United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Burns District Office

28910 Highway 20 West

Hines, Oregon 97738 January 2002

Analysis of the 

Management Situation

and Subbasin Review

Andrews Management Unit/Steens Mountain 

Cooperative Management and Protection Area 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BURNS DISTRICT

ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION

AND

SUBBASIN REVIEW

ANDREWS MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN

COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Prepared by the

Bureau of Land Management

Burns District Office

January 2002

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

i

ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION AND

SUBBASIN REVIEW

ANDREWS/STEENS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................. ................. ................. ............... 1-1

1.1 Description of the Analysis of Management Situation and Subbasin Review ........... 1-1

1.2 Analysis of the Management Situation and Subbasin Review Process ................. 1-2

1.3 Organization of Document ................. ................. ................. . 1-2

2 RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION) ................. ..... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ................. ................. ................. ............. 2-1

2.2 Air Quality ................. ................. ................. .............. 2-1

2.3 Soils ................. ................. ................. ................. ... 2-1

2.3.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. .......... 2-1

2.3.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............. 2-2

2.4 Vegetation ................. ................. ................. ............... 2-2

2.4.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. .......... 2-2

2.4.1.1 Big Sagebrush Shrubland Communities ................. ............ 2-2

2.4.1.2 Black Sagebrush/Grassland Communities ................. ........... 2-4

2.4.1.3 Silver Sagebrush/Grassland Communities ................. ........... 2-5

2.4.1.4 Low Sagebrush/Grassland Communities ................. ............ 2-5

2.4.1.5 Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grassland Communities ................. .... 2-5

2.4.1.6 Mountain Shrubland Communities ................. ................ 2-5

2.4.1.7 Juniper Woodlands ................. ................. ........... 2-5

2.4.1.8 Quaking Aspen/Alpine Bunchgrass Communities ................. ..... 2-6

2.4.1.9 Riparian and Wetland Communities ................. ............... 2-7

2.4.1.10 Salt Desert Scrub/Grassland Communities ................. .......... 2-7

2.4.1.11 Modified Grassland - Crested Wheatgrass and Cheatgrass Communities .... 2-7

2.4.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............. 2-8

2.5 Special Status Plant Species ................. ................. ................. 2-8

2.5.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. .......... 2-8

2.5.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............. 2-8

2.6 Noxious Weeds ................. ................. ................. ........... 2-8

2.6.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-12

2.6.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-12

2.7 Riparian Resources ................. ................. ................. ...... 2-12

2.7.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-15

2.7.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-15

2.8 Grazing Management ................. ................. ................. .... 2-15

2.8.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-15

2.8.1.1 Regulatory Context ................. ................. .......... 2-15

2.8.1.2 Rangeland Standards and Condition ................. .............. 2-15

2.8.1.3 Regional Context ................. ................. ............ 2-16

2.8.1.4 Current Grazing ................. ................. ............. 2-16

2.8.1.5 Rangeland Improvements ................. ................. ..... 2-20

2.8.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-20

2.8.2.1 Rangeland Health ................. ................. ........... 2-20

2.8.2.2 Rangeland Improvements ................. ................. ..... 2-20

2.9 Animal Damage Control ................. ................. ................. . . 2-20

2.10 Water Resources ................. ................. ................. ........ 2-22

2.10.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-22

2.10.1.1 Streams ................. ................. ................. . . 2-23

2.10.1.2 Surface Water Quality ................. ................. ........ 2-23

2.10.1.3 Ground Water ................. ................. .............. 2-25

2.10.1.4 Wetlands ................. ................. ................. . 2-25

2.10.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-26
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

ii

2.10.2.1 Streams ................. ................. ................. . . 2-26

2.10.2.2 Surface Water Quality ................. ................. ........ 2-26

2.10.2.3 Ground W ater Quality ................. ................. ........ 2-28

2.10.2.4 Wetlands ................. ................. ................. . 2-28

2.11 Fisheries ................. ................. ................. ............... 2-28

2.11.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-28

2.11.1.1 Redband Trout ................. ................. ............. 2-30

2.11.1.2 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ................. ................. ..... 2-31

2.11.1.3 Borax Lake Chub ................. ................. ........... 2-32

2.11.1.4 Alvord Chub ................. ................. ............... 2-33

2.11.1.5 Catlow Tui Chub ................. ................. ............ 2-33

2.11.1.6 Malheur Mottled Sculpin ................. ................. ..... 2-34

2.11.1.7 Management Activities ................. ................. ....... 2-34

2.11.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-34

2.11.2.1 Redband Trout Reserve and Wild and Scenic Rivers ................. . 2-35

2.12 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................. ................. ............... 2-35

2.12.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-35

2.12.1.1 Sagebrush Steppe ................. ................. ........... 2-35

2.12.1.2 Riparian and Wetlands ................. ................. ....... 2-35

2.12.1.3 Juniper Woodlands ................. ................. .......... 2-36

2.12.1.4 Mule Deer ................. ................. ................. 2-36

2.12.1.5 Pronghorn Antelope ................. ................. ......... 2-36

2.12.1.6 Raptors ................. ................. ................. . . 2-36

2.12.1.7 Neotropical Migrant Birds ................. ................. .... 2-37

2.12.1.8 Waterfowl and Shorebirds ................. ................. ..... 2-37

2.12.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-37

2.12.2.1 Forested Wildlife Habitat ................. ................. ..... 2-37

2.12.2.2 Rocky Mountain Elk ................. ................. ......... 2-37

2.12.2.3 Mule Deer ................. ................. ................. 2-37

2.12.2.4 Pronghorn Antelope ................. ................. ......... 2-37

2.12.2.5 Bighorn Sheep ................. ................. .............. 2-37

2.12.2.6 Raptors ................. ................. ................. . . 2-37

2.12.2.7 Waterfowl and Shorebirds ................. ................. ..... 2-38

2.13 Special Status Animal Species ................. ................. ............... 2-38

2.13.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-38

2.13.1.1 Northern Bald Eagle ................. ................. ......... 2-38

2.13.1.2 American Peregrine Falcon ................. ................. .... 2-38

2.13.1.3 Northern Kit Fox ................. ................. ............ 2-38

2.13.1.4 Columbia Spotted Frog ................. ................. ....... 2-38

2.13.1.5 Greater Sage-Grouse ................. ................. ......... 2-41

2.13.1.6 California Bighorn Sheep ................. ................. ..... 2-42

2.13.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-43

2.13.2.1 Columbia Spotted Frog ................. ................. ....... 2-43

2.13.2.2 Greater Sage-grouse ................. ................. ......... 2-43

2.13.2.3 California Bighorn Sheep ................. ................. ..... 2-43

2.13.2.4 Raptors ................. ................. ................. . . 2-43

2.14 Wild Horses ................. ................. ................. ............ 2-43

2.14.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-43

2.14.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-44

2.15 Fire Management ................. ................. ................. ........ 2-45

2.15.1 Ecological Background ................. ................. ............. 2-45

2.15.2 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-45

2.15.2.1 Fire Ecology of Major Vegetation Types in the Andrews Management Unit 2-45

2.15.2.2 Fire Management Needs, Status, and Alternatives ................. ... 2-46

2.15.2.3 Prescribed Fires ................. ................. ............. 2-47
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

iii

2.15.2.4 Wildland Fires ................. ................. ............. 2-47

2.15.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-47

2.16 Woodlands ................. ................. ................. ............. 2-48

2.16.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-48

2.16.1.1 Juniper Woodlands ................. ................. .......... 2-48

2.16.1.2 Quaking Aspen ................. ................. ............. 2-49

2.16.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-49

2.17 Special Management Areas ................. ................. ................. 2-49

2.17.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-50

2.17.1.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Areas ........ 2-50

2.17.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-50

2.17.2.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Area ........ 2-50

2.17.2.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................. ................. ....... 2-50

2.17.2.3 Wildland Juniper Management Area ................. .............. 2-51

2.17.2.4 Redband Trout Reserve ................. ................. ....... 2-51

2.18 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas ................. ................. ......... 2-51

2.18.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-51

2.18.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-52

2.19 Recreation ................. ................. ................. ............. 2-54

2.19.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-55

2.19.1.1 Recreation Activities ................. ................. ......... 2-55

2.19.1.2 Off-Highway Vehicles ................. ................. ........ 2-55

2.19.1.3 Recreation Planning and Management ................. ............ 2-56

2.19.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-56

2.19.2.1 Recreation Activities ................. ................. ......... 2-56

2.19.2.2 Off-Highway Vehicles ................. ................. ........ 2-57

2.19.2.3 Recreation Planning and Management ................. ............ 2-57

2.20 Visual Resources ................. ................. ................. ........ 2-58

2.20.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-58

2.20.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-58

2.21 Human Uses and Values ................. ................. ................. . . 2-59

2.21.1 Harney/Malheur Study Area ................. ................. ........ 2-59

2.21.1.1 Economic Findings from the ICBEMP ................. ............ 2-59

2.21.1.2 Population, Age Distribution, and Ethnicity ................. ........ 2-59

2.21.1.3 Employment and Wages ................. ................. ...... 2-60

2.21.1.4 Per Capita Income and Poverty Rates ................. ............ 2-61

2.21.1.5 Economic Activity Generated by Public Land Resources ............... 2-61

2.22 Lands and Rights-of-Way ................. ................. ................. . 2-62

2.22.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-62

2.22.1.1 Administrative Sites ................. ................. ......... 2-62

2.22.1.2 Land Retention, Acquisition and Disposal ................. ......... 2-62

2.22.1.3 Withdrawal Areas ................. ................. ........... 2-62

2.22.1.4 Access ................. ................. ................. ... 2-63

2.22.1.5 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations ................. ....... 2-63

2.22.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-63

2.22.2.1 Land Retention, Acquisition and Disposal ................. ......... 2-64

2.22.2.2 Withdrawal Areas ................. ................. ........... 2-64

2.22.2.3 Access ................. ................. ................. ... 2-64

2.22.2.4 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations ................. ....... 2-65

2.23 Geology ................. ................. ................. ................ 2-65

2.23.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-65

2.23.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-66

2.24 Energy and Mineral Resources ................. ................. ............. 2-66

2.24.1 Leasable Minerals ................. ................. ................. 2-66

2.24.2 Locatable Minerals ................. ................. ................ 2-66
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

iv

2.24.3 Saleable Minerals ................. ................. ................. 2-67

2.24.4 Rockhounding ................. ................. ................. ... 2-67

2.24.5 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-67

2.24.6 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-67

2.25 Cultural Resources ................. ................. ................. ...... 2-67

2.25.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-68

2.25.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-69

2.26 Native American Traditional Values ................. ................. ......... 2-69

2.26.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-69

2.27 Paleontological Resources ................. ................. ................. . 2-70

2.27.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-70

2.27.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-70

2.28 Hazardous Materials ................. ................. ................. ..... 2-70

2.29 Roads/Transportation ................. ................. ................. .... 2-71

2.29.1 Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ......... 2-71

2.29.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 2-71

3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION ................. ................. ........... 3-1

3.1 Existing Management Direction ................. ................. .............. 3-1

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

3.2 Existing Management Situation by Resource ................. ................. ... 3-2

3.2.1 Air Quality ................. ................. ................. ....... 3-2

3.2.1.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-2

3.2.2 Vegetation ................. ................. ................. ....... 3-2

3.2.2.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-2

3.2.2.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. .... 3-2

3.2.3 Special Status Plants ................. ................. ................ 3-3

3.2.3.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-3

3.2.4 Watershed/Water Resources and Riparian/Wetlands ................. ...... 3-3

3.2.4.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-3

3.2.5 Grazing Management ................. ................. ............... 3-3

3.2.5.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-3

3.2.5.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. .... 3-4

3.2.5.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act ........... 3-5

3.2.6 Fisheries ................. ................. ................. ......... 3-5

3.2.6.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-5

3.2.7 Wildlife ................. ................. ................. .......... 3-5

3.2.7.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-5

3.2.7.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. .... 3-6

3.2.7.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act ........... 3-6

3.2.8 Wild Horses ................. ................. ................. ...... 3-7

3.2.8.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-7

3.2.9 Fire Support ................. ................. ................. ...... 3-7

3.2.9.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-7

3.2.9.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. .... 3-7

3.2.10 Woodlands ................. ................. ................. ....... 3-8

3.2.10.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-8

3.2.10.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act ........... 3-9

3.2.11 Special Status Animal Species ................. ................. ........ 3-9

3.2.11.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-9

3.2.12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................. ............... 3-9

3.2.12.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ............ 3-9

3.2.13 Redband Trout Reserve ................. ................. ............ 3-10

3.2.13.1 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-10

3.2.13.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-10
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

v

3.2.14 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................. ................. ............. 3-11

3.2.14.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-11

3.2.14.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-11

3.2.14.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-11

3.2.15 Wildlands Juniper Management Area ................. ................. . 3-12

3.2.15.1 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-12

3.2.15.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-12

3.2.16 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas ................. ................. . . 3-13

3.2.16.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-13

3.2.16.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-14

3.2.16.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-14

3.2.17 Recreation ................. ................. ................. ...... 3-15

3.2.17.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-15

3.2.17.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-16

3.2.18 Visual Resources ................. ................. ................. . 3-16

3.2.18.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-16

3.2.18.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-16

3.2.19 Lands, Realty and Rights-of-Way ................. ................. .... 3-16

3.2.19.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-16

3.2.19.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-17

3.2.20 Off-Highway Vehicles ................. ................. .............. 3-22

3.2.20.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-22

3.2.20.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-22

3.2.20.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-22

3.2.21 Minerals ................. ................. ................. ........ 3-23

3.2.21.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-23

3.2.21.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-24

3.2.21.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act .......... 3-25

3.2.22 Cultural Resources ................. ................. ................ 3-25

3.2.22.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-25

3.2.22.2 Interim Management Policy ................. ................. ... 3-25

3.2.23 Human Uses and Values ................. ................. ............ 3-26

3.2.23.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan ................. ........... 3-26

3.3 Management Direction Carried Forward in the Resource Management Plan ......... 3-26

3.3.1 General Andrews M anagement Unit Goals and Objectives ................. 3-26

3.3.2 Goals and Objectives Specific to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management 

and Protection Area ................. ................. ............... 3-26

3.3.3 Elements Created by Legislation to Support the Goals and Objectives of the 

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ............ 3-27

4 MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES (RECOMMENDATIONS AND INTEGRATED 

PRIORITIES) ................. ................. ................. ................. . . 4-1

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

4.2 Management Opportunities by Resource ................. ................. ...... 4-1

4.2.1 Air Quality ................. ................. ................. ....... 4-1

4.2.2 Vegetation ................. ................. ................. ....... 4-1

4.2.3 Special Status Plants ................. ................. ................ 4-1

4.2.4 Water Resources and Riparian/Wetlands ................. ................ 4-1

4.2.5 Fish and Aquatic Habitat ................. ................. ............ 4-2

4.2.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................. ................. ......... 4-2

4.2.7 Special Status Animal Species ................. ................. ........ 4-2

4.2.8 Wild Horses ................. ................. ................. ...... 4-2

4.2.9 Grazing Management ................. ................. ............... 4-2

4.2.10 Woodlands ................. ................. ................. ....... 4-2

4.2.11 Fire ................. ................. ................. ............. 4-2
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

vi

4.2.12 Special Management Areas ................. ................. .......... 4-3

4.2.12.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................. ........... 4-3

4.2.12.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................. ................. ........ 4-3

4.2.13 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas ................. ................. ... 4-3

4.2.14 Recreation ................. ................. ................. ....... 4-3

4.2.14.1 Off-Highway Vehicles ................. ................. ......... 4-3

4.2.15 Visual Resources ................. ................. ................. . . 4-3

4.2.16 Human Uses and Values ................. ................. ............. 4-3

4.2.17 Lands and Realty ................. ................. ................. . . 4-3

4.2.18 Minerals ................. ................. ................. ......... 4-3

4.2.19 Cultural Resources ................. ................. ................. 4-3

4.3 Management Opportunities for the Cooperative Management and Protection Area ..... 4-4

5 LEGAL MANDATES, PLANNING CRITERIA AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES - ANDREWS

MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN CM PA RM P/EIS ................. ......... 5-1

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

5.2 Legal Authorities ................. ................. ................. ......... 5-1

5.3 Planning Criteria ................. ................. ................. ......... 5-4

5.3.1 General Planning Criteria ................. ................. ........... 5-5

5.3.2 Project Specific Criteria ................. ................. ............. 5-6

5.3.2.1 Air Quality ................. ................. ................. 5-6

5.3.2.2 Water Quality ................. ................. ............... 5-6

5.3.2.3 Soil ................. ................. ................. ...... 5-6

5.3.2.4 Vegetation ................. ................. ................. . 5-6

5.3.2.5 Riparian Areas, Floodplains, and Wetlands ................. ......... 5-6

5.3.2.6 Woodlands ................. ................. ................. 5-6

5.3.2.7 Noxious Weed Control ................. ................. ........ 5-6

5.3.2.8 Special Status Species ................. ................. ......... 5-6

5.3.2.9 Wild Horses ................. ................. ................ 5-6

5.3.2.10 Grazing Management ................. ................. ......... 5-7

5.3.2.11 Fire Management ................. ................. ............ 5-7

5.3.2.12 Land Tenure Adjustments ................. ................. ...... 5-7

5.3.2.13 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations ................. ........ 5-7

5.3.2.14 Energy and Minerals ................. ................. .......... 5-7

5.3.2.15 Recreation ................. ................. ................. . 5-7

5.3.2.16 Off Highway Vehicles ................. ................. ........ 5-7

5.3.2.17 Visual Resources ................. ................. ............. 5-7

5.3.2.18 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................. ................. ........ 5-7

5.3.2.19 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas ................. ............ 5-7

5.3.2.20 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ................. ............ 5-8

5.3.2.21 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................. ........... 5-8

5.3.3 Planning Criteria for Selecting an Alternative ................. ............ 5-8

5.4 Alternative Formulations ................. ................. ................. . . 5-8

5.4.1 Alternative A ................. ................. ................. ..... 5-8

5.4.2 Alternative B ................. ................. ................. ..... 5-8

5.4.3 Alternative C ................. ................. ................. ..... 5-8

5.4.4 Alternative D ................. ................. ................. ..... 5-8

6 SUBBASIN REVIEW REPORT ................. ................. ................. .... 6-1

6.1 Introduction ................. ................. ................. ............. 6-1

6.2 Issues and Findings ................. ................. ................. ....... 6-1

6.3 Revised List of Key Broad-Scale Findings Used in Issue Identification for the Andrews

MU/Steens Mountain CM PA Subbasin Review Area ................. ............. 6-7

6.3.1 Terrestrial Habitat/Landscape Health ................. ................. . 6-7

6.3.1.1 Rangelands ................. ................. ................. 6-7
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

vii

6.3.1.2 Forests ................. ................. ................. .... 6-8

6.3.2 Aquatic Habitat/Landscape Health ................. ................. .... 6-8

6.3.2.1 Hydrology and Watershed Processes ................. .............. 6-8

6.3.2.2 Source Habitat ................. ................. ............... 6-8

6.3.2.3 Streams, Rivers and Lakes ................. ................. ..... 6-8

6.3.2.4 Riparian Areas and Wetlands ................. ................. ... 6-9

6.3.2.5 Fish ................. ................. ................. ...... 6-9

6.3.3 Landscape Health ................. ................. ................. . 6-9

6.3.3.1 Air Quality ................. ................. ................. 6-9

6.3.4 Social/Economic ................. ................. ................. ... 6-9

6.3.4.1 Human Uses and Values ................. ................. ....... 6-9

6.3.4.2 American Indian Rights and Interests ................. ............. 6-10

6.4 Findings from the ICBEM P Scientific Assessment Not Applicable to the Andrew MU/Steens

Mountain CMPA Subbasin Review Area ................. ................. ..... 6-10

6.5 Mid-scale Character Description (Resource Area Profile) ................. ........ 6-13

6.6 Priorities and Recommendations (M anagement Opportunities) ................. .... 6-13

6.6.1 Air Resources ................. ................. .............. 6-13

6.6.2 Energy and Mineral Resources ................. ................ 6-13

6.6.3 Fire ................. ................. ................. ..... 6-14

6.6.4 Vegetation ................. ................. ................ 6-14

6.6.5 Woodlands ................. ................. ................ 6-14

6.6.6 Special Status Plant Species ................. ................. . . 6-14

6.6.7 Water Resources and Riparian/Wetlands ................. ........ 6-14

6.6.8 Fish and Aquatic Habitat ................. ................. .... 6-14

6.6.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................. ................. . 6-14

6.6.10 Special Status Animal Species ................. ................. 6-14

6.6.11 Wild Horses ................. ................. ............... 6-14

6.6.12 Grazing Management ................. ................. ....... 6-15

6.6.13 Recreation ................. ................. ................ 6-15

6.6.14 Off-Highway Vehicles ................. ................. ....... 6-15

6.6.15 Visual Resources ................. ................. ........... 6-15

6.6.16 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................. ....... 6-15

6.6.17 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................. ................. ...... 6-15

6.6.18 Wilderness ................. ................. ................ 6-15

6.6.19 Wilderness Study Areas ................. ................. ..... 6-15

6.6.20 Human Uses and Values ................. ................. ..... 6-15

6.6.21 Cultural Resources ................. ................. ......... 6-15

6.6.22 Land and Realty ................. ................. ........... 6-15

6.7 BLM Resource M anagement Planning Process ................. ................. 6-15

7 LIST OF PREPARERS ................. ................. ................. ........... 7-1

8 PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT ................. ................ 8-1

8.1 BLM Planning Process ................. ................. ................. .... 8-1

8.2 Public Involvement in the Planning Process ................. ................. .... 8-1

8.3 Stakeholders List ................. ................. ................. ......... 8-2

9 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................. ................. .............. 9-1

10 GLOSSARY ................. ................. ................. ................. . . 10-1

11 REFERENCES ................. ................. ................. ................. 11-1
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: General Location Map

Figure 2.1: Soil Survey

Figure 2.2: General Vegetation

Figure 2.3: Special Status Plant Species 

Figure 2.4: Noxious Weed Infestation

Figure 2.5: Proper Functioning Stream Conditions

Figure 2.6: Range Conditions

Figure 2.7: Allotment Boundaries

Figure 2.8: Range Improvements

Figure 2.9: Hydrographic Subbasins in the Planning Area

Figure 2.10: Wildlife Habitat

Figure 2.11: Wildfires and Prescribed Burns

Figure 2.12: Special Management Areas

Figure 2.13: Visual Resource Management Classes

Figure 2.14: Land Tenure Zone Boundaries

Figure 2.15: Surface and Mineral Estate Ownership

Figure 2.16: Saleable Minerals

Figure 2.17: Locatable and Leasable Mineral Potential

Figure 2.18: Potentially Hazardous Sites in the Planning Area

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Land Ownership and Administration in the Planning Area ................. ........ 1-2

Table 1.2: Steps in the Subbasin Review and Analysis of Management Situation ................. 1-3

Table 2.1: Soil Types in the Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ... 2-3

Table 2.2: General Vegetation Types in the Planning Area ................. ................. . 2-3

Table 2.3: Special Status Species Plants in the Andrews MU and Steens CMPA ................. 2-9

Table 2.4: Noxious Weed Species in the Andrews MU and Steens CMPA ................. ..... 2-11

Table 2.5: Allotment Characteristics in the Planning Area ................. ................. 2-17

Table 2.6: Rangeland Condition in the Andrews MU ................. ................. .... 2-19

Table 2.7: Range Improvement Information for the Planning Area ................. .......... 2-21

Table 2.8: Rangeland Condition within the Steens Mountain CMPA ................. ........ 2-21

Table 2.9: Major Subbasins in the Andrews Management Unit ................. ............. 2-22

Table 2.10: Water Quality Limited Streams within the Andrews Management Unit .............. 2-24

Table 2.11: Major Subbasins of the Steens Mountain CMPA ................. ................ 2-27

Table 2.12: Water Quality Limited Streams within the Steens Mountain CMPA ................. 2-27

Table 2.13: Fish Species, Subspecies, or Distinct Fish Populations within 

the Andrews Management Unit ................. ................. ............. 2-29

Table 2.14: Special Status Animal Species in Southeastern Oregon ................. ........... 2-39

Table 2.15: Herd Management Areas in the Andrews MU and Steens Mountain 

CMPA ................. ................. ................. ................. 2-45

Table 2.16: Wilderness Study Areas in the Andrews Management Unit ................. ....... 2-53

Table 2.17: Wilderness Study Areas Located within the Steens Mountain CMPA ................ 2-53

Table 2.18: Land Status Within the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area ................. ....... 2-53

Table 2.19: Census Population in 2000 ................. ................. ................. 2-60

Table 2.20: Population Percentages in Harney and Malheur Counties ................. ........ 2-61

Table 2.21: Land Ownership and Administration in the Andrews Management Unit ............. 2-63

Table 2.22: Land Ownership and Administration in the Steens Mountain CMPA ................ 2-64

Table 2.23: Mineral Ownership by County ................. ................. .............. 2-67

Table 2.24: Mineral Potential in Acres ................. ................. ................. 2-68
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

ix

Table 2.25: Archaeological Site Condition ................. ................. .............. 2-70

Table 6.1: Steps in the Subbasin Review and Analysis of Management Situation ................ 6-16

Table 8.1: Anticipated Timelines for the Andrews Management Unit/

Steens Mountain CMPA Resource Management Plan ................. ............. 8-3
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Burns District Office (Burns DO) of the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) has initiated the preparation

of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the

Planning Area. Figure 1.1 shows the Planning Area

boundary relative to other geographic features. The

Planning Area encompasses the entire Andrews

Resource Area (RA) and the portion of the Three

Rivers RA within the Steens Mountain Cooperative

Management and Protection Area (Steens Mountain

CMPA). The Steens Mountain CMPA is the area

identified in the Steens Mountain Cooperative

Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Act) and is

described below. The Planning Area outside of the

Steens Mountain CMPA is identified as the Andrews

Management Unit (Andrews MU). As a part of the

RMP preparation process, the BLM has prepared this

Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) and

subbasin review. In addition, an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) must be prepared to analyze the

alternatives posed in the RMP as required by the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The

overall objective of the RMP planning effort is to

provide a collaborative planning approach to assist the

BLM in updating existing management decisions and

resource allocations by addressing new data, changing

resource conditions, and changes in public land use that

have occurred since the Andrews Management

Framework Plan (MFP) was completed in 1982.

On October 30, 2000, the Act was signed into law. The

Act designated 425,550 of BLM managed acres as the

Steens Mountain CMPA, which includes 53,427 acres

in the Three Rivers RA and the approximately 170,000

acre Steens Mountain Wilderness Area of which 97,671

acres were designated as a No Livestock Grazing Area.

In addition, the Act also designated three new Wild and

Scenic Rivers (WSRs) and expanded the existing WSR.

The Act also designated a 900,000 acre Mineral

Withdrawal Area, which encompasses the entire Steens

Mountain CMPA and a portion of the Andrews MU, as

well as portions of the Malheur RA (BLM Vale

District) and the Three Rivers RA. The Act also created

the Redband Trout Reserve (RTR), the Wildlands

Juniper Management Area (WJMA) and the Steens

Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC). 

In 1995, preparation of the Southeastern Oregon

Resource Management Plan (SEORMP) was initiated

by the BLM Vale and Burns DOs. The SEORMP

initially included the Andrews RA. As a result of the

Act, however, the Burns DO determined it was

appropriate to separate the Andrews RA from the

SEORMP and develop a separate RMP for the Planning

Area in order to address changes in land management

resulting from directives of the Act.

1.1 Description of the Analysis of Management

Situation and Subbasin Review

The AMS is a crucial step in the BLM’s land use

planning process, which guides the preparation of a

RMP/EIS. The AMS assesses the condition of the

various resources on public lands as well as the current

management situation, the physical and biological

characteristics, and the capability of the resources. The

current management plans for the Planning Area are

outlined in Chapter 3. 

The subbasin review originated with the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan

(ICBEMP) that was established in 1994 to develop and

then adopt a scientifically sound, ecosystem based

strategy for managing all U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or

BLM administered lands within the interior Columbia

Basin. The ICBEMP covers an area of 145 million

acres, 53 percent of which is federal land managed by

the BLM or the USFS. The size of this area required a

strategy to bring findings and information down to a

level where they could be applied in a USFS or BLM

management unit such as a ranger district or resource

area. The subbasin review process was developed

whereby pertinent information could be “stepped down”

to the local management level. In this document the

subbasin review covers the Planning Area.

The ICBEMP area was divided for analysis and review

purposes into four geographic scales: broad-scale

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

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

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

level at which field offices would undertake long range

planning for all resources within their respective

administrative boundaries. The subbasins are based on

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 4th field

hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). On average, these 4th

field HUCs comprise an area of 500,000 to 1,000,000

acres. The Planning Area subbasin review area includes

six subbasins identified in the ICBEMP scientific

assessment: Guano, Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord

Lake, Donner und Blitzen, Thousand-Virgin, and

Crooked-Rattlesnake, comprising an area of

approximately 2,177,810 acres. Land ownership and

administrative responsibilities include private

(including county) land, State of Oregon lands, BLM 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

1-2

Table 1.1: Land Ownership and Administration in the Planning Area

Land Ownership/Administration Acres

BLM 1,649,467

USFWS 26,677

State of Oregon 7,647

Private (includes county land) 494,019

TOTAL 2,177,810

administered lands, and United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) managed lands. The majority of the

land in the subbasin review area is administered by the

BLM, Burns DO. Table 1.1 defines land ownership and

administration in the Planning Area. All acreage

numbers utilized in this document were derived

utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS)

technology and are not considered legal acreage

numbers.

The subbasin review (Chapter 6) is a n

intergovernmental process in which mid- and fine-scale

information is tiered to ICBEMP goals, objectives, and

standards. It is a mid-scale look at ecosystem processes

and functions. The review is designed to bridge the gap

between the region-wide, broad-scale information

derived from ICBEMP and the actual on-the-ground

management actions. Subbasin review is a review of

mid-scale issues to identify and set priorities for doing

more detailed mid- and fine-scaled analysis. It is not a

decision-making process, but rather a stage-setting

process. Outcomes from the review do not constitute a

stand-alone planning process; rather, the review is an

integrated effort that supports other existing planning

and assessment processes, thus leading to the decision

to incorporate the subbasin review into the AMS.

Four areas are addressed in this combined

AMS/subbasin review: 1) the subbasin review area, 2)

the Planning Area, 3) the Steens Mountain CMPA, and

4) the Andrews MU. The RMP will address

management decisions relative to BLM administered

lands in the Planning Area.

1.2 Analysis of the Management Situation and

Subbasin Review Process

During the resource management planning process, the

BLM will set priorities for acting on recommendations

and opportunities. Emphasis will be placed on

opportunities for protecting and managing special areas

such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACECs); opportunities for management of resources

across administrative boundaries such as watersheds,

aquatic species, and noxious weeds; and opportunities

for control of juniper expansion.

BLM staff incorporated the descriptions of the midscale character and the recommendations into the

Resource Area Profile (RAP), Chapter 2, and

Management Opportunities, Chapter 4, of the AMS,

respectively. The similarities between the subbasin

review process and the AMS process are shown in the

Table 1.2.

1.3 Organization of Document

The Introduction, Chapter 1, is followed by the RAP

(Subbasin Characterization), Chapter 2, which

describes the current characteristics of the Planning

Area. Chapter 3 describes the Existing Management

Situation within the Planning Area and outlines the

current management direction provided in the Andrews

MFP, the Act, the Interim Management Policy (IMP)

for the Steens Mountain CMPA, and other documented

management decisions. In addition, BLM/federal

management directives, activity-level plans and other

guidance documents are listed in this chapter. Chapter

4 is Management Opportunities (Recommendations and

Integrated Priorities), which identifies the management

opportunities and develops recommendations.

Identification of potential management opportunities is

step five in developing the AMS. Development of

recommendations and determination of integrated

priorities serve as step four of the subbasin review

process. Legal Mandates, Planning Criteria, and

Proposed Alternatives are described in Chapter 5. This

chapter outlines the mandates to which the RMP/EIS

must adhere, and discusses the Planning Criteria which
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

1-3

Table 1.2: Steps in the Subbasin Review and Analysis of Management Situation

Subbasin Review Analysis of the Management Situation

Step Step

1. Prepare for the Review 1. Collect and Consolidate Data

2. Identify Mid-scale Issues 2. Conduct Internal and Public Scoping

3. Describe Mid-scale Character (Describe

character of the review area in relationship

to the issues)

3. Resource Area Profile (Describe the condition of

the resource area, including its physical,

biological and human environment)

No step in subbasin review corresponds to

Existing Management Situation of the AMS

4. Existing Management Situation (Describe for

each resource its current uses, production, or

protection problems and the management

practices and direction)

4. Develop recommendations and integrated

priority setting. (Develop recommended

actions and determine urgency and timing

of actions)

5. Identify Management Opportunities (Identify and

evaluate all reasonable opportunities and/or

actions to address the planning issues and

management concerns)

5. Subbasin Review Report (Document the

subbasin review results and the process.

Provide information for further planning)

6. Prepare the AMS (Develop a comprehensive

document for use by the BLM and a summary

document for public distribution. Provide

information for RMP/EIS)

will guide the preparation of the RMP/EIS. In addition,

it describes the preliminary alternatives that have been

developed in the planning process. Chapter 6 is the

Subbasin Review Report, which outlines the mid-scale

issues identified by the BLM as well as the broad-scale

issues identified during the ICBEMP process, and

presents the determination on the applicability of these

issues to the Planning Area. Chapters 7 through 11

consist of the List of Preparers, the Planning Process,

the Abbreviations and Acronyms, the Glossary, and the

References.

This document includes three sections which will feed

directly into the RMP/EIS. First, the RAP, which

describes the existing physical, biological, and human

environment of the Planning Area and equates to the

Affected Environment section of the RMP/EIS.Second,

the Existing Management Situation which describes (for

each resource) the current uses, production or

protection problems, and managerial practices and

direction from previous planning documents, leading to

the No Action Alternative of the RMP/EIS. The third

section is the Management Opportunities section, which

identifies and evaluates all reasonable opportunities to

address the planning issues and management concerns,

and is the basis for developing alternatives for the

RMP/EIS.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

1-4

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-1

2 RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION)

2.1 Introduction

The RAP, Step 3 of the AMS process, describes the

current condition, amount, location, use, demands, etc.

of each of the resources in the Planning Area. This is a

summary of that information. The complete profiles will

be used as the basis of the affected environment section

of the RMP/EIS. This information also serves as the

summary of the subbasin characterization, which is also

Step 3 of the Subbasin Review Process (Chapter 6).

The descriptions of the mid-scale character apply to

findings related to watershed, renewable resources

(such as vegetation, forestry and wildlife), fire

management, and human uses and values resources

addressed by the ICBEMP scientific assessments

(USFS and BLM 1996; Quigley et al.1996).

The following is a description of the resources in the

Andrews MU and the Steens Mountain Steens

Mountain CMPA. Most of the resources are described

separately for each area due to the different

management scenarios for the Andrews MU and the

Steens Mountain CMPA. 

2.2 Air Quality

Under criteria established through the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990, the Planning Area has been

designated as Class II. This means that air quality is

good to excellent; however, the potential to impact

Class I air sheds (i.e., Strawberry Mountain

Wilderness), does exist and additional measures will be

required to avoid those impacts. Strawberry Mountain

Wilderness, 65 miles northeast of the Planning Area, is

the closest Class I air shed. The nearest Non-Attainment

Area is Lakeview, Oregon. The air pollutant of most

concern on BLM administered land is particulate

matter, which may originate from fire, road or

windblown dust, and vehicle use. Most of this

particulate matter is produced from fire, and is less than

ten microns in diameter (called PM10).

2.3 Soils

2.3.1 Andrews Management Unit

Soils in semiarid southeastern Oregon are young and

poorly developed. Chemical and biological soilbuilding processes such as rock weathering,

decomposition of plant materials, accumulation of

organic matter, and nutrient cycling proceed slowly in

this environment. Since soil recovery processes are also

slow, disruption of soils can lead to long-term changes

in ecological condition and productivity. In many areas,

natural or geologic erosion happens too rapidly for

distinct, deep soil horizons to develop.

Soil productivity varies widely due to characteristics

such as soil depth, nutrient status, available

water-holding capacity, and site characteristics

including elevation, aspect, and slope gradient. The

most productive soils for forage or wood fiber are

found in valley bottoms, toeslopes, benches, and broad

ridgetops. A productive ecosystem depends on

maintenance of soil productivity. Current soil

productivity reflects site-specific natural conditions and

past management practices. 

Surface management actions affect, to varying degrees,

the following soil characteristics: soil bulk density

(weight per unit volume), porosity (hydrologic

conductivity), soil temperature, organic matter content,

moisture content, and nutrient content. These factors in

turn affect soil hydrologic response, productivity,

nutrient cycling, water-holding capacity, and soil

erosion rates. 

Management practices may affect soil productivity by

influencing disturbances such as displacement,

compaction, erosion, and alteration of organic matter

and soil organism levels. Natural processes are slow to

restore soil productivity in this semiarid region;

therefore, prevention of soil degradation is the most

time- and cost-effective remedy.

Soil compaction from concentrated activities such as

equipment operation, grazing, and pedestrian traffic

causes increased surface runoff and plant stress due to

decreased root penetration and water infiltration. These

factors decrease site productivity, increase soil erosion

rates, and degrade water quality. 

Soil erosion varies throughout the resource area. In the

semi-arid areas of the subbasin review area, bare soil

between plants comprises ten to 20 percent of the total

ground cover of a native plant community, leaving

significant areas of exposed soil between plants to

erode naturally. In addition to this background erosion

rate, management regimes affect the rate at which soil

erodes from a landscape. Any activities that remove

vegetative cover increase the erosion rate. If the surface

layers of vulnerable soils are washed or blown away,

the productivity potential may be lost. 

Historically, erosion occurred on upland soils and in

drainage channels as a result of uncontrolled land use,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-2

prolonged drought, and catastrophic storms. Ephemeral

drainages were deeply incised by gully erosion more

than 30 years ago. Some geologic and localized erosion,

caused by concentrated uses, still occurs. The effects of

lost soil productivity persist in some areas in the form

of early seral stage plant communities (annuals). An

erosion control plan should be developed in conjunction

with road building, mining projects, and other

construction activities. Disturbed areas should be

reseeded to restore plant cover and managed in order to

avoid overgrazing and its resulting increased soil

erosion rate.

Current management practices have reduced erosion.

These practices include proper stocking rates for

livestock, rotation of grazing, periodic rest from

grazing, improved design of roads, rehabilitation of

unneeded surface disturbance, restriction of vehicles to

roads and trails, rehabilitation of mined areas, and

control of concentrated recreational activities.

Microbiotic crusts consist of lichens, mosses, green

algae, fungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria growing on or

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

spaces between larger plants, these crusts, or rather

some of the organisms in these crusts, play a role in

fixing nitrogen, filtering water, retaining soil moisture,

and controlling soil erosion. Limited data exist on the

extent, distribution, and role of microbiotic crusts. Most

studies of microbiotic crusts have been conducted in the

southern Great Basin and Colorado Plateau.

The Andrews MU was covered by an Order III soil

survey completed in 1994 for the Harney County Area

by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soil types are

shown on Figure 2.1. Table 2.1 describes the general

types of soils found in the Andrews MU.

2.3.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The primary types of soils found in the Steens

Mountain CMPA are Baconcamp-Clamp-Rock outcrop

and Ninemile-Westbutte-Carryback. Less common soils

include Raz-Brace-Anawalt and Atlow-Tumtum-Deppy.

Minor amounts of Felcher-Skedaddle, Fury-SkunkfarmHousefield and Reallis-Vergas-Lawen are also located

in the Steens Mountain CMPA.

2.4 Vegetation

2.4.1 Andrews Management Unit

The existing vegetation in the Planning Area is

discussed at three levels. The top level is the entire

subbasin, which falls within the Basin and Range

Province; the mid-level is the actual plant communities

themselves; the project level consists of the ecological

site inventories, which examines the potential for plant

communities in a specific area on a small scale. 

The Basin and Range Province in Oregon is dominated

by sagebrush/native bunc hgrass communities.

Sagebrush species growth is site specific. Basin big

sagebrush grows mainly on sites having moderately

deep loamy soils such as droughty bottomlands and

fans. Wyoming big sagebrush is present almost

everywhere throughout the lower elevations of the

province on slightly sandy or gravelly soils. Mountain

big sagebrush occurs in similar soils, but at higher

elevations. Low sagebrush/bunchgrass communities are

strongly dominant on shallow to very shallow stony

upland lithic soils. Stiff sagebrush/bunchgrass

communities dominate on shallow soils that are either

stony or clayey. Silver sagebrush dominates internally

drained basins with seasonally saturated soils. Black

sagebrush/bunchgrass communities are found on

shallow soils with a calcareous layer. Perennial

grassland communities do not form a major climax

vegetation type, although they do dominate for a period

following fire when the shrub component is eliminated.

Although western juniper generally occurs as a

vegetation type in many woodland communities, it has

also invaded big sagebrush/bunchgrass and low

sagebrush/bunchgrass communities on mesic sites

where it has not been limited by wildland fires. General

Vegetation Types in the Planning Area are illustrated

on Figure 2.2. Vegetation types and acreages are listed

in Table 2.2 for the Andrews MU and the Steens

Mountain CMPA.

2.4.1.1 Big Sagebrush Shrubland Communities

Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Artemisia tridentata ssp.

tridentata and ssp. wyomingensis) is the most common

vegetative cover type in southeastern Oregon. It appears

as a mosaic with shrub-steppe communities over much

of the unwooded areas along mountain range foothills

and expansive extent in the valley floor. There are

several different mixtures of plants within the big

sagebrush mosaics. These are big sagebrush 1) with

perennial grasslands, 2) with annual grasslands
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-3

Table 2.1: Soil Types in the Andrews Management Unit

Table 2.2: General Vegetation Types in the Planning Area

Map No. Soil Type Description

1 Alvodest-Droval-Playas Poorly to very poorly drained, very deep soils formed in lacustrine

sediments on low lake terraces and basin floors; 0 to 3 percent slopes

2 Spangenburg-Enko-Catlow Well or moderately well drained, very deep soils formed in

lacustrine sediments and alluvium on middle lake terraces; 0 to 20

percent slopes

3 Atlow-Tumtum-Deppy Well drained, very shallow or shallow soils formed in old alluvium,

residuum, or colluvium on high lake terraces and low hills; 2 to 50

percent slopes

4 Gumble-Risley-Mahoon Well drained, shallow or moderately deep soils formed in residuum,

and colluvium on hills and tablelands; 2 to 40 percent slopes

5 Felcher-Skedaddle Well drained, very shallow to moderately deep soils that formed in

colluvium and residuum on mountains; 20 to 70 percent slopes

6 Fury-Skunkfarm-Housefield Somewhat poorly to very poorly drained, very deep soils formed in

alluvium and lacustrine sediments on stream terraces, and lake

terraces; 0 to 2 percent slopes

7 Poujade-Ausmus-Swalesilver Moderately well and somewhat poorly drained very deep soils

formed in lacustrine sediments, and alluvium on middle lake

terraces; 0 to 5 percent slopes

8 Reallis-Vergas-Lawen Well drained, very deep soils that formed in alluvium and eolian

material on high lake terraces and fan terraces; 0 to 8 percent slopes

9 Baconcamp-Clamp-Rock

outcrop

Well drained, shallow or moderately deep soils formed in residuum,

and colluvium; 5 to 80 percent slopes

10 Raz-Brace-Anawalt Well drained, shallow or moderately deep soils formed in residuum

and colluvium on tablelands having 8 to 12 inches of precipitation; 0

to 30 percent slopes

11 Ninemile-WestbutteCarrybackWell drained, shallow and moderately deep soils that formed in

residuum and colluvium on tablelands and hills having 12 to 16

inches of precipitation; 0 to 70 percent slopes

12 Merlin-ObservationLambringWell drained, shallow to very deep soils formed in residuum and

colluvium on shrub and grass covered hills; 0 to 70 percent slopes

General Vegetation Type Andrews MU BLM

Acres

CMPA BLM Acres

Unsurveyed/Unknown Vegetation Type 17,419 835

Annual Grassland 2,475 1,220

Crested W heatgrass 9,014 12,506

Big Sagebrush/Crested Wheatgrass 13,333 6,882

Big Sagebrush/Perennial Grassland 457,672 84,939
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

General Vegetation Type Andrews MU BLM

Acres

CMPA BLM Acres

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-4

Low Sagebrush/Grassland 104,681 130,419

Silver Sagebrush/Grassland 4,071 1,085

Black Sagebrush/Grassland 17,148 0

Mountain Big Sage/Perennial Grassland 15,463 41,584

Salt Desert Shrub/Grassland 200,967 321

Mountain Shrub/Grassland 7,658 6,538

Juniper/Big Sagebrush 1,083 52,659

Juniper/Low Sagebrush 1,740 51,128

Playas 36,141 395

Quaking Aspen 3,168 10,748

Native Perennial Grassland 2,785 8,425

Rabbitbrush/Grassland 8,883 5

Rock 1,512 1,466

Big Sagebrush/Annual Grassland 316,101 16,997

Total 1,221,314 428,152

(cheatgrass), 3) within planted crested wheatgrass, 4)

with a variety of shrubs such as bitterbrush (Purshia

tridentata), and 5) with western juniper (Juniperus

occidentalis). Other combinations of plants with

sagebrush as the dominant plant are big sagebrush 1)

with black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), 2)

with shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), 3) with limited

distribution of winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata),

and 4) with rabbitbrush (Ericameria viscidiflorus). 

Native grasses range from a mere presence of grass to

an abundance of grass, depending on history of the site

and beneficial soil/water relations. Native perennial

bunchgrasses include bluebunch whea tgrass (

Pseudoroegneria spicatum), Sandberg's bluegrass (Poa

secunda), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Great

Basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), junegrass (Koeleria

macrantha), needle and thread grass (Achnatherum

com ata), Thurber's needlegrass (Ach nathe rum

thurberiana), and in more disturbed situations,

bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elimoides ). Introduced

grasses are primarily cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and

crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). 

The sagebrush community in the Steens Mountain

CMPA occurs between 4,300 and 5,500 feet in

elevation. The lower flanks of Steens Mountain are

dominated by mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush,

rabbitbrush, and a variety of forbs and grasses including

bluebunch wheatgrass, needlegrass, lupine, biscuitroot,

and buckwheat. Much of the Wyoming big sagebrush

habitat on the west side of Steens Mountain has been

planted to crested wheatgrass and occasionally yellow

sweetclover and fourwing saltbush. Western juniper

extends into this community from above, along basaltic

fractures occupied by currant, ocean spray, and other

shrubs. Riparian woodlands dominated by willow,

alder, black cottonwood, cherry, and dogwood interrupt

the broad expanses of sagebrush scrub.

2.4.1.2 Black Sagebrush/Grassland Communities

Black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) has a limited

distribution in the Basin and Range Province and is

considered a "rare type" in this province. This plant

community is found on shallow soil plateaus and gentle

slopes. The sites have extensive areas of exposed rock

and wildland fire occurrence is rare with a mean return

interval, or average number of years between fire

events, of approximately 100 to 200 years. Sandberg's

bluegrass (Poa secunda) is usually the dominant grass,

making up most of the vegetation cover; however, other

bunch grasses also occur on these sites. Black

sagebrush is the dominant shrub and often the only

shrub present. In some areas, these black sage stands

can be extensive or occur in a mosaic with low
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-5

(Artemisia arbuscula) or big sagebrush species.

Shadscale, squirreltail and cheatgrass also occur on

these sites.

2.4.1.3 Silver Sagebrush/Grassland Communities

The silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) /grassland

community is usually found in valley bottomlands.

Silver sage is the dominant and characteristic shrub of

this community. This tall shrub community is

moderately to widely spaced. It grows in areas that have

been deflated (eroded by wind) and subsequently

partially filled with ingrained sediments. Although

species such as creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides)

occasionally occur, the understory can be dominated by

widely spaced, often robust bunchgrasses such as

Nevada bluegrass (Poa nevadensis).

2.4.1.4 Low Sagebrush/Grassland Communities

Low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) communities are

found throughout eastern Oregon, generally on areas

with shallow basalt soils. Low sagebrush is the primary

dominant and often the only shrub in the stand;

however, Sandberg's bluegrass is also commonly found,

as well as western juniper. Other associated grasses are

bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Thurber’s

needlegrass, Nevada bluegrass, and cheatgrass. The low

sagebrush plant communities usually occur on soils

where rooting depth is restricted by bedrock or a heavy

clay layer. The restricted rooting profile lowers the site

productivity. Low sagebrush occupies some large areas

of land, especially on the southern end of Steens

Mountain. In other areas, low sagebrush plant

communities are found in a complex mosaic with other

sagebrush plant communities such as Wyoming and

mountain big sagebrush. The sites have extensive areas

of exposed rock and often do not have enough

vegetation to support wildland fires. Low sagebrush can

also occur within an aspen mosaic. After the snow melts

and soil warms in the spring, these areas are rich with

colorful and diverse perennial and annual wildflowers.

2.4.1.5 Mo untain Big Sagebrush/Grassland

Communities

At higher elevations in the Great Basin Province,

mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.

vaseyana) communities occur on plateaus and rocky

flats with minimal soil development. Sandberg's

bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Nevada

bluegrass, cheatgrass, bitterbrush, wax currant,

snowberry, and grey rabbitbrush are common in this

community type. This medium to medium-tall

shrubland varies from widely spaced to fairly dense

shrubs occurring on deep-soiled to stony flats, ridges

and mountain slopes, and usually in cool moist areas

with some snow. In this community, Idaho fescue is the

most common and diagnostic grass. Mountain big

sagebrush is usually the dominant shrub.

2.4.1.6 Mountain Shrubland Communities

Mountain shrubland is found on the steep rocky slopes

of mountains in southeastern Oregon. It usually appears

as a minor component within the western juniper

woodland types or it grades in and out of sagebrush

steppe. This cover type is commonly encountered but

generally exists as units that are too small to be

mapped. This widely dispersed tall shrubland grows in

rock talus and rock outcrops, in soil pockets within

rocky slopes, and along with big sagebrush. It can be

the dominant overstory vegetation with occasional

western juniper and low sage or bitterbrush, and some

grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue,

and Columbia needlegrass (Stipa columbiana).

Bitterbrush communities are found in a medium-tall

shrubland steppe with bunchgrass or cheatgrass

understory. Bitterbrush can be dominant or co-dominant

with big sagebrush. Idaho fescue is the characteristic

native bunchgrass, with bluebunch wheatgrass

co-dominant at lower elevations. Western needlegrass

is dominant at the higher elevations and where soils are

more sandy. Snowberry communities are found on steep

slopes between alpine habitats and riparian or

sagebrush steppe. Many forbs grow in the area with

snowberry as does mountain mahogany, aspen, and

mountain big sagebrush. Juniper can be found with

these shrubs at lower elevations.

2.4.1.7 Juniper Woodlands

Western juniper woodlands occupy a large and diverse

area within the Planning Area. Historically, western

juniper occupied the rocky ridge tops and shallow soils

areas. These woodlands were very open with less than

25 mature trees per acre. The shallow soils inhibited

growth of understory shrubs and herbaceous plants, so

that these sites developed with limited influence of fire.

Western juniper is readily killed by fire due to its fairly

thin bark. Fires were typically small, involving less than

one acre and fewer than five trees; however, every 150

to 200 years a large fire event occurred, burning large

acreages. Trees on these areas are often over 200 years

old. In some areas, certain trees established over 1,000

years ago. 

Trees of pre-settlement age (>150 years) develop

characteristic rounded canopies, which begin to senesce

as the trees approach 500 years old. Deep furrows
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-6

develop in the trunk and the outer layers of bark begin

to peel off in strips. Most of the trees in these ancient

western juniper stands have cavities in the boles, which

are extremely important to cavity nesting birds such as

western bluebirds. Shrubs and herbaceous understory in

these ancient stands can be sparse in areas of shallow

soil; however, where rooting is limited by a clay layer

(often less than 12 inches from the soil surface),

perennial grasses and forbs dominate the understory and

shrubs are incidental in the plant community. Idaho

fescue is the most common grass in these areas. The

majority of the western juniper woodlands in the

Andrews RA, including the Steens Mountain CMPA,

are post-settlement stands that are less than 120 years

old. These trees and the associated plant communities

vary substantially from the pre-settlement stands.

Density and cover is much higher than the presettlement stands, and the tree canopies are coneshaped.

In the early stages of western juniper encroachment, the

trees enhance the structural and biological diversity of

the site. Animal species, such as the Townsend’s

solitaire, that prefer woodland vegetation begin to

utilize the area; however, as tree density increases and

understory shrubs, grasses and forbs decrease, species

that prefer open shrub dominated vegetation move to

other areas. Sage thrashers, sage sparrows, and greensided towhees are a few of the species that no longer

use an area once the stand reaches a mid-transitional

stage. Understory grasses, forbs and shrubs begin to

decline at this stage. As tree density and cover increase,

the shrub layer is the first component to be lost,

followed by deep rooted perennial grasses and forbs. In

this mid-transitional stage, the decline in the herbaceous

plant component is most pronounced on the shallower

soil areas and on slopes with southern aspects.

Understory grasses and forbs occurring on deeper soils

will not decline to the same degree. In some cases, a

fully mature western juniper woodland with more than

50 percent tree cover may support a fairly complete

herbaceous plant understory having cover of 25 to 30

percent. In contrast, the plant cover on shallow soils

and south slopes would be less than five percent total

for the site. Trees in fully mature western juniper

woodlands are of similar heights and canopy diameters.

Understory plants cover less than five percent of the

soil surface and there is apparent surface soil

movement.

Juniper woodlands in the Steens Mountain CMPA

occur between 5,500 to 6,700 feet in elevation and are

dominated by western juniper. Mountain big sagebrush,

Idaho fescue, needlegrass, and low sagebrush occupy

drier sites in this community. Mountain mahogany,

bitterbrush, wax currant, and Lemmon’s needlegrass

dominate the rimrock areas. Seasonally moist

depressions, vernal pools, clay barrens, riparian

meadows, seeps, gorge-bottom woodlands, and mesic

north-facing quaking aspen dominated slopes all

contribute to the habitat diversity in this community.

2.4.1.8 Quaking Aspen/Alpine Bunchgrass

Communities

Quaking aspen (populus tremuloides) communities are

scattered throughout the sagebrush/grasslands of eastern

Oregon in clonal clumps that may be too small to map.

In the Planning Area, these communities occur in

isolated pockets in mountain sagebrush areas and can

be found mixed with western juniper, which is replacing

quaking aspen in many lower elevation communities.

Management of these communities needs to be

addressed to reduce the number of acres converted to

western juniper woodlands. Aspen is the dominant tree

in this cover type. The shrub layer is conspicuous and

usually includes snowberry and chokecherry (Prunus

virginiana), bittercherry (Prunus emarginata),

Columbia needlegrass, and mountain brome (Bromus

marginatus). Other shrubs can be mountain big

sagebrush, bitterbrush, and mountain mahogany. The

understory is dominated by sedges and grasses such as

bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue.

The aspen community in the Steens Mountain CMPA

occurs between 6,700 and 8,000 feet in elevation. The

subalpine elevations of Steens Mountain are a mosaic

of aspen stand, sagebrush grasslands, rimrock/talus and

riparian meadow. Aspen groves dominate sheltered and

mesic sites between approximately 6,000 and 7,700 feet

in elevation. Snowberry and wax currant are also

dominant shrubs at this elevation. The more exposed

and dry sites are frequently dominated by mountain big

sagebrush and a variety of forbs and grasses, including

sneezeweed, Steens thistle, paintbrush, lupine,

squirreltail and Cusick’s bluegrass. Meadows and

springs are dominated by species such as sedges,

rushes, hellebore, pussytoes, and cinquefoil.

The Alpine Bunchgrass community on Steens Mountain

occurs at elevations greater than 8,000 feet. The highest

vegetation zone on Steens Mountain has been referred

to as either subalpine grassland or true alpine tundra.

The dry, gravelly, windswept summit ridges have a

characteristic xeric flora including cut-leaf daisy, sulfurflowered buckwheat, balloon-pod milkvetch, prairie

smoke, Steens paintbrush, and needle-leaf sandwort.

Dry bunchgrass communities below the ridge crests are

dominated by Sandberg’s bluegrass, sheep fescue and

sedges. A complex assortment of alpine wet and mesic
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-7

meadows occurs in cirques and pockets where snow

accumulates and provides perennial water in the form of

springs or a high water table. Common species in this

area include American bistort, c inque foil,

monkeyflower, speedwell, buttercup, elephant’s head,

sedges, rushes, and redtop. 

2.4.1.9 Riparian and Wetland Communities

The numerous closed basins typical of the Basin and

Range Province include dry lakebeds, infrequently and

briefly inundated lakebeds, perpetual lakes that

fluctuate in size over time, and wetlands and marshes

that are reasonably perpetual. Vegetation on these

bottomlands varies according to the frequency,

duration, and depth of inundation. From a total

ecosystem viewpoint, probably the most significant and

valuable wetlands in the Basin and Range Province are

those associated with isolated springs and streams

scattered over the landscape. The variety of shrubs,

grasses, and forbs present depends on the degree and

duration of moisture and shade at each location. 

Included in these plant communities are the willow

floodplain riparian areas of tall shrub communities with

dense cover of willows, occasionally interspersed with

wetlands, sedge meadows or moist, forb-rich grassland.

This community occurs in broad valley floors, narrow

riparian canyons, and along rivers and streams.

Cottonwood, several willow species, wormwood

(Artemisia spp. ), gooseberry, rose, snowberry, red

osier dogwood, serviceberry, alder, and chokecherry are

usually found along many rivers. In the past,

cottonwood was probably more prevalent. Stinging

nettle (Urtica dioica), and cow parsnip (Heracleum

lanatum) are often present. Hardstem bulrush-cattail

marshes form open to dense, nearly monotypic stands

of bulrush, where standing water is found throughout

much of the growing season. Patches of cattail, burred,

and several species of Scirpus are the most important

graminoids. Carex species occur in and around this

type, along with Eleocharis and Juncus species. In

some areas, spike rush (Eleocharis) forms a monotypic

community along wetland channels. Scattered

throughout the area are sedge montane meadows and

wetlands, also tall sedge meadows and wetlands, where

dense rhyzomatous or tufted sedges dominate the

meadows. Usually these areas are forb-poor. Hairgrass

(Deschampsia caespitosa) is the most important grass,

occurring at the drier margins. The forbs often present

are Potentilla gracilis, Geum spp., Lupinus spp.,

Lomatium triternatum, blue camas (occasionally), and

Perideridium species. Salix species dominate streams

which run though these meadows. Tufted hairgrass

(Deschampsia caespitosa) montane meadows and

valley prairie occur in a few areas of the subbasin

review area.. These tall montane meadow grasslands

with dense tufted grasses range from forb-rich to

grass-sedge dominated areas. Occasionally, willows,

silver sagebrush, or black greasewood are present.

Tufted hairgrass is the most important and dominant

species. In some areas, Poa nevadensis or P. cusickii

are entirely dominant. Carex and Juncus species are

co-dominant in wetter margins. 

2.4.1.10 Salt Desert Scrub/Grassland Communities

This plant community occurs in the alkaline playa lake

basins of the Great Basin Province. These are low to

tall shrub communities comprised of dispersed

alkali-tolerant vegetation. "Sa lt desert scrub" is a

catchall term tha t describes several differing

environments most common in the southern Great

Basin. On the most saline seasonally flooded sites,

black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus)

dominates. Sites with better drainage support the

following shrubs and grasses which are halophytes (salt

tolerant plants): shadscale, spiny hopsage (Artiplex

spinosa), budsage (Artemisia spinescens), saltgrass

(Distichlis spicata), bottlebrush squirreltail, and Great

Basin wildrye. Salt desert scrub is surrounded by big

sagebrush or sagebrush steppe cover types. The most

extensive areas are always associated with the large

ephemeral lakes of the region.

In the Steens Mountain CMPA, the salt desert scrub

community occurs below 4,300 feet in elevation. Salt

desert scrub vegetation of the Alvord Desert is

dominated by shadscale, four-wing saltbush,

greasewood, spiny hopsage, saltgrass, and other

halophytes. The Harney Basin at the western base of

Steens Mountain also contains the desert scrub

vegetation as well as the freshwater Malheur marsh.

Marshes throughout the three basins surrounding Steens

Mountain are dominated by bulrush and cattail, and

depending on water depth and locality, a variety of

other emergent species as described in Section 2.4.1.9.

2.4.1.11 Modified Grassland - Crested Wheatgrass and

Cheatgrass Communities

Approximately two percent of the public lands in the

planning area have been planted with crested

wheatgrass or have been invaded by cheatgrass. Both of

these species originated in Eurasia and have adapted

very well to these soils and climate. Cheatgrass, an

annual, was inadvertently introduced into America with

cattle and in hay used for ship ballast. It can

out-compete the native grasses by germinating in the

fall. Presently, these grasslands are used primarily for
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-8

grazing. Weedy native and exotic annual forbs may also

be present or even dominate. These large expanses of

cheatgrass can be the result of fires, unsuccessful

seedings, historic overgrazing, abandoned farming, or

other disturbances. Weedy forbs such as tumblemustard

(Sisymbrium species), cranesbill (Erodium cicutarium),

tumbleweed (Salso la kali), horned buttercup

(Ranuculus testiculatus), and thistle (Cirsium species)

are often common in these areas. 

In the past, many acres were planted with crested

wheatgrass after wildland fires. These communities

remain in a dominant crested wheatgrass community for

about ten years until sagebrush and rabbitbrush invade.

Forbs commonly found in this community type include

yarrow, milkvetch, arrowleaf balsamroot, spreading

phlox, salsify, and mullein. This type is often restricted

to foothill margins and gentle terrain in close proximity

to valley bottoms, while the undisturbed remnants of

this type are dominated by native perennials. Green and

gray rabbitbrush are common, and sagebrush occurs

locally when the seedings have aged. 

2.4.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The plant communities of the Steens Mountain CMPA

are discussed in the previous subsections of 2.4.1. In

addition, Table 2.2 lists the general vegetation present

in the Steens Mountain CMPA. 

2.5 Special Status Plant Species

2.5.1 Andrews Management Unit

Table 2.3 lists special status plant species found in the

Planning Area. These species receive priority attention

for inventory, research, and monitoring efforts. Federal,

state, and nongovernmental agencies have been

consulted to assure their protection and management.

Special status plant surveys are made prior to land

exchanges, range and wildlife projects, proposed

mining operations, and other surface disturbing

activities. 

Approximately 83 plant species are on the Planning

Area list of special status plants (Table 2.3). Nearly all

of the plants on the list are rare in Oregon, but common

or stable in areas outside of Oregon. Special status plant

species occur in a variety of plant associations and on

a variety of physical habitats, many of which have

distinctive soil types. Several special status species

often occur together. When a new location for a special

status plant species is observed, the information is

documented and reported to the Oregon Natural

Heritage Database, where it is permanently recorded. 

2.5.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Many of the plants listed for the Andrews MU occur in

the area of the Steens Mountain CMPA. Table 2.3

contains special status plant species found in the Steens

Mountain CMPA.

