecting a park unit an 

opportunity to be involved in the planning 

process and to influence and understand 

the decisions that are made. Park units are 

often the focus of intense public interest. 

Public involvement throughout the 

planning process provides focused 

opportunities for NPS managers and staff 

to interact with the public and learn about 

public concerns, expectations, and values. 

Public involvement also provides 

opportunities for NPS managers and staff 

to share information about the park unit’s 

purpose and significance, as well as 

opportunities and constraints for the 

management of park unit lands. 

The ultimate outcome of general management 

planning for park units is an agreement among 

the National Park Service, its partners, and the 

public on why each area is managed as part of 

the national park system, what resource 

conditions and visitor experience should 

exist, and how those conditions can best be 

achieved and maintained over time. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment presents and 

analyzes alternative future directions for the 

management and use of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument. General management 

plans are intended to be long-term documents 

that establish and articulate a management 

philosophy and framework for decision 

making and problem solving in the parks. 

General management plans usually provide 

guidance during a 15- to 20-year period. 

Actions identified by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

may be accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional data 

or regulatory compliance, and competing 

national park system priorities may preclude 

implementation of many actions. Major or 

especially costly actions could be implemented 10 or more years in the future.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

4 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE 

MONUMENT 

The monument, located in east central 

Oregon in Grant and Wheeler counties, was 

authorized in 1974 (PL 93-486; see appendix 

A) and established in 1975. It encompasses 

14,000 acres in the John Day River valley. 

Eastern Oregon holds many unexpected 

elements: pine-forested mountains, glades 

that preserve tall native grasses and 

wildflowers, deep canyons, trout streams, and 

small coves of pinnacled badlands. Badlands 

are steep, barren (non-vegetated) lands that 

are dissected by many intermittent drainage 

channels. Intriguing, too, are the area’s hidden 

landscapes — the fossil remains of the jungles, 

savannas, and woodlands that once flourished 

here. The 20 square miles of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument feature 

sedimentary rocks that hold a plant and 

animal fossil record spanning 40 million years 

of the Age of Mammals. 

Due to the rain shadow effect of the Cascade 

and Ochoco Mountains to the west, the area 

has a semi-arid climate. Elevations range 

between 2,000 and 4,500 feet above sea level. 

Average annual precipitation is approximately 

14 inches, with much of that coming in the 

spring as rainfall. The area receives little 

snowfall at the lower elevations. 

Numerous creeks in the area flow into the 

John Day River, which is a major tributary of 

the Columbia River and the longest 

undammed river that flows into the Columbia 

River today. The natural erosion processes 

associated with the area’s waterways have 

created features that have exposed the 

monument's vast fossil record. 

The monument is geographically dispersed 

over three widely separated units: the Clarno 

Unit, the Painted Hills Unit, and the Sheep 

Rock Unit (see figure 1). All three units 

provide a variety of opportunities for 

recreation and study. 

The Clarno Unit is located 18 miles southwest 

of the town of Fossil on State Highway 218. It 

contains 1,969 acres and includes trails and a 

picnic area. The most prominent natural 

feature is the towering Clarno Palisades, 

which are a series of sharp cliffs up to 150 feet 

high formed from a series of prehistoric 

volcanic mud flows. The Hancock Field 

Station, owned and operated by the Oregon 

Museum of Science and Industry, is located 

on private land within the Clarno Unit. 

The Painted Hills Unit is located 9 miles 

northwest of the town of Mitchell. It contains 

3,129 acres and includes trails, a scenic 

overlook, a picnic area, and informational 

exhibits. The most prominent natural feature 

is a series of multi-colored hills and ridges 

derived from exposed paleosols. 

The Sheep Rock Unit contains three parcels of 

land (totaling 8,916 acres) situated along State 

Highway 19 northwest of Dayville. This unit 

contains the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center, the 200-acre James Cant Ranch 

Historic District, trails, picnic areas, scenic 

overlooks, and informational exhibits. 

Prominent natural features include Picture 

Gorge, Sheep Rock, Goose Rock, Blue Basin, 

and Cathedral Rock. The unit is bisected by 

the John Day River. 

Visitation to the monument has averaged 

about 110,000 visits per year, with a high of 

134,710 in 1989 and a low of 74,800 in 1976. 

Visitation in 2006 was just under 120,000 

(NPS 2006).

 


Introduction to the Plan

7 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE 

PLAN 

Purpose of the Plan 

The approved General Management Plan will 

be the basic document for managing John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument for the next 

15 to 20 years. The purposes of this 

management plan are as follows: 

• provide a realistic vision for the 

monument’s future, setting a direction for 

the monument that considers the 

environmental as well as the financial 

impact of proposed facilities and 

programs. 

• establish a common management 

direction for all monument divisions and 

units. 

• clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the monument. 

• provide a framework for monument 

managers to use when making decisions 

about how to best protect monument 

resources, how to provide quality visitor 

uses and experiences, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in or near the monument. 

• ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested stakeholders 

and adopted by the NPS leadership after 

an adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of alternative 

courses of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its management provides the fundamental direction 

for the administration of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument (and other units and 

programs of the national park system). This 

General Management Plan started with these 

laws, and the legislation that established John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument, and 

built on them to create a vision for the 

monument’s future. The management plan 

does not describe how particular programs or 

projects should be prioritized or 

implemented. Those decisions will be 

addressed in future detailed planning efforts. 

Need For the Plan 

A new management plan for John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument is needed because 

the last comprehensive planning effort for the 

national monument was completed in 1979 

and much has occurred since then. In 1999, 

1,000 acres of private land within the 

authorized boundary of the Clarno Unit were 

acquired, and a new visitor/paleontology 

center was recently constructed. In addition, 

since 1979 visitation has increased, monument 

staff and researchers have learned much more 

about the significance of the monument’s 

resources, and NPS staff are now coordinating 

paleontological research, collection, and 

curation on all federal lands throughout the 

John Day Basin. Each of these changes has 

major implications for how visitors access and 

use the monument and the facilities needed to 

support those uses, how resources are 

managed, and how the National Park Service 

manages its operations. Furthermore, most of 

the issues and action items identified in the 

1979 plan have been addressed or completed, 

so a new plan is needed. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of The General 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment 

there will be a 60-day public review and 

comment period after which the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft 

plan. If no significant environmental impacts 

are identified and no major changes are made 

in the alternatives, then a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) can be made and 

approved by the Pacific West Regional 

Director. Following a 30-day waiting period, 

the plan can then be implemented. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

8 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

The implementation of the approved plan also 

could be affected by other factors, such as 

changes in NPS staffing, visitor use patterns, 

and unanticipated environmental changes. 

Once the General Management Plan has been 

approved, additional feasibility studies and 

more detailed planning, environmental 

documentation, and consultations would be 

completed, as appropriate, before certain

preferred alternatives can be carried out. For 

example, 

• additional environmental documentation 

may need to be completed 

• appropriate permits may need to be 

obtained before implementing actions 

• appropriate federal and state agencies 

would need to be consulted concerning 

actions that could affect threatened and 

endangered species 

• Native American tribes and the State 

Historic Preservation Officer would need 

to be consulted, as appropriate, on actions 

that could affect cultural resources 

Future program and implementation plans, 

describing specific actions that managers 

intend to undertake and accomplish in the 

monument, will tier from the desired 

conditions and long-term goals set forth in 

this general management plan.
9 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 

Purpose 

Purpose statements are based on the 

monument’s legislation and legislative 

history and NPS policies. The statements 

reaffirm the reasons for which the John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument was set 

aside as a unit of the national park system 

and provide the foundation for its 

management and use. 

The purpose of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument is 

to preserve, and provide for the scientific 

and public understanding of the 

paleontological resources of the John 

Day region, and the natural, scenic, and 

cultural resources within the boundaries 

of the national monument.

Significance 

Significance statements capture the essence 

of the monument’s importance to our 

country’s natural and cultural heritage. 

Significance statements do not inventory 

monument resources; rather, they describe 

the monument’s distinctiveness and help to 

place the monument within a regional, 

national, and international context. 

Significance statements answer questions 

such as “Why are John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument’s resources 

distinctive?” and “What do they contribute 

to our natural or cultural heritage?” Defining 

the monument’s significance helps managers 

make decisions that preserve the resources 

and values necessary to accomplish the 

monument’s purpose. 

For John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument, primary and other significance 

statements were created to better articulate 

the relative significance of the monument’s 

resources. Elements of primary significance 

are most important: they include the 

essential components of why the monument 

was established. Elements of other significance contribute to and complement the 

primary elements and help the National Park 

Service fulfill its mission of resource 

preservation and public enjoyment. Both are 

important and together support the purpose 

of the monument. 

The significance statements are as follows: 

Primary Significance 

• The John Day region contains one of the 

longest and most continuous Tertiary 

records of evolutionary change and 

biotic relationships in the world; this 

outstanding fossil record heightens our 

understanding of earth history. John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument 

contains a concentration of localities 

that are a major part of that record. 

• The John Day region is one of the few 

areas on the planet with numerous wellpreserved and ecologically diverse fossil 

biotas that are entombed in sedimentary 

layers and are found in close proximity 

with datable volcanic rocks; these biotas 

span intervals of dramatic worldwide 

paleoclimatic change. 

Other Significance 

• John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument contains regionally 

representative scenic, natural and 

cultural landscapes—notably, the James 

Cant Ranch Historic District, which 

represents the history of sheep ranching 

in the region.

 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

10 

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES AND 

VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values are 

systems, processes, features, visitor 

experiences, stories, scenes, etc. that warrant 

special consideration during planning and 

management because they are critical to 

achieving the monument’s purpose and 

maintaining its significance. 

Fundamental and other important resources 

and values, which are linked directly to the 

significance statements, are as follows. 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

• John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument contains important 

geological formations that contain fossilbearing sedimentary strata, fossil soils, 

and numerous datable volcanic rock 

layers. Special paleontological resources 

include vertebrate, botanical, and 

invertebrate fossils; conformable layers 

of rocks (strata); fossil localities; datable 

ash layers; and identified paleosol units. 

• The paleontology museum, archives, 

databases, and library collections at John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

allow scientists to conduct important 

paleontological research on the history 

of life on planet Earth during the past 40 

million years. 

Other Important Resources and Values 

• The colorful and diverse landscape 

presents scenic and educational features 

and vistas. Examples of these scenic 

resources are found in Sheep Rock, 

Painted Hills, Cathedral Rock, Picture 

Gorge, Blue Basin, Foree, and the Clarno 

Palisades. 

• The ecosystem of the monument 

contains examples of protected, 

regionally representative, native plant 

and animal species. 

• The John Day River and its tributaries 

are valued resources for 

o their position and integrity within 

the Columbia River system 

o habitat for threatened and 

endangered species 

o free flowing water important to 

anadromous fish 

o recreation 

o water quality and quantity 

o fisheries 

o important hydrological resources 

within the near desert ecosystem 

o tribal interest in traditional use 

o riparian area habitat 

• Archeological sites and pictographs, 

especially those in Picture Gorge, are 

valued for their association with and 

representation of the cultural heritage of 

American Indians and others. 

• The James Cant Ranch Historic District, 

listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places, contains irrigated 

bottomlands, corrals, buildings, and 

landscape characteristics within the 

Sheep Rock Unit. It is valued for its 

intact cultural landscape that represents 

ranching history. 

INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Interpretive themes are the key stories, 

concepts, and ideas of the monument. They 

form the basis that NPS staff will use for 

educating visitors about the monument and 

for inspiring visitors to care for and about 

the monument's resources. Using these 

themes, visitors can form intellectual and 

emotional connections with monument 

resources and experiences. 

Interpretive themes are based on the 

monument’s purpose and significance, and 

fundamental and other important resources 

and values. Primary and secondary 

interpretive themes have been developed. 

 

Primary Interpretive Themes 

• At John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument 

o there are great numbers of fossils 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

11 

o there is a great diversity of fossils 

o the fossils are very well preserved 

o the fossils represent an unusually long 

time span 

o the fossils are datable 

Thus, it is a wonderful place to study earth 

history. 

• The large sequence of fossil biotas and 

paleosols in the John Day region shows 

us that climate and life are intrinsically 

linked and continually changing. 

• There are multiple, well-preserved fossil 

assemblages in the John Day region that 

represent over 40 million years of the 

earth’s history and may be dated with 

great accuracy. 

Secondary Interpretive Theme 

• The landscape and people of the John 

Day region have been shaped by many 

factors; a major influence was sheep 

ranching, which was economically very 

important to the John Day region in the 

early 20th century. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative 

commitments refer to monument-specific 

requirements. These formal agreements are 

often established concurrently with the 

creation of a unit of the national park 

system. The legislative and administrative 

constraints for John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument include the following. 

Lands 

PL 93-486, passed on October 26, 1974, 

contained a provision that limited 

acquisition of privately owned lands to a 

total of 1,000 acres. However, PL 95-625, 

which was passed on November 10, 1978, 

amended the 1974 Act by deleting that 

provision. Therefore, currently there is no 

limitation on the amount of privately owned 

lands within the boundary of the monument 

that could be acquired. 

Visitor Center 

PL 93-486 contained a requirement that “the 

principal visitor center shall be designated as 

the ‘Thomas Condon Visitor Center.’ ” The 

visitor center was completed in 2004 and 

was named the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center. 

Access Easement 

According to the final judgment issued by 

Circuit Judge J.A. Campbell in Case No. 

2250, an easement must be reserved for the 

purposes of transporting cattle and 

equipment across monument lands in the 

Painted Hills Unit. The reservation applies 

to the west half of Section 36, T10S, R20E 

(except the SW quarter of the SW portion of 

said Section) and along County Road No. 

538 for a distance of 60 feet on each side of 

the road centerline. 

Hancock Field Station 

The Hancock Field Station is located on a 

10-acre parcel of private land within the 

Clarno Unit. The land and facilities are 

owned by the Oregon Museum of Science 

and Industry (OMSI) and are used for 

research and educational purposes. A formal 

agreement (General Agreement No. 

G9325070006) between the museum and the 

National Park Service was executed on May 

5, 2007 and is effective for five years 

beginning June 1, 2007. The agreement 

authorizes certain OMSI activities on 

monument lands, provides for access to the 

Hancock Field Station across monument 

lands, and addresses the provision of potable 

water to the field station by the National 

Park Service. The agreement also includes a 

Permit of Right-of-Way (RW9325-91-

001A1) that allows the museum to maintain 

existing water lines across monument lands. 

This permit was originally issued on June 12, 

1991, and renewed ten years later. It will 

expire on June 12, 2011. 

Federal Interagency Agreements 

The National Park Service has a 2006 

interagency agreement with the Bureau of 

Land Management and the U.S. Forest 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

12 

Service that provides for NPS staff to 

conduct inventories on lands administered 

by these agencies in the John Day Basin, and 

to store their fossils in the monument’s 

repository. 

AMERICAN INDIAN RELATIONS 

The monument staff enjoys good relations 

with its traditionally associated American 

Indian neighbors: the Burns Paiute Tribe, the 

Umatilla Confederated Tribes, and the 

Warm Springs Confederated Tribes. These 

three American Indian governments have 

legal and cultural interests that may require 

special consideration in monument 

management. 

The Burns Paiute Tribe has an interest in the 

three units of the monument because the 

units are within the aboriginal territory of 

the Northern Paiute people of which the 

tribe is a part (Zucker, Hummel, and 

Hogfoss 1987). 

The Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, et 

cetera, 1855 established the Umatilla Indian 

reservation and delineated certain ceded 

lands. The monument is not located within 

the ceded lands of the present-day 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla; 

however, they do have interests in central 

Oregon as these lands were where ancestors 

of certain constituent groups traveled from 

time to time (Mark 1996; Zucker, Hummel, 

and Hogfoss 1987). 

The Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 

1855 established the Warm Springs 

Reservation and delineated certain ceded 

lands. The three units of the monument are 

located within those ceded lands of the 

present-day Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs (Mark 1996; Zucker, 

Hummel, and Hogfoss 1987). 

The two treaties mentioned above reserved 

the right for American Indians, on ceded 

lands off of each reservation, to continue 

certain subsistence activities, including “the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots and 

berries, and pasturing their stock on 

unclaimed lands, in common with [United 

States] citizens.” The treaties also reserved, 

off the reservation and outside the ceded 

lands, an exclusive right for American 

Indians “to take fish in the streams running 

through and bordering said reservation 

...and at all other usual and accustomed 

stations in common with citizens of the 

United States, and of erecting suitable 

buildings for curing the same.” 

The National Park Service recognizes the 

validity of existing treaty rights. The 

monument staff is committed to consulting 

with tribal governments on issues of concern 

and maintaining positive relations. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

This section identifies what must be done at 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

to comply with federal laws and policies of 

the National Park Service. Many monument 

management directives are specified in laws 

and policies guiding the National Park 

Service and therefore are not subject to 

alternative approaches. For example, there 

are laws and policies about managing 

environmental quality, such as the Clean Air 

Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands”; laws governing the preservation 

of cultural resources and cultural values, 

such as the National Historic Preservation 

Act and the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act; and laws 

about providing public services, such as the 

Americans with Disabilities Act—to name 

only a few. In other words, a general 

management plan is not needed to decide, 

for instance, that it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control nonnative 

species, protect archeological sites, conserve 

artifacts, or provide for universal access—

laws and policies already require the 

National Park Service to fulfill these 

mandates. The National Park Service would 

continue to strive to implement these 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

13 

requirements with or without a new general 

management plan. 

Some laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to units of the 

national park system. These include the 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service; the General Authorities Act of 1970; 

the National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978, relating to the management of the 

national park system; and the National Parks 

Omnibus Management Act (1998). Other 

laws and executive orders, such as those 

addressing environmental quality, have 

much broader application. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC § 1) provides 

the fundamental management direction for 

all units of the national park system: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations...by such 

means and measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and 

the natural and historic objects and the 

wild life therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The National Park System General 

Authorities Act (16 USC § 1a-1 et seq.) 

affirms that while all national park system 

units remain “distinct in character,” they are 

“united through their interrelated purposes 

and resources into one national park system 

as cumulative expressions of a single 

national heritage.” The act makes it clear 

that the NPS Organic Act and other 

protective mandates apply equally to all 

units of the system. Further, amendments 

state that NPS management of park units 

should not “derogat[e]...the purposes and 

values for which these various areas have 

been established.” 

The National Park Service also has 

established policies for all units under its 

stewardship. These are identified and 

explained in a guidance manual entitled NPS 

Management Policies 2006. The alternatives 

considered in this document incorporate 

and comply with the provisions of these 

mandates and policies. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative in this General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Assessment, it is important to 

combine the servicewide laws and policies 

with the management actions described in 

an alternative. 

Table 1 shows some of the most pertinent 

servicewide laws and policy topics related to 

planning and managing John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument. For each topic there 

are a series of desired conditions that the 

NPS staff is striving to achieve for that topic. 

Thus the table is written in the present tense. 

In addition, the table cites the law or policy 

behind these desired conditions, and gives 

examples of the types of actions being 

pursued by NPS staff. The alternatives in this 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment address the desired future 

conditions that are not mandated by law and 

policy and must be determined through a 

planning process. 

WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY 

The Wilderness Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (§6.2.1, NPS 2006) require that 

all lands administered by the National Park 

Service be evaluated for their eligibility for 

inclusion within the national wilderness 

preservation system. 

Portions of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument in the Sheep Rock and Painted 

Hills units meet most of the criteria for 

wilderness designation, but do not meet the 

size criterion: standing on their own, these 

areas are not big enough to provide visitors 

with opportunities for solitude or primitive 

and unconfined recreation. They are smaller 

in size than the areas envisioned to be 

designated as wilderness under the 

Wilderness Act. However, these lands also 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

14 

are adjacent to unroaded Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands that also may be 

suitable for wilderness designation, although 

the Bureau of Land Management has not 

recently evaluated these lands. Recognizing 

the wilderness characteristics of the NPS 

lands, the lands have been included in 

management zones (i.e., primitive and 

backcountry zones) in the alternatives that 

would continue to protect these areas’ 

existing wilderness qualities. No actions are 

being proposed in the alternatives that 

would be inconsistent with or jeopardize 

possible future designation of the areas, in 

combination with the adjacent BLM lands, 

as wilderness. 

 

Table 1: Servicewide Laws and Policies Pertaining to John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Relations with 

Private and 

Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of 

Adjacent Land, 

and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

The NPS Management Policies 2006 (§1.6) stresses the need for cooperative 

conservation beyond park boundaries. This is necessary in order for the National Park 

Service to fulfill its mandate to preserve the natural and cultural resources unimpaired 

for future generations. Local and regional cooperation may involve other federal 

agencies, tribal, state, and local governments, neighboring landowners, and 

nongovernmental and private sector organizations. 

The Bureau of Land Management administers public lands that are adjacent to all 

three units of the monument. Private landowners also have lands adjacent to the 

units. 

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is managed as part of 

a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, such as the Bureau of Land 

Management, surrounding communities, and private and public groups that affect, 

and are affected by, the monument. The monument is managed proactively to resolve 

external issues and concerns and ensure that monument values are not compromised. 

Because the monument is an integral part of a larger regional environment, the 

National Park Service works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve 

potential conflicts, protect national monument resources, and address mutual 

interests in the quality of life for community residents. Regional cooperation involves 

federal, state, and local agencies, American Indian tribes, neighboring landowners, 

and all other concerned parties. 

Strategies: NPS staff would continue to establish and foster partnerships with public 

and private organizations to achieve the purposes and missions of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument. Partnerships would continue to be sought for resource 

protection, research, education, and visitor enjoyment purposes. 

To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent 

land uses, NPS staff would continue to keep landowners, land managers, local 

governments, and the public informed about management activities. Periodic 

consultations would continue with landowners who might be affected by visitors and 

management actions. NPS staff would continue to respond promptly to conflicts that 

arise over NPS activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on 

adjacent lands that could affect John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. NPS staff 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

15 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Relations with 

Private and 

Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of 

Adjacent Land, 

and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

(continued) 

may provide technical and management assistance to landowners to address issues of 

mutual interest. 

NPS staff would continue to work closely with adjacent landowners, local, state, and 

federal agencies, and tribal governments whose programs affect, or are affected by, 

activities in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. NPS managers would continue 

to pursue cooperative regional planning whenever possible to integrate the 

monument into issues of regional concern. 

Governmentto-Government 

Relations with 

American 

Indian Tribes 

The Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, Executive Order 13175, and 

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), a variety of federal statutes (e.g., 

National Historic Preservation Act), and NPS Management Policies 2006 (§1.11.1) call 

for the National Park Service to maintain a government-to-government relationship 

with federally recognized tribal governments. 

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation are affiliated with John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument as are the Burns Paiute Tribe and the Umatilla 

Confederated Tribes. 

Desired Conditions: The National Park Service and tribes culturally affiliated with the 

monument maintain positive, productive, government-to-government relationships. 

Monument managers and staff respect the viewpoints and needs of the tribes, 

continue to promptly address conflicts that occur, and consider American Indian 

values in monument management and operation. 

Strategies: NPS staff would continue to meet and communicate with tribal officials 

to identify problems and issues of mutual concern and interest, and work together to 

take actions to address these concerns. 

Tribal officials would continue to be kept informed of planning and other actions in 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument that could affect the tribes. 

When appropriate, NPS staff would provide technical assistance to the tribes, 

including sharing information and resources, to address problems and issues of 

mutual concern. 

NPS staff would continue to recognize the past and present existence of native 

peoples in the region and the traces of their land use and occupation as an important 

part of the cultural environment to be researched, preserved, and interpreted, if 

appropriate. 

NPS staff would consult with the tribes traditionally associated with the monument, 

including the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Umatilla Confederated Tribes, and the Warm 

Springs Confederated Tribes, to develop and accomplish the programs of John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and 

other cultural values of the tribes with ties to monument lands. 

NPS staff would accommodate access to traditionally used areas, once identified 

through further consultation and research, in ways consistent with monument 

purposes and American Indian values, and that avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sites and resources. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

16 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Governmentto-Government 

Relations 

between 

American 

Indian Tribes 

(continued) 

NPS staff would conduct appropriate ethnographic, ethnohistorical, or cultural 

anthropological research in conjunction with, and in cooperation with, American 

Indian tribes traditionally associated with the monument and cooperate as 

appropriate in light of law and policy with any continuation of subsistence activities. 

Relations with 

Nearby 

Communities 

(e.g., Fossil, 

John Day, 

Dayville, 

Mitchell) 

As noted earlier, the NPS Management Policies 2006 (§1.6) stresses the need for 

cooperative conservation beyond park boundaries. The cooperation includes working 

with nearby communities. 

Desired Conditions: NPS staff maintain close working relationships with nearby 

communities. NPS staff and local officials maintain a high level of trust and goodwill. 

Local officials feel they have an important stake in the monument, and NPS staff feel 

they have an important stake in the local communities. NPS managers are familiar 

with local issues and concerns. 

Strategies: NPS staff would communicate and meet with local officials to identify 

problems and concerns facing the communities and the monument, and actions that 

can be taken to address these problems and concerns. 

Local officials would be kept informed of planning and other actions in the 

monument that could affect the communities. NPS staff would continue to work with 

local law enforcement, emergency services, and community education programs, as 

appropriate. 

When appropriate, the NPS staff would provide technical and management assistance 

to local communities, including sharing information and resources, to address 

problems and issues of mutual interest; such as the spread of nonnative, invasive 

species. NPS staff would continue to be involved in community-based efforts. 

Relations with 

the Hancock 

Field Station 

The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) has operated the Hancock Field 

Station for over 50 years—from a time well before the establishment of the 

monument. It is on 10 acres of land within the Clarno Unit. The field station consists 

of 30 structures, including cabins, restrooms, a dining hall, and laboratories/ 

classrooms. The field station is open to students for nine months of the year. On 

average, 3,000 students annually attend sessions, taking classes on a variety of 

subjects, such as paleontology, geology, botany, archeology, and astronomy. 

Desired Conditions: The National Park Service continues to maintain its partnership 

with the Hancock Field Station, working together to achieve the field station’s 

education mission while also preserving and protecting the monument’s resources 

and values. The field station plays an important role in achieving conservation goals in 

the monument, and provides valuable assistance to monument staff through 

educational programs, resource restoration, and scientific research. Field station staff 

and participants connect with the monument, appreciate and respect its resources, 

and commit themselves to long-term stewardship. 

Strategies: NPS staff would continue to periodically meet with field station staff to 

address opportunities and issues of mutual interest (e.g., trail access in the Clarno 

Unit). 

The National Park Service would continue to provide water to the field station. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

17 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Relations with 

the Hancock 

Field Station 

(continued) 

The field station would make significant efforts to minimize its water use through 

low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads, and xeriscaping. 

The field station would work with NPS staff to restore areas that have been disturbed 

in the past by people. 

The field station and NPS staff would continue to share information regarding 

research and inventory work. Field station participants work with researchers in the 

monument, as appropriate. 

Natural Resources

Paleontological 

Resources 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is world renowned for its fossil resources. 

This remarkably complete record spans more than 40 of the 65 million years of the 

Cenozoic Era (the "Age of Mammals and Flowering Plants"). Research has been 

active in the monument since the 1860s, and continues today. 

The National Park Service Organic Act (16 USC 1-4) and 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations §2.1 generally apply to the protection of all resources in park units. NPS

Management Policies 2006 (§4.8.2) and the NPS “Reference Manual 77: Natural 

Resource Management” provide direction for the protection and management of 

paleontological resources in park units. The National Park Service also has a 2006 

interagency agreement with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service 

to conduct inventories on lands they manage in the John Day Basin and store those 

fossils in the NPS collections. 

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s paleontological 

resources, including both organic and mineralized remains in body or trace form, are 

protected, preserved in situ, when appropriate, or are collected and stored by 

taxonomic group in museums. Opportunities continue to be provided for public 

education, interpretation, and scientific research. Federal and other landowners in the 

John Day Basin also are encouraged to protect and preserve fossils. Protection may 

include construction of shelters over specimens, stabilization in the field, or collection, 

preparation, and placement of specimens in museum collection. The monument is 

systematically monitored for newly exposed fossils. Fossil localities and associated 

geologic data are adequately documented when specimens are collected. Impacts to 

paleontological resources from human activities, including construction of facilities 

and illegal collecting, are minimized. 

General Strategies: A paleontological research plan that directs future research 

efforts has been developed and is updated as needed. 

Paleontological resources in the monument would continue to be inventoried and 

assessed to determine their extent and scientific significance, and to ensure that these 

nonrenewable resources are not lost. Fossils collected would be managed in 

accordance with the monument’s collection management plan. Cyclic prospecting 

would be relied on, whereby areas of high erosion that also have high potential for 

significant specimens, are periodically examined for new sites. The periodicity of cyclic 

prospecting would depend on the abundance of fossils and the rate of erosion. Fossil 

localities and associated geologic data would be documented when specimens are 

collected. Paleontological resource stability indicators, covering such elements as rates 

of erosion and human activity, would be developed and monitored to establish vital 

signs and assess the conditions for fossil resources. Because these elements vary 

widely depending on the nature of the strata, specific stability measures need to be 

developed for each locality and stratigraphic occurrence. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

18 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Paleontological 

Resources 

(continued) 

A variety of methods would be followed to protect resources, such as data recording, 

stabilization in the field, collection, preparation, and placement of specimens in a 

museum collection, or construction of shelters over specimens. 

Paleontological resources would be managed and studied in their geologic context, 

which provides information about the ancient environment. 

NPS staff would be a partner with other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, and 

academic institutions to conduct paleontological research both in the monument and 

in the greater John Day River Basin. Researchers with the academic community would 

continue to be encouraged to conduct paleontological research in the John Day 

Basin. NPS staff would continue to coordinate scientific research and fossil 

identification, preparation, and curation on all federal lands in the John Day River 

Basin. The NPS staff would continue to expand opportunities for researchers to use 

the monument’s fossil collection to further paleontological knowledge. 

All areas with potential paleontological resources in the monument would be 

surveyed prior to construction of new facilities. If destructive and preventable erosion 

occurs or ground disturbing activities, such as construction of new trails, are proposed 

in areas with potential paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist would 

survey the areas for paleontological resources, evaluate their significance, and specify 

whether data recording, stabilization, or specimen collection is necessary. New 

facilities would be avoided on areas that may yield fossils, or if necessary, the resource 

may be collected prior to the initiation of construction. 

All areas that are not zoned for public use would continue to be closed to public use 

and entry. However, some guided public hikes may be permitted in closed areas. 

Management actions would be taken to prevent illegal collecting and may be taken 

to prevent damage from natural processes such as erosion. If important sites or areas 

are discovered they would be patrolled to prevent theft and vandalism. 

Paleontological resources along high use trails would be monitored and actions taken 

to reduce impacts. 

The NPS staff would exchange casts of fossils only with other qualified museums and 

public institutions dedicated to the preservation and interpretation of natural 

heritage. 

Interpretive and educational programs would continue to be developed to educate 

visitors and the public about paleontology. Fossils would be prepared, exhibited, and 

stored according to NPS museum standards. Fossils from the greater John Day River 

Basin would continue to be stored at the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. 

NPS staff would work with the Hancock Field Station staff, teachers and students to 

conduct programs on paleontological resources and ensure that their activities are 

consistent with NPS management policies and standards and the field station’s 

general agreement with the National Park Service. Hancock staff may also assist the 

NPS staff in monitoring the area for potential impacts. Combining a resource 

protection and stewardship message with resource monitoring would help limit 

potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

19 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Ecosystem 

Management 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§1.6, 4.1, 4.1.4, 4.4.1) provides general direction for 

managing park units from an ecosystem perspective. 

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is managed 

holistically, as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. The 

National Park Service demonstrates leadership in resource stewardship and 

conservation of ecosystem values within and outside the monument. John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument is managed from an ecosystem perspective, where internal 

and external factors affecting visitor use, environmental quality, and resource 

stewardship goals are considered at a scale appropriate to their impact on affected 

resources. Natural processes, ecosystem dynamics, and population fluctuations occur 

with as little human intervention as possible. Monument resources and visitors are 

managed considering the ecological and social conditions of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument and the surrounding area. NPS managers adapt to changing 

ecological and social conditions within and outside the monument and continue as 

partners in regional planning and land and water management. The monument is 

managed proactively to resolve external issues and concerns to ensure that John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument’s values are not compromised. 

Strategies: NPS staff would continue to participate in and encourage ongoing 

partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies; educational institutions; and 

other organizations in programs that have importance within and beyond the 

monument’s boundaries. Cooperative agreements, partnerships, and other 

arrangements can be used to set an example in resource conservation and innovation, 

and to facilitate research related to recreation area resources and their management. 

Partnerships important to the long-term viability of natural and cultural resources 

include, but are not limited to, the following:

• inventorying, monitoring, and managing terrestrial resources with the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, Bonneville Power Administration, Warm 

Springs Indian Tribes, and the Hancock Field Station 

• monitoring, enforcing regulations, and managing aquatic resources with the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service 

• monitoring and managing federally threatened and endangered species with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Game, and Oregon Natural 

Heritage Program 

• supporting scientific research and ecological monitoring to guide 

recovery/conservation efforts in collaboration with professionals from federal, 

tribal, and state agencies, academic institutions, museums, and research 

organizations 

• approaching all resource management questions from an ecosystem standpoint, 

taking into account all biological interrelationships 

• continuing long-term monitoring of the change in condition of natural resources 

and related human influences (see “Natural Resources Strategies” below); 

monitoring of high priority vital signs that capture the condition and trend of 

ecosystem health

• identifying management considerations for areas external to the monument 

where ecological processes, natural and cultural resources, and/or human use 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

20 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(continued) 

affect monument resources or are closely related to monument resource 

management; joint management actions, agreements, or partnerships to 

promote resource conservation would be initiated (see natural resources 

strategies) 

As called for in the monument’s wildland fire management plan (NPS 2004b), NPS 

staff would continue to use prescribed fire as appropriate to reduce hazardous fuel 

conditions, supplement the ecological role of fire as a natural processes in firedependent vegetative communities, eliminate or reduce nonnative species, protect or 

restore key plant or animal habitats or communities, promote ethnographic resources 

and maintain cultural and historic scenes in the monument. 

Natural 

Resources – 

General 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s natural resources are a key element in the 

use and management of the monument. Protection, study, and management of 

natural resources and processes are essential for achieving John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument’s purposes and mission. NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4) and 

Reference Manual #77, “Natural Resource Management” provide general direction 

on natural resource management for the monument. 

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument retains its ecological 

integrity, including its natural resources and processes. Natural processes, ecosystem 

dynamics, and population fluctuations occur with as little human intervention as 

possible. The monument continues to be a dynamic, bio-diverse environment. The 

natural features of the monument remain unimpaired. All native plants and animals 

are maintained as part of the monument’s natural ecosystems. (“Native species” are 

defined as all species that have occurred or now occur as a result of natural processes 

on lands designated as units of the national park system.) Native soils and the 

processes of soil genesis are preserved in a condition that maintains historic soil 

associations. Soils are maintained in a condition to sustain plant and animal 

productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, support human health and 

habitation, and protect and preserve cultural resources and landscapes. Soils 

consistent with maintenance of associated historic practices are conserved. Sources of 

air, water, and noise pollution affecting John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s 

resources are limited to the greatest degree possible. Potential threats to the 

monument’s resources are identified early and proactively addressed. Visitors and 

staff recognize and understand the value of the monument’s natural resources. NPS 

staff uses the best available scientific information and technology to manage the 

monument’s natural resources. John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is 

recognized and valued as an outstanding example of resource stewardship, 

conservation, education, and public use. 

General Strategies: Science-based, adaptive, decision making would continue to be 

followed, with the results of resource monitoring and research incorporated into all 

aspects of monument operations. NPS staff would continue to apply ecological 

principles to ensure that natural resources are maintained and not impaired. 

NPS staff and other scientists would continue to inventory monument resources to 

quantify, locate, and document biotic and abiotic resources in the monument and to 

assess their status and trends. Inventories and monitoring of the monument’s plants 

and animals would continue. Collected data would be used as a baseline against 

which to regularly monitor the distribution and condition of selected species, 

including indicators of ecosystem condition and diversity, rare or protected species, 

and invasive exotics. Management plans would be modified to be more effective, 

based on the results of monitoring. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

21 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Natural 

Resources – 

General 

(continued) 

NPS staff would work with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to inventory, 

monitor, enforce regulations, and manage terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and habitat. 

NPS staff would periodically review state fishing regulations that apply to the 

monument and make recommendations to the state to revise them as needed to 

support native fish populations. 

Fish and wildlife habitat would be protected through timing of monument activities 

and through consultations with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Native American tribes. 

NPS staff and other scientists would conduct long-term, systematic monitoring of 

resources and processes to discern natural and anthropogenically induced trends, 

document changes in species or communities, evaluate the effectiveness of 

management actions taken to protect and restore resources, and mitigate impacts on 

resources. 

NPS staff would expand monitoring programs to include geographic areas and 

resources that are not currently monitored. Partnerships with institutions, agencies, 

and scientists would be an important component of this endeavor. 

Future facilities would be built in previously disturbed areas with as small of a 

construction footprint as possible. NPS staff would also apply mitigation techniques to 

minimize the impacts of construction and other activities on monument resources. 

Actions that have the potential to result in significant soil disturbance would include 

appropriate mitigation to control erosion and allow revegetation of disturbed areas. 

Integrated pest management procedures would continue to be used when necessary 

to control nonnative organisms or other pests. 

Scientific research would be encouraged. Cooperative basic and applied research 

would be encouraged through various partnerships and agreements to increase the 

understanding of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s resources, natural 

processes, and human interactions with the environment, or to answer specific 

management questions. 

NPS staff would continue to expand the data management system, including a 

geographic information system (GIS) and a research and literature database for 

analyzing, modeling, predicting, and testing trends in resource conditions. 

NPS managers would prepare and periodically update a “Resource Stewardship 

Strategy” that includes a comprehensive list of prioritized actions to achieve the 

desired resource conditions identified in the general management plan. 

Natural 

Resources – 

Restoration of 

Natural 

Environment 

and 

Management 

of Nonnative 

Species 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.4) calls for the National Park Service to maintain 

natural ecosystems in park units and to restore native plant and animal populations. 

“Reference Manual 77: Natural Resource Management” also provides general 

direction on the restoration of natural resources for the monument. 

Many of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s natural ecosystems have been 

altered by the activities of people and the introduction of nonnative species. 

(Nonnative species — also referred to as exotic, alien, or invasive species — are those 

species that occupy or could occupy monument lands directly or indirectly as the 

result of deliberate or accidental human activities.) More specifically, the condition of 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

22 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Natural 

Resources – 

Restoration of 

Natural 

Environment 

and 

Management 

of Nonnative 

Species 

(continued) 

natural vegetation communities has declined in the monument due to the expansion 

of annual grasses and the spread of nonnative plant species. Fires have also been 

suppressed, which has lead to the expansion of western juniper. In recent years 

efforts have begun to restore John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s brush and 

grass ecosystems with the application of prescribed burns. 

Desired Conditions: With the exception of culturally significant areas, John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument’s bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe environment is 

restored as nearly as possible to the conditions it would be in today had natural 

ecological processes not been altered. Native species populations that have been 

severely reduced in or extirpated from the monument are restored where feasible and 

sustainable. Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural 

condition as possible except where special considerations are warranted. Vegetation 

is in a condition reminiscent of the period before Europeans began altering the 

monument. All federally and state threatened and endangered species are no longer 

in danger of extinction and are at least stable. The natural fire regime has been 

restored. 

The presence of nonnative species in the monument is minimized to the degree 

possible. The NPS staff provides for their control to minimize the economic, 

ecological, and human health impacts that these species cause. 

Strategies: Active restoration efforts would continue throughout the monument, 

primarily focusing on management of nonnative (weed) species, western juniper 

control, revegetation of native plants, prescribed fire, and restoration of native plants 

and animals. The management of populations of nonnative plant and animal species, 

up to and including eradication, would be undertaken wherever such species threaten 

monument resources or public health, and when control is prudent and feasible. 

Western juniper would continue to be controlled in areas where the tree has become 

invasive. 

Inventories and monitoring of invasive nonnative plant species would continue. High 

priority is given to managing exotic species that have or potentially could have a 

substantial impact on monument resources, and that can reasonably be expected to 

be successfully controllable. Efforts would continue to control or eradicate nonnative 

plants that are particularly invasive and destructive pests, or have the potential to 

rapidly spread and dominate plant communities, such as Russian knapweed and 

whitetop. Lower priority would be given to nonnative species that have almost no 

impact on monument resources or that probably cannot be successfully controlled. 

Restoration of previously or newly disturbed areas would be done using native 

genetic materials (when available) from the local region to regain maximum habitat 

value. Should facilities be removed, the disturbed lands would be restored to natural 

topography and soils, and the areas would be revegetated with native species. Only 

plants that are not invasive and would remain within developed areas would be used. 

Historically, fire periodically occurred in the monument. However, in more recent 

times, regional fires have been suppressed, resulting in a build up of fuel. The current 

fire management plan (NPS 2004b) discusses and deals with these issues and would 

continue to be followed. Monument fire management programs would be designed 

to meet resource management objectives prescribed for the various areas of the 

monument and to ensure that the safety of firefighters and the public are not 

compromised. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

23 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Natural 

Resources – 

Restoration of 

Natural 

Environment 

and 

Management 

of Nonnative 

Species 

(continued) 

All wildland fires would be effectively managed, considering resource values to be 

protected and firefighter and public safety, using the full range of strategic and 

tactical operations as described in the approved fire management plan. 

NPS staff would participate in regional ecosystem efforts to restore native species. 

Research would be supported that contributes to management knowledge of native 

species. 

Interpretive and educational programs would continue to be provided on the 

preservation of native species for visitors and for residents neighboring the 

monument. 

Federally Listed 

and State-listed 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service is mandated to promote 

the conservation of all federal threatened and endangered species and their critical 

habitats within park unit boundaries. NPS Management Policies 2006 (§ 4.4.2.3) also 

call for the agency to survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to 

park units that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the National 

Park Service is directed to inventory, monitor, and manage state-listed species in a 

manner similar to the treatment of federally listed species, to the greatest extent 

possible. 

A few threatened and endangered species have been recorded at John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument. Bull trout, mid-Columbia steelhead, and the state-listed 

peregrine falcon are the only listed species known to regularly occur in or use the 

monument. However, there is the possibility that threatened and endangered species, 

occur in the monument but have not yet been documented as being present. 

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument contributes to the 

overall recovery and eventual delisting of all listed species and species proposed for 

listing. Essential habitats that support these species are all protected. Federally listed 

and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected 

and sustained. 

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely 

reduced in or extirpated from the monument are restored where feasible and 

sustainable.

General Strategies: NPS staff, cooperators and contractors would continue to survey 

and monitor for presence of federally and state threatened and endangered species in 

the monument, including bald eagle, bull trout, mid-Columbia steelhead, and the 

state-listed peregrine falcon. NPS staff would cooperate with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in inventorying, monitoring, protecting, and perpetuating the natural 

distribution and abundance of all state and federally listed species and their essential 

habitats. These species and their required habitats would be specifically considered in 

ongoing planning and management activities. If appropriate, surveys for threatened 

and endangered species would be undertaken prior to permitting ground-disturbing 

activities or developments. 

If any state or federally listed, or proposed threatened or endangered species, were 

found in areas that would be affected by construction, visitor use, or restoration 

activities proposed in any of the alternatives in this plan, the NPS staff would first 

consult informally with the above agencies. The NPS staff would then take action to 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

24 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Federally Listed 

and State-listed 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

(continued) 

address any potential adverse impacts on state or federally listed species. Should it be 

determined through informal consultation that an action might adversely affect a 

species that is federally listed or proposed for listing, NPS staff would initiate formal 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Air Quality The Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) gives federal land managers the 

responsibility for protecting air quality and related values, including visibility, plants, 

animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and public health, from adverse air 

pollution impacts. NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.7), and “Reference Manual 77: 

Natural Resource Management” provide further direction on the protection of air 

quality and related values for park units. 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is classified as a Class II area under the 

Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.). This air quality classification is the second most 

stringent and is designed to protect the majority of the country from air quality 

degradation. The Clean Air Act gives federal land managers the responsibility for 

protecting air quality and related values, including visibility, plants, animals, soils, 

water quality, cultural resources, and public health, from adverse air pollution 

impacts. The only known source of air degradation is occasional smoke from fires, 

mostly outside the monument. 

Desired Conditions: Good to excellent air quality is maintained. Air quality in the 

monument meets national ambient air quality standards for specified pollutants. The 

monument’s air quality is maintained or enhanced with no significant deterioration. 

Nearly unimpaired views of the landscape both within and outside the monument are 

present. Scenic views, both day and night, are protected and unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of current and future visitors. 

Strategies: NPS staff would continue to work with appropriate federal and state 

government agencies and nearby communities to maintain and improve the 

monument’s regional air quality. NPS staff would participate in regional air quality 

planning, research, and the implementation of air quality standards. 

Air quality in the monument would be periodically monitored to gain baseline 

information and to measure any significant changes (improvement or deterioration) to 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s airshed. 

To minimize smoke impacts, controlled burns would occur only when favorable 

meteorological conditions are present. The vegetation to be burned would be in a 

condition that would facilitate combustion and minimize the amount of smoke 

emitted during combustion. 

Water Quality Water is a key resource in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, shaping the 

landscape and affecting plants, animals, and visitor use. The Clean Water Act strives 

to restore and maintain the integrity of U.S. waters, which includes waters found in 

the recreation area. NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.6.3) and “Reference Manual 

77: Natural Resource Management” provide direction on the protection and 

management of surface and groundwater in the monument. 

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Bed National Monument’s water quality reflects 

natural conditions and supports native plant and animal communities, and 

administrative and recreational uses. All water in the monument meets applicable 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

25 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Water Quality 

(continued) 

state standards. All human sources of water pollution, both within and outside the 

monument, that are adversely affecting John Day Fossil Beds National Monument are 

eliminated, mitigated, or minimized. 

Strategies: Surface water quality would be monitored on a regular basis in the 

monument, focusing on bacterial and other organic contamination. Chemical 

contaminants, such as pesticides, would be periodically monitored. 

NPS staff would work with adjacent landowners and the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality to identify pollution sources outside the monument’s 

boundaries that are affecting John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, such as ranch 

and farmlands along the John Day River. 

NPS staff would continue to pursue a minor boundary adjustment to protect a spring 

located on BLM land that serves as the primary source of water for the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center. 

A water resource stewardship report would be prepared to identify comprehensive 

strategies to address water issues facing the monument. 

A hazardous substance and spill contingency plan would be prepared to address 

contamination from hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, raw sewage, and 

agricultural chemicals). 

Water Quantity NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.6.1, 4.6.2) calls for the National Park Service to 

perpetuate surface and groundwater as integral components of aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems in park units. “Reference Manual 77: Natural Resource Management” 

provides further direction on the management of water quantity in park units, stating 

the National Park Service would manage and use water to protect resources, 

accommodate visitors, and administer park units within legal mandates. 

John Day River, Rock Creek, and Bridge Creek are important for recreation, fish and 

wildlife habitat, and irrigation of fields in the monument. The National Park Service 

owns water rights on the John Day River and its tributaries, which it uses to provide 

water for monument operations and to irrigate agricultural fields. 

Desired Conditions: All documented springs and streams continue to flow and the 

flows are natural to the extent possible. The monument exhibits water quantity 

characteristics consistent with those that first attracted people to the area. The 

groundwater and quantity of water that underlies and shapes all of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument’s natural and cultural features is maintained and protected. 

Strategies: NPS staff would monitor flows of the John Day River and its tributaries 

within the monument. 

NPS staff would continue to educate the public about the importance of in-stream 

flows and groundwater for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

A water resource stewardship report and watershed condition assessment would be 

prepared to identify comprehensive strategies to address water issues facing the 

monument. 

NPS staff would continue to pursue a minor boundary adjustment to protect a spring 

located on BLM land that serves as the primary source of water for the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

26 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Water Quantity 

(continued) 

To protect water resources within John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, NPS staff 

would work with state and federal agencies, landowners, conservation districts, and 

other entities to monitor water use within and adjacent to the monument. NPS staff 

would continue to monitor water rights applications, attend hearings, and protest 

applications if necessary. 

NPS staff would continue to work with appropriate federal and state agencies, 

including the Bureau of Land Management, to develop a comprehensive, unified 

approach to managing the John Day River. The National Park Service would work 

within the state administrative process to provide protection to surface and 

groundwater resources in the monument. 

NPS staff would encourage neighbors of the monument to emphasize conservation of 

water in their operations (e.g., using low flow conservation technology and more 

efficient ways to irrigate fields). 

NPS staff would strive to conserve water in all monument operations. Examples of 

actions that could be taken include installing low-flow fixtures such as toilets and 

showers, or installing self-contained, evaporative toilets. 

Floodplains Floodplains exist along the John Day River, and Bridge and Rock creeks. Floods can 

occur due to thunderstorms, posing a risk to structures, visitors, and employees. 

Floodplains are protected and managed in accordance with Executive Order 11988 

(“Floodplain Management”), NPS Director’s Order 77-2 and its accompanying 

procedural manual, and NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.6.4). 

Desired Conditions: Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Long- and 

short-term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains are 

avoided. Hazardous conditions associated with flooding that could affect visitor safety 

are minimized. 

Strategies: Whenever possible, new structures would be located on sites outside 

floodplains. If it is not possible to avoid locating a new structure on a floodplain or to 

avoid a management action that would affect a floodplain, the National Park Service 

would 

• prepare and approve a statement of findings in accordance with Director’s Order 

77-2 

• use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human 

life and property while minimizing impacts on the natural resources of the 

floodplains 

• ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent 

of the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60) 

Mitigation measures would be required as part of construction to avoid any potential 

indirect effects on floodplains. Before initiating any ground-disturbing projects, 

further investigation would be conducted to determine if floodplain resources would 

be affected. Floodplains would be addressed at the project level to ensure that 

projects are consistent with NPS policy and Executive Order 11988. 

Visitor interpretive and education efforts would emphasize the hazards that exist 

when flash flooding occurs in the recreation area, and appropriate responses. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

27 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Wetlands John Day Fossil Beds National Monument does not have extensive wetlands. Although 

there is not a detailed wetlands inventory for the monument, small wetlands are 

located in the vicinity of seeps and springs, and along the John Day River and its 

tributaries. Wetlands are protected and managed in accordance with Executive Order 

11990,“Protection of Wetlands”; NPS Director’s Order 77-1, and its accompanying 

procedural manual; and NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.6.5). 

Desired Conditions: The natural values of wetlands are maintained and protected. 

When practicable, natural wetland values are enhanced by using them for 

educational, recreational, scientific, and similar purposes that do not disrupt natural 

wetland functions. 

Strategies: A monument-wide wetland inventory, condition assessment, and 

functional evaluation would be done to help ensure proper management and 

protection of wetland resources. More detailed wetland mapping would be 

performed in areas that are proposed for development or are otherwise susceptible to 

degradation or loss due to human activities. 

NPS staff would be trained in wetlands identification to ensure that operational 

activities do not inadvertently drain or alter wetlands, including ephemeral (seasonal) 

wetlands. 

The construction of new developments in wetlands would be avoided. If it is not 

possible to avoid locating a new development in a wetland or to avoid a management 

action that would adversely affect a wetland, the National Park Service would comply 

with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and Director’s 

Order 77-1. All practicable measures (including the best management practices 

described in appendix 2 of the NPS Procedural Manual #77-1, “Wetland Protection”) 

would be included in the preferred alternative to minimize harm to wetlands. The loss 

of any wetlands would be compensated. 

A statement of findings for wetlands would be prepared (according to the guidelines 

defined in the NPS Procedural Manual #77-1) if the action would result in an adverse 

impact on a wetland. The statement of findings would include an analysis of the 

alternatives, delineation of the wetland, a wetland restoration plan to identify 

mitigation, and a wetland functional analysis of the impact site and restoration site. 

Lightscape 

Management 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.10), recognizes that the night sky contributes to 

the visitor experience. The policy further states that the NPS staff would seek to 

minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night scene. In natural areas, artificial 

outdoor lighting would be limited to meet basic safety requirements and would be 

shielded when possible. 

Desired Conditions: Opportunities to view the night sky at John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument are available. Artificial light sources within the monument do not 

unacceptably affect night sky viewing opportunities or wildlife populations. 

Strategies: To the extent possible, the NPS staff would work within a regional 

context to protect the night sky quality. 

NPS staff would seek to minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night scene. 

In natural areas, artificial outdoor lighting would be limited to meet basic safety 

requirements and would be shielded when possible. If it is determined that light 

sources within the monument affect views of the night sky, alternatives would be 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

28 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Lightscape 

Management 

(continued) 

studied to address the impact, such as shielding lights, changing lamp types, or 

eliminating unnecessary sources. 

NPS managers would participate in planning meetings at the state and county level to 

protect the night sky from light from new developments adjacent to the monument. 

Soundscape 

Management 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.9) and NPS Director’s Order 47: Sound 

Preservation and Noise Management, require NPS managers to strive to preserve the 

natural soundscape (natural quiet) associated with the physical and biological 

resources (i.e., the sounds of the wind in the trees). The concept of natural quiet was 

further defined in the Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park 

System (NPS 1995): 

What is natural quiet? Parks and wildernesses offer a variety of unique, pristine 

sounds not found in most urban or suburban environments. They also offer a 

complete absence of sounds that are found in such environments. Together, these 

two conditions provide a very special dimension to a park experience—quiet, itself. 

In the absence of any discernible source of sound (especially man-made), quiet is 

an important element of the feeling of solitude. Quiet also affords visitors an 

opportunity to hear faint or very distant sounds, such as animal activity and 

waterfalls. Such an experience provides an important perspective on the vastness 

of the environment in which the visitor is located, often beyond the visual 

boundaries determined by trees, terrain, and the like. In considering natural quiet 

as a resource, the ability to clearly hear the delicate and quieter intermittent 

sounds of nature, the ability to experience interludes of extreme quiet for their 

own sake, and the opportunity to do so for extended periods of time, is what 

natural quiet is all about. 

The primary sources of noise in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument are motor 

vehicles driving through the monument and the sounds of people in developed areas, 

such as the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center and the Hancock Field Station. 

Desired Conditions: Visitors have opportunities in John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument to experience natural sounds in an unimpaired condition. The sounds of 

civilization are generally confined to developed areas and specific hours of the day. 

Disruptions from visitors are minimized, ensuring a high-quality visitor experience. 

Strategies: NPS managers would minimize noise generated by management activities 

by strictly regulating NPS administrative use of noise-producing machinery such as 

motorized equipment. Noise would be a consideration when procuring and using NPS 

equipment. 

NPS staff would work with the Department of Defense and Whidbey Island Naval Air 

Station to develop a process to address the occasional impacts on natural 

soundscapes that arise from military flights over the monument. 

Scenic 

Viewshed 

Protection 

The NPS Organic Act and NPS Management Policies 2006 (§1.4, 1.6, 3.1) call for the 

National Park Service to conserve and protect scenic vistas. Scenic vistas are an 

important element of the visitor experience at John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. These views are both within and outside the monument. Actions by 

others outside the monument can affect visitor experiences. 

Desired Conditions: The scenic views at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

continue to stir imaginations, inspire, and provide opportunities for visitors to 

understand, appreciate, and forge personal connections to the monument. 

Intrinsically important scenic vistas and scenic features are not significantly diminished 

by man-made developments. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

29 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Scenic 

Viewshed 

Protection 

(continued) 

Strategies: NPS staff would continue to work with Grant and Wheeler Counties to 

incorporate viewshed issues into county land use plans, and to express concerns at 

land use hearings regarding potential developments that might affect those 

viewsheds. 

NPS staff would work with adjacent and nearby landowners to minimize any visual 

impacts from nearby developments and to ensure that developments do not encroach 

on the monument. 

Cultural Resources

Archeological 

Resources 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§5.3.5.1) calls for the National Park Service to 

manage archeological resources in situ unless physical disturbance is justified and 

mitigated by data recovery or other means in concurrence with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. See also 36 CFR Part 79 and the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Documentation. 

Over a hundred known archeological sites are contained within the three units of 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. Additional undiscovered sites may be 

present in the monument. 

Desired Conditions: Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition 

unless it is determined through formal processes that disturbance or natural 

deterioration is unavoidable. 

Strategies: Archeological surveys would continue as needed in the monument to 

identify, inventory, and document archeological sites and determine their significance 

regarding eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. 

When disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site through data recovery is 

professionally excavated and documented, and the resulting artifacts, materials, and 

records are curated and conserved in consultation with the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Officer and appropriate American Indian tribes. Some archeological sites 

that can be adequately protected may be interpreted to visitors. 

Historic 

Structures 

The National Historic Preservation Act calls for analyzing the effects of possible 

federal actions on historic structures on or eligible for the national register and for 

inventorying and evaluating their significance and condition. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (§5.3.5.4) calls for the treatment of historic structures, including 

prehistoric ones, to be based on sound preservation practice to enable the long-term 

preservation of a structure’s historic features, materials, and qualities. See also the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

In John Day Fossil Beds National Monument there are historic structures in the James 

Cant Ranch Historic District. The district, with its main house and surrounding 

outbuildings, is one of the most intact, locally significant examples of a historic sheep 

and then cattle ranch in Wheeler and Grant counties, Oregon. 

Desired Conditions: Structures individually eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places or identified as contributing to the Cant Ranch Historic District are 

managed to ensure their long-term preservation and protection of character-defining 

features. Protection and preservation of historic structures are emphasized as a critical 

component of the monument’s ongoing maintenance and resource protection 

programs. 

Strategies: Monitoring of historic structures would continue to ensure the 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

30 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Historic 

Structures 

(continued) 

preservation of qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility for listing of historic 

structures in the national register. 

Protection is and would be in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, unless it is 

determined through a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. Then mitigation through documentation would be called for via 

consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer. Appropriate 

preservation treatments for historic structures would be carried out in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Historic structures requiring rehabilitation, or in rare cases restoration, would receive 

further investigation and documentation via a historic structure report to inform 

about the condition and recommend treatment of the historic fabric and 

architecturally significant features. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§5.3.5.3) calls for gathering ethnographic 

information through anthropological and collaborative community research that 

recognizes the sensitive nature of such cultural data and documents and the 

meanings that traditionally associated groups assign to traditional natural and cultural 

resources and the landscapes they form. In accordance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the purpose is to preserve, conserve, and encourage the 

continuation of the diverse traditional prehistoric, historic, ethnic, and folk cultural 

traditions that underlie and are a living expression of American heritage as 

manifested in the traditional use of ethnographic resources in park units. Executive 

Order 13007 also calls for NPS managers to accommodate the access to and the 

ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by practitioners and to preserve the 

sites’ physical integrity. 

The only known ethnographic resources in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

are pictographs, although others may exist. No known sacred sites exist in the 

monument. 

Desired Conditions: All ethnographic resources that are listed in or determined 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are protected as 

traditional cultural properties. American Indians associated with the monument may 

continue to access certain sites of cultural importance. Any traditional use is 

consistent with the monument’s purposes and the protection of resources. 

If sacred sites are found at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, the National 

Park Service accommodates access to and ceremonial use of American Indian sacred 

sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoids adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of these sacred sites. 

If there are American Indian uses of a unit of the national park system, NPS general 

regulations on access to and use of natural and cultural resources in the unit are 

applied in an informed and balanced manner. This application of regulations is 

consistent with monument purposes, does not unreasonably interfere with possible 

American Indian use of any traditional areas, and do not result in the degradation of 

monument resources. 

Strategies: The national monument would continue to adhere to all American Indian 

treaty obligations. Appropriate cultural anthropological research would be conducted 

in cooperation with groups associated with the monument to identify potential 

ethnographic resources, determine their significance as traditional cultural properties, 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

31 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

(continued) 

and suggest preservation treatments and management options. 

NPS managers would consult with tribal governments before taking actions that 

affect federally recognized tribal governments. These consultations are to be open 

and candid so that all interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential 

impacts of relevant proposals. 

If disturbance of ethnographic resources is unavoidable, formal consultation with the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer and with the appropriate American Indian 

tribes would be conducted. 

This consultation would be in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, 

as amended, the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Places, 

and other laws, policies, regulations or agreements, and would be conducted openly 

and candidly for the potential impact of relevant proposals. American Indian tribes 

would be included in these consultations as would other American Indian individuals 

and groups linked by ties of kinship or culture to ethnically identifiable human 

remains, sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and associated funerary 

objects when such items may be disturbed or encountered on monument lands. 

Protection and preservation of ethnographic resources would be emphasized as a 

critical component of the monument’s ongoing maintenance and resource protection 

programs. 

The identities of community consultants and information about sacred and other 

culturally sensitive places and practices would be kept confidential when research 

agreements or other circumstances warrant. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§5.3.5.2) calls for the preservation of the physical 

attributes, biotic systems, and uses of cultural landscapes that contribute to historical 

significance. In the monument the James Cant Ranch Historic District constitutes a 

historic cultural landscape and is managed as such. Additional cultural landscapes 

may exist in the monument but have not been identified and evaluated. 

Desired Conditions: Landscape characteristics and features contributing to the Cant 

Ranch Historic District are appropriately protected and preserved, including 

rehabilitation and restoration when necessary. Cultural landscape inventories are 

completed for the Cant Ranch and other cultural landscapes if determined potentially 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Cultural landscapes in the monument are protected and maintained consistent with 

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guideline’s for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Protection and preservation of 

cultural landscapes is emphasized as a critical component of the monument’s 

ongoing maintenance and resource protection programs. 

Strategies: Treatment recommendations identified in the “Cultural Landscape 

Report: Cant Ranch Historic District” (Taylor and Gilbert 1996) would be carried out 

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, to 

ensure long-term preservation objectives. 

Potential cultural landscapes would continue to be identified and their national 

register eligibility evaluated to assist in future management decisions and to ensure 

their protection and preservation. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

32 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

(continued) 

 Management of cultural landscapes would focus on protecting and preserving a 

given landscape’s physical attributes, biotic systems, and use when that use 

contributes to its historical significance. The preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, 

or reconstruction of cultural landscapes would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guideline’s for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

 

Museum 

Collections 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§5.3.5.5) states that the NPS “...will collect, protect, 

preserve, provide access to, and use objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript 

collections...in the disciplines of archeology, ethnography, history, biology, geology, 

and paleontology to aid understanding among park visitors, and to advance 

knowledge in the humanities and sciences.” 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s paleontological specimens are stored in 

the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. The center features secure and 

comfortable work and storage space that meets museum standards on all counts. 

Natural and cultural history collections are stored in the Cant Ranch House. Adequate 

space exists on the third floor of the Cant Ranch House to properly house historic and 

ethnographic artifacts and related items. 

Desired Conditions: All museum collections and archives and their component 

artifacts, objects, specimens, documents, photographs, maps, plans, and 

manuscripts, are properly inventoried, accessioned, catalogued, curated, 

documented, protected, and preserved. Appropriate provision is made for the access 

of the collections by NPS staff and other researchers and for their use in scientific and 

historical research, exhibits, and interpretation. The qualities that contribute to the 

significance of collections are protected and preserved in accordance with established 

NPS museum curation and storage standards. 

Strategies: NPS managers would continue to ensure adequate conditions for the 

climate control of collections and means for fire detection and suppression, 

integrated pest management, and research and interpretation access are maintained. 

Visitor Use and Experience

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

The NPS Organic Act, NPS General Authorities Act, and NPS Management Policies 

2006 (§1.4, 8.1) all address the importance of park units being available to all 

Americans to enjoy and experience. Current laws, regulations, and policies leave 

considerable room for judgment about the best mix of types and levels of visitor use 

activities, programs, and facilities. For this reason, most decisions related to visitor 

experience and use are addressed in the alternatives. However, all visitor use of the 

national park system must be consistent with the following guidelines. 

Desired Conditions: Monument resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the 

enjoyment of future generations. Visitors have opportunities for forms of enjoyment 

that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural 

resources found in the monument; opportunities continue to be provided for visitors 

to understand, appreciate, and enjoy John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. For 

all of the monument’s units and management zones, the types and levels of visitor 

use are consistent with the desired resource and visitor experience conditions 

prescribed for those areas. No activities occur that would cause derogation of the 

values and purposes for which the monument was established. 

Visitors have opportunities to understand and appreciate the significance of the 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

33 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

(continued) 

monument and its resources, and to develop a personal stewardship ethic. 

To the extent feasible, all programs, services, and facilities in the monument are 

accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

High quality public opportunities continue to be available for appropriate uses, 

including such activities as hiking, picnicking, photography, sightseeing, and fishing. 

Strategies: All of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s programs and facilities 

would be evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that they are accessible to the extent 

feasible. 

Visitor surveys would be periodically conducted to determine visitor satisfaction with 

the monument facilities, NPS management, and the experiences they are having. 

NPS staff would periodically meet with managers from other areas in the region, such 

as the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and tribal land managers, to 

improve visitor trip planning, information and orientation; and enrich interpretation 

and education opportunities for monument visitors. 

NPS staff would continue to enforce the regulations governing visitor use and 

behavior in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) and in the 

monument’s “Superintendent’s Compendium.” 

• Pets must be crated, caged, restrained on a leash 6 feet long or less, or otherwise 

physically confined at all times. (36 CFR 2.15) 

• Bicycles are prohibited in the monument except on established public roads and 

parking areas. (36 CFR 4.30) 

• The use of off-road vehicles is prohibited except on public roads and parking 

areas. (36 CFR 4.10) 

NPS staff would continue to monitor visitor comments on issues such as crowding, 

availability of parking, user conflicts, and facility conditions, and would monitor for 

resource impacts caused by visitors. Should any of the trends increase to levels 

unacceptable to managers, the NPS staff would consider what actions to take. 

(Additional information on user capacity can be found in the alternatives chapter.) 

Public Health 

and Safety 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§8.2.5) states that the saving of human life would 

take precedence over all other management actions as the National Park Service 

strives to protect human life and provide for injury-free visits. Other federal statutes 

and regulations that apply to the protection of public health and safety include 

Director’s Order 50 and RM-50 “Safety and Health”; Director’s Order 58 and RM-58 

“Structural Fire Management”; Director’s Order 83 and RM-83 “Public Health”; 

Director’s Order 51 and RM-51 “Emergency Medical Services”; Director’s Order 30 

and RM-30 “Hazard and Solid Waste Management; and OSHA 29CFR. 

Desired Conditions: While recognizing that there are limitations on its capability to 

totally eliminate all hazards, the National Park Service and its partners, contractors, 

and cooperators work to cooperatively to provide a safe and healthful environment 

for visitors and employees. The NPS staff strive to identify recognizable threats to 

safety and health and protect property by applying nationally accepted standards. 

Consistent with mandates and nonimpairment, the NPS staff reduces or removes 

known hazards or applies appropriate mitigating measures, such as closures, 

guarding, gating, education, and other actions. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

34 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Public Health 

and Safety 

(continued) 

Strategies: A documented safety program would be maintained in the monument to 

address health and safety concerns and identify appropriate levels of action and 

activities. 

Maintenance efforts would continue to ensure that all potable water systems and 

waste water systems in the monument would continue to meet state and federal 

requirements. 

Interpretive signs and materials would be provided as appropriate to notify visitors of 

potential safety concerns, hazards and procedures to help provide for a safe visit to 

the monument and to ensure visitors are aware of possible risks of certain activities. 

NPS staff would continue to work with local emergency and public health officials to 

make reasonable efforts to search for lost persons and rescue sick, injured or 

stranded persons. 

Other Topics

Sustainable 

Design/ 

Development 

Sustainability can be described as doing things in ways that do not compromise the 

environment or its capacity to provide for present and future generations. Sustainable 

practices consider local and global consequences to minimize the short- and longterm environmental impacts of human actions and developments through resource 

conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and 

ecologically responsible materials and techniques. 

Over the past several years, the federal government has been emphasizing the 

adoption of sustainable practices. In particular, Executive Order 12873 mandates 

federal agency recycling and waste prevention; and Executive Order 12902 mandates 

energy efficiency and water conservation at federal facilities. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (§1.8, 1.9.5.2, 8.2, 9.1.1, 9.2) also call for sustainable operations, 

facilities, and uses in park units.

Desired Conditions: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is a leader in 

sustainable practices. Administrative and visitor facilities are harmonious with 

monument resources, compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, 

functional, as accessible as possible to all segments of the population, energyefficient, and cost-effective. All decisions regarding operations, facilities 

management, and development in the monument—from the initial concept through 

design and construction—reflect principles of resource preservation. Thus, all 

monument developments and operations are sustainable to the maximum degree 

possible and practical. New developments and existing facilities are located, built, and 

modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or 

other similar guidelines. John Day Fossil Beds National Monument has state-of-the-art 

water systems for conserving water, and uses energy conservation technologies and 

renewable energy sources whenever possible. Biodegradable, nontoxic, and durable 

materials are used in the monument whenever possible. The reduction, use, and 

recycling of materials is promoted, while materials that are nondurable, 

environmentally detrimental, or that require transportation from great distances are 

avoided as much as possible. 

Strategies: NPS staff would work with experts both inside and outside the National 

Park Service to make John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s facilities and 

programs sustainable. Partnerships would be sought to implement sustainable 

practices in the monument. NPS staff also would work with stakeholders and 

business partners to augment NPS environmental leadership and sustainability efforts. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

35 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Sustainable 

Design/ 

Development 

(continued) 

NPS staff would be educated to have a comprehensive understanding of their 

relationship to environmental leadership and sustainability. 

NPS staff would support and encourage the service of suppliers and contractors that 

follow sustainable practices. 

Energy usage would be monitored, and energy efficient practices and renewable 

energy sources would be promoted wherever possible. 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s interpretive programs would mention 

sustainable and nonsustainable practices. Visitors would be educated on the 

principles of environmental leadership and sustainability through exhibits, media, and 

printed material. 

Monument managers would perform value analysis and value engineering, including 

life cycle analysis, to examine the energy, environmental, and economic implications 

of proposed developments. 

NPS managers would measure and track environmental compliance and 

performance. Audits would ensure environmental compliance, emphasize best 

management practices, and educate employees at all levels about environmental 

management responsibilities. 

Transportation 

to and within 

the Monument 

The location, type, and design of multimodal transportation facilities (e.g., roads, 

bridges, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, pedestrian trails, transit centers and 

shelters) strongly influence the quality of the visitor experience and the preservation 

of park unit resources. These systems also affect, to a great degree, how and where 

park unit resources would be affected by visitors. NPS Management Policies 2006

(§9.2) calls for NPS managers to identify solutions to transportation issues that 

preserve natural and cultural resources while providing a high-quality visitor 

experience. Management decisions regarding transportation require a comprehensive 

alternatives analysis and thorough understanding of their consequences. Traditional 

practices of building wider roads and larger parking areas to accommodate more 

motor vehicles are not accepted practice today. 

Visitors access the three units of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument primarily in 

private motor vehicles via county and state highways. How people travel to the 

monument’s three units and how they travel within the monument plays a major role 

in the protection of monument resources, in visitor levels and the visitor experience, 

and the need for modified or new infrastructure. In this regard, it is critical for the 

National Park Service to participate as a partner in local, regional, and statewide 

planning efforts that would affect transportation to and within the monument. 

Desired Conditions: Multimodal transportation facilities in the monument provide 

access for the protection, use, and enjoyment of monument resources. They preserve 

the integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological processes, protect monument 

resources, and provide the highest visual quality and a rewarding visitor experience. 

Strategies: NPS staff would participate in transportation studies and planning 

processes that may result in links to the monument’s units or impacts to monument 

resources. NPS managers would work closely with other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. 

Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration), tribal, state and 

local governments (e.g., Oregon Department of Transportation), regional planning 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

36 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Transportation 

to and within 

the Monument 

(continued) 

bodies, citizen groups, and others to enhance partnering and funding opportunities, 

and to encourage effective regional transportation planning. Working with these 

agencies and other stakeholders on transportation issues, NPS managers would seek 

reasonable access to John Day Fossil Bed National Monument units, and intermodal 

connections to regional multimodal transportation systems. 

In general, the preferred modes of transportation would be those that contribute to 

maximum visitor enjoyment of, and minimum adverse impacts to, monument 

resources and values. Before a decision is made to design, construct, expand, or 

upgrade transportation access to or within the monument, nonconstruction 

alternatives—such as distributing visitors to alternative locations—would be fully 

explored. If nonconstruction alternatives would not achieve satisfactory results, then a 

development solution should consider whether the project 

• is appropriate and necessary to meet management needs 

• is designed with extreme care and sensitivity to the landscape through which it 

passes 

• would not cause adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources, and would 

minimize or mitigate those impacts that cannot be avoided; 

• reduces traffic congestion, noise, air pollution, and adverse effects on monument 

resources and values 

• would not violate federal, state, or local air pollution control plans or regulations 

• would not cause use in the areas to exceed the areas’ user capacity 

• incorporates the principles of energy conservation and sustainability 

• is able to demonstrate financial and operational sustainability 

• incorporates universal design principles to provide for accessibility for all people, 

including those with disabilities 

• takes maximum advantage of interpretive opportunities and scenic values 

• is based on a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach that is fully 

consistent with the monument’s General Management Plan and Asset 

Management Plan

• enhances the visitor experience by offering new or improved interpretive or 

visitor opportunities, by simplifying travel within the monument, or by making it 

easier or safer to see monument features 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs all federal agencies to assist in the 

national goal of achieving a seamless telecommunications system throughout the 

United States by accommodating requests by telecommunication companies for the 

use of property, rights-of-way, and easements to the extent allowable under each 

agency’s mission. The National Park Service is legally obligated to permit 

telecommunication infrastructure in park units if such facilities can be structured to 

avoid interference with park unit purposes. 

Rights-of-way for utilities to pass over, under, or through NPS property may be issued 

only pursuant to specific statutory authority, and generally only if there is no 

practicable alternative to such use of NPS lands. Statutory authorities in 16 USC 5 and 

in NPS Management Policies 2006 (§8.6.4) provide guidance on these rights-of-way. 

Columbia Power Cooperative has powerline rights-of-way in John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument’s three units. The phone company has a right-of-way for a 

phone line to the Hancock Field Station. There are commercial telecommunication 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

37 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be Achieved 

at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities 

(continued) 

facilities in the monument.

Desired Conditions: Monument resources or public enjoyment of the monument 

are not denigrated by nonconforming uses. Telecommunication structures are 

permitted in the monument to the extent they do not jeopardize the monument’s 

mission and resources. No new nonconforming use or rights-of-way are permitted 

through the monument without specific statutory authority and approval by the 

director of the National Park Service or his/her representative, and are permitted only 

if there is no practicable alternative to such use of NPS lands. 

Strategies: NPS staff would work with service companies, local communities, and 

the public to locate new utility lines and maintain existing lines so that there is 

minimal effect on monument resources. 

If necessary, and there are no other options, new or reconstructed utilities and 

communications infrastructure would be placed in association with existing structures 

and along roadways or other established corridors in developed areas. For 

reconstruction or extension into undisturbed areas, routes would be selected that 

minimize impacts on the monument’s natural, cultural, and visual resources. Utility 

lines would be placed underground to the maximum extent possible, away from 

sensitive fossil resources. 

NPS policies would be followed in processing applications for commercial 

telecommunications facilities. 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER 

PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is 

located in Grant and Wheeler counties in east 

central Oregon. Properties surrounding the 

monument include land owned and managed 

by private entities, the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the state. Land use in the 

area is mainly agricultural with some rural 

residential use. 

The Confederate Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation is over 30 miles from the 

monument; however, other tribal-owned 

lands (the Pine Creek Conservation Area) are 

located adjacent to the Clarno Unit of the 

monument, across State Highway 218. 

Several plans have influenced or would be 

influenced by the approved General 

Management Plan for John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument. These plans have been 

prepared (or are being prepared) by the 

National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the State of Oregon, and Grant 

and Wheeler Counties. Some of these plans 

are described briefly here, along with their 

relationship to this management plan. 

National Park Service Plans 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (2005). 

This plan outlines the necessary best 

management practices and action thresholds 

to address both common and potential 

impacts by the full spectrum of known pests 

on the important cultural, natural, and scenic 

resources of the monument for the next 10 

years. The plan acknowledges that individual 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices 

would be developed as specific tasks or 

problems are identified related to invertebrate 

accidental pests, museum pests, orchard pests, 

vertebrate pests, and exotic weeds and native 

plant pests. The plan was consulted during the 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

38 

development of the general management plan. 

This General Management Plan addresses 

invasive plant management as an issue; 

however, the IPM plan would continue to 

provide detailed guidance on how the 

monument would conduct IPM activities. 

Socioeconomic Atlas for John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument and its Region

(2005). The atlas provides socioeconomic 

data and identifies trends for the John Day 

region. The report is a useful reference tool 

that can be used by decision makers to better 

manage and conserve monument resources. 

This atlas was consulted during the 

development of the general management plan. 

Wildland Fire Management Plan (2004).

This plan is an operation guide for managing 

the monument’s wildland fire and prescribed 

fire program. It defines levels of protection 

needed to ensure personnel and public safety, 

protect facilities and resources, and restore 

and perpetuate natural processes. It is a 

detailed program of action to carry out fire 

management policies and objectives. 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Visitor Study (2004). This study describes the 

activities, expenditures, and attitudes of 

people who visited the monument during the 

late summer of 2004. The study provides some 

important data and insights into visitor 

preferences that were used in the 

development of alternatives for the general 

management plan. 

Superintendent’s Compendium (2003). 

The Superintendent’s Compendium is a list of 

designations, closures, permit requirements, 

and use restrictions promulgated under the 

discretionary authority of the superintendent. 

The compendium covers visitor hours; public 

use limits; closures and area designations for 

specific uses or activities; a list of activities that 

require a NPS permit; regulations regarding 

preservation of natural, cultural and 

archaeological resources; and general 

regulations regarding wildlife protection, 

hunting and fishing, camping, rock climbing, 

boating, and pets among other topics. The 

compendium would be modified as necessary 

to reflect any changes resulting from implementation of this general management plan. 

Strategic Plan: 2002–2007 (2002). The 

strategic plan describes the purpose, 

significance, and interpretive themes of the 

monument and outlines the primary mission 

goals. The plan also includes a list of 

prioritized tasks that are intended to meet the 

mission goals. The desired conditions, goals, 

and tasks included in the strategic plan would 

need to be updated to reflect the management 

directions presented in the approved general 

management plan. 

Resources Management Plan (1999). This 

plan documented natural and cultural 

resource management efforts and deficiencies, 

and outlined objectives for future resource 

management and tasks for accomplishing 

those objectives. The long-range plan laid out 

a course of work and funding needs for 10 or 

more years. Although these documents are no 

longer being prepared by the National Park 

Service, the existing resources management 

plan was used in preparing this plan. A 

Resources Stewardship Strategy would be 

prepared, which incorporates the 

management directions presented in this 

document. 

Cultural Landscape Report: Cant Ranch 

Historic District (1996). This report 

identified and evaluated existing landscape 

features that have historical significance, 

reviewed and assessed potential treatments 

for agricultural lands associated with the 

ranch, and developed guidelines and 

recommendations that address treatment of 

all cultural landscape resources. This report 

was consulted during the development of the 

general management plan. 

Paleontological Research Plan (1988). 

This plan describes the paleontological and 

geological efforts completed to date and the 

ongoing resources management program; 

identifies the known questions or information 

gaps needed to manage the resource; and 

suggests general subjects for future research 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

39 

efforts. It is also intended to help evaluate 

both solicited and unsolicited research 

proposals and communicate opportunities for 

study to the research community. This plan 

was consulted during the development of the 

general management plan. 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Statement for Management (1983). The 

Statement for Management discussed 

different influences that affect management of 

the monument, including legislative and 

administrative requirements, resource 

conditions, land uses and trends, visitor uses 

and trends, and facilities. Major issues facing 

the monument were identified, including land 

protection, public awareness, interpretation 

and education, research, and staffing. General 

management objectives were identified to 

resolve these issues. Although these 

documents are no longer being prepared by 

the National Park Service, the existing 

statement for management was used in 

preparing this plan. 

General Management Plan for John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument (1979). This 

plan was prepared after the monument was 

established in 1975, and remained as the 

monument’s guiding document for 28 years. It 

zoned the monument, provided management 

direction for resource management and visitor 

use, included acquisition proposals, and 

provided monument-wide development 

concepts. The new management plan builds 

on this existing plan by updating management 

direction and identifying new actions for the 

next 15 to 20 years. 

Cyclic Prospecting Plan (undated). The 

Cyclic Prospecting Plan was developed in the 

late 1980s. It is a fluid document intended to 

anticipate variability in observed patterns of 

weathering. The purpose of the plan is to 

establish an orderly schedule for canvassing a 

wide variety of fossiliferous exposures to 

retrieve any scientifically significant 

specimens that, once exposed, are subject to 

damage. 

BLM (Prineville District) Plans 

John Day River Management Plan; Two 

Rivers, John Day, and Baker Resource 

Management Plan Amendments and Final 

EIS (2000). This document includes a 

management plan for BLM lands found within 

the designated wild and scenic segments of 

the John Day River. The document also 

amends three resource management plans that 

were developed in the 1980s. The treatment of 

paleontological and cultural and historic 

resources on lands within the John Day Basin 

was not changed as a result of this plan. The 

final plan includes land use decisions and 

resource allocations that are intended to 

protect and improve river values. This plan 

was considered during the development of the 

general management plan. 

“John Day Basin Resource Management 

Plan” (undated). In 2006 the Bureau of Land 

Management (Prineville District) began 

updating guidance for BLM lands in the John 

Day Basin. The plan would address resource 

management, public access, land tenure 

adjustments, special management areas, visual 

resources management, and other issues. The 

BLM’s planning process for the basin is 

expected to be completed in the fall of 2008. 

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department 

Plans

Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2003–2007

(2002). The SCORP is Oregon's basic fiveyear plan for outdoor recreation. It establishes 

the framework for statewide comprehensive 

outdoor recreation planning and the 

implementation process. The plan includes 

analysis on recreation needs and trends; 

defines recreation roles and key statewide 

outdoor recreation issues; and develops 

statewide outdoor recreation goals, objectives 

and strategies. This plan was considered 

during the development of the general 

management plan. 

Oregon Trails 2005–2014: A Statewide 

Action Plan (2005). This plan is Oregon’s 

“official plan for recreational trail 

management” through 2014, serving as a 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

40 

statewide and regional information and 

planning tool to assist recreation providers 

(local, state, federal, and private) in providing 

trail opportunities and promoting access to 

trails and waterways. It also identifies how the 

state’s limited resources would be allocated 

for motorized, nonmotorized, and water trail 

projects throughout Oregon. Some of the 

plan’s recommendations are addressed in the 

General Management Plan through proposed 

new trails and recreation amenities. 

Grant County Plans 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1996). This 

plan is designed to provide long-range 

guidance on growth and development issues 

in Grant County. Portions of this plan most 

relevant to the General Management Plan

include policies related to agricultural lands, 

forest lands, natural resources, open space, 

scenic and historic resources, recreation, 

economics, and energy conservation. This 

plan was consulted during the development of 

the general management plan. There are no 

known conflicts with any of the alternatives 

and preferred alternatives outlined in the 

general management plan. 

Wheeler County Plans 

Comprehensive Plan (2003). This plan is 

designed to provide long-range guidance on 

growth and development issues in Wheeler 

County. Portions of this plan most relevant to 

this General Management Plan are those 

related to agricultural lands; forest lands; open 

spaces; scenic and historic areas; natural 

resources; air, water, and land resources 

quality; recreational needs; and economic 

conservation. This plan was consulted during 

the development of the general management 

plan. There are no known conflicts with any 

of the alternatives and preferred alternatives 

outlined in the general management plan. 

Oregon Paleo Lands Institute Plans 

 Oregon Paleo Plan Prospectus (undated).

Also known as the “Paleo Project,” this plan 

outlines a comprehensive strategy to advance 

the understanding and appreciation of 

Oregon’s paleontological resources. A major 

component of the plan is the Paleo Learning 

Center, which is proposed to be located in 

Fossil. This plan was considered during the 

development of the general management plan. 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

NPS staff, the general public, and 

representatives from county, state, and federal 

agencies, and various organizations identified 

a variety of issues and concerns during 

scoping (early information gathering) for this 

general management plan. An issue is defined 

as an opportunity, conflict, or problem 

regarding the use or management of public 

lands. Comments were solicited at public 

meetings, through planning newsletters, and 

on the monument’s web site (see the 

“Consultation and Coordination” chapter). 

Comments received during scoping demonstrated there is much that the public likes 

about the national monument—its 

management, use, and facilities. The issues 

and concerns generally involve determining 

the appropriate visitor uses, types and levels of 

facilities, services, and activities that would be 

compatible with desired resource conditions. 

The alternatives in the General Management 

Plan provide strategies for addressing the 

issues within the context of the monument’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates. 

The following major issues and concerns were 

identified. 

Hancock Mammal Quarry 

This site is of great importance to scientists’ 

knowledge of vertebrate fossils from the early 

Tertiary Period. Preliminary analysis suggests 

that this is the best early Oligocene vertebrate 

fauna of the northwestern United States and 

western Canada. The site was briefly opened 

by researchers in the late 1950s and again in 

the 1960s. There are differing opinions on 

whether or not the quarry should be 

reopened. Much information likely would be 

gained by reopening the quarry, and it would 

add a new facet to the visitor experience. But 

opening the quarry would require additional 

funds and staff—there would be a substantial 

cost in this operation. There are also questions 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

41 

regarding the feasibility of reopening the 

quarry as the lateral extent of the fossiliferous 

strata is not known—a very large amount of 

material may have to be removed to gain 

access to the fossils. And without careful 

monitoring, there also would be increased 

potential for vandalism and theft of fossils. 

Visitor Opportunities and Visitor Facilities 

Decisions need to be made on what, if any, 

new facilities or facility improvements should 

be made in the monument. Restrooms and 

trails are among the facilities the public has 

identified as a need in the monument. 

Formalizing existing social trails and 

maintaining new trails can increase 

opportunities for the public to experience and 

enjoy the monument’s resources, but also can 

increase the potential for resource impacts. 

Providing or maintaining new facilities also 

can increase the need for additional funding 

and staff.

User Capacity 

Visitors have adversely affected resources and 

the quality of visitors’ experiences in a few 

areas of the monument, particularly in the 

Clarno Unit, which is used by large groups. 

With the potential for some increased 

visitation in the future, there also is the 

potential for unacceptable impacts to 

monument resources in some areas. 

Implementation of a user capacity framework 

will help ensure that desired monument 

resource conditions and visitor experience 

opportunities are maintained.

Cant Ranch 

The James Cant Ranch Historic District is an 

important part of the monument’s story. The 

commitment and level of cultural landscape 

rehabilitation of the ranch is an important 

issue for the monument. Decisions need to be 

made on whether or not to continue irrigating 

the agricultural fields or to restore the fields to 

a more natural condition. 

River Corridor 

Natural processes along the John Day River 

corridor are hampered by the presence of 

bank armoring and past ranching practices. 

Alterations of the river channel and its 

floodplain have resulted in changes to riparian 

communities. Although the NPS staff could 

take a variety of actions to restore the river 

corridor within the monument, land uses 

upstream of the monument would continue to 

affect the river corridor. How much should 

the NPS staff devote to restoring the river 

corridor in an era of tight budgets? 

Alien Species 

Invasive alien plants have become established 

throughout much of the monument and 

threaten native species. If left untreated, the 

native habitat and natural character of the area 

would be severely impacted. Weed 

management, including the continued use of 

prescribed fire to control an expanding 

western juniper population, is an issue that the 

monument must address. 

These issues are briefly addressed in this plan; 

however, they are addressed in depth in the 

monument’s Integrated Pest Management Plan

(2005) and Wildland Fire Management Plan

(2004). 

Monument Operations 

Staffing and maintenance needs would likely 

increase as visitation in the monument 

increases. The geographical separation of the 

monument’s three units presents operational 

challenges. Current funding levels also present 

challenges to monument operations and 

management.

Partnerships 

Partnerships are a key to meeting and 

expanding the monument’s ability to study 

and manage paleontological resources, as well 

as to educate and inform local residents, 

students, and others about the monument. 

The NPS staff have cooperated with the 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest 

Service, Bonneville Power Administration, 

and Warm Springs Indian Tribes in this 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

42 

regard. With a tight and decreasing budget, 

partnerships are an important aspect of the 

management of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. To help fully realize the 

monument’s purpose, existing partnerships 

need to be strengthened, and new 

partnerships need to be sought. 

Boundaries of the Monument 

The monument’s present boundaries do not 

encompass all of the important and 

fundamental resources associated with the 

monument. Without action, there is a concern 

that some of these resources may be lost. 

Minor boundary adjustments may be needed 

for resource protection and improved land 

management. 

IMPACT TOPICS: RESOURCES AND 

VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING 

PROCESS 

Identification of Impact Topics 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, general 

management plans are typically accompanied 

by an environmental impact statement. 

Environmental impact statements identify the 

anticipated impacts of possible actions on 

resources and on monument visitors and 

neighbors. Impacts are organized by topic, 

such as “impacts on the visitor experience” or 

“impacts on vegetation.” Impact topics serve 

to focus the environmental analysis and to 

ensure the relevance of impact evaluation. 

Impact topics identified for the John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument General 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment 

were identified based on federal laws and 

other legal requirements, Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, NPS 

management policies, staff subject-matter 

expertise, and issues and concerns expressed 

by the public and other agencies early in the 

planning process (see previous section). The 

planning team selected the impact topics for 

analysis based on the potential for each topic 

to be affected by the alternatives. Also 

included is a discussion of some impact topics 

that are commonly addressed in general 

management plans, but that are dismissed in 

this plan for the reasons given. 

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter 

contains a more detailed description of each 

impact topic to be affected by the actions 

described in the alternatives. 

Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed 

Impact topics are retained if there could be 

appreciable impacts from the actions of the 

alternatives considered. Impact topics are 

dismissed if they are commonly considered 

during the planning process, but may not be 

relevant to the development of the 

management plan because either: (a) 

implementing the alternatives would have no 

effect, negligible effect, or minor effect on the 

resource, or (b) the resource does not occur in 

the national monument. 

Table 2 identifies all of the impact topics 

considered for this General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Assessment and states whether 

they were retained or dismissed. The table is 

organized by theme (e.g., natural resources, 

cultural resources, visitor use and experience, 

socioeconomic environment, public health 

and safety, and monument administration) 

and includes a brief rationale as to why the 

impact topic was retained or dismissed.
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

43 

Table 2: Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Natural Resource Impact Topics

Soils Retained John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s soils are a 

key resource; the soils help determine where native 

vegetative communities occur in the monument and 

they affect the area’s productivity, drainage patterns, 

and erosion. Soils also provide structural support to 

buildings and other facilities in the monument. 

Proposed developments in the alternatives would affect 

the monument’s soils. Any impacts that would adversely 

affect these resources would be of concern to NPS 

managers and the public. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Prime and 

Unique 

Farmlands 

Retained Prime farm lands are defined as lands that have the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops 

and are also available for these uses. Prime farm lands 

have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture 

supply needed to produce economically sustained high 

yields of crops when treated and managed according to 

acceptable farming methods, including water 

management. In general, prime farmlands have an 

adequate and dependable water supply from 

precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and 

growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, 

acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no 

rocks. Unique farmlands are lands other than prime 

farmland that are used for the production of specific 

high value food and fiber crops. 

No unique farmlands have been identified in the 

monument. One of the alternatives being considered 

would remove from production prime farmlands. 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

(§1508.27) require that changes to prime agricultural 

lands be addressed in an EIS. Thus, this topic must be 

considered in this environmental assessment. 

Council on 

Environmental 

Quality1980 

memorandum; 

Farmland Protection 

Policy Act 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Retained The monument was established primarily to protect its 

outstanding fossils. They are a fundamental resource of 

the monument. Any actions that would result in the 

degradation or loss of fossils would be of major concern 

to scientists, NPS managers, visitors, and the public. 

NPS Organic Act;

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 

Vegetation Retained The monument supports a variety of vegetative 

communities and plant species, including species of 

concern and many nonnative species. Actions in the 

alternatives could beneficially or adversely affect these 

resources, which would be of concern to many people 

as well as NPS managers. 

NPS Organic Act;

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

44 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Wildlife Retained The monument supports a variety of wildlife. The 

monument’s wildlife populations are one of the 

attractions that add to the quality of the visitor 

experience. Changes in wildlife habitat or in wildlife 

populations due to the alternatives would be of concern 

to visitors, the public, and NPS managers. 

NPS Organic Act;

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 

Air Quality Dismissed The monument is a Class II area under the Clean Air 

Act. Because of the limited development in the 

surrounding area, air quality is considered to be good. 

Visible pollutants rarely diminish the vistas within the 

monument. The only known source of air degradation is 

occasional smoke from fires, mostly outside the 

monument. Prescribed burns within the monument 

contribute to air pollution, but are not frequent and 

usually last for 2 to 4 days in any given year. In all of the 

alternatives the National Park Service would continue to 

protect air quality as required under the Clean Air Act 

and NPS Management Policies. No actions are being 

proposed in the alternatives that would measurably alter 

the monument's overall air quality. Construction of new 

facilities would have a short-term, negligible impact on 

the airshed. Use levels may increase with implementation of the alternatives, but the increase is not expected 

to be substantial and the emissions from additional 

vehicles would be negligible compared to current levels. 

Clean Air Act; NPS

Management 

Policies 2006

Water Quality Dismissed The water quality of the John Day River, Bridge Creek, 

and Rock Creek is generally good. High sediment loads 

after storms can affect water quality, but are of short 

duration and often result from naturally occurring 

exposed paleosol soil sources outside as well as inside 

the monument. No significant point sources of pollution 

are known to threaten monument waters. Nonpoint 

source pollution from agricultural operations, such as 

fecal coliform sources, fertilizers and pesticides, can 

affect monument waters but largely is due to sources 

outside of the monument. No actions are being 

proposed in the alternatives that would be expected to 

increase the potential for water pollution within the 

monument—any impacts accrued would be negligible. 

Thus, there is no need to address this impact topic in 

further detail. 

Clean Water Act;

NPS Management

Policies 2006

Water Quantity Dismissed Water is a scarce resource in John Day Fossil Beds. The 

John Day River, Rock Creek, and Bridge Creek are 

important for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and 

irrigation of fields. A number of springs also contribute 

to wildlife habitat and vegetation variety. Two of the 

springs provide potable water for visitor facilities and 

NPS housing within the Sheep Rock Unit. None of the 

proposed changes in the alternatives would substantially 

alter surface water flows. Although the monument may 

use less water to irrigate the agricultural fields in one of 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

45 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Water Quantity 

(continued) 

the alternatives, the impact on the flow of the John Day 

River would be negligible. In addition, because the river 

is over appropriated, any water that is not used by the 

monument would likely be used by a water rights holder 

upstream of the monument. So even if the monument 

used less water to irrigate the agricultural fields, there 

would not necessarily be more water in the river within 

the monument. 

Fisheries Dismissed The John Day River and its tributaries contain a variety 

of native and nonnative fish. Recreational fishing in the 

monument is regulated by the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. None of the alternatives would change 

the management of fishing or would result in 

substantial changes that would affect the fish 

populations within the monument. Recreational 

fishermen would continue to be able to harvest fish 

within the boundaries of the monument in all of the 

alternatives, subject to the regulations of the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Game. With implementation of 

the alternatives, increased sport fishing may occur with 

slightly increased recreational use in some areas, but it is 

expected that the state’s regulation of the fisheries 

would avoid adverse impacts to the monument’s fish 

populations. The National Park Service would continue 

to work with the state to ensure that healthy fish 

populations are maintained in the John Day River and its 

tributaries. 

The John Day River also is designated essential fish 

habitat for chinook salmon. However, no actions would 

be taken in any of the alternatives that would have 

more than a minor effect on this habitat. In the action 

alternatives, such actions as the removal of dikes and 

rock barbs (to help restore the river’s natural hydrologic 

condition) would have a minimal effect on the salmon 

and its habitat. Some water is removed from the John 

Day River and Rock Creek for irrigation, following 

Oregon Water Resources Department and state water 

right guidelines. Some herbicides also are used for 

invasive weed control on lands adjacent to the 

drainages, but NPS staff follow all Oregon Department 

of Agriculture and manufacturer requirements. No 

known adverse effects have been reported on chinook 

salmon from these activities in the monument. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Floodplains Dismissed Segments of the John Day River, Rock Creek and Bridge 

Creek are located within the monument. All of these 

drainages are subject to flooding following major storms 

or rapid snow melt in the headwaters. No structures are 

believed to be in the 100-year floodplain in the 

monument. The floodplains of these drainages have 

been substantially modified by past agricultural and 

Executive Order 

11988; Director’s 

Order 77-2; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

46 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Floodplains 

(continued) 

flood control activities, but they still contain important 

habitat for fish and wildlife, and are valuable for 

recreational uses. Efforts have been underway to restore 

native cottonwood galleries and riparian vegetation 

communities, and to allow natural geomorphological 

processes to occur. 

No new actions or facilities are being proposed in any of 

the alternatives that would adversely affect the 

protection, management, and use of these floodplains, 

or substantially change the character and natural 

processes of the floodplains. In all of the alternatives the 

National Park Service would continue to protect natural 

floodplains values and take appropriate action to avoid 

safety risks to visitors and employees, as required by 

Executive Order 11988 and NPS Director’s Order 77-2: 

Floodplain Management. Although there would be 

changes in the irrigation of lands in the floodplain in 

two of the alternatives, this would have a negligible 

impact on the floodplain. Also in the two action 

alternatives, some existing barbs and dikes in the John 

Day River in the Sheep Rock Unit would be removed to 

restore hydrologic functions. But the impacts of 

removing the structures would be temporary—just while 

the river adjusted to flowing in a more "natural" state—

and the beneficial effects probably would be minor in 

magnitude. 

Wetlands Dismissed Wetlands in the monument are limited to small riparian 

areas and around springs and seeps. Much of the 

riparian wetland vegetation has been altered by past 

livestock, agricultural, and flood control activities. All 

wetlands in national park units are protected and 

managed in accordance with Executive Order 11990, 

“Protection of Wetlands”; NPS Director’s Order 77-1: 

Wetland Protection and its accompanying handbook 

(NPS 2002); and NPS Management Policies 2006

(§4.6.5, NPS 2000). This guidance requires the National 

Park Service to protect and enhance natural wetland 

values, and requires the examination of impacts on 

wetlands. It is NPS policy to avoid affecting wetlands 

and to minimize impacts when they are unavoidable. 

In all of the alternatives in this plan, facilities proposed 

for development would be sited to avoid wetlands. No 

new developments in the alternatives would be 

proposed in areas known to contain wetlands. No new 

uses of water originating from or directly supplying 

wetlands are being proposed. Areas that may have 

wetlands would be mapped and delineated prior to 

construction of developments to ensure that these areas 

are avoided. Thus, wetlands were not evaluated as an 

impact topic. 

Executive Order 

11990; Clean Water 

Act; NPS Director’s 

Order 77-1; NPS 

Management 

Policies 2006
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

47 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Federally Listed 

and State-listed 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

Dismissed Two federally listed threatened fish species, bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus) and middle Columbia River 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), pass through the 

monument via the John Day River and its tributaries. 

However, the monument is used only as a travel corridor 

by these fish—no spawning or rearing habitat is known 

to occur in this area. Although some of the actions in 

the alternatives could affect irrigation and the river’s 

hydrology in the monument, these actions would not 

substantially affect stream flows—and it is stream flow 

which could affect these fish and their habitat. Likewise, 

no actions in the alternatives would measurably alter 

water quality of the drainages. 

Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are a state-listed 

endangered species. They have been reported in the 

monument area and may be nesting in the Cathedral 

Rock-Johnny Creek area. However, no actions are being 

proposed in the alternatives that would affect the birds’ 

use of the area or their habitat. 

Two mammals, the state-listed endangered gray wolf 

(Canis lupus) and the state-listed threatened California 

wolverine (Gulo gulo lutens) are identified as being in 

the two counties where the monument is located, but 

have not been reported inside the monument boundary. 

Likewise, two state-listed threatened plant species, 

South Fork John Day milk-vetch (Astragalus diaphanous 

var. diurnus) and arrow-leaf thelypody (Thelypodium 

eucosmum), have been found in Grant and Wheeler 

counties. But after completing four plant surveys inside 

the monument, researchers have not documented these 

species as being present in the monument. 

Endangered Species 

Act; NPS 

Management 

Policies 2006

Soundscape 

Management 

Dismissed None of the changes proposed in the alternatives would 

substantially alter the natural soundscape. Several 

developments may be built or improved in the 

alternatives (e.g., trails, sun shade structures, rest room), 

but they would only temporarily affect noise levels in 

parts of the monument. None of the proposed changes 

would likely result in more than a minor impact on the 

overall monument soundscape. Additional visitors may 

also use the monument over the long term, with noise 

levels increasing at popular trails, parking areas, and 

attractions. But substantial increases in use levels would 

not be expected, and the impact on the monument’s 

overall natural soundscape would be expected to be no 

more than a minor impact. 

Director’s Order 47;

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

48 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Lightscape 

Management 

Dismissed NPS Management Policies (2006) state that the National 

Park Service will preserve, to the greatest extent 

possible, the natural lightscapes of park units, including 

natural darkness. The agency strives to minimize the 

intrusion of artificial light into the night scene by 

limiting the use of artificial outdoor lighting to basic 

safety requirements, shielding the lights when possible, 

and using minimal impact lighting techniques. No new 

facilities are being proposed in the alternatives that 

would necessitate new night-time lighting. Thus, 

lightscape was dismissed as an impact topic. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Natural or 

Depletable 

Resource 

Requirements 

and 

Conservation 

Potential 

Dismissed None of the alternatives being considered would result 

in the extraction of new resources from the monument. 

In all of the alternatives, ecological principles would be 

applied to ensure that the monument’s natural 

resources were maintained and protected. New fossils 

would continue to be collected for scientific and 

education purposes, but the specimens would be stored 

in the NPS collection in the monument. Fields in the 

James Cant Ranch Historic District also would continue 

to be annually harvested for hay to maintain the cultural 

landscape. The fields would be managed to sustain this 

harvest. Implementation of the alternatives would result 

in the use of limited natural resources and energy for 

construction and operation of new facilities (e.g., trails). 

New development would be designed to be sustainable 

to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, there would 

likely be a negligible impact on this topic. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Energy 

Requirements 

and 

Conservation 

Potential 

Dismissed None of the alternatives presented in this environmental 

assessment would result in a major change in energy 

consumption, energy availability, or costs compared to 

current conditions. The National Park Service would 

pursue sustainable practices whenever possible in all 

decisions regarding operations, facilities management, 

and development in the monument. Whenever possible, 

the National Park Service would use energy conservation 

technologies and renewable energy sources. Overall, the 

impact on energy requirements and conservation 

potential would be minor. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Scenic or Visual 

Resources and 

Viewsheds

Dismissed None of the alternatives being considered would result 

in a major change or impact on scenic resources or 

viewsheds. Overall, the impact on scenic resources and 

viewsheds would be minor. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers 

Dismissed Although much of the John Day River in north-central 

Oregon has been designated as a Wild & Scenic River 

(WSR), no WSR reaches are located within monument 

boundaries. 

The 17-mile-long stretch of the John Day River that 

passes through the Sheep Rock Unit, between the 

Section 5 (d) 

National Wild and 

Scenic River Act 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

49 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers 

(continued) 

towns of Kimberly and Dayville, is not designated as a 

WSR. 

Bridge Creek, a tributary to a reach of the John Day 

River designated as Wild & Scenic, passes through the 

Painted Hills Unit but is located more than five miles 

from the confluence. 

No existing or proposed activities in any of the 

monument’s units would negatively affect the wild and 

scenic qualities of the John Day River. Therefore, this 

topic was dismissed from further consideration. 

Cultural Resource Impact Topics 

Archeological 

Resources 

Retained Ground disturbance associated with proposed 

development actions (i.e., new trails or other facilities) 

have the potential to disturb currently unidentified 

archeological resources. 

Section 106 of the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act as 

amended; Director's 

Order 28; Secretary 

of the Interior’s 

Standards and 

Guidelines for 

Archeology and 

Historic Preservation; NPS Management Policies 2006; 

National Environmental Policy Act; 

Director’s Order 

28A: Archeology

2004 

Historic 

Structures and 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Retained A strategy for treating the James Cant Ranch, listed as a 

historic district in the National Register of Historic Places, 

needs to be developed. Changes to the cultural 

landscape that could result from implementing one or 

more of the alternatives would also be of concern to 

visitors, the public, and NPS managers. 

Sections 106 

National Historic 

Preservation Act; 

Director's Order 28; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006; 1931 

amendment to 

enabling legislation. 

Museum 

Collections 

Dismissed The topic of museum collections is dismissed from 

further consideration because the situation regarding 

collections management would be the same in all 

alternatives. Under each alternative, the National Park 

Service would curate specimens, associated field 

records, archives, and photographs related to 

paleontology by preparing, cataloging, and storing them 

under state-of-the-art collection conditions at the 

national monument’s Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center. The center is specially staffed and equipped to 

collect, identify, prepare, and preserve rare fossil 

specimens from the last 50 million years. After being 

processed, specimens are carefully indexed, catalogued 

Department of the 

Interior Manual on 

Museum Property 

Management 411 

DM; NPS Museum 

Handbook; 

Director’s Orders 24 

and 28; 36 CFR 79; 

Curation of 

Federally Owned 

Archeological 

Collections; Sections 

106 of the National 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

50 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Museum 

Collections 

(continued) 

and stored so they can be retrieved and studied by 

researchers from all over the world. Storage is climate 

controlled to avoid any possible damage from excesses 

of humidity or temperature. There is a sprinkler system 

for fire detection and suppression, as well as 

scientifically sound laboratory facilities to prepare fauna 

and flora fossils and other natural history specimens. 

Research permits involving excavation specify that 

paleontological specimens are turned over to the 

national monument for permanent curation. 

Each alternative would maintain current collection 

conditions for the cultural resource artifacts and other 

materials stored on the third floor of the James Cant 

Ranch House. This situation includes individual 

temperature controls on each floor for heat and air 

conditioning plus a sprinkler system for fire detection 

and suppression in place for the building on all three 

floors of the Cant Ranch House. Archeological artifacts 

and related materials recovered during archeological 

work over the past few years within the national 

monument during legal compliance projects are now 

being cataloged and stored at Mount Rainier National 

Park because of the park’s archeological expertise. After 

ongoing cataloging, they will be returned in the not too 

far distant future to John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument and stored at the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center for permanent curation. They will 

be made available for research there at the national 

monument. 

In all alternatives, museum collections would continue 

to be acquired, accessioned, cataloged, protected, 

preserved, and made available for research according to 

NPS standards and guidelines. Both the Bureau of Land 

Management and National Park Service will continue to 

operate as if their 1997 interagency agreement is in 

effect. That agreement, numbered IA9325-8-0001, is 

titled: "Interagency Agreement between John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument and Bureau of Land 

Management, Prineville District, Burns District, Vale 

District, and Lakeview District" and is being renewed. It 

calls for NPS curation of fossils recovered from the BLM 

districts named above. 

NPS management of museum collections recovered 

from non-NPS lands is an uncommon arrangement for 

units of the national park system. (NPS Management 

Polices 2006: Section 1.6). Involving the national 

monument, there is an interagency exchange of BLM 

archeological-investigation services on national 

monument lands for NPS paleontological-investigation 

services on BLM lands of the above named BLM districts. 

Historic Preservation 

Act; NPS 

Management 

Policies 2006. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

51 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Museum 

Collections 

(continued) 

BLM fossils are accessioned as NPS fossils, not loans. 

This arrangement of cooperative conservation is 

mutually beneficial. The Bureau of Land Management 

lacks paleontological expertise in the area, and the 

National Park Service lacks archeological expertise in the 

area. The two agencies, therefore, exchange 

archeological and paleontological services on an asneeded basis by relevant professionals of each agency. 

The arrangement enhances scientific understanding of 

paleontological resources because of the paleontological 

expertise at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, 

including the acquisition, preparation, and curation of 

fossils from BLM lands. Please note that archeological 

artifacts and related materials recovered from national 

monument lands are being temporarily held at Mount 

Rainier National Park where they are being catalogued 

because the national park has archeological expertise. 

After cataloging, the archeological artifacts are due to 

be returned to John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

for permanent curation. This situation between the 

National Park Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management does not constitute a precedent for other 

units of the national park system servicewide. 

Ethnographic 

Resources, 

including 

sacred sites 

Dismissed Ethnographic resources are defined by the National 

Park Service as any “site, structure, object, landscape, or 

natural resource feature assigned traditional legendary, 

religious, subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of group traditionally associated with it” 

(Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline). 

Pictographs are the only known ethnographic resource 

within the monument. They likely date back to 

prehistoric times when earlier American Indians were in 

the John Day River basin. Contemporary American 

Indian neighbors traditionally associated with what is 

now the monument (the Burns Paiute Tribe, the 

Umatilla Confederated Tribes, and the Warm Springs 

Confederated Tribes) recognize the pictographs as part 

of their cultural history and heritage. 