2.6 Noxious Weeds

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

weeds are so thoroughly established and spreading so

rapidly that they have been declared a menace to public

welfare (ORS 570.505). Noxious weed invasion

contributes to the loss of rangeland productivity,

increased soil erosion, reduced species and structural

diversity, and loss of wildlife habitat. In some instances,

such invasion is hazardous to human health and welfare,

as emphasized in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL

93-629). Some weed species pose a significant threat to

multiple-use management of public land. 

Noxious weeds cannot be adequately controlled unless

federal, state, county, and private interests work

together. The Carlson-Foley Act (PL 90-583), as well

as state and county laws, make the federal government

responsible for control of weeds on federal land and

provide direction for their control. The Burns District

of the BLM operates under the weed protocols set forth

in the following documents: Vegetation Treatment on

BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS and ROD

(1991a), Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious

Weed Control Program FEIS and ROD (1987), and the

Noxious Weed Management Program Environmental

Assessment (EA) #OR-020-98-05 (1998a). 

The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) has

developed a classification system to provide guidelines

for implementing and prioritizing noxious weed control

programs, to assist in the distribution of limited funds,

and to serve as a model for other weed classification

systems (ODA 1997). This system defines three classes

of noxious weed species: 1) weeds that pose a known

economic threat and occur in infestations small enough

to make eradication or containment possible; 2) weeds

that pose an economic threat and whose regional

abundance limits control techniques primarily to

biological methods; and 3) weeds for which the ODA

will implement a statewide management plan. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-9

Table 2.3: Special Status Species Plants in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name BLM

Status

ONHP

Status

CMPA AMU

Alvord milkvetch Astragalus alvordensis T L3 X

alpine fescue Festuca brachyphylla T L3 X

awned sedge Carex atherodes T L3 X

Back’s sedge Carex backii A L2 X

Bellard’s kobresia Kobresia bellardii T L3 X

Biddle’s lupine Lupinus biddlei S L3 X X

Bigelow’s four-o’clock Mirabilis bigelovii var retrorsa T L3 X

capitate sedge Carex capitata T L3 X

Cusick’s hyssop Agastache cusickii A L2 X X

Cusicks’s draba Draba sphaeroides var cusickii T L3 X

dark alpine sedge Carex subnigricans T L3 X

Davidson’s penstemon Penstemon davidsonii var.

praeteritus

T L3 X X

Davis’ peppergrass Lepidium davisii S L1 X

desert needlegrass Achnatherum speciosum A L2 X X

desert chaenactis Chaenactis xantiana A L2 X

discoid goldenweed Ericameria discoidea var discoidea T L3 X

Drummond willow Salix drummondiana T L3 X

dwarf evening primrose Camissonia pygmaea S L1 X

ephemeral monkey flower Mimulus evanescens S L1 X

flowering quillwort Lilaea scilloides T L3 X

foetid sedge Carex foetida var. vernacular T L3 X

Fourwinged milkvetch Astragalus tetrapterus T L3 X

gray moonwort Botrychium minganese A L2 X

hairstemmed rush Juncus capillaris T L3 X

hairy wild cabbage Caulanthus pilous T L3 X

Hayden’s cymopterus Cymoperus nivalis A L2 X

Hayden’s sedge Carex haydeniana T L3 X

hedgehog cactus Pediocactus simpsonii var.

robustior

T L3 X X

iodine bush Allenrolfea occidentalis A L2 X

Janish’s penstemon Penstemon janishiae T L3 X

Kruckeberg’s holly fern Polystichum kruckebergii T L3 X

lance-leaved grapefern Botrychium lanceolatum A L2 X

large-flowered chaenactis Chaenactis macrantha A L2 X

least rush Juncus hemiendytus var. abjectus T L3 X
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Common Name Scientific Name BLM

Status

ONHP

Status

CMPA AMU

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-10

long-flowered snowberry Symphoricarpos longiflorus A L2 X X

lyrate malacothirx Malacothrix sonchoides T L3 X

Malheur cryptantha Cryptantha propria T L3 X

moonwort Botrychium minganense A L2 X

montane pepperwort Lepidium montanum var. nevadense T L3 X

moss gentian Gentiana prostata A L2 X

mosslike dwarf rush Juncus bryoides T L3 X

naked-stemmed phacelia Phacelia gymnoclada A L2 X

narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia T L3 X X

new sedge Carex nova T L3 X

nodding melic Melica stricta T L3 X X

ochre-headed buckwheat Eriogonum ochrocephalum ssp.

Calcareum

T L3 X

pale paintbrush Castilleja pallescens var. inverta T L3 X

pinnate grapefern Botrychium pinnatum A L2 X

prickly poppy Argemone munita spp. rotundata A L2 X X

purple cymopterus Cymopterus purpurascens A L2 X

Rafinesque’s pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius A L2 X X

Raven’s lomatium Lomatium ravenii A L2 X

Rocky Mtn. Helianthella Helianthella uniflora var. uniflora T L3 X

salt heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum T L3 X

short-fruited willow Salix brachycarpa var brachycarpa T L3 X

short-lobed penstemon Penstemon seorsus T L3 X X

Siberian water-milfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum T L3 X X

Sierra willow Salix orestera T L3 X

Sierran springbeauty Claytonia nevadensis T L3 X

sky pilot Polemonium viscosum T L3 X

slender gentian Gentianella tenella A L2 X

slender wild cabbage Caulanthus major var. nevadensis S L1 X

Steens Mountain paint brush Castilleja pilosa var. steenensis S L3 X

teacher’s sedge Carex praeceptorum T L3 X X

thick-stemmed wild cabbage Daulanthus crassicaulis T L3 X

Tiehm’s rush Juncus tiehmii T L3 X

Torrey’s malacothrix Malacoathrix torreyi T L3 X

two-stemmed onion Allium bisceptrum T L3 X

Umbellate springbeauty Claytonia umbellata T L3 X

Verrucose seapurslane Sesuvium verrucosum A L2 X

weak-stemmed stonecrop Sedum debile T L3 X
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Common Name Scientific Name BLM

Status

ONHP

Status

CMPA AMU

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-11

wedge-leaf saxifrage Saxifraga adscendens

var.oregonensis

A L2 X

white-flowered penstemon Penstemon pratensis T L3 X X

BLM Status

S=Sensitive - species that could easily become endangered or extinct in a state, are restricted in range, and have natural or humancaused threats to survival.

A=Assessment - species not presently eligible for official federal or state status but are still of concern and need protection or

mitigation in BLM activities.

T=Tracking - species that may become of concern in the future, but more information is needed to determine status for management

purposes.

ONHP Status

L1 - taxa threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their range.

L2 - taxa threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the State of Oregon.

L3 - taxa of conservation concern that need more information to determine status.

Table 2.4: Noxious Weed Species in the Andrews MU and Steens Mountain CMPA

Common Name Scientific Name County

Rating

Reported

in AMU

Reported

in CMPA

No Reports in

Planning Area

bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C X X

black henbane Hyoscyamus niger A X

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare NR X X

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense C X X

dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica B X X

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa A X X

halogeton Halogeton glomeratus C X

hound’s tongue Cynoglossum officinale

kochia Kochia scoparia

leafy spurge Euphorbia esula A X

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis B X X

medusahead rye Taeniatherum caputmedusaeB X

musk thistle Carduus nutans A X

perennial

pepperweed

Lepidium intifolium B X X

poison hemlock Conium maculatum

puncturevine Tribulus terrestris B X

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria A X

rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea A X

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens B X X

scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B X X
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Common Name Scientific Name County

Rating

Reported

in AMU

Reported

in CMPA

No Reports in

Planning Area

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-12

salt cedar Tamarix parviflora A X X

scotch broom Cytisus scoparius A X

spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa A X X

squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata A X

St. John’s wort Hypericum perforatum C X X

tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea A X

Whitetop Cardaria spp. C X X

yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis A X X

yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris A X

Harney County has listed and classified the noxious

weeds currently present or in close proximity to Harney

County. The weeds are rated as A, B, or C pests. Weeds

rated as “A” pests are of known economic importance,

known to occur in the county in small enough

infestations to make eradication practicable, or not

known to occur but having such status in surrounding

counties that future occurrence seems imminent. Weeds

rated as “B” pests are of known economic importance,

are of limited distribution in the county, and are subject

to intensive control or eradication where feasible at the

county level. Weeds rated as “C” pests are of known

economic importance and of general distribution that is

subject to control, intensive control, or eradication as

local conditions warrant. 

Noxious weeds are present throughout the subbasin

review area. These weeds have become established in

the Planning Area primarily because of vehicle use on

existing roads. The weed control program is dynamic,

due to new weed introduction and the ongoing

implementation of varied control methods. Grazing and

fire management, as well as chemical, mechanical, and

biological control methods are used as part of an

integrated weed management program. These methods

are, of course, subject to site-specific determination of

appropriate techniques. The BLM monitors, on an

annual basis, the changes in distribution and new

introductions of noxious weeds. 

2.6.1 Andrews Management Unit

The Burns District has implemented an integrated weed

management program on the Three Rivers RA and

Andrews MU. The area under this assessment covers

approximately 3.7 million acres. These lands are

located primarily in Harney County with portions in

Grant, Lake, and Malheur Counties.

The increase in noxious weeds and their impacts on

local lands and resources are concerns for land

managers and the public. New invasions of noxious

weeds and the spread of established infestations are

threatening the productivity of public land.

Management of noxious weeds is important for

maintenance of healthy ecosystems. See Table 2.4 for

the complete list of noxious weeds known to occur in

the Planning Area.

2.6.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Noxious weeds have become established in the Steens

Mountain CMPA primarily because of vehicle use.

Most of the weeds are located along the main roads.

Infestations are treated using herbicide or excavated

with hand tools. The most difficult weeds to control are

Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, and bull thistle because

they have spread over such a large area. Other noxious

weeds found in the area are Mediterranean sage, diffuse

knapweed, spotted knapweed, medusahead rye, and

dalmation toadflax.

2.7 Riparian Resources

Riparian areas are water-dependant ecosystems

bordering streams, rivers, and wetlands. They form

ecological links between the terrestrial and aquatic

components of the landscape. Riparian landform (flood

plain), and vegetation and/or other structural

components, such as woody debris and boulders,

dissipate stream energy or wave action (standing water)

during high water events and reduce erosion. Detention
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-13

and storage of high flows reduce flood risks and

contribute inflow during periods of receding water

surface elevation or flow. Reduced bank erosion

contributes to maintenance of water quality and general

riparian integrity. Riparian communities tend to be

more diverse than surrounding upland communities and

support a greater variety of wildlife species. The habitat

islands provided by springs are especially important in

high desert ecosystems.

In the past, many riparian/wetland areas were degraded

by uncontrolled uses. Any management activity that

disturbs water, soil, or vegetation can potentially

degrade riparian areas. Such activities include livestock

grazing, road construction, timber harvest, mining,

irrigation, and recreation. In addition, off-site activities

can affect riparian areas by influencing the timing and

amount of overland and subsurface flow of water, and

subsequent movement of soils. Some past land use

practices have resulted in riparian areas that 1) have

inadequate vegetation to protect streambanks from

erosion; 2) lack appropriate diverse vegetation that

provides habitat for riparian dependent wildlife species;

3) contain incised channels that do not allow streams to

dissipate flood energy and provide water storage; and 4)

provide inadequate pools and shade for aquatic species.

Riparian areas may exhibit different levels of

susceptibility to disturbance relative to landform.

Confined canyons with moderate to high gradients have

evolved under conditions of concentrated, high velocity

stream flows. These are natural sediment and water

transport reaches, and often rely on large, less mobile

rock to dissipate energy. Access to these reaches by

recreationists, domestic livestock and wild horses is

limited, thereby reduc ing po ssible additional

disturbance. These stream reaches tend to be more

resilient to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. In

contrast, wide, low gradient valleys are depositional

areas composed of sediment that may be more easily

transported by stream energy and subsequently more

susceptible to erosion. These systems rely on a

combination of attributes for system stability, including

access to a flood plain, herbaceous and/or woody

riparian vegetation, and structural features (rock or

woody debris) to maintain stream channel and riparian

integrity. These areas are more easily accessible by

recreationists, domestic livestock and wild horses, and

are more susceptible to disturbance. 

Riparian vegetation depends on channel type, duration

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

management history. Sedges, rushes, and sometimes

willow and alder dominate streams with deeper soils

and longer lasting water. Boulder dominated streams

have pockets of vegetation where grass and shrubs are

dominant. As water availability decreases, herbaceous

vegetation shifts from sedges to grasses. Alder, aspen,

and willow are often the predominant woody vegetation

in lower elevation sites. Higher sites are dominated by

aspen. 

Channel type determines the role played by vegetation

in stream condition. Certain channel types are

dependent upon vegetation to protect the stream banks

in high flow events. The structure and type of

vegetation are also critical to wildlife and fish. Trees

such as aspen, cottonwoods, and some taller willows

supply vertical structure for neotropical birds. As trees

become old and decayed, they provide habitat for cavity

nesters. The tree structures also supply shade to the

stream, which may moderate water temperature by

reducing the rate of heating. Leaves from deciduous

species supply nutrients to the riparian and aquatic

system, providing a food source for aquatic

macroinvertebrates, and consequently for the fish which

feed on them. Many cottonwood and aspen stands have

declined in the resource area due to a number of factors

including changes in stream channel morphology, lack

of fire or other rejuvenating disturbances, and invasion

by western juniper. Aspen need regular, periodic

disturbance in order to regenerate and maintain their

stands. Remnant stands can be found that are dying and

have little or no regeneration. In order to regenerate,

cottonwoods need flood events to deposit seeds in fine

sediments and to provide water for the roots. After

establishment, seedlings of cottonwood and aspen are

highly susceptible to browse by domestic and wild

ungulates.

Not all potentially disturbing activities are incompatible

with riparian area recovery or management, and not all

riparian areas are equally susceptible to degradation.

For example, livestock management that adjusts the

timing and duration of grazing in riparian areas allows

for impro vement of riparian vegetation and

development of streambanks and floodplains. The

application of management practices needs to address

requirements for a self-sustaining riparian system, such

as adequate diversity and composition of riparian

vegetation within the capabilities of the system or

stream reach. Functional riparian systems maintain

stream channel stability and facilitate a variety of

environmental, social, and economic values, such as

clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, livestock forage,

and scenic quality. 

Most management focus has been on streamside or

running water riparian areas, although other types of

riparian areas exist that are associated with standing
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-14

water. These include lakeshore, marshes, swamps, wet

meadows, wetlands, and areas with seeps and springs.

These features are inundated or saturated by surface or

ground water and support a predominance of vegetation

adapted to saturated soil conditions. PFC assessment

and field-verified quantification of these types of

riparian areas have not been done, although the

locations of most of them are known.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and Riparian

Condition and Trend are two different methods used to

evaluate the condition of riparian areas in the Planning

Area. Both methods address physical and biological

attributes, although to varying degrees. Assessments

were conducted almost exclusively along perennial

streams. 

The PFC Assessment (BLM 1993a) emphasizes the

physical function of the stream channel and riparian

area evaluated through an interdisciplinary team

approach, and is based on the system’s capability and

potential. The assessment concludes with one of the

following categories as defined:

The PFC of a riparian/wetland area contains adequate

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to do the

following:

C dissipate stream energy associated with high

water flows, thereby reducing erosion and

improving water quality;

C filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in

floodplain development;

C improve flood-water retention and groundwater recharge;

C develop root masses that stabilize streambanks

against cutting action;

C develop diverse ponding and channel

characteristics to provide the habitat and the

water depth, duration, and temperature

necessary for fish production, waterfowl

breeding, and other uses; and

C support greater biodiversity.

Functional at Risk (FAR) – riparian/wetland area that

possesses some or even most of the elements listed in

the PFC definition, but at least one of its

attributes/processes gives it a high probability of

degradation at a relatively high flow event(s)such as

five-, ten-, and 20-year events. Trend must be

determined, if possible, under this category and denoted

as upward, downward, or not apparent.

Non-Functioning – riparian/wetland area clearly lacks

the elements listed in the PFC definition.

Riparian/wetland areas will function properly before

they achieve an advanced ecological status or a

theoretical “desired future condition.” The range

between PFC and an area’s physical and biological

potential becomes the “decision space” for social,

economic, and other resource considerations. PFC

assessments were conducted primarily from 1998 to

2000 and constitute the most up to date riparian

resource evaluation and trend for the project area

(Figure 2.5). 

Riparian Condition and Trend ratings were obtained by

assessing the physical and biological characteristics of

the stream channel and riparian area based on a variety

of studies and evaluations. Evaluation factors may

include percent of stream shade, riparian vegetation

composition, vigor and abundance of riparian plant

composition, age class of riparian plants, stream bank

stability, amount of stream meandering, stream

gradient, and bank rock content. The assessment

concludes with one of the following categories as

defined, and a relative trend of Upward, Downward or

Static:

Excellent Condition: Shading streambank cover

exceeds 50 percent. Understory species and shade

providing species are vigorous, with a mixture of age

classes. More than 90 percent of streambanks are stable.

Good Condition: Shading streambank cover and

understory species are usually reduced from the level

found in habitat that is in excellent condition. More

than 80 percent of streambanks are stable. A variety of

age classes and forms are still present. 

Fair Condition: Streambank plant species are

noticeably reduced in diversity, reproduction, and

productivity relative to habitat in good or excellent

condition. Shading streambank cover is usually less

than 20 percent. Many streambanks are unstable, with

some vegetation healing of eroded banks. Riparian

shrubs and trees are present. 

Poor Condition: Typical riparian plant species are

missing or sparse. Shading streambank cover is

commonly 0 to ten percent. Most erodible banks are

unstable, with little healing by vegetation. The stream

may be downcut due to erosion. Habitat does not have

a variety of species and forms that provide cover,

shade, and forage for many wildlife species. The

riparian area is often narrow and limited relative to

potential. Woody riparian species may be sparse or

absent.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-15

Riparian Condition and Trend ratings were compiled in

1996. This assessment was primarily based on surveys

conducted in 1979 and 1991. An interdisciplinary team

approach was not used for this assessment.

2.7.1 Andrews Management Unit

The PFC Assessment for the streams surveyed in the

Andrews MU is as follows: 67 percent PFC, 26 percent

FAR and seven percent nonfunctioning.

The riparian habitat on public land in the Andrews MU

represents a variety of habitat conditions as follows:

Approximately 13.1 percent is in excellent condition;

Approximately 21 percent is in good condition;

approximately 37 percent is in fair condition;

approximately 17.7 percent is in poor condition; and

11.3 percent of the area condition is unknown. These

numbers are based on surveyed streams and GIS

estimations, which will be updated for the RMP/EIS.

2.7.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The approximate PFC Assessment for the streams

surveyed in the Steens Mountain CMPA is as follows:

75 percent PFC, 23 percent FAR and two percent

nonfunctioning.

2.8 Grazing Management

2.8.1 Andrews Management Unit

2.8.1.1 Regulatory Context

Three laws provide the nationwide legal context for the

management of grazing on public lands. The Taylor

Grazing Act was passed on June 28, 1934, to protect

public land resources from degradation and also to

provide orderly use and improvement/development of

public rangelands. Following various homestead acts,

the Taylor Grazing Act established a system for the

allotment of grazing privileges to livestock operators

based on grazing capacity and priority of use, and for

the delineation of allotment boundaries. It also

established standards for rangeland improvements and

implemented grazing fees. Approximately 142 million

acres of land in the western United States were placed

under the jurisdiction of the Grazing Service, which

became the BLM in 1946. The Federal Land Policy and

Management Act (FLPMA) passed in 1976, and the

Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) passed in

1978, also provide authority for the management of

livestock grazing on public lands.

2.8.1.2 Rangeland Standards and Condition

The rangeland reform process of 1996 modified the

grazing regulations identified in 43 CFR part 4100. A

new regulation was developed and is currently being

implemented throughout the BLM. The regulation, 43

CFR 4180, addresses the fundamentals of rangeland

health. The Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM

1997a) provide the basis for assessing rangeland

conditions and trends. In August 1997, the standards

and guidelines developed in consultation with the

Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC),

Provincial Advisory Committees, Native Americans,

and others, were approved by the Oregon State Director

for Oregon and Washington. Figure 2.6 illustrates range

conditions in the Planning Area.

Specific types of field indicators of rangeland health are

identified for each standard. The quantitative thresholds

for these indicators vary according to soil, climate, and

landform, as stated in the standards. An

interdisciplinary team, with participation from

permittees and other interested parties, conducts

assessments to evaluate the standards according to field

indicators. The five standards are as follows: 

Standard 1: Watershed Function - Uplands

Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates,

moisture storage and stability appropriate to soil,

climate, and land form. 

Standard 2: W atershed Fu ncti on -

Riparian/Wetland areas

Riparian/wetland areas are in properly functioning

physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and land

form. 

Standard 3: Ecological Processes 

Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal

populations and communities appropriate to soil,

climate, and landform are supported by ecological

processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the

hydrologic cycle. 

Standard 4: Water Quality

Surface water and ground water quality influenced by

agency actions complies with state water quality

standards. 

Standard 5: Native, Threatened and Endangered

and Locally Important Species

Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse

populations and communities of native plants and

animals (including special status species and species of
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-16

local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and

landform. 

Based on 43 CFR part 4180, in the event that livestock

are detrimental to a resource standard, management will

be implemented as soon as practical to ensure that

progress is made toward attaining the standard(s). This

will occur no later than the start of the next grazing

season.

Collection of monitoring data keeps track of progress in

meeting identified management objectives. The

monitoring data is used for periodic evaluations of

management actions and active grazing authorizations

in each allotment. To maintain or improve public land

resources, adjustments are made by agreement or

decision in accordance with legislation, regulations, and

policy. 

Prior to the 1960s, grazing policy focused on allotment

boundaries and seasons of use; however, in the

mid-1960s, grazing systems were implemented which

considered the maintenance and establishment of plant

communities. Grazing systems define the management

approach needed for each allotment to protect and

maintain plant community diversity and the resource

values on public land. Livestock grazing allotments are

categorized and managed according to the three

following selective management categories:

Improve (I) category allotments are managed to

improve current unsatisfactory resource conditions and

will receive the highest priority for funding and

management actions. 

Maintain (M) category allotments are managed to

maintain current satisfactory resource conditions and

will be actively managed to ensure that resource values

do not decline. 

Custodial (C) category allotments include a high

percentage of private lands and are managed custodially

while protecting existing resource values.

2.8.1.3 Regional Context

Specific objectives and actions intended to implement

the nationwide policies summarized above are provided

by the Andrews MFP (BLM 1982a), the SEORMP

(BLM 1995a) and the Act. A significant element of the

Act was the creation of a No Livestock Grazing Area of

over 97,000 acres. Implementation of this provision is

discussed below.

Livestock grazing will continue in the Steens Mountain

CMPA where allowed under the Act and will conform

to applicable laws, policy, and BLM regulations

including the Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for

Public Lands in Oregon and Washington (August

1997a). Grazing management will be guided by the Act,

current land use plans, Andrews MFP (1982a), and the

Three Rivers RMP (1992a). 

Recent land use plans have developed and implemented

grazing systems primarily through Allotment

Management Plans (AMPs) and agreements with

permittees. An AMP is a documented program that

directs grazing management on specified public land

toward reaching goals regarding resource conditions,

sustained yield, multiple use, and ranch economics.

AMPs are considered to be implemented when

incorporated into term grazing permits or leases and

when accepted by the permittee or lessee. The

RMP/EIS will reestablish resource objectives which all

allotments must meet. Spe cific management

prescriptions will still be made on an allotment or

watershed basis.

2.8.1.4 Current Grazing

Summary of Allotments

Thirty-five permittees are authorized to graze livestock

on 72 allotments in the Planning Area. Allotment

boundaries are illustrated on Figure 2.7 and the

allotment characteristics (name, size, animal unit

months [AUMs], season of use and management

categories) are presented in Table 2.5 for the combined

Andrews MU and Steens Mountain CMPA area. Many

of the allotments in the Planning Area overlap;

therefore, the data is presented in this single table with

Planning Area location noted. 

Grazing exclusions

The No Livestock Grazing Area (97,671 acres)

designated by the Act altered the previous pattern of use

through land exchanges and amendments to individual

allotments and created the first Congressionally

designated cattle free wilderness of its kind. Land

exchanges conducted to meet the mandates of the Act

necessitated allotment boundary changes, revisions to

AUMs, and several rangeland improvement projects.

Additional areas within livestock grazing allotments are

excluded from grazing as determined in prior decisions

and agreements between the BLM and permittees.

Exclusionary measures are utilized to protect resource

values and facilities. The types of resources and

facilities protected by the exclusion of livestock grazing
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-17

Table 2.5: Allotment Characteristics in the Planning Area

Number Allotment Name Size 

(Total

Acres)

Total

A UM s

Season of

Use

Management

Category

Planning

Area

5309 Happy Valley 3,917 304 M Steens

5310 Riddle Mountain 4,714 789 I Steens

5327 Jenkins B Flat FFR 1,034 283 C Steens

5329 Riddle/Coyote 1,646 300 I Steens

5331 Smyth-Kiger 12,819 714 I Steens

5604 Burnt Flat 28,260 3,224 I Steens

6001 North Catlow 190,803 3,704 Multiple I Andrews

6002 South Steens 90,988 9,577 Multiple I Steens

6005 Mud Creek 8,245 590 Spring I Steens

6006 Frazier Field 20,600 1,906 Multiple I Steens

6007 Ruby Springs 15,439 1,928 Multiple I Steens

6008 Krumbo 16,224 4,133 Multiple M And/Stns

6010 East Ridge 8,864 431 Multiple I And/Stns

6011 Pollock 87,107 4,107 Multiple I And/Stns

6012 Alvord 223,136 8,923 Multiple I And/Stns

6014 Tumtum 8,080 730 Winter M Andrews

6015 Trout Creek

Mountain

93,825 8,852 Multiple I Andrews

6016 Sandhills 12,547 1,583 Multiple M Andrews

6017 Grassy Basin 5,819 556 Multiple M Andrews

6018 Tule Springs 148,469 5,506 Winter I Andrews

6019 Serrano Point 14,942 500 Spring I And/Stns

6020 Pueblo-Lone

Mountain

272,481 17,964 Multiple I Andrews

6021 Pueblo Mountain 8,789 323 Multiple I Andrews

6022 Kings River 1,771 113 Summer I Andrews

6023 Hammond 13,719 473 Spring I Andrews

6024 South Fork 476 40 Spring M Andrews

6025 Hardie Summer 6,126 408 Summer I Steens

6026 Mann Lake 36,822 3,670 Multiple I And/Stns

6027 Carlson Creek 12,894 684 Spring I Steens

6028 Fields 5,029 210 Multiple I+ Andrews

6029 Keg Springs 41,163 1,791 Summer I Andrews
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Number Allotment Name Size 

(Total

Acres)

Total

A UM s

Season of

Use

Management

Category

Planning

Area

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-18

6030 Reicken’s Corner 9,841 688 Multiple M Andrews

6031 LaVoy Tables 43,404 2,373 Multiple I And/Stns

6032 Krumbo Mountain 17,359 1,059 Summer I Steens

6033 Chimney 24,893 2,015 Multiple I Steens

6035 Fields Basin 32,742 3,506 Multiple I Andrews

6037 Bridge Creek 3,659 0 Multiple I Steens

6038 Alvord Peak 25,063 2,336 Multiple I And/Stns

6040 Stonehouse 10,838 1,772 Summer I Steens

6041 South Catlow 62,132 2,100 Multiple I Andrews

6100 Hammond FFR 7,317 32 Spring C Andrews

6101 Waldkirch FFR 351 12 Winter C Andrews

6102 Oregon End FFR 2,497 138 Spring C Andrews

6103 Wiley FFR 1,174 6 Spring C Andrews

6104 Defenbaugh FFR 3,853 60 Spring C Andrews

6105 Wrench Ranch FFR 3,925 51 Fall C Andrews

6106 Orlando FFR 8,428 320 Summer C Andrews

6107 Crump/

Calderwood FFR

1,630 12 Spring C Andrews

6108 Henricks FFR 1,001 30 Fall C Andrews

6109 Casey FFR 619 21 Multiple C Andrews

6110 Still FFR 3,296 68 Winter C Andrews

6111 Dunbar FFR 2,546 68 Multiple C Andrews

6112 Long Hollow FFR 1,664 103 Multiple C Andrews

6114 Rock Creek FFR 10,811 148 Summer C Andrews

6115 Dixon FFR 1,241 22 Fall C Andrews

6116 Northrop FFR 2,599 40 Fall C Andrews

6117 Kaser FFR 1,618 5 Summer C Andrews

6118 Lupher FFR 210 21 Spring C Andrews

6119 Pollock FFR 6,124 19 Multiple C Andrews

6120 Mann Lake FFR 28,085 22 Summer C Andrews

6121 Neuschwander FFR 2,010 43 Spring C Andrews

6122 Starr FFR 778 9 Spring C Andrews

6123 Clover Swale FFR 3,238 0 Spring C Andrews

6124 Windmill FFR 841 15 Fall C Andrews
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Number Allotment Name Size 

(Total

Acres)

Total

A UM s

Season of

Use

Management

Category

Planning

Area

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-19

6125 Roaring Springs

FFR

202,309 343 Multiple C Andrews

6126 McCoy Creek 14,079 151 Summer C Steens

6127 Kueny Ranch FFR 11,720 35 Spring C Andrews

6128 Konek FFR 365 10 Spring C Andrews

6129 Alvord FFR 18,277 0 Multiple C Andrews

6130 Scharff FFR 5,076 68 Summer C Steens

6131 South Pocket FFR 146 1 Fall C Andrews

6133 Otley Brothers FFR 8,995 21 Summer C Steens

Table 2.6: Rangeland Condition in the Andrews MU

Rangeland Health Class Acreage Percentage of Total

Excellent 15,183 1

Good 276,577 23

Mixed good/fair 163,604 13

Mixed good/poor 20,338 2

Fair 585,369 48

Mixed fair/poor 37,042 3

Poor 66,722 5.5

Rock 2,284 0.5

No Data 54,192 4

TOTAL 1,221,311 100

include the following: riparian vegetation communities;

reservoirs, springs and wetlands; developed water

sources; special status plant or animal habitats; relevant

and important values for which ACECs) are designated;

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for which

WSRs were designated; wilderness values; research and

study plots; administrative sites; recreation sites; and

archeological sites.

Rangeland Condition

Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data describe the

condition of vegetative communities based on soil

characteristics and potential natural vegetative

community. ESI data from approximately 1984 to 1992

are provided for the Andrews MU. The condition of the

rangelands in the Andrews MU is summarized in

Table 2.6 and depicted on Figure 2.6. Some areas are

not represented in the table because they are either

predominated by rock or no data exist, as in the case of

private lands and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

lands. 

Within the Planning Area, there are 32 improve “I”

category allotments, seven maintain “M” category

allotments and 33 custodial “C” category allotments.

Within allotments containing riparian habitat and water

quality values, improved grazing management is a

priority for the Andrews MU. To date, allotments with

significant riparian resource values and updated

management plans have shown improvement in

condition and trend. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-20

2.8.1.5 Rangeland Improvements

In order to better manage livestock distribution and

rangeland, the following tasks have been completed:

brush control and rangeland seeding; structural

improvements to fences; cattleguards; reservoirs; spring

developments; wells; and pipelines (Figure 2.8). As

mandated in FLPMA and in PRIA, a portion of grazing

fees is to be used on range improvements for the benefit

of wildlife, watersheds, and livestock producers.

Emergency fire rehabilitation funds have also been

expended to protect resource values or to restore exotic

annual vegetative community types to a perennial plant

community in order to improve plant community and

watershed health. Livestock operators, state and federal

agencies and other interested groups have also

continued to fund construction of rangeland

improvement projects. On April 25, 2001, the Burns

DO released for public comment the Finding of No

Significant Impact for the Projects for Implementation

of the Steens Mountain CMPA and EA OR-027-01-27

(BLM 2001a). The EA proposed many projects

including the following: building new fences and water

holes, installing cattleguards, pipelines and water

troughs, drilling wells, and developing or maintaining

springs. The fencing and water system projects will

implement the No Livestock Grazing Area, achieve

replacement forage objectives contained in the Act, and

provide for management on the allotments which have

a reduced land base due to the creation of the No

Livestock Grazing Area. All of the completed and

proposed actions are in conformance with the Act as

directed in the various sections. Projects not directly

mentioned in the Act are in conformance with the

Andrews MFP and the Andrews Rangeland Program

Summary update. Table 2.7 lists the types and sizes of

the improvements and state of completion or planning.

2.8.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

In order to implement the No Livestock Grazing Area

created by the Act, the BLM retired grazing permits in

whole or part, constructed protective fencing, and

constructed fences and water developments to provide

for the replacement forage designated in the Act.

Adjustments in allotment boundaries, ten year permits,

and grazing preference associated with the above

referenced sections of the Act were implemented only

to reflect the changes created by the Act. The entire No

Livestock Grazing Area is located within the Steens

Mountain CMPA boundary; therefore, the majority of

allotment revisions and improvement projects have

been carried out in the Steens Mountain CMPA and

Steens Mountain Wilderness. All or a portion of 27

remaining allotments are located in the Steens

Mountain CMPA, and are operated by 17 permittees. 

2.8.2.1 Rangeland Health

Rangeland condition within the Steens Mountain

CMPA is summarized in Table 2.8. Some areas are not

represented in the table because they are either

predominated by rock or no data exist, as in the case of

private and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge lands. 

2.8.2.2 Rangeland Improvements

Range improvements planned prior to legislation which

have completed NEPA documentation and are in

conformance with the Act may still be implemented

within the Steens Mountain CMPA. New range

improvements as previously discussed and necessary to

fully implement the No Livestock Grazing Area and

other legislated grazing changes, may be constructed

following NEPA analysis. Additional range

improvements will be coordinated through the SMAC

to obtain its input regarding the need for such

improvements to meet the requirements and purpose of

the Steens Mountain CMPA. 

Maintenance and reconstruction of existing support

facilities in the Steens Mountain Wilderness and

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) will be in accordance

with existing guidelines for wilderness, WSAs, NEPA,

and the Act. Maintenance, reconstruction, and

construction of new support facilities in wilderness

areas where grazing is allowed, as well as access for

these and other purposes, will be in compliance with the

Wilderness Act and House Report 101-405 (Arizona

Desert Wilderness Act) grazing guidelines. In WSAs,

maintenance, reconstruction, new construction and

access to livestock facilities will be in compliance with

the Interim Management Policy For Lands Under

Wilderness Review (BLM Manual H-8550-1). 

2.9 Animal Damage Control

Animal damage control is an activity of the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA)- Agricultural

Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

This activity is authorized by federal law under the

Animal Damage Control Act (7 USC 426-426b) and by

Oregon State Law under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS)

610.105, authority to Control Noxious Rodents or

Predatory Animals.

The roles and responsibilities of the BLM and USDAAPHIS are specified under a National Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the BLM and USDA-
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-21

Table 2.7: Range Improvement Information for the Planning Area 

Table 2.8: Rangeland Condition within the Steens Mountain CMPA

Improvement Size/Level Date Completed/Planned

Miner’s Field South fence 3.5 miles 2002

Eusabio Ridge Fence 7.0 miles 2002

Straw Hat Pass Fence 1.0 miles 2002

Burnt Car Fence .75 miles 2002

Bradeen Crossing Fence .5 miles 2002

Tombstone Fence Extension 3.0 miles 2002

North Catlow Boundary Fence 6.0 miles 2002

North Catlow Winter Pasture Fence 6.5 miles 2002

O’Keefe Pipeline 4.0 miles 2002

Burke Springs Pipeline Extension 0.5 miles 2002

North Catlow Pipeline 4.0 miles 2002

South Andrews Spring Reconstruction 2 each 2002

Cattleguards 5 each 2002

Waterholes 4 each 2002

O’Keefe Well 1 each 2002

Rangeland health class Acreage Percent of Total

Excellent 17,629 4

Good 129,210 30

Mixed good/fair 76,831 18

Mixed good/poor 1,540 0.5

Fair 161,371 38

Mixed fair/poor 7,571 1.5

Poor 9,487 2

Rock 20,791 5

No Data 4,083 1

TOTAL 428,513 100
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-22

Table 2.9: Major Subbasins in the Andrews Management Unit

Subbasin HUC Total

Acres1 USFWS StateAcres

Private

Acres

AMU

BLM

Acres

AMU

Stream

Miles2

Guano 17120008 625,014 0 658 271,813 352,544 1,061

Harney/Malheur Lakes 17120001 2,567 0 0 14 2,553 5

Alvord Lake 17120009 748,442 0 5,595 117,946 624,901 2,258

Donner und Blitzen 17120003 86,405 26,677 30 35,011 24,688 284

Thousand-Virgin 16040205 171,333 0 0 2,055 169,278 597

Crooked-Rattlesnake 17050109 45,071 0 0 0 45,071 219

Total 1,678,832 26,677 6,283 426,839 1,219,035 4,424

1 The total acres value covers the subbasin area within the Andrews MU.

2 The stream miles include all perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams within the Andrews MU (excluding the Steens

Mountain CMPA). There are approximately 430 miles of perennial streams in the Andrews MU.

APHIS which was signed on March 21, 1995.

According to this memorandum, USDA-APHIS is

responsible for environmental analysis documents

associated with their control actions on public land. The

BLM identifies human safety areas or other resource

management concerns where actions are proposed;

therefore, this program will not be analyzed further.

Areas of animal damage control activity are identified

to the BLM on an annual basis. 

2.10 Water Resources

2.10.1 Andrews Management Unit

The Andrews MU contains portions or all of six

subbasins: Guano, Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord

Lake, Donner und Blitzen, Thousand-Virgin, and

Crooked-Rattlesnake. These subbasins comprise the

subbasin review area for the Andrews MU. The entire

Andrews MU is within these six subbasins and is within

an internally drained watershed, with the exception of

the Crooked-Rattlesnake subbasin on the eastern edge

of the Andrews MU, which drains to the Columbia

River via the Owyhee River. The topographic features

of these large areas direct surface and some shallow

subsurface water to streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs or

playas. The hydrographic subbasins are displayed on

Figure 2.9. The major portions of the Andrews MU

(subbasins Guano, Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord

Lake, and Donner und Blitzen) are part of the larger

Oregon Closed Basins Subregion and the Pacific

Northwest Region. The eastern portion of the Andrews

MU (Crooked-Rattlesnake subbasin) is part of the

Middle Snake Subregion and the Pacific Northwest

Region. The southwest portion of the Andrews MU

(Thousand-Virgin subbasin) is part of the Black Rock

Desert-Humboldt Region and the Great Basin Region.

Regions, subregions, basins and subbasins are

delineated based on protocol defined by the USGS.

This system delineates a hierarchy of geographical

regions and their sub-parts, such as subregion, basin,

subbasin, watershed and subwatershed. Each hydrologic

unit is referred to as a field and given a two-digit

numeric identifier. The code, called a HUC, is a unique

numeric identifier. Table 2.9 describes the major

subbasins in the Andrews MU. The Guano subbasin

contains several reservoirs and lakes that are within the

Andrews MU. These reservoirs include Guano, Rock

Creek, Three Mile, Skull Creek and Walls Lake. Also

in the Guano subbasin and the Andrews MU are Tucke,

Lost, Savoy, Walls, Little Walls, West Field, V,

Sixmile, Garrison, Bradley, and Sickey Lakes. The

Alvord Lake subbasin contains several reservoirs and

lakes that are within the Andrews MU. The reservoirs

include East Table Mountain, North Table Mountain,

West Table Mountain, Mickey, and Lower Borax Lake.

The lakes include Alvord, Borax, Tumtum, Coyote, No

Name, Tudor, Juniper, Alvord Desert, and Heath. The

Donner und Blitzen subbasin includes several

reservoirs, lakes and a portion of the Donner und

Blitzen River system that is within the Andrews MU.

The reservoirs include Krumbo, Kern, and Larkspur.

The lakes include Baca, Five Mile, and Marshall. The

Donner und Blitzen River system flows north from the

Steens Mountain CMPA into this subbasin and then into

the Harney/Malheur Lake subbasin north of the
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-23

Andrews MU. The Harney/Malheur Lake subbasin does

not include any reservoirs or lakes within the Andrews

MU. The Thousand-Virgin subbasin includes one

reservoir, Oregon End, within the Andrews MU. The

Crooked-Rattlesnake subbasin includes three reservoirs

(Wildcat, Bob Cat, and Steel Post) within the Andrews

MU. The primary drainage in this subbasin is Wildcat

Creek, which flows east out of the Andrews MU into

Rattlesnake Creek and then into the Owyhee River.

2.10.1.1 Streams

The streams in the subbasin review area originate in the

higher elevation hills and mountains. They then flow to

the lower elevation valleys, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and

playas. The table listing major streams within the

Andrews MU is included in the Riparian Resources

Section of this document (Section 2.7). Most surface

runoff is from snowmelt or rainfall at the higher

elevations, producing peak discharges in the spring and

early summer. The intensity of runoff influences

streamflow quantity and duration. The scarcity of water

has led to increased water storage, water diversions, and

ground water withdrawal associated with irrigation of

hay fields, improved pastures, and rangeland

improvements. Projects developed for irrigation,

livestock, human use, and flood control have

significantly altered natural flow regimes. This in turn

has altered habitat conditions, channel stability, and

timing of sediment and organic material transport.

Streamflow has also been altered by management

activities such as water impoundments, water

withdrawal, road construction, vegetation manipulation,

fire suppression, and grazing. 

Many of the streams in lower-elevation semiarid areas

are either intermittent, with segments of perennial flow

near springs, or ephemeral, with flow only during

spring runoff and intense summer storms. These

drainages are often characterized by straight channels

with erosion in the upper reaches and deposition in the

lower reaches. The channels are often deeply incised,

with steep banks that slough and develop new headcuts

perpendicular to the main stream. Water in intermittent

streams and ephemeral drainages may infiltrate into the

channel or it may evaporate. Intermittent streams have

surface flows for part but not all of the year, or flows

which are subsurface for a section of the stream. These

streams are in contact with the water table and either

receive water from the ground water system to surface

flow or provide surface water to the ground water table.

Ephemeral drainages are channels in which surface

water flows immediately after snowmelt or rain fall.

They are always above the water table.

The functional aspects of streams and riparian

resources/habitat were previously covered in the

Riparian Resources Section of this document

(Section 2.7). 

2.10.1.2 Surface Water Quality

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated

to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) the authority to implement, in Oregon, the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)

and amendments (Clean Water Act 1977). As specified

in the FWPCA and subsequent amendments, federal

agencies are responsible for water quality on lands they

manage. Th is respo nsibility is outlined in

Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) with state

environmental agencies. These MOAs require federal

agencies to do the following: 1) implement and enforce

natural resource management programs for the

protection of water quality on federal lands under

federal jurisdiction; 2) meet water quality standards,

monitor activities to assure that they meet standards,

and report the results to the State of Oregon; and 3)

meet periodically to recertify water quality Best

Management Practices (BMPs). Water quality BMPs

are those practices designed to prevent or reduce water

pollution from nonpoint sources and unidentified or

indirect sources (silt fences, straw bales, and rice

wattles). The BMPs also include the management of

soil, water, and land uses.

As specified in the FWPCA, water quality involves all

factors that affect existing and designated uses of a

body of water. Designated uses include recreation,

hydropower, water supply, and maintenance of fisheries

and riparian habitats. The primary cause of water

quality degradation on public land is nonpoint source

pollution. Elevated stream temperatures, sediment,

bacteria from warm blooded animals, and turbidity

levels are the primary water quality problems stemming

from nonpoint source pollution. 

To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the

State of Oregon produced the 1988 Oregon Statewide

Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution

Report. The report identified waters affected by

nonpoint source pollution, categories of nonpoint

source pollution, the process for identifying BMPs, and

state and local nonpoint source programs. The report

also listed stream segments with moderate to severe

water quality issues impacting desired beneficial uses.

Approximately 45 percent of the stream miles examined

were identified as either having no nonpoint

source-related water quality problems, or inadequate

data to make a determination. Many reaches exhibited
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-24

Table 2.10: Water Quality Limited Streams within the Andrews Management Unit

Stream Name Parameter Segment Sources

Harney/Malheur Lake Subbasin

Riddle Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1993)

Donner und Blitzen River Subbasin

Deep Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters BLM (1996-1997)

Guano Subbasin

Home Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1995-1997)

Skull Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1995-1997)

Alvord Lake Subbasin

Denio Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1995-1997)

Little Trout Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters ODFW Data (1994)

Little Whitehorse Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters ODFW Data (1992-

1994)

Trout Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters ODFW Data (1994)

Trout Creek East Fork Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters ODFW Data (1994)

Van Horn Creek Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters BLM (1995-1997)

Willow Creek (Trout Creek

Mountains)

Temperature-Summer Mouth to Headwaters ODFW Data (1992-

1994)

Willow Creek (Steens Mountain) Temperature-Summer Mouth to Canyon BLM (1996)

nonpoint source pollution problems that affect

beneficial uses such as fisheries, aquatic habitat,

wildlife habitat, and water contact recreation. 

Major causes of degradation cited in the report were the

presence of animal waste, surface erosion,

sedimentation, and the removal of riparian vegetation

and stream channel thermal cover. Land uses which

correlated with these problems were grazing, mining,

and road construction. Additional land use problems

identified were human and animal traffic (roads and

trails), water withdrawal, reservoir storage and release,

altered physical characteristics of the stream, and

channelization or drainage of wetlands. The report

identified many reaches with elevated stream

temperatures, turbidity, nutrient loading, sediment, and

low dissolved oxygen levels and flow volumes. 

To fulfil some of the EPA Section 303(d) requirements,

the State of Oregon updated its list of "water quality

limited" waters in 1998 with additional updates to come

out in 2002. Table 2.10 lists the streams in the Andrews

MU which are 303(d) water quality limited streams.

There are no 303(d) listed streams within the Planning

Area portion of Thousand-Virgin and the Crooked

Rattlesnake subbasins.

The State of Oregon has established beneficial uses for

the surface and ground water within the analysis area

and water quality standards which protect these uses.

The state designates beneficial uses at the basin level

rather than the subbasin level. The Guano,

Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord Lake, and Donner und

Blitzen portions of the subbasin analysis area are within

the Oregon Closed Basins Basin. The Thousand-Virgin

portion of the subbasin analysis area is within the Black

Rock Desert Basin and the Crooked-Rattlesnake portion

of the subbasin analysis area is within the Middle Snake

Basin. The State of Oregon is required to identify which

beneficial uses a waterbody currently supports or could

support in the future. The primary surface water

beneficial uses are domestic water supply, fisheries,

irrigation, livestock watering, wildlife, hunting, fishing,

recreation, and aesthetics. Most streams in the Andrews

MU support the state designated beneficial uses.

Elevated summer temperatures are the primary water
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-25

quality problem identified by the state for all 303(d)

listed streams in the Andrews MU. While some stream

measurements have been shown to violate the state

standard for resident fish and aquatic life water

temperature numeric criteria, it is not known if the

natural temperature potential would meet the criteria.

2.10.1.3 Ground Water

The regional ground water gradients and extensive

aquifer systems within the Andrews MU have not been

studied. Ground water data are limited and are based on

small isolated basin studies and well logs. The geology

of the area is composed primarily of volcanic rocks.

The water-bearing properties of these geologic

formations depend largely on faults, fractures, joints,

etc. The rate and quantity of ground water movement

depends on the hydraulic conductivity of the geologic

formation and the hydraulic gradient. 

Ground water occurs as both confined and unconfined

aquifer systems. Most unconfined aquifers are located

in stream valleys or are associated with Pleistocene

lakebeds that contain recent alluvial material; some may

exist as perched aquifers. Alluvial aquifers vary greatly

in size and yield from one stream/lakebed to another.

These aquifers are important as transient storage

systems to move ground water to or from streams and

the deeper confined aquifers, and they are typical of

drainages in the Planning Area. Perched aquifers occur

along ridges between stream valleys and can usually be

identified by the occurrence of springs above the valley

bottoms. They are often associated with alluvial

aquifers where streambeds intersect permeable outcrop

areas. 

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

confined bedrock aquifer systems. The ODEQ has not

identified any sole-source aquifers. Numerous volcanic

flows and faults confound the concept of a uniform

regional ground water gradient. Recharge to ground

water systems occurs mainly at higher elevations where

precipitation significantly exceeds evapotranspiration.

Precipitation is the major recharge source in areas with

an exposed permeable formation and average annual

precipitation in excess of 12 inches. 

Ground water is used for domestic and livestock

purposes and for irrigation. Ground water quality

depends on the chemical makeup of the water-bearing

formation. Most of the region contains good quality

water, but the water is usually hard and contains

moderate amounts of dissolved minerals. Minor

exceptions are geothermal and hydrothermal waters that

have concentrated elements such as arsenic, mercury,

molybdenum, uranium, and selenium (Ferns et al.

1993). There are no potable water wells on public land

in the Andrews MU. Springs and seeps occur in areas

where water from aquifers reaches the surface. Many

springs begin in stream channels; others flow into small

ponds or marshy areas that drain into channels. Some

springs and seep areas form their own channels that

reach flowing streams, but other springs lose their

surface expression and recharge alluvial fill material or

permeable stratum. Inflow from riparian/hyporheic

zones impacts baseflows and associated water

temperature buffering and moderation.

Water from springs differs from that of overland runoff

in that it is generally more constant in temperature and

lower in dissolved oxygen, especially close to the

source. Mineral content in water varies from spring to

spring along stream courses depending upon the

geochemistry of the substrata through which it flows. 

2.10.1.4 Wetlands

Wetlands are lakes, reservoirs, playas, sloughs,

meadows, springs, and seeps that are permanently or

seasonally covered with water. They are found

throughout various elevations and landscape settings.

This is particularly true for meadows, springs, and

seeps that may be present within very high areas and at

lower elevations. Common plant species in wetland,

seep, and spring areas include salt grass, Baltic rush,

spikerush, and cattail. The intensity of wildlife use of

these areas is seasonally variable. Many waterfowl and

shorebird species use these areas during spring and fall

migrations, but resident species predominate in

summer. Seasonal playas may contain aquatic

invertebrates that are able to survive periods of

desiccation.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),

EPA, USFWS, and Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) worked together to develop common

language and criteria for the identification and

delineation of wetlands in the United States. These

agencies defined wetlands as possessing three critical

components: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils,

and 3) wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is

defined as plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate

that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a

result of excess water content. Hydric soils are those

that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough

during the growing season to develop anaerobic

(without oxygen) conditions in the upper part of the soil

profile. Generally, hydric soil is subject to water

saturation at temperatures above freezing for at least a

week during the growing season. Wetland hydrology is
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-26

defined as permanent or periodic inundation of water,

or soil saturation to the surface. 

Alvord Playa and Alvord Lake are large playas that

frequently dry out. They are examples of seasonal

wetlands that are dependent on precipitation and

climatic conditions. Water levels have a strong

influence on shoreline vegetation; however, the

irrigation drawdown of some reservoirs is controlled by

private water right users and is therefore not subject to

BLM management.

Some of the most important meadow habitats are

located at mid and upper elevations of complex

mountainous terrain. Examples can be found in the

Trout Creek and Pueblo Mountains in the Andrews

MU. Gullies are present in some meadow areas,

lowering the water table and thus reducing productivity

and creating a situation favorable to invading plant

species. A partial inventory of meadows on public land

in the Pueblo Mountains conducted in 1984 (Burns

District files, Pueblo-Lone Mountain Allotment

[1984a]) found meadows mostly in poor to fair

condition, with gullies up to four feet deep in four out

of 15 meadows sampled. Big sagebrush has encroached

on some meadows, reducing their extent and

productivity. Protection and restoration of meadows

requires management of the activities that could affect

the vegetation and the soils, which in turn affect the

overland and subsurface flow and storage of water. In

most settings, meadow habitats are vulnerable to

grazing and other types of surface disturbance such as

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and mining operations.

These impacts can affect soil stability, water-holding

capacity, and plant composition. In areas where

management has been altered, proactive stabilization of

gullies may be required to slow or reverse the causes of

the degradation until the system can begin to recover on

its own.

2.10.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Four subbasins (Table 2.11) comprise the subbasin

review area in the Steens Mountain CMPA. These are

Guano, Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord Lake, and

Donner und Blitzen. The entire Steens Mountain

CMPA is within these four subbasins and is within an

internally draining watershed. The topography of these

large areas directs surface and some shallow subsurface

water to streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs or playas. The

subbasins are displayed on Figure 2.9. These subbasins

are part of the larger Oregon Closed Basins Subregion

and the Pacific Northwest Region.

The Guano Subbasin does not contain any reservoirs or

lakes that are within the Steens Mountain CMPA. The

Alvord Lake subbasin contains several lakes that are

within the Steens Mountain CMPA. These lakes include

Wildhorse, Little Wildhorse, Mann, Fifteen Cent, Ten

Cent, Five Cent, Marys, and Comegys. There are no

reservoirs in the Alvord Lake Subbasin that are within

the Steens Mountain CMPA. The Donner und Blitzen

subbasin is just under 500,000 acres in size. It includes

several reservoirs, lakes and most of the Donner und

Blitzen River system which are within the Andrews MU

or the Three Rivers portion of the Steens Mountain

CMPA. The reservoirs include Krumbo, Kern,

Larkspur, and Grandad. The lakes include Baca, Five

Mile, Marshall, Ham Brown, Lily, Pate, Fish, Lost, and

Honeymoon. The Donner und Blitzen River system

flows north in this subbasin into the Andrews MU and

then into the Harney/Malheur Lake Subbasin north of

the Andrews MU. The Harney/Malheur Lake Subbasin

is approximately 908,000 acres and does not include

any reservoirs or lakes within the Steens Mountain

CMPA.

2.10.2.1 Streams

The streams in the subbasin review area originate in the

higher elevation hills and mountains. They flow to the

lower elevation valleys, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and

playas. The discussion of the streams and surface water

use for the Steens Mountain CMPA is identical to the

discussion under the Andrews MU (Section 2.10.1).

2.10.2.2 Surface Water Quality

To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the

State of Oregon produced the 1988 Oregon Statewide

Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution

Report. The report identified waters affected by

nonpoint source pollution, categories of nonpoint

source pollution, the process for identifying BMPs, and

state and local nonpoint source programs. The report

also listed stream segments with moderate to severe

water quality impacts affecting desired beneficial uses.

Approximately 45 percent of the stream miles examined

were identified as either having no nonpoint

source-related water quality problems, or inadequate

data to make a determination. Many reaches exhibited

nonpoint source pollution problems that affect

beneficial uses including fisheries, aquatic habitat,

wildlife habitat, and water contact recreation. 

Major causes of degradation cited in the report were the

presence of animal waste , surface erosion,

sedimentation, and the removal of riparian vegetation

and stream channel thermal cover. Land uses which 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-27

Table 2.11: Major Subbasins of the Steens Mountain CMPA

Table 2.12: Water Quality Limited Streams within the Steens Mountain CMPA

Subbasin HUC Total

Acres1

State

Acres

Private

Acres

CMPA

BLM Acres

CMPA

Stream

Miles2

Guano 17120008 73,679 0 2,839 70,840 189

Harney/Malheur Lakes 17120001 22,910 0 4,725 18,185 59

Alvord Lake 17120009 125,901 433 5,792 119,675 382

Donner und Blitzen 17120003 270,694 637 53,231 216,825 707

Total 493,184 1,070 66,587 425,525 1,337

1 The total acres value covers the subbasin area within the Steens Mountain CMPA boundary.

2 The stream miles include all perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams within the Steens Mountain CMPA boundary. There 

 are approximately 371 miles of perennial streams in the Steens Mountain CMPA.

Stream Name Parameter Segment Sources

Harney/Malheur Lake Subbasin

Riddle Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1993)

Donner und Blitzen River Subbasin

Little Blitzen River TemperatureSummerMouth to Canyon

Mouth

BLM Data (1995)

South Fork Donner und Blitzen TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1995)

Ankle Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM (1997)

Big Indian Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM (1997)

Deep Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM (1996-1997)

Donner und Blitzen River TemperatureSummerPage Dam to S.

Fork/Little Blitzen

Confluence

BLM (1996-1997)

Fish Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to above

Swamp

BLM (1995-1997)

Indian Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM (1996)

Mud Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM (1997)

Guano Subbasin

Home Creek TemperatureSummerMouth to Headwaters BLM Data (1995-1997)
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Stream Name Parameter Segment Sources

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-28

Alvord Lake Subbasin

Willow Creek (Steens Mountain) TemperatureSummerMouth to Canyon BLM (1996)

correlated with these problems were grazing, mining,

and road construction. Additional land use problems

identified were human and animal traffic (roads and

trails), water withdrawal, reservoir storage and release,

altered physical characteristics of the stream, and

channelization or drainage of wetlands. The report

identified many reaches with elevated stream

temperatures, turbidity, nutrient loading, sediment, and

low dissolved oxygen levels and flow volumes. 

To fulfil some of the EPA Section 303(d) requirements,

the State of Oregon updated its list of "water quality

limited" waters in 1998 with additional updates

expected in 2002. Table 2.12 lists the streams in the

Steens Mountain CMPA which are 303(d) water quality

limited streams.

There are no 303(d) listed streams within the Guano

subbasin that are within the Steens Mountain CMPA.

The State of Oregon has established beneficial uses for

the surface and ground water within the analysis area

and water quality standards which protect these uses.

The state designates beneficial uses at the basin level

rather than the subbasin level. The Guano,

Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord Lake, and Donner und

Blitzen portions of the subbasin analysis area are within

the Malheur Lake Basin. The State of Oregon is

required to identify which beneficial uses a waterbody

currently supports or could support in the future. The

primary surface water beneficial uses are domestic

water supply, fisheries, irrigation, livestock watering,

wildlife, hunting, fishing, recreation, and aesthetics.

Most streams in the Steens Mountain CMPA support

the state designated beneficial uses. Elevated summer

temperatures are the primary water quality problem

identified by the state for all 303(d) listed streams in the

Andrews MU and the Three Rivers RA portion of the

Steens Mountain CMPA. While some stream

measurements have been shown to violate the state

standard for resident fish and aquatic life water

temperature numeric criteria, it is not known if the

natural temperature potential would meet the criteria.

2.10.2.3 Ground W ater Quality

Refer to the ground water discussion under the Andrews

MU for further information (Section 2.10.1.2).

2.10.2.4 Wetlands

Refer to the wetlands discussion under the Andrews

MU for further information (Section 2.10.1.3).

2.11 Fisheries

2.11.1 Andrews Management Unit

Fish inhabit perennial and intermittent streams, springs,

ponds, lakes and reservoirs throughout the Andrews

MU. There are 4,430 miles of stream (also called lotic

habitats) of which 429 miles are perennial stream, and

58,601 surface acres of ponds, reservoirs and lakes

(lentic habitat) in the Andrews MU.

Public land in the Andrews MU provides habitat for

twelve native fish species, distinct sub-species or

distinct populations, and several introduced fishes

(Table 2.13). A high proportion of the native fish fauna

is endemic to relatively localized regions, primarily due

to the unique post-Pleistocene climatic and geologic

history of the Great Basin. Of the twelve native fish

populations, six have distributions that are restricted to

the Andrews MU for a major portion of their range

(Catlow Valley redband trout, Great Basin redband

trout, Malheur mottled sculpin, Borax Lake chub,

Catlow Valley tui chub, Alvord chub).

Nonnative trout and sunfish have been introduced to the

Andrews MU. The Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW) periodically stocks a coastal strain of

hatchery rainbow trout in three reservoirs in the

Andrews MU. State-stocked rainbow trout enter

Krumbo Creek from Krumbo Reservoir, downstream on

the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The Kings River

has a self-sustaining population of rainbow trout

established from previous stockings. Rainbow trout

stocking of the Trout Creek system has resulted in a

self-sustaining population of rainbow-cutthroat hybrids.

The Lahontan cutthroat trout, historically native to the

nearby Lahontan basin, was introduced to several

streams in the Alvord Basin in the 1970s. Several

populations are now self-sustaining. 

Other fish introduced to the Andrews MU include

crappie, which have become established in Rock Creek
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-29

Table 2.13: Fish Species, Subspecies, or Distinct Fish Populations within the Andrews Management

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Native

BLM State1 Federal2

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynclus clarki henshawi T T

Great Basin Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss spp. Tracking X

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Rainbow Trout, generic Oncorhynchus mykiss

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni X

Malheur Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi ssp. Sensitive X

Borax Lake Chub Gila boraxobius E E X

Catlow Valley Tui Chub Gila bicolor spp. Tracking S X

Alvord Chub Gila alvordensis Assessment X

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X

Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus X

Redside Shiner Richardsonium balteatus X

Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus X

Bridgelip Sucker Catostomus columbianus X

1

State Status (ODFW): E-endangered; T-threatened

2

Federal Status (USFWS): T-threatened; S-Species of special concern with conservation agreements.

Reservoir. Brook trout, commonly introduced for a

sport fishery, are probably also present. Several other

transplants (guppies and other aquarium fish, several

types of sunfish) are commonly found in Great Basin

aquatic systems, the result of unauthorized

introductions by private individuals (Sigler and Sigler

1987). These species may be present in the Andrews

MU.

Two fish found on the Andrews MU are listed as

threatened or endangered by both the State of Oregon

and the federal government (Lahontan cutthroat and

Borax chub). Five species or populations are considered

assessment, tracking, or sensitive by the BLM. (One

amphibian, the Columbia Spotted Frog, is a candidate

for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is

discussed in the Wildlife Section of this document.)

The condition of fish populations is highly dependent

on the quantity and quality of available habitat. The

condition of aquatic habitat, in turn, is a reflection of

physical and biological processes operating throughout

the watershed. Streams, for example, transport water

and sediment through a watershed. Changes in rates of

erosion in upland areas can therefore affect stream

ecosystems (e.g., increases in fine sediment supply to

the stream negatively affect salmonid spawning and the

production of aquatic macroinvertebrates, an important

food source for all fish). The integrity of uplands in the

watershed therefore has significant consequences for

the health of aquatic ecosystems.

Fish habitat is also dependent on the integrity of the

stream channel, floodplain, and adjacent riparian

vegetation. Riparian vegetation moderates water

temperature, adds structure to the banks to reduce

erosion, and provides overhead cover for fish. Intact

vegetated floodplains dissipate stream energy, store

water for later release, and provide rearing areas for

juvenile fish. Well-established riparian woodlands also

supply woody debris to the stream channel, an

important component in developing habitat complexity

in stream channels. 

Since riparian vegetation and fish habitat are

ecologically interconnected, the condition of riparian
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-30

habitat is an indicator of the condition of fish habitat. In

1998, the 312.1 miles of riparian habitat on public land

in the Andrews MU were in a variety of habitat

conditions (Draft SEORM P/Final Environmental

Impact Statement [FEIS] 1998). There were 55.1 miles

(17.7 percent) in poor condition, 115.4 miles (37.0

percent) in fair condition, 65.6 miles (21.0 percent) in

good condition, and 40.8 miles (13.1 percent) in

excellent condition. The condition on 35.2 miles (11.3

percent) of riparian areas had not been evaluated. Of

the 205 miles of streamside riparian areas that were in

fair, poor, or unknown condition, 4.5 miles (2.2

percent) were in a downward trend, 51 miles (24.8

percent) were static, and 94.5 miles (45.9 percent) were

in an upward trend, with the trend on the remaining 55

miles (27.1 percent) being unknown. Of the 106.4 miles

in excellent or good condition, 37.7 miles (35.4

percent) were in an upward trend, 58.4 miles (54.9

percent) were static, no miles were in a downward

trend, and 10.3 miles (9.7 percent) had an unknown

trend.