The monument is committed to involving and consulting 

with the affiliated tribes on this issue. Copies of the 

environmental assessment will be forwarded to each 

affiliated tribe for review and comment. If the tribes 

subsequently identify the presence of ethnographic 

resources, appropriate mitigation measures would be 

undertaken in consultation with the tribes. The location 

Sections 106 and 

107 of the National 

Historic Preservation 

Act; Native 

American Graves 

Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 

1990; Executive 

Order 13007; 

National 

Environmental Policy 

Act; Director's Order 

28; NPS

Management 

Policies 2006 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

52 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Ethnographic 

Resources, 

including 

sacred sites 

(continued) 

of ethnographic sites would not be made public. In the 

unlikely event that human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are 

discovered during construction, the Guideline for the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(25 USC 3001) of 1990 would be followed. 

Sacred Sites. According to Executive Order 

13007,“Indian Sacred Sites,”(1996) the National Park 

Service will accommodate, to the extent practicable, 

access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by 

religious practitioners from recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribes and would avoid adversely 

affecting the integrity of such sacred sites. Because 

there are no known sacred sites in the monument and 

because, if there were, no actions proposed in this 

management plan would affect areas that may be 

potentially important to the affiliated tribes that could 

contain sacred sites, sacred sites as an ethnographic 

resource category, is dismissed as an impact topic with 

no further analysis. 

None of the alternatives would affect known 

ethnographic resources; therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Indian Trust 

Resources 

Dismissed None of the actions proposed by this general 

management plan and none of the actions that might 

be implemented as a result of the plan would change 

any existing conditions or practices concerning 

American Indian treaty or statutory rights or cultural 

interests that the tribes traditionally associated with the 

national monument maintain in relation to the national 

monument. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from 

further consideration. 

Secretarial Order 

3175 

Visitor Use and Experience Impact Topics

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Retained Actions could affect visitor use and experience in the 

monument. In particular, recreational facility 

development, such as new trails (or the removal of some 

existing trails), roads, and interpretive facilities, would 

affect visitor use and experience. Implementation of a 

user capacity framework is needed to enhance visitor 

experiences and protect monument resources. 

Accessibility of facilities and programs is another issue 

that could affect visitor use. Furthermore, alternatives in 

the plan could have an impact on overall visitor 

understanding, including interpretive and educational 

opportunities. Research and interpretation of regional 

paleontological resources is an issue that needs to be 

addressed, as well as interpretation of museum 

Organic Act; 

National Parks and 

Recreation Act; NPS 

Management 

Policies 2006
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

53 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

(continued) 

collections and provision of other general visitor 

opportunities. 

Public Health 

and Safety 

Dismissed The proposed developments and actions in the 

alternatives would not result in any identifiable adverse 

impacts on human health or safety. 

CEQ regulations; 

DO-12 Handbook

Visitor Access 

and 

Transportation 

Dismissed Visitor access and transportation could be affected by 

one or more of the actions in the alternatives, such as 

roadway improvements. The impacts of these actions on 

visitor access would be negligible. Local and regional 

transportation could be adversely affected on a shortterm basis during construction; however, the impact 

would be minor. Therefore, visitor access and 

transportation was dismissed as an impact topic. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Socioeconomic Impact Topics

Regional 

Economy 

Dismissed The economy of the area is tied primarily to the timber 

and farming and ranching industries, although 

recreation-related tourism is becoming increasingly 

more important. Some increase in monument visitation 

is expected over the life of the plan, but this increase is 

not expected to have any effect on the regional 

economy. Furthermore, due to the minimal amount of 

development and employment-related actions included 

in the alternatives, no substantial change to the 

economy is expected. The overall economic effect of 

implementing the alternatives on the regional economy 

would be negligible; therefore, regional economy was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

National 

Environmental Policy 

Act 

Conformity 

with Local Land 

Use Plans 

Dismissed Actions proposed in the alternatives would not be in 

conflict with any local, state, or tribal land use plans, 

policies, or controls for the area. 

The basic land use of the monument as a public 

recreation and resource management area is in 

conformance with local land use plans. The creation of 

additional recreation and visitor service opportunities in 

the monument as proposed in the alternatives would be 

consistent with existing monument land uses or local 

(non-monument) land use plans. Therefore, this topic 

was dismissed from further consideration. 

CEQ regulations; 

DO-12 Handbook 

Environmental 

Justice 

Dismissed Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, requires all federal agencies to 

incorporate environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing the disproportionately high 

or adverse human health or environmental effects of 

Executive Order 

12898 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

54 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Environmental 

Justice 

(continued) 

their programs and policies on minorities and lowincome populations and communities. According to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, environmental justice 

is the 

...fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or 

income, with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means 

that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate 

share of the negative environmental consequences 

resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and 

tribal programs and policies. 

The goal of ‘fair treatment’ is not to shift risks among 

populations, but to identify potentially 

disproportionately high and adverse effects and 

identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts. 

Grant and Wheeler counties contain both minority and 

low-income populations; however, environmental justice 

is dismissed as an impact topic for the following 

reasons: 

• The monument staff and planning team actively 

solicited public participation as part of the planning 

process and gave equal consideration to all input 

from persons regardless of age, race, income status, 

or other socioeconomic or demographic factors. 

• Implementation of the proposed alternative would 

not result in any identifiable adverse human health 

effects. Therefore, there would be no direct or 

indirect adverse effects on any minority or lowincome population. 

• The impacts associated with implementation of the 

preferred alternative would not disproportionately 

affect any minority or low-income population or 

community. 

• Implementation of the preferred alternative would 

not result in any identified effects that would be 

specific to any minority or low-income community. 

• The impacts to the socioeconomic environment 

resulting from implementation of any of the action 

alternatives would be negligible. In addition, the 

monument staff and planning team do not 

anticipate the impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment to appreciably alter the physical and 

social structure of the nearby communities. 

Therefore, this topic will not be addressed further. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

55 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or 

Policy 

Monument Operations Impact Topics

National 

Monument 

Operations

Retained Monument operations would be affected by the actions 

in the alternatives, including staffing changes, facility 

construction, and facility or infrastructure maintenance. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

CHAPTER 2

Alternatives, 

Including the Preferred Alternative

Cant Ranch House, Sheep Rock Unit

Painted Hills Unit

Picture Can

Painted Hills U

59 

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES 

Many aspects of the desired condition of John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

monument’s purpose and significance 

statements, and the servicewide mandates and 

policies that were described earlier. Within 

these parameters, the National Park Service 

solicited input from the public, NPS staff, 

governmental agencies, tribal officials, and 

others regarding issues and desired conditions 

for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

Planning team members gathered information 

about existing visitor use and the condition of 

the monument’s facilities and resources. Then 

a set of seven management zones and three 

management alternatives were developed to 

reflect the range of ideas proposed by NPS 

staff and the public. 

This chapter describes the management zones 

(see table 3) and the alternatives for managing 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument for 

the next 15 to 20 years. It includes tables that 

summarize the key differences among the 

alternatives (see table 9) and the differences in 

key impacts (see table 10) that would be 

expected from implementing each alternative. 

Table 10, containing the summary of 

differences in key impacts, is based on the 

analysis in chapter 4, “Environmental 

Consequences.” This chapter also describes 

mitigation measures that would be used to 

reduce or avoid impacts, and the 

environmentally preferable alternative. Also 

discussed are several actions the planning 

team considered but dismissed. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment presents three 

alternatives, including the NPS preferred 

alternative (alternative B), for future 

management of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. Alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, presents a continuation of current 

management direction and is included as a 

baseline for comparing the consequences of 

implementing each alternative. The action 

alternatives are alternative B (preferred) and 

alternative C. These alternatives present 

different ways to manage resources and visitor 

use and improve facilities and infrastructure at 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

These three alternatives embody the range of 

what the public and NPS staff want to see 

accomplished regarding natural resource 

conditions, cultural resource conditions, 

visitor use and experience conditions, and 

management at John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. 

As noted in the “Guidance for Planning” 

section in Chapter 1, the National Park 

Service would continue to follow existing 

agreements and servicewide mandates, laws, 

and policies regardless of the alternatives 

considered in this plan. These mandates and 

policies are not repeated in this chapter. 

FORMULATION OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

The two action alternatives included in this 

management plan are hybrids of the three 

preliminary action alternatives that were 

released for public review in January 2006. 

The three preliminary alternatives were 

organized around the themes of 

environmental leadership and preservation; 

research; and visitor connections. Many of the 

elements contained in the environmental 

leadership and preservation alternative are 

already required by law or policy; some were 

already being accomplished through current 

management practices. Much of the public 

comment that was received indicated a 

preference for a blending of these themes into 

one or more alternatives that contain a 

reasonable complement of environmental 

preservation, research, visitor access, and 

visitor opportunities. 

Therefore, the action alternatives proposed in 

this plan rely on the strengths and advantages 

of the three themes that typified the 

preliminary alternatives. The alternatives seek 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

60 

to balance resource protection with visitor 

opportunities and were developed to be 

functional and viable. Alternative B (the 

preferred alternative) maximizes resource 

protection and visitor opportunities by 

enhancing existing conditions and providing 

limited new visitor service facilities. 

Alternative C maximizes visitor opportunities 

by providing more facilities for visitors. 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and what visitor uses, experiences, 

and opportunities should be at John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument rather than 

on details of how these conditions, uses, and 

experiences should be achieved. Thus, the 

alternatives do not include many details on 

resource or visitor use management. 

More detailed plans or studies would be 

required before most conditions proposed in 

the alternatives are achieved. The implementation of any alternative also depends on 

future funding and environmental compliance. This plan does not guarantee that 

funding will be forthcoming. The plan 

establishes a vision of the future that would 

guide day-to-day and year-to-year 

management of the monument, but full 

implementation could take many years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The preferred alternative was developed 

through a process called “Choosing by 

Advantages” (CBA). Using this process, the 

planning team identified and compared the 

relative advantages of each alternative 

according to a set of factors. The benefits or 

advantages of each alternative were compared 

for each of the following CBA factors: 

• protecting paleontological resources and 

advancing paleontological research 

• protecting other natural resources 

• protecting cultural resources 

• providing visitor opportunities and 

enhancing visitor experience 

• protecting scenic resources 

• improving national monument operational 

efficiency 

The relationships among the advantages were 

used to combine the best attributes of the 

three preliminary action alternatives into the 

preferred alternative. This alternative gives the 

National Park Service the greatest overall 

benefits for each factor listed above for the 

most reasonable cost. 

POTENTIAL FOR BOUNDARY 

ADJUSTMENTS 

The National Park and Recreation Act of 1978 

requires general management plans to address 

whether boundary modifications should be 

made to park units. The action alternatives 

propose the addition of an area adjacent to the 

Sheep Rock Unit that would require a 

boundary adjustment. The details of this 

proposal are included in the description of the 

preferred alternative and alternative C. (See 

also appendix B for an analysis of the 

boundary adjustment according to NPS land 

protection criteria.) Although the outcome of 

the boundary adjustment is contingent on 

agreements with other outside parties, this 

plan does not prohibit small additions, such as 

land for administrative use, that may be 

identified in the future by other land planning 

processes. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Once the general management planning 

process is completed, the selected alternative 

would become the new management plan for 

the monument and would be implemented in 

phases over 15–20 years. The monument’s 

strategic plan, business plan, and annual work 

plans would help develop priorities that 

would determine how best to implement the 

plan. 

Implementation of the actions and 

developments proposed within the 

management plan is dependent upon funding 
Introduction to the Alternatives 

61 

available at the time of need. The approval of 

this General Management Plan does not 

guarantee that the funding and staffing 

needed to implement the plan would be 

forthcoming. 

In addition to funding, the implementation of 

any preferred alternative also could be 

affected by other factors. More detailed 

planning and environmental documentation 

may be completed, as appropriate, before 

some of the actions would be carried out. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones apply to different areas of 

a park unit and consist of descriptions of the 

desired conditions for resources and visitor 

experiences in those different areas. Together, 

they identify the widest range of potential 

resource conditions, visitor experiences, and 

facilities for the park unit that fall within the 

scope of the park unit’s purpose, significance, 

and special mandates. Seven potential 

management zones were identified for John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument: cultural, 

frontcountry, pedestrian, backcountry, 

primitive, transportation, and operations. 

In formulating the two action alternatives, the 

management zones were placed in different 

locations or configurations on a map of the 

monument according to the overall concept of 

each alternative. 

The seven management zones identified for 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument are 

presented in table 3. Visitor experiences, 

resource conditions, and appropriate activities 

and facilities are described for each 

management zone. 

Table 3: Management Zones

Management Zone Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Facilities

CULTURAL 

The primary purpose 

of the cultural zone 

would be to protect 

the resources of the 

James Cant Ranch 

Historic District. 

These resources 

would be managed 

intact and for a high 

level of protection. A 

diversity of orientation, outdoor recreation, and interpretive 

opportunities may be 

provided, intermixed 

within both natural 

and developed 

environments, and 

supported by a 

variety of visitor 

services that 

complement and 

enhance the 

experience. 

Paleontological resources would be 

maintained and retrieved in the least 

intrusive manner possible 

Paleontological mitigation would be 

performed to accommodate features 

of the historic district. 

Natural resources could be modified 

to accommodate visitors, visitor 

services, and facilities. 

Cultural resources would be 

managed to preserve and protect 

features of the historic district. 

Because these areas would be 

managed for high visitor use levels, 

minor natural resource impacts 

associated with visitors would be 

tolerated. There also would be 

allowance for minimal natural 

resource impacts associated with 

visitor facilities. 

Visitors would be

provided with a wide 

range of recreational, 

interpretive and 

educational 

opportunities 

supported by a variety 

of visitor services. 

High levels of visitor 

encounters would be 

expected and groups of 

all sizes would be 

accommodated. 

Intended to accommodate visitors, these 

areas could provide 

visitor orientation, 

interpretation, 

education, and other 

services. 

Facilities in this zone 

would include 

historic buildings, 

outbuildings, 

associated landscape 

features (such as 

fences and ditches), 

developed trails, 

interpretive panels, 

and signs. Facilities 

could include visitor 

parking areas, picnic 

areas, and 

restrooms. This zone 

would include the 

monument’s 

administrative 

headquarters. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

62 

Management Zone Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Facilities

FRONTCOUNTRY 

The purpose of the 

frontcountry zone 

would be to provide 

convenient access to 

developed visitor use 

areas that provide for 

high density use and 

support services. This 

zone includes 

trailheads and areas 

that are used for 

operational and 

administrative 

functions, as well as 

areas used for 

access, sanitation, 

and other needs. 

Paleontological resources of scientific 

value would continue to be stabilized 

in place, periodically prospected, or 

quarried. In some cases, specimens 

may be exposed in place and 

stabilized for public appreciation. 

Quarries may be preserved intact. 

Where appropriate, natural resources 

would be maintained in their natural 

condition and appearance. 

Natural resources could be modified 

to accommodate monument 

operations. 

All cultural resources would be 

preserved and protected. 

Because these areas would be 

managed for high visitor use levels, 

minor natural resource impacts 

associated with visitors would be 

tolerated. There also would be 

allowances for minimal natural 

resource impacts associated with 

visitor facilities. 

Visitors would be 

provided convenient 

and easy access to 

developed, high use 

areas. 

Moderate to high levels 

of visitor encounters in 

these developed areas 

could be expected. 

Intended to 

accommodate visitors, 

these areas could 

provide visitor 

orientation, 

interpretation, 

education, and other 

monument services. 

Examples of facilities 

that might be 

permitted include 

picnic areas, 

trailheads, parking 

areas, restrooms, 

drinking fountains, 

informational signs, 

universally accessible 

trails, and 

maintained (paved or 

unpaved) trails. 

PEDESTRIAN 

The purpose of the 

pedestrian zone 

would be to provide 

high-use trailheads 

and trail corridors 

that access prime 

monument features. 

These areas would 

be predominately 

natural but with 

much evidence of 

the sights and 

sounds of people. 

Paleontological resources of scientific 

value would continue to be stabilized 

in place, periodically prospected, or 

quarried. In some cases, specimens 

may be exposed in place and 

stabilized for public appreciation. 

Quarries may be preserved intact. 

Natural resources could be modified 

for essential visitor and monument 

operation needs, but they would be 

changed in ways consistent with the 

natural environment, natural 

processes, and scenic quality of the 

adjacent zones. 

All cultural resources would be 

preserved and protected. 

Tolerance for impacts relating to 

visitor use would be moderate; the 

zone primarily would accommodate 

activities such as hiking and walking. 

High use areas and trail 

corridors in this zone 

would provide access 

to prime monument 

features. Visitors would 

be able to see, touch, 

smell, and hear the 

resources as they move 

along well-defined 

trails and walkways. 

The experience would 

be highly social and 

interpretive, with 

consideration for the 

natural appearance of 

the area. Visitor uses, 

sites, and trails might 

be intensively managed 

to ensure resource 

protection and public 

safety. 

Facilities that might 

be present include 

trailheads, heavily 

used trails (which 

could be paved or 

unpaved), foot 

bridges, and 

interpretive media. 

Small visitor support 

structures, such as 

restrooms, benches, 

and picnic tables, 

would be 

appropriate. To the 

extent feasible, 

facilities and services 

would be accessible 

to people with 

disabilities. 
Introduction to the Alternatives 

63 

Management Zone Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Facilities

BACKCOUNTRY 

The purpose of the 

backcountry zone 

would be to provide 

access to dispersed 

recreational 

opportunities within 

a natural setting that 

remains largely 

undeveloped. These 

areas would be 

managed for low to 

moderate levels of 

visitor encounters, 

limited impacts to 

resource protection, 

and public safety. 

Paleontological resources would be 

maintained and/or retrieved in the 

least intrusive manner possible, e.g., 

all quarries would be restored to an 

appearance similar to that which 

existed prior to excavation. 

Natural resources would be 

maintained predominately in their 

natural conditions and most natural 

processes would predominate. 

Tolerance for resource degradation 

would be low. 

All cultural resources would be 

preserved and protected. 

Tolerance for impacts relating to 

visitor use and development would 

be low; the zone would 

accommodate dispersed visitor use 

activities such as hiking and walking. 

Visitors would have an 

opportunity to get 

away from the sights 

and sounds of a 

developed environment 

and explore the natural 

features of the 

monument. Although 

trails would occur in 

this zone, the emphasis 

would be on dispersed 

non-motorized 

recreational activities 

within a natural setting. 

There would be 

opportunities for a 

range of visitor 

encounters from 

relative solitude to 

informal gatherings 

depending upon time 

of week or season. 

Examples of facilities 

that might occur 

here include 

improved unpaved 

trails, bridges, stairs, 

and boardwalks. 

PRIMITIVE 

The purpose of the 

primitive zone would 

be to provide for 

minimal visitor 

encounters, personal 

challenge, and selfdiscovery within an 

intact natural and 

wildland 

environment. 

These areas provide 

visitors with an 

opportunity to be 

immersed in nature. 

Paleontological resources would be 

maintained and/or retrieved in the 

least intrusive manner possible, e.g., 

all quarries would be restored to an 

appearance similar to that which 

existed prior to excavation. 

Natural resources would be 

maintained in their natural conditions 

and natural processes would 

dominate. 

All cultural resources would be 

preserved and protected. 

Tolerance for impacts relating to 

visitor use would be extremely low. 

Visitors would be in a 

wildland environment. 

They would be 

provided with 

opportunities to 

experience the natural 

sounds, closeness to 

nature, and a sense of 

remoteness and selfreliance. 

There would be only 

occasional encounters 

with others outside of 

one’s group. 

Visitors would have the 

opportunity to 

experience a sense of 

discovery and 

adventure in a nonmotorized setting. 

No trails or facilities 

would be provided. 

TRANSPORTATION 

The transportation 

zone would include 

developed road 

corridors and 

adjacent road rightsof-way used for 

Paleontological resources would be 

maintained and/or retrieved in the 

least intrusive manner possible while 

undertaking necessary transportationrelated improvements. These activities 

would be coordinated with 

paleontological staff. 

Visitors would access 

and experience the 

monument primarily by 

traveling on rural 

highways and 

secondary roads. Travel 

time would be 

dependent on the 

Examples of facilities 

would include paved 

and gravel roads, 

interpretive signs, 

pullouts, waysides, 

guard rails, and 

associated 

improvements. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

64 

Management Zone Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Facilities

access, and for visitor 

interpretive and 

educational 

purposes. 

Natural resources could be highly 

modified to ensure safe and efficient 

transportation for the public. 

All cultural resources would be 

preserved and protected as much as 

feasible. 

Tolerance for impacts relating to the 

provision of a safe transportation 

network would be high. 

visitor’s destination. 

Automobiles, buses, 

and other motorized 

vehicles would have 

access to the 

monument via safe and 

efficient roadways. 

OPERATIONS 

The purpose of the 

operations zone 

would be to support 

the day-to-day 

management and 

administration of the 

monument. 

Efficiency, safety, 

and convenience 

would be important 

elements of all 

facilities and activities 

in this zone. 

These areas would 

generally be closed 

to the public. 

Paleontological resources would be 

maintained and/or retrieved in the 

least intrusive manner possible while 

undertaking necessary operational 

activities. These activities would be 

coordinated with paleontology staff. 

Natural resources may be highly 

modified in this heavily used and 

developed area. Times of high noise 

levels during the operation of 

equipment would be expected. 

Facility development would occur in 

areas previously disturbed or in areas 

of low natural resource sensitivity. 

All cultural resources would be 

preserved and protected as much as 

feasible. 

Cultural resources might be 

rehabilitated for adaptive uses, which 

would be preferable to new 

construction. Facility development 

would occur in areas previously 

disturbed or in areas of low cultural 

resource potential. 

Tolerance for natural resource 

impacts would be higher than in 

other zones. 

There generally would 

be no visitor use in this 

zone but the area 

would be heavily used 

by monument staff, 

volunteers, partners, 

and others engaged in 

monument operations 

and administration. 

This zone might 

contain concentrated 

facilities. Examples of 

administration 

facilities include 

headquarters, 

maintenance areas, 

staff housing, 

maintenance roads, 

and other facilities 

necessary for the 

management of the 

monument. 
Introduction to the Alternatives 

65 

USER CAPACITY 

General management plans are required to 

include identification of and implementation 

commitments for user capacities for all areas 

of a park unit. The National Park Service 

defines user capacity as the type and level of 

visitor use that can be accommodated while 

sustaining the quality of resources and 

visitor opportunities consistent with the 

purposes of a National Park Service unit. It is 

not necessarily a set of numbers or limits, but 

rather a process involving monitoring, 

evaluation, actions (managing visitor use), 

and adjustments to ensure a park unit’s 

values are protected. 

With any use on public lands comes some 

level of impact that must be accepted. 

Therefore it is the responsibility of the 

National Park Service to decide what level of 

impact is acceptable and what actions are 

needed to keep impacts within acceptable 

limits. Instead of solely tracking and 

controlling user numbers, NPS staff manage 

the levels, types, and patterns of visitor use 

and other public uses as needed to manage 

the condition of the resources and quality of 

the visitor experience. The monitoring 

component of this process helps test the 

effectiveness of management actions and 

provides a basis for informed adaptive 

management of public use. 

Five key elements are involved in user 

capacity decision making: 

• resource and visitor experience 

• desired conditions as described in the 

management zones 

• indicators and standards 

• monitoring 

• management strategies 

The foundation for user capacity decision 

making is the qualitative descriptions of 

desired resource conditions, visitor 

experience opportunities, and general levels 

of development and management described 

in the management zones. Based on these 

desired conditions, indicators and standards 

are identified. An indicator is a measurable 

variable that can be used to track changes in 

resource and social conditions related to 

human activity, so that existing conditions 

can be compared to desired conditions. A 

standard is the minimum acceptable 

condition for an indicator. 

 

User capacity decision making is a 

continuous process; decisions are adjusted 

based on monitoring the indicators and 

standards. Management actions are taken to 

minimize impacts when needed. The 

indicators and standards included in this 

management plan would generally not 

change in the future. However, as 

monitoring of the monument’s conditions 

continues, managers may decide to modify, 

add, or delete indicators if better ways are 

found to measure important changes in 

resource and social conditions. The results 

of the monument’s monitoring efforts, 

related visitor use management actions, and 

any changes to the monument’s indicators 

and standards would be available for public 

review. 

Indicators and Standards 

This management plan includes 

identification of user capacity indicators and 

standards. Table 4 includes the indicators, 

standards, related monitoring, and potential 

future management strategies allocated by 

management zone that would be 

implemented as result of this planning effort. 

These indicators and standards help 

translate the broader qualitative descriptions 

of desired conditions into measurable 

conditions. 

Measurable indicators have been selected 

for monitoring key aspects of visitor 

experiences and resources at John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument. Standards 

that represent the points where visitor 

experience and resource conditions become 

unacceptable in each zone were then 

assigned based on desired conditions. The 

indicators would be monitored in each zone, 

and when necessary, management actions 

would be taken to ensure that visitor use and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 

66 

resource impacts remain within the 

established standards. 

Two sets of indicators and standards were 

selected as measures of visitor use effects at 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument: 

unofficial trails and visitor encounters. The 

monument staff considered other potential 

resource indicators that would identify 

visitor use impacts of concern, but many 

were eliminated because they were not easy 

to monitor or did not provide adequate 

information on the issue of concern. The 

presence of human-created (unofficial) trails 

was selected as an indicator to measure the 

increase in vegetation and soil disturbance 

that may be occurring outside of the 

monument’s designated facilities. This 

indicator was considered to be feasible 

because it would be fairly easy to monitor 

and would provide useful information about 

important resource impacts. These humancreated trails increase the total footprint of 

disturbed lands in the monument and may 

adversely affect sensitive wildlife habitats 

and important archaeological and 

paleontological resources. 

The monument staff also considered several 

potential social or visitor experience 

indicators that would measure how visitor 

use levels, types, and behaviors were 

affecting other visitors. The social indicator 

selected relates to visitor encounter rates on 

designated (official) trails. In many studies 

conducted in the national park system and 

other areas, this indicator has been 

demonstrated to be an important indicator 

of crowding and associated impacts on the 

visitor experience, especially in backcountry 

settings (see Roggenbuck, Williams and 

Watson 1993, Manning 1999). 

The standards selected for each indicator 

were based on best professional 

management judgment that was informed by 

the general management plan’s desired 

conditions, the monument’s baseline 

conditions for each indicator, and relevant 

monument-specific and national research 

studies. 

The monument staff would continue general 

monitoring of use levels and patterns and 

would conduct periodic visitor surveys of 

visitor characteristics, expectations, 

evaluations, and preferences. In addition, 

the monument staff would begin monitoring 

the user capacity indicators identified in the 

zone descriptions. The rigor of monitoring 

the indicators (e.g., frequency of monitoring 

cycles, amount of geographic area 

monitored) may vary considerably 

depending on how close existing conditions 

are to the standards. If the existing 

conditions are well below the standard, the 

rigor of monitoring may be less than if the 

existing conditions are close to or trending 

towards the standards. 

In addition, the initial phases of monitoring 

for the indicators and standards defined 

above would help the NPS staff identify if 

any revisions are needed. The initial testing 

of the indicators and standards would 

determine if the indicators are accurately 

measuring the conditions of concern. 

Monument staff may decide to modify the 

indicators or standards and revise the 

monitoring program if more effective and 

efficient methods are found to measure 

changes caused by public use. Most of these 

changes should be made within the first 

several years of initiating monitoring. This 

iterative learning and refining process is the 

strength of this approach to managing user 

capacity—it can be adapted and improved as 

knowledge grows. 

After this initial testing period of monitoring 

indicators and standards, adjustments 

should not occur unless there is a compelling 

reason. Monument staff need to be cautious 

of adjusting indicators and standards to a 

point where the indicators and standards are 

no longer consistent with the desired 

conditions for the zone. If desired 

conditions and, subsequently, indicators and 

standards need to be changed, these 

decisions may be subject to additional 

compliance. 
Introduction to the Alternatives 

67 

Finally, if use levels and patterns change 

substantially, the monument staff may need 

to initiate additional monitoring of new 

indicators to ensure that desired conditions 

are maintained. Some of the potential future 

user capacity indicators may relate to the 

topics of vegetation trampling along the 

John Day River and near pictograph sites, 

trail condition, and number of people at one 

time at the monument’s major attractions. 

The selection of any new indicators and 

standards for monitoring purposes, changes 

to the indicators and standards identified in 

this general management plan, or the 

implementation of any management actions 

that affect use would comply with NEPA, 

the National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other laws, regulations, and policies as 

needed. The NPS staff would also inform the 

public of progress and proposed revisions to 

indicators and standards through regular 

reporting on the user capacity program. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

68 

Table 4: Summary of User Capacity Indicators, Standards, and 

Strategies for Monitoring and Management 

User Capacity 

Indicators 

User Capacity 

Standards 

Related 

Monitoring 

Strategies 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

Cultural 

Zone 

Number of 

people 

encountered per 

hour on 

designated 

(official) trails 

No more than 

80 people 

encountered per 

hour 

Observations of 

encounter rates as 

part of regular 

patrols; systematic 

observations 

would be done, if 

needed, as a result 

of an increasing 

trend in encounter 

rates 

Education (e.g., encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use); 

site management (e.g., resize 

parking lot/access points, alter 

trail opportunities)

Frontcountry 

Zone 

N/A – User 

capacity 

managed by 

facility 

capacities 

N/A – User 

capacity 

managed by 

facility capacities 

Sufficiency of 

facility capacities 

would continue to 

be monitored 

Future planning would address 

conflicts between facility 

capacity deficiencies and 

maintaining desired resource 

conditions and visitor 

experiences 

Pedestrian 

Zone 

1. Number of 

human-created 

(unofficial) trails 

per mile 

branching from 

a designated 

(official) trail 

1. No more than 

four humancreated 

(unofficial) trails 

per mile 

branching from 

a designated 

(official) trail 

1. Observations of 

human-created 

trails as part of 

regular patrols; 

periodic mapping 

of human-created 

trails 

1. Education (e.g., educate 

regarding resource sensitivity 

and need for appropriate 

behaviors); site management 

(e.g., place physical barriers 

along the trails, close areas); 

enforcement (e.g., provide 

signs, increase law enforcement presence, impose 

sanctions) 

2. Number of 

people 

encountered per 

hour on 

designated 

(official) trails 

2. No more than 

60 people 

encountered per 

hour 

2. Observations of 

encounter rates as 

part of regular 

patrols; systematic 

observations 

would be done, if 

needed, as a result 

of an increasing 

trend in encounter 

rates 

2. Education (e.g., encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use); 

site management (e.g., resize 

parking lot/access points, alter 

trail opportunities); reallocation 

of use (e.g., institute a 

permitting or reservation 

system); regulations (e.g., limit 

group sizes, limit length of 

stay) 

Backcountry 

Zone 

1. Linear feet of 

human-created 

(unofficial) trails 

per acre 

1. No more than 

5 linear feet of 

human-created 

(unofficial) trails 

per acre 

1. Observations of 

human-created 

trails as part of 

regular patrols; 

periodic mapping 

of human-created 

trails 

1. Education (e.g., educate 

regarding resource sensitivity 

and need for appropriate 

behaviors); site management 

(e.g., place physical barriers 

along trails, close areas); enforcement (e.g., provide signs, 

increase law enforcement 

presence, impose sanctions) 
Introduction to the Alternatives 

69 

User Capacity 

Indicators 

User Capacity 

Standards 

Related 

Monitoring 

Strategies 

Potential Management 

Strategies 

Backcountry 

Zone 

(continued 

2. Number of 

people 

encountered per 

hour on 

designated 

(official) trails 

2. No more than 

40 people 

encountered per 

hour 

2. Observations of 

encounter rates as 

part of regular 

patrols; systematic 

observations 

would be done, if 

needed, as a result 

of an increasing 

trend in encounter 

rates 

2. Education (e.g., encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use); 

site management (e.g., resize 

parking lot/access points, alter 

trail opportunities); reallocation 

of use (e.g., institute a 

permitting or reservation 

system); regulations (e.g., limit 

group sizes, limit length of 

stay) 

Primitive Zone 1. Linear feet of 

human-created 

(unofficial) trails 

per acre 

1. No more than 

1 linear foot of 

human-created 

(unofficial) trails 

per acre 

1. Observations of 

human-created 

trails as part of 

regular patrols; 

periodic mapping 

of human-created 

trails 

1. Education (e.g., educate 

regarding resource sensitivity 

and need for appropriate 

behaviors); site management 

(e.g., close areas); enforcement 

(e.g., provide signs about 

appropriate behaviors, increase 

law enforcement presence, 

impose sanctions) 

2. Number of 

groups seen per 

day (6 a.m. to 9 

p.m.) within the 

primitive zone 

2. No more than 

three groups 

seen per day in 

the zone 

2. Observations of 

encounter rates as 

part of regular 

patrols; systematic 

observations 

would be done, if 

needed, as a result 

of an increasing 

trend in encounter 

rates 

2. Education (e.g., encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use); 

reallocation of use (e.g., 

institute a permitting or 

reservation system); regulations 

(e.g., limit length of stay) 

Transportation 

Corridor Zone 

N/A – The National Park Service does not have management authority over the county and 

state road corridors, so no user capacity indicators and standards are identified 

Operations 

Zone 

N/A – Minimal public use occurs in this zone, so no user capacity indicators and standards 

are necessary 
70 

ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION 

CONCEPT 

This alternative would provide a baseline for 

evaluating changes and impacts in the other 

alternatives. In the no-action alternative, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

manage John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument as the monument has been 

managed since the approval of the 1979 

general management plan. For the foreseeable 

future there would be no major change in the 

management of the monument. Facilities and 

resource programs would continue as they 

are, without change. The natural resource 

program would continue to focus on 

inventorying and monitoring; resource 

protection; and preservation, mitigation, and 

applied research efforts. The cultural resource 

program would continue to focus on 

protecting historic structures and landscapes, 

particularly in and around the Cant Ranch. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

foster partnerships with other agencies, 

primarily for resource stewardship, 

interpretive, and administrative purposes. The 

education programs would continue to focus 

primarily on schools and paleontologyfocused organizations in the region. 

Natural and cultural resources would 

continue to be managed under existing 

approved plans (e.g., fire management, 

integrated pest management). As appropriate, 

archeological surveys and/or monitoring 

would precede any ground disturbance 

associated with excavation or construction, 

and national register –eligible or national 

register–listed archeological resources would 

be avoided to the greatest extent possible. To 

appropriately preserve and protect national 

register–listed or national register–eligible 

historic structures and cultural landscapes, all 

stabilization, preservation and rehabilitation 

efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal 

maintenance, would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

In alternative A, NPS managers would 

continue to follow the management zoning 

scheme described in the 1979 General 

Management Plan for John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument. Most of the land in the 

three units would continue to be in either a 

natural environment zone or outstanding 

natural feature subzone (which incorporates 

the most significant paleontological and 

scenic geologic resources of the monument). 

The Cant Ranch would be included within a 

historic zone while a few small areas that serve 

the needs of monument visitors and 

management would continue to be in a 

development zone (e.g., parking areas, picnic 

areas, overlooks). 

USER CAPACITY 

In this alternative NPS managers would 

continue managing visitors as they have in the 

past, relying on approved plans. The 

monument staff would continue to respond to 

user capacity issues on a case by case basis, 

with facility capacity largely setting the 

monument’s user capacity. No major new 

initiatives would be pursued to manage 

visitors and a monument-wide user capacity 

approach (i.e., monitoring indicators and 

standards) would not be established. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Clarno Unit 

Mammal Quarry. The mammal quarry would 

not be opened under current management, 

but would be preserved for future study. 

Existing Unofficial Trails. The extensive 

network of human-created unofficial trails 

that exists around the Hancock Field Station 

would not be formalized, but trails would be 

removed as staffing and funding allowed. 
Alternative A, No Action 

71 

Large groups would continue to be permitted 

with minimal requirements. 

Indian Canyon. No changes would occur 

regarding the management of Indian Canyon. 

Visitors would continue to be allowed to hike 

in the area so long as they were not on 

exposed paleosols. 

Visitor Contact Station/Office. Rangers 

would continue to operate out of the existing 

facility located adjacent to State Highway 218. 

Painted Hills Unit 

Painted Hills Overlook. The overlook would 

be maintained in its present condition with 

limited shade for visitors and no defined 

parking space for the Carroll Rim trailhead. 

Road to Painted Cove. In the short term, the 

road to Painted Cove (owned and maintained 

by Wheeler County) would remain in its 

present condition as a gravel road. 

Painted Hills Picnic Area. The picnic area 

would be maintained in its present condition, 

which includes a maintained turf grass area 

along with a small arboretum. Shade for 

visitors would remain limited. 

Leaf Hill Trail. The Leaf Hill Trail would be 

maintained in its present condition. 

Bridge Creek. Efforts would continue on 

NPS lands to remove invasive plants and plant 

native trees to restore the riparian area to a 

more “natural” landscape. 

Sheep Rock Unit 

Cant Ranch. The James Cant Ranch Historic 

District would continue to be managed to 

maintain its cultural landscape and features. 

As part of maintaining the cultural landscape, 

the four fields would continue to be leased for 

hay production, with flood irrigation and 

traditional agricultural practices being 

employed. Efforts would continue to preserve 

the barn through stabilization and some 

rehabilitation. Picnic facilities would remain 

near the Cant Ranch house, which would 

continue to be used as the monument 

headquarters. Public restrooms would 

continue to be available inside the ranch 

house, accessible during normal monument 

business hours. 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. The 

paleontology center would continue to serve 

as the primary visitor contact site for the 

monument. No new services or facilities 

would be provided. 

John Day River. NPS managers would 

continue to focus their efforts on vegetation 

management and plantings along the riparian 

area. 

Butler Basin. No changes would occur 

regarding the management of Butler Basin 

above the paleontology center. Visitors would 

continue to be allowed to hike in the area so 

long as they were not on exposed paleosols. 

Research Natural Area. One research natural 

area exists in the monument in the Sheep 

Rock Unit. The Sheep Rock Research Natural 

Area was nominated in 1985 and includes 

approximately 920 acres. It is composed of 

two geographically separated sites: the Rock 

Creek and Waterspout Gulch sites. The Rock 

Creek site includes 440 acres and consists of 

three distinct parts: a steep hillside on the 

north side of State Highway 26, the riparian 

zone along Rock Creek, and the steep hillside 

on the south side of State Highway 26. The 

Waterspout Gulch site includes 480 acres and 

lies to the east of the John Day River on 

steeply sloped uplands above the rock 

prominence called Sheep Rock. 

Most of the research natural area is relatively 

inaccessible and is unaffected by past livestock 

grazing. Consequently, the vegetative 

communities are in fairly pristine condition. 

In alternative A, the research natural area 

would continue to be managed to protect its 

pristine qualities. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PRFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

72 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

No new boundary adjustments would be 

pursued in Alternative A. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, AND 

ACTIVITIES 

The National Park Service would continue its 

partnership with the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to share resources 

on paleontology and archaeology in the John 

Day Basin. An interagency agreement, signed 

by the three agencies in 2001, allows the 

monument to provide staffing and expertise 

on paleontological resource needs in the John 

Day Basin while the Bureau of Land 

Management provides staffing and expertise 

on archeological resource issues in the 

monument. Furthermore, the agreement 

allows NPS staff to conduct paleontological 

inventories on the other agencies’ lands in the 

John Day Basin and to store their fossils in the 

monument’s repository. The National Park 

Service also has a formal arrangement with the 

Bureau of Land Management for law 

enforcement. The Bureau of Land 

Management provides a full-time law 

enforcement ranger that is assigned to the 

monument. This ranger spends one-half of his 

time on NPS law enforcement under a 

reimbursable agreement between the two 

agencies. This would continue in alternative 

A. 

The monument would continue to work with 

museums and universities around the world 

on paleontological research and curation 

methods. 

The monument would continue its longstanding partnership with the Oregon 

Museum of Science and Industry through its 

Hancock Field Station located in the 

monument. Monument staff would continue 

to work with Hancock staff on interpretive 

programs and special projects in the Clarno 

Unit. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates for alternative A are identified 

below in Table 5. The cost estimates, in 2006 

dollars, shown here are not for budgetary 

purposes; they are only intended to show a 

very general relative comparison of costs 

between the alternatives. A discussion of the 

development of the costs and a comparison 

between the alternatives is included after the 

description of the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Development 

Alternative A would continue the current level 

of facilities with no additional development. 

Staff and Operations 

As of 2006, the monument’s staff consisted of 

19 permanent employees. With the hiring of 

seasonal staff, the monument’s staff grew to as 

high as 40 people in the summer. This 

approximate staffing level would continue in 

alternative A. 

The monument’s annual operating budget (FY 

2006) was $1,348,000. 

Table 5: Estimated Costs, Alternative A 

Recurring Costs 

NPS Operations $ 1.3 Million/Year

Bridge Creek 

Restoration 

$ 30,000/Year

John Day River 

Restoration 

$ 91,000/Year

No One-time Capital Costs 






79 

ALTERNATIVE B, THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

CONCEPT 

Alternative B is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative. In this alternative, 

resource protection, research, and visitor 

opportunities would be enhanced while 

operational efficiencies would be improved. 

Natural conditions in the monument would 

be restored and enhanced where considered 

most effective. Visitor opportunities would 

be expanded through improvements in 

existing facilities, establishment of new trails, 

and increased interpretive efforts. 

Sustainability of monument operations 

would be stressed. 

Monument staff would focus on gaining a 

greater understanding of the monument’s 

paleontological resources through expanded 

research. The monument staff would seek 

more partnerships with other research 

institutions and museums while expanding 

the permanent and volunteer research staff 

at the monument. On a regional level, the 

monument staff would increase the amount 

of partnerships in the John Day Basin. 

Interpretive programs at locations such as 

the mammal quarry would be implemented 

and the public would be provided better 

access to important research areas that may 

currently be difficult to access or are 

unpublicized. 

In an effort to minimize human impacts 

within the monument, visitors would be 

encouraged to use existing designated trails, 

and human-created unofficial trails would 

be eliminated. Group sizes would be limited 

in the backcountry. Construction of new 

monument facilities would be limited and 

would focus on improving visitor 

opportunities. It is important to stress that 

although new visitor opportunities would be 

offered in alternative B, the National Park 

Service would continue to maintain and 

protect natural and cultural resources in the 

monument and not permit new 

developments that would be inappropriate 

for the monument. 

In this alternative, where possible, any new 

facilities would be constructed in already 

disturbed areas. Disturbance to sensitive 

areas such as wetlands would also be 

avoided or mitigated whenever possible. 

(See the “Mitigation” section.) 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with excavation or 

construction, and archeological resources 

that are listed in or eligible for listing in the 

national register would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. To appropriately 

preserve and protect national register-listed 

or national register-eligible historic 

structures and cultural landscapes, all 

stabilization, preservation and rehabilitation 

efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal 

maintenance, would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Figures 5, 6, and 7 show how John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument would be 

zoned in alternative B. (The management 

zones are described near the end of the 

“Introduction to the Alternatives” section.) 

Most of the monument would be included in 

the backcountry or primitive zones, with a 

few relatively small frontcountry, cultural, 

and monument operations zones. Popular 

trails are generally included within the 

pedestrian zone. Existing circulation 

patterns in the monument would be 

maintained; therefore, all primary roads are 

included in the transportation corridor zone. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

80 

USER CAPACITY 

As described in the management zones and 

in the beginning of this chapter, monument 

staff would monitor social and resource 

indicators, evaluate current conditions 

against standards, and take appropriate steps 

to ensure the monument’s user capacity is 

not exceeded. See table 4 for the user 

indicators, standards, and management and 

monitoring strategies that would be followed 

under this alternative. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Clarno Unit 

Mammal Quarry. Working with interested 

partners, monument managers would open 

the mammal quarry for research and 

interpretation. Testing would be conducted 

with the intent of excavating portions of the 

mammal quarry that show significant fossil 

deposits. Analyses would be conducted to 

ascertain the abundance, distribution, and 

orientation of the fossiliferous sediments 

proximal to the quarry and to perform 

excavations to test paleoecological 

hypotheses, taphonomic explanations, and 

paleoclimatic models. A small awning would 

be constructed to protect paleontological 

resources and allow public visitation, and 

secure perimeter fencing would be installed. 

The focus would be on a seasonal operation 

that provides opportunities to advance 

research goals alongside public viewing and 

interpretation. 

Geo-Loop Trail. A new gravel parking area, 

accommodating approximately eight cars 

and two RVs, and a trailhead would be 

constructed immediately east of the 

Hancock Field Station. Existing humancreated unofficial trails would be formalized 

in order to provide a loop trail, 

approximately 4 miles in length, that 

accesses the Hancock Tree, the Clarno Nut 

Beds, and the mammal quarry. If possible, 

that portion of the trail that goes from the 

new trailhead to the Hancock Tree 

(approximately 0.4 miles) would be made 

accessible for people with disabilities, 

constructed of a combination of asphalt and 

a boardwalk. Because this trail would be 

designed to receive higher levels of use, it 

would be included in a pedestrian 

management zone.

Mimulus Trail. This existing, humancreated unofficial trail, approximately 2 

miles long, would be formalized. The official 

trail would extend southwest of the 

Hancock Field Station, run across the top of 

the palisades to the ridge between Indian 

and Hancock canyons, and then connect 

with a trail between the ridges (see figure 5). 

Although most of the trail is already present, 

approximately 0.5 mile of new trail would 

need to be constructed. The Mimulus Trail 

would be designed for low to moderate use 

levels, which would be consistent in 

character with the surrounding backcountry 

zone. 

Stegamonster Trail. This existing humancreated unofficial trail would be formalized. 

This trail is about 2 miles long, and runs 

from just south of the Hancock Field Station 

to the east and up to the ridge between 

Indian and Hancock canyons (see figure 5). 

The Stegamonster Trail would be designed 

for low to moderate use levels, which would 

be consistent in character with the 

surrounding backcountry zone.

Trail Removal. All undesignated humancreated trails would be removed and the 

areas restored.

Indian Canyon. No changes would occur 

regarding the management of Indian 

Canyon. Visitors would continue to be 

allowed to hike in the area so long as they 

were not on exposed paleosols. 

Visitor Contact Station/Office. Rangers 

would continue to operate out of the 

existing facility located adjacent to State 

Highway 218. 
Alternative B, The Preferred Alternative 

81 

Painted Hills Unit 

Painted Hills Overlook. The overlook 

would be redesigned to improve visitor 

access and overall aesthetics. It would 

accommodate parking for the Carroll Rim 

Trail and a new shade structure would be 

added for visitor comfort. 

Road to Painted Cove. In this alternative, 

the National Park Service would work with 

Wheeler County to seek funding to pave the 

county-owned and county-maintained road 

to Painted Cove. If funds were obtained, the 

NPS managers would work with the county 

to incorporate a design that would ensure 

that the rural character of the area is 

retained. NPS managers would encourage 

the county to adopt NPS road standards and 

use alternative surfacing treatments. 

Painted Hills Picnic Area. The picnic area 

would be maintained in its present 

condition, which includes a maintained turf 

grass area along with a small arboretum. 

New shade structures would be added for 

visitor comfort. 

Leaf Hill Trail. The Leaf Hill Trail would be 

maintained in its present condition. 

Bridge Creek Restoration. As in the noaction alternative, efforts would continue on 

NPS lands to remove invasive plants and to 

plant native trees to restore the riparian area 

to a more “natural” landscape. In addition, 

in this alternative NPS managers would seek 

a cooperative agreement to partner with the 

adjacent landowner on a collaborative creek 

restoration effort. If an agreement were 

obtained, NPS managers would work with 

the landowner to remove invasive plants and 

to plant native trees on their side of the 

creek. 

Sheep Rock Unit 

Cant Ranch. The James Cant Ranch 

Historic District would continue to be 

managed to maintain its cultural landscape 

and features. As part of the cultural 

landscape, the four fields would continue to 

be leased for hay production, with flood 

irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, and 

traditional and modern agricultural practices 

being employed. However, management 

would focus on improvements in 

sustainability of the agricultural operation, 

such as improving water conservation 

through land leveling and/or sprinkler 

installation. The National Park Service 

would continue to irrigate the fields under 

its existing water rights. The focus for the 

Cant Ranch barn would continue to be on 

preservation, including some rehabilitation. 

As in the no-action alternative, public 

restrooms would be available inside the Cant 

Ranch house, accessible during normal 

monument business hours. 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. 

The paleontology center would continue to 

serve as a primary visitor contact / 

interpretive focal point for the monument. 

No new services or facilities would be 

provided. 

NPS managers also would work with the 

Oregon Department of Transportation to 

explore possible safety measures or options 

for visitors to safely cross State Highway 19 

to access Cant Ranch. These measures could 

include lowering speed limits or putting in a 

crosswalk. 

John Day River. As in the no-action 

alternative, NPS managers would continue 

to focus their efforts on vegetation 

management and plantings along the 

riparian area. In addition, in this alternative 

NPS managers would take actions to restore 

the river’s hydrologic and riparian function 

in the monument. Dikes and rock barbs 

would be removed when the banks are 

stabilized either through the reestablishment 

of riparian vegetation or other factors. 

Butler Basin. No changes would occur 

regarding the management of Butler Basin, 

above the paleontology center. Visitors 

would continue to be allowed to hike in the 

area so long as they were not on exposed 

paleosols. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

82 

Research Natural Area. One research 

natural area exists in the monument in the 

Sheep Rock Unit. The Sheep Rock Research 

Natural Area was nominated in 1985 and 

includes approximately 920 acres. It is 

composed of two geographically separated 

sites: the Rock Creek and Waterspout Gulch 

sites. The Rock Creek site includes 440 acres 

and the Waterspout Gulch site includes 480 

acres. Both of these sites are in steep, rugged 

topography, are relatively inaccessible, and 

are unaffected by past livestock grazing. In 

alternative B the research natural area would 

continue to be managed to protect its 

pristine qualities. The proposed 

management zoning for Alternative B is 

compatible with this special designation. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

The National Park Service would pursue a 

land exchange between an adjacent private 

landowner and the Bureau of Land 

Management around Cathedral Rock in the 

Sheep Rock Unit. This land exchange, 

involving up to 1,000 acres, would protect a 

key geologic feature and up to 100 acres of 

important riparian habitat along the John 

Day River. As noted in appendix B, if this 

land were managed by the National Park 

Service, a boundary adjustment would 

satisfy NPS criteria and policies. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, AND 

ACTIVITIES 

The National Park Service would continue 

its partnership with the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to share 

resources on paleontology and archaeology 

in the John Day Basin. An interagency 

agreement signed by the three agencies in 

2001, allows the monument to provide 

staffing and expertise on paleontological 

resource needs in the John Day Basin while 

the Bureau of Land Management provides 

staffing and expertise on archeological

resource needs in the monument. 

Furthermore, the agreement allows NPS 

staff to conduct paleontological inventories 

on other agencies’ lands in the John Day 

Basin and to store fossils from those lands in 

the monument’s repository. The National 

Park Service and Bureau of Land 

Management would continue to share and 

jointly fund a full time law enforcement 

ranger. 

The monument would continue to work 

with museums and universities around the 

world on paleontological research and 

curation methods. Planning assistance 

would be sought from such sources for 

opening the Mammal Quarry and for 

programming assistance for developing and 

operating interpretive activities on site. 

The monument staff would continue its 

long-standing partnership with the Oregon 

Museum of Science and Industry through its 

Hancock Field Station located in the 

monument. Monument staff would continue 

to work with Hancock staff on interpretive 

programs and special projects in the Clarno 

Unit. In particular, the monument staff 

would seek to engage Hancock staff and 

volunteers in eliminating human-created 

unofficial trails and restoring the areas to 

natural conditions. 

As noted above, in the Painted Hills Unit 

monument staff would seek to collaborate 

with the adjacent landowner on a 

comprehensive restoration effort that 

encompasses both sides of Bridge Creek. In 

addition, NPS staff would work with 

Wheeler County to obtain funding to pave 

the road to Painted Cove using a design 

approach that would maintain the rural 

character of the area. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates for alternative B are identified 

below in table 6. The cost estimates, in 2006 

dollars, shown here are not for budgetary 

purposes; they are intended to only show a 

very general relative cost comparison among 
Alternative B, The Preferred Alternative 

83 

the alternatives. The actual costs to the 

federal government could vary depending 

on various factors such as the final design of 

each facility, opportunities for partnerships, 

and future economic conditions. Note that 

these costs do not include the costs for any 

additional plans or studies. A discussion of 

the development of the costs and a 

comparison between the alternatives is 

included after the description of the 

alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan 

will depend on future funding. The approval 

of this plan does not guarantee that the 

funding and staffing needed to implement 

the plan will be forthcoming. Full 

implementation of the actions in the 

approved General Management Plan could 

be many years in the future. 

Development 

Alternative B would consist of the 

improvements to facilities and structures 

described previously in the alternative. The 

estimated development cost in 2006 dollars 

is approximately $1.0 million. 

Staff and Operations 

This alternative would be implemented with 

the current staffing levels plus 6.5 full-time 

equivalent staff (FTEs) for research, 

resource protection, and interpretation. 

(One FTE is one person working 40 hours 

per week for one year, or the equivalent.) 

The monument’s operating budget would 

need to be increased by approximately 

$650,000. The total cost to operate the 

monument in this alterative would be $2.0 

million per year (in 2006 dollars).

 

Table 6: Estimated Costs, Alternative B 

Recurring Costs

NPS Operations $ 2.0 million/year

Bridge Creek restoration $ 30,000/year

John Day River restoration $ 91,000/year

6.5 FTE $650,000/year

One-time Capital Costs 

Clarno Unit 

Mammal quarry facility $ 45,500

Geo-Loop Trail and parking area $ 528,200

Formalize Mimulus & Stegamonster trails $ 51,680

Painted Hills Unit 

Redesign Painted Hills Overlook $ 88,400 (if paved)

Shade structure at Painted Hills picnic area $ 30,000

Monument-wide 

Social trail closure and restoration $ 25,000

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (rounded) $ 770,000



&IGURE

!LTERNATIVE"0AINTED(ILLS5NIT*OHN$AY&OSSIL"EDS.ATIONAL-ONUMEN53$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIOR.ATIONAL0ARK3ERV$3#s*ULYss

ZONE

0ARK"OUNDARY

0ARK/PERATIONS&RONTCOUNTRY0EDESTRIAN"ACKCOUNTRY0RIMITIVE4RANSPORTATION#ORRIDOR

,EAF(ILL4RAIL

" EAR

#R EEK "R IDGE 

0AINTED#OVE4RAIL

)NFOR6)3)4/

#O

.ORTH



  

 +ILOM

0AINTED(ILLS/VERLOOK

0AINTED(ILLSTRAIL

CARROLLRIMTRAIL

HA

&IGURE

!LTERNATIVE"

3HEEP2OCK5NIT

*OHN$AY&OSSIL"EDS.ATIONAL-ONUME

53$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIOR.ATIONAL0ARK3ER

$3#s$ECss

JAMESCANTRANCH

INFORMATION

0ARK(EADQUARTERS

-!).4%.!.#%&!#),)49

SHEEPROCKOVERLOOKTRAIL

RIVERTRAIL

SHEEPROCK

4HOMAS

#ONDON

0ALEONTOLOGY

#ENTER

*OHNNY #REEK

DICK CREEK

*OHN

DAY

RIVER

SQUAW CREEK

ROCK #REEK

RATTLESNAKE #R

DEEP CREEK

BRANSON

CREEK

4O+IMBERLYANDSPRAY

&LOODOFFIRETRAIL

CATHEDRALROCK

BLUEBASIN

AREA

0ROPOSED

#ATHEDRALROCK

ADDITION

STORYINSTONETRAIL



  -ILE

 +ILOMETER

.ORTH

FOREE

AREA

TO

MITCHELL

TO

DAYVILLE

ISLANDINTIMETRAIL

GOOSEROCK

MASCALLFORMATION

OVERLOOK

BLUEBASINOVERLOOKTRAIL





 R

 ZONE

0ARK"OUNDARY

0ARK/PERATIONS

#ULTURAL

&RONTCOUNTRY

0EDESTRIAN

"ACKCOUNTRY

0RIMITIVE

4RANSPORTATION#ORRIDOR

PICTUREGORGE

0ROPOSED"OUNDARY

0RIVATEPROPERTY

WITHINBOUNDARY

91 

ALTERNATIVE C 

CONCEPT 

In alternative C, NPS managers would focus 

on enhancing resource protection, research, 

and visitor opportunities. Although there 

would be more visitor facilities built in this 

alternative, it would provide a greater 

opportunity for visitors to experience 

resources in relatively natural or recovering 

conditions. Environmental conditions in the 

monument would be restored and enhanced 

wherever possible. 

NPS managers would focus on gaining a 

greater understanding of the monument’s 

paleontological resources through expanded 

research. On a regional level, the monument 

staff would increase the amount of 

partnerships in the John Day Basin to 

encourage this research. The monument staff 

would seek more partnerships with other 

research institutions and museums while 

expanding the permanent and volunteer 

research staff at the monument. 

Interpretive programs at locations such as the 

mammal quarry would be implemented and 

the public would be provided better access to 

important research areas that may currently 

be difficult to access or are unpublicized. 

In an effort to minimize human impacts within 

the monument, visitors would be encouraged 

to use existing designated trails and humancreated unofficial trails would be eliminated. 

As in alternative B, the National Park Service 

would continue to maintain and protect 

natural and cultural resources in the 

monument and not permit new developments 

that would be inappropriate for the 

monument. 

The remainder of this section describes how 

different areas of the monument would be 

managed and what actions the National Park 

Service would take in this alternative. These 

actions are believed most likely to be 

implemented over the next 15 to 20 years. In 

this alternative, where possible, any new 

facilities would be constructed in already 

disturbed areas. Disturbance to sensitive areas 

such as wetlands would also be avoided or 

mitigated whenever possible. (See the 

“Mitigation” section.) 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with excavation or 

construction, and archeological resources that 

are listed in or eligible for listing in the 

national register would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. To appropriately 

preserve and protect national register-listed or 

national register-eligible historic structures 

and cultural landscapes, all stabilization, 

preservation and rehabilitation efforts, as well 

as daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Figures 8, 9, and 10 show how John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument would be zoned in 

alternative C. (The management zones are 

described near the end of the “Introduction to 

the Alternatives” section.) Most of the 

monument would be included in the 

backcountry or primitive zones in the three 

units, with a few relatively small frontcountry, 

cultural, and operations zones. Popular trails 

are generally included within the pedestrian 

zone. Existing circulation patterns in the 

monument would be maintained; therefore all 

primary roads are included in the 

transportation corridor zone. The primary 

distinction between the zoning of this 

alternative and alternative B is that in 

alternative C the pedestrian zone was not 

applied to the Leaf Hill area in the Painted 

Hills Unit, and a backcountry zone was 

applied to Butler Basin in the Sheep Rock 

Unit. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

92 

USER CAPACITY 

As described in the management zones and in 

the beginning of this chapter, monument staff 

would monitor social and resource indicators, 

evaluate current conditions against standards, 

and take appropriate steps to ensure the 

monument’s user capacity is not exceeded. 

See table 4 for the user indicators, standards, 

and management and monitoring strategies 

that would be followed under this alternative. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Clarno Unit 

Mammal Quarry. Working with interested 

partners, monument managers would open 

the mammal quarry for research and 

interpretation. Testing would be conducted 

with the intent of excavating portions of the 

mammal quarry that show significant fossil 

deposits. Analyses would be conducted to 

ascertain the abundance, distribution, and 

orientation of the fossiliferous sediments 

proximal to the quarry and to perform 

excavations to test paleoecological 

hypotheses, taphonomic explanations, and 

paleoclimatic models. A small awning would 

be constructed to protect paleontological 

resources and allow public visitation, and 

secure perimeter fencing would be installed. 

The focus would be on a seasonal operation 

that provides opportunities to advance 

research goals alongside public viewing and 

interpretation. 

Geo-Loop Trail. A new gravel parking area, 

accommodating eight cars and two RVs, and a 

trailhead would be constructed east of the 

Hancock Field Station. Existing humancreated unofficial trails would be formalized 

in order to provide an approximately 4-milelong loop trail that accesses the Hancock 

Tree, the Clarno Nut Beds, and the mammal 

quarry. If possible, that portion of the trail that 

goes from the new trailhead to the Hancock 

Tree (approximately 0.4 mile) would be made 

accessible for people with disabilities, 

constructed of a combination of asphalt and a 

boardwalk. Remaining undesignated humancreated trails would be removed.

Mimulus Trail. This existing, human-created, 

unofficial trail, approximately 2 miles long, 

would be formalized. The official trail would 

extend southwest of the Hancock Field 

Station, traverse the palisades to the ridge 

between Indian and Hancock canyons, then 

connect with a trail between the ridges (see 

figure 8). Although most of the trail is already 

present, approximately 0.5 mile of new trail 

would need to be constructed. The trail would 

be in a backcountry zone. 

Stegamonster Trail. The existing humancreated, unofficial trail would be formalized. 

This trail, about 2 miles in length, runs from 

just south of the Hancock Field Station to the 

east and up to the ridge between Indian and 

Hancock canyons (see figure 8). The trail 

would be in a backcountry zone.

Indian Canyon Trail. As a way to provide a 

long distance trail experience at the Clarno 

Unit, a new trail, approximately 3 miles long, 

would be constructed up Indian Canyon to 

provide hikers with additional opportunities 

to see and enjoy the wonderful scenery. The 

trail would be in a pedestrian zone. 

Visitor Contact Station/Office. The existing 

Clarno Unit ranger office provides very 

limited equipment storage space and space for 

visitor contact. To address these needs, a new 

200-square-foot visitor contact station / 

ranger office would be constructed in the 

Clarno Unit at the picnic area. 

Painted Hills Unit 

Painted Hills Overlook. The overlook would 

be redesigned to improve visitor access and 

overall aesthetics. It would accommodate 

parking for the Carroll Rim Trail and a new 

shade structure would be added for visitor 

comfort. 

Road to Painted Cove. In alternative C the 

National Park Service would work with 

Wheeler County to seek funding to pave the 

county-owned and county-maintained road to 
Alternative C 

93 

Painted Cove. If funds were obtained, NPS 

managers would work with the county to 

ensure that the rural character of the area is 

retained. NPS managers would encourage the 

county to adopt NPS road standards and use 

alternative surfacing treatments. 

Painted Hills Picnic Area. The picnic area 

would be maintained, but the area would be 

restored to a native plant community with the 

arboretum removed. New shade structures 

would be added for visitor comfort. 

Leaf Hill Trail. In alternative C the Leaf Hill 

Trail would be closed to public access and 

restored. The trail would be closed to reduce 

the potential for visitors illegally taking fossils 

from this area. 

Bridge Creek Restoration. As in the noaction alternative, efforts would continue on 

NPS lands to remove invasive plants and to 

plant native trees to restore the riparian area 

to a more “natural” landscape. In addition, in 

this alternative NPS managers would seek a 

cooperative agreement to partner with the 

adjacent landowner on a collaborative creek 

restoration effort. If an agreement were 

obtained, NPS managers would work with the 

landowner to remove invasive plants and to 

plant native trees on their side of the creek. 

Sheep Rock Unit 

Cant Ranch. The James Cant Ranch Historic 

District would continue to be managed to 

maintain its cultural landscape and features. 

However, in alternative C the four fields 

would be restored to native vegetation to the 

degree possible, thereby reducing water 

consumption and improving ecosystem 

health. In the interim, efforts would also be 

needed to monitor for and control invasive 

weeds that would likely spread over the fields. 

The focus for the Cant Ranch barn would 

continue to be on preservation, including 

some rehabilitation. 

In this alternative, new public restrooms 

would be constructed outside of the Cant 

Ranch house. Unlike the current situation, 

these new restrooms would be open to the 

public outside of normal monument business 

hours. This would also require the expansion 

of existing utilities (septic tank/leach field) in 

the area.

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. The 

paleontology center would continue to serve 

as a primary visitor contact / interpretive focal 

point for the monument. In alternative C, a 

new picnic area would be constructed near 

the paleontology center as a convenience for 

visitors. 

NPS managers also would work with the 

Oregon Department of Transportation to 

explore possible safety measures or options 

for visitors to safely cross State Highway 19 to 

access Cant Ranch, such as lowering speed 

limits or putting in a crosswalk. 

John Day River. As in the no-action 

alternative, NPS managers would continue to 

focus their efforts on vegetation management 

and plantings along the riparian area. In 

addition, in this alternative NPS managers 

would take additional actions to restore the 

river’s hydrologic and riparian function in the 

monument. Dikes and rock barbs would be 

removed when the banks are stabilized either 

through the reestablishment of riparian 

vegetation or other factors.

Butler Basin. A new trail, approximately 2.5 

miles in length, would be constructed. This 

new trail would provide visitors with another 

opportunity to see and enjoy the monument. 

The trail would depart the paleontology 

center and travel west to an overlook. The 

trail would be in a backcountry zone. 

Research Natural Area. One research natural 

area exists in the monument in the Sheep 

Rock Unit. The Sheep Rock Research Natural 

Area was nominated in 1985 and includes 

approximately 920 acres. It is composed of 

two geographically separated sites: the Rock 

Creek and Waterspout Gulch sites. The Rock 

Creek site includes 440 acres and the 

Waterspout Gulch site includes 480 acres. 

Both of these sites are in steep, rugged 

topography, are relatively inaccessible, and are 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

94 

unaffected by past livestock grazing. In 

alternative C the research natural area would 

continue to be managed to protect its pristine 

qualities. The proposed management zoning 

for Alternative C is compatible with this 

special designation. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

The National Park Service would pursue a 

land exchange with an adjacent private 

landowner and the Bureau of Land 

Management around Cathedral Rock in the 

Sheep Rock Unit. This land exchange, 

covering about 100 acres, would protect a key 

geologic feature and important riparian 

habitat along the John Day River. As noted in 

appendix B, this boundary adjustment would 

satisfy NPS criteria and policies for adjusting 

the monument’s boundary. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, AND 

ACTIVITIES 

The National Park Service would continue its 

partnership with the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to share resources 

on paleontology and archaeology in the John 

Day Basin. An interagency agreement signed 

by the three agencies in 2001, allows the 

monument to provide staffing and expertise 

on paleontological resource needs in the John 

Day Basin while the Bureau of Land 

Management provides staffing and expertise 

on archeological resource needs in the 

monument. Furthermore, the agreement 

allows NPS staff to conduct paleontological 

inventories on their lands in the John Day 

Basin and to store fossils from those lands in 

the monument’s repository. The National 

Park Service and Bureau of Land Management 

would continue to share and jointly fund a full 

time law enforcement ranger. 

The monument would continue to work with 

museums and universities around the world 

on paleontological research and curation 

methods. Planning assistance would be sought 

from such sources for opening the Mammal 

Quarry and for programming assistance for 

developing and operating interpretive 

activities on site. 

The monument staff would continue its longstanding partnership with the Oregon 

Museum of Science and Industry through its 

Hancock Field Station located in the 

monument. Monument staff would continue 

to work with Hancock staff on interpretive 

programs and special projects in the Clarno 

Unit. In particular, the monument staff would 

seek to engage Hancock staff and volunteers 

in eliminating human-created unofficial trails 

in the Clarno Unit and restoring the areas to 

natural conditions. 

As noted above, in the Painted Hills Unit, NPS 

staff would seek to collaborate with the 

adjacent landowner on a comprehensive 

restoration effort that encompasses both sides 

of Bridge Creek. In addition, NPS staff would 

work with Wheeler County to obtain funding 

to pave the road to Painted Cove in a fashion 

that maintains the rural character of the area. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Costs shown here are not for budgetary 

purposes; they are only intended to show a 

very general relative comparison of costs 

between the alternatives. A discussion of the 

development of the costs and a comparison 

between the alternatives is included after the 

description of the alternatives. The actual 

costs to the federal government could vary 

depending on various factors such as the final 

design of each facility, opportunities for 

partnerships, and current economic 

conditions. Note that these costs do not 

include the costs for any additional plans or 

studies needed. A discussion of the 

development of the costs and a comparison 

between the alternatives is included after the 

description of the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 
Alternative C 

95 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Development 

Alternative C would consist of the 

improvements to facilities and structures 

described previously in the alternative. The 

estimated development cost (in 2006 dollars) 

is $1.8 million. 

Staff and Operations 

This alternative would be implemented with 

the current staffing levels plus 6.5 full-time 

equivalent staff (FTEs) for research, resource 

protection, and interpretation. (One FTE is 

one person working 40 hours per week for 

one year, or the equivalent.) The total cost to 

operate the monument in this alterative would 

be $2.0 million per year (in 2006 dollars).

Table 7: Estimated Costs, Alternative C 

Recurring Costs

Monument Operations $ 2.0 million/year

Restore Painted Hills picnic area $ 3,000/year for 3 years

Bridge Creek restoration $ 30,000/year

John Day River restoration $ 91,000/year

6.5 FTE $650,000/year

One-time Capital Costs

Clarno Unit

Mammal quarry facility $ 45,500

Geo-Loop Trail and parking area $ 528,200

Formalize Mimulus & Stegamonster Trails $ 51,680

Indian Canyon Trail $ 234,000

Visitor contact station/office $ 78,000

Painted Hills Unit

Close and restore Leaf Hill Trail $ 5,000

Redesign Painted Hills Overlook $ 88,400 (if paved)

Shade structure at Painted Hills picnic area $ 30,000

Sheep Rock Unit

Restore Cant Ranch agricultural fields $ 111,000

Cant Ranch restrooms $ 169,000

Butler Basin Trail $ 206,500

Picnic area at Paleo Center $ 60,000

Monument-wide

Social trail closure and restoration $ 25,000

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (rounded) $ 1.64 million



ZONE

&IGURE!LTERNATIVE#0AINTED(ILLS5NIT*OHN$AY&OSSIL"EDS.ATIONAL-ONUME53$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIOR.ATIONAL0ARK3ER$3#s$ECss

0ARK"OUNDARY

0ARK/PERATIONS&RONTCOUNTRY0EDESTRIAN"ACKCOUNTRY0RIMITIVE4RANSPORTATION#ORRIDOR

" EAR

#R EEK "R IDGE 

0AINTED#OVE4RAIL

)NFOR6)3)4/PICNIAND

#O

.ORTH



  

 +ILO

0AINTED(ILLS/VERLOOK

0AINTED(ILLSTRAIL

CARROLLRIMTRAIL

HA

&IGURE

!LTERNATIVE#

3HEEP2OCK5NIT

*OHN$AY&OSSIL"EDS.ATIONAL-ONUMEN

53$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIOR.ATIONAL0ARK3ERV

$3#s*ULYss

JAMESCANTRANCH

INFORMATION

0ARK(EADQUARTERS

-!).4%.!.#%&!#),)49

B54,%2"!3).42!),

RESTROOMS

SHEEPROCKOVERLOOKTRAIL

RIVERTRAIL

SHEEPROCK

4HOMAS

#ONDON

0ALEONTOLOGY

#ENTER

*OHNNY #REEK

DICK CREEK

*OHN

DAY

RIVER

SQUAW CREEK

ROCK #REEK

RATTLESNAKE #R

DEEP CREEK

BRANSON

CREEK

4O+IMBERLYANDSPRAY

&LOODOFFIRETRAIL

STORYINSTONETRAIL

CATHEDRALROCK

BLUEBASIN

AREA

0ROPOSED

#ATHEDRALROCK

ADDITION



  -ILE

 +ILOMETER

.ORTH

FOREE

AREA

TO

MITCHELL

TO

DAYVILLE

ISLANDINTIME

BLUEBASINOVERLOOKTRAILHEADS

GOOSEROCK

MASCALLFORMATION

OVERLOOK





 R

 ZONE

0ARK"OUNDARY

0ARK/PERATIONS

#ULTURAL

&RONTCOUNTRY

0EDESTRIAN

"ACKCOUNTRY

0RIMITIVE

4RANSPORTATION#ORRIDOR

PICTUREGORGE

0ROPOSED

"OUNDARY

0ROPOSED4RAIL

INBACKCOUNTRYZONE	

103 

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 

National Park Service decision makers and the 

public must consider an overall picture of the 

complete costs and advantages of various 

alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative, to make wise planning and 

management decisions for John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument. 

In estimating costs of the alternatives, 

different types of costs need to be taken into 

account, including one-time costs, and annual 

operating cost. 

Initial one-time costs include 

• new development (including NPS 

infrastructure costs) 

• major rehabilitation or restoration of 

existing facilities 

• interpretive media (e.g., audiovisual 

materials, exhibits, waysides, and 

publications) 

• resource management and visitor service 

costs (e.g., resource and visitor 

inventories, implementation planning, and 

compliance) 

Recurring or replacement costs are significant 

anticipated costs that recur at intervals (other 

than annually) within the 25-year period 

considered in calculating life-cycle costs. 

Examples might be a situation when the 

National Park Service is supplying interpretive 

displays or utility systems that would be 

replaced every 8 to 15 years or repaving 

parking areas every 10 years. 

Other examples of recurring annual costs 

include 

• annual monument operating costs (e.g., 

staff salary and benefits, maintenance, 

utilities, monitoring, and contract 

services) 

• ongoing repair and rehabilitation of 

facilities (i.e., the projection of past trends 

and known future needs into an annual 

estimate) 

The following cost estimates are intended to 

provide a relative comparison of the costs of 

the alternatives. These figures are not 

intended to be used for budgetary purposes or 

to implement funding requests. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Table 8: Cost Comparison of the Alternatives 

Cost 

Category 

Alternative 

A 

(No 

Action) 

Alternative 

B 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 

C 

Initial 

one-time 

costs* 

0 $770,000 $1,640,000 

Annual 

costs $1,300,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 

Total FTEs 23 29.5 29.5 

* Total costs of the alternatives’ development actions; 

see specific alternatives for the cost breakdown
104 

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service 

with managing the lands under its stewardship 

“...in such manner and by such means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations.” (NPS Organic Act, 16 

USC 1) As a result, NPS staff routinely 

evaluates and implements mitigation measures 

whenever conditions occur that could 

adversely affect the sustainability of national 

park system resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action 

alternatives protects unimpaired natural and 

cultural resources and the quality of the visitor 

experience, a consistent set of mitigation 

measures would be applied to actions 

proposed in this plan. The National Park 

Service would prepare appropriate 

environmental review (i.e., those required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), and other relevant legislation) for 

these future actions. As part of the 

environmental review, the National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts when practicable. The 

implementation of a compliance-monitoring 

program would be within the parameters of 

NEPA and NHPA compliance documents, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 

permits, etc. The compliance-monitoring 

program would oversee these mitigation 

measures and would include reporting 

protocols. 

The following mitigation measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the action alternatives. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

General 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s 

resources, including air, water, soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife, would be periodically 

inventoried and monitored to provide 

information needed to avoid or minimize 

impacts of future development. Any museum 

collections generated by such activities would 

be managed according to NPS policies. 

Whenever possible, new facilities would be 

built in previously disturbed areas or in 

carefully selected sites with as small a 

construction footprint as possible. During 

design and construction periods, NPS natural 

resource staff would identify areas to be 

avoided. 

Fencing or other means would be used to 

protect sensitive resources adjacent to 

construction areas. 

Construction activities would be monitored 

by resource specialists as needed. 

Construction materials would be kept in work 

areas, especially if the construction takes place 

near streams, springs, natural drainages, or 

other water bodies. 

Visitors would be informed of the importance 

of protecting the monument’s natural 

resources (including paleontological 

resources) and leaving these undisturbed for 

the enjoyment of future generations. 

Air Quality 

A dust abatement program would be 

implemented. Standard dust abatement 

measures could include watering or otherwise 

stabilizing soils, covering haul trucks, 

employing speed limits on unpaved roads, 

minimizing vegetation clearing, and 

revegetating after construction. 

Soils 

New facilities would be built on soils suitable 

for development. Soil erosion would be 

minimized by limiting the time soil is left 

exposed and by applying other erosioncontrol measures such as erosion matting, silt 

fencing, and sedimentation basins in 

construction areas to reduce erosion, surface 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

105 

scouring, and discharge to water bodies. Once 

work was completed, construction areas 

would be revegetated with native plants in a 

timely period. 

To minimize soil erosion on new trails, best 

management practices for trail construction 

would be used. Examples of best management 

practices could include installing water bars, 

check dams and retaining walls; contouring to 

avoid erosion; and minimizing soil 

disturbance. 

Paleontological Resources 

Site-specific surveys would be undertaken 

before any ground disturbance occurs in areas 

believed likely to contain fossils. If important 

paleontological resources were identified, the 

National Park Service would attempt to avoid, 

relocate, or otherwise mitigate impacts from 

the actions being taken. Any specimens found 

and collected during construction activities 

would be managed according to NPS museum 

collection policies. 

Efforts would be undertaken to inform and 

educate visitors, students, teachers, and the 

public about the monument’s paleontological 

resources, the reasons for protecting these 

resources, and the laws regarding the 

collection of fossils from NPS lands. 

Water Resources 

To prevent water pollution during 

construction, erosion control measures would 

be used, discharges to water bodies would be 

minimized, and construction equipment 

would be regularly inspected for leaks of 

petroleum and other chemicals. 

Best management practices, such as the use of 

silt fences, would be followed to ensure that 

construction-related effects were minimal and 

to prevent long-term impacts on water quality, 

wetlands, and aquatic species. 

Caution would be exercised to protect water 

resources from activities with the potential to 

damage water resources, including damage 

caused by construction equipment, erosion, 

and siltation. Measures would be taken to 

keep fill material from escaping work areas, 

especially near streams, springs, natural 

drainages, and wetlands. 

For new facilities, and to the extent 

practicable for existing facilities, stormwater 

management measures would be implemented 

to reduce nonpoint source pollution discharge 

from parking lots and other impervious 

surfaces. Such actions could include use of 

oil/sediment separators, street sweeping, 

infiltration beds, permeable surfaces, and 

vegetated or natural filters to trap or filter 

stormwater runoff. 

The monument’s spill prevention and 

pollution control program for hazardous 

materials would be followed and updated on a 

regular basis. Standard measures could 

include procedures for hazardous materials 

storage and handling, spill containment, 

cleanup, and reporting; and limitation of 

refueling and other hazardous activities in 

upland/nonsensitive sites. 

Vegetation 

Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails) would be 

monitored for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Public education, revegetation of 

disturbed areas with native plants, erosion 

control measures, and barriers would be used 

to control potential impacts on plants from 

trail erosion or social trailing. 

Proposed sites for new trails and other 

facilities would be surveyed for sensitive 

species before construction. If sensitive 

species were present, new developments 

would be relocated to avoid impacts. 

Revegetation plans would be developed for 

disturbed areas. Revegetation plans should 

specify such features as seed/plant source, 

seed/plant mixes, soil preparation, fertilizers, 

and mulching. Salvage vegetation, rather than 

new planting or seeding, would be used to any 

extent possible. To maintain genetic integrity, 

native plants that grow in the project area or 

the region would be used in restoration 

efforts, whenever possible. Use of nonnative 

species or genetic materials would be 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

106 

considered only where deemed necessary to 

maintain a cultural landscape or to prevent 

severe resource damage, and would be 

approved by the monument’s natural resource 

specialist. Restoration activities would be 

instituted immediately after construction was 

completed. Monitoring would occur to ensure 

that revegetation was successful, plantings 

were maintained, and unsuccessful plant 

materials were replaced. 

Nonnative Species 

Special attention would be devoted to 

preventing the spread of noxious weeds and 

other nonnative plants. Standard measures 

could include the following elements: ensure 

construction-related equipment arrives onsite free of mud or seed-bearing material, 

certify all seeds and straw material as weedfree, identify areas of noxious weeds before 

construction, treat noxious weeds or noxious 

weed topsoil before construction (e.g., topsoil 

segregation, storage, herbicide treatment), and 

revegetate with appropriate native species. 

Wildlife 

To the extent possible, new or rehabilitated 

facilities would be sited to avoid sensitive 

wildlife habitats, including feeding and resting 

areas, major travel corridors, nesting areas, 

and other sensitive habitats. 

Construction activities would be timed to 

avoid sensitive periods, such as nesting or 

spawning seasons. Ongoing visitor use and 

NPS operational activities could be restricted 

if their potential level of damage or 

disturbance warranted doing so. 

Measures would be taken to reduce the 

potential for wildlife to get food from humans. 

Wildlife-proof garbage containers would be 

required in developed areas (including visitor 

centers, picnic areas, trails, and interpretive 

waysides). Signs would continue to educate 

visitors about the need to refrain from feeding 

wildlife. 

Other visitor impacts on wildlife would be 

addressed through such techniques as visitor 

education programs, restrictions on visitor 

activities, and ranger patrols. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern 

Conservation measures would occur during 

normal operations as well as before, during, 

and after construction to minimize long-term, 

immediate impacts on rare species, and 

threatened and endangered species if they are 

identified in the monument. These measures 

would vary by specific project and the affected 

area of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. Many of the measures listed 

above for vegetation and wildlife would also 

benefit rare, threatened, and endangered 

species by helping to preserve habitat. 

Conservation measures specific to rare, 

threatened, and endangered species would 

include the following actions: 

• Surveys would be conducted for special 

status species, including rare, threatened, 

and endangered species, before deciding 

to take any action that might cause harm. 

In consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, appropriate measures 

would be taken to protect any sensitive 

species whether identified through 

surveys or presumed to occur. 

• If breeding or nesting areas for threatened 

and endangered species were observed in 

the monument, these areas would be 

protected from human disturbance. 

• New facilities and management actions 

would be located and designed to avoid 

adverse effects on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. If avoidance of 

adverse effects on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species is infeasible, 

appropriate conservation measures would 

be taken in consultation with the 

appropriate resource agencies. 

• Restoration or monitoring plans would be 

developed as warranted. Plans should 

include methods for implementation, 

performance standards, monitoring 

criteria, and adaptive management 

techniques. 

• Measures would be taken to reduce 

adverse effects of nonnative plants and 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

107 

wildlife on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. 

Noise Abatement 

Standard noise abatement measures would be 

followed during construction. Standard noise 

abatement measures could include the 

following elements: a schedule that minimizes 

impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive resources, 

the use of the best available noise control 

techniques wherever feasible, the use of 

hydraulically or electrically powered impact 

tools when feasible, and the location of 

stationary noise sources as far from sensitive 

resources as possible. 

Facilities would be located and designed to 

minimize objectionable noise. 

Scenic Resources 

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize 

visual intrusions. These measures could 

include the following: 

• Where appropriate, facilities such as 

boardwalks and fences would be used to 

route people away from sensitive natural 

and cultural resources while still permitting access to important viewpoints. 

• Facilities would be designed, sited, and 

constructed to avoid or minimize visual 

intrusion into the natural environment or 

landscape. 

• Vegetative screening would be provided, 

where appropriate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All projects with the potential to affect historic 

properties and cultural landscapes would be 

carried out in compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act to 

ensure that the effects are adequately 

addressed. All reasonable measures would be 

taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects in consultation with the Oregon State 

Historic Preservation Officer and, as 

necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and other concerned parties 

including American Indian tribes. In addition 

to adhering to the legal and policy 

requirements for cultural resources protection 

and preservation, the National Park Service 

would also undertake the measures listed 

below to further protect the monument’s 

resources. 

All areas selected for construction would be 

surveyed to ensure that cultural resources (i.e., 

archeological, historic, ethnographic, and 

cultural landscape resources) in the area of 

potential effects are adequately identified and 

protected by avoidance or, if necessary, 

mitigation. 

Compliance with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

(NAGPRA) would apply in the unlikely event 

that human remains believed to be Native 

American would be discovered inadvertently 

during construction. Prompt notification and 

consultation with the tribes traditionally 

associated with John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument would occur in accordance with 

NAGPRA. If such human remains were 

believed to be non-Indian, standard reporting 

procedures to the proper authorities would be 

followed, as would all applicable federal, state, 

and local laws. 

Archeological documentation would be done 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Archeological 

Documentation. 

Should construction unearth previously 

unknown archeological resources, work 

would stop in the area of discovery until the 

resources were properly recorded by the 

National Park Service and evaluated under the 

eligibility criteria of the National Register of 

Historic Places in accordance with Section 

106 procedures. Data recovery excavations or 

other mitigating measures would be carried 

out where site avoidance is not possible. 

New construction or alterations and 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

sensitively carried out in accordance with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

108 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation to ensure that character-defining 

features are protected. Vegetation screening 

and sensitive topographic or other site 

selection criteria would be used to minimize 

the visual intrusion of new construction on 

historic viewsheds or in historic areas. 

Ethnographic resources would be protected 

and mitigated by such means as identifying 

and maintaining access for recognized and 

affiliated groups to traditional, 

spiritual/ceremonial, resource gathering, and 

other activity areas. As practical, new 

developments would be screened from these 

areas, and conflicting uses would be relocated 

or timed to minimize disruptions. 

Cultural landscapes would be protected and 

any alterations and changes affecting cultural 

landscapes and designated National Register 

Districts would follow the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996). All 

potential actions, such as thinning of 

vegetation to reduce fuel loads, removal of 

exotic species, modification of historic 

circulation patterns, removal of 

noncontributing or nonhistoric structures and 

landscape features, or adaptive use of a 

cultural landscape, would incorporate 

compatible design guidelines to retain 

essential historic character and mitigate 

potential adverse effects. 

Further background research, resource 

inventories, and National Register of Historic 

Places evaluation of historic properties would 

be carried out where management 

information is lacking. The results of these 

efforts would be incorporated into sitespecific planning and compliance documents. 

All options for preserving historic properties 

would be considered and evaluated. However, 

if historic buildings, structures, or landscapes 

could not be reasonably preserved, historical 

and architectural documentation would be 

completed in accordance with the standards 

of the Historic American Buildings Survey 

(HABS), the Historic American Engineering 

Record (HAER), or the Historic American 

Landscapes Survey (HALS). The nature and 

scope of these mitigation measures would be 

developed in consultation with the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and other 

concerned parties. 

Visitors would be educated on the importance 

of protecting the monument’s historic 

properties and leaving these undisturbed for 

the enjoyment of future visitors. 

Museum collections would be accessioned, 

catalogued, protected, and preserved in 

accordance with NPS standards and 

guidelines. 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCES 

Measures to reduce adverse effects of 

construction on visitor safety and experience 

would be implemented, including project 

scheduling and the use of best management 

practices (BMPs). 

Visitor safety concerns would be integrated 

into interpretive and educational programs. 

Directional signs to orient visitors and education programs to promote understanding 

among visitors would continue. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

During the future planning and 

implementation of the approved management 

plan for John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument, NPS staff would work with local 

communities and county governments to 

further identify potential impacts and 

mitigation measures that would best serve the 

interests and concerns of both the National 

Park Service and the local communities. 

Partnerships would be pursued to improve the 

quality and diversity of community amenities 

and services. 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

109 

FUTURE STUDIES AND 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

After the completion and approval of this 

General Management Plan for the monument, 

other more detailed studies and plans will be 

needed before specific actions can be 

implemented. 

As required, additional environmental 

compliance (National Environmental Policy 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant laws and policies) and public 

involvement would be conducted. These 

additional studies include the following: 

• an implementation plan for opening the 

mammal quarry to research and 

interpretation 

• a long-range interpretation plan that 

focuses on conveying the significance of 

the monument’s fundamental resources 

and values through the primary 

interpretive themes 

• a historic preservation and use plan for the 

Cant Ranch barn and outbuildings 

• a land protection plan that focuses on 

evaluating important viewsheds and other 

significant features that affect the integrity 

of the monument’s fundamental resources 

and values 

• a river recreation management plan 

(should this activity increase to a level that 

warrants such planning) 

• a resource stewardship strategy that 

provides comprehensive, long-range 

direction for natural and cultural resource 

management 

• a trails management plan that sets forth 

direction for the development and 

maintenance of official trails and for 

restoration of unofficial, human-created 

trails in the monument 

• an accessibility study that focuses on 

barriers to monument programs and 

facilities, which would provide the basis 

for developing a strategy to improve 

accessibility for people with disabilities
110 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as “the alternative that will promote 

national environmental policy as expressed in 

Section 101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” Section 101 states that it is the 

continuing responsibility of the federal 

government to . . . 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations; 

2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk to heath or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

4. preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage; 

and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports diversity, 

and a variety of individual choices; 

5. achieve a balance between population and 

resource use which would permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

alternative B, the NPS preferred alternative 

for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

This alternative best satisfies the national 

environmental goals—it provides the highest 

level of protection of natural and cultural 

resources while concurrently providing for a 

wide range of neutral and beneficial uses of 

the environment. The preferred alternative 

maintains an environment that supports a 

diversity and variety of individual choices, and 

it integrates resource protection with an 

appropriate range of visitor uses and 

understanding. 

The preferred alternative (alternative B) 

surpasses the other alternatives in realizing the 

full range of the Section 101 national 

environmental policy goals. The no-action 

alternative does not provide as much resource 

protection as the preferred alternative. In 

addition, the preferred alternative would 

provide more opportunities for public 

enjoyment and understanding of the 

monument than the no-action alternative, and 

thus better fulfills criteria 3, 4, and 5. 

Alternative C would provide for more visitor 

use opportunities, but there also would be a 

higher potential for more impacts to natural 

resources in comparison with the preferred 

alternative. In addition, in alternative C the 

restoration of the Cant Ranch fields to native 

vegetation would be an adverse effect on the 

cultural landscape of a national historic 

district; however, it would provide a more 

natural landscape. Thus, alternative C would 

not satisfy criterion 3 (attain the widest range 

of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation) and criterion 4 (preserve 

important aspects of our national heritage) as 

well as the preferred alternative satisfies these 

criteria. 
111

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED 

BUT DISMISSED 

The planning team considered including the 

following actions in the management 

alternatives, but decided not to include these 

actions in the alternatives. 

In the Clarno Unit, the team considered the 

following: 

• Opening the mammal quarry for 

research only. Opening the site for 

research purposes only was dismissed 

because the cost of accommodating 

public interpretation was minor relative 

to the total cost of opening the site. 

• Locating the Geo-Loop trailhead 

north of the Hancock Field Station.

This site was considered but dismissed 

because it would result in more impacts 

to natural and cultural resources, 

compromise scenic values, and require 

more maintenance compared to a 

trailhead site located east of the field 

station. 

In the Painted Hills Unit, the team 

considered the following: 

• Eliminating the Painted Hills picnic 

area and restoring the site. This option 

was dismissed because it eliminated a 

well-used visitor site. Visitors have used 

this picnic area for many years and it is 

one of the few such sites available for 

picnicking in this unit. The picnic area is 

at the edge of the unit, and the cost of 

maintaining the area is not high. 

In the Sheep Rock Unit, the team considered 

the following: 

• Constructing a Cant Ranch River 

Trail. Construction of this 1.5-mile-long 

trail paralleling the west side of the John 

Day River was dismissed because of 

potential impacts to riparian resources. 

There also would be no way to build a 

loop trail without placing it along the 

highway.

• Constructing trails east of the John 

Day River. This option for a 4-mile-long 

loop trail on the east side of the John 

Day River was dismissed for three 

reasons: it would require a substantial 

bridge, it would potentially impact 

riparian resources, and it would increase 

the potential for impacts on 

paleontological resources by visitors 

hiking in this part of the monument. 
112 

SUMMARY TABLES COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES 

Table 9: Comparison of the Alternatives 

Topic Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred) 

Alternative C

CONCEPT Continue current 

management, guided by 

current planning 

documents. Current 

management would 

provide for existing 

interpretive, educational, 

and visitor opportunities 

Management would focus 

on 

Improving natural 

resources through site 

restoration 

Increasing visitor 

opportunities with new 

trails and limited, but 

enhanced, new facilities 

Management would 

focus on 

Further expanding 

visitor opportunities 

with additional visitor 

facilities and trails 

Improving natural 

resources through site 

restoration 

RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT, 

MONUMENTWIDE 

Continue current 

management of natural 

and cultural resources with 

guidance of approved 

documents 

Continue to conduct NPS 

education/ interpretive 

activities concerning the 

environment, paleontology, and geology 

Conduct more NPS 

education/interpretive 

activities concerning the 

environment, paleontology, and geology 

Conduct more NPS 

education/interpretive 

activities concerning the 

environment, paleontology, and geology 

Maintain existing research 

program and facilities 

Maintain existing research 

program and facilities 

Maintain existing research 

program and facilities 

Maintain existing 

designated trails; visitors 

may go off trails in areas 

that are vegetated 

Maintain all existing 

designated trails; visitors 

may go off trails in areas 

that are vegetated 

Maintain existing 

designated trails with the 

exception of the Leaf Hill 

Trail, which would be 

closed and the area 

restored; visitors may go 

off trails in areas that are 

vegetated. 

CLARNO UNIT

Mammal 

Quarry 

Remains closed Opened for research and 

interpretation 

Same as alternative B

Geo-Loop Trail 

and Parking 

Area 

Remains as social trail in 

backcountry with no 

formal access 

Formalized and designated 

as an official trail with a 

new parking area 

developed to the east of 

the Hancock Field Station 

Same as alternative B

Indian Canyon 

Trail 

No trail exists Same as alternative A Construct new 3-milelong trail up Indian 

Canyon 
Comparison of the Alternatives

113 

Topic Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred) 

Alternative C

Mimulus Trail Remains as human-created 

trail in backcountry with no 

formal access 

Formalized and designated 

as an official trail 

Same as alternative B

Stegamonster 

Trail 

Remains as human-created 

trail in backcountry with no 

formal access 

Formalized and designated 

as an official trail 

Same as alternative B

Visitor Contact 

Station/Office 

No administrative facility 

exists 

Same as alternative A Construct a new 200-

square-foot visitor contact 

station/office 

PAINTED HILLS UNIT

Painted Hills 

Overlook 

Existing overlook would 

remain 

Overlook would be 

redesigned to improve 

visitor access and 

aesthetics and 

accommodate parking for 

the Carroll Rim trailhead; 

shade structures would be 

added 

Same as alternative B

Road to 

Painted Cove 

Existing gravel road would 

continue to be maintained 

Work with Wheeler County 

to pursue road paving that 

meets NPS standards and 

incorporates a design 

approach that preserves 

the rural character of the 

area 

Same as alternative B

Painted Hills 

Picnic Area 

Existing picnic area and 

arboretum would continue 

to be maintained 

Same as alternative A, plus 

add new shade structures 

Restore natural landscape but maintain picnic 

area; eliminate 

arboretum; add new 

shade structures 

Leaf Hill Trail Existing trail would 

continue to be maintained 

Same as alternative A Close trail to public access 

and restore the area 

Bridge Creek 

Restoration 

Continue tree plantings 

and invasive vegetation 

removal 

Same as alternative A, plus 

seek cooperative 

agreement with adjacent 

landowner for expanded 

restoration 

Same as alternative B

SHEEP ROCK UNIT

Cant Ranch 

Agricultural 

Fields 

Maintain fields through 

traditional agricultural 

practices 

Maintain fields and 

improve sustainability of 

agricultural operations by 

focusing on actions such as 

leveling land and installing 

sprinklers 

Restore fields to native 

vegetation 

John Day River 

Restoration 

Continue tree plantings 

and invasive vegetation 

removal 

Same as alternative A, plus 

remove dikes and rock 

barbs to improve 

hydrologic functions 

Same as alternative B
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

114 

Topic Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred) 

Alternative C

Restrooms at 

Cant Ranch 

Public restrooms available 

only inside headquarters 

building 

Same as alternative A Construct new standalone restrooms that are 

available for use after 

monument hours 

Butler Basin 

Trail 

No trail exists Same as alternative A Construct new 2.5-milelong trail 

Picnic Area at 

Thomas 

Condon 

Paleontology 

Center 

No picnic facilities exist 

(nearest facility is across 

the highway at Cant Ranch 

complex) 

Same as alternative A Construct new picnic area 

at the paleontology 

center 

Research 

Natural Area 

Continue to protect its 

important natural qualities 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A

Boundary 

Adjustment 

No new boundary 

adjustments would be 

pursued 

Pursue a land exchange

with an adjacent 

landowner and the Bureau 

of Land Management to 

protect about 100 acres 

around Cathedral Rock 

Same as alternative B
Comparison of the Alternatives 

115 

Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Natural Resources

Paleontological 

Resources 

Long-term, minor, adverse 

impact on the monument’s 

paleontological resources 

would be expected, 

potentially due to some 

visitors illegally collecting 

fossils and to natural 

erosion. 

Compared to alternative A, 

alternative B would be 

expected to have a 

beneficial impact on 

paleontological resources, 

primarily due to the 

opening of the mammal 

quarry, and the removal of 

the human-created 

unofficial trails and 

restoration of those areas. 

There also would be a 

long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impact on 

the monument’s 

paleontological resources 

due to increased potential 

for illegal fossil collecting. 

Compared to alternative A, 

alternative C would be 

expected to have a 

beneficial impact on 

paleontological resources, 

primarily due to the 

opening of the mammal 

quarry, the removal of the 

human-created unofficial 

trails and restoration of 

those areas, and the 

closure of the Leaf Hill Trail 

in the Painted Hills Unit. 

There also would be a 

long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impact on 

the monument’s 

paleontological resources 

due to increased potential 

for illegal fossil collecting. 

There could be a longterm, adverse cumulative 

impact of unknown 

magnitude on area fossils. 

There could be a longterm, adverse cumulative 

impact of unknown 

magnitude on area fossils, 

although alternative B 

would add small beneficial 

and adverse increments to 

the overall area cumulative 

impact. 

There could be a longterm, adverse cumulative 

impact of unknown 

magnitude on fossils in the 

region, although 

alternative C would add 

small beneficial and 

adverse increments to the 

overall area cumulative 

impact. 

The level of impact due to 

alternative A would not be 

expected to constitute an 

impairment of the 

monument’s resources or 

values. 

The level of impact due to 

alternative B would not be 

expected to constitute an 

impairment of the 

monument’s resources or 

values. 

This level of impact would 

not be anticipated to 

constitute an impairment 

of the monument’s 

resources or values. 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

116 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Soils Most of the monument’s 

soils would not be affected 

by the actions in 

alternative A. However, 

some soils would be 

eroded and lost, and some 

soil properties would be 

altered due to increased 

visitor use in localized 

areas such as along trails. 

These adverse impacts 

would likely be minor and 

long-term in extent. 

Most of the monument’s 

soils would not be affected 

by the actions in 

alternative B. However, 

some soils would be 

eroded and lost, and some 

soil properties would be 

altered due to increased 

visitor use in localized 

areas such as along trails, 

and due to several 

construction projects. 

Overall, these adverse 

impacts would likely be 

minor and long-term in 

extent. 

Most of the monument’s 

soils would not be affected 

by the actions in 

alternative C. However, 

some soils would be 

eroded and lost, and some 

soil properties would be 

altered due to new 

developments and 

increased visitor use in 

localized areas such as 

along trails. These adverse 

impacts would likely be 

minor and long-term in 

extent. 

 Establishing and 

monitoring user capacity 

indicators and standards 

should help prevent the 

establishment of new 

human-created trails and 

the resulting soil erosion; 

this would have a 

moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact. 

Establishing and 

monitoring user capacity 

indicators and standards 

should help prevent the 

establishment of new 

human-created trails, and 

prevent resulting soil 

erosion; this would have a 

moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact. 

When the impacts inside 

the monument in 

alternative A are added to 

past and foreseeable 

future impacts from land 

uses, and future 

agricultural uses and 

developments outside the 

monument, there would 

be the potential for a longterm, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on area soils — although 

the actions in alternative A 

would add a very small 

increment to this overall 

impact. 

When the impacts in 

alternative B are added to 

other impacts from past 

and foreseeable future 

actions, there would be 

the potential for a longterm, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on area soils — although 

the actions in alternative B 

would add a very small 

increment to this overall 

cumulative impact. 

When the impacts in 

alternative C are added to 

impacts from other past 

and foreseeable future 

actions, there would be 

the potential for a longterm, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on area soils—although 

the actions in alternative C 

would add a very small 

increment to this overall 

cumulative impact. 

No impairment to the 

monument’s resources and 

values would result from 

soil impacts in this 

alternative. 

No impairment to the 

monument’s resources and 

values would result from 

soil impacts in this 

alternative. 

No impairment to the 

monument’s resources and 

values would result from 

soil impacts in this 

alternative. 
Comparison of the Alternatives 

117 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Prime 

Farmlands 

There would be no effect 

on prime farmlands. 

There would be no effect 

on prime farmlands with 

regard to acreage and use 

of the monument’s fields. 

There would be a 

negligible, long-term, 

adverse impact on prime 

farmlands. 

Vegetation Alternative A would result 

in both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on the 

monument’s native 

vegetation. Some longterm, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts would 

occur in local areas due to 

increased visitor use levels. 

Nonnative plants would 

continue to have minor to 

moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on native 

vegetation. Continuing 

efforts to control 

nonnative species would 

likely have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial 

impact in local areas. 

Alternative B would result 

in both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on the 

monument’s native 

vegetation. Most of the 

proposed new actions in 

alternative B would occur 

in the footprint of areas 

that have already been 

disturbed and would have 

a negligible impact on 

native vegetation. Some 

long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts 

would occur in local areas 

due to proposed new 

developments and 

increased visitor use levels. 

As in alternative A, 

nonnative plants would 

continue to have minor to 

moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on native 

vegetation. 

Alternative C would result 

in both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on the 

monument’s native 

vegetation. Many of the 

proposed new 

developments would occur 

in the footprint of areas 

that have already been 

disturbed and would have 

a negligible impact on 

native vegetation. Some 

long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts 

would occur to native 

vegetation in localized 

areas due to proposed 

new developments and 

increased visitor use levels. 

As in the other 

alternatives, nonnative 

plants would continue to 

have minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts 

on native vegetation. 

Efforts to restore riparian 

vegetation, remove 

unofficial trails, add the 

Cathedral Rock area to the 

monument, and establish 

and monitor user capacity 

indicators and standards 

would likely have longterm, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts to native 

vegetation in localized 

areas. 

Efforts to restore riparian 

vegetation, remove unofficial trails, plant native 

vegetation in the Painted 

Hills picnic area and in the 

four fields in the Sheep 

Rock Unit, add lands in the 

Cathedral Rock area to the 

monument, and establish 

and monitor user capacity 

indicators and standards 

would likely have longterm, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts to native 

vegetation in localized 

areas. 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

118 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Vegetation 

(continued)

When the effects of this 

alternative are added to 

the effects of other past, 

present, and foreseeable 

future actions, there would 

be a minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on 

native vegetation. 

However, the actions in 

alternative A would add 

only a small beneficial and 

a small adverse increment 

to this overall impact. 

When the effects of 

alternative B are added to 

the effects of other past, 

present, and foreseeable 

future actions there would 

be a minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on 

native vegetation. 

However, the actions in 

alternative B would add 

both small beneficial and 

adverse increments to this 

overall cumulative impact. 

When the effects of this 

alternative are added to 

the effects of other past, 

present, and foreseeable 

future actions, there would 

be a minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on 

native vegetation. 

However, the actions in 

alternative C would add 

both small beneficial and 

adverse increments to this 

overall cumulative impact 

None of the vegetation

impacts that would occur 

in this alternative would be 

sufficient to result in an 

impairment of the 

monument’s resources and 

values. 

None of the vegetation

impacts that would occur 

in alternative B would be 

sufficient to result in an 

impairment of the 

monument’s resources and 

values. 

None of the vegetation

impacts that would occur 

in this alternative would be 

sufficient to result in an 

impairment of the 

monument’s resources and 

values. 

Wildlife Alternative A would have 

some adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the 

monument’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife in the 

monument would not 

change as a result of the 

actions in this alternative. 

No actions would affect 

areas known to be 

important for breeding, 

nesting, foraging, or key 

migration routes. No 

actions would interfere 

with feeding, 

reproduction, or other 

activities necessary for the 

survival of wildlife species. 

Alternative B would have 

both adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the 

monument’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife populations 

and habitats in the 

monument would not 

change as a result of the 

actions in this alternative. 

No actions would affect 

areas known to be 

important for breeding, 

nesting, foraging, or key 

migration routes. No 

actions would interfere 

with feeding, 

reproduction, or other 

activities necessary for the 

survival of wildlife species. 

Alternative C would have 

both adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the 

monument’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife populations 

and habitats in the 

monument would not 

change as a result of the 

actions in this alternative. 

No actions would affect 

areas known to be 

important for breeding, 

nesting, foraging, or key 

migration routes. No 

actions would interfere 

with feeding, 

reproduction, or other 

activities necessary for the 

survival of wildlife species. 
Comparison of the Alternatives 

119 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Wildlife 

(continued)

Long-term, negligible,

adverse impacts would 

continue to occur in 

localized areas due to 

continuing visitor use of 

the monument. 

Continuing efforts to 

prevent the spread of 

juniper and control the 

spread of nonnative 

species would result in a 

minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts on 

some wildlife populations. 

Long-term, negligible,

adverse impacts would 

continue to occur in 

localized areas due to 

continuing visitor use of 

the monument. On the 

other hand, there would 

be long-term, beneficial 

impacts on some wildlife 

populations due to 

vegetation restoration 

efforts, the addition of 

lands in the Cathedral 

Rock area to the 

monument, and the 

closure and restoration of 

unofficial trails in the 

Clarno Unit. 

Negligible to minor, longterm, adverse impacts 

would continue to occur in 

localized areas due to 

continuing visitor use of 

the monument and to the 

loss of some habitat due to 

new development. The 

development of the Butler 

Basin Trail could have a 

minor, long-term, adverse 

impact on wildlife 

populations in this area. 

On the other hand, there 

would be long-term, 

beneficial impacts on some 

wildlife populations due to 

vegetation restoration 

efforts, the addition of the 

Cathedral Rock area to the 

monument, the closure 

and restoration of unofficial trails in the Clarno 

Unit and the Leaf Hill Trail 

in the Painted Hills Unit. 

When the beneficial and 

adverse impacts of 

alternative A are added to 

the impacts that have 

occurred in the vicinity of 

John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument, there 

would be a long-term, 

minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

However, the actions in 

alternative A would 

contribute only a small 

beneficial increment and a 

very small adverse 

increment to this impact. 

When the beneficial and 

adverse impacts of 

alternative B are added to 

the impacts that have 

occurred in the vicinity of 

John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument, there 

would be a long-term, 

minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

However, the actions in 

alternative B would 

contribute only a small 

beneficial increment and a 

very small adverse 

increment to this impact. 

When the beneficial and 

adverse impacts of 

alternative C are added to 

the past, present, and 

future impacts in the 

vicinity of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument, 

there would be a longterm, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

However, the actions in 

alternative C would 

contribute only a small 

beneficial increment and a 

very small adverse 

increment to this impact. 

None of the wildlife

impacts resulting from 

alternative A would 

constitute an impairment 

of the monument’s 

resources and values. 

None of the wildlife

impacts resulting from 

alternative B would 

constitute an impairment 

of the monument’s 

resources and values. 

None of the wildlife

impacts resulting from 

alternative C would 

constitute an impairment 

of the monument’s 

resources and values. 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

120 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Cultural Resources

Archeological 

Resources 

Continued management 

actions in alternative A, 

the no-action alternative, 

would include no new 

construction, so no 

adverse impacts to 

archeological resources are 

anticipated. Any adverse 

impacts to archeological 

resources resulting from 

implementation of 

alternative A would be a 

very small component of 

the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

In the unlikely event that 

impacts to national 

register–eligible 

archeological resources 

could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of 

agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, 

Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be 

negotiated. It would be 

between or among John 

Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument, the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation 

Officer, the traditionally 

associated tribes, if 

appropriate, and the 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if 

necessary. The 

memorandum of 

agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects 

would be mitigated. 

Management actions in 

alternative B, the preferred 

alternative, would involve 

new construction, but no 

adverse impacts to 

archeological resources 

would be anticipated. Any 

adverse impacts to 

archeological resources 

resulting from 

implementation of 

alternative B would be a 

very small component of 

the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

In the unlikely event that 

impacts to national 

register–eligible 

archeological resources 

could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of 

agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, 

Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be 

negotiated. It would be 

between or among John 

Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument, the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation 

Officer, the traditionally 

associated tribes, if 

appropriate, and the 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if 

necessary. The 

memorandum of 

agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects 

would be mitigated. 

Management actions in 

alternative C would involve 

new construction, but no 

adverse impacts to 

archeological resources 

would be anticipated. 

In the unlikely event that 

impacts to national 

register–eligible 

archeological resources 

could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of 

agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, 

Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be 

negotiated. It would be 

between or among John 

Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument, the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation 

Officer, the traditionally 

associated tribes, if 

appropriate, and the 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if 

necessary. The 

memorandum of 

agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects 

would be mitigated. 