Water quality is another indicator of the condition of

fish habitat. Several streams in the Andrews MU in the

Donner und Blitzen, Guano and Alvord Lake drainages

have been listed as water-quality limited (Draft

SEORMP/FEIS 1998). All of these streams are listed

for high summer water temperature, and most contain

fish of special management status.

The following section is a description of sensitive fish

species found in the Andrews MU. It includes a

discussion of distribution and current status, important

habitat relationships, and key factors influencing status.

Much of the following discussion is excerpted from the

Draft SEORMP/FEIS and the ICBEMP scientific

assessment (see these documents for references).

2.11.1.1 Redband Trout

Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.) are a

subspecies of rainbow trout. The rainbow trout is a

widely distributed western North America native

salmonid. Rainbow trout have been segregated into

three forms (Behnke 1992): 1) Coastal rainbow trout

west of the Cascade/Sierra mountain divide; 2) Interior

Columbia River redband trout upstream of Celilo Falls,

including the Fraser and Athabasca rivers in Canada,

the upper Klamath River Basin, and the isolated interior

basins of Oregon; and 3) the Sacramento-San Joaquin

redband trout (Behnke 1992). Although the systematics

are incomplete, physical characteristics and genetic

studies support the view that these three rainbow trout

forms warrantsubspecific recognition (Allendorf 1975);

Allison and Bond 1983; Berg 1987; Stearley and Smith

1993; Utter and Allendorf 1977). Based on available

information, the two populations of redband trout found

on the Andrews MU, present in the Catlow Valley and

Harney-Malheur Lake watersheds, are therefore likely

to be members of the same subspecies.

Distribution and Status

The redband trout is widely distributed throughout the

Interior Columbia Basin, including southern Oregon

closed desert basins. On the Andrews MU, it is found in

the Donner und Blitzen River and Kiger Creek, both in

the Harney-Malheur Lakes watershed, and in the

Catlow Valley. The Catlow Valley population

historically occurred in Home, Threemile, Skull, and

Rock Creeks. Based on an ODFW survey in 1995, the

persistence of the population in Skull Creek is

questionable. 

The redband trout is considered a species of special

concern by the American Fisheries Society and all

states in the historical range, and is classified as a

tracking species by the BLM (Williams et al. 1989). Six

Great Basin populations (including Catlow and Harney

populations) were petitioned for listing as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1997.

In March of 2000, the USFWS published a finding that

listing for these populations is not currently warranted

(FR Vol. 65, No. 54, pp. 14932-14936). In their

determination, the USFWS found that the most

appropriate grouping of the six populations under

consideration was as a single Distinct Population

Segment (DPS), the biological unit managed for

protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(ESA) based on available evidence. Additional

evidence could possibly qualify individual populations

as a DPS for ESA consideration in the future.

The population in Threemile Creek still exists, but its

small size and limited distribution resulted in an ODFW

emergency angling closure in 1995-1996. The limited

distribution and small population sizes of Catlow

redband trout, as well as the Catlow tui chub (discussed

below), prompted the August 1997 completion of the

"Catlow Redband Trout and Catlow Tui Chub

Conservation Agreement and Strategy." This

Conservation Agreement was entered into by the BLM,

the USFWS, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the

ODFW, and a private landowner in order to expedite

conservation measures needed for the recovery of the

species. The agreement, which focuses on the fishes'

habitat outside the Rock Creek drainage, has two

objectives: 1) to reduce and eliminate significant

threats; and 2) to enhance and/or stabilize specific

stream reaches of occupied and unoccupied historic

habitat. A large portion of Threemile Creek and part of
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-31

Home Creek are within the Steens Mountain CMPA

and are therefore included the Conservation Agreement.

Habitat Relationships

Redband trout occupy a wide array of habitats (Scott

and Crossman 1973). Research suggests that redband

trout are found in a wide range of conditions, often

more extreme than those associated with other species.

Populations found in the southern Oregon deserts

inhabit turbid and alkaline waters that range from near

freezing to over 25o C (Johnson and others 1985;

Kunkel 1976; Zoellick 1995). Redband trout are often

found in warmer waters than other salmonids; however,

in warmer and drier environments the loss of riparian

cover has been associated with reduced numbers and

production of fish (Li et al. 1994; Tait et al. 1994).

Relatively little work has been done to define habitat

use for this fish, but patterns are generally similar to

other salmonids. Thurow (1988) found redband trout

most abundant in pool habitats and in association with

cover components including undercut banks, large

woody debris, and over-hanging vegetation. Some have

suggested that redband trout, like steelhead, may be

associated with higher gradient channels, often in riffles

or with substrates dominated by boulders, cobbles and

pocket water (Kunkel 1976).

Key Factors Influencing Status

Hybridization and competition are biotic factors

influencing redband trout status. Introduced fishes

create risks of genetic introgression, competition for

food and space, predation, and increased exposure to

disease (Fausch 1988; Reisenbichler 1977). Introduced

rainbow trout are now the most widely distributed fish

in the Inter-Columbia Basin and have contributed to

losses of the native redband trout genotype through

introgression (Behnke 1992; Campton and Johnston

1985). The introduction of hatchery-raised rainbow

trout as early as 1925 has potentially altered many of

the unique characteristics of the native redband on the

Andrews MU. Brown trout are widely introduced and

represent a potentially important predator and

competitor, particularly in the southern range where

redband trout are associated with warmer water

temperatures. Brook trout (Salvelinus confluentus) have

also competed with the redband for resources and

habitat. In attempts to sustain remaining native redband

trout, several state agencies have suspended all stocking

of nonnative species in isolated watersheds.

Fragmentation and isolation of habitats influence

redband trout status. If watershed disturbances result in

loss of corridors or connecting habitats, remaining

redband trout populations can be progressively isolated

into smaller and smaller patches of productive habitats.

Corridors that provide habitat for migration, rearing,

and over-wintering may be critical to the conservation

of species where connections among population are

important (Hanski and Gilpin 1991; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). Such effects can be exaggerated by

climate change. The loss of genetic variability through

genetic drift may be a particularly important problem in

the more isolated watersheds on the southern portion of

the range of redband trout (Berg 1987; Wallace 1981).

Habitat degradation is a third factor influencing

redband trout status. Great Basin redband trout habitats

have been altered by a host of land use practices

(Anonymous 1995; Moskowitz and Rahr 1994;

Perkinson 1995; Williams and others 1989). Diverting

water for irrigation threatens many populations in the

southern portion of the range. Thurow (1988) reported

four principle effects from water diversions: dewatering

of stream reaches, loss of fish in unscreened diversions,

blockage of migration corridors, and alteration of

stream channels by earthmoving equipment. The loss or

conversion of riparian cover has been caused by

grazing, mining, urbanization, and agriculture (Meehan

1991). In desert climates, the loss of riparian canopy

has been associated with excessive temperature and

reduced redband trout abundance (Li and others 1994;

Tait and others 1994). Channel alterations associated

with attempts to control flooding, develop floodplains,

and construct roads have been extensive. Channel

alterations adversely affect stream hydraulics (Bottom

et al. 1985), nutrient pathways (Schlosser 1982),

invertebrate production (Benke et al. 1985), and fish

production.

2.11.1.2 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

The Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki

henshawi) is native to the Pleistocene Lake Lahontan

Basin of northwestern Nevada, northeastern California,

and a small adjacent portion of southeastern Oregon. It

has been introduced elsewhere in southeastern Oregon

and eastern Washington.

Distribution and Status

Lahontan cutthroat trout are native to the McDermitt

Creek drainage, a Quinn River tributary of the larger

Lahontan Basin, in southeastern Oregon. In 1991,

genetic analyses of cutthroat trout in Willow and

Whitehorse creeks, also in southeastern Oregon, found

the inhabitants to be genetically indistinguishable from

O. c. henshawi (Williams 1991). During the 1970s,

trout from Willow and Whitehorse creeks were

introduced into Denio, Van Horn, Pike, Mosquito,

Little McCoy, Big Alvord, Little Alvord, Cottonwood,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-32

and Willow creeks in the adjacent Alvord Basin.

Surveys conducted in 1991 confirmed that Lahontan

cutthroat trout still persist in many Alvord Basin

streams. Trout from Willow and Whitehorse creeks

were also introduced into Guano Creek in 1957

(Hanson et al. 1993), but subsequent introduction of

other strains has affected the genetics of the original

Lahontan stock. A population of Lahontan cutthroat

trout also inhabits Mann Lake and possibly connecting

tributaries. Since these fish originated from hatchery

stock, they are not considered pure-strain Lahontan

cutthroat trout, but are used by the state as a source of

eggs for its hatchery program.

Pursuant to the ESA, this subspecies is federally listed

as threatened throughout its native range. The BLM

annually initiates formal Section 7 consultation with the

USFWS regarding authorization for grazing allotments

in the Alvord Basin where Lahontan cutthroat trout are

present. These consultations have concluded that

current grazing practices are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the trout. In 1995, the USFWS

office in Reno formalized a cooperative management

agreement among the ODFW, Nevada Division of

Wildlife, USFS, and the BLM for the coordination and

performance of activities identified in the Lahontan

Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The primary purpose of

the agreement was to provide specific direction to

conserve the trout and reduce or remove threats that

could prevent its recovery. The Burns District is in

compliance with recovery plan recommendations.

Habitat Relationships

Although somewhat hardier than other cutthroats, the

Lahontan subspecies requires cool water temperatures,

deep-water refuges, and silt-free gravels for spawning.

Optimal riverine habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout is

characterized as clear, cold water with an average

maximum summer temperature of less than 22o C; an

approximate 1-to-1 pool-to-riffle ratio; well-vegetated,

stable stream banks; at least 25 percent of the stream

area providing cover; a relatively stable water flow

regime; and a relatively silt-free rocky substrate in

riffle-run areas (USFW S 1993).

Key Factors Influencing Status

Habitat degradation, especially loss of riparian

vegetation, is identified as a key factor in declining

Oregon stream populations. Loss of vegetation has

resulted in stream temperatures that have far exceeded

those considered optimal for the sub-species. Dissolved

oxygen levels in such reaches are too low. Drought

conditions coupled with extremely low temperatures

during winter have caused stream segments to freeze

completely. Loss of vegetation has resulted in the loss

of forage organisms and cover (Hanson et al. 1993).

Excessive turbidity and sedimentation also contribute to

habitat degradation problems because of their effects on

food production, spawning areas, and feeding ability

(Hanson et al. 1993). Water diversions and the

introduction of nonnative salmonids are also key

factors. Since native populations of Lahontan cutthroat

trout in southeastern Oregon are naturally small and

isolated, they are at risk. Many introduced populations

are especially vulnerable because the number of

founding fish was less than 30. 

2.11.1.3 Borax Lake Chub

The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) is a small

cyprinid fish restricted to the Borax Lake ecosystem of

south-eastern Oregon. Due to its restricted distribution

and threats to its remaining habitat, it is listed as an

endangered species by the USFWS and the State of

Oregon. The BLM has consulted and will continue to

consult with the USFWS on any of its activities that

may affect the Borax Lake chub or its habitat.

Distribution and Status

This species is known only from Borax Lake and

associated waters in Harney County, Oregon. The

Borax Lake chub is a sister taxon of the Alvord chub

(Gila alvordensis) from which it became isolated as the

waters of pluvial Lake Alvord receded (Williams and

Bond 1980). The Borax Lake chub occurs in Borax

Lake, which covers ten acres and is located within 60

acres of private land, its associated outflows including

Lower Borax Lake (public land), and surrounding

marsh and pools (mixed public and private).

From 1986 to 1988, population estimates for the Borax

Lake chub ranged from 3,934 to 13,319 depending on

the year and season (Williams 1995). Based on water

conditions, hundreds of chubs also may occur in

outflow creeks, and during wet years, up to a few

thousand also may occur in Lower Borax Lake.

Habitat Relationships

The Borax Lake chub is restricted to the thermal waters

of Borax Lake and its outflows. Waters flow out from

the elevated rim of Borax Lake in many directions, but

more typically to the southwest, where they enter a

marsh and then flow into Lower Borax Lake (a

reservoir). Reproduction is limited to Borax Lake;

Borax Lake chubs in other habitats gain access through

interconnected out-flows and marshes. In Borax Lake,

the species occurs throughout the lake except in hot

spring inflows, where temperatures exceed

approximately 34o C.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-33

Key Factors Influencing Status

Threats of geothermal energy exploration and

manipulation of surface flows from Borax Lake were

the primary factors that resulted in the 1980 listing of

the species by emergency provision under the ESA.

Changes in thermal flows that enter the lake could cause

slight temperature increases or decreases that would be

detrimental to the species. Alterations in surface flows

from Borax Lake could isolate subpopulations adjacent

to the lake causing their desiccation. Due to the

restricted size of the lake, threats also exist from

introductions of chemicals or nonnative species.

Protection of the fragile salt crusts that maintain water

level at Borax Lake is also critical (USFWS 1987).

Livestock grazing and physical damage from off road

vehicles and humans are the primary risks to shoreline

salt crusts. The species is also at risk because of its

highly restricted range and specialized habitats.

2.11.1.4 Alvord Chub

Alvord chub (Gila alvordensis) are endemic to the

Alvord Basin of southeastern Oregon and northwestern

Nevada. It is a moderately sized minnow that inhabits

marshes, creeks, and springs with little or no current.

The American Fisheries Society considers the Alvord

chub to be a species of special concern (Williams et al.

1989), and it is a BLM assessment species.

Distribution and Status

The Alvord chub is widely distributed within springs,

creeks, and lakes in the Alvord basin. Williams and

Bond (1983) reported Alvord chubs from 16 localities

within the basin, including Serrano Pond, Trout Creek,

Alvord Lake, and Pueblo Slough (on the Andrews MU)

in Oregon, as well as Bog Hot Creek, Bog Hot

Reservoir, Thousand Creek Spring, Thousand Creek,

Continental Lake, Warm Spring, Dufurrena Ponds,

Gridley Springs, and West Spring in Nevada. The

current distribution of this species has apparently

changed little during the past 100 years except for 1) a

recent report of Alvord chubs in Juniper Lake, Oregon

(Bond 1974), where they were introduced and

subsequently disappeared; and 2) the elimination of the

Alvord chub population from Thousand Creek Spring.

Habitat Relationships

The Alvord chub occurs in a wide variety of available

habitats such as isolated springs, cool- and warm-water

creeks, reservoirs, and lakes. Within the principal creek

systems in the Alvord Basin, Trout Creek in Oregon

and the Thousand-Virgin Creek system in Nevada,

chubs occur commonly in the mid and lower elevation

sections, but are rare or absent entirely from high

elevations. Within spring systems, the Alvord chub

occupies a variety of spring habitats except springs with

water temperatures above 31o C. Alvord chubs are

absent from Bog Hot Springs, which is fishless, and

from Borax Lake, which is occupied by the Borax Lake

chub (G. boraxobius).

Key Factors Influencing Status

Alvord chubs appear capable of occupying a wide range

of habitat conditions as long as relatively clean water

persists that is free of introduced species. The Alvord

chub has been eliminated from Thousand Creek Spring

because of the presence of introduced guppies (Poecilia

reticulata). Alvord chubs are absent from some ponds

at Dufurrena, which are dominated by introduced

centrarchids (Williams and Bond 1983). Introductions

of nonnative fish and diversion of stream flows pose the

greatest immediate risk to populations. Maintenance of

the integrity of aquifers that feed surface waters in the

Alvord Basin is critical to the long-term persistence of

this species.

2.11.1.5 Catlow Tui Chub

The Catlow tui chub (Gila bicolor ssp.), a small to

medium-sized minnow, is a recognized though

undescribed subspecies of the more widespread tui

chub. Genetic analysis of the Catlow tui chub is

underway at Oregon State University. Due to their

restricted distributions and threats to remaining habitat,

the subspecies is considered of special concern by the

American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1989), and

it is a BLM tracking species.

Distribution and Status

Historically, Catlow tui chubs occurred in three streams

(Threemile, Skull, and Home creeks) that drain the west

flank of the Catlow Rim and in Rock Creek along the

western edge of Callow Valley (Bills 1977; Kunkel

1976). The Catlow tui chub has a restricted range, but

appears to be locally abundant in streams and in

Threemile Reservoir. An exception is Rock Creek,

where only a few were found in 1994.

Habitat Relationships

Little is known about the habitat relationships of the

Catlow tui chub. Their preference for low gradient

reaches of Skull, Threemile, and Home creeks suggests

an affinity for low velocity habitats, which is typical of

most tui chubs. They also appear to be well-adapted to

Threemile Reservoir, at the downstream end of

Threemile Creek. Catlow tui chubs occur in streams

occupied by redband trout (Kunkel 1976).
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-34

Key Factors Influencing Status

Diversions of creek flows for irrigation reduce Catlow

tui chub habitat. The low gradient reaches that it prefers

are also subject to degradation from livestock

overgrazing. Due to the Catlow tui chub’s restricted

distribution, disturbances such as drought, fire, and

human land use practices place populations at risk.

2.11.1.6 Malheur Mottled Sculpin

Malheur mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi spp.) is a

recognized, though undescribed, subspecies of the more

widespread mottled sculpin. The Malheur mottled

sculpin is endemic to the Harney Basin of southeastern

Oregon, including the Silvies and Blitzen river systems.

It is listed as a sensitive species by the State of Oregon

and the BLM.

Distribution and Status

Historic distribution includes the Blitzen River and

tributary streams on Steens Mountain, the Silver Creek

drainage, the Silvies River and tributary streams, and

the isolated drainages of Poison and Rattlesnake creeks.

The sculpin in the Harney Basin is considered by Bailey

and Bond (1963) and Bond (1974) to represent an

undescribed relative of the mottled sculpin in the Snake

River drainage. Malheur mottled sculpin historically

inhabited Harney Basin (Malheur Lake Basin) when it

was connected to the upper Snake River, and became

isolated in small creeks when the basin dried up perhaps

as recently as 8,000 years ago. Through more recent

geologic events, mottled sculpin from the lower

Columbia River drainage have entered the basin. This

recent form of mottled sculpin has been hybridizing

with the older, previously isolated form. 

Habitat Relationships

Very little is known about the life history of the

Malheur mottled sculpin, but it is assumed to be

comparable to that of other mottled sculpins, Cottus

bairdi. According to Bond (1974), the Malheur mottled

sculpin requires cool-water streams with large gravel or

rubble substrates for cover and spawning. It requires

water temperatures below 26o C, with high dissolved

oxygen and very low turbidity. Given these

characteristics, the Malheur sculpin can occupy small

headwater streams and larger rivers such as the lower

Blitzen River.

Key Factors Influencing Status

Malheur mottled sculpin appear to be very sensitive to

changes in water quality, including increases in

temperature, sediments, and turbidity. Biotic

interactions are not specifically known, but the

occurrence of the Malheur sculpin would appear to be

negatively correlated with the presence of introduced

warm-water fishes such as catfish and centrarchids,

which are more tolerant of turbid water conditions.

Elevated water temperature, increased turbidity, and

sediment transport caused by activities such as livestock

grazing, road construction, and timber harvest activities

are detrimental to the sculpin and have been cited by

the BLM as causes for the decline of Malheur mottled

sculpin populations in Silvies, Hay, Yellowjacket, and

Emigrant Creeks within the Silvies Basin.

2.11.1.7 Management Activities

Many activities affect the habitat conditions for fish in

the area. Road construction has altered the ability of

many streams to access their flood plains and has

straightened many channels, resulting in channel

incision. Though the influence of logging has probably

been limited in the area, logging and associated road

construction can increase the amount of sediment and

water supplied to stream channels. Grazing has

removed bank stabilizing vegetation and has directly

impacted banks. Water diversions impact fish habitat

directly; irrigation water withdrawn from the major

streams in the area reduces summer flows and raises

water temperature. Channeling streams to better control

the spread of water and removal of willows to create

irrigated pasture and hay fields has resulted in channel

incision and loss of habitat. Diversions often block

upstream movement of trout from the lower reaches of

streams and lakes to upper spawning areas. 

Fisheries management in the Andrews MU is ongoing

to restore, maintain, or improve habitat to provide for

diverse and self-sustaining communities of fishes and

other aquatic organisms. In keeping with these

management objectives, the Act designated a Redband

Trout Reserve and expanded the WSRs corridor within

the Steens Mountain CMPA. These areas are discussed

in the following sub-section and in the section on

Special Management Areas.

2.11.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The Steens Mountain CMPA provides habitat for a

diverse mix of native fish species, including several

special status species, as well as nonnative fish species

of recreational importance. The BLM manages 371

miles of streams and 1,597 surface acres of lakes in the

area that support fish. The majority of the Steens

Mountain CMPA is within the Donner und Blitzen

subbasin with smaller sections in Guano and Alvord

subbasins.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-35

The east side of the Steens Mountain CMPA provides

habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout that were

transplanted from the Willow-Whitehorse drainage of

the Trout Creek Mountains. These fish are federally

listed as threatened. The remaining area, which drains

to Malheur Lake and features the Donner und Blitzen

WSR system, provides habitat for the Great Basin

redband trout (a BLM sensitive species) as well as the

Malheur mottled sculpin. The Malheur mottled sculpin

is a BLM Sensitive Species and a USFWS Species of

Concern.

The Steens Mountain CMPA contains other native

nongame species such as mountain whitefish and

speckled dace, with a full complement of Malheur Lake

fish species occurring in the Donner und Blitzen WSR

and McCoy Creek. Nonnative game fish also occur,

including brook trout, hatchery rainbow trout, and

mixed-strain Lahontan cutthrout trout. These nonnative

species, established for recreational fishing purposes,

are in waterbodies that are completely or otherwise

isolated from the systems with special status or

federally listed fish species.

The area provides habitat for the Columbia spotted

frog, a BLM Sensitive species and Federal Candidate

species, and the Pacific chorus frog. Also present are

numerous invertebrates, including typical stream

species such as stoneflies, caddisflies and mayflies, and

specialized intermittent lake species, such as fairy

shrimp.

2.11.2.1 Redband Trout Reserve and Wild and Scenic

Rivers

The RTR was mandated by the Act to conserve, protect,

and enhance Redband trout and the unique ecosystem

and to provide opportunities for research, education,

and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. The reserve

consists of the Donner und Blitzen WSR above its

confluence with Fish Creek and the adjacent riparian

areas on public land within the Steens Mountain

Wilderness.

The Act also designated Kiger Creek (4.25 miles),

Wildhorse Creek (7.36 miles), and Little Wildhorse

Creek (2.60 miles) as new WSRs. New segments of the

Donner und Blitzen WSR including Ankle Creek (8.10

miles), South Fork of Ankle Creek (1.60 miles), and

Mud Creek (5.10 miles) were also designated. These

additions provide a total of 101.7 miles of WSR within

the Steens Mountain CMPA.

The RTR and WSR areas are classified as Special

Management Areas (SMAs) and are therefore discussed

in detail in the SMA section of this document.

2.12 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

As a public land administrator in Oregon, the BLM is

responsible for managing a wide array of habitats used

by native and introduced wildlife species. The ODFW

is responsible for managing animal populations.

Management programs designed to benefit wildlife

consider both population and habitat. 

The BLM manages wildlife and its habitat in

cooperation with the ODFW. Management is directed

toward maintenance, improvement, and expansion of

habitat quality and quantity under multiple use

considerations.

2.12.1 Andrews Management Unit

The Andrews MU provides diverse habitat including

sagebrush steppe, riparian and wetland, and juniper

woodlands. Wildlife species utilizing the habitat include

upland game bird species, Rocky Mountain elk, mule

deer, pronghorn antelope, California bighorn sheep,

cougars, raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds,

neotropical migrants, reptiles, amphibians, and

invertebrates. The following section describes the

wildlife habitat and species found in the Andrews MU.

See Figure 2.10 for a depiction of wildlife range.

2.12.1.1 Sagebrush Steppe

The sagebrush steppe includes several upland

vegetation communities with a shrubland character and

a variable understory of grasses and forbs. The presence

of a shrub overstory is associated with wildlife

community diversity. Shrubby plants are important to

most small and large wildlife because they supply food

as well as hiding cover and structure. Within the

sagebrush steppe community, grasses and forbs provide

food and cover for wildlife. Habitats that provide a mix

of grasses and forbs meet the needs of a wide range of

species.

2.12.1.2 Riparian and Wetlands

Riparian areas consist of plant communities associated

with streams and rivers. The structure, food, and water

available in these areas make them the single most

diverse and productive wildlife habitat. Well-developed

riparian areas with trees, shrubs, grasses, forbs, sedges,

and rushes provide valuable habitat for a wide array of

wildlife species. Wetlands, which are either

permanently or seasonally wet areas, are associated

with various landscape settings, including reservoirs,

sloughs, playas, meadows, springs, and seeps. Wetlands

typically provide succulent green forage, insects, and

drinking water for wildlife. Riparian and wetland areas
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-36

that do not support diverse plant communities still

provide important sources of water and food for

wildlife.

2.12.1.3 Juniper Woodlands

The juniper woodlands provide habitat for a large

number of species supported within the Andrews MU.

These woodlands vary greatly in their habitat value

depending on factors such as height, density, and age of

trees. Older trees may provide cavities for nesting birds.

Deer and elk use juniper for thermal and escape cover.

The distribution of juniper (normally between 5,700 to

6,560 feet elevation) influences the condition and

quality of neighboring wildlife habitat.

2.12.1.4 Mule Deer

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are widespread

throughout the Andrews MU. They are typically

associated with complex mid to upper elevation plant

communities supporting a wide variety of sagebrush,

mountain shrubs, aspen, juniper, and herbaceous

vegetation. Mule deer browse on shrubs and forbs,

which provide most of their annual diet.

Thermal cover is critical on winter range to provide

protection from wind and other adverse elements.

Grassy slopes, meadows, brush fields, and other early

successional stages (artificially created and otherwise)

provide the majority of deer forage. During hot summer

weather, aspen stands and juniper/big sage/antelope

bitterbrush shrublands function as thermal cover,

reducing heat stress on the animals. 

Winter range is concentrated along the east margin of

Steens Mountain adjacent to the Alvord Desert, along

the western lower elevations of Steens Mountain down

to the east margin of Catlow Valley, along Pickett Rim,

Malheur Wildlife Refuge and in the lower elevations of

the Pueblo Mountains and Trout Creek Mountains. The

winter range occurs primarily in juniper woodland and

sagebrush communities with interspersed grasses.

Shrubs are the major component of the winter diet,

primarily antelope bitterbrush, big sagebrush, curl-leaf

mountain mahogany, and western juniper. When snow

conditions make higher elevations unsuitable, deer will

move to suitable habitat in lower elevations. Deer tend

remain at the highest possible elevations until forced to

winter concentration areas by snowfall. 

Transition range can be divided into spring and fall.

The vegetation of the spring transition range is similar

to winter range and consists of sagebrush and juniper

woodland. Grasses and forbs are important components

of the spring transitional ranges. The fall transition

ranges are vegetatively similar to summer ranges and

consist primarily of aspen, shrub-steppe and juniper

woodland communities. Maintaining migratory routes

is critical to the seasonal deer movements.

2.12.1.5 Pronghorn Antelope

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) are

distributed throughout the Andrews MU. Winter range

for pronghorn antelope is concentrated in Catlow

Valley, Hawks Valley, the southeast end of the Pueblo

Mountains, the Fields area, along the eastern base of

Steens Mountain, Krumbo Reservoir, and north of

Frenchglen. During the summer, pronghorn antelope are

widely distributed throughout valley and mountain

foothill habitats having low structure and a mixture of

grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Sagebrush is used for both

cover and forage. Seedings and wildland fires have

converted some previously dense stands of sagebrush

into suitable range.

BLM livestock water developments, particularly

pipelines, have allowed pronghorn antelope to expand

into formerly unoccupied areas. Forage competition

with cattle and wild horses is slight due to forage

preferences (Vavra and Sneva 1978). Lack of water at

natural or developed sites can be a serious problem

during periods of drought. BLM fence construction

specifications allow pronghorn to move freely by

having smooth bottom wires spaced at least 16 inches

from the ground.

Coyote predation of pronghorn kids appears to be a

primary factor limiting populations at this time. Oregon

pronghorn populations have declined 20 to 30 percent

since 1991 due to disease, predation, adverse weather

conditions, poor nutrition, and habitat limitations.

2.12.1.6 Raptors

Raptors, which include predatory birds such as hawks,

eagles, and falcons, can be found throughout much of

the Planning Area. Local areas provide exceptionally

high-quality raptor habitat and support high-density

breeding populations. Common breeding species

include the red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, prairie

falcon, American kestrel, golden eagle, northern harrier,

sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and long-eared

owl. Other less common breeders that may be found

locally include the ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl,

and northern goshawk. Important nesting habitats are in

juniper and quaking aspen vegetation types. Volcanic

ledges and buttes are often excellent nesting sites for

many species. Prey species are more likely to be

available for a wide range of raptors when plant
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-37

communities are structurally diverse and support

mixtures of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Many breeding species also winter within the Planning

Area. Species that only winter in the area include the

rough-legged hawk and northern bald eagle. Rangeland

treatments and power line locations and configurations

are examples of actions that potentially threaten raptor

reproduction and survival.

2.12.1.7 Neotropical Migrant Birds

The Planning Area supports a wide variety of

neotropical migrant bird species (more than 110

species) that breed in the United States and winter in

Central or South America. Populations of some of these

species are declining as a consequence of land use

practices and other factors. Neotropical migrants

exhibit variable habitat requirements and are found in

several habitat types.

2.12.1.8 Waterfowl and Shorebirds

As many as 70 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and

wading birds may use the area due to the nearby

wetland habitat of the Malheur National Wildlife

Refuge.

2.12.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

2.12.2.1 Forested Wildlife Habitat

Forested habitat in the Steens Mountain CMPA is

limited to 90 acres of a relic grand fir grove of which 20

acres are on public land. This area contains a mature

overstory with a large number of young trees in the

understory. The commercial value is marginal.

2.12.2.2 Rocky Mountain Elk

Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis) is one of

Oregon’s primary big game species found in the Steens

Mountain CMPA. Since elk are also valued by the

public for wildlife viewing, interest is high relative to

the population levels and habitat conditions. The elk

population remains near ODFW population objectives.

Approximately 400 elk summer at mid to upper

elevations on the mountain and winter at mid to lower

elevations.

Forage areas are defined as vegetated areas with less

than 60 percent combined canopy closure of trees and

tall shrubs. This includes grass-forb, shrub, and open

sapling phases of the early seral stage stands. 

Three types of cover are important to elk: hiding cover,

thermal cover, and optimal thermal cover. Hiding cover

includes any vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of

a standing elk at 200 feet or less. Thermal cover and

optimal thermal cover exist in juniper woodlands and

juniper/big sage areas. 

Winter range is an important consideration in managing

elk populations. During winter, elk use south-facing

slopes and valley bottoms because of warmer

temperatures, reduced snow depths, and available

forage. During periods of hot summer weather,

north-facing slopes and high elevation western

juniper/shrub sites provide important thermal cover. 

2.12.2.3 Mule Deer

Mule deer are widespread in the Steens Mountain

CMPA, particularly in the upper elevations; however,

mule deer populations are approximately 70 percent of

ODFW objectives. Deer winter range in the Steens

Mountain CMPA is an important resource and occurs

on both the east and west sides of the mountain. 

2.12.2.4 Pronghorn Antelope

Pronghorn antelope are distributed throughout much of

this area. They are associated with sagebrush habitat

with low structure and a mixture of grasses, forbs, and

shrubs.

2.12.2.5 Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis ssp.) are located in the

remote and complex mountainous terrain in the Steens

Mountain CMPA. The populations on Steens Mountain

are along the Catlow Rim, the east rim, and along the

gorges of the Donner und Blitzen WSR. These

populations are healthy and regionally important. Some

animals have been captured and used for relocations

within Oregon and other western states.

2.12.2.6 Raptors

Raptors occur throughout much of the Steens Mountain

CMPA. The Catlow Rim provides high density

breeding habitat. Common breeding species include

Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk,

sharp-shinned hawk, prairie falcon, golden eagle, and

long-eared owl. Less common breeding raptors found

in the Steens Mountain CMPA include ferruginous

hawk, burrowing owl, and northern goshawk.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-38

2.12.2.7 Waterfowl and Shorebirds

As many as 70 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and

wading birds may use the area due to the nearby

wetland habitat of the Malheur National Wildlife

Refuge. These species exhibit variable habitat

requirements and are found in several habitat types. 

2.13 Special Status Animal Species

Special status animal species occur on public land

within the Planning Area. Special status designations

are assigned for many reasons including limited

distribution, habitat loss resulting from environmental

impacts, suspected or documented population declines,

or some combination of these factors. These are priority

species for various surveys to determine their

distributions, abundance, and habitat preferences. Table

2.14 contains a list of special status animal species

found in the Planning Area. 

2.13.1 Andrews Management Unit

2.13.1.1 Northern Bald Eagle

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was listed in

1978 as a federal threatened species in Oregon under

the Federal ESA of 1973. The Planning Area supports

a wintering population of northern bald eagles, but no

breeding pairs. The Planning Area supports roughly 20

to 30 wintering eagles, primarily in areas associated

with major river systems and large reservoirs.

Some systematic winter inventories have been

conducted in the Andrews MU’s one winter roost site.

Whether this site is used consistently or sporadically

due to weather conditions and available prey is

unknown. Bald eagles in the Andrews MU are primarily

associated with public land near the Malheur National

Wildlife Refuge.

2.13.1.2 American Peregrine Falcon

The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus ssp.)

was federally listed as an endangered species

throughout its range under the Federal ESA of 1973,

and as a state endangered species under the Oregon

ESA (ORS 1987). The peregrine falcon, like the bald

eagle, was de-listed in 1999 after reaching the recovery

goals set forth in the 1982 Pacific Coast Recovery Plan

for the American peregrine falcon.

The peregrine falcon is a cliff-nesting species. Nest

sites are usually associated with cliffs near water with

an abundant population of nongame birds, shorebirds,

and waterfowl, the peregrine’s primary prey.

American peregrine falcons are occasionally seen along

the Catlow Rim during fall or spring migration, but no

recent nesting activity has been documented. A USFWS

recovery plan for the peregrine falcon requires the BLM

to take action to conserve this species.

2.13.1.3 Northern Kit Fox

The northern kit fox (Vulpes velox) is a state threatened

species that is present within some of the salt desert

shrub habitat of the Andrews MU. According to ODFW

data, kit fox populations are currently low but are

higher than when the species was added to the state list

of threatened species. Oregon kit fox populations are

thought to be naturally limited by the amount of salt

desert habitat available. The kit fox is common in

Nevada and some other western states. USDA-APHIS

animal damage control actions avoid kit fox occupancy

areas.

2.13.1.4 Columbia Spotted Frog

Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) occur in

perennial warm marsh habitats with few or no cold

springs, ponds, lake edges, or slow moving streams.

Spotted frogs are often associated with non-woody

wetland plant communities and use algal mats for

resting. Egg masses are usually piled on the stream

bottom in very shallow water in late spring, sometimes

by several females in the same location in successive

years. Egg masses often rise above the surface of the

water. Froglets and adults occur in well-vegetated

ponds, marshes, and slow streams, but have been found

in disturbed habitats where vegetation may be more or

less reduced.

Spotted frogs become active as early as February.

Males are not territorial and call during the day using a

series of six to nine low clucking sounds. Egg laying

has been documented as early as March in southwestern

British Columbia and as late as June 30 in higher

elevations. In mountain and interior sites, spotted frogs

have been known to overwinter as larvae, 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-39

Table 2.14: Special Status Animal Species in Southeastern Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name Status ONHP

Amphibian

Columbia Spotted frog Rana luteiventris FC L3

Western toad Bufo boreas BT L3

Bird

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos BA L2

Bank swallow Riparia riparia BT L4

Black rosy finch Leucosticte atrata BT L4

Black tern Chlidonias niger BT L3

Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata BT L3

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus BT L4

Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus BT L4

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BS L3

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus BS L4

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri BT L3

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan BA L2

Great egret Casmerodius albus BT L3

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus BS L2

Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis ssp. BT L4

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus BT L4

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis BA L2

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BT L4

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus BT L4

Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT L1

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis BS L3

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BT L3

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus ssp. BS L1

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyancephalus BT L4

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli BS L4

Snowy egret Egretta thula BA L2

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni BT L3

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BS L3

Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus ST L2

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi BT L4
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

Common Name Scientific Name Status ONHP

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-40

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii adastus BT L4

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC L2

Fish

Alvord chub Gila alvordensis BA L2

Borax Lake chub Gila boraxobius FE L1

Catlow Valley tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. BT L3

Great Basin redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. BT L3

Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clark henshawi FT L1

Malheur mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi ssp. BS L3

Mammal

California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis ssp. BT L4

California wolverine Gulo gulo ST L2

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis FT L2

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BT L3

Kit fox Vulpes velox ST L2

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis BT L4

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans BT L3

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus BT L3

Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei BT L3

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis BA L2

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans BT L3

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum BA L2

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii BS L2

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum BT L3

White-tailed antelope ground squirrel Ammospermophilus leucurus BT L3

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii BT L3

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis BT L4

Reptile

Desert horned lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos BT L3

Long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii BT L4

Mohave black-collared lizard Crotophytus bicinctores BT L3

Northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus BT L4

Status:

FE=Federal Endangered

FT=Federal Threatened

FC=Federal Candidate:

ST=State Threatened: An animal that could become endangered within the foreseeable future within all or a portion

of its range.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-41

BS=Bureau Sensitive: Species that could easily become endangered or extinct in a state, are restricted in range, and

have natural or human-caused threats to survival.

BA=Bureau Assessment: Species not presently eligible for official federal or state status but are still of concern and

need protection of mitigation win BLM activities.

BT=Bureau Tracking: Species that may become of concern in the future, but more information is needed to

determine status for management purposes.

ONHP:

L1=List 1: Taxa that are threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range.

L2=List 2: Taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the state of Oregon.

L3=List 3: Species for which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be

threatened of endangered in Oregon or throughout their range.

L4=List 4: Taxa which are of concern, but are not currently threatened of endangered.

metamorphosing the following spring (Nussbaum et al.

1983). This phenomenon has not been documented in

the resource area. When disturbed, spotted frogs will

move to deeper water on the stream bottom and conceal

themselves in dense vegetation or bottom debris.

2.13.1.5 Greater Sage-Grouse

The western subspecies of the Greater sage-grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus) was federally listed as a

Category 2 candidate species by the USFWS until the

classification was dropped from the list. The Greater

sage-grouse is currently a BLM sensitive species . 

Sage-grouse populations have exhibited long-term

declines throughout North America, declining by 33

percent over the past 30 to 40 years. The species has

disappeared in five states (Arizona, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska) and one province

(British Columbia). It is "at risk" in six other states

(Washington, California, Utah, Colorado, North

Dakota, South Dakota) and two provinces (Alberta,

Saskatchewan). Even in states where the species is

considered to be “secure" (Oregon, Nevada, Idaho,

Wyoming, Montana), long-term population declines

have averaged 30 percent (Connnelly and Braun 1997;

Crawford and Lutz 1985). The ODFW has indicated

that the population is stable (Willis et al. 1993).

The Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Technical Committee of the Western States Association

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) published

guidelines for the maintenance of sage-grouse habitats

(Braun et al. 1977). WAFWA has directed the technical

committee to revise those guidelines and it is likely that

the habitat management guidelines portion of that

document will be largely incorporated by the BLM into

a new version of the 1974 BLM Technical Note

“Habitat Req uirem ents and Managem e n t

Recommendations for Sage-Grouse.” The Oregon BLM

is committed to the development and implementation of

a "Sage-grouse/Sagebrush-Steppe Co nserva tion

Assessment and Strategy Plan" that may focus on sagegrouse as an icon, but is dedicated to all of the

shrub-steppe obligate species that have been the focus

of the ICBEMP effort. 

Greater sage-grouse depend on sagebrush-grassland

communities. Big sage, the primary species upon which

grouse depend in Harney County, is usually associated

with western juniper, although juniper is not a necessary

habitat component. Greater sage-grouse are most

frequently found in sage covered flatlands or gently

rolling hills. Free water is also a component of sagegrouse habitat, but it is not required for daily survival.

Water is used when available from late spring through

late fall, and sage-grouse attain their highest population

densities in areas that contain abundant and well

distributed surface water. Sage-grouse rely on snow and

ice during the winter months and moisture from

succulent plants when available. 

Migratory sage-grouse populations may travel great

distances seasonally. Summer and winter ranges may be

as far as 50 miles apart, or more. If deep snow covers

spring and summer ranges, the birds may migrate to

lower elevations to find food and cover. Sage-grouse

may nest and raise their broods in sage-covered

mountain valleys at high elevations. A variety of sage

stand conditions are necessary for good grouse habitat.

In general, good habitat should contain openings less

than 300 yards in circumference, some dense stands,

and approximately equal amounts of tall and short

sagebrush plants. Sage-grouse use three habitat types

throughout the year: breeding habitat, brood-rearing

habitat, and wintering habitat. 

Lek sites, or sage-grouse strutting and mating grounds,

are usually small open areas from 0.01 to ten acres in

size, with low, sparse sagebrush or areas devoid of

vegetation. Grassy swales, natural and irrigated

meadows where grass has been removed, burned areas,

cultivated fields adjacent to sagebrush-grass rangelands,

and dry lakebeds are often used as leks. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-42

Optimum sage-grouse nesting habitat consists of

sagebrush stands containing plants 16 to 32 inches high

with a canopy cover ranging from 15 percent to 25

percent, and an herbaceous understory of at least 15

percent cover that is at minimum seven inches tall.

These conditions should be found on 80 percent of the

breeding habitat for any given population of sagegrouse (Klebenow 1969; Wallestad and Pyrah 1974).

Early brood rearing generally occurs relatively close to

nest sites, but movements of individual broods may be

highly variable (Connelly 1982; Gates 1983). Sagegrouse chick diets include forbs and invertebrates.

Insects, especially ants and beetles, are an important

component of early brood rearing habitat. Brood

habitats containing a variety of plant species tend to

provide an equivalent diversity of insects, which are

important chick foods. As sagebrush habitats dry up and

herbaceous plants mature, hens move their broods to

moister sites during June and July where more

succulent vegetation is available (Klebenow 1969; Gill

1965; Connelly et al. 1988). Optimum brood-rearing

habitat consists of sagebrush stands that are 16 to 32

inches tall with a canopy cover of ten to 25 percent and

an herbaceous understory of 20 percent (ten percent

grasses and ten percent forbs). This type of habitat

should be found on at least 40 percent of an area that is

considered brood habitat. 

As fall progresses toward winter, sage-grouse start to

move toward their winter ranges. At such times, their

diet shifts primarily to sagebrush leaves and buds

(Connelly et al. 1988). Timing of movement depends

on weather severity and snow depth. Sage-grouse winter

habitats are relatively similar throughout most of the

species range. Since the sage-grouse winter diet consists

almost exclusively of sagebrush, winter habitats must

provide sagebrush that is exposed at least ten to 12

inches above snow level (Hupp and Braun 1989). Such

conditions provide both food and cover for wintering

sage-grouse, which tend to prefer areas of high canopy

cover as well as taller Wyoming big sagebrush. They

will select the plants with the highest protein content. In

situations where snow covers the sagebrush, the birds

will move to areas where it is exposed. Sagebrush of

varying heights should be found on 80 percent of the

wintering range of a given population to guarantee that

enough forage will be available.

The greatest negative impact on sage-grouse is the

destruction or adverse modification of their habitat.

Presently, sage-grouse in reduced numbers occupy most

of their historic range in the Planning Area but have

disappeared from areas on the periphery of former

ranges where large areas of sagebrush have been

removed. During the past 40 years many sagebrush

covered valleys and foothill ranges have been sprayed,

plowed, chained, burned, disked, or cut in an attempt to

convert these ranges to grasslands. 

Research data are scant regarding the impact of fire and

plant succession on sage-grouse. Recent research

conducted in Idaho on a pair of burned and unburned

plots within Wyoming types revealed that a

sub-population of sage-grouse was reduced within the

burn area compared to the control site (Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, W-160-R-21,September

1994). Although both the control and burned areas

showed a general decline in the sage-grouse population

during the research period, the reduction was greater in

the treatment area (83 percent) than the control area (55

percent), and the difference was associated with losses

in nesting cover. Sage-grouse select nest sites near the

largest sagebrush plants with a good herbaceous

understory, which is precisely where wildland fire or

prescribed fire tends to travel. 

As is typical within the science and research

community, some dispute occurs regarding prescribed

fire and its beneficial or adverse effects. The BLM

acknowledges these differences in opinion; however,

the ongoing threat of wildland fire to grouse habitat

indicates that prescribed burning in Wyoming sage

types should be avoided. The recommendations do not

prevent the use of prescribed fire; they simply redirect

where it is appropriate to do so without jeopardizing an

important sagebrush steppe species that may be listed as

threatened or endangered. 

Other factors possibly impacting sage-grouse habitat

and populations include irrigation projects and

degradation of riparian areas. The creation of reservoirs

and diversion of water for irrigation may eliminate

important high-quality brooding habitat. Conversely,

some of these land uses probably benefit sage-grouse.

Openings in large sagebrush stands can create feeding

and brooding areas that may benefit sage-grouse if

water is nearby. The creation of meadows by seeding

and water diversion may add to food supplies, and

reservoirs and ponds may provide standing water. In

addition, removal of large decadent sagebrush stands

has permitted young sagebrush stands to develop and

provided openings for the establishment of grasses and

forbs.

2.13.1.6 California Bighorn Sheep

California bighorn sheep were eliminated from Oregon

by 1915. Current populations are the result of numerous

ODFW -directed reintroductions and supplemental

releases during the past two decades. Bighorns from

Steens Mountain have been captured and used for
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-43

relocations within Oregon and other western states.

Although populations within the analysis area have

recently increased, the current distribution in Oregon

still represents a small percentage of the former historic

bighorn range (Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep Management

Plan 1992-1997).

Approximately 300 bighorns reside within the Andrews

MU in six primary locations. Small herds occupy other

regions of the resource area. Summering bighorns from

the Alvord Peak area and Pueblo Mountains usually

winter in the low mountains east of Fields. This is the

only major migratory bighorn movement known in

eastern Oregon.

Disease transmission between domestic sheep and

bighorns can cause rapid and massive bighorn losses,

which results in public controversy. No licensed sheep

grazing permits overlap with currently occupied

bighorn range, nor has the ODFW indicated any

problems with disease transmission between cattle and

bighorn sheep.

In accordance with an approved state management plan,

the ODFW wishes to continue releasing bighorns into

suitable unoc cupied habitat and to conduct

supplemental releases into currently occupied habitat.

New release areas, supplemental release areas, and

currently occupied bighorn habitat are collectively

identified as “bighorn range” on Figure 2.10.

2.13.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

2.13.2.1 Columbia Spotted Frog

In the Steens Mountain CMPA, spotted frogs occur on

the Donner und Blitzen River and some of its

tributaries, in Fish Lake, and in Lily Lake.

2.13.2.2 Greater Sage-grouse

The Steens Mountain CMPA supports a small but stable

and regionally important population of Greater sagegrouse. They are considered an indicator species of the

sagebrush steppe habitat and are closely associated with

the presence of big sagebrush and low sagebrush

communities on which they depend for food, cover, and

nesting. Twenty-two leks have been identified in the

Steens Mountain CMPA.

2.13.2.3 California Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep typically prefer remote and complex

mountainous terrain with adequate water. Due to this

preference, bighorn sheep and livestock grazing areas

are usually spatially separated (Ganskopp 1984).

Although some competition can occur in the lower less

steep portions of bighorn sheep ranges, no serious

forage competition conflicts have been documented.

Approximately 475 bighorn sheep are estimated to

populate the Steens Mountain CMPA (1993 data).

Bighorns from Steens Mountain have been captured and

used for relocations within Oregon and other western

states.

2.13.2.4 Raptors

Raptors occur throughout much of the Steens Mountain

CMPA. Special status species include ferruginous

hawk, burrowing owl, bald eagle and northern goshawk.

2.14 Wild Horses

2.14.1 Andrews Management Unit

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL 92-

195) states: “It is the policy of Congress that wild freeroaming horses and burros shall be protected from

capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to

accomplish this they are to be considered in the area

where presently found as an integral part of the Public

Lands.” After passage of this act in 1971, the Andrews

MU was inventoried for free-roaming horses and

burros. Six areas in the Andrews MU were designated

as Herd Areas (HAs) containing wild horses. No burros

were found in these areas.

In implementing this new program, one large HA that

spanned two BLM Districts was divided into several

units, another HA was discontinued, and two other HAs

were combined. The large HA was divided because of

political boundaries and for ease of management. Two

other HAs were combined to create a unit with viable

habitat and enough horses for a viable herd. One HA

was discontinued because most of the area was

privately owned, there was a lack of publicly owned

water sources, and the limited horse numbers precluded

maintenance of a viable herd. As a result, five of the

HAs have been designated Herd Management Areas

(HMAs) (Figure 2.12) where wild horses are present

and actively managed today. One additional HA

remains, but does not contain wild horses. 

Previous land use plans established Appropriate

Management Levels (AMLs) within each HMA to

maintain public land resources, including wild horse

habitat, in a satisfactory condition and to minimize

unacceptable impacts to these resources. Monitoring

data throughout the duration of those plans support

established AMLs. The AML for each HMA is defined

as an acceptable numerical range with a single number
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-44

being the midpoint of that range. The maximum number

of the AML range determines forage allocations for

horses in the HMA. In establishing the AML range

(Table 2.15), the following issues were considered:

maintenance of a thriving, natural ecological balance;

biological/social need of the herds; economics of

management actions; reasonable cycles of gathering;

genetic diversity; and the population at which resource

deterioration could be expected.

To prevent resource overuse and to maintain a thriving

ecological balance, gathering takes place as a herd

reaches the maximum number in the established AML

range, and when monitoring data indicate that an excess

number of horses exists. Depending on reproductive

rates, results of range and monitoring data, death rates,

funding, public concern, and other special management

considerations, horses are gathered and removed every

three to four years. Horse populations are usually

reduced to the minimum number of the AML range to

avoid the need for frequent and costly gathering.

Following minimum feasible management practices, all

animals above the lower limit of the AML range are

considered excess. Site-specific details of gathering,

including trap location, are determined at the time of

each gather. Most of the horses gathered are adopted

from the Burns Wild Horse Corrals, but some are

transported to other adoption sites throughout the

United States.

Some HMAs are fenced to control livestock movement;

however, these fences also create barriers to wild horse

movement. After the livestock is removed at the end of

the grazing season, gates are left open to allow horse

movement within the HMA. Open gates prevent

entrapment of horses that could lead to malnutrition and

death of otherwise healthy animals. The absence of

reliable year-round water, especially in drought years,

is a limiting factor within the HMAs of the Andrews

MU.

Most mature horses are 14 to 15.5 hands tall and weigh

950 to 1,250 pounds. Mature stallions are usually

slightly larger than mares. Wild horses in these HMAs

exhibit saddle stock conformation, but each herd has its

own unique characteristics. Two herds exhibit Spanish

mustang characteristics, one herd has a large component

of horses with pinto coloration, and the other herds

display a variety of colors. 

The Alvord Tule HMA is located completely in the

Andrews MU. It is located east of Steens Mountain and

consists of 343,201 acres in the Andrews MU. The

AML is from 73 to 140 head of horses and the allotted

grazing use is 1,680 AUMs. Dominant colors in the

Alvord/Tule Spring herd are bay, black, brown, sorrel,

palomino, and buckskin. Historically, many of these

horses have appeared to be of thoroughbred blood.

2.14.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

All or a portion of four HMAs (Table 2.16) are located

within the Steens Mountain CMPA. They include Heath

Creek/Sheepshead HMA, Kiger HMA, Riddle

Mountain HMA, and South Steens HMA. The total area

of the HMAs within the Steens Mountain CMPA is

163,312 acres.

The Heath Creek/Sheepshead HMA islocated northeast

of Steens Mountain in the western part of the

Sheepshead Mountain Range. This HMA contains

7,828 acres in the Steens CMPA. The AML is from 61

to 102 head of horses and the allocated grazing use is

408 AU M s. Majo r colors in the Heath

Creek/Sheepshead herd are dun, black, brown, bay,

sorrel, and an occasional paint. All are of saddle stock

conformation.

The Kiger HMA is located north of Steens Mountain.

This HMA contains 6,531 acres in the Steens CMPA

with an AML of 51 to 82 head of horses, and an

allocated grazing use of 984 AUMs. The Kiger HMA

is managed for horses exhibiting Spanish mustang

characteristics. These horses are often referred to as

“Kiger Mustangs” and possess the physical color

characteristics called the “dun factor” which includes

dun, red dun, grulla, buckskin, and variations of these

colors. Other characteristics include dorsal stripes on

the back and zebra stripes on the knees and hocks.

The Riddle Mountain HMA is located on the north side

of Steens Mountain. This HMA contains 25,328 acres

in the Steens area. The AML is from 33 to 56 head of

horses and the allocated grazing use is 672 AUMs.

Horses in the Riddle Mountain HMA are managed for

Spanish mustang characteristics similar to those found

in the Kiger HMA.

The South Steens HMA is located on the west side of

Steens Mountain, in the area of the Donner und Blitzen

WSR. This HMA contains 123,625 acres in the Steens

CMPA. The AML is from 159 to 304 head of horses

and the allotted grazing use is 3,648 AUMs. Common

colors of wild horses in the South Steens herd are

sorrel, bay, gray, and pintos of various colors. Pintos

are often called “paints” and have historically been of

great interest to the public. Paints currently constitute

approximately one-third of the population of this herd.

Other colors seen are chestnut, brown, black, palomino,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-45

Table 2.15: Herd Management Areas in the Andrews MU and Steens Mountain CMPA

HMA

B LM 

Total HMA

Acres

B LM 

Acres in 

AMU

BLM

Acres in

CMPA

AML Range

Forage

Allocation

(AUMs)

Alvord/Tule Springs 343,201 343,201 0 73 to 140 1,680

Heath Creek/Sheepshead 62,427 54,599 7,828 61 to 102 408

Kiger 38,359 0 6,531 51 to 82 984

Riddle Mountain 32,653 0 25,328 33 to 56 672

South Steens 127,838 4,213 123,625 159 to 304 3,648

Total 604,478 402,013 163,312 7,392

blue roan, red roan, and dun. Most animals are of

saddle stock conformation.

The Burns District’s Kiger and Riddle HMAs were

gathered in August 1999. A total of 118 excess horses

were removed to improve management of rangelands.

These animals were delivered to the Burns Wild Horse

Corrals and were made available to the public through

the Wild Horse Adoption Program. The Alvord-Tule

Springs HMA was gathered in 2001. Seventy horses

were collected and made available to the public.

The BLM now uses competitive bidding to establish

adoption fees. Competitive bidding replaces the lottery

method used in the past, in which adopters had to rely

on “the luck of the draw” for horse selection.

Competitive bidding makes all animals available to all

adopters, and animals are sold to the highest bidders. 

2.15 Fire Management

2.15.1 Ecological Background

Fire has played a significant role in the development of

most plant communities in the western United States.

The role that fire plays depends on the severity,

intensity and frequency of burning as well as elevation

and precipitation. Fire changes plant community

structure and species composition, and alters site

nutrient dynamics. The Planning Area has a wide

variety of plant communities with varied fire histories.

The Andrews MU averages about 15 wildland fires per

year. Approximately 90 percent of the fires are caused

by lightning and about ten percent are caused by

humans. In 2001, the Planning Area had 32 fires, which

burned approximately 21,000 acres (see Figure 2.11).

2.15.2 Andrews Management Unit

2.15.2.1 Fire Ecology of Major Vegetation Types in

the Andrews Management Unit

Sagebrush shrub/grassland is the most common

vegetation type found throughout the Andrews

Management Unit. The main sagebrush vegetation subtypes are dominated by big sagebrush (Wyoming and

basin), low sagebrush, silver sagebrush, and mountain

big sagebrush. Low sagebrush and all subspecies of big

sagebrush are easily killed by fire and recolonize a site

by seeds stored in the soil or by in-migration of winddispersed seeds from outside the burned area.

Following a fire, silver sagebrush may regenerate from

roots. Recovery times of all the sagebrush species

greatly depend on seed and moisture availability

following disturbance. 

Sagebrush fire return intervals are difficult to determine

because the plants are typically entirely consumed by

fire and do not leave fire scars as evidence that can be

used to determine historical fire regimes. Until recently,

the extent and dates of fires have not been recorded and

post-fire succession has not been studied in detail.

However, site productivity affects the fire behavior and

frequency in these sagebrush stands. Sites with higher

productivity (more grass and forb understory) will carry

fire more easily and more frequently than sites with low

productivity. Silver and low sagebrush are usually

found on less productive sites compared to mountain,

basin, or Wyoming big sagebrush. Silver sagebrush,

however, may also be associated with wetland species

in areas of high productivity where fire history is more

likely to be related to adjacent vegetation than to

characteristic s of the silver sagebrush plant

communities themselves. Silver sagebrush is also found

in a mosaic of vegetation types; it does not occupy large

areas within the Planning Area.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-46

Juniper woodlands are the most widely distributed

woodland type in the Andrews MU. Fire histories are

difficult to determine in juniper woodland. Ancient

western juniper stands are located in rocky areas where

fire return intervals (number of years between fire

events) are more than 150 years. The location of these

stands provides insufficient understory vegetation to

carry fire. If fires did occur, they were often limited to

one or two trees and areas of less than one acre. Under

certain circumstances, large fires did move across these

stands, but such events were rare. The mountain big

sagebrush fire regime, where much juniper has

encroached today, typically burned every 15 to 25 years

(Miller and Rose 1998), a return interval similar to

other shrub communities in the arid West. Young

western junipers have thin bark and are readily killed by

surface fires. Fire will carry through juniper stands with

grass and shrub understory. As trees mature, they

displace shrub and grass vegetation, leaving little

surface vegetation. The stand then becomes more

susceptible to erosion due to reduction in near-surface

root systems of the lower stature plants. Older stands

become resistant to fire because low productivity limits

available fuel. Western juniper does not sprout after

fire; re-establishment is from seed dispersed by water

and animals, and the trees may be slow to regenerate.

Cheatgrass is an invasive nonnative annual grass that

creates a fire hazard in limited parts of the Andrews

MU. Cheatgrass thrives in disturbed environments,

especially with fine-textured soils. Over-grazing and/or

wildland fires provide conditions that are more

favorable for cheatgrass than for native species.

Cheatgrass often out-competes native grasses, forbs,

and shrubs in disturbed areas, leaving large expanses

dominated by it, or by cheatgrass combined with other

nonnative species. Cheatgrass dominated areas tend to

burn more frequently compared with the native

shrublands and grasslands, diminishing the occurrence

of associated woody plants. Fire does not increase

cheatgrass production, but it does eliminate other plants

and provides an opportunity for cheatgrass to increase

at the expense of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Cheatgrass invasion substantially reduces biodiversity

and the land’s value for livestock forage and wildlife

habitat. Reversal of this ecological cycle probably

requires human intervention and/or alteration of current

land management.

Crested wheatgrass is an introduced perennial grass that

is sometimes planted to re-vegetate disturbed or burned

sites. It is valuable for forage and soil stabilization and

if planted in areas formerly dominated by shrubs, the

fire regime may be altered. 

2.15.2.2 Fire Management Needs, Status, and

Alternatives

The Andrews MU fire management strategy focuses on

wildland fire suppression and prescribed fire. The

wildland fire season generally runs from mid-May

through mid-September, while prescribed fires are

usually planned for periods before and after the

wildland fire season, depending on weather conditions.

Prescribed burning can be used to meet resource and

fire management objectives such as stimulation of plant

growth, changes in species composition, or reduction in

amounts of fuels and slash. Generalized policy and

procedures for fire planning, assessment, and response

are provided by the interagency Wildland and

Prescribed Fire Management Policy, Implementation

Procedures Reference Guide (National Park Service et

al.1998).

Juniper Management

Encroachment of western juniper into mountain big

sagebrush and quaking aspen plant communities is a

major concern across large areas of the Andrews MU.

Historically, western juniper was limited to rocky ridge

tops and shallow soil areas where fires rarely occurred.

Past livestock management and fire suppression have

reduced the influence of fire in these areas. Subtle shifts

in climate may have also helped Western juniper

expand its range over the last 100 years. As western

juniper density and cover increase, diversity of habitats

decreases and potential conflicts over the remaining

resources rise.

In addition to prescribed burning, chain saws have also

been used to remove western juniper from quaking

aspen stands prior to burning, and after burning if the

fire did not carry through the stands. Cutting of western

juniper helps to reduce competition and the disturbance

stimulates suckering, or root-sprouting, of the quaking

aspen. Stands that were burned or cut have been

temporarily fenced from deer, elk, and domestic

livestock, allowing quaking aspen suckers to grow

above the reach of large domestic or wild herbivores.

Sagebrush

In lower elevation sagebrush plant communities, factors

such as fuel conditions, proximity to sensitive habitats

or presence of introduced annuals may make prescribed

fire impractical. In these areas, the Burns DO is using

a technique known as “brush beating”in which a large

mower kills large sagebrush, but leaves smaller shrubs

and herbaceous plants relatively unharmed. Cutting the

brush in irregular shapes is another way to create a

complex pattern or mosaic.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-47

2.15.2.3 Prescribed Fires

The Burns district of the BLM is currently using a

combination of prescribed fire and mechanical

treatment to enhance and rejuvenate mountain big

sagebrush and quaking aspen communities in the

Andrews MU. These areas are important habitats for

numerous wildlife species and are a significant forage

resource for domestic livestock. Prescribed burning

increases plant diversity at the species and landscape

level, helps rehabilitate ecosystem functions and

processes, reduces accumulation of hazardous fuels,

and can increase quality of available forage through the

release of nutrients.

Prescribed burns in 2001/2002 include V Lake (South

Steens), Stonehouse (Northeast Steens) and East

Ridge/Mid Kiger Gorge (North Steens) (Figure 2.12).

The current prescribed fire program on the Andrews

MU has successfully reintroduced fire to sagebrush and

aspen plant communities. These management actions

are improving habitat for numerous wildlife species and

are providing higher quality forage for domestic and

wild herbivores. 

2.15.2.4 Wildland Fires 

Wildland fire risk depends on the intensity and size of

the wildland fire as well as the location, time of season,

and time of day. Light intensity wildland fires, which

occur within the historical fire return interval range,

improve rangeland health and wildlife habitat. High

intensity wildland fires radically alter rangelands and

wildlife habitat, and can produce large amounts of

smoke. Domestic livestock may be displaced for several

years. Sensitive wildlife species such as sage-grouse,

dependent upon shrub communities, suffer local

population declines following large wildland fires.