However, the continued 

level of management 

actions in alternative C 

would be expected to 

contribute no adverse 

impacts to the adverse 

impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions 

occurring both within and 

outside the national 

monument. The overall 

cumulative impact would 

remain adverse at a 

moderate intensity level. 
Comparison of the Alternatives 

121 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Archeological 

Resources 

(continued)

 There would be no 

impairment of the national 

monument’s resources or 

values because there 

would be no adverse 

impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified 

in the establishing 

legislation of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity 

of the national monument 

or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national 

monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the 

national monument’s 

General Management Plan 

or other relevant National 

Park Service planning 

documents. 

There would be no 

impairment of the national 

monument’s resources or 

values because there 

would be no adverse 

impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified 

in the establishing 

legislation of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity 

of the national monument 

or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national 

monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the 

national monument’s 

General Management Plan 

or other relevant National 

Park Service planning 

documents, there would 

be no impairment of the 

national monument’s 

resources or values. 

Historic 

Structures and 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

All actions would follow 

the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Archeology 

and Historic Preservation, 

and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes which 

would result in no adverse 

effects to historic 

structures and cultural 

landscapes. Alternative A 

would not contribute to 

the adverse cumulative 

impact of other past, 

present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. 

Implementation of 

alternative B would result 

in no adverse effects to 

historic structures and 

cultural landscapes. 

Alternative B would also 

contribute no adverse 

effects to the overall 

adverse cumulative impact 

of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable 

actions. Actions would 

follow approved standards 

and guidelines and would 

enhance NPS preservation 

objectives for the James 

Cant Ranch Historic District 

and other potential 

cultural landscapes. 

After applying the Advisory 

Council on Historic 

Preservation’s criteria of 

adverse effect (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of 

Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service 

concludes that 

implementation of 

alternative C would result 

in a significant adverse 

effect that would 

compromise the integrity 

of the existing national 

register historic district. 

However, because the 

adverse effect would not 

impact a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of 

John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument; (2) 

key to the overall natural 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

122 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Historic 

Structures and 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

(continued)

There would be no 

impairment of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument’s resources or 

values because there 

would be no adverse 

effects to a resource or 

value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified 

in the establishing 

legislation of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity 

of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument or to 

opportunities for 

enjoyment of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the 

John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument 

General Management Plan

or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

There would be no 

impairment of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument’s resources or 

values because there 

would be no adverse 

impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified 

in the establishing 

legislation of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity 

of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument or to 

opportunities for 

enjoyment of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the 

John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument 

General Management Plan

or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

or cultural integrity of John 

Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument or to 

opportunities for 

enjoyment of John Day 

Fossil Beds National 

Monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the 

John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument 

General Management Plan

or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there 

would be no impairment 

of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument’s 

resources or values. 

Visitor Use and Experience

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Alternative A would be 

expected to have a longterm, minor, adverse 

impact on crowding and 

opportunities for solitude 

and on opportunities for 

people with disabilities in 

the monument; it would 

be expected to have a 

long-term, moderate, 

adverse impact on visitor 

understanding, education, 

and interpretation, and on 

opportunities for 

recreational activities in the 

monument. 

Alternative B would be 

expected to have a longterm, minor, beneficial 

impact on visitor use 

patterns and opportunities 

for people with disabilities. 

Impacts on crowding and 

opportunities for solitude; 

impacts on opportunities 

for recreational activities; 

and impacts on visitor 

understanding, education, 

and interpretation from 

this alternative would be 

long-term, beneficial, and 

of moderate intensity. 

Alternative C would be 

expected to have a longterm, minor, beneficial 

impact on visitor use 

patterns. Impacts on 

crowding and 

opportunities for solitude; 

opportunities for 

recreational activities; 

visitor understanding, 

education, and 

interpretation; and 

opportunities for people 

with disabilities would be 

long-term, beneficial, and 

of moderate intensity. 
Comparison of the Alternatives 

123 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

(continued)

There could be a longterm, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impact on 

visitor understanding, 

education, and 

interpretation; and a longterm, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on 

visitor experience, primarily 

due to increased crowding 

and visitor conflict. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative A would 

contribute only a relatively 

small part of the overall 

cumulative impact. 

The cumulative impact on

visitor understanding, 

education, and 

interpretation would be 

long-term, beneficial, and 

of major intensity. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative B would 

contribute an appreciable 

amount to this cumulative 

impact. 

The cumulative impact on

visitor understanding, 

education, and 

interpretation would be 

long-term, beneficial, and 

of major intensity. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative C would 

contribute an appreciable 

increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

The cumulative impact on 

visitor use patterns, 

opportunities for 

recreational activities, and 

opportunities for people 

with disabilities would be 

negligible. 

The cumulative impact on 

visitor use patterns, 

opportunities for 

recreational activities, and 

opportunities for people 

with disabilities would be 

long-term, beneficial, and 

of minor intensity. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative B would 

contribute a large part to 

this cumulative impact. 

There could be long-term, 

minor, beneficial 

cumulative impacts on 

visitor use patterns, 

crowding and 

opportunities for solitude, 

and opportunities for 

recreational activities. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative C would 

contribute an appreciable 

increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

The cumulative impact on 

opportunities for people 

with disabilities would be 

long-term, beneficial, and 

of moderate intensity. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative C would 

represent all contributions 

to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 2: THE ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

124 

ALTERNATIVE A

(NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE B

(PREFERRED) 

ALTERNATIVE C

National Monument Operations

National 

Monument 

Operations 

Alternative A would be 

expected to have a longterm, minor, adverse 

impact on monument 

operations. There could be 

a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on monument operations 

(staffing, maintenance, 

and operational needs) 

resulting primarily from 

increased visitation. The 

actions proposed in 

Alternative A would 

contribute an appreciable 

increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Alternative B would be 

expected to have a longterm, moderate, adverse 

impact on monument 

operations. There could be 

a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on monument operations 

(staffing, maintenance, 

and operational needs) 

resulting primarily from 

additional facilities and 

programs, and increased 

visitation. The actions 

proposed in Alternative B 

would contribute a large 

part to this overall 

cumulative impact. 

Alternative C would be 

expected to have a longterm, moderate, adverse 

impact on monument 

operations. There would 

be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact 

on monument operations 

(staffing, maintenance, 

and operational needs) 

resulting primarily from 

additional facilities and 

programs, and increased 

visitation. The actions 

proposed in Alternative C 

would contribute a large 

part to this overall 

cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 3

Affected Environment

Sheep Rock, Sheep Rock Unit Clarno U

Clarno Unit

Blue Basin, Sheep Rock U

127 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter is not a complete description of 

the monument’s environment. Rather, it 

provides an overview of resource conditions 

and trends; the key monument resources, 

uses, and facilities; and the socioeconomic 

characteristics that might be affected by 

implementing any of the alternatives. For 

additional information on the area’s natural 

and human environment, see the John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument home page 

(http://www.nps.gov/joda). 
128 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

was set aside because of its world-class fossil 

beds, some of the richest beds in the world. 

The monument lies within the John Day River 

Basin, an area where thousands of feet of 

sediment were deposited from approximately 

50 million years ago to about 6 million years 

ago. These sediments make up four major 

groups with fossil-bearing geologic 

formations, spanning almost 50 million years 

of the Tertiary Period: the Clarno Group 

(formed 54 to 37 million years ago), John Day 

Group (39 to 18 million years ago), Mascall 

Formation (15 to 12 million years ago), and 

Rattlesnake group (8 to 6 million years ago). 

Exposures of layers (strata) of these 

formations throughout the basin and the 

monument reveal one of the finest fossil 

records of Tertiary Period plants and 

vertebrates in the world (Fremd 1992a). A 

noted paleobotanist, Ralph Chaney, stated 

“No region in the world shows more complete 

sequences of Tertiary land populations, both 

plant and animal, than the John Day 

formations” (Fremd and Bestland 1997). The 

monument’s fossils have expanded 

paleontologists’ knowledge of the earth 

during this period of time, including a record 

of long-term climatic and biotic change. 

The John Day Basin was first recognized as an 

important paleontological area in the 1860s by 

Thomas Condon. Condon’s extensive 

fieldwork led other scientists from Yale, 

University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, the 

Smithsonian Institution, and the University of 

California to visit the area in the late 1800s. 

The collections from these expeditions 

resulted in the bulk of the fossils documented 

in the basin until the early 1980s. 

Unfortunately, most of these collections 

(including key representatives of many of the 

species, or “holotypes”) contain little or no 

locality data, resulting in many “orphaned” 

specimens. Beginning in 1899 and continuing 

through the 1930s, John C. Merriam and staff 

from the University of California became the 

major collectors in the area. Merriam’s 

research provided a much clearer picture of 

the region’s prehistory and the geological, 

chronological, and paleoecological context of 

the John Day fossils. During the 1920s, 1930s 

and 1940s, Ralph W. Chaney led additional 

expeditions that expanded the scientific 

community’s interest, understanding, and 

knowledge of the fossil beds. In addition to his 

discovery of new species of plant fossils in the 

John Day Basin, Chaney was the first scientist 

to describe various prehistoric plant 

environments based on data collected on 

plant fossil populations. Since that time, 

through today, the exploration and study of 

the John Day fossil beds has continued, 

yielding additional fossils each year. The 

collection currently curated at the monument 

is the largest collection of fossils with 

associated data from the John Day Basin in the 

world. 

The monument’s fossil beds are significant for 

several reasons. Although other areas may 

better represent any one of the following 

qualities, few places in the nation or world 

contain all of these qualities in combination in 

such a relatively small area. 

Duration 

The formations exposed in the monument 

contain a fossil record of roughly 50 million 

years of the earth’s history, comprising most 

of the Tertiary Period. Continuous sequences 

of fossil beds that span even 5 million years 

are rare. 

Continuity 

Fossil records are often incomplete or 

represent a point in time. But the John Day 

fossil beds contain a record of remarkable 

continuity, with few notable gaps. 

Time of Deposition 

The fossils are arranged in an unusually 

orderly sequence, during a time when 
Natural Resources 

129 

mammals and flowering plants were 

undergoing dramatic changes in response to 

environmental changes. As a result, the fossil 

beds record information on evolutionary 

activities that reveal mammalian adaptive 

radiation, shifting climates, and other glimpses 

of earth’s history, only sparsely hinted at in 

other sites. In addition, fossils discovered in 

the area delineate “first” or “last” points in 

time. For instance, the earliest known 

rhinoceroses and some of the last known 

primates (excluding humans) to have lived in 

North America are part of the John Day Fossil 

Beds record (Fiedor, n.d; T. Fremd, NPS 

paleontologist, pers. comm., January 18, 

2005.). 

Abundance 

Many fossils have been, and continue to be, 

collected from rocks in the John Day Fossil 

Beds. There is documentation of tons of fossil 

containing matrix being collected and shipped 

to East Coast universities and museums in the 

late 1800s and early 1900s. Some 22,000 

specimens were collected at one time just 

from the Bridge Creek site (leaf fossil locality) 

in the Painted Hills. Ongoing collection efforts 

in the monument add two to three hundred 

additional specimens to the NPS museum 

collection annually. By mid-2004, the national 

monument collection had grown in size to 

almost 40,000 specimens (NPS n.d.2). 

Diversity of Specimens 

A high diversity of fossil materials is in the 

monument’s fossil beds: invertebrates, 

vertebrates, pollens, seeds, nuts, leaves, and 

paleosols (remnants of ancient soils) are all 

found in direct or close association with one 

another. Over 2,200 species of prehistoric 

plants and animals have been identified in the 

fossil beds (NPS, n.d.2). More than 120 types 

of mammals have been found just in the John 

Day Group, and hundreds of species of plants 

have been found in the Clarno Group (NPS 

n.d.2, NPS 1991). The Clarno Nut Beds 

includes more species of petrified wood than 

any other locality, of any age, in the world. 

The Bridge Creek Flora is one of the most 

speciose (high in number of species) 

paleobotanical sites in North America. Most 

of these fossils, including rhinoceroses, 

camels, oreodonts (a mammal described as 

looking like a cross between a sheep and a 

pig), hypertragulids (small, deer-like animals), 

horses, bear-dogs and other canids, sabertoothed carnivores, rodents, and some of the 

last primates to live in North America, are of 

considerable scientific interest. The fossil beds 

also contain other vestiges of the ancient 

landscapes, including mudslides, ashfalls, 

floodplains, trackways, middens, prairies, and 

forests. The rocks are rich with the evidence 

of ancient habitats and the dynamic processes 

that shaped them. As a result, the materials in 

the fossil beds allow examination of 

ecosystem diversity and entire 

paleocommunities. 

Quality of Preservation 

The quality of preservation of many of the 

monument’s fossils ranges from very good to 

outstanding. The vertebrate fossils of the John 

Day Formation, for example, are among the 

best preserved Tertiary Period fossils found 

anywhere (NPS 1999b). Many of the plant 

fossils are among the finest to be found in 

North America and some mammalian skeletal 

material is superbly preserved (NPS n.d.1). 

The Clarno Nut Beds yields material with 

cellular structure clearly visible under the 

microscope. 

Dateable Markers 

Unlike many fossil sites in the world, the 

fossils of the John Day Fossil Beds are found 

in association with volcanic rocks 

(volcaniclastics), which serve as markers that 

can be reliably dated in the laboratory. These 

time indexes permit tracking of changes in the 

environment, as well as individual plant and 

animal groups, and allow correlations with 

other formations throughout the world. The 

volcanic layers also are easily identified in the 

field, which greatly facilitates mapping of 

fossil localities, estimating ages of fossils, and 

illustrating sequences of geologic time. 

In summary, the real values of the area are the 

combination of quality and diversity of fossils, 

coupled with the span of time when the fossils 

were deposited (NPS n.d.1). 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

130 

The fossils found in the John Day Basin have 

been grouped into 19 key assemblages of fossil 

plants and animals, within or next to the 

boundaries of the monument. These 

assemblages represent a broad array of 

environments, time periods, and depositional 

processes within the monument. Eight of 

these assemblages are considered to be of 

relatively high significance (NPS n.d.1). The 

eight highly significant assemblages are found 

in all three units of the monument (see table 

11). In general, the oldest geologic formations 

and fossils are in the Clarno Unit, 

intermediate aged in the Painted Hills Unit, 

and youngest in the south end of the Sheep 

Rock Unit. 

Hundreds of thousand of acres in the John 

Day Basin presently expose fossiliferous rocks 

(NPS n.d.1). Many more of these rocks have 

been eroded away through time, or are buried 

under thousands of feet of basalt. Aerial 

photography has enabled the additional 

mapping of areas where concentrations of 

fossils have been discovered. 

Several sites in the John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument are particularly 

noteworthy. The Blue Basin in the Sheep Rock 

Unit contains one of the finest paleontological 

deposits in the monument. Thousands of 

important specimens have been collected 

from strata in this badlands area. Thousands 

of specimens also have been collected from 

the Foree Exposure (another badlands-type 

area) and from Sheep Rock (a towering 

exposure of the John Day Group) in the Sheep 

Rock Unit. 

Leaf Fossil Hill in the Painted Hills Unit is one 

of two sites in this area that preserves a rich 

assemblage of fossils from the Bridge Creek 

flora, a nationally renowned paleobotanical 

assemblage (NPS 1991). Two low hills 

composed of shales contain the fossils. Over 

100 species have been identified from the 

Bridge Creek flora locality, including 87 

genera and 107 species of leaves, and 57 

genera and 64 species of cones, flowers, fruits, 

or seeds (Fremd et al 1997). This site is one of 

the most species-rich floras from the 

Oligocene Epoch (34 to 23 million years ago) 

found in North America. This was the first site 

to be systematically studied in an effort to 

determine the area’s paleoclimate (Bestland et 

al 1994). The Bridge Creek flora is also one of 

the important Tertiary leaf assemblages of the 

Pacific Coast because of its similarity to the 

modern redwood assemblage that occurs in 

more humid areas by the Pacific Ocean and its 

importance to regional correlations of ancient 

climatic changes along the Pacific Coast (NPS 

n.d.2). 

The 44-million-year-old Clarno Nut Beds in 

the Clarno Unit are a world-class 

paleontological resource. This is one of the 

finest known fossil plant localities on the 

planet, containing many species new to 

science (NPS 1999b). 

Over 145 genera and 173 species have been 

identified from fossil fruits, seeds, leaves, and 

wood (Fremd et al 1997). In particular, about 

100 genera of fruits and seeds, 80 of leaves, 

and 40 permineralized (tissue replaced by 

silicates) woods have been identified in the 

nut beds (Bestland et al 1994). Extraordinarily 

well-preserved flowers and pollen also have 

been found here in association with stems, 

roots, and other vegetative tissues. The Clarno 

Nut Beds are important because the plant 

remains include permineralized seeds and 

nuts—most fossil floras yield only or mainly 

impressions of leaves. It is the most speciesrich petrified wood locality of any age on 

Earth (T. Fremd, pers. comm., January 18, 

2005). The site also is significant because this 

was one of the first areas for which 

radiometrically derived ages were determined 

for terrestrial fossils. The site provides an 

important reference in regional 

reconstructions and in worldwide 

correlations of paleoclimatology and 

paleoecology (NPS 1991, NPS n.d.2). 
Natural Resources 

131 

Table 11: Eight Fossil Assemblages of Relatively High Significance within or next to the 

Boundaries of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

Formation/Group Assemblage Name Found in Unit 

Rattlesnake Rattlesnake Fauna Sheep Rock 

Mascall Type Mascall Fauna Sheep Rock 

John Day Haystack Member Fauna Sheep Rock 

John Day Kimberly Member Fauna Sheep Rock 

John Day Turtle Cove Fauna Sheep Rock, Painted Hills, Clarno 

John Day Bridge Creek Flora Sheep Rock, Painted Hills, Clarno 

Upper Clarno Hancock Mammal Quarry Clarno 

Lower Clarno Nut Beds Flora Clarno 

The mammal quarry, also in the Clarno Unit, 

contains the most complete vertebrate 

remains that have been found to date in the 

Clarno Group. This site contains one of the 

most important early Oligocene vertebrate 

fauna in North America. A thorough 

biostratigraphic study of this fauna has not yet 

been published. Because the site is the only 

source of abundant vertebrate fossils from this 

period of time, it is of great importance to 

scientific knowledge of the early Tertiary 

Period (NPS 1991). 

Research continues today on the fossil beds. A 

high potential exists for significant 

paleontological discoveries to occur where 

there are exposed strata in the monument. In 

many of the beds, the fossils are widely 

scattered and their occurrence cannot be 

predicted. Because fossils deteriorate rapidly 

once they are exposed, the fossil beds are 

continuously canvassed according to cyclic 

prospecting schedules. Sites that weather 

rapidly are revisited more frequently. Every 

year hundreds of specimens are collected. 

Although many of the items are just fragments, 

a wealth of field data is collected with each 

specimen, including coordinates on its 

geographical location and stratigraphic 

position, descriptions of other features where 

it was deposited, and data about its recovery. 

This information, and additional data gained 

as the fossils are stabilized, prepared, and 

studied, is entered into the monument’s 

museum files. 

It is important to note that it is the entire fossil 

record present in the John Day Basin that is of 

national and international significance, not 

just the fossil record within the boundaries of 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

The overall size of the known fossil beds has 

expanded as new areas have been investigated. 

In 1998, over 640 fossil localities were 

identified as part of the John Day fossil beds 

(T. Fremd, NPS paleontologist, pers. comm.). 

These localities are spread out over a 10,000-

square-mile area, compared to the three units 

of the monument which only cover about 20 

square miles of this area (Fiedor n.d.). The 

three units of the monument contain only a 

representative portion of the fossil beds found 

in the John Day Basin. Indeed, much more of 

the fossil record is preserved in sediments 

exposed outside the monument than inside it 

(Zancanella and Fremd 1997). Hundreds of 

different fossil localities lie between the 

monument’s units. In particular, numerous 

scientifically significant vertebrate fossils lie 

on lands adjacent to the monument—lands 

administered by the BLM Prineville District 

(Fremd 1992b). To completely study the John 

Day fossil record it is necessary to study 

exposures on BLM lands and other lands in 

the basin. 

Paleosols, which are related to fossils, are 

found throughout the monument. A paleosol 

is defined as a soil that formed on a landscape 

in the past with distinctive morphological 

features resulting from a soil-forming 

environment that no longer exists. Paleosols 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

132 

have been referred to as “trace fossils of 

ancient ecosystems.” Almost all of the 

monument’s mammalian fossils are found 

directly in paleosols. The paleosols of the 

Painted Hills Unit are of particular interest to 

visitors, due to their brilliant reds, oranges, 

and grays, and are frequently photographed. 

Threats to Fossils 

Many of the fossils in John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument do not face threats 

because they are so abundant or durable, or 

are very difficult to access by the general 

public. In other cases, the monument’s fossils 

face threats that have resulted in measurable 

deterioration and loss of the resource. It is 

difficult, however, to document the precise 

extent of damage that has occurred in the 

monument due to natural and human causes 

— with little monitoring of the monument, 

and even less monitoring of the other federal 

lands in the John Day Basin, the extent and 

severity of the impact on the paleontological 

resource is unknown. 

Probably the biggest threat to fossils in the 

monument is erosion. Erosion weathers away 

the hard rock that has encased and protected 

the fossils, exposing them to water, freezing 

and thawing. This can result in fossil damage 

and loss. Specimens that have endured over a 

great span of time can be reduced to 

unrecognizable splinters in a matter of four 

years or less if they are exposed at the surface. 

When a fossil is damaged or lost, the 

important scientific data associated with the 

specimen is lost, too. 

People also can be the cause of fossil damage 

and destruction. Usually this damage is due to 

people walking over fossil-bearing rocks and 

unintentionally crushing or dislodging the 

fossils on or just beneath the surface. In 

particular, some visitors leave the Leaf Hill, 

Foree, and Island-in-Time trails and walk on 

exposed hills. Gradual destruction of in situ 

fossil localities has occurred due to this 

activity. Sometimes the loss of fossils has 

occurred due to purposeful, unauthorized 

collecting. Theft of fossils has occurred in the 

monument, and continues to occur, with 

incidents ranging from people picking up 

small individual fragments of leaf fossils to the 

digging and removal of significant vertebrate 

fossil skulls (NPS 1999b). What portion of this 

loss is attributable to random, unrelated, 

spontaneous actions of individuals, and what 

portion is attributable to planned, purposeful 

actions of commercial or hobby collectors is 

unknown. However, the NPS staff believes 

that fossil theft is not as big a problem in the 

monument as in other areas because of the 

type of fossils found here, the difficulty in 

accessing and finding fossils, and the time 

needed to remove the fossils. Collectors no 

doubt try to remove specimens, but not 

knowing proper specialized techniques, they 

end up destroying the specimens rather than 

extracting them (T. Fremd, pers. comm., 

January 26, 2005). 

It is also worth noting that although it is illegal 

to collect paleontological specimens of any 

kind on NPS lands, it is legal to collect fossil 

plants on other federal lands. As a result, 

several paleobotanical sites on BLM and 

national forest lands have been heavily 

exploited in the John Day Basin. 

SOILS 

A special soil survey for John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument was completed by the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service in 2000 (NRCS 2002). Soils in the 

three units were mapped. Thirty-seven 

different soil types and 84 soil map units are 

found in the monument. The soils in the 

monument generally are clayey in texture, 

well drained, and deep (40 to 60 inches) to 

very deep (over 60 inches) in bottomlands, but 

become variable, patchy, and shallow (20 to 40 

inches) to very shallow (10 to 20 inches) on 

steep uplands and rocky bluffs. In most 

undisturbed areas, biological soil crusts 

composed of algae, lichens, mosses, 

microfungi, and bacteria are present. Soil 

formation is limited due to semi-arid 

conditions (9–16 inches of rainfall) and very 

steep slopes, which promote water and wind 

erosion. 
Natural Resources 

133 

Four dominant soil map units are present on 

the hillsides of the Clarno Unit, ranging in 

slope from 15% to 50%. These soils generally 

are moderately to very deep, well drained, and 

predominately clayey in texture. Another 

important soil map unit is found on alluvial 

fans in the Clarno Unit (and in the Sheep 

Rock Unit). These are also well-drained, very 

deep, clay soils, but have a high potential for 

shrink-swell. 

Three dominant soil map units are present in 

the bottomlands of the Painted Hills Unit, and 

eight dominant soil map units are on the 

uplands. The soils on the bottomlands are 

found on alluvial fans and stream terraces, on 

slopes varying from 0% to 15%. They 

generally are very deep, well-drained soils, 

and range in texture from clayey to loamy to 

loamy-skeletal. 

The dominant soil map units on Painted Hills’ 

uplands are found on hillsides and ridgetopes, 

varying in slopes from 2% to 60%. Most of 

these soils are very deep and well drained, and 

are clayey in texture. However, one of the soil 

map units, found on 20% to 50% north slopes, 

varies in depth from very deep to shallow, and 

in texture from clayey to loamy. Another map 

unit, found on 30% to 60% slopes, varies in 

depth from shallow to very deep, and is clayey 

to loamy in texture. 

The Sheep Rock Unit has six dominant soil 

map units on its bottomlands and ten 

dominant soil map units on its uplands. The 

soils on the bottomlands are found mostly on 

0% to 3% slopes, on stream terraces and 

alluvial fans. They tend to be well drained, 

very deep, and have a variety of textures, 

including coarse-loamy, fine-loamy, and 

coarse-silty. The upland soils are found on 

hillsides that generally vary in slope from 20% 

to 90%. These soils also tend to be well 

drained, but they vary in depth from being 

very shallow to very deep. Their textures 

range from being loamy-skeletal to sandyskeletal to clayey in nature. 

The soils in John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument have several management 

limitations, although there are no major 

problems. Many of the monument’s soils have 

claypans that limit the soils’ permeability. 

Some soils also have low waterholding 

capacity and high shrink-swell potential. 

Water and wind erosion is a problem in 

places. The monument has very steep slopes, 

deep ravines and canyons, all of which are 

subject to erosion, particularly after storms. 

Sheet, rill, and gully erosion can occur 

anywhere in the monument. Gully erosion 

from stream down cutting is occurring along 

Bridge Creek, probably due to the loss of 

riparian and upland vegetation both within 

and outside the monument, and the resultant 

changes in water flows and geomorphological 

processes. There are many social trails in the 

Clarno Unit, which have the potential to 

contribute to soil erosion. 

PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS 

One prime farmland soil is in the Painted Hills 

Unit, and six prime farmland soils exist in the 

Sheep Rock Unit, primarily on the 

floodplains, stream terraces, and alluvial fans 

(NRCS 2002). The six prime farmland soils, if 

irrigated, are 

• Kimberly-Dryck complex (0% – 2% 

slopes; map unit 2A) 

• Monroe clay loam (0% – 3% slopes; map 

unit 3A) 

• Legler loam (0% – 3% slopes; map unit 

9A) 

• Legler loam (3% – 8% slopes; map unit 

9B) 

• Kimberly loam (0% – 2% slopes; map unit 

302A) 

• Powder silt loam (0% – 2% slopes; map 

unit 303A) 

However, all the above soils can only be 

considered prime farmland if they are 

irrigated. Most of the areas are not being 

irrigated, except for about 72 acres that are 

being farmed to maintain the James Cant 

Ranch Historic District cultural landscape. 

These irrigated prime farmlands are divided 

into four fields and are used for hay 

production. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

134 

VEGETATION 

The vegetation of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument is typical of central 

Oregon. With a semi-arid environment, the 

vegetation in John Day Fossil Beds is generally 

characterized as a bunchgrass/sagebrush 

steppe environment. A mixture of dryland 

grasses, forbs, shrubs, and western juniper 

dominate the landscape. Most of the 

vegetation in the Painted Hills and Clarno 

Units has been considerably altered by people 

and livestock. The lowlands in the Sheep Rock 

Unit also are dominated by introduced plants. 

Native vegetation in the three units 

predominates in areas high on the ridges; on 

rocky, steep slopes; and in areas away from 

water sources where there was little or no 

livestock use (Youtie and Winward 1977, Hoh 

2007). Remnant stands of predominantly 

native grasses exist on the upper slopes away 

from the river and creeks. 

Based on an analysis of GIS land cover data, 

the largest vegetation type found in the 

monument is shrubland (68%), followed by 

evergreen forest (21%), grassland/herbaceous 

(5%), and agriculture (5%) (NPS 2005c). The 

three units of the monument support similar 

plant communities, although specific species 

in these communities vary from unit to unit. 

As noted above, most of the monument is 

covered with a sagebrush steppe. Moist 

alkaline flats support alkali-tolerant 

greasewood. Vegetation growing along the 

John Day River and its tributaries consists of 

willows, cottonwoods, and a variety of sedges 

and forbs. Juniper woodland also is an 

important vegetative community in the 

monument, occurring both in savannah-like 

woodlands and in dense stands (NPS 2005b). 

Youtie and Windward (1972) first inventoried 

and described the plant communities in the 

monument. The dominant plant communities 

in the monument include greasewood 

(Sarcobatus vermiculatus)/cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum); shadescale (Attriplex 

confertifolia)/Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa 

Sandbergii); big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentate)/Sandberg’s bluegrass; big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)/bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum); and western 

juniper (Juniperus occidentalis)/big sagebrush. 

However, juniper woodlands are encroaching 

on many of these communities. The 

greasewood/cheatgrass community occurs on 

alkali soils at lower elevations in both the 

Sheep Rock and Painted Hills Units. The 

shadscale/Sandberg’s bluegrass and big 

sagebrush/Sandberg’s bluegrass communities 

occur as a mosaic in all three monument units 

on heavily alkali clay soils. The big 

sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass generally 

occurs at relatively higher elevations in the 

Painted Hills and Sheep Rock Units. The 

western juniper/big sagebrush community 

also occurs at higher elevations in these two 

units, and in drainages and ravines in the 

Clarno Unit. 

Several other small plant communities occur 

along the higher elevation outcroppings, along 

riparian areas, and on shallow paleosol soils 

around the exposed fossil-bearing strata. A 

unique wooded riparian habitat, consisting of 

mountain alder (Alnus tenuifolia), occurs along 

Rock Creek (NPS 2005b). 

Portions of the three units with badlands and 

other severe environmental conditions have 

little or no vegetation. In particular, parts of 

the Painted Hills Unit (approximately 1,000 

acres) and the Blue Basin badlands in the 

Sheep Rock Unit have little or no vegetation. 

A total of 293 species of plants have been 

recorded in the John Day Fossil Beds, of 

which 91 species are nonnatives (NPS 2005a; 

Ordway 2005; S. Hoh, John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument, pers. comm., August 28, 

2006). Common native bunchgrasses include 

basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus), bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), 

and Thurber’s needlegrass (Stipa thurberiana). 

Other bunchgrasses that mix in with these 

major grasses include needle & thread grass 

(Stipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis 

hymenoides), sand dropseed (Sporobolus 

cryptandrus), and bottlebrush squirreltail 

(Sitanion hystrix). Two important native sod-
Natural Resources 

135 

forming grasses include Sandberg’s bluegrass 

and big bluegrass (Poa sp.). 

The absence of water has limited the locations 

where shrubs and trees grow in the 

monument. With the suppression of fire and 

livestock grazing in the past, western juniper is 

the most common tree and big sagebrush the 

most common shrub found in John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument. Cottonwoods 

(Populus trichocarpa), willows (Salix sp.), alder 

(Alnus rhombifolia), and hawthorn (Crataegus 

columbiana) grow only in a very restricted 

riparian zone along the John Day River and its 

tributary creeks. A few ponderosa pines (Pinus 

ponderosa) grow in areas where they can find 

moisture. Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) 

and currant (Ribes cereum) bushes can be 

found around rock slides. High up along the 

rocky escarpments surrounding the valleys is 

curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus 

ledifolius). Greasewood, rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), sagebrush, 

shadscale, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia 

sarothrae), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia 

tridentate), and purple sage (Salvia dorrii) are 

found on xeric sites. 

The Painted Hills area is widely known for its 

wildflower displays in the spring and summer. 

Most years the peak wildflower season runs 

from late April to early May. These plants 

grow only on or near the paleosols of the unit. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified 

seven plant species of concern that may occur 

within the area of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument (see appendix B); 

however, not all of these species have been 

actually documented occurring within the 

monument. Several other rare plant species 

also occur in the monument. In the Painted 

Hills Unit, hedgehog cactus (Pediocactus 

simpsonii) and Nevius chaenactis (Chaenactis 

nevii) are listed as rare by the Oregon Natural 

Heritage Program. A 1991 survey (Wright 

1992) for sensitive plant species in the 

monument found Nevius chaenactis in all 

three units. It was common and widespread 

on clay outcrops in the Painted Hills Unit. A 

healthy population of hedgehog cactus was 

found in the Painted Hills and Sheep Rock 

units. More recently, Ordway (2005) 

identified another plant of concern on the 

Oregon Natural Heritage List: scapose 

catchfly (Silene scaposa). 

Nonnative Plants 

The nonnative species in the monument affect 

sites ranging in size from less than an acre to 

thousands of acres. Most of these nonnative 

plants are not overly aggressive and are 

limited to very small areas, such as disturbed 

areas, parking lot edges, and trails. Altogether, 

it is estimated that 14,000 acres of the 

monument have been affected by nonnative 

plants (NPS 2005a). These species were 

brought in by people, or were spread by water 

along the river and stream corridors, by wind, 

or by rodents and birds from surrounding 

agricultural lands. They first took hold on 

areas that were disturbed by past grazing and 

agricultural activities. Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum) was one of the first invaders, 

spreading into areas that were grazed. Since 

the early to middle 1900s, cheatgrass has been 

joined by a host of other weeds. 

Thirteen nonnative species are of particular 

concern in the monument: cheat grass, 

Dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), 

Russian knapweed, diffuse knapweed, spotted 

knapweed, whitetop (Cardaria draba), 

medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caputmedusa), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), 

poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), yellow 

star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), scotch 

thistle (Onopordum acanthium), perennial 

pepperweed (Lepidum latifolium), and Russian 

olive (Eleagnus angustifolia) (NPS 2005a). 

These noxious invaders are of high concern 

because of their adverse effects on native plant 

and animal communities and their high 

potential to spread throughout the 

monument. Many of these nonnative species 

are also among the most established and 

toughest weeds to keep under control. They 

can completely displace a native grass stand if 

not kept under control. Table 12 shows the 

status of these species in the three units as of 

2004. Of particular note, cheatgrass is well 

established and widespread in all three units.
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

136 

The majority of the area around the paleosols 

(uplands) of the Painted Hills has been 

invaded by cheatgrass and medusahead.

Russian knapweed, whitetop, and Russian 

olive also have spread along long stretches of 

the floodplain of Bridge Creek in the Painted 

Hills Unit. In the Clarno Unit, knapweeds are 

of concern along the roads and Pine Creek, 

while medusahead rye is widespread in the 

northern portion of the unit. In the Sheep 

Rock Unit, the valleys and low areas above the 

John Day River have well-established 

populations of Dalmation toadflax, whitetop, 

Scotch thistle, and cheat grass. In the Cant 

Ranch the understory of much of the riparian 

area, especially in sites with deep, loamy soils 

and high water tables, is covered nearly 100% 

by invasive weed species, often 4 to 7 feet 

high, including whitetop, scotch thistle, 

poison hemlock, reed canarygrass, and 

flixweed mustard. Integrated Pest 

Management measures are now being taken 

by the Park Service to control the spread of 

these high priority noxious weeds in the 

monument. 

Several other nonnative species are of concern 

due to their widespread existence in the 

monument and their potential for adversely 

affecting native ecosystems. These include 

bouncingbet (Saponaria officinalis), found in 

small patches along the John Day River in the 

Sheep Rock Unit; Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense), currently in the Painted Hills lawn 

and the Sheep Rock/Painted Hills riparian 

area; chickory (Cichorium intybus), well 

established in the Sheep Rock agricultural 

fields and riparian areas; houndstongue 

(Cynoglossum officinale), of which a few 

scattered plants have been treated; puncture 

vine (Tribulus terrestris), found in parking lots, 

along trails, and in historic field #1; St. John’s 

wort (Hypericum perforatum), scattered in 

small patches along waterways; and teasel 

(Dipsacus sylvestris), present in wetlands, 

riparian areas, springs, and seeps in all three 

units (NPS 2005a). 

Table 12: Status of “High Urgency” Noxious Weeds in the Monument 

 

Weed Species Status in Sheep Rock 

Unit 

Status in Clarno Unit Status in Painted Hills 

Unit 

Dalmation toadflax Well established & 

spreading 

Not present Not present 

Whitetop Well established & 

spreading 

Not present Well established & 

spreading 

Russian knapweed Scattered small patches Scattered small patches Well established & 

spreading 

Spotted knapweed Scattered small patches Scattered small patches Scattered small patches

Diffuse knapweed Scattered small patches Scattered small patches Scattered small patches

Yellow star thistle Scattered small patches Scattered small patches Scattered small patches

Musk thistle Scattered small patches Not present Scattered small patches

Scotch thistle Well established & 

spreading 

Scattered small patches Well established & 

spreading 

Medusahead Scattered small patches Well established & 

spreading 

Well established & 

spreading 

Perennial pepperweed Scattered small patches Not present Not present 

Poison hemlock Well established & 

spreading 

Not present Scattered along the creek

Russian olive Scattered small patches Not present Well established & 

spreading 

Cheatgrass Well established & 

spreading 

Well established & 

spreading 

Well established & 

spreading 

Source: NPS 2005a. 
Natural Resources 

137 

Reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

which can form dense monocultures and 

adversely affect riparian biodiversity, also 

occurs along the John Day River in the Sheep 

Rock Unit (NPS 2005b). 

People and Vegetation 

Beginning in the late 1860s, several human 

activities have significantly altered John Day 

Fossil Bed’s native vegetation, reducing the 

distribution and abundance of many native 

plants, including grasses, and affecting plant 

diversity (NPS 2005b). Livestock grazing and 

agriculture were two of the activities that 

brought major changes to the lowland plant 

communities. Beginning in the late 1800s, 

much of the monument, predominantly the 

lowlands, was subjected to prolonged periods 

of grazing by livestock, including sheep, cattle, 

and horses (Youtie and Winward 1977). Sheep 

and cattle grazing resulted in the loss of native 

species and encouraged the spread of invasive 

nonnative species such as cheatgrass. With the 

establishment of the monument, livestock 

grazing and the potential for overgrazing 

stopped. Although some riparian areas have 

subsequently shown signs of recovery, many 

areas in the monument would likely continue 

to be covered by nonnative species for the 

foreseeable future. 

In addition to serving as pastures, the 

lowlands along the John Day River were 

converted to dryland and irrigated hay fields, 

which also resulted in the loss of native plant 

communities, such as cottonwood galleries. 

Approximately 72 acres of irrigated river 

bottomlands continue to be maintained as hay 

land in the James Cant Ranch Historic 

District. Other fields that were abandoned 

have reverted to stands of nonnative, invasive 

plants or noxious weeds. 

A 3-acre remnant of a “homestead orchard” 

still exists in the historic district. However, the 

fruit trees in the orchard are old and 

weakening from age, disease, and insects. The 

trees are pruned and sprayed annually. 

In the Clarno Unit there are many humancreated unofficial trails (social trails) scattered 

throughout the unit. A total of 75,676 linear 

feet (24,212 meters) of social trails were 

inventoried and mapped in the spring of 2006. 

This constitutes a social trail density of about 

41 linear feet per acre. Vegetation along these 

social trails has been denuded, trampled, and 

crushed to varying degrees. The loss of 

vegetation is most apparent along the more 

popular social trails, such as the trail to the 

Hancock Tree, and the trails that make up the 

Geo-loop. 

Up until recently, fire was excluded from the 

monument. Prior to Anglo-American 

settlement, these lands would typically burn 

every 5 to 15 years, either from lightningcaused fires or from fires ignited by native 

tribes. From the early 1900s until recent times 

when the National Park Service began 

prescribed burns, fire suppression was the 

norm for the region, and only a limited 

number of wildfires actually burned onto the 

monument. Suppression of fires in and 

around the monument for some 100 years has 

resulted in the proliferation of woody plants 

and annual grasses. This has increased fuel 

loads and further exacerbated the condition 

of native grasses and flora. The absence of fire 

has resulted in overgrowth of competing overstory vegetation and a loss in the vigor of 

many native plants (NPS 1999b, NPS 2005b). 

In the absence of fire, many bunchgrasses lose 

their vigor over time and have difficulty 

germinating. 

Fire suppression also has led to a very large 

increase in the number of western juniper 

trees in the monument. Historic photos 

showed that scattered junipers were only 

found along the rocky ridges and in protected 

hollows. Junipers now can be found 

throughout all three units of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument, from the edges of 

the river valley up into the highest elevations 

of the monument. Juniper is now a threat to 

many of the native plant communities that 

were historically grasslands or grass-shrub 

steppes (NPS 2005a; NPS 2005b). If not 

treated, the juniper forms dense canopies with 

little or no understory vegetation. Prescribed 

fire and selective cutting are being used to 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

138 

reduce juniper numbers and to reinvigorate 

brush and grass stands in the monument. 

Finally, there are numerous areas upstream of 

the monument that have well-established 

noxious weeds. These areas are a constant 

seed source; seeds are transported down the 

river and by vehicles on the highways, 

affecting vegetation in the monument. 

WILDLIFE 

Species Found in the Monument 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

supports a variety of wildlife species due to its 

diversity of habitats. In addition, many species 

from the mountains migrate into the 

sagebrush semi-desert in the winter. Available 

information suggests that the wildlife 

populations in the monument are stable and 

face no immediate threats (NPS 2005b). 

During 2002 to 2003, inventories were 

completed for mammals, birds, amphibians, 

and reptiles in the three units of the 

monument (Univ. of Idaho and NPS 2004a).

Initial lists of moths also have been compiled. 

Forty-six mammal species were documented 

in or near the monument in 2002 and 2003, 

and four additional species were believed to 

be present. 

Common mammal species in all three units 

include mule deer (Odocoileus hemioinus), elk 

(Cervus elaphus), coyote (Canis latrans), 

mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), 

northern pocket gopher (Thomomys 

talpoides), Belding’s ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus beldingi), montane vole 

(Microtus montanus), bushy-tailed woodrat 

(Neotoma cinerea), and several species of 

mice. A year-round resident deer population 

is present in the monument, which is 

supplemented by a migratory wintering 

population from November through April. 

Elk also occur throughout the monument, 

although their abundance varies seasonally; 

larger herds are frequently encountered along 

the John Day River and its tributaries in the 

winter. Beaver (Castor canadensis) are 

common along the John Day River and its 

tributaries. Less common species that occur in 

the area include American badger (Taxidea 

taxus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), cougar (Puma 

concolor), mink (Mustela vison), river otter 

(Lutra canadensis), pronghorn (Antilocapra 

americana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), 

porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and muskrat 

(Ondatra zibethicus). 

The authors of the vertebrate inventory note 

that the area of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument is an important area for bats 

(Univ. of Idaho and NPS 2004a and b). 

Fourteen of 15 known bat species in Oregon 

are found in the monument. Most of these 

species appear to breed in the monument, 

including at least five of the eight species of 

concern listed by state and federal agencies. 

The bats most commonly found in the 

monument include little brown myotis (Myotis 

lucifugus); Yuman myotis (M. yumanensis), the 

most common bat species recorded; western 

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus); big brown 

bat (Eptesicus fuscus); and pallid bat (Antrozous 

pallidus). Of special note, in 2002 spotted bats 

(Euderma maculatum) were found in the 

monument. This species is virtually unknown 

in Oregon, with only two published records of 

its existence prior to the inventory. Multiple 

observations of the species in the monument 

indicate that a breeding population may exist 

in the state (Univ. of Idaho and NPS 2004a 

and b). 

The monument’s bats roost in buildings, 

cracks, and caves. Several important roosting 

areas have been identified, including the 

Palisades (Clarno Unit), Goose Rock (Sheep 

Rock Unit), and the ignimbrite rimrock 

overlooking Bridge Creek (Painted Hills 

Unit). These areas were repeatedly used by 

large maternity colonies of pallid bats and by 

several other bat species. Other good areas for 

finding bats include the lower reach of Rock 

Creek and the reach of Pine Creek adjacent to 

the Palisades. 

Birds are the most visible animals seen in the 

monument. John Day Fossil Beds harbors a 

variety of resident and migratory birds. A total 

of 155 bird species were documented in the 
Natural Resources 

139 

2002–2003 inventory; of these, 13 species were 

not expected to occur. Eighty-four species 

were recorded as breeding in the area and 40 

species were migrants (Univ. of Idaho and 

NPS 2004a). Ten other species were believed 

to be probably present, but were not recorded 

during the inventory. Species commonly seen 

in the area at different times of the year 

include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), 

California quail (Callipepla californica), rock 

dove (Columba livia), common nighthawk 

(Chordeiles minor), white-throated swift 

(Aeronautes saxatalis), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis 

saya), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), 

violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), 

cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonata), 

Townsend’s solitaire (Catharus ustulatus), 

American robin (Turdus migratorius), song 

sparrow (Melospiza melodia), red-winged 

blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), western 

meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Brewer’s 

blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and 

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Twenty 

species of waterfowl were documented or 

were believed to be probably present in the 

monument area, primarily during the spring 

and fall migrations, although many of these 

species use the Painted Hills reservoir 

adjacent to the monument. The John Day 

River in particular is regularly used by 

wintering and migrating waterfowl. Nesting 

Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are 

commonly seen in the summer around Picture 

Gorge. 

The monument also provides habitat for both 

breeding and wintering raptors. Seventeen 

raptor species were identified as being present 

in the 2002–2003 inventory, of which eight 

were identified as breeding species: red-tailed 

hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle 

(Aquyila chrysaetos), northern harrier (Circus 

cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), 

barn owl (Tyto alba), great-horned owl (Bubo 

virginianus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), and 

screech owl (Otus kennicottii) (Univ. of Idaho 

and NPS 2004). Two other species, roughlegged hawk (Buteo lagopus) and short-eared 

owl (Asio flammeus), were believed to be 

probably present. Most of these species occur 

in low numbers in the monument. In 2002 and 

2003, a total of 33 active and inactive raptor 

nests were found. Adult peregrine falcons 

(Falco peregrinus) were spotted near 

Cathedral Rock and the Johnny Creek Ranch, 

suggesting that a pair of falcons may have 

nested in the area. This species has been 

largely absent from the lower John Day valley 

since the mid-20th century (Univ. of Idaho 

and NPS 2004, NPS 2005b). 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

provides good habitat for many reptiles 

because of its semi-arid climate and 

interspersed riparian areas, grass/sagebrush, 

and rocky basalt outcroppings. Twelve species 

of lizards and snakes were documented to be 

present and two species were believed to be 

probably present in the 2002 and 2003 

inventory (Univ. of Idaho and NPS 2004a). 

The most common and widespread reptile 

found in the monument is the western fence 

lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). The western 

skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) is another 

common lizard. The gopher snake (Pituophis 

catenifer) is the most commonly encountered 

snake in the monument. Other common 

snakes include the racer (Colubar constrictor) 

and the western terrestrial garter snake 

(Thamnophis elegans). The western rattlesnake 

(Crotalus viridis) is also a common snake in 

the monument. 

The riparian areas along the John Day River, 

Rock Creek, and Bridge Creek are important 

habitat areas for wildlife. The springs and 

seeps in the monument also provide 

important habitat for species, particularly 

amphibians. Five amphibian species were 

found in the 2002–2003 inventory: western 

toad (Bufo boreas), Great Basin spade foot 

toad (Spea intermontana), Pacific tree frog 

(Hyla regilla), long-toed salamander 

(Ambystoma macrodactylum), and the 

nonnative bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (Univ. 

of Idaho and NPS 2004a). 

The monument also has a diverse butterfly 

population, largely due to the diversity of 

plant species and habitats. A butterfly survey 

conducted during the summer of 2003 and the 

spring of 2004 identified 55 butterfly species 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

140 

(Anderson 2004). However, many more 

species likely occur in the monument. 

(Anderson identified another 40 species that 

potentially occur in the monument.) 

Several rare or sensitive wildlife species occur 

in the monument. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service lists 22 species of concern that may 

occur within the area of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument (see appendix C); 

however, not all of these species actually have 

been found in the monument. Likewise, the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has 

identified nearly 50 sensitive species that 

occur in the two counties where the 

monument is located, of which 17 species are 

known to occur in the monument (NPS 

2004b). For more information, see the Oregon 

Natural Heritage Program Center’s web site, 

http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic. 

As of 2004, five terrestrial nonnative wildlife 

species were known to occur in the 

monument: Chukar partridge (Alectoris 

chukar), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus 

colchicus), house sparrow (Passer dometicus),

European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and 

bullfrog (NPS 2004b). With the exception of 

the bullfrog, all of these species have become 

established in all of the monument’s units. 

(The bullfrog is present along the John Day 

River and in Rock Creek in the Sheep Rock 

Unit.) In addition, three nonnative fish—

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), 

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and carp 

(Cyprinus carpio)—are known to occur in the 

monument. 

People and Wildlife 

Intensive settlement and agriculture have 

resulted in extensive wildlife habitat 

modifications and changes in the area’s 

wildlife populations. Particularly obvious 

changes in wildlife populations and habitats 

have been caused by livestock grazing and 

farming (especially in riparian areas), erection 

of fence barriers, and stream channelization. 

Changes in the structure, composition, and 

distribution of the monument’s sagebrush 

communities probably led to extirpation of 

sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) from 

the monument (Sharp 1985 as cited in NPS 

2005b). Fire suppression and efforts to control 

predators also have affected wildlife 

populations in the area. Some poaching of 

deer occurs in the monument during the 

hunting season. Moderate to intense efforts to 

control predators such as coyotes and cougars 

have been conducted on lands adjacent to the 

monument. Visitors may be affecting pallid 

bat (Antrozous pallidus) colonies when they 

hike along the bases and rims of some cliffs 

(NPS 2005b).
141 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

OVERVIEW 

Indigenous peoples “have been living on the 

land now called Oregon for more than 10,000 

years” (Zucker, Hummel, and Hogfoss 

1983:2). Artifactual evidence of human use of 

the Columbia Plateau and the Great Basin 

cultural areas goes back to at least circa 9000 

BC and 8000 BC respectively (Chatters and 

Pokotylo 1998; Jennings 1986). Eastern 

Oregon was inhabited by American Indian 

peoples of the Columbia Plateau and Great 

Basin cultural areas (Walker 1998; D’Azevedo 

1986; Zucker, Hummel, and Hogfoss 1983). 

The Clarno and Sheep Rock units contain 

pictographs (generally recognized to be the 

earliest record of human presence) that are 

some 2,000 years old. Researchers suggest that 

these pictographs were created by American 

Indians traveling through the area. Long ago 

the basin north of Picture Gorge in the Sheep 

Rock Unit became a “transition zone” of 

territorial overlap between Columbia Plateau 

peoples and Great Basin peoples, who both 

used the area for traditional subsistence 

activities such as hunting, fishing, and 

gathering. They broadened the range of food 

available to them by exploiting a host of 

microenvironments in the area (National Park 

Service 2000a and 2000b). 

Examples of peoples in these two culture 

areas are the Wasco of the Columbia Plateau 

and the Northern Paiute of the Great Basin. 

Today one of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation is the Wasco Tribe 

(Tiller 1996:548). The tribes regarded as 

traditionally affiliated with John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument are the Burns 

Paiute Tribe, Burns, Oregon; the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Pendleton, Oregon; and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation Tribal Council, Warm Springs, 

Oregon. The three Indian reservations on 

which these tribes are located form a triangle. 

The southern point is marked by the Burns 

Paiute Reservation; the northwestern point by 

the Warm Springs Reservation; and the 

northeastern point by the Umatilla 

Reservation. The location of these tribal 

governments relates to their 19th century 

treaty and reservation history in the face of 

the ever westward expansion of European 

American settlers. 

Between 1862 and 1909, the Homestead Act 

allowed settlers to claim 160- to 640-acre 

tracts of land for free after working the land 

for a specified period of time. In 1881, Eli 

Casey Officer filed a homestead claim, 

apparently bringing the first flock of sheep to 

the John Day area. His son, Floyd Officer, 

homesteaded the land on which the Cant 

Ranch House is now located; he sometimes 

accompanied geologist and minister Thomas 

Condon (1822–1907) on his study 

expeditions. 

Thomas Condon conducted field expeditions 

and greatly furthered paleontology for which 

he had a scientific passion. He was the first to 

recognize the John Day fossil basin as a worldclass source of paleontological specimens and 

contextual geological data. Condon became 

the first Oregon state geologist in 1872 and 

subsequently a professor of geology at the 

University of Oregon, serving in that capacity 

until his death in 1907. 

The name of the national monument is 

attributed to John Day and the John Day 

River, which was named for John Day. With 

Ramsey Crooks, John Day reached the mouth 

of the Mah-hah River along the Columbia, 

where some Indians took everything these 

two had, including their clothes. They were 

rescued, but the incident became 

memorialized when travelers along the 

Columbia River would point out the mouth of 

the Mah-hah River where John Day had been 

waylaid. By the 1850s, the Mah-hah River was 

being called the John Day River. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

142 

In 1910, Scottish immigrants James and 

Elizabeth Cant purchased approximately 700 

acres of land from the Officer family and 

established their own ranch along the John 

Day River at Sheep Rock. The Cant Ranch, 

which expanded to nearly 6,000 acres, 

operated from 1910 into the 1970s. The 

operation started with sheep, and then moved 

to cattle around 1946. 

Authorized by Congress on October 26, 1974, 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

was established in 1975. Subsequently, the 

National Park Service acquired the Cant 

Ranch House and 849 acres of the property. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

More than 100 known archeological sites are 

contained within the three units of the 

national monument. More specifically to date, 

123 archeological sites have been documented 

along with 53 isolated finds of artifacts 

(Burtchard 2006a). About 28% of the national 

monument has been archeologically surveyed, 

including work in 2005 and 2006 (Burtchard 

2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007). 

The archeological sites range in time from 

about 550 BC into the historic period; they 

represent both American Indian and 

European American subsistence, habitation, 

and settlement patterns and activities. 

Prehistoric sites include lithic scatters, 

isolated finds of projectile points and other 

bifacial stone tools, stacked rock cairns, rock 

overhangs and caves that appear to have been 

used for shelter and habitation, pictographs, 

and house-pit depressions. 

Historic sites include evidence of a herder’s 

cabin; stacked rock cairns; an oil well/oil 

exploration site with foundation and the 

remains of equipment; remnants of water 

diversion and irrigation ditches; and trash 

remains such as tin cans and beer bottles. 

Walled hunting blinds made up of stacked 

stones with pit features for wind protection 

are associated with both prehistoric and 

historic remains. 

The James Cant Ranch Historic District is a 

likely place to conduct historical archeology 

because of the human habitation at the ranch 

house and the sheep and cattle ranching 

operations that took place there during much 

of the 20th century. Archeological surveys are 

being conducted within the Sheep Rock Unit, 

but so far there has been no systematic 

archeological focus on the Cant Ranch. 

Isolated finds of metal objects and fragments 

related to ranching equipment have been 

found. Potential archeological resources 

could include artifacts associated with the 

domestic life of the Cant family at the Cant 

Ranch House and those associated with the 

working life of raising sheep and cattle on the 

rest of the ranch. 

In the Clarno Unit, archeological surveys have 

uncovered some 19th century buttons 

attributed to traders and travelers. In the 

Sheep Rock Unit, test excavations have been 

conducted around the incised boulder known 

as the 1872 Petroglyph Boulder. It bears the 

initials “TC” and the date 1872 and is 

attributed to Thomas Condon; no cultural 

materials were found during the test 

excavation (Burtchard 2005). In addition to 

new survey work, sites recorded in 1993 are 

being re-examined and re-documented 

(Burtchard, Cheung, and Gleason 1994). 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

James Cant Ranch Historic District 

Named for the locally prominent rancher 

James Cant, Sr. (1879–1971), the James Cant 

Ranch Historic District (often called the Cant 

Ranch Historic District) was listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places on June 

21, 1984. As stated in the national register 

nomination form, “The Cant Ranch is one of 

the best preserved examples of the early 20th 

century ranching operations in the John Day 

River Valley” (Toothman 1984). The national 

register listing was amended in 1996 to 

include the agricultural fields and additional 

cultural landscape resources. 
Cultural Resources 

143 

The historic district is in the Sheep Rock Unit, 

encompassing approximately 200 acres where 

the activities of the ranching operation of the 

Cant family were focused. Eleven historic 

buildings, several structures, and a variety of 

cultural landscape resources are in the historic 

district. With its remaining main house, 

outbuildings, and surrounding irrigated fields, 

the Cant Ranch is one of the most intact, 

locally important examples of an early 20th 

century sheep and cattle ranch in Wheeler and 

Grant counties, Oregon. 

The land on which the Cant Ranch was built 

was first homesteaded by Floyd Officer, a 

member of one of the first families to settle in 

the John Day River valley. James Cant, Sr., a 

Scottish immigrant, purchased the property in 

1910 and became one of the leading ranchers 

in the valley during the peak of sheep 

ranching. He and his wife, Elizabeth, had four 

children—Charles, James Jr., Christina, and 

Lillian—and they started the area’s first school 

in 1919. Classes were held on the third floor of 

the main house. James Cant, Sr. founded or 

joined numerous community organizations 

and business associations, including the 

Oregon Wool Growers’ Association, the 

Grant County Stockgrowers’ Association, the 

Patrons of Husbandry, Grange No. 627, and 

the Cattle and Horse Raisers’ Association of 

Oregon. He also served as district clerk for the 

local school district (Toothman 1984). The 

ranch remained in the Cant family until it was 

purchased by the National Park Service in 

1975, a few years after the death, at age 92, of 

James Cant, Sr. 

Historic resources in the district include 

buildings, structures, and landscape features. 

Most of the historic buildings are in the ranch 

building complex, which is on the west bank 

of the John Day River. The complex includes a 

ranch house, barn and sheep shearing stalls, 

orchards, ornamental vegetation, log cabin, 

bunkhouse, privy, chicken coop, feed shed, 

workshop (or blacksmith shop), watchman’s 

hut, corrals, fences, and gates. The log cabin, 

behind the main house, and the feed shed 

were built by the Floyd Officer family prior to 

James Cant’s acquisition of the ranch. All 

other historic buildings were constructed by 

the Cant family. The sheep shearing pens 

remain as perhaps the most intact example of 

their type remaining in the region (Toothman 

1984). Eleven buildings and several structures 

still remain from the period of significance 

(1910 –1975); some of them were built during 

Officer’s occupation before 1910. 

In the domestic area of the ranch complex, the 

most prominent building is the main ranch 

house. Built circa 1915 –1918, it is a 21⁄2 story, 

wood-frame, hip-roofed building with drop 

siding. Each of the first two floors has a porch 

and six rooms with a central hallway. The 

additional half floor is one large room and 

functioned as the local school until the nearby 

Cant School was built in 1919. The house has 

been rehabilitated for administrative offices, 

an interpretive display, and collections 

storage. The log cabin behind the main house 

is a small, one-room, one-story structure. It is 

one of the oldest buildings within the 

complex, dating from the Floyd Officer period 

and used by the Cant family primarily for 

storage of supplies and food (Toothman 

1983). 

South of the main residence are the 

bunkhouse and privy. Both buildings are of 

wood-frame construction with a shingle roof. 

Northeast of the main house are a chicken 

coop and a feed shed, both of wood-frame, 

shingle-roof construction. The feed shed also 

dates to the Floyd Officer period (Taylor and 

Gilbert 1996). 

In the working area of the ranch, the most 

prominent building is the barn and its 

attached sheep shearing stalls. Built circa 1920, 

the barn is a 120-foot-long, 11⁄2 story, timberframed structure with vertical board siding 

and a wood-shingle gable roof. Attached to 

the north elevation is a one-story, rectangular 

structure, approximately 60 feet long and 20 

feet wide, which is divided into stalls for sheep 

shearing. The sheep shearing pens remain 

largely intact, and sections of the shearing 

equipment are still in place (Toothman 1984). 

East of the barn, the watchman’s hut is a small, 

one-room, wood-frame hut that housed 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

144 

sheepherders during lambing season. West of 

the barn, the workshop (or blacksmith shop) 

is a one-story, wood-frame, shingle-roofed 

structure, that has been rehabilitated for use 

as a meeting space. There is also a one-story, 

wood-frame, shingle-roofed privy. 

The ranch’s irrigated fields extend 

approximately 2.25 miles north from Picture 

Gorge, and vary in width (Taylor and Gilbert 

1996). Associated with the fields are historic 

ditches that were used to irrigate the crops, 

and hand-pulled cable cars. The cable cars 

were used to cross the river to reach 

Christina’s cabin and for other purposes. This 

cabin, named for one of the two Cant 

daughters, is on the east bank of the river at 

the edge of one of the fields northeast of the 

ranch complex. It is a small, one-story, 

wooden structure of frame construction with 

vertical board siding. Little is known about the 

cabin; it is likely that it was built to establish a 

homestead claim for Cant’s older daughter, 

but was never occupied (Toothman 1984). 

In visitor use areas around the structures, 

representative pieces of farm equipment from 

the historic period have been placed to serve 

as interpretive exhibits. Within the historic 

district boundaries and north of the historic 

ranch complex, there are two residences and a 

small maintenance building. The addition of 

new structures within the district was 

mitigated in consultation with the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation Office and the 

structures were carefully sited to reduce visual 

impacts to the historic district. 

The Cant Ranch meets national register 

criteria at the local level of significance for the 

following reasons: (1) for its association with 

the early ranching operations and general 

settlement patterns of the John Day River 

valley that began in the late 19th century and 

continued into the 20th century; (2) for its 

association with the Cant family, who were 

prominent members of the valley community; 

and (3) as one of the best preserved examples 

of the early 20th century ranching operations 

in the John Day River valley (Toothman 1984). 

The district’s period of significance is from 

1910 to 1975, the period during which the 

Cant family owned and operated the ranch. 

Details of a technical nature regarding the 

historic district can be found in the document, 

Cultural Landscape Report: Cant Ranch 

Historic District (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Cant Ranch Cultural Landscape 

In 1996, a cultural landscape report assessed 

the Cant Ranch historic cultural landscape 

(Taylor and Gilbert 1996). Landscape 

characteristics found to contribute to the 

significance of the historic district are spatial 

organization, response to natural systems and 

features, land use, circulation, vegetation, 

buildings and structures, and small-scale 

features. The buildings and structures of the 

Cant Ranch are described above in the section 

titled “James Cant Ranch Historic District.” 

The historic district includes both historic 

structures and cultural landscape resources. 

The Cant Ranch cultural landscape is 

organized into two major areas: the ranch 

complex and the agricultural fields. The ranch 

complex, the most highly developed area with 

buildings, roads, orchards, gardens, and the 

yard around the house, is further organized 

into the domestic area to the south and the 

working area to the north. The agricultural 

area outside the ranch complex includes four 

agricultural fields, irrigation ditches, cable 

cars for crossing the river, and Christina’s 

cabin. 

Contributing landscape features include the 

circulation system of historic roads and 

walkways; historic vegetation such as the 

orchard trees, agricultural crops, shade trees, 

ornamental vegetation, and lawn in the front 

yard; buildings and structures in the complex; 

irrigation ditches in the fields; and small-scale 

features such as fences, gates, and cable cars 

used to cross the river. Water rights attached 

to the agricultural lands of Cant Ranch are a 

critical key to maintaining the historic 

character of the agricultural operations at the 

ranch. The deep green of the ranch’s irrigated 

fields distinctly contrasts with the muted 
Cultural Resources 

145 

tones of the desert vegetation of the 

surrounding hills (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Based on current documentation, the Cant 

Ranch Historic District is the only historic 

property within John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument that meets national 

register criteria. If future research reveals new 

information, or if new properties are acquired 

by the monument, additional historic 

properties may be identified. The historic 

resource study (Beckham and Lentz 2000) 

identified several historic themes that are 

relevant to the development of Grant and 

Wheeler counties: 

• indigenous peoples and cultures 

• early explorations and expeditions (fur 

trade and government exploration) 

• missionaries 

• settlement 

• transportation (including the Oregon 

Trail, Dalles-Boise Military Road, 

railroads, and motorization) 

• economic development (including mining, 

sheep ranching, cattle ranching, and 

lumbering) 

• paleontological exploration 

• tourism and recreation 
146 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

INTRODUCTION 

The sculpted badlands of the John Day River 

valley are home to some of the richest fossil 

beds in the world. The exposures of 

sedimentary rock that lie in the John Day 

Basin conceal forty million years of life. The 

remarkable scenery and world class 

paleontological resources in the area have 

long been the main visitor attraction of John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

Through hiking, interpretation, fossil 

viewing, and other activities, visitors can 

learn the story of ancient plant and animal 

habitats. 

Other nearby recreation areas include BLM 

and U.S. Forest Service lands, including 

Newberry National Volcanic Monument. 

The Ochoco Mountains lie to the south of 

the John Day Basin and the Cascade Range 

lies to the west. Numerous streams, creeks, 

and rivers add to the visitor opportunities of 

the area. 

VISITOR USE 

Visitation Statistics 

Visitation statistics have been collected since 

1976 and are maintained by the NPS Public 

Use Statistics Office in Denver. Recreational 

visits are tallied through direct counts by 

monument staff at the visitor center, the 

Cant Ranch house museum (which also 

serves as the monument’s headquarters), and 

at Camp Hancock. Nonrecreational visits 

(commuter and through traffic) are 

estimated by traffic counters located in the 

Painted Hills and Clarno units, and at the 

Mascall Formation Overlook. Visitation to 

the monument is relatively stable at about 

110,000 recreational visitors per year (see 

table 13). Slight increases that have occurred 

in the last few years are predicted to 

continue into the near future (NPS 2006). 

Table 13: Total Recreational Visits, 

1976–2005 

Year Total 

Recreational 

Visits 

1976 74,800 

1977 106,300 

1978 122,031 

1979 90,547 

1980 101,167 

1981 111,410 

1982 106,123 

1983 109,694 

1984 101,783 

1985 101,566 

1986 103,328 

1987 117,346 

1988 126,928 

1989 134,710 

1990 98,435 

1991 103,941 

1992 111,643 

1993 131,850 

1994 114,927 

1995 128,032 

1996 120,556 

1997 113,057 

1998 99,983 

1999 99,274 

2000 100,522 

2001 98,489 

2002 114,392 

2003 108,181 

2004 117,613 

2005 124,937 

The recently completed Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center, which serves as the 

primary visitor center for the monument, 

would likely draw more visitors to the 

monument for the next several years as more 

people learn of the facility and its offerings. 

Population growth in the region could 

influence visitation at the monument over 

the life of the plan. Growth in nearby 
Visitor Use and Experience 

147 

Deschutes County (Bend), as well as in 

Boise, Idaho, could increase visitation to the 

monument as more people move into these 

areas and seek recreation opportunities 

outside of urban areas. 

Also, future monument use is likely to 

fluctuate from year to year, affected by a 

variety of factors including weather, 

publicity, the national and state economy, 

and the price of gas. 

The Oregon Museum of Science and 

Industry owns and operates Camp Hancock, 

which is on private land inside the Clarno 

Unit. Camp Hancock provides earth science 

education to school-aged children and is 

open nine months of the year. During that 

time, approximately 3,000 students cycle 

through the facility. These students visit a 

variety of sites within the Clarno Unit. 

The monument receives frequent visitation 

from school groups other than those 

associated with the museum. Over 2,000 

students visited in 2005. Visitation from 

school groups occurs year round, peaking in 

May. 

Visitor Profile 

A visitor study was completed at John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument in 2004 by 

the University of Idaho’s Park Studies Unit. 

This study profiles monument visitors and 

includes information on demographics, 

visitation patterns and interests, and visitors’ 

opinions on the quality of visitor services. 

The study was conducted from August 29 to 

September 4, 2004. A total of 310 visitor 

groups responded to a questionnaire during 

this week. Although the findings represent 

only one week of actual monument 

visitation, the data provide a wealth of 

information that can be used for monument 

planning. 

During the study period, monument visitors 

consisted primarily of West Coast residents, 

with Oregon residents representing 61% of 

total visitation. International visitors 

accounted for 6% of total visitation. Most 

visitor groups (76%) reported that it was 

their first trip to John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument. The most common 

reasons for visiting the monument were 

viewing scenery (41%), seeing fossils (21%), 

and visiting the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center (14%) (University of 

Idaho 2004). 

The most common group size was two 

(64%); 20% of the groups had three or four 

people. Two-thirds of all groups were 

considered family groups (University of 

Idaho 2004). 

The study also revealed that most visitors 

(64%) spent between one to two hours in the 

monument; only 15% of visitors spent five or 

more hours in the monument. Sheep Rock 

Unit was the most heavily visited (68%) unit 

of the monument. Visitation to the Clarno 

Unit represented only 26% of visitation. 

Seasonality and Time of Use 

Visitor use varies seasonally in a predictable 

fashion. Recreational visitation is greatest 

during June, July, and August. Visitation in 

these months consistently accounts for 45% 

to 51% of the overall annual visitation. 

Visitation is lowest in December, January, 

and February but begins to pick up as the 

weather warms and school groups begin to 

visit in May. Table 14 presents the visitation 

statistics for 2005. 

Since the monument provides no overnight 

accommodations and there is no 

backcountry camping allowed, monument 

use is limited to day use only. Visitation is 

greatest on weekends and holidays, peaking 

during summer holiday weekends 

(Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day). 

 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

148 

Table 14: Visitation for 2005 

Month Recreational 

Visits

January 1,215

February 2,436

March 6,669

April 10,799

May 15,697

June 18,388

July 19,331

August 20,227

September 16,519

October 9,017

November 3,328

December 1,311

Total 124,937

VISITOR INFORMATION, ACCESS, 

AND CIRCULATION 

Visitors to national park units obtain 

information through a variety of methods, 

including visitor centers, printed material, 

and radio stations. At John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument, visitors get 

information through maps and brochures, 

word of mouth, and highway signs in the 

area (University of Idaho 2004). Almost all 

visitors arrive in their personal vehicles 

(80%) or in RVs (12%) (University of Idaho 

2004). 

Many visitors find their way to the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center in the Sheep 

Rock Unit, which serves as the monument’s 

main visitor center, to obtain monument 

information. Others may go directly to their 

destination. 

Since the monument is comprised of three 

geographically separated units—the Sheep 

Rock Unit, the Painted Hills Unit, and the 

Clarno Unit—visitor access and circulation 

is complicated. Three different highways 

serve the three units, which can make it 

difficult for visitors to find their way through 

the monument. Not all visitors find their way 

to the visitor center in the Sheep Rock Unit 

as they begin their visit, which complicates 

visitor orientation. Visitors fan out into the 

monument depending upon their planned 

activities: hiking, viewing fossils, or touring 

in a vehicle. 

The completion of the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center has allowed monument 

staff to dramatically improve their ability to 

provide visitors with essential orientation 

and monument information, as well as 

interpretive and educational opportunities. 

Although, in the visitor survey, the 

paleontology center was not identified as the 

primary motivation for visiting the 

monument, the study revealed that it was the 

most frequently visited (63%) site in the 

monument. In 2005, over 25,000 people 

visited the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center. 

VISITOR ACTIVITIES AND 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Available Activities 

The most common activities reported in the 

monument were viewing scenery, taking 

photographs, and visiting the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center (University of 

Idaho 2004). 

In the Sheep Rock Unit, visitors can enjoy 

hiking, scenic driving, river access, 

picnicking, photography, and cultural 

history, as well as the education and 

interpretation programs at the visitor center. 

Specific activities and destinations include 

hiking in the Blue Basin or to the Sheep Rock 

Overlook; driving through the Picture Gorge 

and into the John Day River valley; accessing 

the river at several points along State 

Highway 19 where some recreational fishing 

occurs; picnicking at Cant Ranch and the 

Foree area; learning about the cultural 

history of the Cant Ranch Historic District; 

and visiting the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center where visitors can learn 

about the natural history of the John Day 

Basin, view fossils, and see paleontologists at 
Visitor Use and Experience 

149 

work. Restrooms and water are available at 

Cant Ranch and at the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center. 

Goose Rock and Cathedral Rock, two 

prominent geologic features, can also be 

found alongside the river in the Sheep Rock 

Unit. Activities offered in this unit are more 

structured and visitors can expect more 

encounters with other visitors in popular 

areas. At the same time, the Sheep Rock Unit 

(to the east of the John Day River) also 

contains some of the most remote areas of 

the entire monument. These areas offer 

backcountry hiking experiences where few 

other visitors would be seen. 

In the Painted Hills Unit, visitors can enjoy 

hiking, viewing scenery, photography, creek 

access, and picnicking. An information kiosk 

is located near the entrance to the unit. 

Specific activities and destinations include 

hiking the Carroll Rim Trail, Painted Cove 

Trail, and Leaf Hill Trail; and visiting the 

Painted Hills Overlook, which provides 

striking views of the area’s amazing visual 

resources. The Painted Hills are made up of 

color-splashed hummocks and hills that 

were produced from eroded volcanic ash. A 

picnic area offers restrooms, water, and 

access to Bridge Creek. Visitors can expect 

to see other visitors on designated trails and 

at popular areas such as the Painted Hills 

Overlook, but this unit also offers a 

backcountry hiking experience to those 

visitors who travel off-trail. 

In the Clarno Unit, visitors can enjoy hiking, 

picnicking, and viewing scenery and fossils. 

Specific activities and destinations include 

hiking and picnicking in the Palisades area, 

where ash-laden mudflows (lahars) can be 

seen and water is available; and driving 

through colorful scenery and interesting 

geological features. The Clarno Unit is also 

home to Camp Hancock, which is owned 

and operated by the Oregon Museum of 

Science and Industry. Camp Hancock offers 

several programs for school-aged children 

that focus on the geology, paleontology, and 

ecology of central Oregon. Camp Hancock’s 

instructor-led programs often include the 

three main paleontological features of the 

Clarno Unit: the Clarno Nut Beds, the 

Hancock Tree, and the Hancock Mammal 

Quarry. Visitors can expect to see large 

groups in and around these destinations. 

The Clarno Unit also offers a backcountry 

hiking experience to those visitors who 

travel off-trail. 

Most trails in the monument are multi-use, 

allowing both hikers and horse riders, 

although there are a few pedestrian-only 

trails near developed facilities. Mountain 

bikes are restricted to roads. 

Currently there are no concession 

operations or active incidental business 

permits at John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. 

Opportunities for Persons with 

Disabilities 

In the Sheep Rock Unit, opportunities for 

persons with disabilities can be found on the 

River Trail at Cant Ranch and the Story in 

Stone Trail at the Foree picnic area. Both of 

these trails are accessible to those in 

wheelchairs and have wayside exhibits that 

are accessible to the hearing impaired. The 

Mascall Overlook Trail is not accessible to 

wheelchairs, but has wayside exhibits that 

are accessible to the hearing impaired. The 

Story in Stone Trail offers the only accessible 

trail opportunity for the visually impaired. 

The Thomas Condon Paleontology Center is 

the primary educational and interpretive 

attraction in the monument and is fully 

accessible to those in wheelchairs. The 

Center has accessible exhibits and 

orientation films with open caption for the 

hearing impaired. Ranger programs are not 

accessible unless sign language translation is 

provided. A few of the exhibits have “touch” 

features that are accessible to the visually 

impaired. 

The Cant Ranch house and museum (the 

public area on the first floor) are accessible 

to those in wheelchairs. Exhibits and 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

150 

handouts are accessible to the hearing 

impaired, but are not accessible to the 

visually impaired. 

In the Painted Hills Unit, opportunities for 

persons with disabilities can be found on the 

Leaf Hill and Painted Cove trails. Both of 

these trails are accessible to those in 

wheelchairs and have wayside exhibits that 

are accessible to the hearing impaired. 

In the Clarno Unit, no wheelchair-accessible 

trails exist. Picnic area walkways are 

accessible to wheelchairs, with some wayside 

exhibits that are accessible to the hearing 

impaired. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

A number of factors can affect the quality of 

visitor experience within the monument, 

including the condition of natural and 

cultural resources; a visitor’s understanding 

of monument information and 

opportunities; and the level of crowding, 

noise, and opportunities for solitude in the 

monument. Each of these topics is described 

below. 

Condition of Resources 

The condition of resources, both natural and 

cultural, can affect the quality of visitor 

experience. Throughout most of the 

monument, visitors experience a natural 

landscape modified by human intervention. 

In general, years of fire suppression have 

changed the natural vegetation around the 

monument, reducing the native grasses and 

increasing the density of woody plants such 

as juniper and big sagebrush. The presence 

of noxious weeds is also a noticeable change. 

Visitors do not experience the landscape in 

its natural condition, but most visitors do 

not know this. The NPS staff is currently 

implementing some landscape restoration 

and prescribed fire activities in targeted 

areas throughout the monument, providing 

visitors with an opportunity to see a more 

natural landscape. These management 

activities are not generally interpreted. The 

existence of user-created social trails, 

particularly in the Clarno Unit, is another 

factor that could affect visitor experience. 

Modified water courses and reduced 

quantities of water in the streams due to 

agricultural use may affect visitors’ 

opportunities to enjoy these natural features 

and natural processes. 

Visitors have an opportunity to witness 

cultural resources and landscapes at Cant 

Ranch in the Sheep Rock Unit. The integrity 

of these cultural landscapes varies, but the 

visitor generally has an excellent 

opportunity to view pastoral landscapes and 

historic structures while learning about the 

sheep ranching history of the John Day River 

valley. Many historic structures have been or 

are being rehabilitated, which could affect 

visitors’ opportunities to view and interpret 

these cultural resources. 

Visitor Understanding, Education, and 

Interpretation 

Visitor understanding relates to a visitor’s 

ability to adequately orient themselves in the 

monument in order to learn and experience 

the purpose and significance of the 

monument. Because the monument has 

three geographically separated units, there 

are some challenges to ensuring that visitors 

receive orientation and fundamental 

understanding of the monument. Trailside 

interpretive signs are scattered throughout 

the monument, but cannot adequately cover 

the primary interpretive themes. Ranger-led 

activities occur mostly during the summer, 

or by appointment for special groups, and 

reach only a small percentage of visitors. 

Prior to the completion of the new 

paleontology center, NPS teaching 

opportunities were minimal. The new facility 

provides the National Park Service with a 

premier venue for education and 

interpretation of the monument’s 

fundamental resources. In 2005, the visitor 

center hosted over 25,000 visitors. Since the 

opening of the visitor center, visitors have 

remarked that the facility has changed the 
Visitor Use and Experience 

151 

way they experience the monument and has 

increased the quality of their experience. 

However, some visitors never make it to the 

visitor center, and the opportunities to assist 

with their understanding are reduced. 

Monument staff conduct programs at the 

monument for school groups and also 

conduct outreach by providing fossil kits 

and films to area schools. Overall, the 

opportunities for education, interpretation, 

and information are moderate to high. 

Crowding, Noise, and Solitude 

Most of the time, the monument is relatively 

uncrowded, except during busy summer 

weekends or when school groups visit. 

Conflicts in visitor use are infrequent and 

tend to occur most often at places that are 

visited by large groups, such as the 

paleontology center and areas within the 

Clarno Unit. 

Noise levels can be high when large groups 

are present; this can affect some visitors’ 

ability to enjoy the natural sounds and quiet. 

Likewise, opportunities for solitude in and 

around developed areas are minimal. 

However, the monument offers excellent 

opportunities for quiet and solitude in the 

remote and less-developed areas of the 

monument, which make up a large 

percentage of the monument’s total acreage.
152 

NATIONAL MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

consists of three geographically separated 

units: Clarno, Painted Hills, and Sheep Rock. 

To administer and operate the monument, the 

NPS staff is organized into five divisions. Each 

of these divisions is briefly addressed below; 

the discussions include a description of 

staffing and major responsibilities. 

As of 2006, the monument’s staff consisted of 

19 permanent employees; with the addition of 

seasonal staff, the number of employees grew 

to 40 in the summer. Nearly all monument 

staff are based out of offices in the Sheep Rock 

Unit, which is where the headquarters, 

paleontology center, and maintenance 

facilities are located. A few rangers work out 

of field offices in the other two units. Three 

park housing units exist in the monument. 

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 

The office of the superintendent provides the 

leadership and management direction for the 

overall operations of the monument. 

Partnerships, community involvement, and 

public information activities originate from 

the office of the superintendent. The 

management team for the monument consists 

of the superintendent and division chiefs, 

who, through collaborative efforts, provide 

direction and set goals for the monument. The 

administrative staff provides information 

technology services, technical and 

administrative support for management and 

operations, and ensures that supplies and 

materials are available so other divisions can 

accomplish their work. The administrative 

staff also provides many other services, such 

as finance management, contract services, and 

human resources management. The 

Superintendent’s office is located in the 

historic Cant Ranch House. 

INTERPRETATION DIVISION 

The monument’s interpretation staff consists 

of year-round permanent employees who are 

supplemented by a few temporary employees 

and volunteers during the summer months. 

NPS rangers make up the bulk of the 

interpretation staff, and some of them are 

based at field stations in different units of the 

monument. 

Interpretation staff offices are located in the 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center where 

the monument’s interpretation, information, 

and education efforts are based. Nearby Cant 

Ranch is also used for interpretive activities. 

The Thomas Condon Paleontology Center 

contains an information desk, interpretive 

displays and exhibits, and numerous fossil 

specimens. Cant Ranch has a variety of 

facilities and structures that are used for 

education and interpretation, including the 

Cant Ranch House that contains museum 

collections and displays. Evening programs 

and interpretive driving tours of the 

monument are offered during the summer 

months. Programs are presented by rangers 

based at the monument’s different units, as 

well. The interpretation staff also educates 

school-aged children by leading programs at 

the monument and providing fossil kits and 

films to area schools. 

Informational signs, maps, and bulletin 

boards, as well as wayside exhibits, are found 

throughout the monument. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION DIVISION 

Visitor and resource protection rangers 

conduct patrols throughout the monument. 

Most rangers are permanent employees, 

although their numbers are typically 

supplemented by a few temporary employees 

each summer. Division employees perform 

visitor education, law enforcement, building 

security, emergency medical services, and 
National Monument Operations 

153 

search-and-rescue operations. Ranger posts 

and offices are located in the Sheep Rock, 

Clarno, and Painted Hills units, and these 

field-based employees generally divide their 

time between resource protection and 

interpretation activities. 

PALEONTOLOGY DIVISION 

The monument’s paleontology staff consists 

of a base of year-round permanent employees 

who are supplemented by a few temporary 

employees and volunteers during the summer 

months. The lead paleontologist at the 

monument also serves as the NPS Pacific West 

Region’s paleontology science advisor. 

The monument’s paleontological efforts 

include research, curation, education, and 

interpretation activities. The Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center is the home for much of 

this work, although paleontology staff 

continue to perform field work on the 

monument’s rich fossil resources. 

Paleontology staff offices are located in the 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

The resource management staff consists of an 

integrated resource manager supplemented by 

a small number of temporary employees and 

volunteers. 

Resource management division employees 

work in conjunction with the Upper 

Columbia Basin Inventory and Monitoring 

Network, other agencies, academic 

institutions, and individuals to inventory and 

monitor the monument's wildlife, vegetation, 

wetlands, and surface water quality. This 

information is then applied to various 

restoration projects such as improving 

riparian areas, controlling nonnative plant 

species, and rehabilitating former agricultural 

fields. Division employees assess historic 

assets and make recommendations for their 

preservation. 

Division employees educate other monument 

staff on current issues affecting monument 

resources and complete compliance 

requirements related to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

The resource management staff office is 

located in the Cant Ranch House. 

MAINTENANCE DIVISION 

The maintenance division cares for an 

enormous variety of facilities and cultural 

resources within the monument. Maintenance 

crews build and maintain hiking trails, and 

maintain a wide variety of grounds, utility 

systems, roads, and other visitor facilities 

throughout the monument. 

Skilled in a variety of crafts and trades, the 

maintenance staff consists of permanent 

employees supplemented by temporary 

laborers and equipment operators in the 

summer. Maintenance staff offices are located 

at the main maintenance facility north of the 

visitor center on State Highway 19.

 

CHAPTER 4

Environmental Consequences

Blue Basin, Sheep Rock Unit Clarno 

Hancock Tree,

Clarno Unit

Cant Ranch Outbuildings, Sheep Rock 

157 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents 

discuss the environmental impacts of a 

proposed federal action, feasible alternatives 

to that action, and any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided. In this case, the 

proposed federal action would be the 

adoption of a new general management plan 

for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. 

This chapter analyzes the environmental 

impacts of implementing the three alternatives 

on natural resources, cultural resources, 

visitor experience, and monument operations. 

The analysis is the basis for comparing the 

beneficial and adverse effects of implementing 

the alternatives. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental assessment should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. For the 

purposes of analysis, it is assumed that all of 

the specific actions proposed in the 

alternatives would occur during the life of the 

plan. 

This environmental assessment generally 

analyzes several actions, such as the 

development of restrooms, the development 

of new trails or the improvement of trails, and 

the construction of a visitor contact station. If 

and when proposed site-specific 

developments or other actions are ready for 

implementation following the approval of the 

general management plan, appropriate 

detailed environmental and cultural 

compliance documentation would be 

prepared. This compliance would be in 

accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, both as amended, 

and would meet requirements to identify and 

analyze each possible impact for the resources 

affected. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions used for each 

impact topic. Impact analysis discussions are 

organized by alternative and then by impact 

topic under each alternative. The existing 

conditions for all of the impact topics that are 

analyzed were identified in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. All of the impact 

topics are assessed for each alternative. 

The analysis of the no-action alternative 

(continue current management) identifies the 

future conditions in the monument if no 

major changes to facilities or NPS 

management occurred. The two action 

alternatives are then compared to the noaction alternative to identify the incremental 

changes that would occur as a result of 

changes in monument facilities, uses, and 

management. Impacts of recent decisions and 

approved plans, such as the 2005 Integrated 

Pest Management Plan, are not evaluated as 

part of this environmental analysis. Although 

these actions would occur during the life of 

the general management plan, they have been 

(or would be) evaluated in other 

environmental documents. 

Each alternative discusses cumulative impacts; 

these are identified when this project is 

considered in conjunction with other actions 

occurring in the region. The discussion of 

cumulative impacts is followed by a 

conclusion statement. The impacts of each 

alternative are briefly summarized at the end 

of the “Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter.
158 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and the conclusions in this chapter mostly on 

the review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service and in other agencies, 

and staff insights and professional judgment. 

The team’s method of analyzing impacts is 

further explained below. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed assuming that mitigating measures 

will be implemented to minimize or avoid 

impacts. If mitigating measures described in 

the “Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter were not applied, the 

potential for resource impacts and the 

magnitude of those impacts would increase. 

The environmental consequences for each 

impact topic were identified and 

characterized based on impact type, intensity, 

context, and duration. Cumulative effects also 

were identified, but are discussed later in this 

section. 

Impact intensity refers to the degree or 

magnitude to which a resource would be 

beneficially or adversely affected. Each impact 

was identified as negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major, in conformance with the definitions 

for these classifications provided for each 

impact topic (see table 15). Because this is a 

programmatic document, the intensities were 

expressed qualitatively. 

Context refers to the setting within which an 

impact may occur, such as the affected region 

or locality. In this document most impacts are 

either localized (site-specific) or monumentwide. Cumulative impacts are either 

monument-wide or regional. 

Impact duration refers to how long an impact 

would last. The planning horizon for this plan 

is approximately 20 years. Unless otherwise 

specified, in this document the following 

terms are used to describe the duration of the 

impacts: 

Short-term: The impact would be temporary in 

nature, lasting one year or less, such as the 

impacts associated with construction. 

Long-term: The impact would last more than 

one year and could be permanent in nature, 

such as the loss of soil due to the construction 

of a new facility. Although an impact may only 

occur for a short duration at one time, if it 

occurs regularly over a longer period of time 

the impact may be considered to be a longterm impact. For example, the noise from a 

vehicle driving on a road would be heard for a 

short time and intermittently, but because 

vehicles would be driving the same road 

throughout the 20-year life of the plan, the 

impact on the natural soundscape would be 

considered to be long term. 

Effects also can be direct or indirect. Direct 

effects are caused by an action and occur at 

the same time and place as the action. Indirect 

effects are caused by the action and occur 

later or farther away, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. This document discloses and 

analyzes both direct and indirect effects, but 

does not differentiate between them in the 

discussions. 

The impacts of the action alternatives describe 

the difference between implementing the noaction alternative and implementing the 

action alternatives. To understand a complete 

“picture” of the impacts of implementing any 

of the action alternatives, the reader must also 

take into consideration the impacts that 

would occur in the no-action alternative. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Analysis of natural resources (soils, prime and 

unique farmlands, paleontological resources, 

vegetation and wildlife) was based on 

research, knowledge of the area’s resources, 

and the best professional judgment of 

planners, paleontologists, and biologists who 

have experience with similar types of projects. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

159 

Information on the area’s natural resources 

was gathered from several sources. As 

appropriate, additional sources of data are 

identified under each topic heading. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Potential impacts to those resources listed in 

or eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places were identified and evaluated. The categories considered include 

archeological resources, cultural landscapes, 

ethnographic resources such as traditional 

cultural properties, and historic properties. 

Museum collections were not included 

because, as a category, they are ineligible for 

listing in the national register. Evaluation was 

done in accordance with the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 

Code of Federal Regulations 800, Protection 

of Historic Properties). This evaluation was 

done by (1) determining the area of potential 

effects; (2) identifying cultural resources in the 

area of potential effects that are listed in or 

eligible for listing in the national register; (3) 

applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected resources; and (4) considering ways 

to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the regulations of the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, a determination of 

adverse effect or no adverse effect must be 

made for affected national register – listed or 

national register – eligible cultural resources. 

An adverse effect occurs whenever an action 

alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify it 

for inclusion in the national register; that is, 

the action diminishes the integrity of the 

resource’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse 

effects also include reasonably foreseeable 

effects caused by the alternatives that would 

occur later in time, be farther removed in 

distance, or be cumulative (36 CFR 

800.5(a)(1)). A determination of no adverse 

effect means there is an effect, but the effect 

would not meet the criteria of adverse effect 

(36 CFR 800.5(b)). 

In this General Management Plan the criteria 

for characterizing the severity or intensity of 

impacts to national register – listed or national 

register – eligible archeological resources, 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes are 

the §106 determinations of effect: adverse 

effect or no adverse effect. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers various aspects 

of visitor use and experience at John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument, including 

the following factors: crowding and opportunities for solitude; visitor understanding, 

education, and interpretation; opportunities 

for recreational activities; and opportunities 

for people with disabilities. The analysis is 

based on how visitor use and experiences 

would change with changes in the application 

of management zones in the alternatives. The 

analysis is primarily qualitative rather than 

quantitative due to the conceptual nature of 

the alternatives. 

Impacts were determined using existing and 

projected visitor use data, information on 

recreational trends, and the professional 

judgment of NPS staff. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

The impact analysis evaluated the effects of 

the alternatives on monument operations, 

including staffing, infrastructure, maintenance, visitor facilities, and services. 

The analysis focused on how monument 

operations and facilities might vary with the 

different management alternatives. The 

analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative 

because of the conceptual nature of the 

alternatives. Consequently, professional 

judgment was used to reach reasonable 

conclusions as to the intensity, duration, and 

type of potential impact. 
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

160 

Table 15: Impact Threshold Definitions

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Natural 

Resources –

Paleontological 

Resources 

Short-term: The 

effect would be 

temporary, 

lasting a year or 

less, such as 

effects associated with 

construction. 

Long-term: The 

effect would last 

more than one 

year and could 

be permanent.

The effects to 

fossils would be 

below or at 

lower levels of 

detection. 

Fossils might be 

lost through 

illegal collecting, 

or there would be 

a low probability 

of effects from a 

ground-disturbing 

activity because 

(a) the activity 

would be in a 

geologic layer not 

known to contain 

extensive fossils 

but the volume of 

bedrock 

disturbance 

would be low, or 

(b) the activity 

would be in a 

fossil-rich 

geologic layer, 

but the volume of 

bedrock disturbed 

would be nearly 

indiscernible. 

Monitoring would 

be likely to detect 

fossils and the 

loss of fossils or 

associated contextual information would be 

minimal. 

Fossils might be lost 

through illegal 

collecting, or there 

would be a possibility 

of effects from a 

ground-disturbing 

activity because (a) 

the activity would be 

in a geologic layer 

not known to contain 

extensive fossils, but 

the volume of 

bedrock disturbance 

would be large, or (b) 

the activity would be 

in a fossil-rich area, 

and the area of 

bedrock disturbance 

would be small. Most 

fossils uncovered 

probably would be 

found by monitoring, 

but some fossils or 

associated contextual 

information could be 

lost. 

Many fossils could be 

lost through illegal 

collecting, or there 

would be a high 

probability of effects 

from a grounddisturbing activity 

because the activity 

would be in a 

geologic layer of high 

fossil richness and the 

volume of bedrock 

disturbance would be 

large. Even with 

monitoring, many 

fossils or associated 

contextual 

information likely 

would be lost.

Natural 

Resources –

Soils 

Short-term: The 

effect would be 

temporary, 

lasting a year or 

less, such as 

effects associated with 

construction. 

Long-term: The 

effect would last 

more than one 

year and could 

be permanent.

The action 

would result in 

a change in a 

soil, but the 

change would 

be at the lowest 

level of 

detection, or 

not measurable. 

The action would 

result in a 

detectable 

change, but the 

change would be 

slight and local. 

There could be 

changes in a soil’s 

profile in a 

relatively small 

area, but the 

change would 

not increase the 

potential for 

erosion. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a soil. There could be 

a loss or alteration of 

the topsoil in a small 

area, or the potential 

for erosion to remove 

small quantities of 

additional soil would 

increase. 

The action would 

result in the 

permanent loss or 

alteration of soils in a 

relatively large area, 

or there would be a 

strong likelihood for 

erosion to remove 

large quantities of 

additional soil as a 

result of the action. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

161 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Natural 

Resources –

Prime and 

Unique 

Farmlands

Short-term: The 

effect would be 

temporary, 

lasting a year or 

less 

Long-term: The 

effect would last 

more than one 

year and could 

be permanent.

The action 

would result in 

the loss of 

between 0% 

and 1% of the 

prime farmland 

within Grant 

County. 

The action would 

result in the loss 

of between 1% 

and 5% of the 

prime farmland 

within Grant 

County. 

The action would 

result in the loss of 

between 5% and 

10% of the prime 

farmland within 

Grant County. 

The action would 

result in the loss of 

more than 10% of 

the prime farmland 

within Grant County. 

Natural 

Resources –

Vegetation 

and Wildlife 

(threshold 

definitions are 

the same for 

both vegetation and 

wildlife))

Short-term: The 

effect would be 

temporary, 

lasting a year or 

less, such as 

effects associated with 

construction. 

Long-term: The 

effect would last 

more than one 

year and could 

be permanent. 

The action 

might result in a 

change in 

vegetation or 

wildlife, but the 

change would 

not be 

measurable or 

would be at the 

lowest level of 

detection. 

The action might 

result in a 

detectable 

change, but the 

change would be 

slight and have a 

local effect on a 

population. This 

could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of 

individuals in a 

local area, but 

not changes that 

would affect the 

viability of local 

populations. 

Changes to local 

ecological 

processes would 

be minimal. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a population and 

could have an 

appreciable effect. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of local 

populations, but not 

changes that would 

affect the viability of 

regional populations. 

Changes to local 

ecological processes 

would be of limited 

extent. 

The action would be 

severely adverse or 

exceptionally 

beneficial to a 

population. The 

effects would be 

substantial and highly 

noticeable, and they 

could result in 

widespread change 

and be permanent. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of a local 

or regional 

population to the 

extent that the 

population would not 

be likely to recover 

(adverse) or return to 

a sustainable level 

(beneficial). 

Significant ecological 

processes would be 

altered, and 

“landscape-level” 

(regional) changes 

would be expected. 

Cultural 

Resources 

The cultural resources determined to be potentially affected by actions in this plan are 

listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, 

affects were identified using the criteria in Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended: adverse effect or no adverse effect. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

162 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

A short-term 

impact would 

last less than 

one year and 

would affect 

only one 

season’s use by 

visitors. 

A long-term 

impact would 

last more than 

one year and 

would be more 

permanent in 

nature. 

The changes in 

visitor use and 

experience 

would be below 

or at the lowest 

level of 

detection. The 

visitor would 

not likely be 

aware of the 

effects. 

Changes in visitor 

use and 

experience would 

be detectable, 

although the 

changes would 

be slight. The 

visitor would be 

aware of the 

effects, but the 

effects would be 

slight. 

Changes in visitor use 

and experience would 

be readily apparent. 

The visitor would be 

aware of the effects 

and would be able to 

express an opinion 

about the changes. 

Changes in visitor use 

and experience would 

be readily apparent 

and have important 

consequences. The 

visitor would be 

aware of the effects 

and likely would 

express a strong 

opinion about the 

changes. 

Monument 

Operations 

A short-term 

impact would 

last less than 

one year and 

would affect 

only one season 

of visitor use. 

A long-term 

impact would 

last more than 

one year and 

would be more 

permanent in 

nature. 

The effect 

would be at or 

below the lower 

levels of 

detection, and 

would not have 

an appreciable 

effect on 

monument 

operations. 

The effects would 

be detectable, 

but would be of a 

magnitude that 

would not have 

an appreciable 

effect on 

monument 

operations. 

The effects would be 

readily apparent and 

would result in a 

change in monument 

operations in a 

manner noticeable to 

staff and the public. 

The effects would be 

readily apparent and 

would result in a 

substantial change in 

monument 

operations in a 

manner noticeable to 

staff and the public 

and be markedly 

different from 

existing operations. 
163 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts that 

result from incremental impacts of the 

action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, regardless of what agency 

(federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over 

time. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

other projects within and surrounding John 

Day Fossil Beds National Monument were 

identified. The area included Grant and 

Wheeler counties, Oregon. Projects were 

identified by discussions with NPS staff, 

federal land managers, and representatives 

of county and town governments. Potential 

projects identified as possible contributors 

to a cumulative impact included any 

planning or development activity that was 

currently being implemented, or would be 

implemented in the future. Impacts of past 

actions were also considered in the analysis. 

These actions were evaluated in conjunction 

with the impacts of each alternative to 

determine if they would result in any 

cumulative impacts on a particular natural, 

cultural, or socioeconomic resource or 

visitor use. Because most of these actions are 

in the early planning stages, the qualitative 

evaluation of cumulative impacts was based 

on a general description of the project. 

With the exception of paleontological 

resources, potential cumulative impacts 

were considered in about a 10-mile area 

surrounding John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument in the John Day River watershed. 

This area includes the communities of 

Mitchell and Dayville. (For paleontological 

resources the geographic boundary for 

cumulative impacts included the entire John 

Day Basin.) Projects and actions that could 

contribute to cumulative impacts include 

ongoing and planned actions and projects in 

the following areas: in the monument, on 

adjacent public and private lands, in 

communities, and in Wheeler and Grant 

counties. These actions and projects are 

listed below. 

ACTIONS AND PROJECTS INSIDE 

JOHN DAY FOSSIL BEDS NATIONAL 

MONUMENT 

Independent of this general management 

plan, NPS activities would continue over the 

next 15 to 20 years to repair or rehabilitate 

existing facilities, and to recover fossils 

throughout the monument for 

paleontological research. In addition, 

prescribed burning, thinning, and herbicide 

spraying would continue in the effort to 

control the spread of nonnative species and 

western juniper. 

ACTIONS AND PROJECTS OUTSIDE 

JOHN DAY FOSSIL BEDS NATIONAL 

MONUMENT 

Listed below are ongoing and planned 

actions and projects on adjoining or nearby 

federal and private lands, and other actions 

that could affect the monument, 

independent of this general management 

plan. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

BLM lands are near or adjacent to all of the 

monument’s units. These lands are used 

primarily for cattle grazing. There are 

currently thirteen active grazing allotments 

on BLM lands adjacent to the monument, 

including nine adjacent to the Sheep Rock 

Unit, three next to the Painted Hills Unit, 

and one next to the Clarno Unit. The Bureau 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

164 

of Land Management also sprays herbicides 

on lands adjacent to the monument to 

control weeds, and conducts prescribed 

burns. In addition, the Bureau of Land 

Management administers a major access 

point for people floating the John Day River 

near the Clarno Unit. 

The Bureau of Land Management is in the 

process of updating its 1985 John Day Basin 

Resource Management Plan. This plan is 

expected to be completed in 2008, and will 

cover a variety of topics, including grazing 

allotments, prescribed fire, nonnative plant 

control, facility development, off-highway 

vehicle use, and land exchanges. 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

The state is not planning any major changes 

to the state highways in the vicinity of the 

monument. The state will continue to 

maintain the highways, resurfacing them and 

replacing old bridges. 

Grant Soil and Water Conservation 

District 

The district will continue to spray herbicides 

to control weeds in the vicinity of the 

monument. 

Oregon Paleo Lands Institute 

The institute is establishing a facility in 

Fossil, which is scheduled to open in 

September 2007. It will focus on 

paleontology education and research, with 

possible field trips to the Clarno Unit. 

Private Lands 

Agriculture, including grazing and crop 

(hay) production, is expected to continue to 

be the primary use of private lands adjacent 

to and nearby the monument. Private 

landowners upstream of the monument will 

continue to withdraw water from the John 

Day River, Rock Creek, and Bridge Creek to 

irrigate their lands. Some private landowners 

also will continue to spray herbicides to 

control weeds in the vicinity of the 

monument.
165 

IMPAIRMENT OF MONUMENT RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the 

alternatives, NPS Management Policies 2006 

(§1.4) requires analysis of potential effects to 

determine whether alternatives would impair 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument’s 

resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

resources and values. National Park Service 

managers must always seek ways to avoid, or 

to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, 

adverse impacts on resources and values. 

However, the laws give the National Park 

Service the management discretion to allow 

impacts on resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of the area, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. Although Congress has 

given the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow certain 

impacts within a unit, that discretion is limited 

by the statutory requirement that the National 

Park Service must leave resources and values 

unimpaired unless a particular law directly 

and specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, 

in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, would harm the 

integrity of resources and values, including the 

opportunities that otherwise would be present 

for the enjoyment of those resources or values 

(NPS Management Policies 2006 §1.4.5). An 

impact on any resource or value may 

constitute impairment. An impact would be 

more likely to constitute impairment if it 

results in a moderate or major adverse affect 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the area; 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the area or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the area; or 

• identified as a goal in the area’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

Impairment may result from NPS activities in 

managing the area, visitor activities, or 

activities undertaken by concessioners, 

contractors, and others operating in the 

monument. A determination on impairment is 

made in the “Conclusion” section for each 

required impact topic related to the 

monument’s resources and values. An 

evaluation of impairment is not required for 

topics related to visitor use and experience 

(unless the impact is resource based), NPS 

operations, or the socioeconomic 

environment. When it is determined that an 

action or actions would have a moderate to 

major adverse effect, an explanation is 

presented of why this would not constitute 

impairment. Impacts of only negligible or 

minor intensity would, by definition, not 

result in impairment. The impairment 

analysis, later in this chapter, for each of the 

impact topics has determined that none of the 

alternatives presented in this plan would 

result in impairment of monument resources.
166 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE A 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Paleontological Resources 

Analysis. In this alternative, no new 

developments or ground-disturbing activities 

would occur in areas known to have 

paleontological resources. NPS staff and 

researchers would continue to protect and 

collect paleontological resources. 

Some fossils would likely be lost due to 

natural erosion because NPS managers and 

researchers would not know of the fossils or 

would be unable to find and collect them. 

Some fossils might be lost due to people 

unintentionally walking over and crushing 

them, and due to fossils being illegally 

collected by visitors in the monument. 

Although Hancock Field Station groups 

would be in areas of the monument that have 

fossils, it is expected that these groups would 

be controlled by their teachers and they 

would not cause a loss of or disturbance to 

fossils. Students and instructors on college 

field trips may occasionally remove fossils 

from the monument. It is not known if or how 

many fossils are being taken, or the 

significance of the resources being taken. 

However, as noted in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter of this document, 

illegal collecting is not believed to be a major 

problem in the monument—the type of fossils 

found here, the difficulty in accessing and 

finding fossils, and the time needed to remove 

the fossils all tend to limit collectors. If use 

levels increase in the future as expected, there 

is the potential for some additional illegal 

fossil collecting to occur. But there is no 

reason to expect that there would be a 

noticeable increase in the numbers of fossils 

being illegally collected—most visitors would 

stay on trails or in developed areas and would 

not be in areas known to have fossils. 

Cumulative Impacts. Paleontological 

resources are scattered in rock formations 

throughout the John Day Basin. Fossils are 

likely being collected on BLM and private 

lands near the monument. Fossils are likely 

being lost to natural erosion, too, although the 

extent of that loss is unknown. When the 

likely effects of continued public use of the 

monument in this alternative are added to the 

effects of actions outside the monument, there 

could be a long-term, adverse cumulative 

impact of unknown magnitude on area fossils. 

However, visitors illegally collecting fossils in 

the monument would likely be a relatively 

small part of the cumulative impacts on the 

area’s paleontological resources. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would be expected 

to have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on 

the monument’s paleontological resources, 

potentially due to some visitors illegally 

collecting fossils, and to natural erosion. 

There could be a long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact of unknown magnitude on 

area fossils. The level of impact due to 

alternative A would not be expected to 

constitute an impairment of the monument’s 

resources or values. 

Soils 

Analysis. No soils would be altered due to 

construction because no construction of new 

facilities is included in alternative A. 

Maintenance of existing facilities would 

probably result in some erosion or alteration 

of soil properties, resulting in a negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse impact in localized 

areas.

Soils in the monument would likely continue 

to be compacted and eroded by hikers in local 

areas, particularly along existing unofficial 

trails. Hancock Field Station students would 

likely continue to use existing trails and 

unofficial trails in the Clarno Unit, and thus 

would have a negligible to minor impact on 

additional erosion in the monument. 

In some areas, new human-created, unofficial 

trails may be created with increased visitation, 

particularly in areas with high visitor numbers. 

In sloped areas, unofficial trails would result 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A 

167 

in increased soil erosion from stormwater 

runoff. These long-term, adverse visitor 

impacts would likely be minor and limited in 

extent. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in most of the area 

surrounding the monument have been altered 

by past agricultural practices and 

developments. In the future, some soils would 

likely be eroded and lost, and soil properties 

would likely continue to be altered by 

agricultural practices and by new 

developments in the area. The loss and 

alteration of soils due to past land uses and 

future external actions likely would result in a 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on area 

soils. When the potential minor effects from 

increased visitation in the monument in 

alternative A are added to the past and future 

impacts external to the monument, there 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on area soils. 

However, the actions in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to the 

overall impact. 

Conclusion. Most of the monument’s soils 

would not be affected by the actions in 

alternative A. However, some soils would be 

eroded and lost, and soil properties would be 

altered due to increased visitor use in 

localized areas such as along trails. These 

adverse impacts would likely be minor and 

long-term in extent. When the impacts inside 

the monument in alternative A are added to 

past and foreseeable future impacts from land 

uses, and future agricultural uses and 

developments outside the monument, there 

would be the potential for a long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

area soil —although the actions in alternative 

A would add a very small increment to this 

overall impact. No impairment to the 

monument’s resources and values would 

result from soil impacts in this alternative. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

Analysis. In alternative A, 72 acres of prime 

farmland in the monument would continue to 

be maintained for agricultural production. 

Thus there would be no changes to prime 

farmland in this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. Approximately 2% of 

Grant County (about 58,000 acres out of 2.9 

million acres) is irrigated (Lorraine Vogt, 

NRCS District Conservationist, pers. comm., 

May 14, 2007). It is estimated that roughly 

one-quarter of this irrigated land (~14,500 

acres) is likely designated as prime farmland 

(Jamie Kienzle, NRCS Soil Survey Project 

Leader, pers. comm., May 24, 2007). Given the 

county’s distance from urban areas and the 

relatively low level of new development that 

has occurred and is expected to occur, it is 

expected that the vast majority of prime 

farmlands in the county would continue in 

their current condition for the foreseeable 

future. A few actions outside the monument, 

such as the development of roads and homes, 

may result in a negligible loss in the acreage of 

prime farmland lands. Because alternative A 

would have no effect on prime farmlands 

within the monument, there would be no 

additive cumulative impact in alternative A. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have no 

effect on and there would be no cumulative 

impact on prime farmlands. No impairment to 

the monument’s resources and values would 

result from this alternative. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. No impacts on vegetation would 

occur due to development or improvement of 

facilities, because alternative A does not 

include such actions. 

Most monument visitors would stay on trails 

and would not affect native vegetation. 

Hancock Field Station groups probably would 

largely stay on trails, but would still trample 

and crush some plants, resulting in the loss of 

some native vegetation in the Clarno Unit. In 

addition, with increased use levels in the 

monument in the future, some vegetation may 

be lost due to the formation of humancreated, unofficial trails in or near popular use 

areas in the monument. As a result, more 

native vegetation might be adversely affected 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

168 

in local areas. None of these impacts would 

affect the integrity, distribution, or presence 

of native plant communities in the monument. 