While species that favor early successional stages may

benefit from wildland fires in the short-term, species

that rely on older vegetation will suffer when that

vegetation is burned. Severely burned landscapes lose

soil, seed bank and microflora; consequently, they are

more susceptible to invasions of noxious weeds and

nonnative annual grasses such as cheatgrass, which

further degrades rangeland health and wildlife forage.

In addition, smoke emissions cause degradation of air

quality. Fire also has an adverse effect on recreational

and visual resources. In many cases, plant communities

that have experienced fires on an average of every 25

years have not burned for over 100 years. Fuel loading

is increasing across the area and will continue to

increase until a fire event. This increased fuel loading

has altered, and continues to alter, the fire regimes

across the Andrews MU. Fire behavior and intensity

continues to increase as the fuel levels increase.

To help reduce the ecological and human risks

associated with wildland fires, the BLM regulates the

activities of both industrial and non-industrial use of the

public lands under its administrative umbrella. The

BLM specifies the types of activities (such as chain saw

use) that are acceptable at given fire danger levels.

Some uses may also be managed through regulated

closures and management directives for such activities

as campfires and vehicles driving on public land. The

directives are specific in terms of locations involved

and actions prohibited. Such closures and directives are

normally issued during periods of unusually high fire

danger. 

In case of multiple fires, suppression priority is given in

decreasing order of importance to fires threatening life,

property, and resources. Fires occurring within WSAs

and other environmentally sensitive areas have received

full suppression responses, but these responses are

generally limited regarding the use of mechanical

equipment and retardant. If a fire is likely to become

large or to threaten life or property, the line officer can

approve the use of mechanical equipment to assist in

suppression. In that case, immediate rehabilitation

occurs on all areas of ground disturbance.

Each RA has qualified resource advisors for fires that

escape or have the potential to escape initial attack

efforts. These advisors assist the incident commander

with suppression decisions concerning resource values

and priorities. These individuals know the resources

and the landscape near the fire and have a working

relationship with local landowners. Although resource

advisors do not make suppression decisions, their

advice and concerns have a direct bearing on most

major suppression decisions.

2.15.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

In 2001 there were six wildland fires totaling 241 acres

in the Steens Mountain Wilderness, five wildland fires

totaling one acre in several WSAs, and four wildland

fires totaling 103 acres on combined BLM , Steens

Mountain CMPA, and private lands.

In 1999, the Burns DO conducted two prescribed

burning projects in the Andrews MU on Steens

Mountain. The two projects treated 19,900 acres in

mountain big sagebrush and western juniper.

Approximately 57 percent of that area, or 11,400 acres,

was actually burned. These burns produced a complex

mosaic of burned and unburned areas. 

The prescribed burns planned for 2001 will also be

conducted in the Steens Mountain region (V Lake,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-48

Stonehouse and East Ridge/Mid Kiger Grade). Over the

long term, a complex pattern of burned and unburned

areas in mountain big sagebrush and quaking aspen

plant communities will be produced. This pattern, or

mosaic, will also provide a diversity of habitats for

numerous animal species.

Current fire management for the Steens Mountain

CMPA is outlined in the Interim Management Policy

and considers the provisions of the Act as well as the

Wilderness Act. On all lands other than WSAs or

designated wilderness within the Steens Mountain

CMPA, the Interim Management Policy states that

current fire management practices will continue subject

to provisions in the Act. Within the Steens Mountain

Wilderness, fire suppression will take place in

accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act,

Management of Designated Wilderness Manual 8560,

and the Act. Pursuant to 8560 § .35A, all wildland fires

will be suppressed until an approved Fire Management

Plan is prepared. Suppression actions in the Steens

Mountain Wilderness will be executed to minimize

surface disturbance and alterations of the natural

landscape as well as fire suppression costs, while being

consistent with management objectives and constraints.

Methods and equipment will be used which least alter

the landscape or disturb the land surface. Suppression

structures and improvements will be located outside the

Steens Mountain Wilderness, except those that are the

minimum necessary to protect life, property, public

welfare and Steens Mountain Wilderness objectives. 

Suppression preplanning will be conducted with review

by an interdisciplinary team to determine appropriate

response and equipment to be used in fire suppression.

Protection of the Steens Mountain Wilderness resource

will be made part of the suppression objectives for all

fires. Tactics will utilize the minimum tool concept to

achieve these objectives. Non-mechanized equipment

will be used unless mechanized equipment is approved

by the District Manager. Suppression work will be

conducted to minimize ground disturbance and

vegetation cutting while safely meeting objectives.

Mop-up methods that minimize disturbance will be

preferred.

Fire management within the WSAs will continue in

accordance with the provisions of the Interim

Management Policy For Lands Under Wilderness

Review (H-8550-1). Until an approved Fire

Management Plan is prepared, all wildland fires will be

suppressed.

2.16 Woodlands

2.16.1 Andrews Management Unit

There are no significant forest stands in the Planning

Area, however, juniper woodlands and several quaking

aspen stands are present (see Figure 2.2).

2.16.1.1 Juniper Woodlands

Western juniper woodland is a common vegetation type

in much of the subbasin review area. This vegetation

type is typified by its open canopy (usually much less

than 30 percent crown closure), single-story,

short-stature (six to 20 feet tall) trees. Understory

vegetation in most of the juniper woodland is

dominated by species that are characteristic of

sagebrush steppe. 

Juniper is the most xeric of the main tree species in the

region and therefore dominates the lower elevations of

woodland areas. Historically, juniper woodland was

confined to rocky slopes and areas of sparse vegetation,

where the oldest stands are still found. Reduced

wildland fire frequency resulting from the elimination

of fine fuels and fire suppression activities during the

past 100 years, has allowed the density of woody

species, including juniper, to increase in

sagebrush/bunchgrass communities. In recent times,

juniper has also expanded into open meadows,

grasslands, quaking aspen groves, and riparian

communities. Periodic fires, which previously

prevented successful establishment of juniper in fireadapted vegetation types, have been controlled for over

a century, allowing the spread of juniper. In addition,

the heavy grazing that occurred between 1880 and 1930

may also have favored juniper expansion. This recent

expansion into other communities results in variable

stand characteristics and associated species. 

In the Planning Area, juniper woodlands cover

approximately 200,000 acres. Western juniper occurs

across a broad variety of soils and terrain, resulting in

highly variable woodland structure, composition, and

function, as well as varying effects on ecological

processes such as hydrology and nutrient cycling.

Juniper is found primarily in the Steens Mountain

CMPA between 5,700 to 6,560 feet in elevation, with

some occurring up to 7,000 feet. 

Shrub species that occur in juniper woodland include

big and low sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, currant,

and snowberry. Grass species that are common in the

juniper woodland community include bluebunch

wheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, Idaho fescue, western

and Thurber's needlegrass, and cheatgrass. Mountain
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-49

mahogany can occasionally be found at the upper

elevations of this community. Among the rich array of

forbs found in this community are the buckwheat and

milkvetch species, balsam root, asters, phlox, pussytoes,

lupine, yarrow, and phacelia species.

In Eastern Oregon, studies have shown that 95 percent

of the junipers are less than 150 years old. The distinct

areas of "old growth" juniper in the High Desert

Province are being monitored, mapped, and studied

from an ecosystem perspective. As the extent and

density of western juniper woodland expand, overall

regional habitat diversity decreases and potential

conflicts over remaining resources increase. Present

vegetation inventories do not define the limits of climax

juniper woodlands or their potential for replacing other

plant communities. Colonized juniper stands have been

treated to restore areas to shrubland and grassland,

improving forage for both livestock and wildlife. The

juniper cuttings on deer winter range above Buck Creek

are an example.

Additional information is needed to address the various

challenges of juniper management. Gathering this

information is one component of the WJMA created

within the Steens Mountain CMPA. The WJMA,

consisting of 3,267 acres of public land, will be used for

experimentation, education, interpretation, and

demonstration of management techniques for restoring

historic fire regime and native vegetation communities.

The WJMA is considered a SMA and is discussed

further in that section.

2.16.1.2 Quaking Aspen

Quaking aspen occurs in areas of locally high soil

moisture including riparian zones, seasonally wet areas,

and groundwater seeps. In the Andrews MU, quaking

aspen is found on the Pueblo and Trout Creek

Mountains, and Steens Mountain at elevations of 6,400

to 7,900 feet. Isolated stands occur as low as 4,500 feet

along some creek corridors and around springs. The

distribution of quaking aspen has decreased over the

past 100 to 200 years in the Planning Area, as in other

parts of eastern Oregon. This decline has been

attributed to overbrowsing by livestock and wildlife,

loss of suitable habitat due to lowering of water tables,

and possibly a reduction in fire frequency (Crowe

1996). Quaking aspen stands in the region are generally

composed of larger trees, with little regeneration and

few trees of sapling or pole size. Mature trees are

usually at least 100 years old and are approaching the

end of their life span. Under present climatic

conditions, quaking aspen reproduces exclusively by

root sprouting rather than by seed; therefore, the limited

regeneration in the form of root suckers suggests either

unfavorable physical habitat change or excessive

browsing pressure by livestock or wildlife.

2.16.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The highest concentrations of juniper woodlands and

aspen stands within the Planning Area occur in the

Steens Mountain CMPA. The newly designated WJMA

is also located in the Steens Mountain CMPA. These

areas will be managed according to the previously

outlined strategies and under the direction of the Act

and the IMP for the Steens Mountain CMPA.

In the Planning Area, one area containing about 20

acres of grand fir is present in scattered stands. These

areas contain a mature overstory with large numbers of

young trees as an understory and have marginal

commercial value. 

Woodland management is outlined in the IMP for the

Steens Mountain CMPA and stipulates the following:

that the sale of commercial timber will not be

permitted; that prescribed fire and juniper control

projects planned prior to legislation which have

completed NEPA documentation and conform with the

Act may still be implemented within the Steens

Mountain CMPA; and that new prescribed fire and

juniper control projects will be evaluated through the

NEPA process and coordinated through the SM AC to

ensure they meet the requirements and purpose of the

Steens Mountain CMPA.

2.17 Special Management Areas

Several SMAs) are located in the Planning Area. These

include the Steens Mountain CMPA, ACECs, Research

Natural Areas (RNAs), Wilderness, WSAs, WSRs, a

WJMA, and a RTR. All of these areas have special

values which warrant or require special management or

protection and are, therefore, specifically addressed

through the BLM planning process. 

As a federal land management agency, the BLM is an

active participant in managing designated WSRs, and in

contributing to the eligibility, classification, and

suitability studies of rivers listed in the Nationwide

Rivers Inventory (NRI) and other potential rivers. Other

potential rivers are those identified by Congressional

action, the BLM, or the public, which might meet the

qualifications for wild and scenic status. The Donner

und Blitzen WSR comprises an expansive WSR

corridor within the Steens Mountain CMPA, which is

discussed in detail in Section 2.17.2.1. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-50

There are 23 WSAs and the Steens Mountain

Wilderness in the Planning Area. Due to the number,

size and variable characteristics of the WSAs and the

Steens Mountain Wilderness area, they are discussed

separately in Section 2.18. The Steens Mountain CMPA

section includes a separate discussion for SMAs within

its boundaries as outlined in the various mandates and

sections of the Act.

2.17.1 Andrews Management Unit

2.17.1.1 Areas of Critical Environment a l

Concern/Research Natural Areas

The FLPMA and BLM policy (BLM 1976; 1988a)

require the BLM to give priority to designation and

protection of ACECs during the land use planning

process. ACECs may be nominated by BLM staff, other

agencies, or members of the public at any time. ACECs

are parcels of public land that require additional

management attention to protect special features or

values. ACECs may be established to protect important

historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish, wildlife, or

other natural resources; or human life and safety. RNAs

are a specific type of ACEC that always contain natural

resource values of scientific interest and are managed

primarily for research and educational purposes.

Outstanding Natural Areas (ONA), are another specific

type of ACEC that exhibit outstanding scenic splendor,

natural wonder or scientific importance. ACEC

nominations are reviewed by an interdisciplinary team

to determine whether or not they meet the relevance and

importance criteria in BLM Manual 1613.1. Nominated

ACECs that meet the relevance and importance criteria

must be evaluated in a land use plan to ensure that

protection is needed.

Seven ACECs, four of which are RNAs, are located in

the Andrews MU. These ACECs were designated to

provide special management and protection to areas

with special characteristics such as diverse ecosystems,

landforms, plant communities, and critical wildlife

habitat. The areas include Alvord Desert ACEC, Borax

Lake ACEC, Pickett Rim ACEC, Mickey Basin RNA,

Pueblo Foothills RNA, Tumtum Lake RNA, and Long

Draw RNA.

Management of the ACECs/RNAs is directed by the

Andrews MFP for the entire area; the IMP for the

Steens Mountain CMPA area; and the Wilderness Act

for those ACEC/RNAs located in a WSA or the Steens

Mountain Wilderness. Specific direction calls for

retention of existing and designation of new

ACECs/RNAs where relevance and importance criteria

are met and special management is required to protect

the values identified.

2.17.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

2.17.2.1 Areas of Critical En viron men ta l

Concern/Research Natural Area

Eight ACECs, five of which are RNAs, are located in

the Steens CMPA. These ACECs were designated to

provide special management and protection to areas

with critical wildlife and wild horse habitat, scenic

qualities, and unique plant communities. The areas

include Kiger ACEC, Alvord Peak ACEC, Steens

Mountain ACEC, Little Wildhorse Lake RNA, Little

Blitzen RNA, South Fork Willow Creek RNA, Rooster

Comb RNA, and East Kiger Plateau RNA.

2.17.2.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers

To be eligible for inclusion as a WSR, a river must be

free flowing and have at least one outstandingly

remarkable river-related value within its immediate

environment (usually a 1/4-mile corridor along each

side of the river).The Donner und Blitzen WSR was

designated in October 1988 when Congress passed the

“Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of

1988"; the management plan was completed in 1993.

The Donner und Blitzen WSR is located almost entirely

within the Steens Mountain CMPA and is made up of

the following streams; Donner und Blitzen River, Fish

Creek, Little Blitzen River, Big Indian Creek, Little

Indian Creek, and South Fork Donner und Blitzen

River. In 2000, the Act increased the WSR system by

adding segments to the Donner und Blitzen WSR and

designating new WSRs. The newly designated WSR

segments are Kiger Creek (4.25 miles), Wildhorse

Creek (7.36 miles), and Little Wildhorse Creek (2.60

miles); the additional segments included in Donner und

Blitzen WSR are Ankle Creek (8.10 miles), South Fork

of Ankle Creek (1.60 miles), and Mud Creek (5.10

miles). These additions provide a total of 101.7 miles of

WSR within the Steens Mountain CMPA. The total area

within all the WSR corridors including public, state,

and private land is 31,482 acres. All WSR segments

were designated “wild”.

The ORVs associated with the Donner und Blitzen

WSR include scenic qualities; geologic features; many

types of quality recreational activities; native fisheries

habitat; abundant wildlife; a wide variety of vegetation

communities; a large number of Special status plant

species; and historic cultural resources. 

Kiger, Wildhorse and Little Wildhorse Creeks are also

characterized by several ORVs. Wildhorse and Little

Wildhorse Creek ORVs include scenic quality,

recreation value, wildlife habitat diversity, and the
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-51

presence of special status plant species. The ORVs

associated with Kiger Creek include scenic geologic

features, diversity of wildlife habitat, and the presence

of special status fish species. Ankle and Mud Creek

ORVs have not yet been identified.

The Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic River and the

newly designated WSRs are managed in accordance

with the Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the

Wilderness Act and the IMP. In instances where

management requirements for a stream segment

described in the Act differ between the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act and the Steens Mountain Wilderness, the

more restrictive requirements shall apply. The Donner

und Blitzen National Wild and Scenic River

Management Plan also continues to guide management

of the Donner und Blitzen WSR, to the extent that the

management plan is consistent with the Act.

2.17.2.3 Wildland Juniper Management Area

The restoration of historic fire regimes in the Steens

Mountain CMPA is specified in the Act and discussed

in the Fire Management Section (2.15). In order to

reach this objective, various strategies and techniques

for juniper management must be examined, including

natural and prescribed burns. This is one reason why

the Act established the 3,267-acre WJMA and released

the area from WSA status. The WJMA now has special

management status allowing for experimentation,

education, interpretation, and demonstration of active

and passive management techniques. 

The WJMA was set aside in the Steens Mountain

CMPA as a demonstration area. Current management

actions such as burning, cutting with chainsaws, and

fencing, will be applied in small areas. Interested

parties will then be shown the techniques being used to

manage western juniper plant communities on the

mountain. New techniques will also be tested in this

area for evaluation of their effectiveness; however, the

size of the WJMA limits the scale of potential research

projects. 

2.17.2.4 Redband Trout Reserve

Portions of the Donner und Blitzen River located in the

Steens Mountain Wilderness provide habitat for unique

populations of wildlife, waterfowl, and fish, including

a unique population of redband trout. The Donner und

Blitzen RTR was created by the Act to conserve,

protect, and enhance the Donner and Blitzen River

population of redband trout and the unique ecosystem;

and to provide opportunities for research, education,

and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. The RTR

consists of the Donner und Blitzen WSR above its

confluence with Fish Creek and the adjacent riparian

areas on public land within the Steens Mountain

Wilderness.

The management of this area is guided by the Act, the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Wilderness Act, and

the IMP, in addition to the required consultation with

the SMAC and the ODFW. Recreation will be allowed

in the RTR as long as it is consistent with the previously

mentioned acts and management guidelines. Specific

management criteria may be developed during the

RMP/EIS process and included in that document.

2.18 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas

2.18.1 Andrews Management Unit

The FLPMA directs the BLM to manage the public

lands and their resources under principles of multiple

use and sustained yield. FLPMA identifies wilderness

values as part of the spectrum of public land resource

values and uses to be considered in the BLM’s

planning, inventory and management activities. A BLM

wilderness area is an area of public lands that Congress

has designated for the BLM to manage as a component

of the National Wilderness Preservation System in

accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964. A WSA

is a parcel of public land determined through intensive

inventories to meet the definition of wilderness in

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

Public lands were inventoried in the early 1980s to see

if they contained wilderness characteristics. Those areas

found to have wilderness characteristics were identified

as WSAs and all other land was eliminated from further

consideration in the wilderness review. Some of the

criteria used in the wilderness inventory were

naturalness, solitude, primitive and unconfined

recreational opportunities, special features, and

manageability.

In October of 2000, Congress passed the Act, which

designated the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area in the

Steens Mountain CMPA and expanded the Basque Hills

WSA with a 3,840-acre addition in the Andrews MU. In

addition, the Act modified some of the WSAs in the

Steens Mountain CMPA and created a No Livestock

Grazing Area within the Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Until Congress acts on the wilderness recommendations

or otherwise releases the existing WSAs for other

purposes, they will continue to be managed in

accordance with the BLM’s IMP for Lands Under

Wilderness Review, FLPMA, and other applicable laws

and policies. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-52

As shown in Table 2.16, 16 WSAs are in the Andrews

MU, ranging from approximately 8,500 acres to

236,000 acres.

2.18.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

All or portions of seven W SAs are located within the

Steens Mountain CMPA (see Table 2.17). The WSAs

include Blitzen River, Bridge Creek, Home Creek,

Lower Stonehouse, South Fork Donner und Blitzen,

Stonehouse, and High Steens. The WSAs were

modified to account for designation of the Steens

Mountain Wilderness in October of 2000. A 3,267 acre

parcel in the Bridge Creek and Blitzen River WSA was

released from the management requirements of section

603(c) of FLPMA under the provisions of the Act and

is no longer subject to management under wilderness

suitability requirements set forth in that section.

Otherwise, as stated in the Act, “any wilderness study

area, or portion of a wilderness study area, within the

boundaries of the Cooperative Management and

Protection Area, but not included in the Steens

Mountain Wilderness, shall remain a wilderness study

area”.

Management of existing WSAs in the Steens Mountain

CMPA will continue as directed under the BLM IMP

for Lands Under Wilderness Review, the Act, and

FLPMA. Table 2.17 lists the WSAs in the Steens

Mountain CMPA.

The Act established the Steens Mountain Wilderness

consisting of 170,024 acres of federal land. Within the

Steens Mountain Wilderness (Figure 2.18) is a No

Livestock Grazing Area consisting of 97,671 acres of

public land, creating the first cattle-free wilderness of

its kind. 

Subject to valid existing rights, the Steens Mountain

Wilderness will be administered by the BLM in

accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act,

43CFR 6300, the Management of Designated

Wilderness Areas Manual 8560, and the Act. 

The specific provisions are specified in Section 202 of

the Act and include the following:

(a) GENERAL RULE. - The Secretary shall administer

the Steens Mountain Wilderness in accordance with this

title and the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

Any reference in the Wilderness Act to the effective

date of that Act (or any similar reference) shall be

deemed to be a reference to the date of the enactment of

this Act.

(b) WILDERNESS BOUNDARIES ALONG ROADS.

– Where a wilderness boundary exists along a road, the

wilderness boundary shall be set back from the

centerline of the road, consistent with the BLM’s

guidelines as established in its Wilderness Management

Policy.

(c) ACCESS TO NON-FEDERAL LANDS. – The

Secretary shall provide reasonable access to private

lands within the boundaries of the Wilderness Area, as

provided in section 112(d).

Section 112(e)(1) of the Act states that “The Secretary

shall provide reasonable access to nonfederally owned

lands or interests in land within the boundaries of the

Cooperative Management and Protection Area and the

Wilderness Area to provide the owner of the land or

interest the reasonable use thereof.”

The road setbacks for wilderness boundaries are

described in Section 2.29 of this document.

Except for the designated No Livestock Grazing Area,

grazing of livestock will continue and be administered

in accordance with the provision of section 4(d)(4) of

the Wilderness Act, in accordance with the provisions

of the Act, and in accordance with the guidelines set

forth in Appendix A of House Report 101-405 of the

101st Congress.

Provisions of the general BLM wilderness policy in

BLM Manual 8560 are as follows:

1. To provide for the long term protection and

preservation of the area’s wilderness character

under a principle of non-degradation. The

area’s natural condition, opportunities for

solitude, opportunities for primitive and

unconfined recreation, and any ecological,

geological or other features of scientific,

educational, scenic, or historical value present

will be managed so that they will remain

unimpaired. 

2. To manage the area for the use and

enjoyment of visitors in a manner that will

leave the area unimpaired for future use and

enjoyment as wilderness. The wilderness

resources will be the dominant consideration

where a choice must be made between

preservation of the wilderness character and

visitor use.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-53

Table 2.16: Wilderness Study Areas in the Andrews MU

Wilderness Study Area Acres

Alvord Desert 97,760

Basque Hills 72,082

Disaster Peak 3,672

East Alvord 22,161

Hawk Mountain 24,226

Heath Lake 21,197

Mahogany Ridge 27,053

Pueblo Mountains 73,547

Red Mountain 15,659

Rincon 104,979

Sheepshead Mountains 21,679

Table Mountain 39,886

West Peak 8,598

Wildcat Canyon 8,543

Willow Creek 2,424

Winter Range 15,517

Total 558,983

Table 2.17: Wilderness Study Areas Located within the Steens Mountain CMPA

Wilderness Study Area Acres

Blitzen River 31,737

Bridge Creek 14,284

High Steens 13,227

Home Creek 1,165

Lower Stonehouse 7,449

South Fork Donner und Blitzen 27,969

Stonehouse 22,765

Total 118,596

Table 2.18: Land Status within the Steens Mountain CMPA

Land Status Acres

BLM1170,024

State 433 

Private 4,294 

1After additional acres were acquired (through exchanges) in keeping with the Act
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-54

3. To manage the area using the minimum

tool, equipment, or structure necessary to

successfully, safely, and economically

accomplish the objectives. The chosen tool,

equipment, or structure will be the one that

least degrades wilderness values temporarily

or permanently.

4. To manage nonconforming but acceptable

uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and

subsequent laws in a manner that will prevent

unnecessary or undue degradation of the

area’s wilderness character and with overall

emphasis placed on retaining wilderness

character. Proposed actions that may affect

wilderness character will be assessed through

the appropriate NEPA analysis.

5. The BLM will only approve that

combination of routes and non-motorized

modes of travel to nonfederal inholdings that

the BLM determines will serve the reasonable

purposes for which the nonfederal lands are

held or used and cause the least impact on

wilderness character.

Except as specifically stated in the Wilderness Act, it is

also prohibited in wilderness to:

C Operate a commercial enterprise;

C Build temporary or permanent roads;

C Build aircraft landing strips, heliports, or

helispots;

C Use motorized equipment; or motor vehicles,

motorboats, or other forms of mechanical

transport;

C Land aircraft, or drop or pick up any material,

supplies or person by means of aircraft,

including a helicopter, hang-glider, hot air

balloon, parasail, or parachute;

C Build, install, or erect structures or

installations, including transmission lines,

motels, vacation homes, sheds, stores, resorts,

organization camps, hunting and fishing

lodges, electronic installations, and similar

structures, other than tents, tarpaulins,

temporary corrals, and similar devices for

overnight camping;

C Cut trees;

C Enter or use wilderness areas without

authorization, where the BLM requires

authorization;

C Engage or participate in competitive use,

including those activities involving physical

endurance of a person or animal, foot races,

water craft races, survival exercises, war

games, or other similar exercises; or

C Violate any BLM regulation, authorization, or

order.

2.19 Recreation

Federal agencies including the BLM, USFS and

USFWS, administer over 51 percent of the lands in

Oregon and 70 percent of the lands in southeast Oregon

(Harney, Malheur and Lake Counties), making them the

largest managers of outdoor recreation and land

facilities in the state (Oregon Parks and Recreation

2000); therefore, the agencies play a major role in

providing dispersed recreation opportunities as well as

resource protection of some of the state’s most unique

and significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources.

Sightseeing, driving for pleasure, fishing, and hunting

are among the most popular types of dispersed

recreation, according to the Southeast Oregon

Recreation Plan for Harney, Lake and Malheur

Counties. Non-motorized boating, horseback riding,

camping, hiking, wildlife viewing and OHV use are also

popular activities in the Andrews MU. From October

2000 through September 2001, the Planning Area had

259,797 visitor days, up from 247,002 the previous

year. Specific activities such as hunting, hiking, and

trail use as well as sites visited are discussed below.

Special Recreation Permits

Special recreation permits are required for specific

recreational uses of the public lands and related waters.

They are issued as a means to manage visitor use,

protect natural and cultural resources, and provide a

mechanism to accommodate commercial recreational

uses. Several types of uses require these permits.

Commercial use - Recreational use of public lands and

related water for business or financial gain. Examples

are scenic tours, outfitters and guides, trail rides, cattle

drives, photography associated with recreational

activity, and use by scientific, educational, and

therapeutic or nonprofit organizations when certain

criteria are met. 

Commercial Day Use - Special commercial permit

provided by the Burns DO for use within limited

locations in the Planning Area. It is a one day permit

available for commercial activities such as vehicle

tours.

Competitive use - Any organized, sanctioned or

structured use, event, or activity on public lands in

which two or more contestants compete and either 1)

participants, register, enter or complete an application
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-55

for the event or 2) a predetermined course or area is

designated. Examples are OHV races, horse endurance

rides, or mountain bike races.

Vending - Temporary, short-term, non-exclusive,

revocable authorizations to sell goods or services on

public land in conjunction with a recreation activity.

Examples are teeshirt sales in conjunction with an OHV

race, a hot dog stand at a motocross event, firewood

sales in a BLM campground and shuttle services.

Special Area Use - Officially designated by statute or

Secretarial order. Examples include camping in longterm visitor areas in California and Arizona or floating

many BLM managed rivers. An August 17, 2001

federal register notice designated the Steens Mountain

CMPA and the Burns DO WSAs as special areas for

which permits are required for organized groups.

Organized group activity and event use - Permits for

noncommercial and noncompetitive group activities and

recreation events. Examples include a scout campout, a

large family reunion, or a school group activity.

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) and

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA)

In order to manage recreation, public land is classified

as SRMAs and ERMAs. In SRMAs, recreation is under

intensive management and investment in facilities and

supervision. ERMAs are typically managed for more

dispersed recreation with less oversight of facility

development. SRMAs and ERMAs are designated

through the RMP Process.

2.19.1 Andrews Management Unit

Dispersed recreation opportunities exist throughout the

entire Planning Area. Opportunities for developed

recreation exist at several sites within the Andrews MU.

The Lakeview to Steens Back Country Byway provides

access to recreation opportunities in the Planning Area.

Adjacent areas of interest managed by other agencies

include the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and

Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge.

Although the majority of visitors to the Andrews MU

are from Oregon, an increasing number are from out of

state and abroad. Recent publications and broadcasts

featuring BLM attractions have increased visitation to

the area.

2.19.1.1 Recreation Activities

The Andrews MU is within the ODFW’s Central

Hunting Area, including portions of Beattys Butte,

Juniper, Steens Mountain, and Whitehorse hunt units.

Deer, antelope, bighorn sheep, and elk are hunted with

rifle, muzzle loader, and bow in this area as well as in

the Steens Mountain CMPA. In the four hunt units

combined, 8,323 hunter days were spent hunting deer

with a 47 percent success rate; 3,237 hunter days were

spent hunting elk with a success rate of 13 percent; and

923 hunter days were spent hunting antelope with an 87

percent success rate. Fishing is a popular activity in the

Andrews MU with its wide variety of fish species

including Lahontan cutthroat trout, redband trout and

many others. There are several lakes, reservoirs,

streams, rivers, and springs in the Andrews MU which

provide fishing as well as sightseeing, camping, hiking,

and wildlife viewing. These areas are discussed in detail

in the Riparian Resources, Water Resources and

Fisheries Sections (2.7, 2.10, and 2.11).

Many hiking trails in the Planning Area are located in

the Steens Mountain CMPA; however, the most

extensive, the High Desert Trail, also runs through the

Andrews MU. A component of the National Recreation

Trails System, it begins at Denio Canyon near the

Nevada border south of Fields, Oregon, and is 240

miles long. The High Desert Trail uses a corridor

concept with no clearly defined or maintained path to

follow. Hikers choose their own route with the help of

a printed guide and strategically placed cairns. Portions

of the trail are open year round. The corridor is

cooperatively managed with the Desert Trail

Association.

Camping in the Andrews MU includes the Alvord

Desert and primitive dispersed camping throughout the

area. The Alvord Desert, part of the Alvord Desert

WSA, provides primitive camping and includes a large

playa with outstanding opportunities for solitude, land

sailing, photography and OHV use. The Alvord Desert

playa is a popular land sailing destination in the spring.

From October 2000 through September 2001, the

Alvord Desert had 37,204 visitor days with visitors

splitting their time between camping, land sailing,

photography and OHV use. 

2.19.1.2 Off-Highway Vehicles

OHV use is frequently associated with hunting, fishing,

and driving for pleasure and also occurs for

administrative purposes such as management of

livestock and maintenance of range projects. All public

land in the Planning Area is designated as either open,

limited, or closed with regard to vehicle use. In an open

area, all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times.

In a limited area, vehicle use is restricted at certain

times, in certain areas, to designated routes, to existing

routes or to certain vehicular uses. In a closed area,

motorized vehicle use is prohibited. The BLM

designates areas as “open” for intensive OHV use
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-56

where no compelling resource protection needs, user

conflicts, or public safety issues exist to warrant

limiting cross-country travel. The BLM designates

areas as “limited” where it must restrict OHV use in

order to meet specific resource management objectives.

Areas are designated as “closed” if closure to all

vehicular use is necessary to protect resources, ensure

visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts. WSAs are usually

limited, while wilderness areas are typically closed to

OHV use. Prior to the passage of the Act, there were

842,551 acres open, 836,366 acres limited and zero

acres closed to OHV use in the Planning Area. Since

passage of the Act, specific revisions have been made

to the Steens Mountain CMPA and the Steens Mountain

W ilderness. In the Andrews MU the management of

OHV activities is guided by the Andrews MFP which

states the various protection goals of each designation.

2.19.1.3 Recreation Planning and Management

Special Recreation Permits

A total of 40 permits were in use during the 2001 fiscal

year. Thirty-two permits were issued in the Planning

Area during the year and an additional eight

commercial permits were still active. Twenty were

issued for winter recreation on the Steens, three for

organized group functions, two for other uses, and 12

commercial permits were issued or re-authorized.

Some of the management objectives for recreation in

the Andrews MU are outlined in he Andrews MFP:

C Encourage a wide range of recreation

activities in addition to hunting and fishing;

C Cooperation with development of High Desert

Trail;

C Limit vehicle use in campgrounds to ingress

and egress;

C The objective of the Recreation and

Management Program in the Andrews MU

should be to provide quality recreational

opportunities for the public; and 

C Protect, preserve, and enhance recreational

resources and provide facilities, information,

and services to ensure safety and a maximum

recreational experience.

2.19.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

According to the Steens Mountain Management Plan of

1985, the season of use for the Steens Mountain CMPA

is generally from July to November, with the highest

use on holiday weekends and during hunting season.

The main activities include sightseeing, camping, lake

fishing, hiking, nature study, and hunting. Recreation

use within the area also includes picnicking, biking,

photography, rockhounding, snowmobiling, crosscountry skiing, and OHV use.

The Steens Mountain CMPA includes the South Steens,

Page Springs, Fish Lake, and Jackman Park

campgrounds; the Mann Lake recreation site, and seven

overlooks. The Fish Lake campground is located on

Oregon State land and is operated and managed by the

BLM. The BLM has a permanent easement from

ODFW for the campground. These sites are linked by

the 67-mile Steens Mountain Back Country Byway. The

Desert Trail provides back country hiking opportunities

as it winds for 60 miles through the area. The Steens

Mountain Back Country Byway was used by 18,950

visitors to the area in 1975; 45,585 in 2000; and 47,947

in 2001. During the winter months, vehicle access to the

snow line on the North Loop Road is allowed by permit

only. Foot traffic past the locked gates does not require

a permit.

2.19.2.1 Recreation Activities

Recreation sites are used both as staging areas for

dispersed uses such as hunting, hiking, and nature

study, and as destination points. Steens Mountain

affords spectacular geologic features and wide-open

space where wildlife is abundant and vegetation

diverse, providing outstanding recreation opportunities

within a relatively undeveloped landscape.

Numerous trails exist in the Steens Mountain CMPA

including Wildhorse Lake, Little Blitzen Gorge, Big

Indian Gorge, Steens Summit and the Blitzen River

“fishing path.” Trails are generally open from June to

late October. The Wildhorse Lake trail starts at the

Steens Mountain Summit Area and is 1.5 miles long

from there to the high elevation lake. The trail is not

maintained and is unsuitable for horses because of slick

footing and dangerous cliffs. This trail had a minimum

of 683 visitors in 2001 who used it for hiking/walking,

backpacking, and fishing. The Little Blitzen Gorge trail

starts at the South Steens area near South Steens

Campground. It is approximately nine miles in length

and is maintained on a limited basis. There were at least

326 visitors to this trail in 2001 who used it for

hiking/walking, backpacking, fishing, and horseback

riding. The Big Indian Gorge trail also starts near the

South Steens Campground. It is maintained on a limited

basis, and is approximately seven miles long. At least

408 people took advantage of the trail in 2001 for

hiking/walking, backpacking, fishing, horseback riding

and hunting. The Steens Summit trail begins near the

top of Steens Summit and follows the closed road to the

highest point on Steens Mountain. It is one half mile in
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-57

length. The Blitzen River “fishing path” begins at Page

Springs Campground.

Four developed campgrounds in the Steens Mountain

CMPA are Page Springs, Fish Lake, Jackman Park, and

South Steens. The developed campgrounds include

amenities such as picnic tables, drinking water, fire

rings and vault toilets. In addition, there are

campground amenities provided specifically for

equestrian use at South Steens and a boat ramp and

fishing platform at Fish Lake. A primitive campground

is located at Mann Lake and dispersed camping is

allowed throughout the Steens Mountain CMPA.

Page Springs campground is located four miles east on

the Steens Mountain Back Country Byway from

Frenchglen. The campground is located near the

Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic River at 4,200

feet. A day use area is also located here.

Fish Lake campground is located 17 miles east from the

north entrance at Frenchglen on the Steens Mountain

Back Country Byway. The campground is located in an

aspen grove at 7,400 feet. Only non-motorized boats are

allowed on Fish Lake.

The Jackman Park campground is a small campground

located in an aspen grove three miles from Fish Lake at

7,800 feet.

South Steens campground is located eighteen miles east

on the Steens Mountain Back Country Byway from

Highway 205. The campground was built in 1996 and

is located in a juniper grove at an elevation of 5,300

feet.

Mann Lake has a 335-acre primitive campground with

sites dispersed in two areas near the reservoir. The

campground has vault toilets and a boat ramp. It is

located approximately 22 miles south off Highway 78

on Fields-Denio Road (aka Folly Farm Road). The lake

is stocked with Lahontan cutthroat and rainbow trout.

Boats with 12 horsepower motors or less are permitted.

Fees are collected at developed campgrounds

approximately from April through October and are

returned to the site for improvements, facility

maintenance, and visitor services as part of the Pilot

Fee Demonstration Program. In 1995, Congress

authorized the Recreational Fee Demonstration

Program. The intent of the program is to develop and

test entrance and user fees to maintain and improve the

natural resource, recreation facilities, and services.

Participating agencies are allowed to retain all the

demonstration project revenues, and at least 80 percent

of the revenues are utilized at the sites where they are

collected. These revenues yield substantial benefits by

providing on-the-ground improvements at local

recreation sites.

2.19.2.2 Off-Highway Vehicles

The OHV designations for the Steens Mountain CMPA

previous to the passage of the Act were 80,000 acres of

open, 274,800 acres limited to existing roads, 300,800

acres limited to designated routes and 6,900 acres of

closed areas. Due to the creation of the Steens

Mountain CMPA and the Steens Mountain Wilderness

mandated by the Act, additional areas have been

excluded from OHV use. The revised mandates for

OHV use in the Steens Mountain CMPA are stated in

Section 112(b) of the Act as follows:

(1) PROHIBITION. – The use of motorized or

mechanized vehicles on Federal lands

included in the Cooperative Management and

Protection Area –

(A) is prohibited off road; and

(B) is limited to such roads and trails

as may be designed for their use as

part of the management plan.

(2) EXCEPTIONS. – Paragraph (1) does not

prohibit the use of motorized or mechanized

vehicles on Federal lands included in the

Cooperative Management and Protection Area

if the Secretary determines that such use –

(A) is needed for administrative

purposes or to respond to an emergency; or

(B) is appropriate for the

construction or maintenance of

agricultural facilities, fish and

wildlife management, or ecological

restoration projects, except in areas

designated as wilderness or managed

under the provisions of section

603(c) of the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976 (43

U.S.C. 1782).

2.19.2.3 Recreation Planning and Management

Special Recreation Permits

The BLM manages organized or commercial recreation

through Special Recreation Permits. In 2001, eight

commercial permits were issued for the Steens

Mountain CMPA. Commercial activities available

included horseback tours, fishing, hunting, winter
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-58

recreation, scenic tours, and a runners training camp.

According to the IMP and in adherence to the Act,

existing special recreation use permits will continue to

the extent they are consistent with the purposes of the

Act and the Wilderness Act. Stipulations may also be

developed on current Burns District Special Recreation

Permits (SRPs) with permitted activities within the

Steens Mountain CMPA to assure consistency with the

Act. Wilderness-specific permit stipulations may also

be developed, if necessary to assure permit compliance

with the Wilderness Act. SRPs will be administered in

conformance with the Act and with applicable laws,

policies, and plans. Commercial Day Use permit

stipulations will be developed as appropriate to assure

consistency with the Act.

Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive

Recreation Management Areas

Current management guidelines are provided in the Act,

the Andrews MFP, and the Wilderness IMP for the

Steens Mountain CMPA. According to the Act and the

IMP, recreation will continue to be managed in a

manner consistent with the purposes of the Act, the

Wilderness Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and

other applicable existing land use plans and regulations.

In addition, recreation facilities will continue to be

maintained to provide a quality recreation experience

and to protect the health and safety of the visiting

public.

2.20 Visual Resources

The FLPMA requires the BLM to consider the effects

of management actions on the visual quality of the

landscape. To protect visual resources, all public land

is inventoried to determine its Visual Resource

Management (VRM) classification. The VRM

objectives for each of four possible classifications are

described below. 

Class I-The objective of this classification is to preserve

the existing character of the landscape. This class

provides for natural ecological changes and limited

management activity. The level of change should be

very low and must not attract attention. Class I is

assigned to those areas where a management decision

has been made to preserve a natural landscape. This

includes areas such as wilderness, wild sections of

National WSRs, and other congressionally and

administratively designated areas. 

Class II-The objective of this classification is to retain

the existing character of the landscape. The level of

change to landscape characteristics should be low.

Management activities may be seen but should not

attract the attention of a casual observer. Any changes

must conform to the basic elements of form, line, color,

and texture found in the predominant natural features of

the characteristic landscape. This class represents the

minimum level of VRM for WSAs. 

Class III-The objective of Class III is to partially retain

the existing character of the landscape. Moderate levels

of change are acceptable. Management activities may

attract attention but should not dominate the view of a

casual observer. Changes should conform to the basic

elements of the predominant natural features of the

characteristic landscape. 

Class IV-The objective of Class IV is to provide for

management activities that require major modification

of the landscape. These management activities may

dominate the view and become the focus of viewer

attention; however, every effort should be made to

minimize the impact of these projects by carefully

locating activities, minimizing disturbance, and

designing the projects to conform to the characteristic

landscape. 

2.20.1 Andrews Management Unit

Public land has been evaluated and assigned visual

resource inventory classes according to the relative

value of the visual resources. Decisions of this plan will

determine the VRM classes under which public land

will be managed. Thus, the VRM class specified for

management may differ from the class indicated by

inventory. All WSAs in the Andrews MU are Class I

(Figure 2.13). The northwestern portion of the Andrews

MU is Class IV. The area near the road from

Frenchglen, through Fields, to Denio is primarily Class

III, with some adjacent areas considered as Class IV.

To help maintain the management objective of a VRM

class, the BLM’s visual contrast rating system is

employed for proposed individual projects and

activities to help analyze and mitigate visual impacts to

the existing landscape. This systematic process uses the

basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture

to compare the proposed project/activity with the

features of the existing landscape.

2.20.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

VRM Class I is assigned to those areas for which a

previous decision has been made to maintain a natural

landscape. This includes wilderness areas and other

congressionally (Steens Mountain CMPA) and

administratively designated areas where decisions have

been made to preserve a natural landscape. BLM policy

includes WSAs until such time as these areas are
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-59

designated as wilderness or released by Congress for

other uses. Since many WSAs do not necessarily

contain exceptionally high scenic values, the primary

objective of WSA management is to retain its natural

character essentially unaltered by humans during the

time it is being managed as a WSA. If the WSA is

designated as wilderness, the area would continue to be

managed as VRM Class I; however, if the WSA were

released, the RM P for the area would need to be

amended and appropriate VRM management objectives

established. This policy applies to all future plans and

plan amendments. The Steens Mountain CMPA is

primarily managed as Class I, except for the

northwestern portion north of the Steens Mountain

Back Country Byway, which is Class II and several

scattered Class IV areas (Figure 2.13).

2.21 Human Uses and Values

2.21.1 Harney/Malheur Study Area 

The Andrews MU encompasses a large segment of

southern Harney County and a portion of southwestern

Malheur County. The Steens Mountain CMPA lies

entirely within Harney County. Part of the Mineral

W ithdrawal Area lies within Malheur County and the

Vale District’s Jordan RA; however, the effects of the

withdrawal in that region have been addressed in the

SEORMP. To effectively compile an economic profile

of the subbasin review area, Harney and Malheur

Counties were selected as the analysis unit. The Steens

Mountain CMPA is not separated out but is included in

the assessment of Harney County within the

Harney/Malheur study area.

The primary economic center of Harney County

encompasses the cities of Burns and Hines, which are

located 290 miles from Portland in Southeastern

Oregon. Burns is the county seat of Harney County and

the location of many federal, state, and local

government offices. Most basic goods and services are

available in Burns/Hines. The nearest community with

commercial air service is in Redmond, Oregon. No

passenger train service to Burns or Hines is available.

The major economic center of Malheur County is the

city of Ontario, located on the Oregon/Idaho border.

Ontario is characterized by large employers in the food

processing and lumber industries. The nearest

community with commercial air service is Boise, Idaho.

Passenger train service is provided by Union Pacific.

Several smaller communities are located within the

Andrews MU, including Frenchglen and Fields.

Services for residents and visitors are limited, but do

include fuel, campground, motel or resort facilities, a

small store, a restaurant, and one or two churches.

2.21.1.1 Economic Findings from the ICBEMP

The ICBEMP examined the Harney and Malheur

County areas generally and the communities of Ontario,

Burns, and Hines specifically. Smaller unincorporated

communities were not examined. The Draft Eastside

EIS concludes that Harney County, located in the Boise

trade center, is an area of low economic and social

resiliency. This determination is based on the county's

dependence on public land timber and forage and the

fact that 21 percent of the county budget is derived

from federal land payments (USFS and BLM May

1997). Forest Service lands are eight percent of the land

base while BLM lands represent 62 percent of the land

base. The Draft Eastside EIS concludes that Malheur

County is also an area of low economic and social

resiliency, which is again based on the county's

dependence on public land timber and forage and the

fact that 1.5 percent of the county budget is derived

from federal land payments (ICBEMP May 1997).

Malheur County is also located in the Boise trade

center. Forest Service lands are 0.1 percent of the land

base while BLM lands represent 72.8 percent of the

land base. 

Burns and Hines are analyzed in the subsequently

released document, “Economic and Social Conditions

of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics

of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an

Estimation of Effects on Communities from the

Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River

Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements.” In the

document, Burns was found to have high timber

employment specialization and medium agricultural

employment specialization. Hines was found to have

very high timber employment specialization and high

agricultural employment specialization. 

2.21.1.2 Population, Age Distribution, and Ethnicity

Harney and Malheur Counties are among Oregon's least

populated counties. Except for Ontario, Burns, Hines,

and a few other “urban” centers, the two counties are

primarily rural in character. Table 2.19 displays the

census population in 2000 for Oregon, Harney County,

Burns, Hines, and for Malheur County and Ontario.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-60

Table 2.19: Census Population in 2000

Geographic Area Population (2000)

Oregon 3,421,399

Harney County 7,609

Malheur County 31,615

Burns 3,064

Hines 1,623

Ontario 10,985

In Harney County’s population, a relatively high

percentage is age 65 or older. In 2000, there were 1,141

individuals 65 or over, comprising 15 percent of the

population compared to 12.8 percent for the state of

Oregon; 26 percent of the population was under 18 and

Harney County’s median age in 2000 was 38.9. Age

distribution for the state in 2000 showed a slightly

younger population trend overall; in Oregon, 24.7

percent of the population was under 18 and the median

age was 36.3.

Malheur County has a slightly younger population, with

4,321 individuals 65 or over making up 13.7 percent of

the total population; 27.6 percent of the population in

2000 was under 18 and the median age was 34. 

Harney County has limited ethnic diversity with small

populations of Hispanic and Native American residents.

Agricultural activities in Harney County are not

considered highly labor intensive, and are limited

primarily to production of hay, forage, and livestock.

This may be one reason for the lower hispanic

populations. Malheur County has a much higher

Hispanic population, which may be attributed to more

labor intensive agriculture and food processing. Table

2.20 shows the approximate population percentages(for

individuals recorded under the single race heading in

the 2000 census data) for the White, Native American

and Hispanic sectors of the population in Harney and

Malheur Counties, as well as the state of Oregon. 

The Burns-Paiute Tribe has a small reservation in

Harney County, located near Burns. The tribe was

established by Executive Order instead of by treaty and

has no reserved treaty rights (Hanes 1999). Tribal

members may particpate in traditional cultural practices

such as hunting, fishing, and gathering plants on BLM

lands. The Native American Traditional Values

associated with this region are discussed in the Cultural

Resources Section of this Document.

2.21.1.3 Employment and Wages

In 1998, an estimated 3,680 people were employed in

Harney County. This includes 870 self-employed

persons. Wage and salary workers were more common,

totaling 2,810. Major manufacturing employers, SMC

and Louisiana Pacific, are located in the Burns/Hines

area, outside the Planning Area. Manufacturing

employed 550 people in Harney County (State of

Oregon, Employment Department, various years). 

Federal, state, and local governments employed the

greatest number of people at 1,020 (State of Oregon,

Employment Department, various years). During fiscal

year 1995, federal natural resource agencies in Harney

County employed 60 people at the BLM and 74 at the

Forest Service (ICBEMP, February 1998). 

The trade sector employed 570 people in 1998, up 16.3

percent from 1990 figures. The services sector

employed 410 people, up 36.7 percent since 1990;

however, growth in the trade and services sectors has

been below the statewide trends, with trade up 22.6

percent and services up 40.7 percent. Overall, Harney

County has been experiencing growing employment;

unemployment has been decreasing since 1996 (State of

Oregon, Employment Department, various years). 

Malheur County employment in 1999 was 13,507, up

from 13,330 in 1998. Although employment has

increased from 1997 to 1998, unemployment has gone

up to 8.9 percent (State of Oregon, Employment

Department, various years). There has been an influx of

the labor force during the past four years, but

employment is not keeping pace.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-61

Table 2.20: Population Percentages in Harney and Malheur Counties

Geographic Area Race Percent of Population 1

Oregon White 78.6

Hispanic 8.0

American Indian and Alaska Native 1.3

Harney County White 87.7

Hispanic 4.2

American Indian and Alaska Native 4.0

Malheur County White 50.2

Hispanic 25.6

American Indian and Alaska Native 1.0

1 Population percentages do not include responses from the two or more race category in the 2000 census data; rather, they were

derived from the single race category. For Oregon, 96.9 percent of the population is accounted for in the single race category and 97.9

percent and 97.4 percent of the populations are accounted for Harney and Malheur respectively.

2.21.1.4 Per Capita Income and Poverty Rates 

The per capita personal income in Harney County was

$21,173 in 1999, lower than Oregon's statewide level of

$26,958. Harney County also has a higher portion of

income derived from transfer payments (19 percent)

than the state as a whole (13 percent). Transfer

payments include Social Security, Aid to Families with

Dependent Children, unemployment compensation,

disability, and other government payments. Typically,

transfer payments are a major source of income for

retirees and low-income people. Total income derived

from dividends, interest, and rent (22 percent) in

Harney County was the same as that type of income

statewide (22 percent). This income represents returns

on accumulated assets held by individuals and is often

a large portion of income for the self-employed and

retirees. Earned income, typically wages and salaries,

was 48 percent of income in Harney County,

significantly below the statewide proportion of 56

percent (Oregon Employment Department, No Date).

The per capita income in Malheur County for 1999 was

$19,530, lower than that of the state or Harney County.

The portion of income derived from transfer payments

in Malheur County was 20 percent and the income

derived from dividends, interest and rent was 25

percent. Nevertheless, 1999 earned income in Malheur

County in the form of wages and salaries made up 57

percent of total income, significantly higher than

Harney County and slightly higher than the state.

2.21.1.5 Economic Activity Generated by Public Land

Resources

The BLM and other federal land management agencies

often make commodities available for use by the private

sector. Both the BLM and USFS make rangelands

available to private ranching concerns on a renewable

permit basis. A fee is collected for each grazing head of

livestock. Similarly, the BLM and Forest Service sell

timber to private firms; however, no USFS lands or

other commercial forest lands exist in Harney County

within the Andrews MU. For this reason, timber

harvests from BLM land within the Andrews MU have

not been a significant source of economic revenue.

Agriculture in Harney County focuses on these

products: (1) beef, which earned $33,014,000 in 2000

and (2) Alfalfa, with 2000 earnings at $9,059,000

(Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN)

2000). In Malheur County, dry storage onions have

surpassed cattle as the highest grossing agricultural

commodity at $68,765,000 in 2000. The cattle industry

earned $63,317,000 in 2000 (OAIN 2000). This shift,

however, does not necessarily represent a decrease in

the commodity value of public rangelands associated

with the livestock grazing and the cattle industry. 

Total gross farm sales in Harney County totaled

$50,418,000 in 2000 (OAIN 2000). Crop sales were

$14,075,000 and animal product sales made up the rest

($36,343,000). Total gross farm sales in Malheur

County were $193,733,000 in 2000. Of this,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-62

$121,226,000 was in crop sales and $72,507,000 came

from animal product sales. 

The tourism industry in this area is small compared to

other Oregon regions; however, tourism in Harney and

Malheur Counties provides a critical monetary inflow

to the economies. For people seeking outdoor

recreation and solitude, public lands in Harney and

Malheur Counties have much to offer. A 2001 report

prepared for the Oregon Tourism Commission

estimated that travel-related spending in Harney County

totaled $18,000,000 with $2,500,000 attributed to

travelers staying in public campgrounds during 2000. In

Malheur County, travel spending for 2000 was

$34,900,000 with $2,500,000 attributed to travelers

staying in public campgrounds. Travel is responsible

for 6.5 percent of the employment in Harney County

and 3.2 percent in Malheur County. 

2.22 Lands and Rights-of-Way

2.22.1 Andrews Management Unit

The BLM administers public lands in the Andrews MU,

which is located in Harney and Malheur Counties.

According to available GIS data, the approximate

percentages of surface area administration/ownership

within the Andrews MU are as follows: BLM - 73

percent, USFWS - 1.6 percent, State of Oregon

(Division of State Lands, ODFW) - 0.4 percent, and

privately owned - 25 percent (see Table 2.21). All the

private land in the Andrews MU is zoned by Harney

County for exclusive farm and range use (EFRU-1)

except the areas at Frenchglen and Fields, Oregon,

which are zoned rural service center (RSC).

2.22.1.1 Administrative Sites

BLM administrative sites in the Andrews MU are the

Frenchglen Fire Guard Station and the Fields

Administrative Site.

2.22.1.2 Land Retention, Acquisition and Disposal

BLM lands are divided into three zones that identify the

public land for potential land tenure adjustments (e.g.,

acquisition or disposal), consistent with existing

regulations and BLM policy. FLPMA Section

102.(a)(1) provides that

 “...the public lands be retained in Federal ownership

unless as a result of the land use planning procedure

provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of

a particular parcel will service the national interest...”

Zone 1 land has been identified for retention in public

ownership. These are also areas where emphasis will be

placed on acquisition of land containing high public

resource values. Zone 2 land has been identified for

limited retention and consolidation of ownership. Zone

3 land generally has lower resource value and has been

determined difficult and uneconomic to manage.

Methodsforimplementing land disposal actions include

the following: (a) BLM and other federal jurisdictional

transfers; (b) transfers to state and local agencies (e.g.,

Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) patents, in-lieu

selections, airport patents); (c) state exchanges; (d)

private exchanges; (e) sales; (f) Indian allotments; and

(g) desert land entries.

Current GIS data show approximately 1,711,135 acres

designated as Zone, 1,394,709 acres designated Zone 2

and 38,635 acres designated Zone 3 within the Planning

Area. There are also 33,327 acres that are not

designated. Land management requirements in the Act

such as land exchanges and WSA boundary adjustments

create inconsistencies between the current land tenure

designations and legislative requirements. These

inconsistencies will be addressed through the RMP/EIS.

Figure 2.14 depicts the Land Tenure Zones for the

Planning Area. 

2.22.1.3 Withdrawal Areas

The Mineral Withdrawal Area designated by the Act

encompasses the entire Steens Mountain CMPA and

Steens Mountain Wilderness. Subject to valid existing

rights, no mining or exploration will be permitted

anywhere in the Steens Mountain CMPA. Exceptions

are the existing gravel operations within the Steens

Mountain CMPA, which are permitted by the Act as

follows: Section 401.(b) of the Act “... The Secretary

may permit the development of salable mineral

resources, for road maintenance only, in those locations

identified ... as an existing ‘gravel pit’ within the

mineral withdrawal boundaries (excluding the Steens

Mountain Wilderness, WSAs, and designated segments

of the National Wild and Scenic River System) where

such development was authorized before the date of

enactment of this Act.” 

Section 113(g) of the Act also withdraws all lands

within the Steens Mounta in CMPA from all forms of

entry except “land exchanges that further the purposes

and objectives specified in Section 102" of the Act.

WSRs and Wilderness also carry with them their own

withdrawals made under the terms of the Wilderness

and Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts. For these reasons the

Steens Mountain CMPA, depending upon the location,

may have a variety of overlapping duplicate

withdrawals.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-63

Table 2.21: Land Ownership and Administration in the Andrew s MU

Land Ownership/Administration Acres

BLM 1,221,316

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 26,677

Private (including county) 427,105

State of Oregon 6,577

Total 1,681,675

2.22.1.4 Access

Many roads or segments of roads crossing private lands

in the Steens Mountain CMPA have no provision for

legal public access. Together with the access

restrictions provided in the Act, this situation may

severely limit legal public access to significant portions

of public land within the Steens Mountain CMPA. Over

time, the BLM has acquired public access easements on

a few major roads such as the Steens Mountain Back

Country Byway. More recently, land exchanges

authorized by the Act have secured public access

easements on several private road segments. 

As discussed in previous sections, the Act specifies that

“reasonable access” will be provided to private and

state landholdings within the boundaries of the Steens

Mountain CMPA and the Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Creating the Steens Mountain CMPA and implementing

the wilderness regulations have raised access issues to

the forefront of management planning. The Act and the

BLM IMP for lands under Wilderness Review will

guide access and use of the roads/transportation;

however, the Transportation Plan, as well as the

RMP/EIS, will address further the issue of access and

will also outline specific protocols and objectives.

2.22.1.5 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations

Although the Act does not specifically prohibit grants

of new ROWs or land use authorizations, many of its

provisions would limit the number and type of grants.

An example is the Act’s prohibition of road

construction and facilities. Valid existing rights are

protected under the Act. Regarding ROWs, the Act

specifically states that “nothing in this Act shall have

the effect of terminating any valid existing ROW on

Federal lands included in the Cooperative Management

and Protection Area.”

Existing ROWs within the Steens Mountain CMPA are

primarily limited to small scale electric and telephone

distribution lines. Access roads across public lands to

private lands generally have no recorded rights

associated with them. Use of these roads by landowners

and others is considered “casual use” where no

authorization is needed as long as such use does not

cause appreciable disturbance to the public lands, its

resources or improvements. No well maintained county

roads or state or federal highways are within the

CMPA, although these roads and highways comprise

significant portions of the Steens Mountain CMPA

boundary. Likewise, there are no designated ROW

corridors within the Steens Mountain CMPA.

Film permits and wilderness access permits under 43

CFR 2920 are the primary type of land use

authorizations that have been granted or might

potentially be proposed.

2.22.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Table 2.22 depicts the various land ownership in the

Steens Mountain CMPA. Private land is dispersed

throughout the area but larger parcels and/or

concentrations occur in the northern and southern

thirds. The primary use of the private land is cattle

ranching and grazing. Other uses include recreation,

hunting, small business, and agriculture with native hay

as the primary crop. Although many of these residents

rely on their private land and adjacent BLM land for

their livelihood, most are absentee owners of small

parcels of 160 acres or less. All the private land in the

Steens Mountain CMPA is zoned by Harney County for

exclusive farm and range use (EFRU-1).
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-64

Table 2.22 : Land Ownership and Administration in the Steens Mountain CMPA

Land Ownership/

Administration

Acres

BLM 428,153

Private 66,913

State of Oregon 1,070

Total 496,136

2.22.2.1 Land Retention, Acquisition and Disposal

Current GIS data show Zone 1 designated areas through

the central and northeastern portion of the Steens

Mountain CMPA. Zone 2 and Zone 3 areas in the

Steens Mountain CMPA occur in the extreme northern

and southern portions and are depicted on Figure 2.15.

Land management requirements of the Act, such as land

exchanges, wilderness and WSA boundary adjustments,

create inconsistencies between the current land tenure

designations and legislative requirements. For example,

there are now Zone 3 (disposal) lands within the Steens

Mountain Wilderness. These inconsistencies will be

addressed through the RMP/EIS.

One specific purpose of the Act (Section 1(b)(4)) was

to “provide for the acquisition of private lands through

exchange for inclusion in the Steens Mountain

Wilderness and the [CM PA].” In order to do this, a

number of specific land exchanges were outlined in the

Act and carried out by the BLM. Lands acquired within

the Steens Mountain CMPA became part of the Steens

Mountain CMPA and are managed under its laws and

management plans. Lands acquired in the Steens

Mountain Wilderness and WSAs came under those

designations and are managed as such. The Act also

allows for additional future acquisitions of private lands

in the Steens Mountain CM PA, the Steens Mountain

Wilderness, and the WSAs, which will be classified and

managed accordingly. A revised land tenure plan will

be developed during the RM P/EIS planning process. 

2.22.2.2 Withdrawal Areas

The Mineral Withdrawal Area designated by the Act

encompasses the entire Steens Mountain CMPA and

Steens Mountain Wilderness. Subject to valid existing

rights, no mining or exploration will be permitted

anywhere in the Steens Mountain CMPA. Exceptions

are the existing gravel operations within the Steens

Mountain CMPA, which are permitted by the Act as

follows: Section 401.(b) of the Act “... The Secretary

may permit the development of salable mineral

resources, for road maintenance only, in those locations

identified ... as an existing ‘gravel pit’ within the

mineral withdrawal boundaries (excluding the Steens

Mountain Wilderness, WSAs, and designated segments

of the National Wild and Scenic River System) where

such development was authorized before the date of

enactment of this Act.” 

Section 113(g) of the Act also withdraws all lands

within the Steens Mountain CMPA from all forms of

entry except “land exchanges that further the purposes

and objectives specified in Section 102" of the Act.

WSRs and W ilderness also carry with them their own

withdrawals made under the terms of the Wilderness

and Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts. For these reasons the

Steens Mountain CMPA, depending upon the location,

may have a variety of overlapping duplicate

withdrawals.

2.22.2.3 Access

Many roads or segments of roads crossing private lands

in the Steens Mountain CMPA have no provision for

legal public access. Together with the access

restrictions provided in the Act, this situation may

severely limit legal public access to significant portions

of public land within the Steens Mountain CMPA. Over

time, the BLM has acquired public access easements on

a few major roads such as the Steens Mountain Back

Country Byway. More recently, land exchanges

authorized by the Act have secured public access

easements on several private road segments. 

As discussed in previous sections, the Act specifies that

“reasonable access” will be provided to private and

state landholdings within the boundaries of the Steens

Mountain CMPA and the Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Creating the Steens Mountain CMPA and implementing

the wilderness regulations have raised access issues to
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-65

the forefront of management planning. The Act and the

BLM Interim Management Policy for lands under

Wilderness Review will guide access and use of the

roads/transportation; however, the Transportation Plan,

as well as the RMP/EIS, will address further the issue

of access and will also outline specific protocols and

objectives.

2.22.2.4 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations

Although the Act does not specifically prohibit grants

of new ROWs or land use authorizations, many of its

provisions would limit the number and type of grants.

An example is the Act’s prohibition of road

construction and facilities. Valid existing rights are

protected under the Act. Regarding ROWs, the Act

specifically states that “nothing in this Act shall have

the effect of terminating any valid existing ROW on

Federal lands included in the Cooperative Management

and Protection Area.”

Existing ROWs within the Steens Mountain CMPA are

primarily limited to small scale electric and telephone

distribution lines. Access roads across public lands to

private lands generally have no recorded rights

associated with them. Use of these roads by landowners

and others is considered “casual use” where no

authorization is needed as long as such use does not

cause appreciable disturbance to the public lands, its

resources or improvements. No well maintained county

roads or state or federal highways are within the

CMPA, although these roads and highways comprise

significant portions of the Steens Mountain CMPA

boundary. Likewise, there are no designated ROW

corridors within the Steens Mountain CMPA.

Film permits and wilderness access permits under 43

CFR 2920 are the primary type of land use

authorizations that have been granted or might

potentially be proposed.

2.23 Geology

2.23.1 Andrews Management Unit

The Basin and Range province consists of a series of

nearly parallel, generally north trending, fault-block

mountains (horsts) and intervening broad valleys

(grabens). Drainage is generally internal with no outlet

to the sea, with an exception in the northeast portion of

the Andrews MU where a drainage is a tributary to the

Snake River.

Pre-Tertiary rocks in the Andrews MU are limited to

the Pueblo Mountains and consist of Mesozoic rocks

thought to be part of an accreted terrain. The presence

of rounded quartzite cobbles in the Mesozoic rocks

suggests that part of the Precambrian pluton may

underlie the Pueblo Mountains (Evans 1994).

Lower and mid-Miocene rocks are exposed at the base

of the Steens Mountain escarpment. They are primarily

rhyolite and andesite and are locally mineralized. 

The Basin and Range province began to evolve in the

middle Miocene (18 million years ago) as a result of

regional, generally east-west extension. The regional

extension was accompanied by extrusion of Steens

Basalt lava flows approximately 16 million years ago

over an area 100 by 180 miles that includes all of the

Andrews MU. 

Approximately 15 million years ago, caldera-forming

eruptions occurred in the Pueblo and Whitehorse

calderas and calderas in the McDermitt complex,

resulting in welded tuffs in the eastern part of the

Andrews MU. Caldera-forming eruptions occurred

again 9.5 million years ago and 6.5 million years ago

from vents in the Burns/Harney Lake area. The

eruptions resulted in welded tuffs in the northern half of

the Andrews MU (Devine Canyon Ash-flow Tuff) and

northwest part of the Andrews MU (the pumice-rich

Rattlesnake Ash-flow Tuff).

Beginning approximately ten million years ago and

continuing to the present, the regional extension was

accompanied by regional uplift and extensional

faulting, resulting in present day topography. Total

stratigraphic offset on the fault zone east of the Pueblo

Mountains is approximately 15,000 feet and total offset

on the fault zone east of Steens Mountain is

approximately 10,000 feet. Erosion has occurred over

the years, resulting in topographic offset of

approximately 5,000 feet between the Alvord Valley

floor and the top of Steens Mountain. The Alvord

Valley contains more than 1,000 feet of sediment

eroded from the surrounding mountains and hills.

Less than a million years ago, a glacial cap formed on

Steens Mountain (the Fish Lake glacial advance) and

then glaciers formed in the valleys on Steens Mountain

(the Blitzen glacial advance). Between 24,000 and

12,000 years ago, pluvial lakes occupied Alvord,

Blitzen, and Catlow Valleys. The lakes formed due to

increased prec ipitation and slightly warmer

temperatures from a climate change that occurred

several thousand years after the glaciers were at their

peak. During this time, landslides formed along the east

side of Steens Mountain along slip planes in tuffaceous

sediments, and ancient Lake Alvord spilled eastward

into the Coyote Lake area through Big Sand Gap.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-66

2.23.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Steens Mountain is a fault-block mountain that dips

gently westward and is characterized by its precipitous

east-facing 5,500-foot high escarpment overlooking

Alvord Valley. The elevation of 9,500 feet allowed the

formation of alpine glaciers less than one million years

ago on the eastern edge of Steens Mountain. Gorges

carved by the glaciers are 2,000 feet deep and expose

layers of the Steens Basalt, which is approximately

3,000 feet thick in this area. Mid and Lower Miocene

rocks are exposed at the base of the east-facing

escarpment.

2.24 Energy and Mineral Resources

The BLM manages energy and mineral resources on

1,549,00 acres of land that has federal surface and

federal subsurface (mineral estate) ownership within the

Planning Area (“Public Land” in Table 2.23). The BLM

manages a total of 72,000 acres of land with nonfederal

surface and federal subsurface ownership within the

Planning Area. The BLM manages a total of 1,000

acres of land with nonfederal surface and partial federal

subsurface ownership (ownership of specific mineral

resources such as oil and gas resources) in the Planning

Area. There is nonfederal subsurface ownership on

552,000 acres of land within the Planning Area, which

is 25 percent of the land. Detailed information is on

master title plats available in each BLM DO. Figure

2.15 shows surface and subsurface (mineral estate)

ownership in the Planning Area. On the map, the

mineral estate ownership is the same as the surface

estate ownership unless there is an inclined line pattern

showing that the land is split estate. The patterned land

has federal mineral estate ownership if the surface is

nonfederal (white or blue) and the patterned land has

nonfederal mineral estate ownership if the surface is

federal (tan or yellow). Wind may be considered for

power generation in the Planning Area, but is not

covered in this document. 

2.24.1 Leasable Minerals

This mineral category includes oil and gas, coal,

geothermal and sodium mineral resources. The BLM

has developed four categories to manage leasable

minerals in a manner that minimizes conflict with other

resource values: (1) open to leasing subject to standard

terms and conditions; (2) open to leasing subject to

special stipulations that may include seasonal No

Surface Occupancy (NSO), other timing limitations, or

special stipulations (controlled surface use limitations);

(3) open to leasing subject to NSO; and (4) closed to

leasing. 

No oil, gas, or coal resources have been documented in

the Planning Area. A Known Geothermal Resource

Area (Alvord KGRA) exists that is entirely within the

Mineral Withdrawal Area. Twelve deep (greater than

1,000 feet) geothermal wells were drilled within this

KGRA. Rose Valley Borax Company mined borax in

the area south of Alvord Lake 100 years ago. The borax

mining operation lasted for ten years and shut down

when sodium borate levels fell below economic levels.

Currently, there are no mineral leases in the Planning

Area. 

Mineral potentials for leasable mineral resources are

shown on Figure 2.17. Potential is low for oil and gas

resources throughout the Planning Area. High potential

for geothermal resources exists in the KGRA and in the

area to the east of the KGRA; the rest of the Planning

Area has moderate potential for geothermal resources.

Sodium mineral resources have high potential in the

Alvord Lake area and low potential outside that area.

2.24.2 Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals in the Planning Area are gold,

mercury, uranium, diatomite, copper, molybdenum, and

sunstones. Exploration is sporadic and currently only

one exploration/mining area is active, containing

sunstones.

The potential is high for hot-springs type gold and

mercury deposits in the Lone Mountain area (in the

northwestern part of Andrews MU), in the area between

the community of Andrews south through the Pueblo

Mounta ins, on the east side of Steens Mountain in the

Alvord Hots Springs area, in the Flagstaff Butte area,

and in the southeastern corner of the Planning Area.

The east side of Steens Mountain and the Flagstaff

Butte area also have high potential for uranium. Part of

the Flagstaff Butte area has moderate potential for

diatomite. The Pueblo Mountains and Pueblo Valley

areas have moderate potential for gold in quartz veins.

The Pueblo Mountains have moderate to high potential

for porphyry deposits of copper, gold and molybdenum.

In October 2001, 37 mining claims were in the Planning

Area; six are grandfathered claims within the Mineral

Withdrawal Area east of the CMPA.

Locatable mineral resource potentials are shown on

Figure 2.17. This map also shows the location of the

Mineral Withdrawal Area. Table 2.24 summarizes the

number of acres with high, moderate, or low potentials

for selected leasable and locatable minerals. The table

acreages include lands within the Mineral Withdrawal

Area and non-BLM administered lands. The table

shows acreages for moderate and low potential for hot

springs gold/mercury and for uranium.That information
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-67

Table 2.23: Mineral Ownership by County

Andrews RMP Planning Area Malheur Harney Total

Planning Area

Public land1103 1,446 1,549

All minerals reserved22 70 72

Partial minerals reserved30 1 1

1Public Land = Surface and mineral estates both under BLM administration.

2All Minerals Reserved = Nonfederal surface, 100 percent federal mineral estate.

3Partial Minerals Reserved = nonfederal surface, less than 100 percent federal mineral estate.

Congressional action has closed a total of 1,181,362

acres in the Planning Area to mineral leasing in the

Mineral With dra wa l Are a, Ste en s Mountain

W ilderness, WSAs and d esignated WSRs.

Congressional action has also closed 748,119 acres to

mineral location under the 1872 Mining Law in the

Mineral Withdrawal Are a, Steens M ounta in

Wilderness, and designated wild segments of WSRs.

Six grandfathered claims covering 120 acres are located

in the Mineral Withdrawal Area. In WSAs outside the

Steens Mineral Withdrawal Area covering 433,243

acres, claims may be located but no surface-disturbing

mineral activity requiring reclamation will be

authorized until congress acts to designate all, part or

none of the WSAs as wilderness. Since no pre-1976

claims are in any of the WSAs in the Planning Area,

there can be no claims with grandfathered or valid

existing rights in these areas.

2.24.3 Saleable Minerals

This group of minerals includes sand, gravel, and rock

aggregate. No decorative rock resources have been

identified in the Planning Area; petrified wood and

obsidian are rare. The Planning area contains large

amounts of sand, gravel, and rock aggregate which is

generally located in visually or ecologically sensitive

areas. Development has been limited to road

construction and maintenance projects. The locations of

designated sources of saleable minerals on BLM land

are shown on Figure 2.16.

2.24.4 Rockhounding

Rockhounds primarily collect agate, thundereggs and

sunstones in the Planning Area. No rock collection

areas have been designated.

2.24.5 Andrews Management Unit

The Mineral Withdrawal Area designated by the Act

extends beyond the Steens Mountain CMPA into part of

the Andrews MU and beyond the Planning Area into

the Vale District. See Figure 2.16 for the location of the

Mineral Withdrawal Area boundary. 

Within the Andrews MU are ten designated sand and

gravel sources, one rock aggregate source, and two state

ROW sites on state highways for use by the Oregon

Department of Transportation (ODOT). The right-of

way sites are authorized under Title 23 of the Federal

Highway Act. Figure 2.16 shows the location of

designated saleable mineral sites.

2.24.6 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The Mineral Withdrawal Area designated by the Act

encompasses the entire Steens Mountain CMPA. No

claims or leases exist within the Steens Mountain

CMPA. 

The Act allows for development of saleable mineral

resources for road maintenance only, at locations

identified in the Act. Within the CMPA are three

designated rock aggregate sources and one sand and

gravel source that may be developed. No state ROW

sites exist in the Steens Mountain CMPA. 

2.25 Cultural Resources

A cultural resource is generally defined by federal

agencies as any location of human activity that occurred

at least 50 years ago, and that is identifiable through

field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence.

American Indian traditional use areas are a special

category of cultural resources. Some cultural 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-68

Table 2.24: Mineral Potential in Acres 

Commodity Low Moderate High Total2

Leasables1

 Oil and gas 2,178 0 0 2,178

 Geothermal 0 1,613 565 2,178

 Sodium/potassium minerals 2,163 0 15 2,178

Locatables

 Hot-springs gold and mercury 442 1,397 339 2,178

Uranium 509 1,559 110 2,178

Vein gold 2,105 73 0 2,178

Copper, gold and Molybdenum

(Porphyry)

2,157 14 7 2,178

Diatomite 2,148 0 30 2,178

1Variations in acreage totals between leasable minerals are due to differences in the mineral reservations; i.e., in many cases, only

one of the leasable minerals (e.g., oil and gas) was reserved.

2Acreage includes land within the Mineral Withdrawal Area and non-BLM administered lands.

resources may be less than 50 years old, but have

cultural or religious importance to American Indian

tribes or paramount historic interest to the public. 

Prehistoric, or precontact, cultural resources include

lithic scatters, rock shelters, pithouses, petroglyphs,

hearths, and rock alignments. Historic cultural

resources include buildings and building ruins, wagon

roads, railroad grades, irrigation ditches and associated

structures, dams, and archaeological deposits.

Almost all cultural resource inventories are

project-specific, rather than initiated by the Cultural

Resource Program; therefore, the surveys are not

necessarily in areas of high site potential. Only seven

percent or less of the public land in southeastern

Oregon has been inventoried for cultural resources.

Earlier inventories and site records are sketchy and do

not conform with more recently approved data bases of

the State Historic Preservation Office or the BLM

Cultural Resource Program; however, sites from earlier

surveys have been tabulated for their condition at the

time of recording when the information was given. 

2.25.1 Andrews Management Unit

The archaeological record is extensive in terms of site

numbers and age. Evidence exists in the Andrews MU

and Steens Mountain of some of the earliest occupation

in North America over the past 10,000 years.

Prehistoric sites are those older than about 1830 A.D.

and include the following: stone flake scatters,

habitation sites, toolstone quarries, rock shelters and

caves, rock art and rock structures such as rock rings

(wickiup supports), and hunting blinds. 

Since the late 1970s, a total of 590 cultural properties

have been recorded in the Andrews MU (561

prehistoric and 29 historic). Cultural resources have

been degraded by natural processes such as erosion and

by human actions such as construction and artifact

collection. In recent decades, federal agencies have

attempted to minimize damage to significant National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible cultural

resources. 

Federal Antiquity laws require consideration of cultural

resource values through consultation, a process

designed to encourage protection of cultural properties

prior to project approval. This often necessitates

intensive surveys and recording where existing data are

insufficient to make an assessment. If significant sites

cannot be avoided during construction activities, the

adverse effects are mitigated through data recovery by

excavation, surface collection, photography and

recording, and analysis. Table 2.25 shows the condition

of sites in the Andrews MU including the Steens

Mountain CMPA. 

The density of scientifically significant prehistoric sites

is high along major streams and rivers, along the

margins of pluvial lakebeds, in some dunal areas, and
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-69

near springs. Low site density is expected in large areas

of the treeless undifferentiated volcanic uplands and in

the bottoms of former pluvial lake basins, where surface

water and various life-sustaining resources are less

prevalent. 

2.25.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

The Steens Mountain CMPA is the northernmost

extension of the Great Basin and supports a wide

variety of environments ranging from true desert

(Alvord Desert) to alpine meadows at the top of Steens

Mountain. There are opportunities for prehistoric

archaeological research. The area has been the focus of

continuous work since the late 1970s.

Fur trappers were the first Euro-Americans to visit the

Steens Mountain Area in a brief foray in 1826. The next

visitors came in the 1840s and 1850s. The area was first

permanently settled in the 1870s and the most arable

land with water was claimed shortly thereafter. Just

after the turn of the 20th century, a brief dry-land

farming boom occurred to the west in Catlow Valley.

By 1920, most settlers were driven away from the

Steens by cold winters, summer frost, and drought. The

Riddle brothers, who ranched on the Little Blitzen

River, were an exception. They settled this 1,220 acre

ranch in the late 1800s and it operated continuously

until 1986 when the BLM acquired and designated it a

National Historic District. 

In the early 20th century, Basque sheep herders moved

onto Steens Mountain and surrounding rangeland. They

eventually became ranch owners, leaving their marks in

the form of place names, cabins, carved aspen, sheep

camps and numerous rock cairns.

Historic sites in the Steens Mountain CMPA include

wagon roads, homesteads, the town sites of Andrews

and Diamond, Basque sheep camps with carved aspen,

Rose Valley Borax Works at Borax Lake, and historic

trash dumps. The Riddle Brothers Ranch National

Historic District is a complex of well preserved historic

buildings, several willow fences, corrals, and rock

walls. The BLM has restored three of the buildings and

stabilized the others. In addition to the historic

component, the district contains at least 48 prehistoric

sites.

The Steens Mountain area contains 443 archeological

sites covering 2,911 acres. Only eight percent of the

area has been surveyed for archeological sites and most

surveys have been tied to BLM projects. Three

extensive surveys in the south and southeast portions of

the Steens Mountain area account for most of the

survey acres and site discoveries.

2.26 Native American Traditional Values

2.26.1 Andrews Management Unit

No Native American subsistence areas have been

identified. Prior to non-Native American settlement, the

area was occupied and used by Northern Paiute bands.

Many of their descendants now live on the Burns Paiute

Reservation in Burns, Oregon; the Warm Springs

Reservation in Warm Springs, Oregon; and the Fort

McDermitt Reservation in McDermitt, Nevada.

Resources traditionally used include edible roots such

as biscuitroot, camas, and onions; goosefoot and Indian

ricegrass seeds; red osier dogwood; willow; quaking

aspen posts for working on animal hides; black lichens

found in conifer forests; basketry grasses;

chokecherries; currants; mountain mahogany; and

obsidian, basalt, and cryptocrystalline silicate toolstone

sources. Sacred sites, significant landforms, and

traditional resource sites may be present of which the

BLM is unaware. BLM staff has no record of

complaints filed under the environmental justice

program by Native Americans concerned about the

effects of BLM plans, programs, or policies in the

Planning Area. 

2.26.2 SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Prior to Euro-American settlement (ca.1870), the Steens

Mountain CMPA was occupied and used by the

Northern Paiute people. According to the Burns Paiute

Cultural Resource Manager, the mountain served as a

hideout or refuge during and after the Bannock War of

1878. Many of the descendants of this aboriginal people

now live on the Burns Paiute Reservation in Burns,

Oregon; Warm Springs Reservation in Warm Springs,

Oregon; and the Fort McDermitt Reservation in

McDermitt, Nevada.

Resources traditionally used in the Steens Mountain

CMPA include a wide variety of plant and animal

foods, as well as materials for making tools and shelter.

Edible roots include biscuitroot, bitteroot, camas,

carrots and onions. Available in the area are seeds of

goosefoot, Indian rice grass and Great Basin wild rye,

and berries such as chokecherry, currants and

elderberry. Game animals include various waterfowl,

trout and chub, antelope, and big horned sheep, which

are found in specific habitats in the Steens mountain

area. Other game such as mule deer, waterfowl, sagegrouse, rabbit, ground squirrel, and marmot have more
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-70

Table 2.25: Archaeological Site Condition

Resource Area No Report Excellent Good Fair Poor Destroyed Total

Andrews Management Unit 17 39 64 13 11 3 147

Steens Mtn. CMPA 52 118 193 38 31 11 443

widespread distribution. Plants such as red osier

dogwood, willow, tules, and cattails are found in

riparian or marshland settings, while grasses for

basketry are encountered in upland and sand dune

environments. The wide bands of quaking aspen on the

mid-slopes of Steens Mountain are sources of posts for

hide working, and mountain mahogany for bows and

digging sticks grows on the rocky ridges at and above

the juniper zone. Obsidian, basalt and agate chert

toolstone sources are found at various locations in the

Steens Mountain CMPA.

According to the Burns Paiute Tribal Cultural Resource

Manager, resource areas used by Tribal members and

known Tribal historic sites do exist in the Steens

Mountain area; however, this information has not been

released to the BLM because of data adequacy

concerns.

Some of the Burns Paiute Elders refer to Steens

Mountain as “Old Man.” Even though Steens Mountain

was and is a dominant landform in their world, no

known religious sites exist in the area.

2.27 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are defined as the fossilized

remains of plants and animals. Fossils are of Pliocene,

Miocene, and Pleistocene age and are located in various

volcanic tuff, sandstone, siltstone beds or Pleistocene

gravels. Of particular interest are vertebrate fossils such

as those of extinct camels, mammoths, giant sloths,

turtles, and horses. 

2.27.1 Andrews Management Unit

Fossil localities have been reported on public land in

the Andrews MU. Most of the finds have been exposed

by wind or water erosion, and are widely dispersed,

situated primarily along maintained county or BLM

roads. Several localities are the subject of ongoing

academic research. 

2.27.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

Small exposures of Miocene sedimentary rocks are

exposed at the base of the east face of Steens Mountain,

west of the Folly Farm Road. Known locations of plant

fossils are on private and public land, as well as several

unexplored exposures that are likely to contain animal

fossils.

A survey of known paleontological localities was

conducted in May of 1999 within and near the Steens

Mountain CMPA. Animal remains from sabertooth cats,

mastodons, giant camels, small camels (llama-like),

horses and horned rodents were found. A plant locality

within the area was reassessed and yielded a flora

composed of the following plants: true fir, spruce, pine,

Douglas fir, juniper, cottonwoods, willow, hornbeam,

barberry, serviceberry, mountain mahogany, Photinia

sp., cherry, rose, mountain ash, indigo bush, sumac,

maple, buckbrush, and madrone. This flora would

normally occur in a small lake environment in a slightly

warmer, more temperate climate than exists in the area

today.

A new fossil locality was found in the fall of 1999 in

Catlow Valley west of the Steens Mountain CMPA.

Animals identified in the preliminary analysis are

beaver, pecarry, camel and cat. This find dates to the

late Miocene to early Pliocene period (five to seven

million years ago) and indicates that the Catlow Valley

was much wetter than it is today.

These fossil localities, especially the known and

potential animal localities, are highly significant in that

they are a window to the environment existing millions

of years ago. They are nonrenewable, extremely fragile,

and very small in areal extent. The precise number of

acres encompassed by these localities is unknown

because they have not been completely described and

mapped.

2.28 Hazardous Materials

Several sites in the Andrews MU and within the Steens

Mountain CMPA contain hazards associated with

abandoned mine land. These hazards include shafts,

adits, potential hantavirus, potential mercury

contamination, and a dynamite cache that was burned

by the Oregon State Police bomb squad and which

should remain undisturbed while weathering

deteriorates any unburned remnants. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-71

Sediment samples were collected throughout the

Planning Area and analyzed by the USGS for a suite of

elements including mercury and arsenic. The results of

the analyses and the abandoned mine land hazard

locations are shown on Figure 2.18. 

When sites are discovered that are suspected to contain

hazardous materials, employees and the public should

retreat, report to BLM Dispatch, and restrict access to

the area. More information is available in the Burns

District Hazardous M aterials Recognition and

Emergency Response Plan. Actions related to land or

minerals are reviewed both internally and externally (if

appropriate) for compliance with federal and state

regulations and for development of stipulations to

safeguard human health and the environment.

Remediation of abandoned mine lands and hazardous

materials sites is analyzed in documents specific to

those sites and will not be addressed further in the

RMP. 

2.29 Roads/Transportation

2.29.1 Andrews Management Unit

In the Andrews MU there are several BLM maintained,

private, state, and county roads, as well as low standard

roads and trails. These roads and trails are important for

access to BLM lands and are occasionally maintained

by the BLM in support of a special project such as fire

rehabilitation. Andrews MU roads are used by BLM

personnel for administrative access, by ranchers and

other permittees for livestock maintenance, and by the

general public seeking recreation opportunities. 

Priorities for preventive maintenance in the Andrews

MU outside of the Steens Mountain CMPA are

established as follows:1) safety of all users, 2) BLM

transportation plan roads, 3) roads recovered by a

reciprocal agreement with the county or road district, 4)

resource protection, 5) high-use roads, 6) roads which

are grouped together or more accessible and therefore

less costly to maintain, and 7) all other roads.

Corrective maintenance occurs as problems are

identified and funds permit. Road construction has been

limited to improving or upgrading segments of road to

improve access or to alleviate maintenance or

environmental problems. 

Section 112 of the Act calls for a Comprehensive

Transportation Plan to be included in the RMP/EIS.

The Transportation Plan will outline the BLM’s

philosophy toward transportation management and will

provide specific guidelines for management of

individual roads, as well as general standards for

construction, maintenance, and access for the entire

Andrews MU road and trail system. In addition,

specific guidelines will be outlined for the Steens

Mountain CMPA according to the Act. During

preparation of the Transportation Plan, road inventories

and a road density analysis (as required for ICBEMP

planning efforts) will be completed. OHV use and

regulations are discussed in the Recreation section of

this document. 

2.29.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

In 2000, as part of the Act, Congress closed the Steen

Mountain Wilderness to motorized or mechanized

vehicles, mechanical transport, motorized equipment,

and the landing of aircraft. Certain roads within the

Steens Mountain CMPA are bounded by Steens

Mountain Wilderness on both sides, including the

Steens Mountain Back Country Byway, Cold Springs

Road, Newton Cabin Road to Big Indian Creek, Fish

Creek Road, and portions of Bone Creek Road;

however, these roads are not within the Steens

Mountain Wilderness itself. All mechanized and

motorized vehicle travel is prohibited off existing roads

in the Steens Mountain CMPA. The only exceptions to

motorized vehicle use in the Steens Mountain CMPA

are emergencies and necessary maintenance for wildlife

or fish management, ecological restoration, and

agricultural facilities. In addition to the permanent road

closures and restrictions, sections of the Steens

Mountain Back Country Byway are closed during

winter. 

Roads that border the Steens Mountain Wilderness have

specified setbacks from the center of the roads. High

Standard Roads, such as Highway 205 and Folly Farm

Road, have a 300-foot setback. These roads are

classified according to their surface and purpose;

setbacks were determined consistent with BLM

wilderness policy. The Steens Mountain Wilderness

boundary begins 300 feet from centerline for both the

Folly Farm and Highway 205 roads. On the portions of

the Steens Mountain Back Country Byway that border

the Steens Mountain Wilderness, the boundary begins

100 feet from centerline. All other roads bounded by

Steens Mountain W ilderness have a 30-foot from

centerline setback. 

The roads and trails in the Steens Mountain Wilderness

and Steens Mountain CMPA will follow the same

priority outlined previously unless the Act states

otherwise. Section 112(d) of the Act outlines the

conditions for new road and trail construction. Such
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

2-72

construction for motorized or mechanized vehicles in

the Steens Mountain CMPA is permissible only if the

Secretary determines that it is necessary for public

safety or environmental protection. There are no limits

on construction of trails for nonmotorized or

nonmechanized uses.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-1

3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION

3.1 Existing Management Direction

3.1.1 Introduction

This section describes the management direction found

within the Andrews MFP and the following associated

NEPA documents applicable to the Planning Area:

Animal Damage Control Final Environmental Impact

Statement, 3 Volumes (APHIS 1994); Steens Mountain

CMPA IMP Draft (BLM 2001b); Decision Record and

Finding of No Significant Impact for the Projects for

Implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative

Management and Protection Act of 2000, EA-OR-027-

01-27 (BLM 2001c); Three Rivers RMP, Record of

Decision, and Rangeland Program Summary (BLM

1992a); Donner und Blitzen National Wild and Scenic

River Management Plan Environmental Assessment

(BLM 1993b); National Wild and Scenic River Donner

und Blitzen Management Plan Environmental

Assessment (BLM 1992b); Noxious Weed Management

Project Environmental Assessment EA No. OR-020-98-

05 (BLM 1998a); Decision Record and Finding of No

Significant Impact for Steens Mountain Trail

Maintenance (BLM 2001d); Pueblo-Lone Mountain

Management Plan EA (BLM 1995b); Andrews Grazing

Management Program EIS (BLM 1982); Burns District

Environmental Assessment for Commercial Day-Use

Activities OR-020-EA-99-24 (BLM 1999a); the Land

Tenure Adjustment Plan Amendment for the Andrews

and Drewsey MFPs (BLM 1988b); and The Riddle

Brothers Ranch Historic District Cultural Resources

Management Plan, Environmental Assessment (BLM

1994b).

Several activity level plans have also been completed in

recent years as follows: Steens Mountain Final

Recreation Area Management Plan (BLM 1985);

Andrews Rangeland Program Summary Update (BLM

1986); Pueblo-Lone Mountain Allotment Management

Plan (BLM 1995c); Andrews Plan Amendment for

Recreation Access Surrounding the Steens Mountain

Loop Road (BLM 1993c); The Riddle Brothers Ranch

Historic District Cultural Resources Management Plan

(Crespin 1990); Kiger Mustang Area of Critical

Environmental Concern Management Plan (BLM

1996a); Riddle Mountain and Kiger Wild Horse Herd

Management Area Plan (BLM 1996b); SE Oregon

Recreation Plan for Harney, Lake and Malheur

Counties (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

2000); Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System

(Oregon Department of Agriculture 1997); Oregon’s

Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (ODFW 1992-1997);

Oregon’s Elk Management Plan (ODFW 1992); Mule

Deer Plan (ODFW 1990); Oregon Cougar Management

Plan Public Review Draft (ODFW 1993); Catlow

Redband Trout and Catlow Tui Chub Conservation

Agreement and Strategy (ODFW 1997); Oregon

Outdoor Recreation Plan 1994-1999 (Oregon Parks and

Recreation Department 1994); Oregon W ildlife

Diversity Plan, 2nd edition (Puchy and Marshall 1993);

Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USFWS

1986); The Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Plan (USFWS Pacific Coast American

Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982); and Recovery

Plan for the Borax Lake Chub, Gila boraxobius

(USFWS 1997).

Several BLM program documents or Inter-Agency

plan/NEPA documents and decisions which also guide

current management of lands within the Planning Area

include the following: Visual Resource Management

Program (BLM 1980);1613 - Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern Resource Management

Planning Guidance (BLM 1988a); Oregon Wilderness

Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1989a);

Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen

Western States Final Environmental Impact Statement

(BLM 1991a); Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976, as amended; Land Use Planning

Handbook H-1601-1 Handbook (BLM Updated 2001e);

National Management Strategy for Motorized OffHighway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (BLM 2001f);

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume III

Appendices for all WSAs beginning with OR-2 plus

OR-3-114 (BLM 1989b); National Environmental

Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 (BLM 1988c);

Wilderness Management (BLM 2001g); Wilderness

Management: Final Rule (BLM 2001h); Oregon

Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement, Volume

I-Statewide (BLM 1989c); Upper Columbia River

Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume

1 (BLM 1997b); Proposed Southeast Oregon Resource

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Volume 1 of 3 - Text (BLM 2000a);

Rangeland Reform ‘94, Draft Environmental Impact

Statement Executive Summary (BLM 1994c); Interior

Columbia Basin Final Environmental Impact Statement

(BLM 2000b); House Report 101-405 (Arizona Desert

Wilderness Act of 1990); House Report 101-405

Appendix A, Grazing Guidelines (1990) ; Oregon

Natural Heritage Plan (Oregon Natural Heritage

AdvisoryCouncil 1998a); Reformatted Comprehensive

Plan for the City of Burns, Oregon (1997); The

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended; Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental

Impact Statement (BLM 1989a); H-8550-1: IMP for

lands under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995c);

Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-2

(National Park Service et al. 1998); Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Animal Candidate

Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened

Species, Proposed Rules (USFWS 1991); and Greater

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems

Management Guidelines (BLM et al. 2000j).

The specific management direction from the Andrews

MFP, the IMP, and the Act are summarized in the

following section.

3.2 Existing Management Situation by

Resource

3.2.1 Air Quality

3.2.1.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

C Limit prescribed burning in rangelands to

6,000 acres per year.

3.2.2 Vegetation

3.2.2.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective 1: Restore, protect, and enhance the diversity

and distribution of desirable vegetation communities,

including perennial native and desirable introduced

plant species. Provide for their continued existence and

normal function in nutrient, water, and energy cycles.

C Improve ecological condition and increase

forage production through the development

and implementation of economically feasible

grazing systems and range improvements.

C Maintain vegetative composition of nonnative

seedings to ensure continued forage

production for the purpose established.

C Implement vegetation manipulation projects

consistent with existing management

objectives in the resource area. Rehabilitate or

revegetate areas burned by wildfire to protect

soil, water, and vegetation resources or to

prevent unacceptable on- or off-site damages.

Rehabilitate areas burned by prescribed fire to

meet objectives of the burn.

C Following fire, close rehabilitated areas to

grazing for at least two growing seasons.

Exceptions may be justified on a case-by-case

basis.

C Maintain or improve deer/antelope winter

range.

C Establish appropriate firebreaks to protect atrisk annual rangeland using nonnative

perennial and native species. Use economical

seed mixes and methods available for

establishment of effective fire breaks.

Objective 2: Manage big sagebrush cover in seedings

and on native rangeland to meet the life history

requirements of sagebrush-dependent wildlife.

C Specific areas identified for the protection of

mule deer and sage-grouse habitat would

continue to be protected. Certain areas would

be identified where brush control would

benefit pronghorn.

Objective 3: Control the introduction and proliferation

of noxious weed species and reduce the extent and

density of established weed species to within acceptable

limits.

C Apply approved noxious weed control

methods in an integrated weed management

program (including preventive management,

as well as mechanical, biological, and

chemical control techniques). Do so in

cooperation with the State of Oregon, other

adjacent states, federal agencies, affected

counties, adjoining private landowners, and

other interests directly affected.

3.2.2.2 Interim Management Policy

C Special status plant species will continue to be

monitored and their habitat managed to avoid

listing as threatened or endangered.

C Research Natural Areas, unique plant

communities, and all other native vegetation

will be maintained. 

C The sale of commercial timber will not be

permitted. Prescribed fire and juniper control

projects planned prior to legislation which

have completed NEPA documentation and are

in conformance with the Act, may still be

implemented within the Steens Mountain

CMPA. 

C Other new prescribed fire and juniper control

projects will be evaluated through the NEPA

process and coordinated through the SMAC to

ensure they meet the requirements and

purpose of the Steens Mountain CMPA.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-3

3.2.3 Special Status Plants

3.2.3.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Manage public land to maintain, restore, or

enhance populations and habitats of special status plant

species. Priority for the application of management

actions would be (1) federal endangered species, (2)

federal threatened species, (3) federal proposed species,

(4) federal candidate species, (5) state listed species, (6)

BLM sensitive species, (7) BLM assessment species,

and (8) BLM tracking species. Manage in order to

conserve or lead to the recovery of threatened or

endangered species.

C Ensure that management actions do not

contribute to the decline of special status

species.

C Emphasize management that is driven by the

requirements of individual species.

3.2.4 Wa tershed/Water Resourc es and

Riparian/Wetlands

3.2.4.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective 1: Ensure that surface water and ground

water influenced by BLM activities comply with or are

making progress toward achieving State of Oregon

water quality standards for beneficial uses as

established per stream by the ODEQ.

C Maintain or improve water quality where

needed, as previously identified in land use

plans. Continue to manage for water quality

improvement. Coordinate with and implement

Oregon’s water quality management plan for

activities within water quality limited

segments (impaired waters) as defined by

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

Objective 2: Restore, maintain, or improve riparian

vegetation, habitat diversity, and associated watershed

function to achieve healthy and productive riparian

areas and wetlands.

C Manage for current riparian/we tland

objectives as outlined in land use plans.

Maintain or improve all existing riparian

wetland exclosures and pastures designated or

identified for improvement. For any riparian

or wetland area, uses or activities could occur

in the watershed if they allow progress toward

the attainment of riparian PFC.

3.2.5 Grazing Management

3.2.5.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Provide for a sustained level of livestock

grazing consistent with other resource objectives and

public land use allocations. 

C Continue the authorization of livestock

grazing use consistent with multiple-use and

sustained yield objectives identified in

existing land use and activity plans.

C Comb ine rangeland projects and

administrative solutions to meet resource

management objectives. Plan and implement

rangeland projects to minimize unacceptable

livestock grazing impacts to public land

resources and to access available but underutilized forage. Abandon and rehabilitate

projects that do not function to meet MFP and

RPS management objectives.

C Authorize Temporary Non-renewable grazing

use of additional forage production consistent

with existing MFP and RPS management

objectives.

Forage Allocations

Under the existing plan, forage allocations are

adjusted to accommodate other resource

values. Forage is allocated for wild horses and

wildlife. In other major riparian areas and

special management areas, grazing is managed

to improve or maintain the condition of the

area.

The existing plan adjusts active grazing use to

conform with existing grazing capacity in the

following allotments: Pueblo-Lone Mountain

and Trout Creek Mountain. No adjustments

are required on other allotments because

current authorized (permitted) use is within

grazing capacity. Trespass control programs

continue to help prevent unauthorized

livestock use and keep stocking rates at

carrying capacity. 

Under the existing plan, preference is shifted

across allotment boundaries where excess

forage exists. Some livestock use in Trout

Creek Mountain has been shifted to Tule

Springs Allotment and new boundaries have

been established. In addition, active use could

also be transferred to Diamond Seedings in the

Three Rivers RA on a temporary or permanent

basis, if forage becomes available in the

future.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-4

Under the existing plan, forage production has

been increased to meet existing and projected

demand for livestock forage.

Management

Under the existing plan, acres in 32 allotments

are managed under category “I”, improve;

seven allotments are managed under “M”,

maintain, and 33 allotments are managed

under category “C”, custodial. Under custodial

management, BLM activities are limited to

issuing grazing permits and periodic

monitoring of range condition and trend. No

significant expenditure of public range

improvement funds is invested on rangelands

under custodial management; however, the

range user may invest private funds to

improve management and condition of these

ranges.

Range Improvements

Range improvements include the following:

fences, wells, pipelines, spring developments,

waterholes, cattleguards, seedings, and brush

control. The range improvements in the

existing plan are cost-effective, according to a

preliminary benefit-cost analysis on an

allotment basis. An allotment-specific benefitcost analysis was conducted in time for

summary in the final grazing EIS and each

project was analyzed as to its economic

feasibility prior to development. Some of the

proposed range improvements arrayed in the

summary and the draft Andrews grazing EIS

were dropped from consideration after

completion of benefit cost analysis.

The existing plan level of range improvements

is within potential funding levels for the

planning period of ten years. Funding sources

may include federal, state, county and private

contributed funds. After completion of the

decision process, the actual level of range

improvements will be limited by the

availability of funds. Maintenance of most

new range improvements as well as existing

improvements is the responsibility of the

benefitting range users.

Fences - Fences are constructed that

are cost-effective and necessary to

meet specific rangeland objectives.

Fencing is necessary to establish

pastures and grazing systems for

intensive management. Fencing is

also used to exclude livestock from

some special management areas and

riparian zones.

Water Developments and Pipelines -

The existing plan allows construction

o f all cost-effective wate r

developments and pipelines required

to mee t range management

objectives. Proposed projects in

WSAs are analyzed on a site specific

basis. Those projects which enhance

wilderness values, are not impairing,

and do not require mechanized

vehicle use for c ontin u a l

maintenance, are consistent with

interim management for WSAs.

Projects are established only if they

meet these criteria.

Brush Management - Under the

existing plan, brush is controlled by

brush beating or fire on 54,820 acres.

Brush control and seeding using both

native and introduced species is used

on 61,630 acres. Land treatments are

permitted on crucial wildlife habitat

only when they enhance the area for

wildlife. Crucial wildlife habitat

includesriparian areas, deer fawning,

summer, and winter range, bighorn

sheep range, 90 percent of the area

within two miles of sage-grouse

strutting grounds, and 0.5 miles

within raptor nesting areas. No

drilled seedings are proposed in

recommended WSAs and special

management areas. Drilled seedings

will not be implemented in any WSA

unless Congress decides not to

designate the areas as wilderness.

3.2.5.2 Interim Management Policy

C Livestock grazing will continue in the Steens

Mountain CMPA where allowed under the

Act, and in conformance with applicable laws,

policy, and BLM regulations including the

Standards for Rangeland Health and

G u i d eline s for Live sto ck G razin g

Management for Public Lands in Oregon and

Washington (August 1997a). 

C Grazing management will be guided by the

Andrews MFP (1982), the Andrews Range

Program Summary 1984, the Three Rivers

RMP (1992) and other changes created by the

Act. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-5

C The BLM will retire grazing permits, in whole

or part, applicable to certain lands within the

Steens Mountain Wilderness in accordance

with section 113(d)(2) of the Act after

implementing fencing and alternative forage

resources in accordance with sections

113(d)(3) and 113(d)(4) of the Act. 

C Adjustments in allotment boundaries, ten year

permits, and grazing preference associated

with the above referenced sections of the Act

will only be implemented to reflect the

changes created by the Act.

Livestock, Watershed and Wildlife Facilities

C Range improvements planned prior to

legislation which have completed NEPA

documentation and are in conformance with

the Act may still be implemented within the

Steens Mountain CMPA. 

C New range improvements needed to fully

implement the No Livestock Grazing Area and

other legislated grazing changes may be

constructed following NEPA analysis. 

C Other new range improvements will be

coordinated through the SMAC to obtain its

perspectives and advice in satisfying the

requirements and purpose of the Steens

Mountain CMPA. 

C Maintenance and reconstruction of existing

support facilities in the Steens Mountain

Wilderness and WSAs will be in accordance

with existing guidance for wilderness, WSAs,

NEPA, and the Act. 

C Maintenance, reconstruction, and construction

of new support facilities in wilderness areas

where grazing is allowed, as well as access for

these and other purposes, will be in

compliance with the Wilderness Act and

House Report 101-405 (Arizona Desert

Wilderness Act) grazing guidelines. 

C In WSAs, maintenance, reconstruction, new

construction and access to livestock facilities

will be in compliance with the IMP For Lands

Under Wilderness Review (BLM Manual H8550-1). 

3.2.5.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

SEC. 113. LAND USE AUTHORITIES

(e) Grazing.-

(2) Cancellation of certain permits.-The

Secretary shall cancel that portion of the

permitted grazing on Federal lands in the Fish

Creek/Big Indian, East Ridge, and South

Steens allotments located within the area

designated as the “no livestock grazing area”

on the map referred to in section 101(a). Upon

cancellation, future grazing use in that

designated area is prohibited. The Secretary

shall be responsible for installing and

maintaining any fencing required for resource

protection within the designated no livestock

grazing area.

(3) FORAGE REPLACEMEN T. –

Reallocation of available forage shall be made

as follows:

(A) O’Keefe pasture within the

Miners Field allotment to Stafford

Ranches.

(B) Fields Seeding and Bone Creek

Pasture east of the county road

within the Miners Field allotment to

Amy Ready.

(C) Miners Field Pasture, Schouver

Seeding and Bone Creek Pasture

west of the county road within the

Miners Field allotment to Roaring

Springs Ranch.

(D) 800 animal unit months within

the Crows Nest allotment to Lowther

(Clemens) Ranch.

(4) FENCING AND WATER SYSTEMS. –

The Secretary shall also construct fencing and

develop water systems as necessary to allow

reasonable and efficient livestock use of the

forage resources referred to in paragraph (3).

3.2.6 Fisheries

3.2.6.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Restore, maintain, or improve habitat to

provide for diverse and self-sustaining communities of

fishes and other aquatic organisms.

The existing plan follows current objectives for fish and

aquatic habitat, as outlined in current land use plans. All

existing riparian/wetland exclosures and pastures will

be maintained or improved.

3.2.7 Wildlife

3.2.7.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-6

Objective 1: Maintain, restore, or enhance riparian

areas and wetlands so they provide diverse and healthy

conditions for wildlife.

C Manage for desired future habitat conditions

that emphasize structure, forage, or other

riparian habitat elements important to game

and non-game species of wildlife.

Objective 2: Manage upland habitats in forest,

woodland and rangeland vegetation types so that the

forage, water, cover, structure and security necessary

for wildlife are available on the public land.

C Manage habitat conditions which emphasize

the requirements of game species with some

limited local emphasis on the habitat

requirements of nongame species.

C Emphasize habitat management that highlights

the requirements of individual species.

Big Game - Under the existing plan, 3,399 AUMs of

competitive forage are allocated to deer and antelope.

Bighorn Sheep - Bighorn sheep have been introduced in

the Steens Mountain, Pueblo Mountains, Lone

Mountain, and Catlow Rim. Buckskin Mountain-Tule

Spring-Sand Gap areas, and Mickey Hot Spring to

Table Mountain are considered suitable for introduction

of bighorn sheep. Some bighorn sheep have migrated

into other areas. Introductions and reintroductions are

coordinated with the ODFW.

Brush Management - Brushland conversion is allowed

on crucial wildlife habitats only when the primary

benefits are for wildlife. Crucial wildlife habitat

includes deer winter, summer and fawning range,

bighorn sheep range, riparian areas, and within 0.5

miles of raptor nesting areas. Only ten percent of the

area within two miles of sage-grouse strutting grounds

would be converted unless brush conversion would be

beneficial to sage-grouse.

Brush is allowed to reinvade a portion of burned or

mechanically treated land to reestablish forage and

cover for deer and other wildlife. Portions of Frazier

Field, Mud Creek and Krumbo allotments would

provide deer winter range.

Specific areas identified for protection of mule deer and

sage-grouse habitat continue to be protected. Certain

areas have been identified where brush control would

benefit pronghorn.

Construction Projects - An environmental assessment

is required before new roads are built or existing roads

upgraded. Human activities, such as equipment

operation and blasting, are restricted in raptor areas,

sage-grouse strutting grounds, and antelope kidding

grounds during critical seasons.

Wetlands, including Mann Lake, Pueblo Slough,

Juniper Lake, Rock Creek Reservoir and public land

near Borax Lake are managed to favor wildlife

production and uses. Other wetland areas are created,

maintained, or improved wherever economically

feasible. The BLM has fenced off the public portion of

the shoreline of Mann Lake in order to restrict cattle,

which can access the lake from private land.

Other significant wet meadows are maintained or

improved for soil stability and water quality through

proper grazing management. If monitoring indicates

that meadows are not improving, other management

techniques are employed.

3.2.7.2 Interim Management Policy

C Agreements with the APHIS concerning

animal damage control will be modified to

reflect changed land designations (e.g.,

wilderness) in identified work areas, methods

of control, and transportation into those areas.

Existing agreements with state and federal

wildlife agencies will be modified to conform

with the applicable changes created by

legislation.

C Hunting, fishing, and trapping will continue

within the Steens Mountain CMPA consistent

with the Act, other applicable laws and

regulations of the United States and the State

of Oregon, and will be managed under

regulations provided by the ODFW and in

accordance with section 113(d) of the Act.

3.2.7.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

(d) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.

–

(1) AUTHORIZATION. – The

Secretary shall permit hunting,

fishing, and trapping on federal lands

included in the Steens Mountain

CMPA in accordance with applicable

laws and regulations of the United

States and the State of Oregon.

( 2 ) ARE A AN D T I M E

LIMITATIONS. – After consultation
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-7

with the ODFW, the Secretary may

desig nate zones a nd periods

prohibiting hunting, trapping or

fishing on federal lands included in

the Steens Mountain CMPA for

r e asons of public safe t y ,

administration, or public use and

enjoyment.

3.2.8 Wild Horses

3.2.8.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Maintain and manage wild horse herds in

established HMAs at AMLs to ensure a thriving, natural

ecological balance between wild horse populations,

wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, and other

resource values. Enhance and perpetuate special and

unique characteristics that distinguish the respective

herds.

C Maintain established boundaries of South

Steens, Alvord-Tule Springs, Heath CreekSheepshead, Kiger, and Riddle Mountain

HMAs.

C Manage wild horse populations in current

HMAs within the limits of established AMLs.

C Limit any return of wild horses into an HMA

to individuals exhibiting the special and

unique characteristics designated for that

HMA.

C Maintain established water developments

supporting AMLs. Emphasize the construction

of water developments to minimize forage

competition between wild horses, wildlife, and

livestock.

Five HMAs are in the Planning Area: South Steens,

Heath Creek/Sheepshead, Alvord/Tule Springs, Kiger,

and Riddle Mountain. The Heath Creek-Sheepshead

HMA encompasses 62,427 acres. The Alvord-Tule

Springs HMA contains 343,201 acres. In the AlvordTule Springs HMA, the district boundary between

Burns and Vale is fenced, splitting the Burns and Vale

horse herds into two separate management units. The

South Steens HMA contains 127,838 acres. The Kiger

HMA contains 6,531 acres, and the Riddle HMA

contains 25,328 acres within the Planning Area.

Herd numbers are kept at levels consistent with existing

herd management plans. Maintaining these herd

numbers requires roundups every three to five years. In

the past, when the populations have been controlled at

these levels, adequate habitat has been available for

horses and other uses.

The 50 to100 horses in the Heath Creek-Sheepshead

herd use the Burns side of the HMA seasonally for four

months in the winter. Forage allocation for wild horses

is consistent with existing use.

Domestic horse grazing is not allowed in any HMAs.

Under the existing plan, superior wild stock will be

transferred between herds to improve herd quality over

time. No domesticated stock will be utilized for this

purpose.

3.2.9 Fire Support

3.2.9.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective 1: Provide an Appropriate Management

Response (AMR) on all wildland fires, with emphasis

on minimizing suppression costs, considering fire

fighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be

protected, consistent with resource objectives.

C Provide an AM R of initial attack, full

suppression on all wildland fires, ensuring that

fire and resource standards and objectives, as

identified in the current FM AP, are met.

Objective 2: Recognize fire as a critical natural process

and use it to protect, maintain, and enhance resources.

C Use prescribed fire as needed to meet resource

objectives.

Under the existing plan, both fire suppression and the

use of prescribed fire are emphasized in the fire

program.

Prescribed fire plays an important role in rangeland

improvement. Planned ignition prescribed burns are

used in many of the brush control and seeding projects

discussed in the Range and Wildlife sections. With the

development of a fire management plan, more extensive

use of unplanned ignition burns with limited

suppression will be made. Unplanned burns are

valuable in accomplishing the objectives of the land use

plan.

3.2.9.2 Interim Management Policy

C On all lands other than WSAs or designated

Steens Mountain Wilderness within the Steens

Mountain CMPA, current fire management

practices will continue, subject to provisions

in the Act.

Steens Mountain Wilderness
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-8

C Fire suppression within the Steens Mountain

Wilderness will take place in accordance with

the provisions of the Wilderness Act,

Management of Designated Wilderness

Manual 8560, and the Act. Pursuant to 8560 §

.35A, all wildland fires will be suppressed

until an approved Fire Management Plan is

prepared. 

C Suppression actions in the Steens Mountain

Wilderness will be executed to minimize

surface disturbance, alterations of the natural

landscape, and fire suppression costs while

being consistent with management objectives

and constraints. 

C Methods and equipment which least alter the

landscape or disturb the land surface will be

used.

C Suppression structures and improvements will

be located outside the Steens Mountain

Wilderness, except those that are the minimum

necessary to protect life, property, public

welfare, and Steens Mountain Wilderness

objectives. 

C Suppression preplanning will be conducted

with review by an interdisciplinary team to

determine appropriate response and equipment

to be used for fire suppression. 

C Protection of the Steens Mountain Wilderness

resource will be made part of the suppression

objectives for all fires. Tactics will utilize the

minimum tool concept to achieve these

objectives. 

C Non-mechanized equipment will be used

unless alternatives are approved by the

District Manager. 

C Suppression work will be done with minimal

ground disturbance and vegetation cutting

while safely meeting objectives. 

C Mop-up methods that minimize disturbance

will be preferred.

Wilderness Study Areas

C Fire management within the WSAs will

continue in accordance with the provisions of

the IMP For Lands Under Wilderness Review

(H-8550-1). 

C All wildland fires will be suppressed until an

approved Fire Management Plan is prepared.

Emergency Fire Rehabilitation

C On all lands other than WSAs or designated

Steens Mountain Wilderness within the Steens

Mountain CMPA, the BLM’s Emergency Fire

Rehabilitation policy will be in effect.

C The BLM emergency fire rehabilitation

manual allows watershed restoration in

designated Steens Mountain Wilderness where

human-caused soil and hydrologic degradation

threatens Steens Mountain Wilderness values.

Restoration may also occur, even if not

human-caused, where conditions present a

definite hazard to life or property, or where

such conditions could harm environmental

qua lity outside the Steens Mountain

Wilderness. Where such dangers are not

imminent or where natural vegetation is

expected to recover in a reasonable time,

restoration work will not occur.

C When natural recovery is unlikely, watershed

restoration will be done using native or

naturalized species. Motorized equipment will

not be used when more primitive equipment

can accomplish restoration objectives.

Exceptions must be fully justified by serious

threat to downstream values. Approval by the

State Director is required for all watershed

restoration proposals.

C In WSAs, the BLM emergency fire

rehabilitation manual provides for watershed

rehabilitation after damage from fire, flood,

storms, biological phenomena, or landslides.

Restoration may involve any treatments

needed, but must be done in a manner that will

sustain wilderness suitability. Rehabilitation

work will use methods least damaging to

wilderness characteristics. Alternatives to

seeding will be carefully evaluated prior to

any reclamation d ecision. Emergency

reseeding and planting will utilize native

species and will minimize use of motorized

equipment. Seedings and plantings will avoid

a plantation appearance.

C Watershed rehabilitation requirements,

including structures, will be permitted only if

they satisfy non-impairment criteria. Land

treatments (e.g., trenching, ripping, pitting,

terracing, plowing) will not be permitted on

wilderness review lands.

3.2.10 Woodlands

3.2.10.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Restore productivity and biodiversity in

juniper and quaking aspen woodland areas. Manage

juniper areas where encroachment or increased density

is threatening other resource values. Retain old growth

characteristics in historic juniper sites not prone to

frequent fire. Manage quaking aspen to maintain

diversity of age classes and to allow for species

reestablishment.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-9

C Base juniper management on site potential to

meet resource objectives. Approximately

80,000 acres of juniper would be treated.

C Preserve old growth juniper stands.

C Continue to manage quaking aspen to meet

resource objectives.

3.2.10.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

(b) COMMERCIAL TIMBER. –

(1) PROHIBITION. – The Federal

lands included in the CMPA shall

not be made available for

commercial timber harvest.

(2) LIMITED EXCEPTION. – The

Secretary may authorize the removal

of trees from Federal lands in the

CMPA only if removal is needed for

ecological restora t i on an d

maintenance or for public safety.

Except in the Wilderness Area and

the Wilderness study areas referred

to in section 204(a), the Secretary

may authorize the sale of products

resulting from such authorized

removal.

3.2.11 Special Status Animal Species

3.2.11.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective 1: Manage public land to maintain, restore, or

enhance populations and habitats of special status

animal species. Priority for the application of

management actions would be (1) federal endangered

species, (2) federal threatened species, (3) federal

proposed species, (4) federal candidate species, (5)

state listed species, (6) BLM sensitive species, (7) BLM

assessment species, and (8) BLM tracking species.

Manage in order to conserve or lead to the recovery of

threatened or endangered species.

C Manage habitat for special status animal

species to preserve the species and to prevent

the need to list them as threatened or

endangered under the ESA. 

C Manage special status species using a mix of

maintenance, restoration, or enhancement

measures with equal emphasis on game and

nongame species.

C Emphasize management that is driven by the

requirements of individual species.

C Manage public land in accordance with the

Catlow Redband Trout and Catlow Tui Chub

Conservation Agreement and Strategy.

Continue coordination with the private

landowner and Malheur National Wildlife

Refuge for domestic livestock grazing strategy

that allows recovery of the habitat. Manage

the Blitzen Pasture as described in Donner

und Blitzen NWSR Plan Revision. Continue

adaptive domestic livestock grazin g

management, wild horse management, and

prescribed burns as described in the South

Steens AMP. Approximately 30 miles of

private land/public land boundary fencing is

expected.

Objective 2: Facilitate the maintenance, restoration, and

enhancement of bighorn sheep populations and habitat

on public land. Pursue management in accordance with

Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep Management Plan in a manner

consistent with the principles of multiple-use

management. 

C Bighorn sheep would be managed as identified

in an existing Habitat Management Plan

(HMP).

C Require that reasonable buffers (based on

local conditions) be maintained on public land

between domestic sheep and bighorn to avoid

disease transmission.

C Bighorn management would not result in the

displacement of any existing domestic sheep

grazing permittees.

C Bighorn would be allowed to pioneer outside

of area and increase as long as conflicts are

minor.

3.2.12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3.2.12.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Retain existing and designate new

ACEC/RNAs where relevance and importance criteria

are met and special management is required to protect

the values identified.

C The existing plan includes the retention of 14

existing ACECSs (nine of which are RNAs)

for a total of 100,048 acres. 

C The ACEC/RNAs are managed with the

special management actions. 

Alvord Desert ACEC - 17,933 acres managed to protect

desert land forms and unique plant communities.

Alvord Peak ACEC - 15,015 acres managed to protect

bighorn sheep habitat.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-10

Borax Lake ACEC - 520 acres managed to protect

diverse plant and animal life in the vicinity of Borax

Lake, where the federally endangered Borax Lake chub

is located.

East Kiger Plateau ACEC/RNA - 1,216 acres managed

to protect excellent condition, high elevation fescue

grassland and special status plants (partially included in

Steens Mountain ACEC).

Little Blitzen ACEC/RNA - 2,530 acres managed to

protect mid- to high-elevation vernal pond, stream

system in subalpine, quaking aspen grove, snow

deflation, and snow cover communities, late-lying

snowbeds, fescue grassland, and special status plants

(entirely within Steens Mountain ACEC).

Little Wildhorse Lake ACEC/RNA - 241 acres

managed to protect pristine, mid- to high-elevation lake

(entirely within Steens Mountain ACEC).

Long Draw ACEC/RNA - 441 acres managed to protect

vegetation community type of big sagebrush/Indian

ricegrass/needle-and-thread grass.

Mickey Basin ACEC/RNA - 560 acres managed to

protect winterfat plant community.

Picket Rim ACEC - 3,941 acres managed to protect

nesting area and habitat for many kinds of birds of prey.

Pueblo Foothills ACEC/RNA - 2,503 acres managed to

protect narrowleaf cottonwood/Mormon tea community

complex and special status plants.

Rooster Comb ACEC/RNA - 716 acres managed to

protect mountain mahogany/blue bunch wheatgrass

plant communities and black cottonwood riparian plant

communities (entirely within Steens Mountain ACEC).

South Fork Willow Creek ACEC/RNA - 231 acres

managed to protect downslope snow accumulation

areas; upper cirque plant communities; stream system

originating in a glacial cirque; and special status plants

(entirely within Steens Mountain ACEC).

Steens Mountain ACEC - 56,187 acres managed to

protect high scenic values on Steens Mountain,

including Steens escarpment, vista of East Rim, and

glacial cirques and valleys (this area is now designated

Steens Mountain Wilderness).

Tumtum Lake ACEC/RNA - 2,064 acres managed to

protect low-elevation alkaline lake; salt desert shrub

plant communities; special status plants; and special

status fish and habitat.

3.2.13 Redband Trout Reserve

3.2.13.1 Interim Management Policy

C In cooperation with the ODFW, the Donner

und Blitzen River above the confluence with

Fish Creek will be managed as a redband trout

reserve for the purposes stated in section

302(c) of the Act. 

C Scientific research, environmental education,

and angling will continue under ODFW

regulations and be consistent with the

Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

Manual 8560.

3.2.13.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

SEC. 302. DONNER UND BLITZEN RIVER

REDBAND TROUT RESERVE.

(a) FINDINGS. – The Congress finds the

following:

(1) Those portions of the Donner und

Blitzen River in the Wilderness Area

are an exceptional environmental

resource that provides habitat for

unique populations of native fish,

migratory waterfowl, and other

wildlife resources, including a

unique population of redband trout.

(2) Redband trout represent a unique

natural history reflecting the

Pleistocene connection between the

lake basins of eastern Oregon and the

Snake and Columbia Rivers. 

(b) DESIGNATION OF RESERVE. – The

Secretary shall designate the Donner und

Blitzen Redband Trout Reserve consisting of

the Donner und Blitzen River in the

Wilderness Area above its confluence with

Fish Creek and the federal riparian lands

immediately adjacent to the river.

(c) RESERVE PURPOSES. – The purposes of

the Redband Trout Reserve are –

(1) to conserve, protect, and enhance

the Donner und Blitzen River

population of redband trout and the

unique ecosystem of plants, fish, and

wildlife of a river system; and
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-11

(2) to provide opportunities for

scientific research, environmental

education, and fish and wildlife

oriented recreation and access to the

extent compatible with paragraph

(1).

(d) EXCLUSION OF PRIVATE LANDS. –

The Redband Trout Reserve does not include

any private lands adjacent to the Donner und

Blitzen River or its tributaries.

(e) ADMINISTRATION. –

(1) IN GENERAL. – The Secretary

shall administer all lands, waters, and

interests therein in the Redband

Trout Reserve consistent with the

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et

seq.) And the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).

(2) CONSULTATION. – In

administering the Redband Trout

Reserve, the Secretary shall consult

with the advisory council and

cooper ate with the Orego n

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

(3) RELATION TO RECREATION.

– To the extent consistent with

applicable law, the Secretary shall

manage recreational activities in the

Redband Trout Reserve in a manner

that conserves the unique population

of redband trout native to the Donner

und Blitzen River.

(4) REMOVAL OF DAM. – The

Secretary shall remove the dam

located below the mouth of Fish

Creek and above Page Springs if

removal of the dam is scientifically

justified and funds are available for

such purpose.

(f) OUTREACH AND EDUCATION. – The

Secretary may work with, provide technical

assistance to, provide community outreach and

education programs for or with, or enter into

cooperative agreements with private

landowners, state and local governments or

agencies, and conservation organizations to

further the purposes of the Redband Trout

Reserve.

3.2.14 Wild and Scenic Rivers

3.2.14.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Protect and enhance ORVs of designated

WSRs, and protect and enhance ORVs of rivers found

suitable for potential inclusion in WSRs until Congress

acts.

C Amend the Donner und Blitzen NWSR

Management Plan (1993b) in accordance with

the U.S. District Court, Oregon, Final

Judgment of May 1, 1997. Maintain the

existing wild classification throughout the

river corridor.

C Manage eligible rivers under interim

management guidance.

3.2.14.2 Interim Management Policy

C Maps and “legal descriptions” (corridors) will

be developed for the new Wild and Scenic

River segments and provided to the SMAC for

its perspective and advice. 

C ORV inventories will be conducted for Ankle

and Mud Creeks after completion of the

designated land exchange(s). 

C The Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic

River and the newly designated WSRs will be

managed in accordance with the Act, the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Wilderness

Act. 

C The Donner und Blitzen National Wild and

Scenic River Management Plan will continue

to guide management of the Donner und

Blitzen Wild and Scenic River to the extent

the management plan is consistent with the

Act.

3.2.14.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

TITLE III - WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND

TROUT RESERVE

SEC. 301. DESIGNATION OF STREAMS FOR

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STATUS IN STEENS

MOUNTAIN AREA.

(a) EXPANSION OF DONNER UND

BLITZEN WILD RIVER. – Section 3(a)(72)

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.

1274(a)(84)) is amended –

(1) by striking “the” at the beginning

of each subparagraph and inserting “The”;
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-12

(2) by striking the semicolon at the

end of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C),

and (D) and inserting a period;

(3) by striking “; and” at the end of

subparagraph (E) and inserting a period; and

(4) by adding at the end of the

following new subparagraphs:

“(G) The 5.1 mile segment

of Mud Creek from its

confluenc e with a n

unnamed spring in the SW

1/4 SE 1/4 of section 32,

township 33 south, range

33 east, to its confluence

with the Donner und

Blitzen River. 

“(H) The 8.1 mile segment

of Ankle Creek from its

headwa ters to it s

confluence with the Donner

und Blitzen River. 

“(I) The 1.6 mile segment

of the South Fork of Ankle

Creek from its confluence

with an unnamed tributary

in the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of

section17, township 34

south, range 33 east, to its

confluence with Ankle

Creek.”.

(b) DESIGNATION OF WILDHORSE AND

KIGER CREEKS, OREGON. – Section 3(a)

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.

1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

following new paragraph:

“(1) WILDHORSE AND KIGER

CREEKS, OREGON. – The

following segments in the Steens

Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area in the State of

Oregon, to be administered by the

Secretary of the Interior as wild

rivers:

“(A) The 2.6-mile segment

of Little Wildhorse Creek

from its headwaters to its

confluence with Wildhorse

Creek.