Thus, visitor use would likely continue to have 

a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impact on the monument’s native vegetation 

in localized areas. 

Four fields in the Sheep Rock Unit would 

continue to be irrigated and used for hay 

production. However, this would have no 

effect on native vegetation as native plants 

have been largely absent from these areas for 

many years. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, the spread of nonnative plants is a 

problem in the monument. Areas upstream of 

the monument with well-established noxious 

weeds would continue to be a seed source, 

and seeds would continue to be transported 

down the John Day River. Vehicles driving 

through the monument also would continue 

to be a potential source of nonnative plant 

seeds. Increased visitor use in the monument 

would increase the potential for the spread of 

nonnative species. Even with education 

efforts, some nonnative plants could be 

introduced or spread by visitors in the 

monument. Continued use of integrated pest 

management techniques should help contain 

the spread of some nonnative species in 

limited areas. Thus, pockets of nonnative 

species would continue to be present during 

the life of this plan. Although it is difficult to 

determine the impact on native species due to 

the uncertainties about the type of species that 

might be introduced in the future, and the 

locations and frequencies of introductions, it 

is expected even with continuing monitoring 

and weed control efforts, that these adverse 

impacts would be minor to moderate. 

Continuing efforts to conduct prescribed 

burns and selective cutting would reduce 

juniper numbers and reinvigorate brush and 

grass stands in the monument. Over time this 

would be expected to restore the monument’s 

vegetation to a fire-dependent vegetative 

community that is not dominated by juniper; 

instead there would be a mosaic of 

woodlands, grasslands, and intermediate 

successional vegetative communities. 

However, in cases where the understory is 

lacking native grasses such as blue bunch 

wheat grass and Idaho fescue, nonnative cheat 

grass could substantially expand. Care would 

need to be taken in determining where and 

under what conditions prescribed burning 

would occur in order to avoid this potentially 

adverse impact. These continuing efforts 

would result in a moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact on the monument’s 

vegetation in local areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. Actions outside the 

monument would likely continue to affect the 

area’s native vegetation. Over time, most 

native bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe 

communities have been affected by human 

activities such as agricultural operations, 

construction, and other developments. New 

developments would likely result in the loss of 

some additional native vegetation. Thus, in the 

area around the monument’s three units, there 

have been minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

to native vegetation. 

When the adverse and beneficial impacts of 

alternative A are added to actions that have 

occurred and are likely to occur in the area 

surrounding the monument, there would be a 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s native 

vegetation. However, the actions in this 

alternative would add both a relatively modest 

beneficial and small adverse increment to this 

overall impact, given how much change has 

already occurred to the vegetative 

communities once present. 

Conclusion. In alternative A there would be 

both beneficial and adverse impacts on the 

monument’s native vegetation. Some longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts 

would occur in local areas due to increased 

visitor use levels. Nonnative plants would 

continue to have minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on native vegetation. 

On the other hand, continuing efforts to 

control nonnative species would likely have a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact in 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A 

169 

local areas. When the effects of this alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and foreseeable future actions, there would be 

a minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on native vegetation. 

However, the actions in alternative A would 

add only a small beneficial and small adverse 

increment to this overall impact. None of the 

vegetation impacts that would occur in this 

alternative would be sufficient to result in an 

impairment of the monument’s resources and 

values. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Few actions in this alternative 

would affect the monument’s wildlife 

populations or habitats. Wildlife populations 

and habitats already have been altered by 

visitors and NPS employees, as have wildlife 

habits and movements. The human use of the 

monument is concentrated in developed areas 

such as the Cant Ranch, and along trails. 

Animals sensitive to human activities already 

avoid these areas when people are present. 

Wildlife that occupy these developed areas, 

such as ground squirrels, rabbits, mice, and 

mule deer, are mostly adapted to the presence 

of people and would not be noticeably 

affected by the actions being taken in 

alternative A. 

Some animals would continue to occasionally 

be injured or killed by motor vehicles on 

roads. Some animals also probably would 

continue to be attracted to food offered by 

visitors or to areas where food and trash 

receptacles are present, such as at picnic areas. 

In addition, Hancock Field Station students 

probably affect wildlife populations by their 

presence in the Clarno Unit, affecting the 

behavior of some animals. Overall, the impacts 

of visitor use on wildlife populations in 

alternative A would be localized and 

negligible, resulting in no measurable changes 

to the monument’s wildlife populations. 

Continued efforts to restore native 

bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe communities 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on different wildlife populations. In 

particular, efforts to control the spread of 

juniper would benefit species that are found in 

open areas or an open understory, such as a 

wide variety of lizards, snakes, gophers, 

ground squirrels, mice, western meadowlark, 

and loggerhead shrike. This would have a 

minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impact on these species. On the other hand, 

species commonly found in juniper 

woodlands, such as northern flicker, western 

wood pewee, and dusky flycatcher, would 

likely decline in numbers over time. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, most 

wildlife populations surrounding the 

monument have been substantially altered by 

human activities, such as farming and 

ranching, resulting in fewer numbers of some 

native wildlife species such as sage grouse and 

American badger. Fire suppression, efforts to 

control predators, and hunting also have 

affected and continue to affect wildlife 

populations in the area. Thus, actions outside 

the monument have had a minor to moderate, 

adverse impact on native wildlife populations 

surrounding John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. No current or reasonably 

foreseeable actions are likely to change this. 

When the beneficial and adverse impacts of 

alternative A are added to the impacts that 

have occurred and are likely to occur in the 

vicinity of the monument, there would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. However, 

alternative A would contribute a very small 

adverse increment to this overall cumulative 

impact, as well as a small beneficial increment 

by continuing to provide an area where 

wildlife habitat continues to be managed and 

protected. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have some 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the 

monument’s wildlife populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife in the monument would not 

change as a result of the actions in this 

alternative. No actions would affect key 

migration routes or areas known to be 

important for breeding, nesting, or foraging. 

No actions would interfere with feeding, 

reproduction, or other activities necessary for 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

170 

the survival of wildlife species. Long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts would continue to 

occur in localized areas due to continuing 

visitor use of the monument. Continuing 

efforts to prevent the spread of juniper and 

control the spread of nonnative species would 

result in a minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on some wildlife 

populations. When the beneficial and adverse 

impacts of alternative A are added to the 

impacts that have occurred in the vicinity of 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, 

there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on the 

area’s wildlife populations and habitats. 

However, the actions in alternative A would 

contribute only a small beneficial increment 

and a very small adverse increment to this 

impact. None of the wildlife impacts resulting 

from alternative A would constitute an 

impairment of the monument’s resources and 

values. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources easily 

accessible to visitors from trails, roads, picnic 

areas, and permitted off-trail hiking areas 

could be vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, and vandalism. 

Deterioration of cultural remains could result 

from loss of surface archeological materials, 

alteration of artifact distribution, or a 

reduction of contextual evidence. However, 

continued ranger patrols and visitor education 

efforts would discourage vandalism and 

inadvertent destruction of cultural remains; 

any adverse impacts would be expected to be 

minimal. 

There would be no new construction in this 

alternative—no new trails or facilities. As 

appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with trail maintenance 

and the closure and revegetation of social 

trails, such as those around the Hancock Field 

Station in the Clarno Unit. Important 

archeological resources would be avoided to 

the greatest extent possible, and no adverse 

effects would be anticipated. In the unlikely 

event that such resources could not be 

avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer 

and, if appropriate, with the traditionally 

associated tribes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the monument such as trails, roads, and visitor 

and research facilities may have resulted in the 

disturbance and loss of some archeological 

resources during excavation and construction 

activities. In addition, agricultural activities, 

ranching, gold mining, and the development 

of area towns, such as John Day, Mount 

Vernon, Dayville, Kimberly, Mitchell, Fossil, 

and Prineville, may also have adversely 

disturbed archeological resources. Some of 

these types of activities continue, such as the 

fast growth and expansion of urban areas like 

Bend, Oregon and Boise, Idaho; population 

increases in these areas could result in future 

adverse impacts to archeological resources in 

the greater region. As described above, 

implementation of alternative A could 

potentially disturb archeological resources at 

the national monument, resulting in adverse 

effects. Any adverse impacts associated with 

the implementation of the no action 

alternative, in combination with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

adverse cumulative impacts. However, 

alternative A would be expected to contribute 

only minimally, if at all, to the adverse 

cumulative impacts. Thus, any adverse 

impacts to archeological resources resulting 

from implementation of alternative A would 

be a very small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Since continued management 

actions in alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, would result in no new 

construction, no adverse impacts to 

archeological resources are anticipated. Any 

adverse impacts to archeological resources 

resulting from implementation of alternative 

A would be a very small component of the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A 

171 

adverse cumulative impact. In the unlikely 

event that impacts to national register–eligible 

archeological resources could not be avoided, 

a memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated. It would be 

between or among John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument and the Oregon State 

Historic Preservation Officer, the traditionally 

associated tribes, if appropriate, and/or the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if 

necessary. The memorandum of agreement 

would stipulate how the adverse effects would 

be mitigated. 

There would be no impairment of the national 

monument’s resources or values because there 

would be no adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the national 

monument or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the national monument; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the national monument’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant National 

Park Service planning documents. 

Cultural Landscapes and Historic 

Structures 

Analysis. In alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, the National Park Service would 

continue to follow current management 

objectives at the Cant Ranch Historic District, 

preserving the cultural resources associated 

with the historic district. Resource managers 

would continue to follow the general guidance 

and proposed treatments provided in the 

Cultural Landscape Report: Cant Ranch 

Historic District (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Many of the recommendations in the cultural 

landscape report have already been 

implemented; some have not. 

 No new construction would be undertaken in 

this alternative. The agricultural fields, the 

largest character-defining elements of the 

historic district, would continue to be 

irrigated with sprinklers and flood irrigation 

techniques. The Cultural Landscape Report

would be updated to reflect the work that has 

been accomplished since 1996 and to provide 

guidance for the remaining recommendations 

that have yet to be implemented. 

To appropriately preserve and protect historic 

structures and cultural landscapes that are 

listed or eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places, all stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation efforts—as 

well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal 

maintenance—would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). Any materials removed 

from structures during rehabilitation efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the monument’s museum collections or their 

value for comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation would have 

no adverse effects upon historic structures or 

cultural landscapes. 

The ranch house could suffer wear and tear 

from increased visitation, but monitoring the 

carrying capacity of the historic structure 

could result in the imposition of visitation 

limits or constraints that would contribute to 

the stability or integrity of the resource 

without unduly hindering interpretation for 

visitors. Unstaffed or minimally staffed 

structures could be more susceptible to 

vandalism, but continued ranger patrols and 

visitor education efforts would discourage 

vandalism. Few, if any, adverse impacts would 

be anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Although the Cant 

Ranch Historic District retains an overall high 

level of historic integrity, some alterations 

have occurred since the 1910 – 1946 period of 

significance. Some structures have lost 

original historic fabric due to weathering and 

other factors, but historic materials have been 

replaced with compatible, in-kind materials 

whenever possible. Fences have been 

reconstructed and, in some cases, realigned, 

but are constructed in a style that is 

compatible with the historic character of the 

district. Several shade trees around the Cant 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

172 

residence have died or have been removed; 

they have been replaced with nonhistoric tree 

species. Historically, the shade trees were 

pollarded (an intensive pruning technique 

used historically at the Cant Ranch, possibly 

for firewood or aesthetic reasons). This 

practice has been discontinued, thus changing 

the historic shape and size of the tree canopy. 

Historic fruit trees in the lower orchard have 

been lost and the replacement of the trees 

does not reflect historic orchard practices. 

Several areas of the historic district have been 

altered to improve visitor experience, visitor 

safety, and monument operations. The 

historic driveway was expanded in a 

compatible manner to create parking spaces 

for visitors. The lawn that was historically 

maintained immediately around the house has 

been extended throughout the orchard to 

provide green picnic space for monument 

visitors. Several sections of the irrigation 

ditches have been filled in to improve the 

irrigation system. A maintenance area has 

been constructed within the historic district; 

this was carefully placed in a location that is 

not visible from the main complex, thus 

reducing its impact on the visual qualities of 

the historic district. 

These cumulative impacts have adversely 

affected the integrity of the cultural landscape 

and historic structures of the Cant Ranch 

Historic District. However, despite these 

adverse effects to landscape features, the 

Cultural Landscape Report found that the 

landscape and associated features “remain 

largely intact and retain a high level of 

integrity” (Taylor and Gilbert 1996:81). 

Construction of the new Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center across the highway from 

the Cant Ranch Historic District has had a 

visual impact on the cultural landscape. The 

center can be seen by visitors approaching the 

Cant Ranch along State Highway 19. 

However, the center is not located within the 

boundaries of the Cant Ranch Historic 

District and has no adverse effects on the 

landscape’s overall integrity. 

As described above, implementation of 

Alternative A would result in no adverse 

effects to either historic structures or cultural 

landscapes. The no adverse impacts of the no 

action alternative, in combination with both 

the adverse and no adverse impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in an adverse 

cumulative impact. However, alternative A 

would not contribute to the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Any actions would follow the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, and the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes; this would result in no 

adverse effects to historic structures and 

cultural landscapes. Alternative A would not 

contribute to the adverse cumulative impact 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. 

There would be no impairment of John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument’s resources 

or values because there would be no adverse 

effects to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument; 

or (3) identified as a goal in the John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Analysis 

Visitor Use Patterns. Monument visitation is 

slightly up and is expected to increase over the 

next several years due to the recent opening of 

the new Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center and to population growth in nearby 

metropolitan areas. Visitation would continue 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A 

173 

to fluctuate seasonally, rising in the summer 

and on weekends, and peaking on summer 

holiday weekends. Visitation would likely 

continue to be dominated by West Coast 

residents, especially those from Oregon. As 

visitation increases, monument visitation 

could peak on more weekends or increase in 

the shoulder seasons. Increased visitation in 

and of itself is not expected to have an impact 

on visitor use patterns because current 

visitation levels are not high and there is 

plenty of capacity for more visitors. There 

would be no impact on visitor use patterns 

from current management.

Crowding and Opportunities for Solitude. 

Some crowding and visitor conflict would 

continue to occur, especially at popular 

destinations in the monument. Encounters 

with large groups near Camp Hancock in the 

Clarno Unit would continue, as would 

occasional encounters with large school 

groups at the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center and Cant Ranch. There would 

continue to be opportunities for solitude in 

the remote and less developed areas of the 

monument. Impacts to crowding and solitude 

from current management are long-term, 

adverse, and of minor intensity. Population 

growth in the area over the next 20 years 

could have an adverse impact on future 

crowding and opportunities for solitude. The 

intensity of this future impact is anticipated to 

be minor. 

Visitor Understanding, Education, and 

Interpretation. Visitors would continue to 

get most of their information at the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center, which serves as 

the monument’s visitor center. Many visitors, 

particularly repeat visitors, would continue to 

go directly to other destinations in the 

monument. Most educational and interpretive 

opportunities would continue to be based at 

the visitor center and at Cant Ranch in the 

Sheep Rock Unit. Fewer programs would 

continue to be offered in the other two units. 

Visitor contact with monument staff in the 

Painted Hills and Clarno units would continue 

to be minimal. Monument staff would 

continue to conduct programs at the 

monument for school groups and would 

continue to conduct outreach by providing 

fossil kits and films to area schools. 

Collectively, the current management 

direction would continue to result in longterm, moderate, adverse impacts to visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation 

due to the issues and deficiencies identified 

above. 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities. 

Visitors would continue to have opportunities 

for scenic driving, hiking, picnicking, 

photography, fishing, and viewing fossils. 

Opportunities for scenic driving are excellent, 

with relatively uncongested roadways, 

adequate signs, and outstanding scenery. 

Convenience and access for scenic driving in 

RVs would continue to be limited to paved 

roads. Hiking opportunities abound, with a 

variety of designated trails in all three units of 

the monument; however, opportunities for 

longer distance hiking on formal, designated 

trails would continue to be limited or 

nonexistent. Picnicking facilities exist in all 

three units; however, a few of the sites are in 

need of visitor amenities to improve the visitor 

experience. No picnic facilities exist at the 

visitor center. Fishing in the monument is 

permitted, but access is informal. 

Opportunities for viewing fossils are 

abundant, both in the field and at the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center. Collectively, 

the current management direction would 

continue to result in long-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts on opportunities for 

recreational activities due to the issues and 

deficiencies identified above. 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities. 

Opportunities for people with disabilities 

would continue to be available in all three 

units of the monument. Although not all 

facilities and programs in the monument are 

fully accessible, a range of opportunities does 

exist. All units offer recreational, educational, 

and interpretive opportunities through 

accessible trails with wayside exhibits. The 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center and 

Cant Ranch house and museum provide 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

174 

additional opportunities for education and 

interpretation. Opportunities for the hearing 

impaired are currently limited to exhibits and 

handouts; opportunities for the visually 

impaired are limited to a few “touch” exhibits 

located in the visitor center. Overall, 

opportunities for people with disabilities in 

the monument are good, especially now that 

the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center is 

open. Because of the issues and limitations 

described above, the current management 

direction would continue to result in longterm, minor, adverse impacts on opportunities 

for people with disabilities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

An important factor in the discussion of 

cumulative impacts is the Oregon Paleo Lands 

Institute scheduled to open in Fossil, Oregon 

in 2007. The institute will focus on 

paleontological research and education, with 

the possibility of field trips into the Clarno 

Unit of the monument. This may result in 

increased visitation to the Clarno Unit as well 

as to the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center, and could result in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on visitor experience, 

primarily due to increased crowding and the 

potential for visitor conflict. 

The establishment of the institute and related 

visitor use of the monument could lead to 

increased visitor understanding of the 

monument’s resources. It could also improve 

opportunities for education and 

interpretation at the monument and in the 

region. 

Therefore, the institute would have a longterm, moderate, beneficial impact on visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation. 

Overall, the impact on visitor use patterns, 

opportunities for recreational activities, and 

opportunities for people with disabilities 

would be negligible. 

When the likely effects of current 

management are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions outside the monument as described 

above, the cumulative effect would be a longterm, minor, beneficial impact on visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation. 

Some long-term, minor, adverse impacts to 

visitor use and experience, in the forms of 

crowding and visitor conflict, could be 

realized from the effects of increased 

visitation, particularly when combined with 

background population growth in the region. 

The actions proposed in the no-action 

alternative would contribute only a relatively 

small part of the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would be expected to have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on 

crowding and opportunities for solitude as 

well as on opportunities for people with 

disabilities in the monument. Alternative A 

also would be expected to have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation 

and on opportunities for recreational 

activities in the monument. 

There could be a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impact on visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation; 

and a long-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impact on visitor experience, primarily due to 

increased crowding and visitor conflict. The 

actions proposed in Alternative A would 

contribute only a relatively small part of the 

overall cumulative impact. The cumulative 

impact on visitor use patterns, opportunities 

for recreational activities, and opportunities 

for people with disabilities would be 

negligible. 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

OPERATIONS 

Analysis 

The physical separation of the monument’s 

three units poses operational challenges. The 

Sheep Rock and Painted Hills units are 

separated by approximately 35 miles, while a 

distance of about 70 miles separates the Sheep 

Rock and Clarno units. Monument operations 

would continue to be based out of the Sheep 

Rock Unit, with a satellite ranger office 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A 

175 

located in the Painted Hills Unit. This physical 

separation of the three units results in 

inefficiencies for construction and 

maintenance management, including staff and 

equipment mobilization and travel. It also 

decreases the productivity and increases 

expenses associated with resource protection 

and other programmatic activities. Emergency 

management response time is also affected by 

the geographical separation of the monument 

units. 

The current organizational structure, with 

staffing and operations generally centralized, 

would continue to function with some 

inefficiency; however, it seems to be the most 

sensible organization for NPS management 

and operations due to the geographic 

limitations described above. 

Current funding levels have caused some 

positions to remain vacant, which has had an 

effect on the monument’s organizational 

capacity. Several of the divisions have 

identified staffing shortages through business 

planning models, and the impact of staffing 

deficiencies would likely continue. 

Because of the issues and limitations 

described above, the current management 

direction would continue to result in longterm, minor, adverse impacts on monument 

operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The establishment of the Oregon Paleo Lands 

Institute could result in increased visitor use 

of the monument, particularly at the Clarno 

Unit and the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center. This could result in the need for 

increased trail and facility maintenance, which 

could have minor adverse impacts to staffing 

and funding. 

When the likely effects of current 

management are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions outside the monument as described 

above, the cumulative effect would be a longterm, minor, adverse impact on monument 

operations. The actions proposed in the noaction alternative would contribute an 

appreciable increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would be expected to have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on 

monument operations. There could be a longterm, minor, adverse cumulative impact on 

monument operations (staffing, maintenance, 

and operational needs) resulting primarily 

from increased visitation. The actions 

proposed in Alternative A would contribute 

an appreciable increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 
176 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE B 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Paleontological Resources 

Analysis. Most of the new developments or 

ground-disturbing activities in alternative B, 

including construction of new shade 

structures in the Painted Hills picnic area, the 

redesign of the Painted Hills Overlook, the 

development of the Geo-loop trailhead / 

parking area, and work in the Cant Ranch 

area, would not occur in areas known to be 

major areas for paleontological resources. To 

ensure that impacts would be avoided, sitespecific surveys would be undertaken before 

any ground disturbance occurs in areas 

thought likely to contain fossils. The 

formalization of the unofficial Geo-loop, 

Mimulus and Stegamonster trails would result 

in minimal disturbance to the surrounding 

soils, since the trails already largely exist. With 

the application of appropriate mitigation 

measures (e.g., construction activities being 

monitored by a paleontologist), impacts to 

paleontological resources would be negligible. 

Thus, the construction of new facilities in 

alternative B would be expected to have a 

negligible, long-term, adverse impact on the 

monument’s paleontological resources. 

As in alternative A, in alternative B some 

fossils might be illegally collected by visitors in 

the monument. Although Hancock Field 

Station groups would be in areas in the 

monument with fossils, it is expected that 

these groups would be controlled by their 

teachers and their presence would not result 

in the loss or disturbance of fossils. Students 

or instructors on college field trips may 

occasionally remove fossils from the 

monument. With monument use levels 

expected to increase in the future, there 

would be the potential that some illegal fossil 

collecting could occur. But there is no reason 

to expect that there would be a noticeable 

increase in the numbers of fossils being 

illegally collected—most visitors would stay in 

developed areas or on trails and would not 

know where to look for fossils and would not 

have equipment to extract fossils. The 

formalization of the Geo-loop, Mimulus, and 

Stegamonster trails would likely result in more 

people walking in areas that have fossils, but is 

not expected to noticeably increase fossil theft 

since the trails already exist. (Indeed, having 

more people in the area may reduce the 

likelihood of illegal collecting.) Thus, 

compared to alternative A, visitor use in 

alternative B would have the potential for a 

negligible to minor, long-term, adverse impact 

on the monument’s paleontological resources. 

(Commercial collectors could have a much 

bigger impact, but this has not been a problem 

in the past and there is no reason to expect it 

would increase in this alternative.) 

Alternative B would have several beneficial 

impacts on paleontological resources. The 

opening of the Hancock Mammal Quarry 

would likely produce new fossils, adding new 

information to the body of paleontological 

knowledge, which would be a long-term, 

beneficial impact of unknown magnitude. The 

closure and restoration of human-created 

unofficial trails in the Clarno Unit also would 

reduce the potential for visitors wandering 

through the area and collecting fossils, 

resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Paleontological 

resources are scattered in rock formations 

throughout the John Day Basin. Fossils are 

likely collected on BLM and private lands 

near the monument, and are likely being lost 

to natural erosion, although the extent of this 

loss is unknown. When the likely effects of 

public use of the monument in this alternative 

and the beneficial impacts of opening the 

mammal quarry and closing unofficial trails 

are added to the effects outside the 

monument, there could be a long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact of unknown 

magnitude on area fossils. However, the 

beneficial and adverse effects of alternative B 

in the monument would likely be a very small 

part of the cumulative impacts on the area’s 

paleontological resources. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B

177 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative B would be expected to have a 

beneficial impact of unknown intensity on 

paleontological resources, primarily due to 

the opening of the mammal quarry and the 

removal of most of the human-created 

unofficial trails. There also would be a longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impact on 

the monument’s paleontological resources 

due to the increased potential for illegal fossil 

collecting. There could be a long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact of unknown 

magnitude on area fossils, although alternative 

B would add small beneficial and adverse 

increments to the overall area cumulative 

impact. The level of impact due to alternative 

B would not be expected to constitute an 

impairment of the monument’s resources or 

values. 

Soils 

Analysis. In alternative B, some soils would be 

lost to erosion or substantially altered in local 

areas where ground disturbance would occur 

due to the development of the Geo-loop 

trailhead / parking area. Site preparation and 

landscaping work would disturb soils in this 

area, and soils would be modified in the 

footprint. Construction equipment also would 

likely disturb and compact soils in the project 

area, which would include about an acre of 

land. Mitigation efforts, such as installing 

erosion matting and silt fences, would help 

reduce the impact on the soils in the area. The 

adverse impact on soils would likely be 

moderate in the area, but the adverse impact 

on the monument’s overall soils, due to new 

developments, would be minor and longterm. 

Several actions would occur in areas that have 

already been disturbed by people. These 

actions include the opening of the mammal 

quarry, the redesign of the Painted Hills 

Overlook, construction of three shade 

structures in the Painted Hills picnic area, the 

formalizing of several existing unofficial trails, 

and various actions in the Cant Ranch area. 

Little additional soil disturbance would be 

required and thus these actions would have a 

negligible, adverse, long-term impact on soils 

in these areas. 

As in alternative A, maintenance of existing 

facilities would probably result in some 

erosion of soils or alteration of soil properties, 

resulting in a negligible to minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on soils in localized areas.

Due to hikers, soils in the monument would 

likely continue to be compacted and eroded in 

specific areas, such as along the sides of trails. 

Hancock Field Station students would likely 

continue to use existing trails and unofficial 

trails in the Clarno Unit, creating a negligible 

to minor impact on soils by contributing to 

additional erosion in the monument. In some 

areas in the monument, new unofficial trails 

may be created as visitation increases. In 

sloped areas, human-caused, unofficial trails 

would result in increased soil erosion from 

stormwater runoff. These long-term, adverse 

impacts would likely be minor and limited in 

extent. 

Efforts to remove unofficial trails would help 

reduce erosion and result in a long-term, 

beneficial impact on soils. The new formal 

trail to the Hancock Tree and mammal quarry, 

which would follow a well-traveled unofficial 

trail, would be built with erosion control 

measures. This should reduce erosion in this 

area compared to the present conditions, and 

would result in a minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impact. 

Instituting and monitoring user capacity 

indicators and standards also should help 

ensure that an unacceptable increase in the 

number of human-created trails (and resulting 

increased soil erosion) does not occur in the 

pedestrian, backcountry, and primitive zones. 

Compared to the no-action alternative, this 

alternative would result in a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in most of the area 

surrounding the monument have been altered 

by past agricultural practices and developments. In the future, some soils in the area 

would likely be eroded and lost, and soil 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

178 

properties would likely be altered by 

agricultural practices and new private 

developments in the area. The loss and 

alteration of soils due to past land uses, and 

future external actions, likely would result in a 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on area 

soils. When these past and future impacts are 

added to the potential adverse and beneficial 

effects of alternative B in the monument there 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on area soils. 

However, the actions in alternative B would 

contribute a very small increment to the 

overall impact. 

Conclusion. Most of the monument’s soils 

would not be affected by the actions in 

alternative B. However, some soils would be 

eroded and lost and some soil properties 

would be altered. This would be due to 

construction projects and increased visitor 

use in localized areas such as along trails. 

Overall, these adverse impacts would likely be 

minor and long-term in extent. On the other 

hand, establishing and monitoring user 

capacity indicators and standards should help 

prevent the establishment of new humancreated trails, and prevent resulting soil 

erosion; this would have a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact. 

When the impacts in alternative B are added 

to other impacts from past and foreseeable 

future actions, there would be the potential 

for a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on area soils—although the 

actions in alternative B would add a very small 

increment to this overall cumulative impact. 

No impairment to the monument’s resources 

and values would result from soil impacts in 

this alternative. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

Analysis. In alternative B, 72 acres of prime 

farmland in the monument would continue to 

be maintained for agricultural production. 

Although actions would be taken to improve 

the efficiency and sustainability of the 

agricultural operations, no changes would 

occur in the amount of prime farmland in the 

monument and no changes would occur to 

soil function. Thus, alternative B would have 

no effect on prime farmlands with regard to 

acreage or use of the monument’s fields. 

Cumulative Impacts. Approximately 2% of 

Grant County (about 58,000 acres out of 2.9 

million acres) is irrigated (Lorraine Vogt, 

NRCS District Conservationist, pers. comm., 

May 14, 2007). It is estimated that roughly 

one-quarter of this irrigated land (~14,500 

acres) is likely designated as prime farmland 

(Jamie Kienzle, NRCS Soil Survey Project 

Leader, pers. comm., May 24, 2007). Given 

Grant County’s distance from urban areas and 

the relatively low level of new development 

that has occurred and is expected to occur in 

the area, it is expected that the vast majority of 

prime farmlands in the county would continue 

into the foreseeable future in about the same 

condition as they are now. As noted in 

alternative A, a few actions outside the 

monument, such as the development of roads 

and homes, may result in a negligible loss in 

the acreage of prime farmland. Because 

alternative B would have no effect on the 

acreage of prime farmland within the 

monument, there would be no additive 

cumulative impact in alternative B. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have no 

effect on prime farmland with regard to 

acreage and use of the monument’s fields, and 

would result in no cumulative effect. No 

impairment to the monument’s resources and 

values would result from this alternative. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Vegetation in most areas of the 

monument would not be affected by 

alternative B. Most of the new facilities and 

other actions in alternative B, including the 

redesign of the Painted Hills Overlook, the 

addition of three shade structures to the 

picnic area, the construction of the Geo-loop 

trailhead / parking area, the formalizing of 

several unofficial trails, and improvements in 

the Cant Ranch agricultural fields, would 

occur within disturbed areas where native 

vegetation already has been substantially 

altered—little native vegetation would be 

affected by these actions. The opening of the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B

179 

mammal quarry also would occur in an area 

that has relatively sparse native vegetation. 

Therefore, little additional native vegetation 

would be affected from construction of the 

facilities in alternative B. 

Given previous vegetation disturbance and 

the use of appropriate mitigation measures 

(e.g., ensuring that equipment stays within 

project area boundaries, revegetating 

disturbed areas, and taking steps to avoid the 

spread of nonnative plants), the long-term, 

adverse effects on native vegetation from the 

new developments would be negligible to 

minor in localized areas. 

As in alternative A, most monument visitors 

would stay on trails and would not affect 

native vegetation. Hancock Field Station 

groups probably would largely stay on trails, 

but would still trample and crush some plants, 

resulting in the loss of some additional native 

vegetation in the Clarno Unit. In addition, 

with increased use levels over time in the 

monument, more native vegetation might be 

adversely affected in local areas due to people 

wandering off the trails. None of these 

impacts would affect the integrity, 

distribution, or presence of native plant 

communities in the monument. Thus, visitor 

use would likely have a long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse impact on the monument’s 

native vegetation in local areas. 

Four fields in the Sheep Rock Unit would 

continue to be irrigated and used for hay 

production. However, this would have no 

effect on native vegetation, because native 

plants have been largely absent from these 

areas for many years. 

As in alternative A, the spread of nonnative 

plants would continue to be a problem in the 

monument in alternative B. Areas upstream of 

the monument with well-established noxious 

weeds would continue to be a seed source, 

and seeds would continue to be transported 

down the John Day River. Vehicles traveling 

through the monument also would continue 

to be a potential source of nonnative plant 

seeds. Increased visitor use in the monument 

would increase the potential for the spread of 

nonnative species. 

Continued use of integrated pest measures 

should help contain the spread of some 

nonnative species in limited areas. But even 

with these measures and visitor education 

efforts, some nonnative plants might be 

introduced or spread by visitors (as well as by 

wind and the river) in the monument. Thus, 

pockets of nonnative species would continue 

to be present during the life of this plan. It is 

difficult to determine the impact this would 

have on native species, due to uncertainties 

about the type of species that might be 

introduced and the locations and frequencies 

of such introductions. However, it is expected 

that even with continuing monitoring and 

weed control efforts the impacts would be 

long-term, adverse, and minor to moderate. 

Alternative B would have several beneficial 

impacts on vegetation. Continuing efforts to 

conduct prescribed burns and selective 

cutting would have the same effects as 

described in alternative A—restoration of the 

monument’s vegetation to a fire-dependent 

community that is not dominated by juniper. 

In addition, in alternative B, the removal of 

unofficial trails in the Clarno Unit, and the 

restoration of riparian vegetation along Bridge 

Creek and the John Day River would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts. The addition of 

the Cathedral Rock lands to the monument 

also would have long-term, beneficial impacts, 

protecting more native riparian vegetation. 

Finally, the establishment of user capacity 

indicators and standards would help prevent 

the spread of additional unofficial trails, and 

thus prevent the loss and disturbance of 

vegetation in the monument. Taken together, 

these actions would have a minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on 

native vegetation in localized areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. Actions outside the 

monument would likely continue to affect the 

area’s native vegetation. Over time, most 

native bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe 

communities have been affected by human 

activities such as agricultural operations, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

180 

housing construction, and other 

developments. New developments would 

likely result in the loss of some additional 

native vegetation. Thus, generally in the area 

around the monument’s three units, there 

have been minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

to native vegetation. 

When the adverse and beneficial impacts of 

alternative B are added to actions that have 

occurred and are likely to occur in the area 

surrounding the monument, there would be a 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s native 

vegetation. Given how much change has 

already occurred to the vegetative 

communities once present, the actions in 

alternative B would add both a relatively 

modest beneficial and a small adverse 

increment to this overall impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would result in 

both beneficial and adverse impacts on the 

monument’s native vegetation. Most of the 

proposed new actions in alternative B would 

occur in the footprint of areas that have 

already been disturbed and would have a 

negligible impact on native vegetation. Some 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts would occur in local areas due to 

proposed new developments and increased 

visitor use levels. As in alternative A, 

nonnative plants would continue to have 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts on native vegetation. On the other 

hand, efforts to restore riparian vegetation, 

remove unofficial trails, add the Cathedral 

Rock area to the monument, and establish and 

monitor user capacity indicators and 

standards would likely have long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial impacts to native 

vegetation in localized areas. When the effects 

of alternative B are added to the effects of 

other past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions there would be a minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact on 

native vegetation. The actions in alternative B 

would add both small beneficial and small 

adverse increments to this overall cumulative 

impact. None of the vegetation impacts that 

would occur in alternative B would be 

sufficient to result in an impairment of the 

monument’s resources and values. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. As noted in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter, the monument’s 

wildlife populations and habitats have been 

altered by people over time. The human use of 

the monument is concentrated in developed 

areas such as picnic areas, on trails and roads, 

and in the Cant Ranch. Animals sensitive to 

human activities already avoid these areas 

when people are present. The wildlife that 

occupies these developed areas, such as 

ground squirrels, rabbits, and mice, are mostly 

adapted to the presence of people and would 

not be noticeably affected by the actions in 

alternative B. 

As in all of the alternatives, some animals 

would continue to occasionally be injured or 

killed by motor vehicles on the monument’s 

roads. Some animals probably would continue 

to be attracted to food and trash receptacles 

and to food being offered by visitors. In 

addition, Hancock Field Station students also 

probably affect wildlife populations by their 

presence in the monument, affecting the 

behavior of some animals in the Clarno Unit. 

But the overall adverse effects on wildlife from 

visitor activities in alternative B would be the 

same as those in alternative A: localized and 

negligible, resulting in no measurable changes 

to the monument’s wildlife populations. 

The formalization of several existing 

unofficial trails, development of the Geo-loop 

trailhead / parking area, redesign of the 

Painted Hills Overlook, and facility 

development in Cant Ranch, would occur in 

areas that have already been disturbed. 

Wildlife remaining in these areas has adapted 

to the presence of people. Although increased 

noise and human activity during the 

construction periods could temporarily 

displace some animals, the impact on wildlife 

populations and habitats in these areas would 

be short-term and negligible. 

The opening of the mammal quarry in 

alternative B would result in the presence of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B

181 

people and equipment in this area for long 

periods of time. Some wildlife, such as ground 

squirrels, mice, and rabbits would be 

displaced from the area. As a result, there 

would likely be a negligible to minor, longterm, adverse impact on wildlife populations 

in this localized area. 

Continued efforts to restore native 

bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe communities in 

alternative B would have the same beneficial 

and adverse impacts on wildlife populations as 

described in alternative A. In addition, in 

alternative B, efforts would be undertaken to 

restore the riparian vegetation along Bridge 

Creek and the John Day River. Depending on 

the extent and nature of the restoration 

efforts, this effort could expand habitat for 

native wildlife and have a long-term, 

beneficial impact on wildlife populations 

found in riparian areas, such as raccoon, 

beaver, belted kingfisher, violet-green 

swallow, and yellow warbler. Likewise, the 

closure of unofficial trails and the restoration 

of these areas in the Clarno Unit would result 

in more habitat and fewer people in these 

areas, which in turn would benefit native 

wildlife populations that are sensitive to the 

presence of people. 

Adding lands in the Cathedral Rock area to 

the monument would eliminate grazing in the 

area and provide additional protection to 

wildlife riparian habitat, benefiting species 

such as river otter, salmon, mink, and osprey. 

Thus there would be a long-term, beneficial 

impact on wildlife populations in this area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, most 

wildlife populations surrounding the 

monument have been substantially altered by 

human activities, including farming and 

ranching. As a result, fewer numbers of some 

native wildlife such as sage grouse and 

American badger are present. Fire suppression 

activities, efforts to control predators, and 

hunting also have affected and continue to 

affect wildlife populations in the area. Thus, 

actions outside the monument have had a 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on native 

wildlife surrounding John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument. No current or 

reasonably foreseeable actions are likely to 

change this. 

When the beneficial and adverse impacts of 

alternative B are added to the impacts that 

have occurred in the vicinity of the 

monument, there would be a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the area’s wildlife populations and 

habitats. However, alternative B would 

contribute a very small adverse increment to 

this overall cumulative impact, as well as a 

small beneficial increment by continuing to 

provide an area where wildlife habitat 

continues to be managed and protected. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have both 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the 

monument’s wildlife populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife populations and habitats in the 

monument would not change as a result of the 

actions in this alternative. No actions would 

affect areas known to be important for 

breeding, nesting, foraging, or key migration 

routes. No actions would interfere with 

feeding, reproduction, or other activities 

necessary for the survival of wildlife species. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts would 

continue to occur in localized areas due to 

continuing visitor use of the monument. On 

the other hand, there would be long-term, 

beneficial impacts on some wildlife 

populations due to vegetation restoration 

efforts, the addition of lands in the Cathedral 

Rock area to the monument, and the closure 

and restoration of unofficial trails in the 

Clarno Unit. 

When the beneficial and adverse impacts of 

alternative B are added to the impacts that 

have occurred in the vicinity of John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. However, the 

actions in alternative B would contribute only 

a small beneficial increment and a very small 

adverse increment to this impact. None of the 

wildlife impacts resulting from alternative B 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

182 

would constitute an impairment of the 

monument’s resources and values. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources adjacent to 

or easily accessible from trails, roads, picnic 

areas, and permitted off-trail hiking areas 

could be vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, and vandalism. Deterioration of cultural remains could result from a 

loss of surface archeological materials, 

alteration of artifact distribution, or a 

reduction of contextual evidence. However, 

continued ranger patrols and visitor education 

efforts would discourage vandalism and 

inadvertent destruction of cultural remains, 

and any adverse impacts would be expected to 

be minimal. 

 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with trail maintenance 

and the closure and revegetation of social 

trails. Archeological surveys would also 

precede new construction associated with the 

development of new trails, interpretive 

waysides, and parking areas, and the 

installation of shade structures. Important 

archeological resources would be avoided to 

the greatest extent possible. If such resources 

could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Officer and, if appropriate, the 

traditionally associated tribes.

 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the monument, such as the construction of 

trails, roads, and visitor and research facilities, 

may have resulted in the disturbance and loss 

of some archeological resources during 

excavation and construction activities. In 

addition, agricultural, ranching, and goldmining practices, and the development of 

towns in the area, such as John Day, Mount 

Vernon, Dayville, Kimberly, Mitchell, Fossil, 

and Prineville, may also have adversely 

disturbed archeological resources. Some of 

these types of activities continue, such as the 

fast growth and expansion of urban areas like 

Bend, Oregon, and Boise, Idaho. Population 

increases in these areas could result in future 

adverse impacts to archeological resources in 

the greater region. As described above, 

implementation of alternative B could 

potentially disturb archeological resources at 

the national monument—resulting in adverse 

effects. Any adverse impacts associated with 

the implementation of the preferred 

alternative, in combination with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

adverse cumulative impacts. However, 

alternative B would be expected to contribute 

only minimally, if at all, to the adverse 

cumulative impacts. Thus, any adverse 

impacts to archeological resources resulting 

from implementation of alternative B would 

be a very small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

 

Conclusion. Management actions in 

alternative B, the preferred alternative, would 

involve new construction, but no adverse 

impacts to archeological resources would be 

anticipated. Any adverse impacts to 

archeological resources resulting from 

implementation of alternative B would be a 

very small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. In the unlikely event that 

impacts to national register–eligible 

archeological resources could not be avoided, 

a memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated. It would be 

between or among John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument, the Oregon State 

Historic Preservation Officer, traditionally 

associated tribes, if appropriate, and/or the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if 

necessary. The memorandum of agreement 

would stipulate how the adverse effects would 

be mitigated. 

There would be no impairment of the national 

monument’s resources or values because there 

would be no adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B

183 

establishing legislation of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the national 

monument or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the national monument; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the national monument’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant National 

Park Service planning documents. 

Cultural Landscapes and Historic 

Structures 

Analysis. In alternative B, the preferred 

alternative, the National Park Service would 

continue to follow current management 

objectives at the Cant Ranch Historic District, 

preserving the cultural resources associated 

with the historic district. Resource managers 

would continue to follow the general guidance 

for proposed treatments provided in the 

Cultural Landscape Report: Cant Ranch 

Historic District (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Many of the recommendations in the cultural 

landscape report have already been implemented. Recommendations that have not yet 

been implemented include the reconstruction 

of the sun sheds that were historically used to 

protect livestock from the sun. Actions in 

alternative B would be implemented to 

increase the visitor experience and 

interpretation of the historic structures and 

cultural landscape of the Cant Ranch. 

The agricultural fields, the largest characterdefining elements of the historic district, 

would continue to be irrigated. And, in the 

preferred alternative, sustainable irrigation 

practices would be considered, such as laser 

leveling the fields in conjunction with various 

sustainable methods of irrigation. Such new 

irrigation methods would be considered as 

long as these actions would not have an 

adverse effect on the visual character of the 

fields. The riparian vegetation along the John 

Day River would be restored to native 

vegetation; this would be done in a manner 

that would not create a visual barrier between 

the core of the Cant Ranch and the 

agricultural fields across the river. The 

Cultural Landscape Report would be updated 

to reflect the work that has been 

accomplished since 1996 and in order to 

provide guidance for the remaining 

recommendations that have yet to be 

implemented. 

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register–listed or national register–

eligible historic structures and cultural 

landscapes, all stabilization, preservation and 

rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, 

and seasonal maintenance, would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed from structures during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the monument’s museum collections 

or their value for comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation would have 

no adverse effects upon historic structures or 

cultural landscapes. 

The ranch house could suffer wear and tear 

from increased visitation. Unstaffed or 

minimally staffed structures could be more 

susceptible to vandalism, but continued 

ranger patrols and visitor education efforts 

would discourage vandalism. Few, if any, 

adverse impacts would be anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Although the Cant 

Ranch Historic District retains an overall high 

level of historic integrity, some alterations 

have occurred since the 1910 – 1946 period of 

significance. Some structures have lost 

original historic fabric due to weathering and 

other factors, but historic materials have been 

replaced with compatible in-kind materials 

whenever possible. Fences have been 

reconstructed and, in some cases, realigned, 

but are constructed in a style that is 

compatible with the historic character of the 

district. 

Several shade trees around the Cant residence 

have died or have been removed; they have 

been replaced with nonhistoric tree species. 

Historically, the shade trees were pollarded 

(an intensive pruning technique used 

historically at the Cant Ranch, possibly for 

firewood or aesthetic reasons). This practice 

has been discontinued, thus changing the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

184 

historic shape and size of the tree canopy. 

Historic fruit trees in the lower orchard have 

been lost and the replacement of the trees 

does not reflect historic orchard practices. 

Several areas of the historic district have been 

altered to improve visitor experience, visitor 

safety, and monument operations. The 

historic driveway was expanded in a 

compatible manner to create parking spaces 

for visitors. The lawn that was historically 

maintained immediately around the house has 

been extended throughout the orchard to 

provide green picnic spaces for monument 

visitors. Several sections of the irrigation 

ditches have been filled in to improve the 

irrigation system. A maintenance area has 

been constructed within the historic district; 

this was carefully placed so it is not visible 

from the main complex, thus reducing its 

impact on the visual qualities of the historic 

district. 

 

These cumulative impacts have adversely 

affected the integrity of the cultural landscape 

and historic structures of the Cant Ranch 

Historic District. However, despite these 

adverse effects to landscape features, the 

Cultural Landscape Report found that the 

landscape and associated features “remain 

largely intact and retain a high level of 

integrity” (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Construction of the new Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center across the highway from 

the Cant Ranch Historic District has had a 

visual impact on the cultural landscape. The 

center can be seen by visitors approaching the 

Cant Ranch along State Highway 19. 

However, the center is not located within the 

boundaries of the historic district and has no 

adverse effects on the landscape’s overall 

integrity as determined in previous 

environmental analysis. 

 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in no adverse effects 

to either historic structures or cultural 

landscapes. This determination in 

combination with both the adverse and no 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in an adverse cumulative impact. 

However, alternative B would not contribute 

to the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative B 

would result in no adverse effects to historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. Alternative 

B would also contribute no adverse effects to 

the overall adverse cumulative impact of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. Any actions would follow approved 

standards and guidelines and would enhance 

NPS preservation objectives for the Cant 

Ranch Historic District and other potential 

cultural landscapes. 

There would be no impairment of the national 

monument’s resources or values because there 

would be no adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument or to opportunities 

for enjoyment of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument; or (3) identified as a goal 

in the John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument General Management Plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Analysis 

Visitor Use Patterns. Overall monument 

visitation would likely increase in this 

alternative, primarily due to the addition of 

new recreational and interpretive activities 

and facilities. Although there are no overnight 

accommodations proposed within the 

monument in any of the alternatives, the 

increase in visitor opportunities and the 

opening of the mammal quarry would likely 

draw more visitors; many of these visitors 

would likely come from farther away. In 

particular, the opening of the mammal quarry 

could draw visitors and researchers from 

outside the region and the country, and would 

increase visitation at the Clarno Unit. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B

185 

Visitation to the monument would continue 

to fluctuate seasonally, rising in the summer 

and on weekends, and could peak on more 

weekends or increase in the shoulder seasons. 

Visitors would likely continue to be primarily 

residents of the West Coast and especially 

Oregon. 

The addition of new visitor opportunities 

could disperse visitors and change visitor use 

patterns in the monument. Altering and 

redesigning the Painted Hills Overlook, which 

would accommodate parking for the Carroll 

Rim Trail, could change visitor use patterns by 

improving the availability of parking and 

direct trail access. Visitor access and 

convenience, especially for RVs, could be 

improved by Wheeler County’s paving of the 

road to Painted Cove in the Painted Hills Unit; 

however, this paving could adversely affect 

some visitors’ experience by generating shortterm noise and visual intrusions during 

construction, as well as long-term impacts to 

visitors who desire a more rural landscape. 

Collectively, the actions proposed in 

Alternative B would result in long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts to visitor use 

patterns. 

Crowding and Opportunities for Solitude. 

Some crowding and visitor conflict would 

continue to occur, especially at popular 

destinations in the monument; however, 

crowding and conflict would be reduced 

through the implementation of a user capacity 

framework that would enhance visitor 

experience and protect monument resources. 

A high density of visitors and frequent visitor 

encounters would continue to occur at 

popular frontcountry destinations, including 

the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center and 

the Cant Ranch. The impacts on crowding and 

opportunities for solitude from future 

population growth would be managed and 

mitigated through the user capacity 

framework. 

The formalization of the Geo-Loop Trail 

could adversely affect opportunities for 

solitude in the Clarno Unit since it could 

increase visitation to the area. However, the 

addition of new visitor opportunities 

throughout the monument would help 

minimize crowding and visitor conflict by 

dispersing visitors. There would continue to 

be opportunities for solitude in the remote 

and less developed areas of the monument, 

and there would be improvements to visitor 

experience in the backcountry zone of the 

Clarno Unit, due to limiting and managing 

visitor encounters and improving the visual 

elements of the landscape through trail 

closure and restoration. 

Overall, impacts to crowding and solitude 

from actions in this alternative would be longterm, beneficial, and of moderate intensity. 

Visitor Understanding, Education, and 

Interpretation. Visitors would continue to 

get most of their information at the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center, which serves as 

the monument’s visitor center. Many visitors, 

particularly repeat visitors, would continue to 

go directly to other destinations in the 

monument, which could affect their 

understanding of the monument’s primary 

interpretive themes. 

Most educational and interpretive 

opportunities would continue to be based at 

the visitor center and at Cant Ranch in the 

Sheep Rock Unit; however, the opening of the 

mammal quarry would provide a new and 

unique educational and interpretive 

opportunity where visitors could witness and 

experience an active paleontological 

excavation site. Providing improved visitor 

access to the Cant Ranch barn would increase 

education and interpretive opportunities and 

improve visitor understanding of the Cant 

Ranch Historic District. 

The monument’s program and activities 

would be better distributed among the other 

units; this would provide increased 

opportunities for visitors to come into deeper 

contact with monument resources. 

Monument staff would increase programs at 

the monument for school groups and would 

continue to conduct outreach by providing 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

186 

fossil kits and films to area schools. The 

addition of new trails in the monument would 

also provide additional opportunities for 

visitor education and interpretation through 

wayside exhibits. All of these activities would 

lead to increased exposure to monument 

resources and educational programs, which 

would likely increase visitor enjoyment of and 

appreciation for these resources. 

Collectively, the actions proposed in 

Alternative B would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts to visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation. 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities. 

Visitors would continue to have the same 

opportunities as described in Alternative A; 

however, opportunities for hiking and 

picnicking would be increased or enhanced. 

Construction or formalization of the GeoLoop, Mimulus, and Stegamonster trails 

would provide new trail opportunities in the 

Clarno Unit. These new facilities would have a 

positive impact on visitors that desire longer 

trails and greater access to the monument’s 

remote areas. New shade structures would be 

added to the Painted Hills Overlook and the 

picnic area; these would improve the visitor 

experience. Scenic driving opportunities 

would be improved by Wheeler County’s 

paving of the road to Painted Cove, since this 

would improve convenience and access for 

RVs. The adverse impacts to visitor 

experience that would be caused by this road 

paving are addressed in the visitor use 

patterns section above. Collectively, the 

actions proposed in Alternative B would result 

in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on 

opportunities for recreational activities. 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities. 

Opportunities for people with disabilities 

would be greater in alternative B than in 

Alternative A. New accessible trails and 

interpretive signs would be added at Cant 

Ranch, and the monument would construct 

an accessible trail to the Hancock Tree in the 

Clarno Unit, if feasible. These actions would 

increase interpretive and recreational 

opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Limitations and deficiencies of accessible 

opportunities would still exist, but the actions 

proposed in Alternative B would result in 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on 

opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As in Alternative A, the establishment of the 

Oregon Paleo Lands Institute may result in 

increased visitation to the Clarno Unit and the 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. This 

increased visitation could result in long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on visitor experience, 

primarily due to increased crowding and the 

potential for visitor conflict. 

The establishment of the Institute and related 

visitor use of the monument also could lead to 

increased visitor understanding of the 

monument’s resources. It could also improve 

opportunities for education and 

interpretation at the monument and in the 

region through collaborative research and 

programming efforts. Therefore, the institute 

would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact on visitor understanding, education, 

and interpretation. The impact on visitor use 

patterns and opportunities for recreational 

activities would be long-term, beneficial, and 

of minor intensity. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions in Alternative B are added to the 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions outside the monument as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

major, beneficial cumulative impact on visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation. 

Educational and interpretive partnerships 

forged with the Oregon Paleo Lands Institute 

would be a factor in this scenario, as would 

the existence of the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center. Opening and operating 

the mammal quarry would contribute an 

appreciable increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Some long-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impacts to crowding and opportunities for 

solitude could be realized from the effects of 

increased visitation resulting from the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B

187 

establishment of the Oregon Paleo Lands 

Institute, particularly when combined with 

population growth in the region. Visitor 

conflict could result in certain areas; however, 

the effects would be managed through the 

user capacity framework. The actions 

proposed in Alternative B would contribute an 

appreciable increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use patterns 

and opportunities for recreational activities in 

the monument would be long-term, 

beneficial, and of minor intensity because 

visitors would be better dispersed and visitor 

opportunities would be increased. The actions 

proposed in Alternative B would contribute a 

large part to this cumulative impact. 

There would be a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on opportunities for 

people with disabilities due to increases in 

interpretive and visitor opportunities. The 

actions proposed in Alternative B would 

contribute a large part to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would be expected to have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact on visitor 

use patterns and opportunities for people with 

disabilities. Impacts on crowding and 

opportunities for solitude, as well as impacts 

on opportunities for recreational activities, 

would be long-term, beneficial, and of 

moderate intensity. Impacts on visitor 

understanding, education, and interpretation 

in this alternative would be long-term, 

beneficial, and of moderate intensity. 

The cumulative impact on visitor understanding, education, and interpretation would 

be long-term, beneficial, and of major 

intensity. The actions proposed in Alternative 

B would contribute an appreciable amount to 

this cumulative impact. The cumulative 

impact on visitor use patterns, opportunities 

for recreational activities, and opportunities 

for people with disabilities would be longterm, beneficial, and of minor intensity. The 

actions proposed in Alternative B would 

contribute a large part to this cumulative 

impact. 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

OPERATIONS 

Analysis 

As in Alternative A, the physical separation of 

the monument’s three units would continue to 

pose operational challenges. Monument 

operations would continue to be based out of 

the Sheep Rock Unit, with a satellite ranger 

office located in the Painted Hills Unit. The 

physical separation of the three units results in 

inefficiencies for construction and 

maintenance project management, including 

staff and equipment mobilization and travel. It 

also decreases the productivity and increases 

expenses associated with resource protection 

and other programmatic activities. Emergency 

management response time would also 

continue to be affected. 