“(B) The 7.0-mile segment

of Wildhorse Creek from

its head wate rs, an d

including .36 stream miles

into section 34, township

34 south, range 33 east.

“(C) The approximately

4.25-mile segment of Kiger

Creek from its headwaters

to the point at which it

leaves the Steens Mountain

Wilderness Area within the

Steens M o untai n

Cooperative Management

and Protection Area.”.

(c) MANAGEMENT. – Where management

requirements for a stream segment described

in the amendments made by this section differ

between the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) and the Wilderness Area,

the more restrictive requirements shall apply.

3.2.15 Wildlands Juniper Management Area

3.2.15.1 Interim Management Policy

The WJMA will be managed consistent with section

501 of the Act. Prior to the development of juniper

management strategies, the area will be inventoried for

plants and resident or seasonal animals. Some

interpretive signs may be placed in strategic locations.

Any juniper management actions that take place in the

WJMA will be evaluated through the NEPA process

and coordinated with the SMAC to ensure they meet the

requirements and purpose of the Act.

3.2.15.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

SEC. 501. WILDLANDS JUNIPER MANAGEMENT

AREA.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT. – To further the

purposes of section 113(c), the Secretary shall

establish a special management area consisting

of certain federal lands in the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area, as depicted

on the map referred to in section 101(a),

which shall be known as the Wildlands

Juniper Management Area.

(b) MANAGEMENT. – Special management

practices shall be adopted for the Wildlands

Juniper Management Area for the purposes of
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-13

experimentation, education, interpretation, and

demonstration of active and p assive

management intended to restore the historic

fire regime and native vegetation communities

on Steens Mountain.

(C) AUTH ORIZ ATION O F

APPROPRIATIONS. – In addition to the

authorization of appropriations in section 701,

there is authorized to be appropriated

$5,000,000 to carry out this title and section

113(c) regarding juniper management in the

Cooperative Management and Protection

Area.

SEC. 502. RELEASE FROM WILDERNESS STUDY

AREA STATUS.

The Federal lands included in the Wildlands

Juniper Management Area established under

section 501 are no longer subject to the

requirement of section 603(c) of the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43

U.S.C. 1782(c)) pertaining to managing the

lands so as not to impair the suitability of the

lands for preservation as wilderness.

3.2.16 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas

3.2.16.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

The Andrews MFP discussed wilderness and WSAs but

did not make any decisions. The decisions were made

by the Oregon Wilderness EIS (BLM 1989a), the

Wilderness Study Report (BLM 1991b), and the Act.

No decision was made regarding Wilderness or WSAs

in the Andrews MFP.

Public land was inventoried in the early 1980s to see if

it contained wilderness characteristics. Those areas

found to have wilderness character were identified as

WSAs and all other land was eliminated from further

consideration in the wilderness review. Some of the

criteria used in the wilderness inventory were

naturalness, solitude, primitive and unconfined

recreational opportunities, special features, and

manageability.

In October of 2000, Congress passed the Act, which

designated the Steens Mountain Wilderness in the

Steens Mountain CM PA and expanded the Basque Hills

WSA with a 3,840-acre addition in the Andrews MU. In

addition, the Act altered some of the WSAs in the

Steens Mountain CMPA and created a No Livestock

Grazing Area within the Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Until Congress acts on the wilderness recommendations

or otherwise releases the existing WSAs for other

purposes, they will continue to be managed in

accordance with the BLM’s IMP for Lands Under

Wilderness Review, FLPMA, and other applicable laws

and policies. The WSAs are also managed according to

the Andrews MFP and the Wilderness Act, which detail

restrictions on use and access. The following 16 WSAs

in the Andrews MU range from approximately 8,500

acres to 236,000 acres.

Wilderness Study Acres

Alvord Desert 97,670

Basque Hills 72,082

Disaster Peak 3,672

East Alvord 22,161

Hawk Mountain 24,226

Heath Lake 21,197

Mahogany Ridge 27,053

Pueblo Mountains 73,547

Red Mountain 15,659

Rincon 104,979

Sheepshead Mountains 21,679

Table Mountain 39,886

West Peak 8,598

Wildcat Canyon 8,543

Willow Creek 2,424

Winter Range 15,517

Management of existing WSAs in the Steens Mountain

CMPA will continue as directed under the BLM IMP

for Lands Under Wilderness Review, the Act, the

FLPMA, and the IMP for the Steens Mountain CMPA.

Seven WSAs in the Steens Mountain CMPA include the

following:

Wilderness Study Acres

Blitzen River 31,737

Bridge Creek 14,284

High Steens 13,227

Home Creek 1,165

Lower Stonehouse 7,449

South Fork Donner und 27,969

Stonehouse 22,765
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-14

3.2.16.2 Interim Management Policy

C The non-impairment standard under FLPMA

will continue to apply to WSAs, and

management will continue as directed under

the IMP for Lands Under Wilderness Review

(BLM H-8550-1).

C A 3,267 acre parcel in the Bridge Creek and

Blitzen River WSAs was released from

management requirements of section 603(c) of

FLPMA under the provisions of the Act and is

no longer subject to management under

wilderness suitability requirements set forth in

that section. 

C The 3,840 acre addition to the Basque Hills

WSA will be managed under section 603 (c)

of FLPMA to protect and enhance the

wilderness values of these lands.

Wilderness Areas

C Subject to valid existing rights, the BLM will

administer the Steens Mountain Wilderness in

accordance with the Wilderness Act, 43CFR

6300, the Management of Designated

Wilderness Areas Manual 8560, and the Act.

C Provisions of the BLM wilderness policy in

BLM Manual 8560 are as follows:

1. To provide for the long term protection and

preservation of the area’s wilderness character

under a principle of non-degradation. The

area’s natural condition, opportunities for

solitude, opportunities for primitive and

unconfined recreation, and any ecological,

geological, or other features of scientific,

educational, scenic, or historical value present

will be managed so that they will remain

unimpaired. 

2. To manage the area for the use and

enjoyment of visitors in a manner that will

leave the area unimpaired for future use and

enjoyment as wilderness. The wilderness

resources will be the dominant consideration

where a choice must be made between

preservation of the wilderness character and

visitor use.

3. To manage the area using the minimum

tool, equipment, or structure necessary to

successfully, safely, and economic ally

accomplish the objectives. The chosen tool,

equipment, or structure will be the one that

least degrades wilderness values temporarily

or permanently.

4. To manage nonconforming but acceptable

uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and

subsequent laws in a manner that will prevent

unnecessary or undue degradation of the

area’s wilderness character and with overall

emphasis placed on retaining wilderness

character. Proposed actions that may affect

wilderness character will be assessed through

the appropriate NEPA analysis.

5. The BLM will only approve that

combination of routes and non-motorized

modes of travel to nonfederal inholdings that

the BLM determines will serve the reasonable

purposes for which the nonfederal lands are

held or used and cause the least impact on

wilderness character.

3.2.16.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

TITLE II – STEENS MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

AREA

SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF STEENS MOUNTAIN

WILDERNESS AREA.

The Federal lands in the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area depicted as

wilderness on the map entitled “Steens

Mountain Wilderness Area” and dated

September 18, 2000, are hereby designated as

wilderness and therefore as a component of

the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The wilderness area shall be known as the

Steens Mountain Wilderness Area.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS

AREA.

(a) GENERAL RULE. – The Secretary shall

administer the Wilderness Area in accordance

with this title and the Wilderness Act (16

U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). Any reference in the

Wilderness Act to the effective date of that

Act (or any similar reference) shall be deemed

to be a reference to the date of the enactment

of this Act.

(b) WILDERNESS BOUNDARIES ALONG

ROADS. – Where a wilderness boundary

exists along a road, the wilderness boundary

shall be set back from the centerline of the

road, consistent with the Bureau of Land

Management’s guidelines as established in its

Wilderness Management Policy.

(c) ACCESS TO NON-FEDERAL LANDS. –

The Secretary shall provide reasonable access

to private lands within the boundaries of the
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-15

Wilderness Area, as provided in section

112(d).

(d) GRAZING. –

(1) ADMINISTRATION. – Except

as provided in section 113(e)(2),

grazing of livestock shall be

administered in accordance with the

provision of section 4(d)(4) of the

W ilderness Act (16 U.S .C.

1133(d)(4), in accordance with the

provisions of this Act, and in

accordance with the guidelines set

forth in Appendices A and B of

House Report 101-405 of the 101st

Congress.

(2) RETIREMENT OF CERTAIN

PERMITS. – The Secretary shall

permanently retire all gra zing

permits applicable to certain lands in

the Wilderness Area, as depicted on

the map referred to in section 101(a),

and livestock shall be excluded form

these lands.

SEC. 203. WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or

implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal

Government as to exception from State water laws.

SEC. 204. TREATMENT OF WILDERNESS STUDY

AREAS.

(a) STATUS UNAFFECTED. – Except as

provided in section 502, any wilderness study

area, or portion of a wilderness study area,

within the boundaries of the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area, but not

included in the Wilderness Area, shall remain

a wilderness study area notwithstanding the

enactment of this Act.

(b) MANAGEMENT. – The wilderness study

areas referred to in subsection (a) shall

continue to be managed under section 603(c)

of the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)) in a manner

so as not to impair the suitability of the areas

for preservation as wilderness.

(c) EXPANSION OF BASQUE HILLS

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA. – The

boundaries of the Basque Hills Wilderness

Study Area are hereby expanded to include the

Federal lands within sections 8, 16 17, 21, 22,

and 27 of township 36 south, range 31 east,

Williamette Meridian. These lands shall be

managed under section 603(c) of the Federal

Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976

(43 U.S.C. 1782(c) to protect and enhance the

wilderness values of these lands.

3.2.17 Recreation

3.2.17.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Provide and enhance developed and

undeveloped recreation opportunities, while protecting

resources, to manage the increasing demand for

resource-dependent recreation activities.

C Continue management of existing SRMAs.

Implement management plans as appropriate.

Manage remaining public land as ERMAs.

C Continue management of existing developed

and undeveloped recreation sites and consider

their expansion. Develop potential recreation

sites to meet high public demand or to provide

for public safety or resource protection.

Develop tourism opportunities.

C Restrict some recreation uses and use levels to

protect resources and enhance recreation

opp ortunities. Authorize SRPs while

providing for protection of sensitive resource

values.

Recreation Sites - Campgrounds are maintained at Page

Springs, Jackman Park, South Steens, and Fish Lake.

Primitive camping areas are provided at Mann Lake.

The campground at Blitzen Crossing has been closed to

provide for the area’s restoration and to resolve

conflicts with riparian zone management.

Interpretive Sites - An interpretive program and visitor

management plan would be developed for Steens

Mountain. Sites of interest would be identified and

interpretive material developed to enhance the

recreational experience.

Hunting and Fishing Opportunities - The quality of

hunting and fishing opportunities would be enhanced by

the proposed management for wildlife and fish habitat.

High Desert Trail - A route for the High Desert Trail

has been established through the Pueblo and Steens

Mountains. A trail corridor along the ridge between

Little Blitzen and Big Indian Gorges was established in

lieu of Little Blitzen Canyon due to the sensitivity of

the riparian zone. The trail crosses the river at Big
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-16

Spring and then continues down the west side of the

river.

Winter Use Area -Motorized winter use in the Steens is

allowed along the north section of the Steens Mountain

Back Country Byway. During winter, the gates are

locked. A permit and key must be obtained from the

BLM for use by winter recreationists wanting to drive

to the snow line on the Steens Mountain Back Country

Byway.

3.2.17.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

C Recreation management will continue,

consistent with the Act, the Wilderness Act,

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and other

applicable existing land use plans and

regulations.

C Recreation facilities will continue to provide

quality recreation and protect public health

and safety. 

C Existing special recreation use permits will

continue, when consistent with the Act.

Stipulations may be developed on current

Burns District Special Recreation Permits

(SRPs) within the Steens Mountain CMPA to

ensure consistency with the Act and the land

designations of the Act. Wilderness-specific

permit stipulations may be developed if

necessary to ensure compliance with the

Wilderness Act. SRPs will be administered in

conformance with the Act and applicable laws,

policies, and plans. Commercial Day Use

permit stipulations will be developed as

appropriate to assure consistency with the Act

and the land designations of the Act.

3.2.18 Visual Resources

3.2.18.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Manage public land actions and activities in

a manner to be consistent with VRM Class Objectives.

C Manage all WSAs and Steens Mountain

Wilderness as VRM Class I.

C Manage designated NWSRs classified as wild

river areas as VRM Class I.

C Manage ACECs as prescribed in the MFP or

subsequent amendments to that plan.

C Maintain existing MFP VRM classifications in

all other areas.

3.2.18.2 Interim Management Policy

C The Steens Mountain Wilderness, the

previously existing and new WSRs, and the

existing WSAs within the Steens Mountain

CMPA will be managed as VRM Class I in

accordance with current BLM policy. 

C The remainder of the lands in the Steens

Mountain CMPA will be managed according

to the existing VRM Class designations.

3.2.19 Lands, Realty and Rights-of-Way

3.2.19.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Retain public land with high public resource

values. Consolidate public landholdings and acquire

land or interests in land with high public resource

values to ensure effective administration and improve

resource management. Acquired land would be

managed for the purposes for which it was acquired.

Make available for disposal public land within Zone 3.

C Make land tenure adjustments consistent with

existing planning documents with emphasis on

acquiring land with high public resource

values.

C Acquire interests in land on a case-by-case

basis as needed.

C Make available for sale land specifically

identified for disposal in the existing planning

documents.

C Determine management of acquired land on a

case-by-case basis.

Objective 2: Establish utility and transportation system

corridor routes to the extent possible, considering

avoidance areas, consistent with resource objectives.

C Continue corridor designations on facilities

identified in existing MFPs. The location of

these corridors is the result of decisions made

in the MFP, Statewide Wilderness EIS

(December 1989), and the Western Regional

Corridor Study.

C Continue with the proposed ROW corridor as

listed in the Western Regional Corridor Study

without modifications and as identified in the

existing MFP.

Existing Utility Corridors - Harney Electric

Cooperative Lines

• 115 KV transmission line from Frenchglen to

Fields, paralleling State Highway 205 and

county road.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-17

• 115 KV transmission line from Fields, east

near Whitehorse Ranch, to the Vale District

boundary.

• 115 KV transmission line form Fields to

Denio, Nevada, paralleling county road.

Proposed Utility Corridor

• Pacific Power and Light Company (PP&L) -

The newly proposed corridor would be

modified slightly in the existing plan. The

corridor would follow PP&L’s proposed route

from the Lakeview District boundary to Long

Hollow. It would follow Harney Electric’s

route 1 through Lone Hollow to Fields. From

Fields, the corridor would follow Harney

Electric route 2 to Calderwood Desert Well. It

would then follow a northeastern route

crossing the Vale District boundary four miles

north of the existing transmission line.

• Bonneville Power Administration - The

proposed BPA corridor will follow the same

route as the PP&L corridor described above.

Existing Transportation Corridors

• County road from Folly Farm (on State

Highway 78) to Denio.

• County road from Fields to Roaring Springs

Ranch.

• County road from Trout Creek to Whitehorse

Ranch.

• State Highway 205.

• County road from Denio to Trout Creek via

Cottonwood Creek.

• County and BLM road from “P” Hill area to

Hart Mountain Refuge.

• County road from Riecken’s Corner to Jack

Mountain Road.

• State Highway 78.

3.2.19.2 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

SEC. 112. ROADS AND TRAVEL ACCESS.

(d) P ROH IBIT I O N ON NE W

CONSTRUCTION. – 

(1) PROHIBITION, EXCEPTION.

– No new road or trail for motorized

or mechanized vehicles may be

constructed on Federal lands in the

Coop erative Management and

Protection Area unless the Secretary

determines that the road or trail is

necessary for public safety or

protection of the environment. Any

determination under this subsection

shall be made in consultation with

the advisory council and the public.

(2) TRAILS. – Nothing in this

subsection is intended to limit the

authority of the Secretary to

construct or maintain trails for

nonmotorized or nonmechanized use.

(e) ACCESS TO NONFEDERALLY

OWNED LANDS. –

(1) REASONABLE ACCESS. – The

Secretary shall provide reasonable

access to nonfederally owned lands

or interests in land within the

boundaries of the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area

and the Wilderness Area to provide

the owner of the land or interest the

reasonable use thereof.

(2) EFFECT ON EXISTING

RIGHTS-OF-WAY. – Nothing in

this Act shall have the effect of

terminating any valid existing rightof-way on Federal lands included in

the Cooperative Management and

Protection Area.

(f) PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION

OF FACILITIES. – No new facilities may be

constructed on Federal lands included in the

Cooperative Management and Protection Area

unless the Secretary determines that the

structure – 

(1) will be minimal in nature;

(2) is consistent with the purposes of

this Act; and

(3) is necessary –

(A) for enhancing botanical,

fish, wildlife , or watershed

conditions;

(B) for public information,

health, or safety;
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-18

(C) for the management of

livestock; or

(D) for the management of

recreation, but not for the promotion

of recreation.

(g) WITHDRAWAL. – Subject to valid

existing rights, the Federal lands and interests

in lands included in the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area are hereby

withdrawn from a ll forms of entry,

appropriation, or disposal under the public

land laws, except in the case of land

exchanges if the Secretary determines that the

exchange furthers the purpose and objectives

specified in section 102 and so certifies to

Congress.

SEC. 114. LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

(a) ACQUISITION. –

(1) ACQUISITION AUTHORIZED.

– In addition to the land acquisitions

authorized by title VI, the Secretary

may acquire other non-Federal lands

and interests in lands located within

the boundaries of the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area or

the Wilderness Area.

(2) ACQUISITION METHODS. –

Lands may be acquired under the

subsection only by voluntary

exchange, donation, or purchase

from willing sellers.

(b) TREATMENT OF ACQUIRED LANDS.

–

(1) IN GENERAL. – Subject to

paragraphs (2) and (3), lands or

interests in lands acquired under

subsection (a) or title VI that are

located within the boundaries of the

Coop erative Management and

Protection Area shall –

(A) become part of the

Coop erative Management and

Protection Area, and

(B) be managed pursuant to

the laws applicable to the

Cooperative Management

and Protection Area.

(2) L ANDS WITHI N

WILDERNESS AREA. – If lands or

interests in lands acquired under

subsection (a) or title VI are within

the boundaries of the Wilderness

Area, the acquired lands or interest

in lands shall – 

(A) become part of the

Wilderness Area; and

(B) be managed pursuant to

title II and the other laws applicable

to the Wilderness Area.

(3) LAND S WITHI N

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA. – If

the lands or interests in lands

acquired under subsection (a) or title

IV are within the boundaries of a

wilderness study area, the acquired

lands or interests in lands shall –

(A) become part of that

wilderness study area; and

(B) be managed pursuant to

the laws applicable to that wilderness

study area.

(c) APPRAISAL. – In appraising

non-Federal land, development

rights, or conservation easements for

possible acquisition under this

section or section 122, the Secretary

shall disregard any adverse impacts

on values resulting from the

designation of the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area or

the Wilderness Area.

SEC. 122. COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO CONTROL

DEVELOPMEN T AND ENCO URAG E

CONSERVATION. 

(a) POLICY.—Development on public and

private lands within the boundaries of the

Cooperative Management and Protection Area

which is different from the current character

and uses of the lands is inconsistent with the

purposes of this Act.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-19

(b) USE OF NON-DEVELOPMENT AND

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. The

Secretary may enter into a non-development

easement or conservation easement with

willing landowners to further the purposes of

this Act.

(c) CONSERVATION INCENTIVE

PAYMENTS.—The Secretary may provide

technical assistance, cost-share payments,

incentive payments, and education to a private

landowner in the Cooperative Management

and Protection Area who enters into a contract

with the Secretary to protect or enhance

ecological resources on the private land

covered by the contract if those protections or

enhancements benefit public lands.

(d) RELATION TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

AND STATE AND LOCAL LAW .—Nothing

in this Act is intended to affect rights or

interests in real property or supersede State

law. 

202. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREA.

(c) ACCESS TO NON-FEDERAL

LANDS.—The Secretary shall provide

reasonable access to private lands within the

boundaries of the Wilderness Area, as

provided in section 112(d). 

SEC. 401. DESIGNATIO N OF MINERAL

WITHDRAWAL AREA. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—Subject to valid

existing rights, the Federal lands and interests

in lands included within the withdrawal

boundary as depicted on the map referred to in

section 101(a) are hereby withdrawn from—

(1) location, entry and patent under

the mining laws; and 

(2) operation of the mineral leasing

and geothermal leasing laws and

from the minerals materials laws and

all amendments thereto except as

specified in subsection (b). 

(b) ROAD MAINTENANCE.—If consistent

with the purposes of this Act and the

management plan for the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area, the

Secretary may permit the development of

saleab le mineral resources, for road

maintenance use only, in those locations

identified on the map referred to in section

101(a) as an existing ‘‘gravel pit’’ within the

mineral withdrawal bound-aries (excluding the

Wilderness Area, wilderness study areas, and

designated segments of the National Wild and

Sce nic Rivers System) where such

development was authorized before the date of

the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 402. TREATMENT OF STATE LANDS AND

MINERAL INTERESTS. 

(a) ACQUISITION REQUIRED.—The

Secretary shall acquire, for approximately

equal value and as agreed to by the Secretary

and the State of Oregon, lands and interests in

lands owned by the State within the

boundaries of the mineral withdrawal area

designated pursuant to section 401.

(b) ACQUISITION METHODS.—The

Secretary shall acquire such State lands and

interests in lands in exchange for— 

(1) Federal lands or Federal mineral

interests that are outside the

boundaries of the mineral withdrawal

area; 

(2) a monetary payment to the State;

or 

(3) a combination of a conveyance

under paragraph (1) and a monetary

payment under paragraph (2).

SEC. 601. LAND EXCHANGE, ROARING SPRINGS

RANCH.

(a) EXCHANGE AUTHORIZED.—For the

purpose of protecting and consolidating

Federal lands within the Coopera tive

Management and Protection Area, the

Secretary may carry out a land exchange with

Roaring Springs Ranch, Incorporated, to

convey all right, title, and interest of the

United States in and to certain parcels of land

under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land

Management in the vicinity of Steens

Mountain, Oregon, as depicted on the map

referred to in section 605(a), consisting of a

total of approximately 76,374 acres in

exchange for the private lands described in

subsection (b).
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-20

(b) RECEIPT OF NO N-FEDERAL

LANDS.—As considera tion for th e

conveyance of the Federal lands referred to in

subsection (a) and the disbursement referred

to in subsection (d), Roaring Springs Ranch,

Incorporated, shall convey to the Secretary

parcels of land consisting of approximately

10,909 acres, as depicted on the map referred

to in section 605(a), for inclusion in the

Wilderness Area, a wilderness study area, and

the no livestock grazing area as appropriate.

(c) TREA TMENT O F

GRAZING.—Paragraphs (2) and (3) of

section 113(e), relating to the effect of the

cancellation in part of grazing permits for the

South Steens allotment in the Wilderness

Area. R. 4828—17 and reassignment of use

areas as described in paragraph (3)(C) of such

section, shall apply to the land exchange

authorized by this section.

(d) DISBURSEMENT.—Upon completion of

the land exchange authorized by this section,

the Secretary is authorized to make a

disbursement to Roaring Springs Ranch,

Incorporated, in the amount of $2,889,000.

( e ) COM PLETI ON O F

CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary shall

complete the conveyance of the Federal lands

under subsection (a) within 70 days after the

Secretary accepts the lands described in

subsection (b).

SEC. 602. LAND EXCHANGES, C.M. OTLEY AND

OTLEY BROTHERS.

(a) C. M. OTLEY EXCHANGE.—

( 1 ) EXCHANG E

AUTHORIZED.—For the purpose

of protecting and consolidating

Federal lands within the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area,

the Secretary may carry out a land

exchange with C. M. Otley to convey

all right, title, and interest of the

United States in and to certain

parcels of land under the jurisdiction

of the Bureau of Land Management

in the vicinity of Steens Mountain,

Oregon, as depicted on the map

referred to in section 605(a),

consisting of a total of approximately

3,845 acres in exchange for the

private lands described in paragraph

(2).

(2) RECEIPT OF NON-FEDERAL

LANDS.—As consideration for the

conveyance of the Federal lands

referred to in paragraph (1) and the

disbursement referred to in

paragraph (3), C. M. Otley shall

convey to the Secretary a parcel of

land in the headwaters of Kiger

gorge consisting of approximately

851 acres, as depicted on the map

referred to in section 605(a), for

inclusion in the Wilderness Area and

the no livestock grazing area as

appropriate.

(3) DISBURSEMENT.—Upo n

completion of the land exchange

authorized by this subsection, the

Secretary is authorized to make a

disbursement to C.M. Otley, in the

amount of $920,000.

(b) OTLEY BROTHERS EXCHANGE.—

( 1 ) EXCHAN G E

AUTHORIZED.—For the purpose

of protecting and consolidating

Federal lands within the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area,

the Secretary may carry out a land

exchange with the Otley Brothers,

Inc., to convey all right, title, and

interest of the United States in and to

certain parcels of land under the

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land

Management in the vicinity of Steens

Mountain, Oregon, as depicted on

the map referred to in section 605(a),

consisting of a total of approximately

6,881 acres in exchange for the

private lands described in paragraph

(2).

(2) RECEIPT OF NON-FEDERAL

LANDS.—As consideration for the

conveyance of the Federal lands

referred to in paragraph (1) and the

disbursement referred to in

subsection (3), the Otley Brothers,

Inc., shall convey to the Secretary a

parcel of land in the headwaters of

K iger gorge consisting o f

approximately 505 acres, as depicted
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-21

on the map referred to in section

605(a), for inclusion in the

Wilderness Area and the no livestock

grazing area as appropriate.

(3) DISBURSEM ENT.—Upon

completion of the land exchange

authorized by this subsection, the

Secretary is authorized to. R.

4828—18 make a disbursement to

Otley Brothers, Inc., in the amount of

$400,000.

(c) COMPL ETION O F

CON VEY ANCE.—The Secr etary shall

complete the conveyances of the Federal lands

under subsections (a) and (b) within 70 days

after the Secretary accepts the lands described

in such subsections. 

SEC. 603. LAND EXCHANGE, TOM J. DAVIS

LIVESTOCK, INCORPORATED.

(a) EXCHANGE AUTHORIZED.—For the

purpose of protecting and consolidating

Federal lands within the Wilderness Area, the

Secretary may carry out a land exchange with

Tom J. Davis Livestock, Incorporated, to

convey all right, title, and interest of the

United States in and to certain parcels of land

under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land

Management in the vicinity of Steens

Mountain, Oregon, as depicted on the map

referred to in section 605(a), consisting of a

total of approximately 5,340 acres in exchange

for the private lands described in subsection

(b).

(b) RECEIPT OF NON-FEDERAL

L AN DS .— As considera tion fo r the

conveyance of the Federal lands referred to in

subsection (a) and the disbursement referred

to in subsection (c), Tom J. Davis Livestock,

Incorporated, shall convey to the Secretary a

parcel of land consisting of approximately

5,103 acres, as depicted on the map referred to

in section 605(a), for inclusion in the

Wilderness Area.

(c) DISBURSEMENT.—Upon completion of

the land exchange authorized by this section,

the Secretary is authorized to make a

disbursement to Tom J. Davis Livestock,

Incorporated, in the amount of $800,000.

(d) COMPL ETION O F

CONV EYANCE.—The Secretary shall

complete the conveyance of the Federal lands

under subsection (a) within 70 days after the

Secretary accepts the lands described in

subsection (b).

SEC. 604. LAND EXCHANGE, LOWTHER

(CLEMENS) RANCH.

(a) EXCHANGE AUTHORIZED.—For the

purpose of protecting and consolidating

Federal lands within the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area, the

Secretary may carry out a land exchange with

the Lowther (Clemens) Ranch to convey all

right, title, and interest of the United States in

and to certain parcels of land under the

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land

Management in the vicinity of Steens

Mountain, Oregon, as depicted on the map

referred to in section 605(a), consisting of a

total of approximately 11,796 acres in

exchange for the private lands described in

sub-section (b).

(b) RECEIPT OF NON-FEDERAL

L ANDS.—As consideration for the

conveyance of the Federal lands referred to in

subsection (a) and the disbursement referred

to in subsection (d), the Lowther (Clemens)

Ranch shall convey to the Secretary a parcel

of land consisting of approximately 1,078

acres, as depicted on the map referred to in

section 605(a), for inclusion in the

Cooperative Management and Protection

Area.

(c) TREA TMENT O F

GRAZING.—Paragraphs (2) and (3) of

section 113(e), relating to the effect of the

cancellation in whole of the grazing permit for

the Fish Creek/Big Indian allotment in the

Wilderness Area and reassignment of use

areas as described in paragraph (3)(D) of such

section, shall apply to the land exchange

authorized by this section.

(d) DISBURSEMENT.—Upon completion of

the land exchange authorized by this section,

the Secretary is authorized to make. R.

4828—19 a disbursement to Lowther

(Clemens) Ranch, in the amount of $148,000.

(e) CO M P LETI O N O F

CONVEYAN CE.—The Secretary shall
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-22

complete the conveyance of the Federal lands

under subsection (a) within 70 days after the

Secretary accepts the lands described in

subsection (b).

SEC. 605. GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE

TO LAND EXCHANGES.

(a) MAP.—The land conveyances described

in this title are generally depicted on the map

entitled ‘‘Steens Mountain Land Exchanges’’

and dated September 18, 2000. 

(b) APPLICABLE LAW .—Except as

otherwise provided in this section, the

exchange of Federal land under this title is

subject to the existing laws and regulations

applicable to the conveyance and acquisition

of land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of

Land Management. It is anticipated that the

Secretary will be able to carry out such land

exchanges without the promulgation of

additional regulations and without regard to

the notice and comment provisions of section

553 of title 5, United States Code.

(c) CON DITIONS O N

ACCEPTANCE.—Title to the non-Federal

lands to be conveyed under this title must be

acceptable to the Secretary, and the

conveyances shall be subject to valid existing

rights of record. The non-Federal lands shall

conform with the title approval standards

applicable to Federal land acquisitions

(d) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—The exact

acreage and legal description of all lands to be

exchanged under this title shall be determined

by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary. The

costs of any such survey, as well as other

administrative costs incurred to execute a land

exchange under this title, shall be borne by the

Secretary.

SEC. 702. USE OF LAND AND WATER

CONSERVATION FUND.

(a) AVAILABILITY OF FUND.—There are

authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000

from the land and water conservation fund

established under section 2 of the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16

U.S.C. 460l–5) to provide funds for the

acquisition of land and interests in land under

section 114 and to enter into non-development

easements and conservation easements under

subsections (b) and (c) of section 122.

3.2.20 Off-Highway Vehicles

3.2.20.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Off-Highway Vehicles - Objective: Manage OHV use

to protect resource values, promote public safety,

provide OHV use opportunities where appropriate, and

minimize conflicts among various users.

C OHVs are managed in accordance with

existing open, limited, and closed OHV use

designations.

C Organized OHV events are allowed when

consistent with protection of resource values.

C In WSAs, all motorized and mechanical

vehicles are limited to designated routes and

designated open area.

3.2.20.2 Interim Management Policy

Transportation System Management

C Under section 112 of the Act, motorized and

mechanical vehicle use on federal lands within

the Steens Mountain CMPA is prohibited off

road except for certain administrative uses and

emergencies. 

C Existing seasonal and travel route closures

within the Steens Mountain CMPA will

remain in effect. OHV designations for WSAs

and other public lands identified in the

February 20, 1987 Federal Register Notice

will also remain in effect. 

C Designation of the Steens Mountain

Wilderness by the Act resulted in closure of

the Wilderness to all OHV use except where

specifically authorized by the BLM for

protection of human life, safety, and property

( 43 CFR sec. 6302.20 and 6303.1), and as

may be authorized under the Wilderness Act

and House Report 101-405 (Arizona Desert

Wilderness Act). 

C All ways or vehicular routes within the Steens

Mountain Wilderness will be closed to

motorized or mechanized use except under the

terms provided in sections 112(b)(2),

112(e)(1), and 202(d)(1) in the Act. 

C Methods of closure will be determined by

feasibility, access needs, and intent of the Act.

3.2.20.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-23

SEC. 112. ROADS AND TRAVEL ACCESS.

(a) TRANSPORTATION PLAN. – The

management plan shall include, as an integral

part, a comprehensive transportation plan for

the Federal lands included in the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area, which shall

address the maintenance, improvement, and

closure of roads and trails as well as travel

access.

(b) PROHIBITION ON OFF-ROAD

MOTORIZED TRAVEL. –

(1) PROHIBITION. – The use of

motorized or mechanized vehicles on

Federal lands included in the

Coop erative Management and

Protection Area –

(A) is prohibited off road; 

(B) is limited to such roads

and trails as may be

designed for their use as

part of the management

plan.

(2) EXCEPTIONS. – Paragraph (1)

does not prohibit the use of

motorized or mechanized vehicles on

Federal lands included in the

Coop erative Manag eme nt and

Protection Area if the Secretary

determines that such use –

(A) is nee d ed fo r

administrative purposes or to respond to an

emergency; or

(B) is appropriate for the

const ruct ion o r

maintenance of agricultural

facilities, fish and wildlife

management, or ecological

restoration projects, except

in areas designated as

wilderness or managed

under the provisions of

section 603(c) of the

Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976

(43 U.S.C. 1782).

(c) ROAD CLOSURES. – Any determination

to permanently close an existing road in the

Cooperative Management and Protection Area

or to restrict the access of motorized or

mechanized vehicles on certain roads shall be

made in consultation with the advisory council

and the public.

(d) PRO HIB I T ION ON N E W

CONSTRUCTION. – 

(1) PROHIBITION, EXCEPTION.

– No new road or trail for motorized

or mechanized vehicles may be

constructed on Federal lands in the

Cooperative Management and

Protection Area unless the Secretary

determines that the road or trail is

necessary for public safety or

protection of the environment. Any

determination under this subsection

shall be made in consultation with

the advisory council and the public.

(2) TRAILS. – Nothing in this

subsection is intended to limit the

authority of the Secretary to

construct or maintain trails for

nonmotorized or nonmechanized use.

(e) ACCESS TO NONFEDERALLY

OWNED LANDS. –

(1) REASONABLE ACCESS. – The

Secretary shall provide reasonable

access to nonfederally owned lands

or interests in land within the

boundaries of the Cooperative

Management and Protection Area

and the Steens Mountain Wilderness

to provide the owner of the land or

interest the reasonable use thereof.

(2) EFFECT ON EXISTING

RIGHTS-OF-WAY. – Nothing in

this Act shall have the effect of

terminating any valid existing rightof-way on Federal lands included in

the Cooperative Management and

Protection Area.

3.2.21 Minerals

3.2.21.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective 1: Provide opportunities for exploration and

development of leasable energy and mineral resources

while protecting other sensitive resources. The Mineral
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-24

Withdrawal Area, Steens Mountain Wilderness, WSAs,

and designated WSRs are closed or withdrawn from

leasable mineral entry by Congressional action for

1,181,362 acres. 

C Open the planning area to energy and mineral

leasing, except near streams administratively

suitable for designation as wild under the

NWSR System.

C Prior to leasing, areas where a No Surface

Occupancy (NSO) stipulation is to be applied

will be identified in order to protect sensitive

areas. These may include areas along streams

administratively suitable for designation as

scenic or recreational under the NWSR

System, or significant cultural sites.

C Prior to leasing, areas would be identified

where seasonal and /or other spe cial

stipulations would be applied. These may

include areas within 0.5 miles of identified

sage-grouse leks, big game winter range (elk,

mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and California

bighorn sheep), areas of special status plant

and animal species and their essential habitats,

and riparian and wetland areas.

C Standard stipulations would be applied to all

other lands in the Andrews Planning Area.

Under standard stipulations, a drill rig may be

moved up to 200 meters (1/8 mile) in order to

protect sensitive resources, including visual

resources.

Objective 2: Provide opportunities for exploration and

development of locatable mineral resources while

protecting other sensitive resources. The Mineral

Withdrawal Area, Steens Mountain Wilderness, and

designated wild segments of WSRs are closed to

mineral location by Congressional action (a total of

748,119 acres). Six grandfathered claims covering 120

acres are located in the Mineral Withdrawal Area. In

WSAs outside of the Mineral Withdrawal Area

(433,243 acres), claims may be located but no surfacedisturbing mineral activity requiring reclamation is

authorized until Congress acts to designate all, part, or

none of the WSAs as wilderness. No WSAs in the RMP

Planning Area contain pre-1976 claims providing

“grandfathered” or “valid existing” rights.

C Open the planning area to mineral location

and development, except near streams

administratively suitable as wild under the

NWSR System. In these areas, withdrawal

would be pursued.

Objective 3: Provide for public demand for saleable

minerals from public land while protecting sensitive

resources. The M ineral Withdrawal Area is closed to

saleable mineral disposal by congressional action

except for materials sites identified in the Act. Some of

those identified sites are in exchanged land or are

exhausted and in reclamation status, leaving seven

materials sources within the Mineral Withdrawal Area

open to saleable mineral disposal. Subtracting the seven

materials source areas (515 acres) from the BLM

acreage within the Andrews Planning and Mineral

Withdrawal Areas (748,119 acres), 747,604 acres are

closed to saleable mineral disposal. WSAs and

designated WSRs are closed to saleable mineral

disposal outside the Mineral Withdrawal Area for

433,243 acres.

C The planning area will remain open to saleable

mineral development except in areas where

unacceptable conflicts exist, as determined by

interdisciplinary site-specific review. No

saleable mineral development would be

allowed along streams administratively

suitable as WSRs under the NWSR System,

special status plant sites, and in significant

cultural sites. Due to resource concerns, no

tracts of land for flat rock removal have been

designated in the Andrews RMP.

The current national minerals management policy

encourages exploration and development of domestic

energy and mineral sources. Under the existing plan,

public lands would be kept open for exploration,

development or collection of mineral resources, while

maintaining natural systems and protecting sensitive

areas.

3.2.21.2 Interim Management Policy

C A mineral withdrawal area is identified in

Title IV of the Act and depicted on the map

referred to in Section 101(a) (in the Act). The

terms of the withdrawal are specified in

section 401 of the Act which states, “Subject

to valid existing rights, the federal lands and

interests in lands included within the

withdrawal boundary...are hereby withdrawn

from location, entry, and patent under the

mining laws; and operation of mineral leasing

and geothermal leasing laws...” “If consistent

with the purposes of the Act....the [BLM] may

permit the development of salable mineral

resources, for road maintenance use only, in

those locations identified on the map referred

to in Section 101(a) as an existing “gravel pit”

w i thin the mine ral wit hdrawa l

boundaries...where such development was
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-25

authorized before the date of the enactment of

the Act.” 

C Activities on existing valid mining claims may

continue under valid existing rights in

accordance with the Act and other existing

laws and regulations. 

C Abandoned mine land will continue to be

rehabilitated to meet safety standards as time

and money allow.

3.2.21.3 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Act

SEC. 402. TREATMENT OF STATE LANDS AND

MINERAL INTERESTS.

(a) ACQUISITION REQUIRED. – The

Secretary shall require, for approximately

equal value and as agreed to by the Secretary

and the State of Oregon, lands and interests in

lands owned by the State within the

boundaries of the mineral withdrawal area

designated pursuant to section 401.

(b) ACQUISITION METHODS. – The

Secretary shall acquire such State lands and

interests in lands in exchange for – 

1) Federal lands or Federal mineral

interests that are outside the

boundaries of the mineral withdrawal

area;

(2) a monetary payment to the State;

or

(3) a combination of a conveyance

under paragraph (1) and a monetary

payment under paragraph (2).

3.2.22 Cultural Resources

3.2.22.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective 1: Protect and conserve cultural and

paleontological resources.

C Protect against illegal artifact collection, site

excavation, and vandalism by patrolling

potential National Register eligible sites and

subregions having established enforcement

needs, such as Pueblo Valley, Catlow Valley,

and the Frenchglen vicinity.

C Stabilize and restore historic buildings and

structures within the Riddle Brothers Ranch

Historic District according to the Cultural

Resource Management Plan (CRMP).

Objective 2: Increase the public’s knowledge of,

appreciation for, and sensitivity to cultural and

paleontological resources.

C Provide on- or off-site interpretation of the

Riddle Brothers Ranch Historic District.

Objective 3: Consult and coordinate with Native

American groups to ensure their interests are considered

and their traditional religious sites, land forms and

resources are taken into account.

C Limit land treatments, the construction of

short- or long-term livestock holding facilities,

livestock salt grounds, livestock watering

troughs, and the harvest of standing trees or

portions of standing trees for posts, boughs, or

fuelwood within identified Native American

Indian root gathering areas.

C Manage Native American Indian traditional

use areas identified on public land to allow for

the continuation of such uses. Retain all such

areas in federal ownership.

C On a case-by-case basis, consider American

Indian requests to practice traditional

activities on specific public land not identified

in this plan. Where practicable, allow for

traditional uses of such public land by Native

Americans.

C Develop activity plans on a case-by-case basis

for Native American traditional use areas,

when identified, in consultation with the

affected tribes.

3.2.22.2 Interim Management Policy

C Personal tribal consultation primarily with the

Burns Paiute Tribe will occur frequently in

order to keep the tribe aware of Steens

Mountain CMPA issues. 

C Consultation on individual projects or actions

will occur as the need arises. Efforts to protect

tribal traditional use areas will continue where

required. 

C Steens Mountain CMPA related projects or

actions will continue to receive cultural

resources inventories prior to implementation.

C Scientific archaeological investigations

involving surface disturbance such as testing

and excavation will continue to be managed

under existing policy and regulation,

consistent with the purposes and objectives of

the Act. 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-26

C In the Riddle Brothers Ranch National

Histo ric Distric t, management and

interpretation efforts such as on and off-site

signing, historic structure stabilization,

restoration, and fire protection may continue

as necessary to protect historic resources.

3.2.23 Human Uses and Values

3.2.23.1 Andrews Management Framework Plan

Objective: Manage public land and pursue partnerships

to provide social and economic benefits to local

residents, businesses, visitors, and for future

generations.

C Continue current management, resource

allocations, and work cooperatively with

private, community, and local government

groups to continue to provide for customary

uses consistent with other resource objectives.

3.3 Management Direction Carried Forward in

the Resource Management Plan

This section describes the existing management

direction that is being carried forward without

modification from the existing plans and associated

NEPA documents applicable to the Planning Area.

In addition to the plans and documents outlined in

Section 3.1, several activity plans have been completed

in recent years. These include ACEC management

plans, a resource area-wide fire management plan, an

OHV management plan, mining plans of operation,

allotment management plans, habitat management

plans, a noxious weed management plan, and wild horse

herd management plans.

In addition to the direction in the Andrews MFP, IMP,

and the Act, various resource programs are directed by

laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered

Species Act, the National Heritage Preservation Act,

the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, the

Taylor Grazing Act, the Act, and other legislation.

Also, FLPMA provides the basic authority and

management direction for all BLM programs with

particular direction regarding land-use planning,

wilderness management, and lands and realty. BLM

manuals, handbooks, and policy memos provide

additional specific guidance for the various programs.

This direction is incorporated into the general and

specific planning criteria for the RMP/EIS.

Recommendations brought forward from the MFPs

have not undergone an environmental analysis in all

cases. Those recommendations carried into the

RMP/EIS process will be incorporated into the various

alternatives as management direction and analyzed in

the EIS. Decisions carried forward from plan

amendments, other EISs, or environmental assessments

need no further environmental analysis. 

The following sections describe goals and objectives as

well as elements created by legislation for the Andrews

Management Unit and Steens Mountain CMPA.

3.3.1 General Andrews Management Unit Goals

and Objectives

1. The Andrews MU shall be managed by the

BLM to protect resources in accordance with

FLPMA and other applicable laws and

regulations.

2. The Andrews MU shall be managed in

accordance with all existing public land law.

3. Subject to valid existing rights, all land within

the Mineral Withdrawal Area is withdrawn

from location, entry, and patent under the

mining laws and from disposition under all

laws relating to mineral and geothermal

leasing.

4. Hunting and fishing are permitted within the

Andrews MU in accordance with applicable

federal and state laws with the exception that

the BLM, in conjunction with the ODFW, may

designate no hunting zones for reasons

concerning public safety, administration or

public use and enjoyment.

5. OHV use in the Andrews MU shall be allowed

to the extent that usage conforms with sitespecific area designations and is compatible

with OHV management as described in the

BLM’s OHV National Management Strategy

for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on

Public Lands. This strategy took effect in

January 2001. 

6. Resources in the Andrews MU will be

managed in accordance with all BLM

guidance and policies.

3.3.2 Goals and Objectives Specific to the Steens

Mountain Cooperative Management and

Protection Area

1. To manage the Steens Mountain CMPA to

conserve, protect, and manage the long-term

ecological integrity of Steens Mountain for

present and future generations;

2. To maintain and enhance cooperative and

innovative management projects, programs,

and agreements between tribal, public, and
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-27

private interests in the Steens Mountain

CMPA;

3. To promote grazing, recreation, historic, and

other sustainable uses; 

4. To conserve, protect and ensure traditional

access to cultural, gathering, religious, and

archaeological sites on public land within the

Steens Mountain CMPA by members of the

Burns Paiute Tribe and to promote

cooperation with private landowners;

5. To ensure the conservation, protection, and

improved management of the ecological,

social, and economic environment of the

Steens Mountain CMPA, including geological,

biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic

resources;

6. To promote and foster cooperation,

communication, and understanding and to

reduce conflict between Steens Mountain

users and interests; and

7. To ensure that a monitoring program for

public land within the Steens Mountain

CMPA will be implemented in order to

determine progress toward ecological integrity

objectives.

3.3.3 Elements Created by Legislation to

Support the Goals and Objectives of the

SteensMountain Cooperative Management

and Protection Area

1. The Steens Mountain Wilderness consisting of

169,465 acres of public land was established

and will be managed such that:

a. Subject to valid existing rights, the

Steens Mountain Wilderness shall be

administered by the BLM in

accordance with the Wilderness Act

(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

b. The jurisdiction or responsibilities of

the State of Oregon, with respect to

wildlife and fish on the public land

within the Steens Mountain

Wilderness, will not be affected by

the Act.

c. No expressed or implied reservation

of water for any purpose was created

by the Act, and water rights in

existence prior to the enactment date

are not affected by the Act.

d. Any new water right determined

necessary for purposes of the Act

must be established under the

procedures and sub stantiv e

requirements of Oregon law.

2. Additional Management Goals for the Steens

Mountain Wilderness Pursuant to BLM

Wilderness Policy are to:

a. Provide for the long-term protection

and preservation of the area's

wilderness character under a

principle of non-degradation. The

a r e a ' s natu ral co ndit ion ,

opportunities for soli tude ,

opportunities for primitive and

unconfined types of recreation, and

any ecological, geological or other

features of scientific, educational,

scenic or historical value will be

managed so they will remain

unimpaired.

b. Manage the area for the use and

enjoyment of visitors in a manner

that will leave the area unimpaired

for future use and enjoyment as

wilderness. The wildernessresources

will be dominant in all management

decisions where a choice must be

made between preservation of the

wilderness character and visitor use.

c. Manage the area using the minimum

tool, equipment or structure

necessary to successfully, safely, and

economically acco mplish the

objec tives. The chosen tool,

equipment or structure should be the

one that least degrades wilderness

values temporarily or permanently.

Management will seek to preserve

spontaneity of use and as much

freedom from regulation as possible.

d. M anage nonconforming but

acceptable uses permitted by the

Wilderness Act and subsequent laws

in a manner that will prevent

unnecessary or undue degradation of

the area's wilderness character.

Nonco nforming uses are the

exception rather than the rule;

therefore, emphasis is placed on

wilderness character.

e. The 3,267-acre parcel of the Blitzen

River and Bridge Creek WSAs is

released from WSA status and is no

longer subject to management under

“wilderness suitability” requirements

set forth under section 603 of

FLPMA. The 3,840-acre addition to

the Basque Hills WSA, however,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

3-28

will be managed for “wilderness

suitability.”

f. The Act designated the Steens

Mountain Wilderness as “closed” to

OHV use and the remainder of the

Steens M ountain CMPA a s

prohibiting off-road travel.

3. The Redband Trout Reserve was created to

conserve, protect, and enhance Redband trout

and the unique ecosystem; and to provide

opportunities for research, education, and fish

and wildlife-oriented recreation. The reserve

consists of the Donner und Blitzen WSR

above its confluence with Fish Creek and the

adjacent riparian areas on public land within

the Steens Mountain Wilderness.

4. An area consisting of 97,671 acres of public

land within the Steens Mountain Wilderness

will be managed as a No Livestock Grazing

Area (Section 113 of Act).

5. The WJMA consisting of 3,267 acres of

public land will be used for experimentation,

education, interpretation, and demonstration

of management techniques for restoration of

historic fire regime and native vegetation

communities.

6. Kiger Creek (4.25 miles), Wildhorse Creek

(7.36 miles), and Little Wildhorse Creek (2.60

miles) were designated as new WSRs.

Additional segments of the Donner und

Blitzen WSR including Ankle Creek (8.10

miles), South Fork of Ankle Creek

(1.60 miles), and Mud Creek (5.10 miles)

were also designated. These additions provide

a total of 103.65 miles of WSR within the

Steens Mountain CMPA.

7. Five specific land exchanges were authorized

under Title VI of the Act. Sec. 402 further

requires federal acquisition of all state lands

and interests within the mineral withdrawal

area, which includes the entire CMPA. The

Act also provides for future acquisitions

within the boundaries of the Steens Mountain

CMPA by voluntary exchange, donation or

purchase from willing sellers. The purposes of

these provisions are to minimize private land

within the Wilderness Area and to protect and

consolidate public landownership within the

Steens Mountain CMPA.

8. The SMAC will be established to advise the

BLM on managing the Steens Mountain

CMPA and promoting coopera tive

management. The SMAC shall utilize sound

science, existing plans, and other tools to

formulate recommendations regarding new

and unique approaches to the management of

land within the boundaries of the Steens

Mountain CMPA. Cooperative programs and

incentives will also be utilized to promote

seamless landscape management that meets

human needs and maintains and improves

ecological and economic integrity. (See

CHAPTER VII. C. Cooperation, Consultation,

and Coordination for a list of SMAC

positions.)

9. A Science Advisory Committee will advise the

BLM and the SMAC on scientific issues

concerning the Steens Mountain CMPA. The

committee will be established and convened,

when necessary, as determined by the SMAC

and the BLM.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

4-1

4 MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES (RECOMMENDATIONS AND INTEGRATED PRIORITIES)

4.1 Introduction

Identification of potential management opportunities is

step five in developing the AMS. Management

opportunities are actions or management direction that

could be taken to resolve the issues and concerns

identified. Management opportunities include those that

would maintain or enhance resources, increase or

decrease production or use, and minimize depletion or

improve conditions of resources managed by the BLM

or other agencies. The management opportunities are

the basis for action alternatives in the RMP/EIS.

Management opportunities and action alternatives must

consider the land’s capability to achieve the objectives.

Land capability is the ability or potential of a land unit

to produce resources, supply goods and services, or

allow resource uses under a set of management

practices without sustaining permanent damage.

Capability usually depends on a fixed set of

environmental conditions that are relatively stable over

time. Most land has an inherent capability to produce

one or more resources, or to allow resource uses, under

natural conditions. Capability analysis allows the

manager to identify specific uses or management

practices that cannot be allowed on certain areas due to

certain environmental conditions.

This section also serves as step four of the subbasin

review process, which is to develop recommendations

and determine integrated priorities. Management

opportunities serve as the recommendations for the

subbasin review area. For the BLM administered lands

and resources considered in the subbasin review,

priorities for the various management opportunities will

be set during preparation of the RMP/EIS.

The ICBEMP scientific assessments identified a

number of findings determined by BLM staff to be

applicable to the Planning Area and to this planning

effort (FS and BLM 1999). Those applicable findings

will be addressed in the RMP/EIS.

4.2 Management Opportunities by Resource

The following sections iden tify management

opportunities for resources in all or portions of the

subbasin review area. These management opportunities

include those resource areas that are specific to BLM

administered land and those that are integral to a larger

geographical region (air quality, water, wildlife). 

4.2.1 Air Quality

With all authorized actions, meet or exceed the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the

Prevention of Significant Deteriorations.

4.2.2 Vegetation

Restore, protect, and enhance the diversity and

distribution of desirable vegetation communities,

including perennial native and desirable introduced

plant species.

Provide for their continued existence and normal

function in nutrient, water, and energy cycles.

Manage big sagebrush cover in seedings and on native

rangelands to meet the life history requirements of

sagebrush-dependent wildlife.

Control the introduction and proliferation of noxious

weed species and reduce the extent and density of

established weed species to within acceptable limits.

4.2.3 Special Status Plants

Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance

populations and habitats of special status plant species.

Priority for the application of management actions

would be: (1) federal endangered species, (2) federal

threatened species, (3) federal proposed species, (4)

federal candidate species, (5) state listed species, (6)

BLM sensitive species, (7) BLM assessment species,

and (8) BLM tracking species.

Manage in order to conserve or lead to the recovery of

threatened or endangered species.

4.2.4 Water Resources and Riparian/Wetlands

Ensure that surface water and groundwater influenced

by BLM activities comply with or are making progress

toward achieving State of Oregon water quality

standards for beneficial uses as established per stream

by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ).

Restore, maintain, or improve riparian vegetation,

habitat diversity, and associated watershed function to

achieve healthy and productive riparian areas and

wetlands.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

4-2

Where water rights are needed to support programs and

projects within the Planning Area, they will be secured

through normal channels as prescribed by state law.

4.2.5 Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Restore, maintain, or improve habitat to provide for

diverse and self-sustaining communities of fishes and

other aquatic organisms.

4.2.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Maintain, restore, or enhance riparian areas and

wetlands so they provide diverse and healthy habitat

conditions for wildlife.

Manage upland habitats so that the forage, water, cover,

structure, and security necessary for wildlife are

available on public land.

4.2.7 Special Status Animal Species

Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance

populations and habitats of special status animal

species. Priority for the application of management

actions would be: (1) federal endangered species, (2)

federal threatened species, (3) federal proposed species,

(4) federal candidate species, (5) state listed species, (6)

BLM sensitive species, (7) BLM assessment species,

and (8) BLM tracking species.

Manage in order to conserve or lead to the recovery of

threatened or endangered species.

Facilitate the ma intenan ce, resto ration, and

enhancement of bighorn sheep populations and habitat

on public land. Pursue management in accordance with

Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep Management Plan in a manner

consistent with the principles of multiple-use

management.

4.2.8 Wild Horses

Maintain and manage wild horse herds in established

HMAs at AMLs to ensure or enhance a thriving natural

ecological balance between wild horse populations,

wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, and other

resource values.

Enhance and perpe tuate special and unique

characteristics that distinguish the respective herds.

An opportunity exists to combine the small Heath

Creek/Sheepshead HMA with the adjacent larger more

viable Sheepshead HMA (Vale District). The same

opportunity exists to combine the Alvord Tule Springs

HMA with the adjacent Coyote Lake HMA. Animals

currently mix between the respective HMAs where

there are unfenced areas or ineffective natural

boundaries.

4.2.9 Grazing Management

Grazing will be in compliance with current policy,

which includes the Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for

Public Lands in Oregon and Washington.

Provide for a sustained level of livestock grazing

consistent with other resource objectives and public

land use allocations.

Livestock grazing in the Planning Area will be managed

under laws provided by the Taylor Grazing Act, Public

Rangelands Improvement Act, national Environmental

Policy Act, Wilderness Act, the Act, and BLM

regulations. The RMP will include the Standards for

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for grazing

management, which apply to all BLM lands in Oregon.

The RMP will address several pasture and allotment

boundary changes occurring as a result of land

exchanges, forage offsets for creation of the “nolivestock grazing” area and grazing management

changes.

4.2.10 Woodlands

Manage woodlands to maintain or restore ecosystems to

a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and

occurrences of fire, insects, and disease do not exceed

levels normally expected in a healthy woodland.

Manage woodlands for long-term, healthy habitat for

animal and plant species.

Restore productivity and biodiversity in juniper and

aspen woodland areas.

Manage juniper areas where encroachment or increased

density is threatening other resource values.

Retain old growth characteristics in historic juniper

sites not prone to frequent fire.

Manage aspen to maintain diversity of age classes and

to allow for species reestablishment.

4.2.11 Fire

Provide an AM R on all wildland fires with emphasis on

fire fighter and public safety, benefits, minimizing
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

4-3

suppression costs, and protecting values consistent with

resource objectives.

Recognize fire as a critical natural process and use it to

protect, maintain, and enhance resources.

4.2.12 Special Management Areas

4.2.12.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Retain existing and designate new ACECs/RNAs where

relevance and importance criteria are met and special

management is required to protect the values identified.

4.2.12.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Protect and enhance ORVs of designated WSR and

protect and enhance ORVs of rivers found suitable for

WSR status until Congress acts.

4.2.13 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas

Designated Wilderness Areas will be managed under

the Wilderness Management Policy, the Wilderness

Act, and 43 CFR 6300. The wilderness resources will

be dominant whenever choices must be made between

preservation of the wilderness character and visitor use.

BLM administered land identified in the Wilderness

Study Report and determined to have wilderness values

could be included in adjacent WSAs and managed

under IMP.

4.2.14 Recreation

Provide and enhance developed and undeveloped

recreation opportunities and manage the increasing

demand for resource-dependent recreation activities

while protecting resources.

4.2.14.1 Off-Highway Vehicles

Manage OHV use to protect resource values, promote

public safety, provide OHV use opportunities where

appropriate, and minimize conflicts among various

users.

4.2.15 Visual Resources

Manage public land actions and activities in a manner

consistent with VRM class objectives.

4.2.16 Human Uses and Values

Manage public land and pursue partnerships to provide

social and economic benefits to local residents,

businesses, visitors, and for future generations.

4.2.17 Lands and Realty

Retain public land with high public resource values.

Consolidate public land holdings and acquire land or

interests in land with high public resource values to

ensure effective administration and improve resource

management. Acquired land would be managed for its

intended purpose.

Make public land available for disposal within Zone 3

by state indemnity selection, private or state exchange,

Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) Act lease or

sale, public sale, or other authorized method.

Establish utility and transportation system corridor

routes consistent with resource objectives and

considering avoidance areas.

4.2.18 Minerals

Provide opportunities for exploration and development

of leasable energy and mineral resources while

protecting other sensitive resources.

Provide opportunities for exploration and development

of locatable mineral resources while protecting other

sensitive resources.

Provide for public demand for saleable minerals from

public land while protecting sensitive resources.

4.2.19 Cultural Resources

Protect and conserve cultural and paleontological

resources.

Increase the public’s knowledge, appreciation, and

sensitivity regarding cultural and paleontological

resources.

Consult and coordinate with American Indian groups to

ensure consideration of their traditional religious sites,

land forms, resources, and other interests.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

4-4

4.3 Management Opportunities for the

Cooperative Management and Protection

Area

Manage the Steens Mountain CMPA to conserve,

protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity

of Steens Mountain for present and future generations.

Maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative

management projects, programs, and agreements

between tribal, public, and private interests in the

Steens Mountain CMPA.

Promote grazing, recreation, historic, and other

sustainable uses.

Conserve, protect and ensure traditional access to

cultural, gathering, religious, and archaeological sites

on public land within the Steens Mountain CMPA by

members of the Burns Paiute Tribe and promote

cooperation with private landowners.

Ensure the conservation, protection, and improved

management of the ecological, social, and economic

environment of the Steens Mountain CMPA, including

geological, biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic

resources.

Promote and foster cooperation, communication, and

understanding in order to reduce conflict between

Steens Mountain users and other interests.

Establish a monitoring program for public land within

the Steens Mountain CMPA so that progress toward

ecological integrity objectives can be determined.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-1

5 LEGAL MANDATES, PLANNING CRITERIA AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES - ANDREWS

MANAGEMENT UNIT/STEENS MOUNTAIN CM PA RM P/EIS

5.1 Introduction

This section briefly describes the legal authorities

pertaining to BLM land use planning, the planning

criteria to be used in preparing the Andrews MU/Steens

Mountain CMPA RMP/EIS, and the proposed

alternatives to be addressed in the RMP/EIS.

Principles of ecosystem management, as well as a

continuing commitment to multiple-use and sustained

yield, will guide land use decisions in the Planning

Area. The commitment to multiple-use will not mean

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

excluded on some land to protect specific resource

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

based on laws or regulations or determined through a

planning process subject to public involvement.

The NEPA requires an EIS to examine a range of

alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, to

resolve the issues in question. Each alternative, except

the No Action Alternative, should represent a complete

but alternate means of satisfying the identified purpose

and need of the EIS, as well as resolving the issues.

New alternatives may be developed and defined as

needed during the preparation of the EIS. A range of

preliminary alternatives has been identified for this

RMP/EIS. These will be refined as the process moves

forward.

5.2 Legal Authorities

Several federal statutes have been enacted over time to

establish and define the authority of the BLM to make

decisions regarding management and use of public land

resources. Following is a list of major legal authorities

relevant to BLM land use planning.

1. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976 (FLPMA), as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.,

provides the authority for BLM land use planning.

a. Sec. 102(a)(7) and (8) sets forth the

policy of the United State s

concerning the management of BLM

lands.

b. Sec. 201 requires the Secretary of the

Interior to prepare and maintain an

inventory of all BLM lands and their

resource and other values, giving

priority to areas of critical

environmental concern (ACECs);

and, as funding and workforce are

available, to de termin e the

boundaries of the public lands,

provide signs and maps to the public,

and provide inventory data to state

and local governments.

c. Sec. 202 (a) requires the Secretary,

with public involvement, to develop,

maintain, and when appropriate,

revise land use plans that provide by

tracts or areas for the use of the

BLM lands.

d. Sec. 202 (c) (9) requires that land

use plans for BLM lands be

consistent with tribal plans and, to

the maximum extent consistent with

applicable federal laws, with state

and local plans.

e. Sec. 202 (d) provides that all public

lands, regardless of classification, are

subject to inclusion in land use plans,

and that the Secretary may modify or

terminate classifications consistent

with land use plans.

f. Sec. 202 (f) and Sec. 309 (e) provide

that federal, state, and local

governments and the public be given

adequate notice and an opportunity

to comment on the formulation of

standards and criteria for, and to

participate in, the preparation and

execution of plans and programs for

the management of the public lands.

g. Sec. 302 (a) requires the Secretary to

manage the BLM lands under the

principles of multiple use and

sustained yield, in accordance with,

when available, land use plans

developed under Sec. 202 of

FLPMA, except that where a tract of

BLM lands has been dedicated to

specific uses according to any other

provisions of law, it shall be

managed in accordance with such

laws.

h. Sec. 302 (b) recognizes the entry and

development rights of mining

claimants, while directing the

Secretary to prevent unnecessary or

undue degradation of the public

lands.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-2

2. The National Environment Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,

requires the consideration and public

availability of information regarding the

environmental impacts of major federal

actions significantly affecting the quality of

the human environment. This includes the

consideration of alternatives and mitigation of

impacts.

3. The Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 7418, requires federal agencies to

comply with all federal, state, and local

requirements regarding the control and

abatement of air pollution. This includes

abiding by the requirements of State

Implementation Plans.

4. The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended, 33

U.S.C. 1251, establishes objectives to restore

and maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the Nation’s water.

5. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33

U.S.C. 1323, requires the federal land

manager to comply with all federal, state, and

local requirements, administrative authority,

process, and sanctions regarding the control

and abatement of water pollution in the same

manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

6. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16

U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40

Stat. 755) as amended by: Chapter 634; June

20, 1936; 49 Stat. 1556; P.L. 86-732;

September 8, 1960; 74 Stat. 866; P.L. 90-578;

October 17, 1968; 82 Stat. 1118; P.L. 91-135;

December 5, 1969; 83 Stat. 282; P.L. 93-300;

June 1, 1974; 88 Stat. 190; P.L. 95-616;

November 8, 1978; 92 Stat. 3111; P.L. 99-

645; November 10, 1986; 100 Stat. 3590 and

P.L. 105-312; October 30, 1998; 112 Stat.

2956.The original 1918 statute implemented

the 1916 Convention between the U.S. and

Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection

of migratory birds. Later amendments

implemented treaties between the U. S. and

Mexico, the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and

the Soviet Union (now Russia).

7. The Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 201,

is designed to make the Nation’s waters

“drinkable” as well as “swimmable.”

Amendments in 1996 establish a direct

connection between safe drinking water and

watershed protection and management.

8. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,

as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.:

a. Provides a means whereby the

ecosystems upon which endangered

and threatened species depend may

be conserved and to provide a

program for the conservation of such

endangered and threatened species

(Sec. 1531 (b), Purposes).

b. Requires all federal agencies to seek

to conserve endangered and

threatened species and utilize

applicable authorities in furtherance

of the purposes of the ESA (Sec.

1531 (c) (1), Policy).

c. Requires all federal agencies to

avoid jeopardizing the continued

existence of any species that is listed

or proposed for listing as threatened

or endangered or destroying or

adversely modifying its designated or

proposed critical habitat (Sec. 1536

(a), Interagency Cooperation).

d. Requires all federal agencies to

consult (or confer) in accordance

with Sec. 7 of the ESA, with the

Secretary of the Interior, through the

Fish and W ildlife Service and/or the

National Marine Fisheries Service, to

ensure that any federal action

(including land use plans) or activity

is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any species

listed or proposed to be listed under

the provisions of the ESA, or result

in the destruction or adverse

modification of designated or

proposed critical habitat (Sec. 1536

(a), Interagency Cooperation, and 50

CFR 402).

9. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended,

16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., requires the federal

land management agencies to identify

potential river systems and then study them for

potential designation as wild, scenic, or

recreational rivers.

10. The Wilderness Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.

1131 et seq., authorizes the President to make

recommendations to the Congress for federal

lands to be set aside for preservation as

wilderness.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-3

11. The Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-

433, protects cultural resources on federal

lands and authorizes the President to designate

National Monuments on federal lands.

12. The National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470, expands

protection of historic and archaeological

properties to include those of national, state,

and local significance and directs federal

agencies to consider the effects of proposed

actions on properties eligible for or included

in the National Register of Historic Places.

13. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act

of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996, establishes a

national policy to protect and preserve the

right of American Indians to exercise

traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices.

14. The Recreation and Public Purposes Act of

1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.,

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease

or convey BLM lands for recreational and

public purposes under specified conditions.

15. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of

1976, 30 U.S.C. 201 (a)(3)(A)(i), requires that

coal leases be issued in conformance with a

comprehensive land use plan.

16. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., requires

application of unsuitability criteria prior to

coal leasing and also to proposed mining

operations for minerals or mineral materials

other than coal.

17. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as

amended, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., authorizes the

development and conservation of oil and gas

resources.

18. The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act

of 1987, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., provides:

a. Potential oil and gas resources be

adequately addressed in planning

documents;

b. The social, economic, and

environmental consequenc es of

exploration and development of oil

and gas resources be determined; and

c. Any stipulations to be applied to oil

and gas leases be clearly identified.

19. The General Mining Law of 1872, as

amended, 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq., allows the

location, use, and patenting of mining claims

on sites on public domain lands of the United

States.

20. The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970,

30 U.S.C. 21a, establishes a policy of

fostering development of economically stable

mining and minerals industries, their orderly

and economic development, and studying

methods for disposal of waste and

reclamation.

21. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C.

315, “[T]he Secretary of the Interior is

authorized, in his discretion, by order to

establish grazing districts or additions

thereto...of vacant unappropriated and

unreserved lands from any part of the public

domain...which in his opinion are chiefly

valuable for grazing and raising forage

crops[.]...” The Act also provides for the

classification of lands for particular uses.

22. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of

1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901, provides that the public

rangelands be managed so that they become as

productive as feasible in accordance with

management objectives and the land use

planning process established pursuant to 43

U.S.C. 1712.

23. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations), 49

Fed. Reg. 7629 (1994), requires that each

federal agency consider the impacts of its

programs on minority populations and low

income populations.

24. Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites),

61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996), requires federal

agencies to the extent practicable, permitted

by law, and not clearly inconsistent with

essential agency functions, to:

a. Accommodate access to and

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites

by Indian religious practitioners; and

b. Avoid adversely affecting the

physical integrity of such sacred

sites.

25. Executive Order 13084 (consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)

provides, in part, that each federal agency
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-4

shall establish regular and meaningful

consultation and collaboration with Indian

tribal governments in the development of

regulatory practices on federal matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.

26. Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species)

provides that no federal agency shall

authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it

believes are likely to cause or promote the

introduction or spread of invasive species

unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has

prescribed, the agency has determined and

made public its determination that the benefits

of such actions clearly outweigh the potential

harm caused by invasive species; and that all

feasible and prudent measures to minimize

risk or harm will be taken in conjunction with

the actions.

27. Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001

(responsibilities of federal agencies to protect

Migratory Birds) 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001),

provides the furtherance of the purposes of the

migratory bird conventions, the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), the Bald

and Golden Eagle Protection Acts (16 U.S.C.

668-668d), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c), the ESA of 1973

(16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.

4321-4347), and other pertinent statutes.

28. Secretarial Order 3175 (incorporated into the

Departmental manual at 512 DM 2) requires

that if Department of the Interior (DOI)

agency actions might impact Indian trust

resources, the agency explicitly address those

potential impacts in planning and decision

documents, and the agency consult with the

tribal government whose trust resources are

potentially affected by the federal action.

29. Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian

Tribal Rights, Federal-Trib a l Trust

Responsibilities, and the ESA) requires DOI

agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when

agency actions to protect a listed species, as a

result of compliance with ESA, affect or may

affect of Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or

the exercise of American Indian tribal rights.

An additional legal authority specific to the Andrews

MU/Steens Mountain RMP/EIS is as follows:

30. The Steens Mounta in Co ope rative

Management and Protection Act of 2000, P.L.

106-399, October 30, 2000, establishes the

Steens Mountain Wilderness Area, the Steens

Mountain Cooperative Management and

Protection Area, the Redband Trout Reserve

and the Wildland Juniper Management Area

and designates additional components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This

act requires the Burns BLM District to:

• maintain the cultural, economic, ecological,

and social health of the Steens Mountain Area

in Harney County, Oregon,

• acquire private lands through exchange for

inclusion in the Steens Mountain Wilderness

and the Steens Mountain CMPA,

• provide for and expand cooperative

management activities between public and

private landowners in the vicinity of the

Steens Mountain Wilderness and surrounding

lands,

• authorize the purchase of land as well as

development and non-development rights,

• establish a citizens’ management advisory

council for the Steens Mountain CMPA, 

• maintain and enhance cooperative and

innovative management practices between the

public and private land managers in the Steens

Mountain CMPA, 

• promote viable and sustainable grazing and

recreation operations on private and public

lands,

• conserve, protect, and manage for healthy

watersheds and long-term ecological integrity

of Steens Mountain, and 

• authorize only such uses on federal lands in

the Steens Mountain CMPA as are consistent

with the purposes of the Act.

5.3 Planning Criteria

BLM planning regulations (43 Code of Federal

Regulations 1610) require preparation of planning

criteria for all RMPs. Planning criteria are the

constraints or ground rules guiding and directing the

development of the Plan. They determine how the

planning team and the public approach the development

of alternatives and ultimately the selection of a

Preferred Alternative. Criteria ensure that plans are

tailored to the identified issues, and that unnecessary

data collection and analyses are avoided. Planning

criteria are based on analyses of information pertinent

to the Planning Area; professional judgment; standards

prescribed by applicable laws, regulations, and agency

guidance; and are the result of consultation and
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-5

coordination with the public, other federal, state, and

local agencies, and Indian tribes.

The preliminary criteria listed below were developed by

the BLM and will be reviewed by the public before

being used in the RMP process. The criteria will be

included in a Federal Register Notice along with

notification of public scoping meetings. After public

input, criteria become proposed criteria and can be

added to or changed as issues are addressed or new

information is presented. The Burns District Manager

will approve the issues, criteria, and any changes.

5.3.1 General Planning Criteria

The following general planning criteria will guide the

preparation of the RMP/EIS and future land-use

decisions.

• The RMP/EIS will be completed in

compliance with FLPMA and all other

applicable laws.

• The planning team will work cooperatively

with the state, SMAC, RAC, tribal

governm ents, county and municipal

governments, other federal agencies, and all

other interested groups, agencies, and

individuals. Public participation will be

encouraged throughout the process.

• The RMP/EIS will establish the guidance

upon which the BLM will rely in managing

the Planning Area.

• The planning process will include an EIS that

complies with NEPA standards.

• The RMP/EIS will emphasize the protection

and enhancement of the Planning Area’s

biodiversity while at the same time providing

the public with opportunities for compatible

commodity-based and recreation activities.

• The RMP/EIS will recognize valid existing

rights within the Planning Area and review

how such rights are verified. The Plan will

outline the process used by the BLM to

address applications or notices filed on

existing claims or other land use

authorizations after completion of the Plan.

• The lifestyles and concerns of area residents,

including the activities of grazing, fishing, and

hunting, will be recognized in the Plan.

• Any land within the Planning Area’s

administrative boundary and subsequently

acquired by the BLM will be managed

consistent with the Plan, subject to any

constraints associated with the acquisition.

• The RMP/EIS will recognize the state’s

responsibility to manage wildlife. The BLM

would consult with the ODFW before

establishing no-hunting zones or periods for

the purposes of protecting public safety,

administration, or public use and enjoyment.

Methods of access and the manner in which

wildlife management activities are to be

conducted will be governed by the BLM,

consistent with language in the Act.

• The RMP/EIS will address transportation and

access, and will identify where better access is

warranted, where it should remain as is, and

where decreased access is appropriate to

protect Planning Area resources and manage

visitation.

• The management of grazing is regulated by

laws and regulations. The RMP/EIS will

incorporate the Rangeland Health Standards

and Guidelines. It will define a strategy for

ensuring that proper grazing practices are

followed within the Planning Area. 

• The planning process will involve American

Indian tribal governments and will provide

possible strategies to protect recognized

traditional uses, if such uses are identified.

• Consistent with federal law and the Act,

decisions in the RMP/EIS will strive to be

compatible with existing plans and policies of

adjacent local, state, federal, and tribal

agencies. 

• In addition to the general criteria listed above,

specific criteria apply to the Steens Mountain

CMPA.

The RMP/EIS will meet the following specific

requirements of the Act:

a. Protect the Steens Mountain CMPA’s natural

resources and outstanding recreation

opportunities, while encouraging cooperative

management;

b. Describe appropriate uses and management of

the Steens Mountain CMPA consistent with

the Act;

c. Incorporate, as appropriate, decisions

contained in any current or future management

or activity plan for the Steens Mountain

CMPA; use information developed in previous

studies of the land within or adjacent to the

Steens Mountain CMPA;

d. Coordinate with state, county, and private

landowners and the Burns Paiute Tribe; and
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-6

e. Determine measurable and achievable

management objectives consistent with the

Act to ensure the ecological integrity of the

area.

5.3.2 Project Specific Criteria

In addition to the general planning criteria identified

above, other specific planning criteria have been

developed and apply to the RMP/EIS.

5.3.2.1 Air Quality

Under the Clean Air Act, air quality of the Planning

Area is designated as Class II. All land will be managed

under Class II standards unless reclassified by the State

of Oregon.

5.3.2.2 Water Quality

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 as

amended (Clean Water Act) requires the BLM to be

consistent with state nonpoint source management

program plans and relevant water quality standards.

Section 313 requires compliance with state water

quality standards. The RMP/EIS will incorporate Best

Management Practices (BMPs) or other conservation

measures for specific programs and activities. Water

quality will be maintained or improved in accordance

with state and federal standards. In addition, Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) will be developed

pursuant to the Clean Water Act that address water

quality limited stream segments. The TMDLs are being

developed cooperatively between the BLM and the

ODEQ. 

5.3.2.3 Soil

Soil will be managed to protect long-term productivity.

BMPs will be incorporated into other programs to

minimize soil erosion and compaction resulting from

management actions.

5.3.2.4 Vegetation

Vegetation will be managed to provide for biological

diversity at the landscape level, to protect and restore

native perennial and desirable nonnative perennial

species, and to provide for consumptive uses and nonconsumptive values, including visual quality and

watershed condition. Livestock forage allocations

established in the Andrews MU grazing program EIS

and subsequent agreements and decisions, will not be

revised by this plan.

Grazing management adjustments will occur on a

priority basis over the life of the plan through the

adaptive management process and subsequent

agreements, decisions, or activity plan revisions.

Authorization of livestock use in the Planning Area will

be subject to change through the life of the plan. The

RMP/EIS will include provisions for plant maintenance,

watershed protection and stability, wildlife habitat, as

well as for livestock and wild horses. Fire and other

treatment methods are considered tools to meet

vegetation management objectives.

5.3.2.5 Riparian Areas, Floodplains, and Wetlands

Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands will be

managed to restore, protect or improve their natural

functions relating to water storage, ground water

recharge, water quality, and fish and wildlife values.

5.3.2.6 Woodlands

All juniper and quaking aspen woodlands will be

managed to protect long-term biological productivity

and diversity and watershed values.

5.3.2.7 Noxious Weed Control

The BLM will work with county, state, and federal

agencies to monitor the locations and spread of noxious

weeds. Noxious weed control will be conducted in

accordance with the integrated weed management

guidelines and design features identified in the Burns

District Noxious Weed Management Program. The

BLM will assess land prior to acquisition to determine

if noxious weeds are present.

5.3.2.8 Special Status Species

The BLM is mandated by law to assist in the

conservation and recovery of species listed as

Threatened or Endangered or proposed for listing under

the ESA. Federal actions that may affect the well-being

of these species require consultation with the USFWS.

BLM policy requires that authorized actions do not

contribute to the need to list any other special status

species under the provisions of the ESA. The intent is

to avoid the need for future listings of species as

threatened or endangered.

5.3.2.9 Wild Horses

Forage will be provided to support wild horse

populations at levels established in accordance with the

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Adjustments
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-7

in range allocation will be based on monitoring to

ensure a thriving natural ecological balance within

HMAs.

5.3.2.10 Grazing Management

Grazing of public land will be authorized under the

principles of multiple-use and sustained yield.

Livestock will be managed to maintain or improve

public land resources and rangeland productivity and to

stabilize the livestock industry dependent on the public

range over the long term. Forage will be allocated by

allotment for livestock grazing on suitable rangeland

based on multiple-use and sustained yield objectives.

Existing management systems, including those outlined

in AMPs, will continue until evaluations indicate that

change is needed to meet objectives. 

The process for determining livestock forage

allocations through allotment evaluations will proceed

in accordance with BLM regulations and policy.

5.3.2.11 Fire Management

Wildland fire will be integrated into land and resource

management planning to help achieve resource

management objectives. The use of surface-disturbing

equipment to suppress wildland fires will be restricted

in Steens Mountain Wilderness, WSAs, and areas

containing significant cultural or paleontological values,

except when needed to protect human life or property.

Public land affected by fire will be managed in

accordance with multiple-use objectives.

5.3.2.12 Land Tenure Adjustments

BLM administered land will be retained in public

ownership unless disposal of a particular parcel will

serve the public interest. Land may be identified for

disposal by sale, exchange, state indemnity selection or

other authorized methods. Land will be identified for

acquisition based on public benefits, management

considerations, and public access needs. Specific

actions meeting land tenure adjustment criteria as

established in the RMP/EIS will occur with public

participation and will be made in consultation with

local, county, state, and tribal governments.

5.3.2.13 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations

Public land will generally be available for land use

authorizations including transportation and utility

ROWs with preference given to existing corridors.

Exceptions will include areas specifically prohibited by

law or regulation (e.g., wilderness ) and specific areas

identified to protect resource values.

5.3.2.14 Energy and Minerals

Except where specifically withdrawn, public land will

be available for energy and mineral exploration and

development, subject to applicable federal and state

laws and regulations.

5.3.2.15 Recreation

All public land will be within Special Recreation

Mana gement Area s or Extensive Rec reation

Management Areas. Some areas may be subject to

special measures to protect resources or reduce

conflicts among uses. Where there is a demonstrated

need, the BLM may develop and maintain recreation

facilities including campgrounds, picnic areas,

interpretive sites, boat access, and trails.

5.3.2.16 Off Highway Vehicles 

All public land will be designated as open, limited or

closed for OHV use. Public safety, resource protection,

user access needs, and conflict resolution will be

considered in assigning these designations.

5.3.2.17 Visual Resources

The BLM will manage public land to protect the quality

of scenic (visual) values in accordance with established

guidelines. All public land will be designated as VRM

Class I, II, III or IV.

5.3.2.18 Wild and Scenic Rivers

As required by law, streams will be evaluated for

addition to WSRs. The evaluation will be conducted

according to BLM Manual Section 8351 - Wild and

Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for

Identification, Evaluation and Management. Designated

WSRs will be managed in accordance with laws and

existing plans.

5.3.2.19 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness will be managed according to the

Wilderness Act and wilderness regulations. WSAs

designated under authority of FLPMA, Sections 603

and 202, will be managed in accordance with the BLM

IMP for lands under wilderness review. This planning

effort will not reopen the initial wilderness review

mandated by Section 603 of FLPMA, and it will not

change existing decisions, signed by the Secretary of

the Interior, to recommend areas as suitable for

wilderness designation. New areas could be inventoried

for wilderness characteristics during the planning

process. Any new wilderness inventories and studies
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

5-8

will be conducted under the authority of Sections 201

and 202 of FLPMA.

5.3.2.20 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Cultural and paleontological resources will be managed

to maintain or enhance scientific, interpretive, and

educational values. Cultural resources will be managed

to protect American Indian interests where possible.

5.3.2.21 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

ACECs will be designated where special management

attention is required to protect historical, cultural, or

scenic values; natural resources or processes; or human

life and safety. Management requirements for ACECs

will be identified in the RMP/EIS.

5.3.3 Planning Criteria for Selecting an

Alternative

In selecting the preferred alternative in the resource

management plan, the BLM will consider:

C Achievement of management goals and issue

resolution;

C Discretionary limits of applicable laws,

regulations, and agency policies;

C Options for reasonable, feasible, and practical

management of public lands and resources;

and 

C Adequacy for a complete land use plan.

5.4 Alternative Formulations

A range of alternatives, including a No Action

Alternative, will be developed to address issues

identified initially and from public scoping. Each

alternative will provide different solutions to the issues

and concerns. The objective in alternative formulation

will be to develop realistic solutions. Some

subalternatives may be identified where only parts of an

alternative require variations in possible resource

management. Due to the mandates of the Act, the

Steens Mountain CMPA and the Andrews MU may

require differing alternative formulations. 

Preliminary alternatives to be formulated for the Plan

include the following:

5.4.1 Alternative A

This Alternative would continue the present

management strategies while meeting the legislative

requirements for the RMP as mandated by P.L. 106-399

and other laws and regulations. 

(The No Action Alternative is not viable for mandates

of the Act.) This alternative continues implementation

of the Andrews MFP and incorporates the decisions in

the Andrews Grazing Management EIS and Rangeland

Program Summary as well as all decisions subsequent

to the MFP.

5.4.2 Alternative B

This Alternative would maximize the enhancement and

protection of the Planning Area’s natural, cultural,

scenic, and wilderness resources, and would emphasize

natural values and the functioning of natural systems.

Commod ity production would be substantially

constrained to protect sensitive resources or accelerate

improvement in their condition.

5.4.3 Alternative C

This Alterna tive would maximiz e commod ity

production opportunities available in the Planning Area

while providing the legally required protection for the

Area’s SMAs and other natural resources. Restraint on

commodity production to protect sensitive resources

would be minimally restrictive within the limits defined

by law, regulation, and BLM policy. Potential impacts

to sensitive resource values would be mitigated on a

case-by-case basis.

5.4.4 Alternative D 

This Alternative would balance natural resource

protection and commodity production required by

public land users. Constraints on commodity production

would be implemented to protect sensitive resources,

but would not be as minimal as in Alternative C or as

stringent as in Alternative B.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-1

6 SUBBASIN REVIEW REPORT

6.1 Introduction

“The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

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

and then adopt a scientifically sound ecosystem based

strategy for managing all USFS or BLM administered

lands within the (Interior Columbia) Basin.” (Status of

the Interior Columbia Basin, Summary of Scientific

Findings [USFS 1996]). The ICBEMP covered an area

of 145 million acres, 53 percent of which is public land

managed by the BLM or the USFS. The size of this area

requires some means to bring findings and information

down to a level where they can be applied in a USFS or

BLM management unit such as a ranger district or

resource area. A process was developed with which the

pertinent information could be “stepped down” to the

local management level. This is called the subbasin

review process.

The ICBEMP area was divided for analysis and review

purposes into four geographic scales: broad-scale

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

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

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

level at which field offices would undertake long range

planning for all resources within their respective

administrative boundaries. The subbasins are based on

the US Geological Survey 4th field hydrologic unit

codes (HUCs). On average these 4th field HUCs

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

Planning Area subbasin review area included six

subbasins identified in the ICBEMP scientific

assessment: Guano, Harney/Malheur Lakes, Alvord

Lake, Donner und Blitzen, Thousand-Virgin, and

Crooked-Rattlesnake comprising an area of

approximately 6,200,110 million acres. Land ownership

and administrative responsibilities included private,

county, State of Oregon, BLM, and USFWS. The

majority of the land in the Planning Area portion of the

subbasin review area is administered by the BLM,

Burns DO (Figure 2.9). Only those portions of the

subbasins in the Planning Area are described.

In anticipation of preparing a comprehensive RMP/EIS,

the Burns DO collected a considerable amount of data

and information about the resources on BLM

administered lands. Much of this information was in

GIS format. Data and information needed for the

resources in the subbasin review area and from other

agencies were identified prior to preparation of the

AMS/subbasin review.

A BLM team was assembled to be the core group

responsible for gathering data and putting it into a

written or GIS format. This team was comprised of a

planning/NEPA specialist, a wildlife biologist, a

fisheries biologist, a botanist, a recreation specialist, a

wilderness specialist, a GIS specialist and a

management support specialist. This core group is also

part of a larger Inter Disciplinary (ID) team comprised

of many other resource specialists and representatives

for cooperating agencies. The subbasin review team

would deal primarily with health-of-the-land issues.

6.2 Issues and Findings

Broad-scale information from the ICBEMP provides a

general characterization of the Planning Area subbasin

review area relative to the rest of the Interior Columbia

Basin. The broad-scale information indicates that

essentially 100 percent of this subbasin review area is

rangeland. Rangeland in the subbasin review area is

classified as low integrity. The rangeland is described

as being dominated by dry shrubland vegetation that is

highly sensitive to overgrazing and susceptible to

invasion by noxious weeds. Hydrologic integrity is low

to moderate and the integrity of riparian environments

is commonly low. Some native fish species occur in

highly fragmented habitat.

The conditions described above significantly increase

the subbasins’ susceptibility to wildland fire, insects

and disease, soil erosion, loss of native species, and

other problems that threaten ecological integrity, water

quality, species recovery, timber and forage production,

and other uses of public lands (Integrated Scientific

Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior

Columbia Basin, USFS, BLM 1996). 

The following potential issues were identified by the

Burns DO prior to the beginning of the subbasin review

process. These will be addressed in the RMP/EIS,

pending any changes.

1) How will the BLM manage resource uses to

improve and maintain the integrity of

upland ecological communities? 

• How will livestock grazing be managed to

sustain resource values while maintaining

stable watersheds and the continued

production of forage?

• What areas previously ungrazed could be

grazed and under what circumstances? Are

there areas where, or situations when, grazing

should be excluded?

• What practices will be authorized and

implemented to provide wildlife habitat and
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-2

forage for livestock while maintaining other

uses and values of public land resources?

• Under what conditions is grazing compatible

with management of SMAs such as WSAs,

WSRs, and ACECs?

• What are the visual considerations relating to

upland conditions, and how will the BLM’s

Visual Resource Management (VRM) play a

role?

• What indicators will be used to identify levels

of wild horse use compatible with sustaining a

thriving, natural, ecological balance?

• What practices will the BLM implement to

manage wild horses consistent with the

legislative mandate that all management

activities be at minimum feasible level?

• What prac tices will be authorized and

implemented to provide adequate habitat and

forage for wildlife while maintaining other

resource uses and values?

• What grazing practices are necessary to

protect sensitive resource values such as

riparian areas and special status species?

• What new and existing rangeland projects,

including seedings, are needed to improve

rangeland resource values?

• What rehabilitation practices will be

implemented following rangeland project

construction and maintenance that disturbs

established vegetation cover?

• What criteria should be considered for fire

rehabilitation, for restoration of wildlife

habitat, and to determine whether or not native

or introduced species should be seeded to

stabilize watersheds?

• How should the BLM prior itiz e

implementation of management practices to

maintain desired conditions and improve

undesirable conditions where feasible?

• What criteria should be established to

determine conditions and timetables for

improvements?

• What resource uses and management practices

will be employed in geographic areas with

lower management priority?

• Is the current strategy of full wildland fire

suppression compatible with upland

management objectives?

• How, and to what extent, should fire be used

to manage western juniper and aspen

woodlands?

• Can cottonwood stands be restored along

Donner und Blitzen WSR and the east side of

Steens Mountain? 

• Can juniper treatments in corridors be

accomplished?

2) How will the BLM manage resource uses to

improve or maintain the integrity of

riparian ecological communities?

• How will riparian vegetation communities be

managed to improve or maintain ecological

condition, species diversity, bank stability,

water quality, and the timing of watershed

discharge while providing for resource uses

such as grazing, recre ation, w ate r

development, mineral exploration and

development, and woodland products harvest?

• What areas previously excluded from grazing

cou ld be grazed and under wha t

circumstances? Are there areas or situations

when grazing should be excluded?

• What are the visual considerations relating to

riparian conditions, and how will the BLM’s

VRM play a role?

• How will riparian systems be managed to

improve or maintain habitat quality for fish,

wildlife, plants, and invertebrates?

• How will riparian and wetland areas be

managed to incorporate State of Oregon water

quality standards and approved management

plans addressing water quality concerns?

• Is the current strategy of full wildland fire

suppression compatible with riparian

management objectives?

• How will management actions in upland

communities be handled to be compatible with

the needs of riparian communities?

• How should management actions with

potential to affect riparian communities be

identified and prioritized?

• What timeframes are acceptable to achieve

riparian management objectives?

• When does the establishment of juniper

threaten other resource values, and what

management actions can be used to control the

invasion?

• Is collection of baseline riparian information

and PFC on acquired and isolated stream

segments necessary? 

• Should the riparian habitat inventory be

redone?

3) How will the BLM maintain or improve

woodland communities and how will

woodlands be managed to maintain or

improve rangeland and wildlife habitat?

• What should be done to preserve and manage

the 20.1 acres of grand fir forested areas on

public land on Steens Mountain?
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-3

• Are there juniper woodland areas that should

be preserved?

• What types of woodland products should be

harvested?

• What are the potential effects of woodland

management on wildlife, watersheds, soils,

vegetation, recreation, aesthetics, and other

resources?

• What kind of woodland management is

compatible with management of Wilderness,

ACECs, WSRs, and other SMAs?

4) How will the BLM provide for wildlife

habitat while considering other resource

uses?

• To what extent will livestock management and

brush control be conducted to meet the habitat

requirements of wildlife?

• Which areas, if any, are appropriate for

reintroduction of wildlife, and what species

could be reintroduced?

• What management practices avoid conflicts

between wildlife and livestock for vegetation,

especially between bighorn sheep and

domestic sheep?

• What are the long-term strategies for

managing wildlife?

• To what extent will the BLM adopt ODFW

management objectives for game and

nongame species of wildlife?

• What management practices best address areas

of biodiversity, the needs of species at the

limits of their range, and species assemblages?

5) How can public land management

contribute to the preservation of and

increase in healthy, sustainable populations

of species now considered in Special status?

How can land management successfully

prevent habitat destruction which would

lead to listing of additional species?

• To what extent will livestock management and

brush control be conducted to meet the habitat

requirements of Special status species?

• Which areas, if any, are appropriate for

reintroduction of Special status species?

• What are the long-term strategies for

managing habitat for Special status species?

• To what extent will the BLM adopt ODFW

management objectives for Special status

species?

• What management practices best address areas

of biodiversity, the needs of Special status

species at the limits of their range, and species

assemblages?

6) How will BLM manage energy and mineral

resources on public land?

• Are there areas where some types of energy

and mineral development should be restricted

or prohibited?

• Are there areas where mineral development

should be recognized as being the highest and

best use?

• How will energy and mineral development be

managed to minimize resource conflicts?

• What are the visual considerations relating to

management of energy and mineral resources,

and how will the BLM’s VRM play a role?

• How should recreational rock collecting be

managed?

• What reclamation prac tices will be

implemented following mineral development

activities?

• Which remediation methods should be used

for each identified abandoned mine site?

• What leasing stipulations will be applied to

the area outside of the mineral withdrawal?

7) How will SMAs be managed within the

Steens Mountain CMPA and in the

Andrews MU?

• Should existing ACECs be retained under

their current designations and management

prescriptions?

• Are there other areas that warrant special

designations to protect unique or special

values?

• Would designating new SMAs or eliminating

existing SMAs affect other resource values or

management?

• How will impacts from nonconforming but

acceptable uses and administrative needs in

the Wilderness Area be managed in order to

meet objectives but also preserve wilderness

character?

• How will wilderness values be protected

against the impacts of unauthorized uses such

as OHV use and other mechanized or

motorized transport?

• What management actions are needed to

protect and preserve wilderness values while

offering opportunities for quality recreational

experiences?

• Where and under what conditions will access

be permitted to provide reasonable use and

enjoyment of private land within wilderness?
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-4

• How will WSRs be managed as they relate to

wilderness or other SMAs?

• How will the Historic District be managed

with the continuing interest and visitation from

the public?

• What preventive measures will need to be in

place to successfully manage the No Livestock

Grazing Area?

• How will the removal of livestock from the No

Livestock Grazing Area affect natural

ecological processes? 

• What management actions will be introduced

to control the spread of western juniper and

rejuvenate depleted aspen stands in the

WJMA?

• How will the RTR be managed to protect the

habitat for the fish and provide for research

and education opportunities?

• How will land acquired subsequent to the

Oregon Wilderness Inventory/EIS, and

dete rmined to contain wilderness

characteristics, be managed?

8) How should the BLM manage wildland

fire, fuels, and prescribed fire to meet and

be consistent with resource objectives,

while protecting life and property? How

can BLM and private landowners work

together to manage wildland fires?

• While the BLM continues to protect life,

property, and important resources from fire,

are there areas where Appropriate

Management Response strategies should be

implemented? If so, where and under what

conditions would these strategies be applied?

• Which areas are appropriate for using

prescribed/wildland fire as a management

tool? How would this tool be used?

• Which areas may be sub ject to constraints

(e.g., ODEQ air quality standards) that could

limit the use of prescribed fire?

• Which areas should continue to have full

suppression to protect important values?

• What rehabilitation practices would be

implemented following fire?

9) How should the BLM manage recreation

opportunities for both developed and

dispersed recreation uses while meeting

other resource objectives?

• What types and levels of recreation should the

Planning Area provide?

• How, when, and to what extent should the

BLM enhance recreation opportunities?

• What conflicts with resource values or other

uses would restrict recreation opportunities?

 • How should the BLM addre ss Spe cial

Rec reatio n Permits and any needed

allocations?

• Would changes in existing OHV designations

affect recreation opportunities?

• To what extent should the BLM develop

facilities (campgrounds, trails, etc.) and

generally improve recreation access

opportunities to meet public demand, to

provide for public health and safety, and to

direct use away from areas of conflict?

• What role, if any, should the BLM serve in

encouraging tourism?

• How should the BLM provide for public

awareness of recreation resources and

opportunities?

10) How should the BLM administer land

status and values to improve management

efficiency and cooperation with private

landowners?

• Should some BLM administered land in the

Planning Area be exchanged for other land

with high public value if the exchange is

consistent with the land tenure objectives of

the BLM? If so, which land should be

exchanged?

• What effect does the Oregon Division of State

Land ’s (ODSL's) “Asset Management

Strategy” have on management of public land?

• Should some federal agency withdrawals be

considered for revocation? 

• What land should be returned to BLM

administration?

• Should state or other non-federal mineral

estates under public surface ownership be

acquired through mineral estate exchanges?

 • Where should the BLM consider exchanging

BLM administered land for other land with

higher public values or consider selling

isolated or difficult-to-manage land? Should

the BLM consider selling land for public

purposes and community expansion?

 • What areas within the Planning Area should

be identified as unsuitable for rights-of-way

routes for major utilities and roads? 

 • What areas within the Planning Area should

be identified as open for ROWs or other land

use authorizations?

 • What mitigation measure s would be

appropriate for land that is suitable for

rights-of-way routes?
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-5

 • Which land in the Planning Area should have

current withdrawals or classifications revoked,

continued or modified? Which land in the

Planning Area not currently withdrawn should

be withdrawn in order to protect Planning

Area resources?

 • Where should utility corridors, avoidance, and

exclusion areas be designated?

 • Is there land within the Planning Area that

should be identified for retention, acquisition

or sale, exchange or other disposal in order to

address management objectives and issues?

 • What criteria should be applied when

considering acquisition from willing sellers of

non-federal land to be added to the Planning

Area?

 • Are there public lands that are more suitable

for administration by other Federal, State or

local agencies? 

11) How will wild horses in the HMAs be

managed to maintain a sustainable, viable,

healthy population and exist in a thriving,

natural, ecological balance with their

habitat and other multiple uses of the area?

• How do goals and objectives of the Steens

Mouintain CMPA affect the management of

HMAs and wild horse populations? 

• Should the existing AMLs for HMAs inside

the Steens Mountain CMPA boundary be

changed considering the following:

• reduced acreage within the HMAs,

• impacts of existing and potential fencing

(inside the HMA) to implement the Act’s No

Livestock Grazing Area,

• potential impacts of fence removal within the

HMAs,

• potential impacts of fence additions in the

HMA and outside of the No Livestock

Grazing Area, or

• potential impacts of less water being available

to horses in the area west of the No Livestock

Grazing Area?

• Should the Alvord-Tule Springs and Coyote

Lakes HMAs be combined and the herds

managed as one population?

• Are past decisions and current management

practices regarding HMAs and Herd Areas

within the Planning Area still valid?

12) How will significant cultural sites and

localities be managed to ensure their

protection and preservation? Where and

how will interpretation be used as an

education tool to increase the public’s

awareness and appreciation of the Planning

Area’s cultural resources? How will the

BLM gain the scientific information

forming the basis of this interpretation?

How will American Indian interests,

traditional religious sites, land forms and

resources be considered and protected?

• How can cultural and paleontology inventories

(beyond project specific clearances) be

focused primarily on areas most likely to

contain significant intact properties most

susceptible to impacts such as erosion,

livestock trampling, OHV use, artifact looting,

and concentrated recreation use?

• How can sites and localities be evaluated for

significance and managed as such, given time

frames and constraints imposed by the needs

of other resource management? 

• Can all data pertaining to sites and localities

continue to be successfully tracked in an

automated data base?

• Can cost-share agreements with universities,

research teams, undergraduate and graduate

students, and the tribes continue to be

implemented to gain scientific and cultural

information that will form the basis for

interpretation?

• Will resources, both internal and external, be

available for BLM cultural personnel to gain

the training and experience required to make

oral and written interpretive presentations as

well as to prepare design and construction of

interpretative panels and facilities?

• Will active consultation with Indian tribes be

ongoing and continue to establish baseline

data for traditional religious sites and use

areas?

• Will a Planning Area tribal use plan be

developed by the BLM with cooperation of

the various tribes, and would it increase

coordination with tribes?

13) How are noxious weeds to be controlled

and eradicated?

• Should the Burns District’s Noxious Weed

Management Program EA (EA OR-020-98-

05) continue to be implemented in its present

form or should it be evaluated and modified if

necessary?

• How will management of noxious weeds in

SMAs (including Wilderness) be successfully

conducted within the restraints required by the

guidelines and requirements of those SMAs?
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-6

• Can data in the District weed data base be

successfully broken out, summarized, and

utilized specific to the Planning Area?

• Can the BLM effectively increase cooperative

work with other agencies to monitor locations

and spread of weeds? If so, how can this be

accomplished?

14) How will OHV use be managed in the

Planning Area?

• What criteria will be used to determine if

current and future OHV use is compatible with

OHV designations in the existing BLM OHV

strategy?

 • What criteria will be used to determine if

OHV use is causing “considerable adverse

effects” to Planning Area resources?

 • What changes should occur to current OHV

designations if determined to be incompatible

with the current BLM OHV Strategy or

Planning Area objectives?

15) How will the BLM manage resource uses to

improve unacceptable aquatic habitat and

water quality conditions (such as stream

reaches listed as Water Quality Limited

(303(d)) by ODEQ) or maintain aquatic

habitat and water quality that are

currently in acceptable conditions? 

• Do water developments/alternative water

developments (reservoirs, springs) need to

have application made to the state for water

rights? (For smaller water developments, the

lag time will be approximately seven months

to gain certificate.)

 • Will workload and water quality monitoring

objectives need to be determined under new

management priorities? As the upper Donner

und Blitzen drainage area is under new

management strategies, should the BLM take

steps to get the tributaries and mainstream delisted from 303(d), or should the state focus

on these areas?

 • To what extent will livestock management and

brush control be conducted to meet fisheries

habitat requirements?

 • What management practices for range and

woodlands accommodate fisheries habitat

requirements?

 • Which areas, if any, are appropriate for

reintroduction of native fish species?

 • What are the long-term strategies for

managing fisheries?

 • To what extent will the BLM adopt ODFW

management objectives for fisheries?

 • What management practices best address areas

of biodiversity, the needs of species at the

limits of their range, and species assemblages?

 • How can grazing management techniques

improve water quality?

16) How should the BLM m anage

transportation issues in the Planning Area?

• What roads and trails are needed for

administrative use and/or public access?

• Where are easements or other use agreements

needed to ensure future access?

• Which roads and trails should be open or

closed to motorized vehicles or limited to nonmotorized, non-mechanical traffic, and where?

• Which roads or trails should be seasonally

closed for protection and/or improvement of

resources or for public safety, and where?

• To what standards should roads and trails be

maintained?

• Can roads or trails that no longer serve

management purposes be abandoned and/or

reclaimed?

• Should new roads or trails be considered to

provide access to important public resources,

prevent environmental degradation, or to

improve transportation?

• What existing roads are needed to provide

reasonable access to private land or areas

involving other private rights or interests?

• What areas may need new roads to provide

future private access?

17) Would changes in current resource uses

and management practices affect the

economic and social status of rural

communities in the Planning Area? If so,

how?

• How can public land management contribute

to the economic stability of small rural

communities in the Planning Area?

• How would changing land use and tourism

affect traditional rural life styles?

• How would land tenure adjustments affect the

economic stability of small rural communities

in the Planning Area?

• How, and to what extent, will the creation of

the Steens Mountain specially designated

areas impact communities and residents?
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-7

These mid-scale issues generally reflect many of the

broad-scale findings in the ICBEMP scientific

assessment.

The group then examined the list of findings in “Using

Key Broad-scale Findings in Mid-scale Issue

Identification” documented in the ICBEMP Scientific

Assessment (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) and EIS.

The participants determined that many of the findings

applied to the Planning Area subbasin review area.

Some of the findings were modified to more accurately

reflect conditions within the Planning Area subbasin

review. Of the approximately 60 findings or conditions

listed, only 18 were considered not applicable to the

Planning Area subbasin review. Either the resources did

not occur in the area or conditions were known to be

better than indicated in the ICBEMP findings.

The findings dealt primarily with terrestrial and aquatic

habitat, water quality, riparian health, landscape health,

and social and economic concerns including tribal

rights. The group then developed the refined list of

broad scale findings. These were discussed and small

changes were made. Several findings dealt with

designated priority issues including noxious weed and

juniper expansion, water quality, special status species

management, aquatic habitat, and riparian and wetland

vegetation. Listed at the end of this chapter are those

findings the group felt were not applicable to the

Planning Area subbasin review. A complete description

of the individual findings follows.

6.3 Revised List of Key Broad-Scale Findings

Used in Issue Identification for the

Andrews MU/Steens Mountain CMPA

Subbasin Review Area

These findings are from Ecosystem Review at the

Subbasin Scale (Subbasin Review), Volume 1 - The

Process, August 1999, Appendix A. As stated above,

some findings have been modified to more accurately

reflect conditions within the Planning Area subbasin

review. The ICBEMP did not address issues related to

current management practices on cultural resources,

including archaeological and Native American

traditional values, and are therefore not addressed in

this section.

6.3.1 Terrestrial Habitat/Landscape Health

6.3.1.1 Rangelands

C Noxious weeds are spreading on roadway

disturbance.

C Woody species encroachment by and/or

increasing density of woo dy species

(sagebrush and juniper), especially on dry

grasslands and cool shrublands, has reduced

herbaceous understory and biodiversity.

C Cheatgrass has taken over many dry

shrublands, increasing soil erosion and fire

frequency and reducing biodiversity and

wildlife habitat. Cheatgrass and other exotic

plant infestations have simplified species

composition, reduced biodiversity, changed

species interactions and forage availability,

and reduced the systems’ ability to buffer

against changes.

C Expansion of agricultural and urban areas on

non-federal lands has reduced the extent of

some rangeland potential vegetation groups,

most notably dry grasslands, dry shrublands,

and riparian areas. Changes in some of the

remaining habitat patches and loss of native

species diversity have contributed to a number

of wildlife species declines, some to the point

of special concern (such as sage-grouse,

Columbian sharptailed grouse, California

bighorn sheep, pygmy rabbit, kit fox, and

Washington ground squirrel).

C Increased fragmentation and loss of

connectivity within and between blocks of

habitat, especially in shrub steppe and riparian

areas, have isolated some habitats and

populations and reduced the ability of

populations to move across the landscape,

resulting in long-term loss of genetic

interchange.

C Slow-to-recover rangelands (in general,

rangelands that receive less than 12 inches of

precipitation per year) are not recovering

naturally at a pace that is acceptable to the

general public, and are either highly

susceptible to degradation or already

dominated by cheatgrass and noxious weeds.

C Fire frequency has decreased in many

locations resulting in an increase in conifer

encroachment; an increase in tree density in

formerly savanna-like stands of juniper and

ponderosa pine; and increased density and/or

coverage of big sagebrush and other shrubs,

with an accompanying loss of herbaceous

vegetation.

C Fire frequency has increased in some areas,

particularly in drier locations where exotic

annual grasses have become established.

Increased fire frequency has caused a loss of

shrub cover and reduction in bunchgrasses.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-8

6.3.1.2 Forests

C Interior ponderosa pine has decreased across

its range with a significant decrease in old

single story structure. The primary transitions

were to interior Douglas fir and grand

fir/white fir.

C There has been a loss of the large tree

component (live and dead) within roaded and

harvested areas. This decrease affects

terrestrial wildlife species that are closely

associated with these old forest structures.

C Western larch has decreased across its range.

The primary transitions were to interior

Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, or grand fir/white

fir.

C Western white pine has decreased by 95

percent across its range. The primary

transitions were to grand fir/white fir, western

larch, and shrub/herb/tree regeneration.

C The whitebark pine/alpine larch potential

vegetation type has decreased by 95 percent

across its range, primarily through a transition

into the whitebark pine cover type. Overall,

however, the whitebark pine cover stand has

also decreased, with compensating increases

in Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir.

C Generally, mid-seral forest structures have

increased in dry and moist forest potential

vegetation groups (PVG), with a loss of large,

scattered, and residual shade-intolerant tree

components, and an increase in the density of

smaller shade-tolerant diameter trees.

C There has been an increase in fragmentation

and a loss of connectivity within and between

blocks of late-seral, old forests, especially in

lower elevation forests and riparian areas. This

has isolated some animal habitats and

populations and reduced the ability of

populations to move across the landscape,

resulting in a long-term loss of genetic

interchange.

C Habitat for several forest carnivores and

omnivores is in decline.

C Insects and diseases always existed in forests,

but the size and intensity of their attacks has

increased in recent years due to increased

stand density.

C Dry forests have had an increase in fuel

loading, duff depth, stand density, and a fuel

ladder that can carry fire from the surface into

the tree crowns. As a result, wildfire intensity

has increased.

C Noxious weeds are spreading rapidly, and in

some cases exponentially, in most dry forest

types.

6.3.2 Aquatic Habitat/Landscape Health

6.3.2.1 Hydrology and Watershed Processes

• Management activities throughout watersheds

in the Planning Area have affected the

quantity and quality of water, processes of

sedimentation and erosion, and the production

and distribution of organic material, thus

affecting hydrologic conditions.

6.3.2.2 Source Habitat

C Source habitats for the majority of species in

the basin declined strongly (>20 percent

decline) from historical to current.

C The strongest declines were for species

dependent on low-elevation, old-forest

habitats, species dependent on combinations

of rangeland or early-seral forests with lateseral forests, and species dependent on native

grassland and open canopy sagebrush habitats

(Wisdom et al., in press).

C Primary causes of decline in old-forest

habitats and early-seral habitats are intensive

timber harvest and large-scale fir exclusion.

C Primary causes for decline in native herbland,

woodland, grassland, and sagebrush habitats

are excessive livestock grazing, invasion of

exotic plants, and conversion of land to

a griculture, residential, and urb a n

development. Altered fire regimes have also

contributed to a decline in grassland and

shrubland habitats.

C A variety of road-associated factors negatively

affect habitats or populations of many species.

C Human interactions with wide-ranging

carnivores are generally negative and large

areas of the basin may not be used by wideranging carnivores; because of this, habitats

for many riparian dependent terrestrial

species, especially shrubland habitats, have

declined.

C Snag and down wood habitats in managed

woodland and riparian areas have declined.

6.3.2.3 Streams, Rivers and Lakes

C Banks and beds of streams, rivers, and lakes

have been altered. In general, the changes

have been greatest for the larger streams,

rivers, and lakes.

C Water quantity and flow rates have been

locally affected.

C Many BLM administered steams are “water

quality limited” as defined by the Clean Water
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-9

Act. On Forest Service-administered lands, the

primary water quality problems are

sedimentation, turbidity, flow alteration, and

elevated temperatures. On BLM administered

lands, sedimentation, turbidity, and elevated

temperatures are the primary reasons for

listing as water quality limited.

C Streams and rivers are highly variable across

the project area, reflecting diverse physical

settings and disturbance historie s.

Nevertheless, important aspects of fish habitat,

such as pool frequency and large woody

debris abundance, have decreased throughout

much of the project area.

6.3.2.4 Riparian Areas and Wetlands

C The overall extent and continuity of riparian

areas and wetlands has decreased.

C Riparian ecosystem function, has decreased in

most subbasins within the project area.

C A majority of riparian areas on BLM

administered lands are either “not meeting

obje ctives,” “ non-functioning,” o r

“functioning at risk.” However, the rate has

slowed and a few areas show increases in

riparian cover and large trees.

C Within riparian woodlands, the abundance of

mid-seral vegetation has increased, whereas

the abundance of late and early seral structural

stages has decreased.

C Within riparian shrublands, there has been

extensive spread of western juniper and

introduction of exotic grasses and forbs.

C The frequency and extent of seasonal

floodplain and wetland inundation has been

altered by changes in flow regime, and by

changes in channel morphology.

C There is an overall decrease in large trees and

late seral vegetation in riparian areas.

C Riparian areas are important for about three

quarters of the terrestrial wildlife species.

Wildlife numbers have declined in proportion

to the decline in riparian habitat conditions.

6.3.2.5 Fish

C The composition, distribution, and status of

fishes within the Planning Area are

substantially different than they were

historically. Some native fishes have been

eliminated from large portions of their

historical ranges.

C Many native nongame fish are vulnerable

because of their restricted distribution or

fragile or unique habitats.

C Although several of the key salmonids are still

broadly distributed (notably the cutthroat

trouts and redband trout), declines in

abundance, loss of life history patterns, local

extinctions, and fragmentation and isolation in

smaller blocks of high quality habitat are

apparent.

C Wild chinook salmon and steelhead are near

extinction in a major part of their remaining

distribution.

C Core areas for rebuilding and maintaining

biological diversity associated with native

fishes still exist within the basin.

6.3.3 Landscape Health

6.3.3.1 Air Quality

C The current condition of air quality in the

project area is considered good, relative to

other areas of the country.

C Wildland fires significantly affect the air

resources. Current wildland fires produce

higher levels of smoke emissions than

historically. Within the project area, the

current trend in prescribed fire use is expected

to result in an increase of smoke emissions.

6.3.4 Social/Economic

6.3.4.1 Human Uses and Values

C The Planning Area is sparsely populated and

rural, especially in areas with a large amount

of agency lands.

C Development for a growing human population

is encroaching on previously undeveloped

areas adjacent to lands administered by the

BLM. New development can put stress on the

political and physical infrastructure of rural

communities, diminish habitat for some

wildlife, and increase agency costs to manage

fire to protect people and structures.

C Recreation is an important use of agency lands

in the Planning Area in terms of economic

value and amount of use. Most recreation use

is tied to roads and accessible water bodies,

though primitive and semi-primitive recreation

is also important.

C Industries customarily served by agency land

uses, such as logging, wood products

manufacturing and livestock grazing, no

longer dictate the economic prosperity of the

region, but remain economically and culturally

important in rural areas. The economic

dependence of communities on these
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-10

industries is highest in areas that are

geographically isolated and offer few

alternative employment opportunities.

C The public, including individuals and Harney

County through gross receipts sharing, has

invested substantial land and capital to

develop road systems on agency lands,

primarily to serve commodity uses. 

C For those counties that have benefitted from

federal sharing of gross receipts from

commodity sales on agency lands, changing

levels of commodity outputs can affect county

budgets.

C Agency social and economic policy has

emphasized the goal of supporting rural

communities, specifically promoting stability

in those communities deemed dependent on

agency timber harvest and processing. Evenflow of timber sales, timber sale bidding

methods, timber export restrictions, and small

business set asides of timber sales have been

the major policy tools on Forest Serviceadministered commerc ial forestlands.

Regulation of grazing practices has been

important on BLM administered rangelands.

C The factors that appear to help make

communities resilient to economic and social

change include population size and growth

rate, economic diversity, social and cultural

attributes, amenity setting, and quality of life.

The ability of agencies to improve community

resiliency depends on the effectiveness of

agency land uses and management strategies

to positively influence these factors.

C Predictability in timber sale volume from

agency lands has been increasingly difficult to

achieve. Advancing knowledge of ecosystem

processes, changing societal goals, and

changing forest conditions has undermined

conventional assumptions underlying the

quantity and regularity of timber supply from

agency lands.

C Lands now administered by the BLM make up

the traditional homelands of affected

American Indian Tribes. Land management

actions and decisions on these lands affect the

rights and/or interests of these tribes and their

members.

C American Indian tribes in the Basin depend on

lands and resources administered by the BLM

for a myriad of needs and uses ranging from

subsistence uses and economic purposes to

religious and cultural purposes.

C Agency social and economic policy has

emphasized the goal of supporting rural

communities, including tribal communities.

The ability of agencies to assist tribal

members and tribal communities depends on

the effectiveness of agency land uses and

management strategies to positively consider

and influence these fa c tors (tribal

employment, subsistence, treaty/reserved

rights, spiritual, cultural/social purposes).

6.3.4.2 American Indian Rights and Interests

C There is low confidence and trust that

American Indian rights and interests are

considered when decisions are proposed and

made for actions to be taken on BLM

administered lands.

C American Indian values on federal lands may

be affected by proposed actions on woodlands

and rangelands because of changes in

vegetation structure, composition, and density;

existing roads; and watershed conditions.

C Indian tribes do not feel that they are involved

in the decision-making process commensurate

with their legal status. They do not feel that

government-to-government consultation is

taking place.

C Culturally significant species such as

anadromous fish and the habitat necessary to

support healthy, sustainable, and harvest able

populations constitute a major, but not the

only, concern. American Indian people have

concern for all factors that keep the ecosystem

healthy.

6.4 Findings from the ICBEMP Scientific

Assessment Not Applicable to the Andrew

MU/Steens Mountain CMPA Subbasin

Review Area

Following is a description of ICBEMP broad-scale

findings determined by the BLM team to be not

applicable to the subbasin review area. The reasons why

the findings are not applicable are given.

Finding: Noxious weeds are spreading rapidly, and in

some cases exponentially, on rangelands in every range

cluster.

Response: Noxious weeds, although present on the

Planning Area, are not spreading rapidly in every range

cluster and the Burns BLM has implemented an

integrated weed management program.

Finding: Expansion of agricultural and urban areas on

non-federal lands has reduced the extent of some

rangeland potential vegetation groups, most notably dry

grasslands, dry shrublands, and riparian areas. Changes
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-11

in some of the remaining habitat patches and loss of

native species diversity have contributed to a number of

wildlife species declines, some to the point of special

concern (such as sage-grouse, Columbian sharptailed

grouse, California bighorn sheep, pygmy rabbit, kit fox,

and Washington ground squirrel).

Response: The Planning Area has not experienced

expansion of agricultural and urban areas on nonfederal lands.

Finding: Increased fragmentation and loss of

connectivity within and between blocks of habitat,

especially in shrub steppe and riparian areas, have

isolated some habitats and populations and reduced the

ability of populations to move across the landscape,

resulting in long-term loss of genetic interchange.

Response: There has not been fragmentation and loss

of habitat connectivity in the Planning Area; in fact, the

BLM has acquired parcels for incorporation into

contiguous lands under BLM administration, which

increases habitat connectivity.

Finding: Fire frequency has decreased in many

locations resulting in an increase in conifer

encroachment; an increase in tree density in formerly

savanna-like stands of juniper and ponderosa pine; and

increased density and/or coverage of big sagebrush and

other shrubs, with an accompanying loss of herbaceous

vegetation.

Response: Conifers are not readily present in the

Planning Area and are not encroaching.

Finding: Interior ponderosa pine has decreased across

its range with a significant decrease in old single story

structure. The primary transitions were to interior

Douglas fir and grand fir/white fir.

Response: Ponderosa pine has not occurred historically

and does not presently occur within the Planning Area.

Finding: There has been a loss of the large tree

component (live and dead) within roaded and harvested

areas. This decrease affects terrestrial wildlife species

that are closely associated with these old forest

structures.

Response: The Planning Area is not forested; therefore,

a loss of large trees has not occurred.

Finding: Western larch has decreased across its range.

The primary transitions were to interior Douglas fir,

lodgepole pine, or grand fir/white fir.

Response: Western larch has not occurred historically

and does not presently occur within the Andrews

MU/Steens Mountain CMPA subbasin review area.

Finding: Western white pine has decreased by 95

percent across its range. The primary transitions were to

grand fir/white fir, western larch, and shrub/herb/tree

regeneration.

Response: The Planning Area contains a very small

(approximately 40 acres) stand of white fir and it has

not changed substantially in size

Finding: The whitebark pine/alpine larch potential

vegetation type has decreased by 95 percent across its

range, primarily through a transition into the whitebark

pine cover type. Overall, however, the whitebark pine

cover stand has also decreased, with compensating

increases in Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir.

Response: Whitebark pine/alpine larch potential

vegetation type has not occurred historically and does

not presently occur within the Andrews MU/Steens

Mountain CMPA subbasin review area.

Finding: Generally, mid-seral forest structures have

increased in dry and moist forest potential vegetation

groups (PVG), with a loss of large, scattered, and

residual shade-intolerant tree components, and an

increase in the density of smaller shade-tolerant

diameter trees.

Response: The Planning Area does not have forest

habitat.

Finding: There has been an increase in fragmentation

and a loss of connectivity within and between blocks of

late-seral, old forests, especially in lower elevation

forests and riparian areas. This has isolated some

animal habitats and populations and reduced the ability

of populations to move across the landscape, resulting

in a long-term loss of genetic interchange.

Response: The Planning Area does not contain oldgrowth forests.

Finding: Habitat for several forest carnivores and

omnivores is in decline.

Response: The Planning Area does not have forest

habitat.

Finding: Insects and diseases always existed in forests,

but the size and intensity of their attacks has increased

in recent years due to increased stand density.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-12

Response: The Planning Area does not have forest

habitat.

Finding: Dry forests have had an increase in fuel

loading, duff depth, stand density, and a fuel ladder that

can carry fire from the surface into the tree crowns. As

a result, wildfire intensity has increased.

Response: The Planning Area does not have forest

habitat.

Finding: Noxious weeds are spreading rapidly, and in

some cases exponentially, in most dry forest types.

Response: Noxious weeds, although present on the

Planning Area, are not spreading rapidly in dry forest

types and the Burns BLM has implemented an

integrated weed management program.

Finding: Primary causes of decline in old-forest

habitats and early-seral habitats are intensive timber

harvest and large-scale fir exclusion.

Response: Old-growth forest habitat has not occurred

historically and does not presently occur within the

Andrews MU/Steens Mountain CMPA subbasin review

area.

Finding: Human interactions with wide-ranging

carnivores are generally negative and large areas of the

basin may not be used by wide-ranging carnivores;

because of this, habitats for many riparian dependent

terrestrial species, especially shrubland habitats, have

declined.

Response: Wide-Ranging carnivores are not prevalent

in the Planning Area; therefore, there are no

commensurate elevated levels of herbivores impacting

the identified habitat. 

Finding: The composition, distribution, and status of

fishes within the Planning Area are substantially

different than they were historically. Some native fishes

have been eliminated from large portions of their

historical ranges.

Response: The composition, distribution, and status of

fishes within the Planning Area have not substantially

changed.

Finding: Wild chinook salmon and steelhead are near

extinction in a major part of their remaining

distribution.

Response: Chinook salmon and steelhead do not occur

in the Andrews MU/Steens Mountain CMPA subbasin

review area. No anadromous fish occur in the subbasin

review area since only one drainage in the subbasin

review area is a tributary to the Columbia River (Wild

Cat Creek), and it is an ephemeral stream.

Finding: Development for a growing human population

is encroaching on previously undeveloped areas

adjacent to lands administered by the Forest Service

and the BLM. New development can put stress on the

political and physical infrastructure of rural

communities, diminish habitat for some wildlife, and

increase agency costs to manage fire to protect people

and structures.

Response: The Planning Area is sparsely populated and

rural; however, it is not experiencing any rapid

population growth. The population is stable or

declining.

Finding: Agency social and economic policy has

emphasized the goal of supporting rural communities,

specifically promoting stability in those communities

deemed dependent on agency timber harvest and

processing. Even-flow of timber sales, timber sale

bidding methods, timber export restrictions, and small

business set asides of timber sales have been the major

policy tools on Forest Service-administered commercial

forestlands. Regulation of grazing practices has been

important on BLM administered rangelands.

Response: The BLM does not have a social and

economic policy.

Finding: Agency social and economic policy has

emphasized the goal of supporting rural communities,

including tribal communities. The ability of agencies to

assist tribal members and tribal communities depends

on the effectiveness of agency land uses and

management strategies to positively consider and

influence these factors (tribal employment, subsistence,

treaty/reserved rights, spiritual, cultura l/social

purposes).

Response: The BLM does not have a social and

economic policy.

Finding: Predictability in timber sale volume from

agency lands has been increasingly difficult to achieve.

Advancing knowledge of ecosystem processes,

changing societal goals, and changing forest conditions

has undermined conventional assumptions underlying

the quantity and regularity of timber supply from

agency lands.

Response: The Planning Area does not have forest

habitat and there are no timber sales.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-13

Finding: There is low confidence and trust that

American Indian rights and interests are considered

when decisions are proposed and made for actions to be

taken on BLM administered lands.

Response: The Burns Paiute Tribe is the primary

consultation partner for the Planning Area. The BLM

has an active relationship with this tribe.

Finding: Indian tribes do not feel that they are involved

in the decision-making process commensurate with their

legal status. They do not feel that government-togovernment consultation is taking place.

Response: The BLM has semi-annual project summary

meetings and consultation on all projects in the

Planning Area of interest to the tribe.

Finding: Culturally significant species such as

anadromous fish and the habitat necessary to support

healthy, sustainable, and harvest able populations

constitute a major, but not the only, concern. American

Indian people have concern for all factors that keep the

ecosystem healthy.

Response: The Planning Area does not have and has

not historically had anadromous fish and the habitat

necessary to support healthy, sustainable, and harvest

able populations of anadromous fish.

6.5 M id-scale Character Description (Resource

Area Profile)

The Description of the Mid-scale Character, Step 3 of

the subbasin review process, was combined with the

Resource Area Profile (RAP) of the AMS. Both the

RAP and the Mid-scale Character are descriptions of

the existing resources in the subbasin review area as

well as their condition and use. The only difference is

that the RAP covers all resources in the Planning Area,

whereas the Description of the Mid-scale Character is

tied to the ICBEMP findings for issue identification.

Resources addressed by the findings are described for

the subbasin review area as a whole. These include

rangelands, woodlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife

habitat, water quality, riparian habitats, and human uses

and values. Those resources not addressed by the

findings are described for the Andrews MU and Steens

Mountain CMPA only.

Prior to the meeting of the subbasin review team, the

Burns DO staff had begun to prepare mid-scale

characterization, by resource, as they pertained to the

mid-scale findings and issues for the subbasin review

area. This was the next step in the subbasin review

process. At the meeting, the group went over the draft

characterizations and suggested changes and additions.

The current status of each resource pertaining to the

findings was described. Management concerns for the

resources were identified. A listing of the concerns, by

resource, is presented as the issues in Section 6.1.

These management concerns will be used in developing

the Management Opportunities chapter of the AMS

(Chapter 4) and will also be used in setting priorities

and making recommendations as the final step in the

subbasin review process. Eventually, this information

will feed into the development of alternatives for the

RMP/EIS.

The complete descriptions of the mid-scale character

are included as Chapter 2 of this AMS.

6.6 Prioritie s and Recommendatio ns

(Management Opportunities)

This is Step 4 of the subbasin review process. This step

is analogous to the Management Opportunities step in

preparing the AMS. In both cases, management

opportunities or management recommendations are

identified and priority setting is begun. In the subbasin

review, the priorities would set the stage for fine scale,

or activity level or project planning; however, in this

situation where the subbasin review and AMS are

combined, the priority setting is begun at this stage, but

is carried forward and refined in preparing the

RMP/EIS. After that would come the fine scale

planning. The Management Opportunities/Priorities and

Recommendations are in Chapter 4 of the AMS

document.