The current organizational structure, with 

staffing and operations generally centralized, 

would continue to function with some 

inefficiency; however, it seems to be the most 

sensible organization for NPS management 

and operations due to the geographic 

limitations described above. 

Different from in Alternative A, the 

construction and maintenance of new trails 

and other recreational facilities in this 

alternative would require additional resources 

for operations and maintenance, including 

additional staff. Restoring trails in the Clarno 

Unit would also require efforts from 

maintenance and resource management staff, 

in addition to coordination with Oregon 

Museum of Science and Industry and other 

volunteers. Resource improvement efforts, 

including restoring riparian areas of Bridge 

Creek and the John Day River, improving the 

sustainability of the Cant Ranch agricultural 

fields, and rehabilitating and modifying the 

Cant Ranch barn, would require additional 

funding and staff resources. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

188 

Opening the mammal quarry would require 

additional funding for capital construction. 

Operating the quarry would likely require 

additional staff time from all divisions. If 

funding would remain at current levels, this 

would continue to cause some positions to 

remain vacant, which would adversely affect 

the staff’s ability to function adequately. 

Because of the impacts associated with the 

actions described above, Alternative B would 

result in a long-term, moderate, adverse 

impact on monument operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As in Alternative A, the establishment of the 

Oregon Paleo Lands Institute could result in 

increased visitor use of the monument, 

particularly at the Clarno Unit and the 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. This 

could result in a need for increased trail and 

facility maintenance, which could have both 

staffing and funding implications. 

When the likely effects of Alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions outside the 

monument as described above, there would be 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on monument operations. The actions 

proposed in Alternative B would contribute a 

large part to this overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would be expected to have a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact on 

monument operations. There could be a longterm, moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

monument operations (staffing, maintenance, 

and operational needs) resulting primarily 

from increased visitation. The actions 

proposed in Alternative B would contribute a 

large part to this overall cumulative impact.
189 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE C 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Paleontological Resources 

Analysis. Many of the new developments or 

ground-disturbing activities in alternative C—

including construction of new shade 

structures in the Painted Hills picnic area; the 

redesign of the Painted Hills Overlook; the 

addition of the picnic area by the paleontology 

center; construction of a new office/visitor 

contact station, the Geo-loop trailhead / 

parking area, and the Indian Canyon Trail in 

the Clarno Unit; and the development of a 

restroom and other actions in the Cant Ranch 

area—would not occur in areas known to be 

major areas for paleontological resources. To 

ensure that paleontological resources would 

not be adversely affected, site-specific surveys 

would be undertaken before any ground 

disturbance occurs in areas thought likely to 

contain fossils. 

The actions needed to formalize the existing 

unofficial Geo-loop, Mimulus, and 

Stegamonster trails would result in minimal 

disturbance to the surrounding soils, since the 

trails already largely exist. With the 

application of appropriate mitigation 

measures (e.g., construction activities being 

monitored by a paleontologist), impacts to 

paleontological resources would be negligible. 

Thus, the construction of new facilities in 

alternative C would be expected to have a 

negligible, long-term, adverse impact on the 

monument’s paleontological resources. 

As in alternative A, in alternative C some 

fossils might be illegally collected by visitors in 

the monument. Although Hancock Field 

Station groups would be in areas with fossils, 

it is expected that these groups would be 

controlled by their teachers and their 

presence would not result in the loss or 

disturbance of fossils. Students or instructors 

on college field trips may occasionally remove 

fossils from the monument. With monument 

use levels expected to increase in the future, 

there would be the potential that some illegal 

fossil collecting could occur. But there is no 

reason to expect there would be a noticeable 

increase in the numbers of fossils being 

illegally collected—most visitors would stay in 

developed areas or on trails and would not 

know where to look for fossils and would not 

have equipment to extract fossils. Formalizing 

the Geo-loop, Mimulus and Stegamonster 

trails would likely result in more people 

walking in areas that have fossils, but is not 

expected to noticeably increase fossil theft 

since the trails already exist. (Indeed, having 

more people in the area may reduce the 

likelihood of illegal collecting.) Thus, 

compared to alternative A, visitor use in 

alternative C would have the potential for a 

negligible to minor, long-term, adverse impact 

on monument’s paleontological resources. 

(Commercial collectors could have a much 

bigger impact, but this has not been a problem 

in the past and there is no reason to expect it 

would increase in this alternative.) 

Alternative C would have several beneficial 

impacts on the monument’s paleontological 

resources. The opening of the Hancock 

Mammal Quarry would likely produce new 

fossils and add new information to the body 

of paleontological knowledge, and thus would 

result in a long-term, beneficial impact of 

unknown magnitude. The closure and 

restoration of human-created unofficial trails 

in the Clarno Unit, and the closure of the Leaf 

Hill Trail in the Painted Hills Unit would also 

reduce the potential for visitors wandering 

through the areas and collecting fossils, thus 

resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Paleontological 

resources are scattered in rock formations 

throughout the John Day Basin. Fossils are 

likely collected on BLM and private lands 

near the monument, and are likely being lost 

to natural erosion, although the extent of this 

loss is unknown. When the likely effects of 

public use of the monument in this alternative 

and the beneficial impacts of opening the 

mammal quarry and closing unofficial trails 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

190 

are added to the effects outside the 

monument, there could be a long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact of unknown 

magnitude on area fossils. However, the 

beneficial and adverse effects of alternative C 

in the monument would likely be a small part 

of the cumulative impacts on the area’s 

paleontological resources. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative C would be expected to have a 

beneficial impact on paleontological 

resources, primarily due to opening of the 

mammal quarry, the restoration of humancaused unofficial trails, and the closure of the 

Leaf Hill Trail in the Painted Hills Unit. There 

also would be a long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impact on the monument’s 

paleontological resources due to an increased 

potential for illegal fossil collecting. There 

could be a long-term, adverse cumulative 

impact of unknown magnitude on fossils in 

the region, although alternative C would add 

small beneficial and adverse increments to the 

overall area cumulative impact. This level of 

impact would not be anticipated to constitute 

an impairment of the monument’s resources 

or values. 

Soils 

Analysis. Some soils would be lost to erosion 

or substantially altered in local areas where 

ground disturbance occurs due to the 

development of the Geo-loop trailhead / 

parking area and Clarno visitor contact 

station /office. Site preparation and 

landscaping work would disturb soils in these 

areas, and soils would be paved over and lost 

in the footprint of the facilities. Construction 

equipment also would likely disturb and 

compact soils in the project areas. No more 

than a couple acres in the Clarno Unit would 

be affected by these new facilities. Mitigation 

efforts, such as installing erosion matting and 

silt fences, would help reduce the impact on 

the soils in the areas. The adverse impact on 

soils would likely be moderate in the localized 

areas, but the adverse impact due to new 

developments on the monument’s overall soils 

would be minor and long-term. 

Several other actions would occur in areas 

that have already been disturbed by people; 

these include the construction of the new 

Indian Canyon Trail, a new restroom in the 

Cant Ranch, and a new picnic area by the 

paleontology center; the redesign of the 

Painted Hills Overlook and the construction 

of three shade structures in the picnic area; 

and the formalizing of several existing 

unofficial trails. Little additional soil 

disturbance would be required in these areas, 

and thus these actions would have a negligible, 

long-term, adverse impact on soils. 

The Cant Ranch agricultural fields would be 

restored to native grass. Some soil may be lost 

during the conversion from agricultural use to 

native vegetation. The adverse impacts of 

conversion and restoration on the 

monument’s soils would likely be minor and 

long-term. Over time, the soil resource would 

be expected to improve, resulting in a 

beneficial impact. 

As in alternative A, maintenance of existing 

facilities would probably result in some 

erosion or alteration of soil properties, 

resulting in a negligible to minor, long-term, 

adverse impact in localized areas. 

Soils in the monument would likely continue 

to be compacted and eroded by hikers in local 

areas, such as along the sides of trails. 

Hancock Field Station students would likely 

continue to use existing trails and unofficial 

trails in the Clarno Unit, and would have a 

negligible to minor impact on soils by causing 

additional erosion in the monument. In some 

areas in the monument, new unofficial trails 

may form with increased visitation, 

particularly in areas with high visitor numbers. 

In sloped areas, human-caused, unofficial 

trails would result in increased soil erosion 

from stormwater runoff. These long-term, 

adverse visitor impacts would likely be minor 

and limited in extent. 

Efforts to restore unofficial trails, such as in 

the Clarno Unit, would help reduce erosion 

and would result in a long-term, beneficial 

impact on soils. The new formal trail to the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative C 

191 

Hancock Tree and mammal quarry, which 

would follow a well-traveled unofficial trail, 

would be built with erosion control measures. 

This should reduce erosion in this area 

compared to the present, resulting in a minor 

to moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Instituting and monitoring user capacity 

indicators and standards also should help 

ensure that an unacceptable increase in the 

creation of human-created trails does not 

occur in the pedestrian, backcountry, and 

primitive zones. Compared to the no-action 

alternative, this would result in a moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in most of the area 

surrounding the monument have been altered 

by past agricultural practices and 

developments. In the future, some soils in the 

area would likely be eroded and lost and some 

soil properties would likely be altered by 

agricultural practices and by new private 

developments in the area. The loss and 

alteration of soils, due to past land uses and 

future external actions, likely would result in a 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on area 

soils. When these past and future impacts are 

added to the potential adverse and beneficial 

effects of alternative C in the monument there 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on area soils. 

However, the actions in alternative C would 

contribute a very small increment to the 

overall impact. 

Conclusion. Most of the monument’s soils 

would not be affected by the actions in 

alternative C. However, some soils would be 

eroded and lost and some soil properties 

would be altered due to new developments 

and increased visitor use in localized areas 

such as along trails. These adverse impacts 

would likely be minor and long-term in 

extent. On the other hand, establishing and 

monitoring user capacity indicators and 

standards should help prevent the 

establishment of new human-created trails 

and prevent resulting soil erosion: this would 

have a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. 

When the impacts in alternative C are added 

to impacts from other past and foreseeable 

future actions, there would be the potential 

for a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on area soils—although the 

actions in alternative C would add a very small 

increment to this overall cumulative impact. 

No impairment to the monument’s resources 

and values would result from soil impacts in 

this alternative. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

Analysis. In alternative C, the National Park 

Service would cease irrigating and restore 72 

acres of prime farmland in the monument to 

native vegetation. With the drying of the 

fields, the National Park Service would lose its 

water right and would likely never again be 

able to irrigate the fields—these lands would 

likely be permanently removed from 

agricultural production. Given the relatively 

small amount of prime farmland that would be 

taken out of production compared to the 

estimated amount of prime farmland in Grant 

County (less than 1% of the approximately 

14,500 acres of prime farmland that is 

estimated to be irrigated), this action would 

result in a negligible, long-term, adverse 

impact on prime farmlands. It should be 

pointed out that even though 100% of the 

prime farmland in the monument would 

change designation in this alternative, the 

prime farmlands are not a resource that is 

fundamental to or part of the monument’s 

purpose and significance. 

Although these lands would lose their status as 

prime farmland if this alternative were 

implemented, it is important to note that there 

would be no change to the soil characteristics 

or properties—if the soils were to be irrigated 

again, they would once again be classified as 

prime farmland. It also should be noted that 

this action would not be considered an 

unnecessary, irreversible, conversion of prime 

farmlands to nonagricultural use. 

Cumulative Impacts. Approximately 2% of 

Grant County (about 58,000 acres out of 2.9 

million acres) is irrigated (Lorraine Vogt, 

NRCS District Conservationist, pers. comm., 

May 14, 2007). It is estimated that roughly 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

192 

one-quarter of this irrigated land (~14,500 

acres) is likely designated as prime farmland 

(Jamie Kienzle, NRCS Soil Survey Project 

Leader, pers. comm., May 24, 2007). Given 

Grant County’s distance from urban areas and 

the relatively low level of new development 

that has occurred and is expected to occur in 

the area, it is expected that the prime 

farmlands in the county would continue in 

about the same condition as they are now for 

the foreseeable future. As noted in alternative 

A, a few actions outside the monument, such 

as the development of roads and homes, may 

result in a negligible loss in the acreage of 

prime farmland. When the negligible adverse 

effect of alternative C on prime farmlands is 

added to the likely negligible loss in prime 

farmlands outside the monument, there would 

be a very small adverse cumulative impact on 

prime farmlands in the county in 

alternative C. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have a 

negligible, long-term, adverse effect on prime 

farmlands. When the impacts of alternative C 

are added to other impacts from past and 

foreseeable future actions in the county there 

would be the potential for a very small adverse 

cumulative impact on prime farmlands. This 

negligible adverse impact on prime farmlands 

would not constitute an impairment of the 

monument’s resources and values. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. As in the other alternatives, 

vegetation in most areas of the monument 

would not be affected in alternative C. Some 

of the new facilities and actions in alternative 

C would be built within disturbed areas in 

which the vegetation already has been 

substantially altered; these actions include the 

development of the Indian Canyon Trail and 

Geo-loop trailhead / parking area, redesign of 

the Painted Hills Overlook and the addition of 

three shade structures to the picnic area, the 

formalizing of several unofficial trails, the 

development of a new picnic area by the 

paleontology center, the construction of a 

new restroom in the Cant Ranch, and 

improvements in the Cant Ranch fields. The 

opening of the mammal quarry also would 

occur in an area that has relatively sparse 

native vegetation. Therefore, little additional 

native vegetation would be affected from 

construction of the facilities in alternative C. 

Given previous vegetation disturbance and 

the use of appropriate mitigation measures 

(e.g., ensuring that equipment stays within 

project area boundaries, revegetating 

disturbed areas, and taking steps to avoid the 

spread of nonnative plants), the long-term, 

adverse effects on native vegetation from the 

new developments would be negligible to 

minor in localized areas. 

Several developments in alternative C would 

occur in areas that have been relatively 

undisturbed and have native vegetation. These 

would include the development of the Butler 

Basin Trails and the Clarno Unit office/visitor 

contact station. Construction of these facilities 

would result in the loss or damage to native 

vegetation. In addition, visitors using the new 

picnic area may wander off the site and 

trample or crush nearby vegetation that is 

sensitive to disturbance. No more than about 

5 acres of vegetation in the Clarno and Sheep 

Rock Units would be affected by alternative C. 

Thus, these developments would likely have a 

minor, adverse, long-term, localized impact 

on the monument’s vegetation. 

As in alternatives A and B, most visitors would 

stay on trails and not affect the monument’s 

native vegetation. Hancock Field Station 

groups probably would largely stay on trails, 

but would still trample and crush some plants, 

resulting in the loss of some additional native 

vegetation. In addition, with increased use 

levels over time in the monument, more native 

vegetation might be adversely affected in local 

areas due to people wandering off the trails. 

None of these impacts would affect the 

integrity, distribution, or presence of native 

plant communities in the monument. Thus, 

visitor use would likely continue to have a 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact 

on the monument’s native vegetation in local 

areas. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative C 

193 

The spread of nonnative plants would 

continue to be a problem in the monument in 

alternative C. Areas upstream of the 

monument with well-established noxious 

weeds would continue to be a seed source. 

Seeds would continue to be transported by the 

John Day River. Vehicles traveling through 

the monument also would continue to be a 

potential source of nonnative plant seeds. 

Increased visitor use in the monument would 

increase the potential for the spread of 

nonnative species. Even with education 

efforts, some nonnative plants could be 

introduced or spread by visitors (as well as by 

wind and the river) in the monument. Thus, 

pockets of nonnative species would continue 

to be present during the life of this plan. 

Continued use of integrated pest measures 

should help contain the spread of some 

nonnative species in limited areas. However, it 

is difficult to determine the impact on native 

species due to the uncertainties about the type 

of species that might be introduced in the 

future, and the locations and frequencies of 

such introductions. It is likely that, even with 

continuing monitoring and weed control 

efforts, these long-term, adverse impacts 

would be expected to be minor to moderate. 

Alternative C would have several beneficial 

impacts on vegetation. Continuing efforts to 

conduct prescribed burns and selective 

cutting would have the same effects as 

described in alternative A—restoring the 

monument’s vegetation to a fire-dependent 

vegetative community that is not dominated 

by juniper. In addition, in alternative C the 

restoration of unofficial trails in the Clarno 

Unit, the closure and restoration of the Leaf 

Hill Trail in the Painted Hills Unit, the 

restoration of riparian vegetation along Bridge 

Creek and the John Day River, and the 

planting of native vegetation in the Painted 

Hills picnic area would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts. The addition of lands in 

the Cathedral Rock area to the monument 

also would have long-term, beneficial impacts, 

protecting more native riparian vegetation. 

Finally, the establishment of user capacity 

indicators and standards would help prevent 

the creation of additional unofficial trails, and 

thus prevent the loss and disturbance of 

vegetation in the monument. Taken together, 

these actions would have a minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on the 

native vegetation in localized areas. 

The restoration of the four fields in the Sheep 

Rock Unit to native vegetation would be 

difficult, but would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact, if in fact native plants can be 

successfully reestablished. There likely would 

be additional weeds that would become 

established and grow in the fields, which 

would compete with the native vegetation. It 

is not certain that the native vegetation would 

be able to out-compete these nonnative 

plants, even with intensive management 

efforts to control the spread of the nonnative 

plants. 

Cumulative Impacts. Actions outside the 

monument would likely continue to affect the 

area’s native vegetation. Over time, most 

native bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe 

communities have disappeared or been 

substantially altered by human activities such 

as agricultural operations, housing 

construction, and other developments. New 

private developments might result in the loss 

of some additional native vegetation. Thus, in 

the area around the monument, there have 

been minor to moderate, adverse impacts to 

native vegetation. 

When the adverse and beneficial impacts of 

alternative C are added to actions that have 

occurred and are likely to occur in the area 

surrounding the monument, there would be a 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s native 

vegetation. The actions in alternative C would 

add both a relatively modest beneficial and 

small adverse increment to this overall impact, 

given how much change has already occurred 

to the vegetative communities once present. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would result in 

both beneficial and adverse impacts on the 

monument’s native vegetation. Many of the 

proposed new developments would occur in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

194 

the footprint of areas that have already been 

disturbed and therefore would have a 

negligible impact on native vegetation. Some 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts would occur to native vegetation in 

localized areas due to proposed new 

developments and increased visitor use levels. 

As in the other alternatives, nonnative plants 

would continue to have minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts on native 

vegetation. However, efforts to restore 

riparian vegetation, remove unofficial trails 

and restore the vegetation, plant native 

vegetation in the Painted Hills picnic area and 

in the four fields in the Sheep Rock Unit, add 

lands in the Cathedral Rock area to the 

monument, and establish and monitor user 

capacity indicators and standards would likely 

have long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

impacts to native vegetation in localized areas. 

When the effects of this alternative are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions, there would be a 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on native vegetation. The 

actions in alternative C would add both small 

beneficial and adverse increments to this 

overall cumulative impact. None of the 

vegetation impacts that would occur in this 

alternative would be sufficient to result in an 

impairment of the monument’s resources and 

values. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. As noted in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter, the monument’s 

wildlife populations and habitats have been 

altered over time by people. The human use of 

the monument is concentrated in developed 

areas such as picnic areas, on trails and roads, 

and in the Cant Ranch. Animals sensitive to 

human activities already avoid these areas 

when people are present. Wildlife that 

occupies these developed areas, such as 

ground squirrels, rabbits, and mice, are mostly 

adapted to the presence of people and would 

not be noticeably affected by the actions in 

alternative C. 

As in all of the alternatives, some animals 

would continue to occasionally be injured or 

killed by motor vehicles on the monument’s 

roads. Some animals also probably would 

continue to be attracted to food being offered 

by people or to areas where food and trash 

receptacles are present, such as the new picnic 

area in the Sheep Rock Unit. In addition, 

Hancock Field Station students also probably 

affect wildlife populations by their presence in 

the monument, affecting the behavior of some 

animals in the Clarno Unit. But the overall 

adverse effects on wildlife from these activities 

in alternative C would be the same as those in 

alternative A: localized and negligible, 

resulting in no measurable changes to the 

monument’s wildlife populations. 

The formalization of several existing 

unofficial trails, the redesign of the Painted 

Hills Overlook, the addition of the picnic area 

by the paleontology center, the construction 

of the Clarno Unit office/visitor contact 

station, and facility development within Cant 

Ranch would occur in areas that have already 

been disturbed. The new Geo-loop trailhead / 

parking area also would be near an area with 

many people (i.e., the Hancock Field Station). 

Wildlife remaining in these areas have adapted 

to the presence of people. Although increased 

noise and human activity during the 

construction periods could temporarily 

displace some animals, the impact on wildlife 

populations and habitats in these areas would 

be short-term and negligible. 

The construction of a trail to Butler Basin in 

the Sheep Rock Unit would increase the 

presence of people in this area, both during 

the construction period and once it is opened 

to visitors. Relatively few people go into this 

area now. Some wildlife that is sensitive to 

people, including cougar and bobcat, may be 

displaced from this area, at least during the 

construction period. However, it is expected 

that there would not be a large increase in the 

number of people going into this area and 

most people would stay on the trail. Most 

animals that are displaced would return to the 

area or would find other habitat nearby. 

Overall, the construction and use of the trail 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative C 

195 

would be expected to have a minor, longterm, adverse impact on wildlife populations 

in the Butler Basin area. 

The opening of the mammal quarry in 

alternative C would result in the presence of 

people and equipment in this area for long 

periods of time. Some wildlife, such as ground 

squirrels, mice and rabbits, would be 

displaced from this area. As a result, there 

would likely be a negligible to minor, longterm, adverse impact on wildlife populations 

in this localized area. 

Continued efforts to restore native 

bunchgrass/sagebrush steppe communities in 

alternative C would have the same beneficial 

and adverse impacts on wildlife populations as 

described in alternative A. In addition, in 

alternative C, efforts would be undertaken to 

restore the riparian vegetation along Bridge 

Creek and the John Day River, and restore 

native vegetation in the four fields in the Cant 

Ranch. Depending upon the extent and nature 

of the restoration efforts, these actions could 

expand habitat for native wildlife and have a 

long-term, beneficial impact on wildlife 

populations, such as raccoon, beaver, belted 

kingfisher, violet-green swallow, and yellow 

warbler. Likewise, the closure and restoration 

of unofficial trails in the Clarno Unit and the 

Leaf Hill Trail in the Painted Hills Unit would 

mean more habitat and fewer people in these 

areas; these changes in turn would benefit 

native wildlife populations that are sensitive to 

the presence of people. 

The addition of lands in the Cathedral Rock 

area to the monument would eliminate 

grazing and would provide additional 

protection to wildlife riparian habitat in this 

area, benefiting species such as such as river 

otter, salmon, mink, and osprey. Thus there 

would be a long-term, beneficial impact on 

wildlife populations in this area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, most 

wildlife populations surrounding the 

monument have been substantially altered by 

human activities, including farming and 

ranching; this has resulted in fewer numbers 

of some native species such as sage grouse and 

American badger. Fire suppression activities, 

efforts to control predators, and hunting also 

have affected and continue to affect wildlife 

populations in the area. Thus, actions outside 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

have had a minor to moderate, adverse impact 

on native wildlife. No current or reasonably 

foreseeable actions are likely to change this. 

When the beneficial and adverse impacts of 

alternative C are added to the impacts that 

have occurred and are likely to occur in the 

vicinity of the monument, there would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. However, 

alternative C would contribute a very small 

adverse increment to this overall cumulative 

impact, as well as a small beneficial increment 

by continuing to provide an area where 

wildlife habitat continues to be managed and 

protected. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have both 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the 

monument’s wildlife populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife populations and habitats in the 

monument would not change as a result of the 

actions in this alternative. No actions would 

affect areas known to be key migration routes 

or important for breeding, nesting, or 

foraging. No actions would interfere with 

feeding, reproduction, or other activities 

necessary for the survival of wildlife species. 

Negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts would continue to occur in localized 

areas due to continuing visitor use of the 

monument and to the loss of some habitat due 

to new development. The development of the 

Butler Basin Trail could have a minor, longterm, adverse impact on wildlife populations 

in this area. On the other hand, there would be 

long-term, beneficial impacts on some wildlife 

populations due to vegetation restoration 

efforts, the addition of the Cathedral Rock 

area to the monument, and the closure of 

unofficial trails in the Clarno Unit and the 

Leaf Hill Trail in the Painted Hills Unit. When 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of 

alternative C are added to the past, present, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

196 

and future impacts in the vicinity of John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the area’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. However, the 

actions in alternative C would contribute only 

a small beneficial increment and a very small 

adverse increment to this impact. None of the 

wildlife impacts resulting from alternative C 

would constitute an impairment of the 

monument’s resources and values. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources adjacent to 

or easily accessible from trails, roads, picnic 

areas, and permitted off-trail hiking areas, 

could be vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, and vandalism. 

Deterioration of cultural remains could result 

from a loss of surface archeological materials, 

alteration of artifact distribution, or a 

reduction of contextual evidence. However, 

continued ranger patrols and visitor education 

efforts would discourage vandalism and 

inadvertent destruction of cultural remains; 

any adverse impacts would be expected to be 

minimal. 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with trail maintenance 

and the closure and revegetation of social 

trails. Archeological surveys would also 

precede new construction. That construction 

would include a new trail up Indian Canyon in 

the Clarno Unit and a new trail in the Sheep 

Rock Unit—the Butler Basin Trail—that 

would go from the Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center westward to an overlook. 

Other construction would include new 

structures for shade, new parking 

accommodations, a new picnic area at the 

Thomas Condon Paleontology Center, 

possibly paving the road to Painted Cove in 

the Painted Hills Unit, and a trail that would 

be made accessible for people with disabilities 

at the mammal quarry in the Clarno Unit. The 

opening of the mammal quarry would include 

constructing a perimeter fence for resource 

security. New public restrooms would be 

constructed outside of the Cant Ranch house. 

Important archeological resources would be 

avoided to the greatest extent possible, and no 

adverse effects would be anticipated. In the 

unlikely event that such resources could not 

be avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer 

and, if appropriate, with the traditionally 

associated tribes. 

 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the monument, such as trails, roads, and 

visitor and research facilities, may have 

resulted in the disturbance and loss of some 

archeological resources during excavation and 

construction activities. In addition, 

agricultural, ranching, and gold-mining 

practices, as well as the development of towns 

in the area, such as John Day, Mount Vernon, 

Dayville, Kimberly, Mitchell, Fossil, and 

Prineville, may also have adversely disturbed 

archeological resources. Some of these types 

of activities continue, such as the fast growth 

and expansion of urban areas like Bend, 

Oregon, and Boise, Idaho. These population 

increases could result in future adverse 

impacts to archeological resources in the 

greater region. As described above, 

implementation of alternative C could 

potentially disturb archeological resources at 

the national monument—resulting in adverse 

effects. Any adverse impacts associated with 

the implementation of the alternative, in 

combination with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in adverse cumulative 

impacts. However, alternative C would be 

expected to contribute only minimally, if at all, 

to the adverse cumulative impacts. Thus, any 

adverse impacts to archeological resources 

resulting from implementation of alternative 

C would be a very small component of the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Management actions in 

alternative C would involve new construction, 

but no adverse impacts to archeological 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative C 

197 

resources would be anticipated. In the 

unlikely event that impacts to national 

register–eligible archeological resources could 

not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, 

in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6, 

Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be 

negotiated. It would be between or among 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, 

the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer, traditionally associated tribes, if 

appropriate, and/or the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if necessary. The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

However, the level of management actions in 

alternative C would be expected to contribute 

no adverse impacts to the adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions occurring both within and 

outside the national monument. The overall 

cumulative impact would remain adverse. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the national 

monument or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the national monument; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the national monument’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant National 

Park Service planning documents, there 

would be no impairment of the national 

monument’s resources or values. 

Cultural Landscapes and Historic 

Structures 

Analysis. In alternative C, resource managers 

would continue to follow the general guidance 

for proposed treatments provided in the 

Cultural Landscape Report: Cant Ranch 

Historic District (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Many of the recommendations in the cultural 

landscape report have already been 

implemented. The cultural landscape report

would be updated to reflect the work that has 

been accomplished since 1996 and to provide 

guidance for the remaining recommendations 

that have yet to be implemented. 

In this alternative, the agricultural fields 

would no longer be irrigated and crops would 

be replaced with native vegetation. 

Replacement of the crops with native 

vegetation would result in some losses: the 

loss of the agricultural setting of the Cant 

Ranch; the loss of the contrast of the green, 

irrigated fields against the muted backdrop of 

the surrounding arid hillsides; the loss of the 

ability to interpret the scale of the Cant Ranch 

operation; and the loss of a prominent historic 

land use associated with the Cant Ranch. 

Ending irrigation of the agricultural fields and 

replacing the crops with native vegetation 

would result in a loss of integrity of 

approximately 75 acres of the 200-acre 

historic district, which would adversely affect 

the Cant Ranch Historic District. 

New construction would include new standalone restroom facilities within the historic 

district. Following appropriate compliance, 

the new restrooms and trail would be 

expected to have no adverse effect to the 

historic district. Careful design would ensure 

that the restroom facilities would minimally 

affect the scale and visual relationships among 

landscape features. In addition, the 

topography, vegetation, and land use patterns 

of the historic district would remain largely 

unaltered by the construction. No adverse 

impacts would be anticipated. 

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or national registereligible historic structures and cultural 

landscapes, all stabilization, preservation, and 

rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, 

and seasonal maintenance, would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed from structures during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the monument’s museum collections 

and their value for comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation would have 

no adverse effects upon historic structures or 

cultural landscapes. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

198 

The ranch house could suffer wear and tear 

from increased visitation, but monitoring the 

carrying capacity of the historic structure 

could result in the imposition of visitation 

levels or constraints that would contribute to 

the stability or integrity of the resource 

without unduly hindering interpretation for 

visitors. Unstaffed or minimally staffed 

structures could be more susceptible to 

vandalism, but continued ranger patrols and 

visitor education efforts would discourage 

vandalism. Few, if any, adverse impacts would 

be anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Although the Cant 

Ranch Historic District retains an overall high 

level of historic integrity, some alterations 

have occurred since the 1910–1946 period of 

significance. Some structures have lost 

original historic fabric due to weathering and 

other factors, but historic materials have been 

replaced with compatible in-kind materials 

whenever possible. Fences have been 

reconstructed and in some cases realigned, 

but have been constructed in a style that is 

compatible with the historic character of the 

district. Several shade trees around the Cant 

residence have died or have been removed; 

they have been replaced with nonhistoric tree 

species. Historically, the shade trees were 

pollarded (an intensive pruning technique 

used historically at the Cant Ranch, possibly 

for firewood or aesthetic reasons), a practice 

that has been discontinued, thus changing the 

historic shape and size of the tree canopy. 

Historic fruit trees in the lower orchard have 

been lost and the replacement of the trees 

does not reflect historic orchard practices. 

 

Several areas of the historic district have been 

altered to improve visitor experience, visitor 

safety, and monument operations. The 

historic driveway was expanded in a 

compatible manner to create parking spaces 

for visitors. The lawn that was historically 

maintained immediately around the house has 

been extended throughout the orchard to 

provide green picnic spaces for monument 

visitors. Several sections of the irrigation 

ditches have been filled in to improve the 

irrigation system. A maintenance area has 

been constructed within the historic district; 

this was carefully placed so it is not visible 

from the main complex, thus reducing its 

impact on the visual qualities of the historic 

district. 

These cumulative impacts have adversely 

affected the integrity of the cultural landscape 

and historic structures of the Cant Ranch 

Historic District. However, despite these 

adverse effects to landscape features, the 

cultural landscape report found that the 

landscape and associated features “remain 

largely intact and retain a high level of 

integrity” (Taylor and Gilbert 1996). 

Construction of the new Thomas Condon 

Paleontology Center across the highway from 

the Cant Ranch Historic District has had a 

visual impact on the cultural landscape. The 

center can be seen by visitors approaching 

Cant Ranch along State Highway 19. 

However, the center is not located within the 

boundaries of the Cant Ranch Historic 

District and has no adverse effects on the 

landscape’s overall integrity. 

As described above, the potential impacts 

associated with implementation of alternative 

C would result in both no adverse effects and 

adverse effects to the monument’s historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. The 

adverse impacts of alternative C, in 

combination with the adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in an 

adverse cumulative impact. The adverse 

impacts of alternative C would be a large 

component of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. After applying the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of 

adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment 

of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service 

concludes that implementation of alternative 

C would result in an a significant adverse 

effect that would compromise the integrity of 

the existing national register historic district. 

However, because the adverse effect would 

not impact a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative C 

199 

legislation of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument; (2) key to the overall natural or 

cultural integrity of John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument’s resources or values. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Analysis 

Visitor Use Patterns. As in Alternative B, 

overall monument visitation would likely 

increase in this alternative, primarily due to 

the addition of new recreational and 

interpretive activities and facilities. The 

increase would likely be greater in this 

alternative than in Alternative B. As in 

Alternative B, the opening of the mammal 

quarry would have an impact on visitor use 

patterns in the monument. Alternative C also 

includes the addition of new restrooms at 

Cant Ranch and the creation of a new picnic 

area at the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center, both of which could change visitor 

use patterns by dispersing visitors and 

influencing their time and activities. 

Altering and redesigning the Painted Hills 

Overlook, which would accommodate 

parking for the Carroll Rim trailhead, could 

change visitor use patterns by improving the 

availability of parking and direct trail access. 

Visitor access and convenience, especially for 

RVs, could be improved by Wheeler County’s 

paving of the road to Painted Cove in the 

Painted Hills unit; however, it could adversely 

affect some visitors’ experience by generating 

short-term noise and visual intrusions during 

construction, as well as long-term impacts to 

visitors who desire a more rural landscape 

character. Collectively, the actions proposed 

in Alternative C would result in long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts to visitor use 

patterns. 

Crowding and Opportunities for Solitude. 

As in Alternative B, crowding and visitor 

conflict would be managed and mitigated 

through the implementation of a user capacity 

framework that would enhance visitor 

experience and protect monument resources. 

Some crowding and visitor conflict would 

continue to occur at popular frontcountry 

destinations. The creation of new trail 

opportunities in areas that previously would 

have been more remote and less visited would 

reduce opportunities for those visitors who 

seek out solitude; however, these new trails 

would provide experiences consistent with 

that of a backcountry setting. The addition of 

new visitor opportunities throughout the 

monument would help minimize crowding 

and visitor conflict by dispersing visitors. 

There would continue to be opportunities for 

solitude in the remote and less developed 

areas of the monument. Overall, impacts on 

crowding and solitude from actions in this 

alternative would be long-term, beneficial, 

and of moderate intensity. 

Visitor Understanding, Education, and 

Interpretation. Visitors would continue to 

get most of their information at the Thomas 

Condon Paleontology Center, which serves as 

the monument’s visitor center; however, the 

addition of a new office/visitor contact station 

in the Clarno Unit would improve the 

availability of information and opportunities 

for visitors to access monument staff. Many 

visitors, particularly repeat visitors, would 

continue to go directly to other destinations in 

the monument, which could affect their 

understanding of the monument’s primary 

interpretive themes. 

As in Alternative B, opening the mammal 

quarry, adding new interpretive trails, and 

enhancing visitor access to the Cant Ranch 

barn would all increase the monument’s 

ability to inform and educate visitors. 

However, this alternative contains more 

opportunities to inform visitors and engage 

them in interpretation through additional 

trails and wayside exhibits, a new visitor 

contact station in the Clarno Unit, and special 

educational opportunities associated with 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

200 

restoring natural landscapes (Painted Hills 

picnic area and the Cant Ranch agricultural 

fields). Overall, the monument’s educational 

and interpretive programs and activities 

would be better distributed among the other 

units in this alternative. Collectively, the 

actions proposed in Alternative C would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to visitor understanding, education, 

and interpretation. 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities. 

Visitors would continue to have the same 

opportunities as described in Alternatives A 

and B; however, opportunities for hiking and 

picnicking would be increased or enhanced in 

this alternative. Opportunities for long 

distance hiking would be even greater than in 

Alternative B due to the addition of the Indian 

Canyon and Butler Basin Trails. These 

changes would have a positive impact on 

visitors who desire longer trails and greater 

access to the monument’s remote areas. 

Closure of the Leaf Hill Trail in the Painted 

Hills unit in Alternative C would reduce 

hiking and fossil viewing opportunities in that 

unit, although the overall impact would be 

minor. 

New facilities would be constructed to 

improve visitor comfort and convenience. In 

Alternative C, a new restroom facility would 

be added at Cant Ranch in order to provide 

visitors with access to restrooms outside of 

normal business hours. A new picnic area 

would also be added at the visitor center. Both 

of these actions would improve the visitor 

experience associated with these locations. 

As in Alternative B, scenic driving 

opportunities would be improved by Wheeler 

County’s paving of the road to Painted Cove, 

due to improved convenience and access for 

RVs. The adverse impacts to visitor 

experience that would be caused by this road 

paving are addressed in the visitor use 

patterns section above. 

Collectively, the actions proposed in 

Alternative C would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on opportunities 

for recreational activities. 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities. 

Opportunities for people with disabilities 

would be greater in alternative C than in 

alternatives A and B. New accessible 

restrooms would be added to Cant Ranch and 

an accessible picnic area would be added at 

the visitor center. These additional actions 

would increase recreational opportunities and 

visitor amenities for people with disabilities. 

Overall, this alternative contains the greatest 

increase in opportunities for people with 

disabilities. Limitations and deficiencies of 

accessible opportunities would still exist in the 

monument, but the actions proposed in 

Alternative C would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on opportunities 

for people with disabilities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As in alternatives A and B, the establishment 

of the Oregon Paleo Lands Institute may 

result in increased visitation to the Clarno 

Unit and the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center. This increased visitation could result 

in adverse impacts on visitor experience, 

primarily due to increased crowding and the 

potential for visitor conflict. 

The establishment of the Institute, and related 

visitor use of the monument, also could lead 

to increased visitor understanding of the 

monument’s resources. It could also improve 

opportunities for education and 

interpretation at the monument and in the 

region through collaborative research and 

programming efforts. Therefore, the Institute 

would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact on visitor understanding, education, 

and interpretation. The impact on visitor use 

patterns and opportunities for recreational 

activities would be long-term, beneficial, and 

of minor intensity. There would be no impact 

on opportunities for people with disabilities. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in Alternative C are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions outside the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative C 

201 

monument as described above, there would be 

a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative 

impact on visitor understanding, education, 

and interpretation. Educational and 

interpretive partnerships forged with the 

Oregon Paleo Lands Institute would be a 

factor in this scenario, as would the existence 

of the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. 

Opening and operating the mammal quarry 

would contribute an appreciable increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Some long-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impacts to crowding and opportunities for 

solitude could be realized from the effects of 

increased visitation resulting from the 

establishment of the Oregon Paleo Lands 

Institute, particularly when combined with 

population growth in the region. Visitor 

conflict could occur in certain areas; however, 

the effects would be managed through the 

user capacity framework. When combined 

with other actions contained in Alternative C, 

the overall cumulative impact on crowding 

and opportunities for solitude would be longterm, beneficial, and of minor intensity. The 

actions proposed in Alternative C would 

contribute an appreciable increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use patterns 

and opportunities for recreational activities in 

the monument would be long-term, 

beneficial, and of minor intensity because 

visitor use would be better dispersed and 

visitor opportunities would be increased. The 

actions proposed in Alternative C would 

contribute a large part to this cumulative 

impact. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impact on opportunities 

for people with disabilities due to increases in 

interpretive and visitor opportunities. The 

actions proposed in Alternative C would 

represent all contributions to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would be expected to have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact on visitor 

use patterns. Impacts on crowding and 

opportunities for solitude; opportunities for 

recreational activities; visitor understanding, 

education, and interpretation; and 

opportunities for people with disabilities 

would be long-term, beneficial, and of 

moderate intensity. 

There could be long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impacts on visitor use patterns, 

crowding and opportunities for solitude, and 

opportunities for recreational activities. The 

actions proposed in Alternative C would 

contribute an appreciable increment to this 

cumulative impact. The cumulative impact on 

visitor understanding, education, and 

interpretation would be long-term, beneficial, 

and of major intensity. The actions proposed 

in Alternative C would contribute an 

appreciable increment to this cumulative 

impact. The cumulative impact on 

opportunities for people with disabilities 

would be long-term, beneficial, and of 

moderate intensity. The actions proposed in 

Alternative C would represent all 

contributions to this cumulative impact. 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

OPERATIONS 

Analysis 

As in Alternatives A and B, the physical 

separation of the monument’s three units 

would continue to pose operational 

challenges. Monument operations would 

continue to be based out of the Sheep Rock 

Unit, with a satellite ranger office located in 

the Painted Hills Unit. The physical 

separation of the three units results in 

inefficiencies for construction and 

maintenance project management, including 

staff and equipment mobilization and travel. It 

also decreases the productivity and increases 

expenses associated with resource protection 

and other programmatic activities. Emergency 

management response time would also 

continue to be affected. 

Different from the two other alternatives, 

Alternative C would establish a new ranger 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

202 

office/visitor contact station in the Clarno 

Unit. This would improve operational 

efficiency and response time for emergencies 

and resource protection activities, but it 

would require staff time for construction 

management and would add new facility 

maintenance requirements. 

As in Alternative B, the construction and 

maintenance of new trails and other 

recreational facilities would require additional 

resources for operations and maintenance, 

including additional staff. In addition to all of 

the new facilities proposed in Alternative B, 

Alternative C would add an additional five 

miles of hiking trails, a new restroom facility, a 

new picnic area, and would restore a small 

picnic area and many acres of agricultural 

fields to native vegetation. In comparison to 

Alternative B, these actions would have a 

greater adverse impact on monument 

operations (staffing, funding, equipment, 

maintenance, etc.). By discontinuing irrigation 

of the agricultural fields at Cant Ranch, the 

National Park Service would lose its 

associated water rights, a permanent and 

irreversible impact with legal implications. 

As in Alternative B, opening the mammal 

quarry would likely require additional funding 

and staff increases for all divisions. If funding 

would remain at current levels, this would 

continue to cause some positions to remain 

vacant, which would adversely affect the 

staff’s ability to function adequately. 

Because of the impacts associated with the 

actions described above, alternative C would 

result in a long-term, moderate, adverse 

impact on monument operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As in Alternatives A and B, the establishment 

of the Oregon Paleo Lands Institute could 

result in increased visitor use of the 

monument, particularly at the Clarno Unit 

and the Thomas Condon Paleontology 

Center. This could result in increased trail and 

facility maintenance, which could have both 

staffing and funding implications. 

When the likely effects of Alternative C are 

added to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions outside the 

monument as described above, there would be 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on monument operations. The actions 

proposed in Alternative C would contribute a 

large part to this overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would be expected to have a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact on 

monument operations. There would be a 

long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on monument operations (staffing, 

maintenance, and operational needs) resulting 

primarily from increased visitation. The 

actions proposed in Alternative C would 

contribute a large part to this overall 

cumulative impact.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation / Coordination

Painted Hills U

Blue Basin, Sheep Rock Unit

Painted Hills Unit

Clarno Arch, Clarno U

205 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument represents the 

thoughts and professional judgment of NPS 

staff and the public. Consultation and 

coordination among the agencies and the 

public were vitally important throughout the 

planning process. The public had three 

primary avenues for participation in the 

development of the plan: participate in 

public meetings, respond to newsletters, and 

review and comment on the draft plan. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND 

NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used 

to keep the public informed and involved in 

the planning process. A mailing list was 

compiled that consisted of members of 

government agencies, organizations, 

businesses, legislators, local governments, 

and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in 

the Federal Register on September 24, 2004. 

The notice that the project had received a 

waiver for preparing an environmental 

impact assessment and approval to prepare 

an environmental assessment was published 

in the Federal Register on April 6, 2007. 

The first newsletter, issued in December 

2004, described the planning effort. Public 

meetings were held during December 2004 

in John Day (December 6) and Fossil 

(December 7); total attendance was about 30 

people. The National Park Service received 

comments in the meetings and through 

other venues in response to the first 

newsletter. A total of nine written comments 

were received in response to the December 

2004 newsletter. These comments were 

considered and incorporated into the issues 

for the plan. 

A second newsletter, distributed in February 

2006, described preliminary alternatives for 

managing John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument. Public meetings were held 

during March 2006 in Fossil (March 6), 

Dayville (March 7), and John Day (March 8); 

total attendance was about 30 people. The 

planning team also met with representatives 

from the Bureau of Land Management 

(Prineville District) on March 7, 2006. The 

National Park Service received comments 

during the meetings and received 37 written 

comments in response to the February 2006 

newsletter. The majority of respondents 

stated that the range of alternatives was 

appropriate. Most people and organizations 

did not identify a preference for one 

alternative. Of those who did, alternative B 

received the most support. Numerous 

individuals and organizations expressed a 

preference for a combination of the 

alternatives. 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, AND 

ORGANIZATIONS (TO DATE) 

Section 7 Consultation 

During the preparation of this plan, NPS 

staff consulted informally with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Oregon 

Field Office. A list of threatened and 

endangered species for Grant and Wheeler 

counties was received from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and is included in Appendix 

C. The NPS planning team also consulted 

informally with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act and relevant regulations in 50 CFR Part 

402, the National Park Service determined 

that the management plan is not likely to 

adversely affect any federally threatened or 

endangered species and sent a copy of the 

Draft General Management Plan to the U.S. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

206 

Fish and Wildlife Service with a request for 

written concurrence with that 

determination. 

In addition, the National Park Service has 

committed to consult on future actions 

conducted under the framework described 

in this management plan to ensure that such 

actions are not likely to adversely affect 

threatened or endangered species. 

Section 106 Consultation 

Federal agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as 

amended (16 USC 270, et seq.), to take into 

account the effect of their undertakings on 

properties either listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. To meet the requirements of 36 CFR 

800 (regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation implementing Section 

106), the National Park Service sent a letter 

to the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer on December 13, 2004, inviting the 

office to participate in the planning process. 

This office also was sent both newsletters. 

Under the terms of stipulation VI.E of the 

1995 programmatic agreement among the 

National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers, the National Park Service, 

“...in consultation with the SHPO [state 

historic preservation office], will make a 

determination about which undertakings 

are programmatic exclusions under IV.A 

and B, and for all other undertakings, 

whether there is sufficient information 

about resources and potential effects on 

those resources to seek review and 

comment under 36 CFR 800.4-6 during 

the plan review process.” 

Consultation with American Indians 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

indigenous peoples may well have traditional 

and contemporary interests and ongoing 

rights in lands now under National Park 

Service management, as well as concerns and 

contributions to make for the future via the 

scoping process for general management 

plans and other projects. Related to tribal 

sovereignty, the need for government-togovernment Native American consultations 

stems from the historic power of Congress 

to make treaties with American Indian tribes 

as sovereign nations. Consultations with 

American Indians and other Native 

Americans, such as Alaska Natives and 

Native Hawaiians, are required by various 

federal laws, executive orders, regulations, 

and policies. For example, such 

consultations are needed to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as 

amended. Implementing regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

for the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969), as amended (NEPA), also call for 

Native American consultations. 

On December 13, 2004, Jim Hammett, 

national monument superintendent, sent 

letters of invitation to the chairpersons of 

the governments of the American Indian 

tribes traditionally associated with John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument: Barbara 

Sam of the Burns Paiute Tribe, Antone 

Minthorn of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Ron 

Suppah of Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation Tribal Council (see 

appendix C). Each was invited to meet at his 

or her convenience, at a tribally selected 

place such as the headquarters of the tribe. 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 

the general management planning process 

underway and any concerns the tribal 

government, on behalf of the members of 

the tribe, might have about protecting, 

preserving, and managing John Day Fossil 

Beds National Monument’s cultural and 

natural resources. The superintendent has 

received no replies to this invitation, but that 

is not unusual. The solid relationship 

existing between the superintendent and his 

staff and the officers of each tribe includes 

the understanding that a tribe will contact 
Public and Agency Involvement 

207 

the national monument when there is a 

particular concern but normally not 

otherwise. The national monument respects 

tribal sovereignty and the fact that tribes 

decide their own priorities and ways of 

doing business. The national monument has 

worked well with the tribes in the past when 

issues of concern have materialized. 

The rights, privileges, concerns, and 

interests of the national monument’s 

American Indian neighbors are very 

important to consider; it is equally important 

to work out mutually acceptable 

arrangements on particular issues. The tribes 

have been kept fully informed throughout 

the planning process and have been sent all 

newsletters and copies of the draft general 

management plan. Although the tribes have 

not initiated further contact, the 

superintendent stands ready to respond now 

and in the future for consultation on any 

features of the plan or on any other possible 

issues that might be of tribal concern. 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS 

In the following table the specific future 

compliance requirements of the preferred 

alternative are listed. Included are the NPS 

determinations of how those individual 

requirements relate to the 1995 

programmatic agreement in relation to 

cultural resources.

 

Table 16: Future Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions 

Action Compliance Requirement 

• Routinely monitoring and stabilizing 

archeological sites. 

• Monitoring cultural landscapes and 

historic structures to protect, preserve, 

maintain, and research them. 

These items are programmatically excluded from future 

Section 106 review and SHPO consultation in 

accordance with the 1995 Programmatic Agreement 

among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference 

of State Historic Preservation Officers. 

• Ground disturbing activities for new 

trails, the formalization of existing social 

trails, for parking lot development, and 

for visitor facilities like new shade 

structures. 

• Rehabilitation of historic structures for 

adaptive reuse like the Cant Ranch barn. 

• If eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places, discovery of archeological 

sites that cannot be avoided via survey of 

new trails or formalization of existing 

trails. 

Future Section 106 review and SHPO consultation 

would likely be necessary and required before 

construction at the project implementation planning or 

design stages. 
208 

PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS 

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 

Service 

Bureau of Land Management 

Blue Mountain District 

Burns District Office 

Prineville District Office 

Coulee Dam NRA 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Park Service 

 Columbia Cascades Support Office 

 Fort Vancouver NHS 

 Intermountain Support Office 

 Pacific West Region 

 Natural Resources Program, Wash., D.C. 

 Oregon National Historic District 

 Whitman Mission NHS 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Smithsonian Institution 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Oregon Field 

 Office) 

U.S. Forest Service 

 Malheur National Forest 

 Prairie City District 

 Ochoco National Forest 

U.S. Geological Survey, Western District 

 Branch 

U.S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Honorable Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator 

Honorable Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator 

Honorable Greg Walden, U.S. Rep. 

STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Honorable Ted Ferrioli, Oregon Senator 

Honorable John H. Dallum, Oregon Rep. 

STATE AGENCIES 

Office of the Governor 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

 Quality 

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Natural 

 Resources Division 

Oregon Department of State Lands 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office 

Oregon State Parks 

Oregon Tourism Commission 

Oregon Water Resource Division 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES AND 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Burns Paiute Tribe, General Council 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

 Reservation 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

 Reservation, Tribal Council 

Pine Creek Conservation Area 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

GOVERNMENTS 

Dayville School 

District 4 Watermaster 

District 21 Watermaster 

Education Service District of Grant County 

Grant County Judge 

Mitchell School 

Monument School 

Monument Soil & Water Conservation 

 District 

COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 

Kenyon College 

Lewis & Clark College 

Loma Linda University 
Officials, Agencies, Organizations, Individuals Receiving this Document 

209 

South Dakota School of Mines & 

 Technology, Museum of Geology 

University of California, Berkeley 

University of California, Riverside 

University of Florida, Florida Museum 

 of Natural History 

University of Florida, Dept. of Natural 

 Sciences 

University of Oregon, Dept. of Geology 

University of South Carolina, Dept. of 

 Natural Sciences 

University of Washington, Burke Museum 

Western Oregon University, Dept. of Earth 

 and Planetary Sciences 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

Audubon Society of Portland 

Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project 

Bridge Creek / Cherry Creek Ranch 

Central Oregon Audubon 

Columbia Power Co-Op 

Crater Lake Institute 

Earth Share of Oregon 

Fossil Mercantile 

Friends of Rudio Mountain, Inc. 

Geological Society of America 

Grant County Chamber of Commerce 

Grant County Historical Museum 

High Desert Museum 

Humphreys Ranch 

Idaho Museum of Natural History 

John Day Senior Citizen’s Community 

 Center 

Johnny Creek 

Kimberly Center 

Longview Ranch 

Mt. Bachelor Educational Center 

National Wildlife Federation 

Native Plant Society 

Natural History Museum, Los Angeles 

 County 

North Central Tourism Council 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center 

ODE – Public Service Building 

Oregon Environmental Council 

Oregon Hunters’ Association 

Oregon Museum of Science & Industry 

 Hancock Field Station 

Oregon Natural Desert Association 

Oregon Natural Resources Council 

Oregon Paleo Lands Institute 

Pacific Rivers Council 

Rattlesnake Creek Ranch 

S Bar S Ranch 

Sierra Club 

Juniper Group 

Portland 

Silver Ranch 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

South Fork Mini Mart 

Sumpter Merchant’s Committee 

The Nature Conservancy, Oregon 

Tri-Creek Ranch 

Trout Unlimited, Blue Mountain Chapter 

Water Watch of Oregon 

Wheeler County Farm Bureau 

LIBRARIES 

Central Oregon Community College Library 

Fossil Public Library 

Grant County Library 

Oregon State University Valley Library 

University of Oregon Knight Library 

MEDIA 

Baker City Herald 

Blue Mountain Eagle 

Burns Time Herald 

Central Oregonian 

East Oregonian 

KJDY Radio Station 

Record-Courier 

The Bulletin 

The Times Journal 

INDIVIDUALS 

Barry Albright 

Mel Ashwell 

Jim Baichtal 

Jim & Charlotte Barker 

Tony & Liz Barnosky 

Kerma Berry 

Erick Bestland 

Ellen Morris Bishop 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

210 

Margy Brooks 

Alvin Brown 

Harold Bryant 

Jim Cant 

Chris Catanach 

Tom Dillhoff 

David Flowers 

Rod Immenschuh 

Joseph & Connie Jones 

Kathleen Kidwell 

Rhoda Knight 

Francis Kocis 

Matt Kohn 

Ben Ladd 

Bruce Lander 

Ron Mastroquiseppe 

Don & Mary Mauer 

Mary Mauer 

Corky Mayo 

Greg McDonald 

Rob Roy Munroe 

Betty Jo Norton 

Tom Norton 

Bill & Mary Potter 

Donald Prothero 

Robert E. Reynolds 

Hank Tanski 

Sue Vanier 

Dave Whistler 

Mike Wiscavage