The group then examined the mid-scale descriptions of

22 resources of concern. The team discussed the

management concerns pertaining to these resources and

“brainstormed” management opportunities and

recommendations to address these concerns. This set

the stage for the BLM staff to identify management

opportunities for all resources to be addressed in the

RMP/EIS. The following is a listing of the management

opportunities by resource.

6.6.1 Air Resources

Meet or exceed the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards and the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration with all authorized actions.

6.6.2 Energy and Mineral Resources

Provide opportunities for exploration and development

of leasable energy and mineral resources while

protecting other sensitive resources. Provid e
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-14

opportunities for exploration and development of

locatable mineral resources while protecting other

sensitive resources. Provide for public demand for

saleable minerals from public land while protecting

sensitive resources.

6.6.3 Fire

Provide an Appropriate Management Response (AMR)

on all wildland fires, with emphasis on fire fighter and

public safety, minimizing suppression costs, benefits,

and values to be protected, consistent with resource

objectives. Recogniz e fire as a critical natural process

and use it to protect, maintain, and enhance resources.

6.6.4 Vegetation

Restore, protect, and enhance the diversity and

distribution of desirable vegetation communities,

including perennial native and desirable introduced

plant species. Provide for their continued existence and

normal function in nutrient, water, and energy cycles.

Manage big sagebrush cover in seedings and on native

rangelands to meet the life history requirements of

sagebrush dependent wildlife. Control the introduction

and proliferation of noxious weed species and reduce

the extent and density of established weed species to

within acceptable limits.

6.6.5 Woodlands

Manage woodlands to maintain or restore ecosystems to

a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and

occurrences of fire, insects, and disease do not exceed

levels normally expected in a healthy woodland.

Manage woodlands for long-term healthy habitat for

animal and plant species. Restore productivity and

biodiversity in juniper and aspen woodland areas.

Manage juniper areas where encroachment or increased

density is threatening other resource values. Retain old

growth characteristics in historic juniper sites not prone

to frequent fire. Manage aspen to maintain diversity of

age classes and to allow for species reestablishment.

6.6.6 Special Status Plant Species

Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance

populations and habitats of special status plant species.

Priority for the application of management actions

would be: (1) federal endangered species, (2) federal

threatened species, (3) federal proposed species, (4)

federal candidate species, (5) state listed species, (6)

BLM sensitive species, (7) BLM assessment species,

and (8) BLM tracking species. Manage in order to

conserve or lead to the recovery of threatened or

endangered species.

6.6.7 Water Resources and Riparian/Wetlands

Ensure that surface water and groundwater influenced

by BLM activities comply with or are making progress

toward achieving State of Oregon water quality

standards for beneficial uses as established per stream

by the ODEQ. Restore, maintain, or improve riparian

vegetation, habitat diversity, and associated watershed

function to achieve healthy and productive riparian

areas and wetlands. Where water rights are needed to

support programs and projects within the Planning

Area, they will be secured through normal channels as

prescribed by state law.

6.6.8 Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Restore, maintain, or improve habitat to provide for

diverse and self-sustaining communities of fishes and

other aquatic organisms.

6.6.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Maintain, restore, or enhance riparian areas and

wetlands so they provide diverse and healthy habitat

conditions for wildlife. Manage upland wildlife habitats

to ensure that the necessary forage, water, cover,

structure, and security are available on public land.

6.6.10 Special Status Animal Species

Manage public land to maintain, restore, or enhance

populations and habitats of Special status animal

species. Priority for the application of management

actions would be: (1) federal endangered species, (2)

federal threatened species, (3) federal proposed species,

(4) federal candidate species, (5) state listed species, (6)

BLM sensitive species, (7) BLM assessment species,

and (8) BLM tracking species. Manage in order to

conserve or lead to the recovery of threatened or

endangered species. Facilitate the maintenance,

restoration, and enhancement of bighorn sheep

populations and habitat on public land. Pursue

management in accordance with Oregon’s Bighorn

Sheep Management Plan in a manner consistent with

the principles of multiple-use management.

6.6.11 Wild Horses

Maintain and manage wild horse herds in established

HMAs at AMLs to ensure or enhance a thriving natural

ecological balance between wild horse populations,

wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, and other

resource values. Enhance and perpetuate special and

unique characteristics that distinguish the respective

herds.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-15

6.6.12 Grazing Management

Grazing will be in compliance with current policy

which includes the Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for

Public Lands in Oregon and Washington. Provide for a

sustained level of livestock grazing consistent with

other resource objectives and public land use

allocations. Livestock grazing in the Andrews MU will

be managed under laws provided by the Taylor Grazing

Act, Public Rangelands Improvement Act, national

Environmental Policy Act, Wilderness Act, the Act and

BLM regulations. The RMP will include the Standards

for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for grazing

management which apply to all BLM lands in Oregon.

The RMP will address several pasture and allotment

boundary changes occurring as a result of land

exchanges, forage offsets for creation of the No

Livestock Grazing Area and grazing management

changes.

6.6.13 Recreation

Provide and enhance developed and undeveloped

recreation opportunities and manage the increasing

demand for resource-dependent recreation activities

while protecting resources.

6.6.14 Off-Highway Vehicles

Manage OHV use to protect resource values, promote

public safety, provide OHV use opportunities where

appropriate, and minimize conflicts among various

users.

6.6.15 Visual Resources

Manage public land actions and activities in a manner

consistent with VRM class objectives.

6.6.16 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Retain existing and designate new ACECs/RNAs where

relevance and importance criteria are met and special

management is required to protect the values identified.

6.6.17 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Protect and enhance ORVs of designated NWSRS and

protect and enhance ORVs of rivers found suitable for

WSR status until Congress acts.

6.6.18 Wilderness

Designated Wilderness Areas will be managed under

the Wilderness Management Policy. The wilderness

resources will be dominant whenever choices must be

made between preservation of the wilderness character

and visitor use.

6.6.19 Wilderness Study Areas

BLM administered land identified in the Wilderness

Study Report and determined to have wilderness values

could be included in adjacent WSAs and managed

under the WSA IMP.

6.6.20 Human Uses and Values

Manage public land and pursue partnerships in order to

provide social and economic benefits to local residents,

businesses, visitors, and for future generations.

6.6.21 Cultural Resources

Protect and conserve cultural and paleontological

resources. Increase the public’s knowledge,

appreciation, and sensitivity regarding cultural and

paleontological resources. Consult and coordinate with

American Indian groups to ensure that their traditional

religious sites, land forms, resources, and other interests

are considered.

6.6.22 Land and Realty

Retain public land with high public resource values.

Consolidate public land holdings and acquire land or

interests in land with high public resource values to

ensure effective administration and improve resource

management. Acquired land would be managed for its

intended purpose. Make public land available for

disposal within Zone 3 by state indemnity selection,

private or state exchange, Recreation and Public

Purpose Act lease or sale, public sale, or other

authorized method. Establish utility and transportation

system corridor routes to the extent possible,

considering avoidance areas, and consistent with

resource objectives.

6.7 BLM Resource Management Planning

Process

During the resource management planning process, the

BLM will set priorities for acting on these

recommendations and opportunities. Emphasis will be

placed on opportunities for protecting and managing

special areas such as Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern; opportunities for management of resources

across administrative boundaries such as watersheds,

aquatic species, and noxious weeds; and opportunities

for control of juniper expansion.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

6-16

Table 6.1: Steps in the Subbasin Review and Analysis of Management Situation

Subbasin Review Analysis of the Management Situation

Step Step

1. Prepare for the Review 1. Collect and Consolidate Data

2. Identify Mid-scale Issues 2. Conduct Internal and Public Scoping

3. Describe Mid-scale Character (Describe

character of the review area in relationship to

the issues)

3. Resource Area Profile (Describe the condition

of the resource area, including its physical,

biological and human environment)

No step in subbasin review corresponds to

Existing Management Situation of the AMS

4. Existing Management Situation (Describe for

each resource its current uses, production, or

protection problems and the management

practices and direction)

4. Develop recommendations and integrated

priority setting. (Develop recommended

actions and determine urgency and timing of

actions)

5. Identify Management Opportunities (Identify

and evaluate all reasonable opportunities and/or

actions to address the planning issues and

management concerns)

5. Subbasin Review Report (Document the

subbasin review results and the process.

Provide information for further planning)

6. Prepare the AMS (Develop a comprehensive

document for use by the BLM and a summary

document for public distribution. Provide

information for RMP/EIS)

BLM staff incorporated the descriptions of the midscale character and the recommendations into the RAP

and management opportunitiessections, respectively, of

the AMS. The similarities between the subbasin review

process and the AMS process are shown in the

following table. The integrated priority setting

described in the subbasin review for BLM actions will

be conducted through the RMP.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

7-1

7 LIST OF PREPARERS

Bureau of Land Management, Burns District, Oregon -

Core Team

Gary Foulkes Proj ect M anager ,

Environmental Justice,

Cultural Resources, Air

Quality, Socioeconomics,

Auditory Resources

Rick Hall Assistant Project Manager,

ACECs, Special Status

Spe cies-Flo r a , Soils,

Veget ation, Noxious

W e e d s ,

W o odlands / WJMA ,

Grazing Management

Joan Suther Acting Steens Mountain

Project Manager; Review

Mary Emerick Wilderness, WSAs, OHVs,

Fire, Minerals/Geology

Evelyn Treiman Rec reatio n, W ild a nd

Scenic Rivers, Visual

Resources, Transportation,

Cadastral/Lands/Realty

Matt Obradovich Wildlife, Special Status

Species-Fauna, Wetlands,

Animal Damage Control,

Wild Horses, Ripa rian

Areas

Darren Brumback Fisheries, W ate r

R e sourc e s ,

Riparian Areas

Kelly Hazen GIS

Rhonda Karges S M AC/M anage m e n t

Support

Bureau of Land Management, Burns District, Oregon -

ID Team

Scott Thomas Cultu ral Resour c e s

Specialist

Skip Renchler Realty Specialist

Terri Geisler Geologist

Cindy Weston Fisheries Biologist

Dean Bolstad Wild Horse Management

Specialist

Lesley Richman Noxious Weeds Specialist

Jeff Rose Fire Ecologist

Jim Buchanan Rangeland Managemen t

Specialist

Carolyn Freeborn Rangeland M anagement

Specialist

Cam Swisher Environmental Protectio n

Specialist

Dave Ward Rangeland Management

Specialist

Bill Andersen Rangeland Management

Specialist

Russ Truman Fire Managem e n t

Officer/Fuels

Bureau of Land Management, State Office, Oregon - ID

Team

Louisa Evers Fire Ecologist

Leslie Frewing-Runyon Socioeconomist

Environmental & Resource Management, Inc.

Richard DeLong Projec t Manager, Air

Quality, Water Resources,

Environmental Justic e,

Transportation

Opal Adams Assistant Project Manager,

Geology, Paleontology,

Visual Res our c e

Management

Jennifer Thies Project Coordinator, Lands,

Human Uses and Values,

Rec reati on, Spe cia l

Management Areas

Dr. Adrian Juncosa Range, Ecology, Fire

Susan Fox W ildlife, Wild Horses,

Special Status Animal

Species

Matt Kiesse Fisheries, Wild and Scenic

Rivers

Julie Etra Vegetation, Soils, Special

Status Pla nt Species,

Noxious Weeds, Riparian

Areas/Wetlands

Dr. Robert Vierra Arch a e ology ,

Native American

Traditional Values
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

7-2

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

8-1

8 PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT 

8.1 BLM Planning Process

The RMP is a land use plan as described in FLPMA.

The RMP establishes in a written document the

following:

C Land areas for limited, restricted, or exclusive

resource uses or for transfer from BLM

administration;

C Allowable resource uses and related levels of

production or use to be maintained;

C Resource condition goals and objectives to be

reached;

C Program constraints and general management

practices;

C Identification of specific activity plans

required;

C Support actions required to achieve the above;

C General implementation schedule or

sequences; and

C Intervals and standards for monitoring the plan

to determine its effectiveness.

The underlying goal of the RMP is to provide efficient

on-the-ground management of the public lands and

associated resources over a period of time, usually up to

20 years. The procedure for preparing a RMP involves

nine interrelated actions. These actions and the

anticipated timelines for the Andrews MU/Steens

Mountain CMPA RMP are outlined in Table 8.1.

8.2 Public Involvement in the Planning Process

The public involvement opportunities for the major

stages of the planning process are listed below. Dates

for each of these events will be publicized when

finalized. Every effort will be made to ensure

meaningful public involvement throughout the process,

including the use of internet technology. 

• Identification of Issues, Planning Criteria, and

Management Concern

Federal Register Notices of Intent, media

articles, and website information regarding the

preparation and content of the Plan, and

schedule of upcoming scoping meeting will be

readily available. E-mail messages or letters

will be sent to people on the mailing list. This

AMS and subbasin review will be prepared

and circulated for public review prior to

issuance of the Draft EIS.

The BLM will organize and facilitate informal

public open-house scoping meetings to gather

public input on the issues, management

concerns to be resolved in the RMP, and on

the planning criteria and process. At these

meetings, interested parties will have the

opportunity to give written comments to the

BLM as well as engage in discussion of issues.

Requests for written comments on

issues/scope of the RMP will be sent out

during the public scoping period. Comments

on the Draft and Final RMP/EIS will be

solicited.

• Formulation of Alternatives/Public Interest 

Scoping meetings with interested parties and

agencies will be held at several locations in

order to solicit comments on alternatives and

ensure that all appropriate issues are

addressed. Periodic progress reports to

interested parties will provide up-to-date

information on the RMP/EIS process.

Public input via written responses within the

60-day scoping/comment period will be

incorporated into the process where

appropriate.

After the scoping period, flyers will be sent to

all parties who have expressed interest in the

Andrews MU/Steens Mountain CMPA

RMP/EIS. At that time, parties can designate

their level of interest in the remaining process

by returning the flyer to the BLM.

• Issuance of the Draft Resource Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Public Notice of the availability of the Draft

RMP/EIS, Federal Register Notices regarding

the availability of the Draft RMP/EIS and

dates for the 90-day period for public

comments will be published in local/regional

papers advertising the availability of the Draft

RMP/EIS. The schedule of the public

meetings to be held during the comment

period will be published at this time.

Public meetings will be held locally during the

90-day public comment period to gather

written input on the Draft RMP/EIS.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

8-2

• Issuance of Proposed Final Resource

Management Plan/Environmental Impact

Statement

The Final RMP/EIS will be sent to those who

commented on the Draft RMP/EIS and/or

requested a copy. The availability of the Plan

will be advertised in regional newspapers,

Federal Register, and other media. A notice of

a 30-day protest period will be published in all

appropriate media. 

The Governor’s consistency review (60 days)

will run concurrently with the 30-day protest

period.

• Response to Protests

Written responses will be sent to the public as

needed.

Federal Register Notice requesting comments

on significant changes made as result of a

protest will be published if significant changes

are warranted.

• Issuance of Approved Plan/Record of

Decision

The public will be notified via news articles,

e-mail, website, and transmittal letters of the

availability of the approved Plan and Records

of Decisions.

8.3 Stakeholders List

Major groups of stakeholders have been identified and

are listed below. Additional stakeholders will be

identified throughout the process. A mailing list

identifying key people in these organizations, agencies,

and interest groups, as well as individuals will be

compiled and maintained throughout the planning

process.

Interested public

Special Interest Groups

National, state, and local agencies

Adjacent private landowners

Grazing permittees

Lien holders

Interested businesses and consultants

American Indian Tribal Governments

Search/Rescue groups

Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council

Steens Mountain Advisory Council

Media 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

8-3

Table 8.1: Anticipated Timelines for the Andrews Management Unit/Steens Mountain CMPA Resource

Management Plan

PLANNING PHASE PURPOSE METHOD/ACTIVITY DATES

ISSUE, PLANNING

CRITERIA

IDENTIFICATION

Announce upcoming

scoping meetings. Request

written comments on

issues/scope of RMP/EIS,

AMS, subbasin review. 

Notice of Intent in Federal Register

30-Day Comment Period

2/02

Develop mailing list. Newsletter to names on RMP/EIS

mailing list

2/02

Press release to media

Explain planning process to

public. Solicit issues and

concern. Identify scope of

RMP/EIS.

Explain planning process

and consistency

requirements to local and

state government officials.

Identify agency issues and

concerns.

Public Meetings in Burns, Frenchglen,

Bend and Portland.

Meet with interested groups and

organizations

Meet with local governments and

other agencies

2/02

Review input from groups

showing interest in

RMP/EIS.

Public comment period 3/02

Respond back to the public

on issues to be addressed

initially. Collect additional 

data where needed.

News article

ALTERNATIVE

FORMULATION

Describe alternatives that

have been developed. Make

sure issues are addressed.

Assure focus of plan. 

Request comments on

alternatives.

Newsletter to public, Plan mailing list

30-day comment period

6/02

Obtain comments on

content.

Written responses comment period
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

PLANNING PHASE PURPOSE METHOD/ACTIVITY DATES

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

8-4

Inform local, state, and

federal agencies, interest

groups’ key people of

alternatives.

Meetings and letters 6/02

DRAFT ARA/STEENS

MTN CMPA RM P/EIS

Request comment on draft

RMP/EIS. Announce

upcoming public meetings.

Draft RMP/EIS mailed, 90-day

comment period

Press release to local and Portland

media

Notice of Availability in Federal

Register

5/03

Describe components of the

Draft RMP/EIS and solicit

comments on it.

Public Meetings in Burns, Frenchglen,

Bend and Portland.

8/03

Inform key individuals,

agencies, government.

Meetings with groups, key people,

government

Obtain comments on Draft

RMP/EIS.

Written responses, 90-day comment

period

8/03

PROPOSED

ARA/STEENS MTN

CM PA RMP/FINAL EIS

Give public opportunity to

review proposed decisions

and protest decisions if

adversely affected.

Publish Proposed RMP/FEIS to public

and mail list

Federal Register Notice requesting

comments

Begin 60-day Governor consistency

review, include notice explaining

protest period (30 days)

12/03

12/03

12/03

Opportunity to comment on

any significant changes

made as result of a protest.

3/04

News release

APPROVED PLAN/ROD Notify public of final

decisions.

News Article, Newsletter, transmittal

letters

5/04

Distribute RMP. Mail approved RMP to RMP/EIS

mailing list

IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE

Document and establish

RMP implementation,

modification, and

monitoring

9/04

Note: Dates listed are completion dates unless so stated.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

9-1

9 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Act Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 

AML Appropriate Management Level 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AMR Appropriate Management Response

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

APHIS Agricultural Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service 

AUM Animal Unit Month

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMPA Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area

DO District Office 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EFRU Exclusive Farm and Range Use 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

ESI Ecological Site Inventory

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area 

FAR Functioning at Risk

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 

GIS Geographic Information System

HA Herd Area

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

ID Interdisciplinary 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

KGRA Known Geothermic Resource Area 

kV kilovolt

MFP Management Framework Plan

MFP Management Framework Plan 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MU Management Unit

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NSO No Surface Occupancy

OAIN Oregon Agricultural Information Network 

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

ODSL Oregon Division of State Lands 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

9-2

ONA Outstanding Natural Area 

ORS Oregon Revised Statute 

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Value

PM10 Particulate matter less than ten micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

PFC Proper Functioning Condition 

PP&L Pacific Power and Light 

PRIA Public Rangelands Improvement Act 

PVG Potential Vegetation Groups

RA Resource Area

RAC Resource Advisory Council

RAP Resource Area Profile

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROWs Rights-of-Way 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purpose

RSC Rural Service Center 

RTR Redband Trout Reserve

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

SEORMP Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan 

SMA Special Management Area 

SMAC Steens Mountain Advisory Council

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC U.S. Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAFWA Western States Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WJMA Wildlands Juniper Management Area
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-1

10 GLOSSARY

Adaptive Management – A type of natural resource

management in which decisions are made as part of an

ongoing process. Adaptive management involves

testing, monitoring, evaluation, and incorporating new

knowledge into management approaches based on

scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are

used to modify management policy.

Allotment – A specific portion of public land allocated

for livestock grazing, typically with identifiable or

fenced boundaries and permitted for a specified number

of livestock.

Allotment (grazing) – Area designated for the use of

a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed

period of time.

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) – A plan for

managing livestock grazing on specified public land.

Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS)-- Step

4 of the BLM’s land use planning project. It is a

comprehensive documentation of the present conditions

of the resources, current management guidance, and

opportunities for change.

Andesite – A fine-grained igneous rock of intermediate

composition composed of about equal amounts of iron

and magnesium minerals and plagioclase feldspars.

Animal unit – One cow, one cow/calf pair, one horse,

or five sheep.

Animal Unit Month (AUM) – The forage needed to

support one cow, one cow/calf pair, one horse, or five

sheep for one month. Approximately 800 pounds of

forage.

Appropriate Management Level (AML) – An

established population range that represents the number

of animals that the designated HMA can sustain and

that results in a thriving natural ecological balance with

other uses and resources common to the area and avoids

deterioration of the public range.

Aquifer – Rock or rock formations (often sand, gravel,

sandstone, or limestone) that contain or carry

groundwater and act as water reservoirs.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) –

Area where special management attention is required to

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife

resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to

protect humans from natural hazards.

Avoidance Areas – Areas with sensitive resource

values where rights-of-way and Land Use

Authorizations would be strongly discouraged.

Authorizations made in avoidance areas would have to

be compatible with the purpose for which the area was

designated and not be otherwise feasible outside the

avoidance area.

Basalt – A dark, heavy, fine-grained silica-poor

igneous rock composed largely of iron and magnesium

minerals and calcium-rich plagioclase feldspars.

Basin (river) – In general, the area of land that drains

water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common

point along a stream channel. River basins are

composed of large river systems. In this EIS, the term

refers to the equivalent of a third field hydrologic unit

code, an area of about nine million acres, such as the

Salmon River basin. It also is used to refer in general to

the Interior Columbia River Basin.

Best Management Practices (BM Ps) – A set of

practices which, when applied during implementation of

management actions, ensures that negative impacts to

natural resources are minimized. BMPs are applied

based on site-specific evaluation and represent the most

effective and practical means to achieve management

goals for a given site.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM ) – Government

agency with the mandate to manage federal lands under

its jurisdiction for multiple uses.

BLM assessment species – Plant and animal species on

List 2 of the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base, or

those species on the Oregon List of Sensitive Wildlife

Species (OAR 635-100-040) that are identified in BLM

Instruction Memo OR-91-57 and are not included as

federal candidate, state listed, or BLM sensitive

species.

BLM sensitive species – Plant or animal species

eligible for federal listed, federal candidate, state listed,

or state candidate (plant) status, or on List 1 in the

Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base, or approved for

this category by the BLM State Director.

BLM tracking species – Plant and animal species on

List 3 and 4 of the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base,

or those species on the Oregon List of Sensitive

Wildlife Species (OAR 635-100-040) that are identified
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-2

in BLM Instruction Memo OR-91-57 and are not

included as federal candidate, state Listed, BLM

sensitive, or BLM assessment species.

Borax –An evaporite mineral (Na2B4O7 10H2O). It is

the major source of boron and is generally found in

alkali lake deposits. It has a variety of uses (e.g., glass

and ceramics manufacturing, agricultural chemicals,

chemical fluxes, fire retardant and preservative).

Broad Scale – A large regional area such as a river

basin and typically a multi-state area.

Candidate Species – Any species included in the

Federal Register Notice of Review that are being

considered for listing as threatened or endangered by

the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Canopy – In a forest, the branches from the uppermost

layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical projection

downward of the aerial portion of vegetation.

Chalcedony – A cryptocrystalline variety of quartz

(SiO2) consisting of microscopic fibers. It exhibits a

myriad of colors and patterns and is used primarily as

an ornamental or gemstone. Agate, jasper and thunder

eggs are varieties.

Chert – A hard, very dense, fine grained sedimentary

rock composed largely of microscopic quartz (SiO2)

crystals. Chert is synonymous with flint.

Classification – A process required by law for

determining the suitability of public lands for certain

types of disposal or lease under the public land laws or

for retention in public ownership.

Clay – As a soil separate, the mineral soil particles less

than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. As a soil textural

class, soil material that is 40 percent or more clay, less

than 45 percent sand, and less than 40 percent silt.

Clay – (geology) A rock or mineral fragment of any

composition finer than 0.00016 inches in diameter.

(mineral) A hydrous aluminum-silicate that occurs as

microscopic plates, and commonly has the ability to

absorb substantial quantities of water on the surface of

the plates.

Climax vegetation – The stabilized plant community

on a particular site. The plant cover reproduces itself

and does not change as long as the environment remains

the same.

Colluvium – Soil material, rock fragments, or both,

moved by creep, slide, or local wash and deposited at

the base of steep slopes.

Commodities – Goods and services produced by

industries.

Community – A group of species of plants and/or

animals living and interacting at a particular time and

place; a group of people residing in the same place and

under the same government.

Consultation – (1) An active, affirmative process that

(a) identifies issues and seeks input from appropriate

American Indian governments, community groups, and

individuals; and (b) considers their interests as a

necessary and integral part of the BLM ’s and Forest

Service’s decision-making process. (2) The Federal

Government has a legal obligation to consult with

American Indian Tribes. This legal obligation is based

in such laws as NAGPRA, AIRFA, and numerous other

Executive Orders and statutes. This legal responsibility

is, through consultation, to consider Indian interests and

account for those interests in the decision. (3) The term

also refers to a requirement under Section 7 of the ESA

for Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries

Service with regard to federal actions that may affect

listed threatened and endangered species or critical

habitat.

Corridor (landscape) – Landscape elements that

connect similar patches of habitat through an area with

different characteristics. For example, streamside

vegetation may create a corridor of willows and

hardwoods between meadows or through a forest.

Custodial management – Management of a group of

similar allotments with minimal expenditure of

appropriated funds to continue protecting existing

resource values.

Deep soil – A soil that is 40 to 60 inches deep over

bedrock or to other material that restricts the

penetration of plant roots.

Developed recreation – Recreation that requires

facilities which in turn result in concentrated use of an

area; for example, a campground.

Diatomite – A soft, crumbly, lightweight, highly porous

sedimentary rock consisting mainly of microscopic

siliceous skeletons of diatoms (single-celled aquatic

plants related to algae). It is used for filter aids, paint

filler, abrasives, anti-caking agents, insecticide carriers,

and insulation.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-3

Dispersed recreation – Recreation that does not occur

in a developed recreation life; for example, hunting or

backpacking.

Disposal – Any BLM authority which transfers title out

of public ownership.

Disturbance – Refers to events that alter the structure,

composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic

habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others,

drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife grazing, insects,

and pathogens. Human-caused disturbances include

actions such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads,

and the introduction of exotic species.

Drainage, surface – Runoff, or surface flow of water,

from an area.

Duff – A generally firm organic layer on the surface of

mineral soils consisting of fallen decaying plant

material including everything from the litter on the

surface to underlying pure humus.

Earnings – Wages and salaries, other labor income,

and proprietor’s income (including inventory valuation

and capital consumption adjustments).

Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) – The basic inventory

of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands.

Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of the

kind, proportion, or amount of plant species.

Ecological status – The present state of vegetation of

a range site in relation to the potential natural

community for that site. Four classes are used to

express the degree to which the production or

composition of the present plant community reflects

that of the potential natural community (climax):

Ecological Status

(Seral stage)

Percent of

Community in

Climax Condition

Potential natural

community

76-100

Late seral 51-75

Mid-seral 26-50

Early seral 0-25

Ecosystem – A complete, interacting system of living

organisms and the land and water that make up their

environment; the home places of all living things,

including humans.

Ecosystem Management – The use of a “wholelandscape” approach to achieve multiple-use

management of public lands by blending the needs of

people and environmental values in such a way that

these lands represent diverse, healthy, productive, and

sustainable ecosystems.

Endangered Species – Any species defined under the

ESA as being in danger of extinction throughout all or

a significant portion of its range. Listings are published

in the Federal Register.

Environmental Assessment (EA) – One type of

document prepared by federal agencies in compliance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

which portrays the environmental consequences of

proposed federal actions which are not expected to have

significant impacts on the human environment.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – One type

of document prepared by federal agencies in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) which p ortrays the env ironmenta l

consequences of proposed major federal actions

expected to have significant impacts on the human

environment.

Ephemeral stream – A stream, or reach of a stream,

that flows only in direct response to precipitation. It

receives no continuous supply from melting snow or

other source, and its channel is above the water table at

all times.

Erosion – The wearing away of the land surface by

water, wind, ice, or other geologic agents and by such

processes as gravitational creep.

Erosion (accelerated) – Erosion much more rapid than

geologic erosion, mainly as a result of human or animal

activities or of a catastrophe in nature, e.g., fire that

exposes the surface.

Erosion (geologic) – Erosion caused by geologic

processes acting over long geologic periods and

resulting in the wearing away of mountains and the

buildup of such landscape features as flood plains and

coastal plains. Erosion is synonymous with natural

erosion.

Exclusion Areas – Areas with sensitive resource values

where rights-of-way and land use authorizations would

not be authorized.

Existing Management Situation (EMS) – Existing

Management Situation; a component of the Analysis of

the Management Situation; a description of the existing
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-4

management direction government resource

management programs of a Planning Area.

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) –

Area where recreation is unstructured and dispersed

with minimal regulatory constraints and where minimal

recreation-related investments are required.

Fauna – The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an

area or region.

Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

(FLPMA) – Law mandating that the BLM manage

lands under its jurisdiction for multiple uses.

Establishes guidelines for its administration; and

provides for the management, protection, development,

and enhancement of the public lands, among other

provisions.

Feldspar – The most abundant minerals of the earth’s

crust. The two groups are Alkali and Plagioclase.

Fine Scale – A single landscape, such as a watershed or

subwatershed.

Fine textured soil – Sandy clay, silty clay, or clay.

Fire effects – The physical, biological, and ecological

impact of fire on the environment.

Fire intensity – The product of the available heat of

combustion per unit area of ground and the rate of

spread of the fire.

Fire Management Plan (FMP) – A strategic plan that

defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed

fires and documents the Fire Management Program in

the approved land use plan. The plan is supplemented

by operational procedures such as preparedness plans,

preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans and

prevention plans.

Fire regime – The characteristics of fire in a given

ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability,

intensity, and seasonality of fire.

Fire return interval – The number of years between

two successive fires documented in a designated area

(i.e., the interval between two successive fire

occurrences).

Fire suppression – All the work activities connected

with fire-extinguishing operations, beginning with the

discovery and continuing until the fire is completely

extinguished.

Flood plain – A nearly level alluvial plain that borders

a stream and is subject to inundation under flood-stage

conditions unless protected artificially. It is usually a

constructional landform build of sediment deposited

during overflow and lateral migration of the stream.

Forage – Vegetation (both woody and non-woody)

eaten by animals, especially grazing and browsing

animals.

Forb – Any herbaceous plant not a grass or a grasslike

species. Broad-leafed plants; includes plants that

commonly are called weeds or wildflowers.

Fuel (fire) – Dry, dead parts of trees, shrubs, and other

vegetation that can burn readily.

Fuels – Includes living and dead plant materials which

are capable of burning.

Fuel type – An identification association of fuel

elements of distinctive species, form, size, arrangement

or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate

of spread or resistance to control under specific weather

conditions.

Functional at Risk (FAR) - Riparian/Wetland areas

that are in functional condition but an existing soil,

water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to

degradation.

Geographic Information System (GIS) – An

information processing technology to input, store,

manipulate, analyze, and display data; a system of

computer maps with corresponding site-specific

information that can be combined electronically to

provide reports and maps.

Graben – A fault-bounded down-dropped portion of

the earth’s crust.

Gravel – Rounded or angular fragments of rock as

much as three inches (two millimeters to 7.6

centimeters) in diameter. An individual piece is a

pebble.

Gravel – (Geology) Unconsolidated, rounded rock

fragments greater than 0.08 inches in diameter. Sizes

range from pebbles (.008-2.5 inches) to cobbles (2.5-10

inches) to boulders (greater than ten inches).

Ground water – Water that sinks into the soil and is

stored in slowly flowing and slowly renewed

underground reservoirs called aquifers.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-5

Gully – A miniature valley with steep sides cut by

running water and through which water ordinarily runs

only after rainfall. A gully generally is an obstacle to

farm machinery and is too deep to be obliterated by

ordinary tillage; a rill is of lesser depth and can be

smoothed over by ordinary tillage.

Habitat – A place that provides seasonal or year-round

food, water, shelter, and other environmental conditions

for an organism, community, or population of plants or

animals.

Herd – One or more wild horse bands using the same

general area.

Herd Area (HA) – A geographic area identified as

having provided habitat for a wild horse herd in 1971.

Herd Management Area (HMA) – A geographic area

identified in a Management Framework Plan or

Resource Management Plan for the long-term

management of a wild horse herd.

Herd Management Area Plan – A plan that prescribes

measures for the protection, management, and control

of wild horses and their habitat on one or more HMAs,

in conformance with decisions made in approved

Management Framework or Resource Management

Plans.

Horizon, soil – A layer of soil, approximately parallel

to the surface, having distinct characteristics produced

by soil-forming processes.

Horst – A fault-bounded uplifted portion of the earth’s

crust.

Hydrologic – Refers to the properties, distribution, and

effects of water. “Hydrology” refers to the broad

science of the waters of the earth; their occurrence,

circulation, distribution, chemical and physical

properties, and their reaction with the environment.

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – A coding system

developed by the U.S. Geological Service to map

geographic boundaries of watersheds of various sizes.

Hydrothermal deposit – A mineral deposit formed by

hot mineral-laden fluids.

Igneous rock – Rock that solidified from a molten or

semi-molten state. The major varieties include intrusive

(solidified beneath the surface of the earth) and

volcanic (solidified on or very near the surface of the

earth).

Incident commander – Individual responsible for the

management of all incident (fire) operations.

Interdisciplinary (ID) – Involving more than one

discipline or resource management program. Promotes

resource management at a plant community, landscape,

or ecosystem level.

Interim Management Policy (IMP) – Policy for

managing public lands under wilderness review. Section

603(c) of FLPMA states: “During the period of review

of such areas and until Congress has determined

otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such

lands according to his authority under this Act and other

applicable law in a manner so as not to impair the

suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness,

subject, however, to the continuation of existing mining

and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and

degree in which the same was being conducted on the

date of approval of this Act: Provided, that, in

managing the public lands the Secretary shall by

regulation or otherwise take any action required to

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands

and their resources or to afford environmental

protection.”

Intermittent stream – A stream, or reach of a stream,

that flows for prolonged periods only when it receives

groundwater discharge or long, continued contributions

from melting snow or other surface and shallow

subsurface sources.

Interior Columbia Rive r Ba sin Ecosystem

Management Project (ICBEMP) – An on-going

project examining the effects (on a large, regional scale)

of past and present land use activities on the Interior

Columbia River Basin ecosystem and a small part of the

Great Basin ecosystem.

Interior drainage – Streams with no outlet to the sea.

Issue – An opportunity, conflict, or problem about use

or management of public land resources. The resolution

of issues is the basis for preparing the resource

management plan.

A matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern

over resource management activities or land uses. To be

considered a “significant” EIS issue, it must be well

defined, relevant to the proposed action, and within the

ability of the agency to address through alternative

management strategies.

Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA) – “An

area in which the geology, nearby discoveries,

competitive interest, or other indicia would, in the
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-6

opinion of the Secretary, engender the belief in men

who are experienced in the subject matter that the

prospect for extraction of geothermal stream or

associated geothermal resources are good enough to

warrant expenditures or money for that purpose” (43

CFR 3200.0-5(k)).

Land Use Authorizations – Those realty related

authorizations such as leases, permits and easements

authorized under 43CFR2920 and the R&PP Act. Land

use authorizations also include any other authorizations

with the exception of rights-of-way (43CFR2800) and

Special Recreation Permits (proposed in 43CFR2930)

generally contained in 43CFR2000 series of

regulations.

Leasable Minerals – Minerals that may be leased to

private interests by the federal government including

oil, gas, geothermal, coal, and sodium compounds.

Limestone – A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of

calcium carbonate.

Loam – Soil material that is seven to 27 percent clay

particles, 28 to 50 percent silt particles, and less than 52

percent sand particles.

Locatable Minerals – Minerals subject to exploration,

development, and disposal by staking mining claims as

authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended.

This includes deposits of gold, silver, and other

uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.

Management Concern – Procedures or land-use

allocations that do not constitute issues but which are

recognized, through the RMP/EIS preparation process,

as needing modification or decision regarding

management direction.

Management Direction – A statement of goals and

objectives, management prescriptions, and associated

standards and guidelines for attaining them.

M anagement Framework Plan (MFP) – BLM land

use plan, predecessor to the RMP. Older generation of

land use plans developed by the BLM. This generation

of planning has been replaced by the Resource

Management Plan (RMP).

Management Opportunities – A component of the

analysis of the management situation; actions or

management directions that could be taken to resolve

issues or management concerns.

Map unit – The basic system of description in a soil

survey and delineation on a soil map. Can vary in level

of detail.

Mechanical treatment – Use of mechanical equipment

for seeding, brush management, and other management

practices.

M edium textured soil - Very fine sandy loam, loam,

silt loam, or silt.

Microbiotic Crust - Lichens, mosses, green algae,

fungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria growing on or just

below the surface of soils.

Migration corridor – The habitat pathway an animal

uses to move from one place to another.

Mineral Estate – Refers to the ownership of minerals

at or beneath the surface of the land.

Mitigation – Measures designed to counteract

environmental impacts or to make impacts less severe.

Monitoring – The periodic and systematic collection of

resource data to measure progress toward achieving

objectives.

Monitoring and Evaluation – The collection and

analysis of data to evaluate the progress and

effectiveness of on-the-ground actions in meeting

resource management goals and objectives.

Multiple Use – Management of public land and its

resources to best meet various present and future needs

of the American people. This means coordinated

management of resources and uses to assure the longterm health of the ecosystem.

Multiplier - A change in an economic measure

resulting from a specified change in some other

economic measure.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

– Law requiring all federal agencies to evaluate the

impacts of proposed major federal actions with respect

to their significance on the human environment.

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) – An area

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for

the purpose of managing certain fish or wildlife species.

Naturalness (a primary wilderness value) – An area

that generally appears to have been affected primarily

by the forces of nature with the imprint of people’s

work substantially unnoticeable.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-7

Noxious Weed – A plant specified by law as being

especially undesirable, troublesome, and difficult to

control. A plant species designated by federal or state

law as generally possessing one or more of the

following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to

manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or

disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the

United States. According to the Federal Noxious Weed

Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes

disease or has other adverse effects on man or his

environment and therefore is detrimental to the

agriculture and commerce of the United States and to

the public health.

Nutrient, plant – Any element taken in by a plant that

is essential to its growth. Plant nutrients are mainly

nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, magnesium,

sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, boron, and zinc

obtained from the soil, and carbon, hydrogen, and

oxygen obtained from the air and water.

Objectives (management) – In this EIS, refers to

indicators used to measure progress toward attainment

of goals. They address short- and long-term actions

taken to meet goals and the desired ranges of future

conditions.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) – A vehicle that can be

operated off of improved and regularly maintained

roads with hardened or gravel surfaces.

Organic matter – Plant and animal residue in the soil

in various stages of decomposition.

Overstory - The trees in a forest that form the upper

crown cover.

Perennial – A plant that lives for three or more years.

Perennial stream – A stream in which water is present

during all seasons of the year.

Permeability – The quality of the soil that enables

water to move downward through the profile, measured

as the number of inches per hour that water moves

downward through the saturated soil.

Personal income – Employee compensation plus

property income.

pH value – A numerical designation of acidity and

alkalinity in soil. (See Reaction, soil)

Playa Lake – A shallow lake that is seasonally dry.

Soils on the lake bottom are usually quite alkaline.

Pluton – An igneous rock that crystallized deep

underground.

Pluvial – Referring to a period of greater rainfall.

Pluvial Lake – A lake formed during a period of

exceptionally high rainfall (e.g., a time of glacial

advance during the Pleistocene epoch) and now either

extinct or existing as a remnant, such as Lake

Bonneville.

Point source pollution – Pollution that comes from a

single identifiable source such as a smokestack, a

sewer, or a pipe.

Porphyry deposit – A large, low-grade metallic

mineral deposit containing disseminated sulfide

minerals (e.g., copper, gold, molybdenum, or tin).

Preferred Alternative or Plan – The alternative plan,

in the Draft EIS, which the agency has initially selected

that best fulfills the agency’s statutory mission and

responsibilities and offers the most acceptable

resolution of the planning issues and management

concerns.

Prescribed burning – Controlled application of fire to

wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state,

under specified environmental conditions which allow

the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and at

the same time to produce the fire line intensity and rate

of spread required to attain planned resource

management objectives.

Prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management

actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved

prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements

must be met prior to ignition.The introduction of fire to

an area under regulated conditions for specific

management purp oses (u sually v egetatio n

manipulation).

Prescription – Written statement defining objectives to

be attained, as well measurable criteria, which guide the

selection of appropriate management actions.

Prescription criteria may include safety, economic,

pub lic healt h, environmental, ge ogra phic ,

administrative, social or legal considerations under

which the fire will be allowed to burn.

Primary wilderness values – The primary or key

wilderness values described in the Wilderness Act by

which WSAs and wildernesses are managed to protect

and enhance the wilderness resource. Values include

roadlessness, naturalness, solitude, primitive and

unconfined recreation, and size.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-8

Primitive and unconfined recreation (a primary

wilderness value) – non-motorized and undeveloped

types of outdoor recreation activities. Refers to

wilderness recreation opportunities such as nature

study, hiking, photography, backpacking, fishing,

hunting, and other related activities. Does not include

the use of motorized vehicles, bicycles, or other

mechanized means of travel.

Productivity – (1) Soil productivity: the capacity of a

soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s chemical,

physical, and biological properties (such as depth,

temperature, water-holding capacity, and mineral,

nutrient, and organic matter content). (2) Vegetative

productivity: the rate of production of vegetation within

a given period. (3) General: the innate capacity of an

environment to support plant and animal life over time.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) – Riparianwetland areas achieve Proper Functioning Condition

when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody

debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated

with high water flows. This thereby reduces erosion and

improves water quality; filters sediment, captures

bedload, and aids floodplain development; improves

floodwater retention and groundwater recharge;

develops root masses that stabilize streambanks again

cutting action; develops diverse ponding and channel

characteristics to provide habitat and water depth,

duration, and temperature necessary for fish production,

waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and supports

greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of

riparian-wetland areas is a result of the interaction

among geology, soil, water, and vegetation.

Proposed action – A proposal by a federal agency to

authorize, recommend, or implement an action.

Public land – Any land or interest in land owned by the

United States and administered by the Secretary of the

Interior through the BLM. 

Pumice – A glassy, rhyolitic rock exhibiting a

vesicular, or frothy texture. It is generally used as a

light weight aggregate and an abrasive.

Rangeland – Land on which the potential natural

vegetation is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants,

forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing. It

includes natural grasslands, savannas, many wetlands,

some deserts, tundras, and areas that support certain

forb and shrub communities.

Range site – An area of rangeland where climate, soil,

and relief are sufficiently uniform to produce a distinct

natural plant community. A range site is the product of

all the environmental factors responsible for its

development. It is typified by an association of species

that differ from those on other range sites in kind or

proportion of species or total production.

Reaction, soil – A measure of acidity or alkalinity of a

soil, expressed in pH values. Soils with pH values less

than 7 are acidic and those with pH greater than 7 are

alkaline.

Record of Decision (ROD) – An official document in

which a deciding official states the alternative that will

be implemented from a prepared Final EIS.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A means

of characterizing recreation opportunities in terms of

setting, activity, and experience opportunities. A

framework for stratifying and defining classes of

outdoor recreation environment, activities, and

experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and

opportunities for obtaining experiences have been

arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into

seven classes: Primitive, Semiprimitive, Nonmotorized,

Semiprimitive Motorized, Roaded Modified, Roaded

Natural, Rural, Urban.

Recreation site – An area where management actions

are required to provide a specific recreation setting and

activity opportunities, to protect resource values,

provide public visitor safety and health, and/or to meet

public recreational use demands and recreation

partnership commitments. A site may or may not have

permanent facilities.

Recreational river – A river or section of a river that

is readily accessible by road or railroad. It may have

had some development along the shorelines and may

have undergone some impoundments or diversions in

the past.

Regeneration – The new growth of a natural plant

community, developing from seed.

Rehabilitation – The activities necessary to repair

damage or disturbance caused by wildland fire or the

first suppression activity.

Research Natural Area (RNA) – An area where

natural processes predominate and which is preserved

for research and education. Under current BLM policy,

these areas must meet the relevance and importance

criteria of ACECs and are designated as ACECs. An

area of significant scientific interest that is designated

to protect its resource values for scientific research and

study.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-9

Resource advisor – Resource specialist responsible to

the incident commander for gathering and analyzing

information concerning values-at-risk that may be

impacted by the fire or fire suppression activities.

Resource Area – The “on-the-ground” management

unit of the BLM comprised of BLM administered land

within a specific geographic area.

Resource Area Profile (RAP) – A component of the

analysis of the management situations; a description of

the current condition, amount, location, use and

demands of the natural resources in a Planning Area.

Resource Management Plan (RMP) – Current

generation of land use plans developed by the BLM

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Replaces the older generation Management Framework

Plans. Provides long-term (up to 20 years) direction for

the management of a particular area of land and its

resources, usually corresponding to a BLM resource

area.

Revegetation – Establishing or re-establishing

desirable plants on areas where desirable plants are

absent or of inadequate density, by management alone

(natural revegetation) or by seeding or transplanting

(artificial revegetation).

Rhyolite – A fine-grained light-colored silica-rich

igneous rock composed largely of potash feldspars and

quartz.

Right-of-way – A permit or an easement which

authorizes the use of public land for certain specified

purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone

lines, electric lines, reservoirs, etc; also, the reference

to the land covered by such an easement or permit.

Right-of-way corridor – A parcel of land that has been

identified by law, Secretarial Order, through a land use

plan, or by other management decision as being the

preferred location for existing and future right-of-way

grants and suitable to accommodate one type of rightof-way or one or more rights-of-way which are similar,

identical or compatible.

Rill – A steep-sided channel resulting from accelerated

erosion. A rill is generally a few inches deep and not

wide enough to be an obstacle to farm machinery.

Riparian area – Area with distinctive soil and

vegetation between a stream or other body of water and

the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those

portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support

riparian vegetation.

Risk assessment – Assessing the chance of fire starting,

natural or human-caused, and its potential risk to life,

resources and property.

Rock fragments – Rock or mineral fragments having

a diameter of two millimeters or more, e.g., pebbles,

cobbles, stones, and boulders.

Runoff – The precipitation discharged into stream

channels from an area. The water that flows off the

surface of the land without sinking into the soil is called

surface runoff. Water that enters the soil before

reaching surface streams is called ground water runoff

or seepage flow from ground water.

Saleable Minerals – High volume, low value mineral

resources including common varieties of rock, clay,

decorative stone, sand, gravel, and cinder.

Sand – (geology) A rock fragment or detrital particle

between 0.0025 and 0.08 inches in diameter.

Scenic river – A river or section of a river that is free

of impoundments and whose shorelines are largely

undeveloped but accessible in places by roads.

Scoping – The process of identifying the range of

con sideration, issues, management concerns,

preliminary alternatives, and other components of an

environmental impact statement or land-use planning

document. It involves both internal and external, or

public, involvement.

Section 202 lands – Lands being considered for

wilderness designation under Section 202 of the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Sediment – Soil, rock particles and organic or other

debris carried from one place to another by wind, water

or gravity.

Sensitive species – Species identified by a Forest

Service regional forester or BLM state director for

which population viability is a concern either (a)

because of significant current or predicted downward

trends in population numbers or density, or (b) because

of significant current or predicted downward trends in

habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing

distribution.

Seral – Refers to the sequence of transitional plant

communities during succession. Early-seral refers to

plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the

beginning of a new successional process (such as

seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral

in a forest would refer to pole or medium sawtimber
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-10

growth stages; late- or old-seral refers to plants present

during a later stage of plant community succession

(such as mature and old forest stages).

Seral stage –The developmental phase of a forest stand

or rangeland with characteristic structure and plant

species composition. The rated departure of a plant

community from a described potential natural

community (PNC) for a specific ecological site. Lowseral stage is an existing plant community which is

defined as 0-25 percent comparability to the defined

PNC; Mid-seral stage is an existing plant community

which has 26-50 percent comparability to the PNC;

Late seral stage is 51-75 percent comparable to the

PNC; PNC is an existing plant community with 76-100

percent comparability to the defined PNC.

Series, soil – A nationally defined soil type set apart on

distinct soil properties that affect use and management.

In a soil survey, this includes a group of soils having

profiles that are almost alike, except for differences in

texture of the surface layer or of the unde rlying

material. All the soils of a series have horizons that are

similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Shallow soil – A soil that is ten to 20 inches deep over

bedrock or to other material that restricts the

penetration of plant roots.

Slope – The inclination of the land surface from the

horizontal. Percentage of slope is the vertical distance

divided by horizontal distance, then multiplied by 100.

Thus, a slope of 20 percent is a drop of 20 feet in 100

feet of horizontal distance.

Soil – A natural, three-dimensional body at the earth’s

surface. It is capable of supporting plants and has

properties resulting from the integrated effect of climate

and living matter acting on earthy parent material, as

conditioned by relief over periods of time.

Soil association – A group of soils geographically

associated in a characteristic repeating pattern and

defined and delineated as a single soil map unit.

Soil classification – The systematic arrangement of

soils into groups or categories on the basis of their

characteristics.

Soil compaction – An increase in soil bulk density of

15 percent or more from the undisturbed level.

Soil complex – A map unit of two or more kinds of

soils in such an intricate pattern or so small in area that

it is not practical to map them separately at the selected

scale of mapping.

Soil productivity – The capacity of a soil to produce a

specified plant or sequence of plants under specific

management.

Soil profile – A vertical section of the soil extending

through all its horizons and into the parent material.

Soil survey – A field investigation resulting in a soil

map showing the geographic distribution of various

kinds of soil and an accompanying report that describes

the soil types and interprets the findings.

Soil texture – The relative proportions of sand, silt, and

clay particles in a mass of soil.

Solitude (a primary wilderness value) – The state of

being alone or remote from habitations; a lonely,

unfrequented, or secluded place. The intent is to

evaluate the opportunity for solitude in comparison to

habitations of people.

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) – An

area where recreation is the principal management

objective, where intensive recreation management is

needed, and where more than minimal recreationrelated investments are required.

Special Status species – Plant or animal species known

or suspected to be limited in distribution, rare or

uncommon within a specific area, and/or vulnerable to

activities which may affect their survival. Lists of

Special Status species are prepared by knowledgeable

specialists through the State of Oregon; the BLM

prepares a list of state sensitive species predominantly

based on the list prepared biennially by the ONHP.

Stand – A community of trees occupying a specific

area and sufficiently uniform in species, age, spatial

arrangement and condition as to be distinguishable from

trees on surrounding lands.

State Implementation Plan (SIP) – A document

prepared by each state describing existing air quality

conditions and measures that will be taken to attain and

maintain national ambient air quality standards.

State Listed Species – Any plant or animal species

listed by the State of Oregon as threatened or

endangered within the state under ORS 496.004, ORS

498.026, or ORS 564.040.

Step-down – The process of applying broad-scale

science findings and land use decisions to site-specific

areas using a hierarchical approach (subbasin review)

of understanding current resource conditions, risks, and

opportunities.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-11

Stream channel – The hollow bed where a natural

stream of surface water flows or may flow; the deepest

or central part of the bed, formed by the main current

and covered more or less continuously by water.

Structure, soil – The arrangement of primary soil

particles into compound particles or aggregates.

Subalpine – A terrestrial community that is generally

found in harsher environments than the montane

terrestrial community. Subalpine communities are

generally colder than montane and support a unique

clustering of wildlife species.

Subbasin review – An interagency collaborative

consideration of resources, resource management

issues, and management recommendations for one or

more subbasins or watershed drainages approximately

800,000 to 1,000,000 acres in size, equivalent to a 4th-

field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC).

Subwatershed – A drainage area of approximately

20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field Hydrologic Unit

Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field

HUC) are contained within a watershed (5th-field HUC),

which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field

HUC).

Succession – A predictable process of changes in

structure and composition of plant and animal

communities over time. Conditions of the prior plant

community or successional stage create conditions that

are favorable for the establishment of the next stage.

The different stages in succession are often referred to

as “seral stages.” (See Seral.)

Sustainability – (1) meeting the needs of the present

without compromising the abilities of future generations

to meet their needs; emphasizing and maintaining the

underlying ecological processes that ensure long-term

productivity of goods, services, and values without

impairing productivity of the land. (2) In commodity

production, refers to the yield of a natural resource that

can be produced continually at a given intensity of

management.

Sunstone – A calcium-rich variety of plagioclase

feldspar that exhibits a pink to red metallic shimmer

when viewed perpendicular to the surface. The shimmer

is caused by light reflecting off the surface of minute

parallel platelets of native copper suspended in the

stone.

Supplemental wilderness values – Includes ecological

(e.g., veg etation, wildlife, and overall

biological/botanical processes and values associated

with the natural environment), geological, scientific,

educational, scenic, and historic values. When present,

they can enhance primary wilderness values, but are not

mandated by Congress.

Sustained yield – Maintenance of an annual or regular

periodic output of a renewable resource from public

land consistent with the principles of multiple use.

Talc – A very soft light green mineral

(Mg3Si4O10(OH2)) found in basic igneous rocks and

metamorphosed dolomites (CaMg(CO3)2). It is used in

a wide variety of applications (e.g., filler, cosmetics,

lubricants, and as a source of ornamental stone).

Talus – Rock fragments of any size or shape,

commonly coarse and angular, derived from and lying

at the base of a cliff or very steep rock slope. The

accumulated mass of such loose, broken rock formed

chiefly by falling, rolling, or sliding.

Terrace (geologic) – An old alluvial plain, ordinarily

flat or undulating, bordering a river, a lake, or the sea.

Terrane – A suite of similar rocks transported by

crustal movements into a position where they are

separated from dissimilar rocks by faults.

Terrestrial communities – Groups of cover types with

similar moisture and temperature regimes, elevational

gradients, structures, and used by vertebrate wildlife

species.

Threatened Species – Any plant or animal species

defined under the ESA as likely to become endangered

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. Listings are published in

the Federal Register.

Thunderegg – An agate, opal, or chalcedony-filled

nodule deposit formed in rhyolitic lavas or tuffs.

Trend – The direction of change in ecological status

observed over time. Trend is described as toward or

away from the potential natural community, or as not

apparent.

Tuff – Volcanic ash or rock composed of compacted

ash.

Upland (geology) – Land at a higher elevation, in

general, than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land

above the lowlands along streams.

Utilization – The proportion or degree of the current

year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

10-12

by animals (including insects). Utilization may refer

either to a single plant species, a group of species, or to

the vegetation as a whole. Utilization is synonymous

with use.

Values-at-risk – Any or all natural resources,

improvements or other values which may be

jeopardized if a fire occurs (value-at-risk, risk of

resource values).

Visual Resource Management Classifications -

Class I-The objective of this classification is to preserve

the existing character of the landscape. This class

provides for natural ecological changes and limited

management activity. The level of change should be

very low and must not attract attention. Class I is

assigned to those areas where a management decision

has been made to preserve a natural landscape.

Class II-The objective of this classification is to retain

the existing character of the landscape. The level of

change to landscape characteristics should be low.

Management activities may be seen but should not

attract the attention of a casual observer. Any changes

must conform to the basic elements of form, line, color,

and texture found in the predominant natural features of

the characteristic landscape. This class represents the

minimum level of VRM for WSAs. 

Class III-The objective of Class III is to partially retain

the existing character of the landscape. Moderate levels

of change are acceptable. Management activities may

attract attention but should not dominate the view of a

casual observer. Changes should conform to the basic

elements of the predominant natural features of the

characteristic landscape. 

Class IV-The objective of Class IV is to provide for

management activities that require major modification

of the landscape. These management activities may

dominate the view and become the focus of viewer

attention; however, every effort should be made to

minimize the impact of these projects by carefully

locating activities, minimizing disturbance, and

designing the projects to conform to the characteristic

landscape. 

Wild River - A river or section of a river that is free of

impoundments and generally inaccessible except by

trail, with watersheds and shorelines essentially

primitive and waters unpolluted.

Withdrawal – Withholding an area of federal land

from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or

all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting

activities under those laws in order to maintain other

public values in the area or reserving the area for a

particular public purpose or program; or transferring

jurisdiction over an area of federal land, other than

“property” governed by the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act, as amended

(40U.S.C.472) from one department, bureau, or agency

to another department, bureau, or agency.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-1

11 REFERENCES

Adams, A.W. 1975. A Brief History of Juniper and

Shrub Populations in Southern Oregon.

Resources Divisio n, Or egon Wildlife

Commission Research Report NO. 6, Pittman

Robertson Project W-53-R.

Aikens, C. Melvin. 1993. Archaeology of Oregon, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Portland, Oregon.

Allendorf, F.W. 1975. Genetic Variability in a Species

Possessing Extensive Gen Duplication:

Genetic Interpretation of Duplicate Loci and

Examination of Genetic Variation in

Populations of Ra inbow Tr out.Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Washington,

Seattle, Washington. 

Allendorf, F. and F. Utter. 1979. Population Genetics.

Fish Physiology, Volume 8: 407-454.

Academic Press, New York, New York.

Allison, I. and C. Bond. 1983. Identity and Probably

Age of Salmonids from Surface Deposits at

Fossil Lake, Oregon. Copeia. 1983, 2: 563-

564. 

APHIS. 1994. Animal Damage Control. Final

Environmental Impact Statement. Three

Volumes. APHIS, USDA, Washington, D.C.

Ashley, G.A.; D. English; H.K. Cordell. 1993.

Economic Effects of the Steens Mountain

Recreation Lands on Local Economics

(Draft). Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness

Assessment Group, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, Georgia.

Bailey, R.M. and C.E. Bond. 1963. Four Species of

Freshwater Sculpins, Genus Cottus, From

Western North America. Occasional Paper of

the Museum of Zoology, University of

Michigan. 634:1-27.

Bates, R.L., J.A. Jackson. 1987. Glossary of Geology,

3

rd ed. American Geological Institute,

Alexandria, Virginia. 788 pp.

Beckman, S.D. 1995. National Register Nomination for

the Birch Creek Ranch Rural Historic

Landscape. Manuscript on file at the BLM

Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North

America. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 17. Bethesda, Maryland.

Benedict, E.M., approx. 1978. Self-guided tour of

Diamond Craters, Oregon’s Geologic Gem.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management brochure.

Berg, R.J. .1987. Genetic Characteristics of an

Enigma: What is a Redband Trout. Chapter 4

in Evolutionary Genetics of Rainbow of

Rainbow Trout. Ph.D. Thesis. University of

California, Davis, California.

Bills, F.T. 1977. Taxonomic Status of the Isolated

Populations of Tui Chub Referred to Gila

bicolor oregonensis. Master’s Thesis, Oregon

State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Bond, C.E. 1974. Fishes. Endangered Plants and

Animals of Oregon: 1. Special Report No.

205. Oregon State University Agricultural

Experiment Station. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Bottom, D.L.; Howell, P.J.; Rodgers, J.D. 1985. The

Effects of Stream Alterations on Salmon and

Trout Habitat in Oregon. Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 

Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977.

Guidelines for Maintenance of Sage Grouse

Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5:99-106.

Bright, Ruth McGilvra, 1979. Prehistory and History

of the Harney Area: A Cultural Resources

Overview. Manuscript on File at the Burns

BLM District Office, Hines, Oregon.

Bright, R.M. 1979. Harney Area Cultural Resources

Class I Inventory: a Cultural Resources

Overview. Manuscript on file at the BLM

Burns District Office, Hines, Oregon.

Brooks, Howard C., 1963. Quicksilver in Oregon:

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries Bulletin No. 55, 223 pages and

eight plates.

Buckhouse, J.C. and J.L. Mattison. 1980. Potential Soil

Erosion of Selected Habitat Types in the High

Desert Region of Central Oregon. Journal of

Range Management 33:282-285.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-2

Bunting, S.C., B.M. Kilgore, C.L. Bushey. 1987.

Guidelines for Pr escrib ed B urn ing

Sagebrush-Grass Rangelands in the Northern

Great Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service Intermountain Research Station

General Technical Report INT-231. Ogden,

Utah. 33 pp.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Undated.

Selected Noxious Weeds of Oregon. 

____. 1969. The National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended. 

____. 1976. The Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976, as amended.

October 2001.

____. 1977. Grazing Management for Riparianwetland Areas. TR 1737-14. Denver,

Colorado. 63 pp.

____. 1978. Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA).

____. 1980. Visual Resource Management Program.

GPO 0-302-993. Washington Office,

Washington, D.C.

____. 1981. Paleontological Sites on or near Bureau

of Land Management Administered Lands in

Oregon: a Preliminary Catalogue. Oregon

State Office, Portland, Oregon.

____. 1982a. Andrews Grazing Management Program

EIS. September 1982.

____. 1985. Steens Mountain Final Recreation Area

Management Plan. Burns District Office,

Burns, Oregon.

____. 1986. Andrews Rangeland Program Summary

(May 1984) and update allotment map

(December 1986, showing about 25

allotments).

____. 1986. Andrews Rangeland Program Summary

Update. Burns District Office, Burns, Oregon.

December 1986.

____. 1987. Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious

Weed Control Program Final Environmental

Impact Statement. Oregon State Office,

Portland, Oregon.

____. 1988a. 1613 - Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern. Resource Management Planning

Guidance. Washington Office, Washington,

D.C. 22 pp.

____. 1988b. The land Tenure Adjustment Plan

Amendment for the Andrews and Drewsey

MFPs.

____. 1988. National Environmental Policy Act.

Handbook H-1790-1. October 25, 1988.

____. 1989a. Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental

Impact Statement. December 1989.

____. 1989b. Environmental Impact Statement.

Volume III. Includes Appendices for all

WSAs beginning with OR-2 plus OR-3-114.

Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.

December 1989.

____. 1989c. Oregon Wilderness Environmental

Impact Statement. Volume I - Statewide.

Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.

December 1989.

____. 1991a.Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in

Thirteen Western States. Final Environmental

Impact Statement. BLM-WY-ES-91-022-

4320. Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

____. 1991b . Wilderness Study Report. Volume I.

Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.

October 1991.

____. 1992a. Three Rivers Resource Management

Plan, Record of Decision, and Rangeland

Program Summary. Burns District Office,

Hines, Oregon. September 1992.

____. 1992b. National Wild & Scenic River Donner

und Blitzen Management Plan Environmental

Assessment. Burns District Office, Hines,

Oregon. June 1992.

____. 1993a. Process for Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition. BLM Technical

Reference 1737-9. Washington Office,

Washington, D.C.

____. 1993b. Donner und Blitzen National Wild and

Sce nic R i v e r Mana geme nt Pla n

Environmental Assessment. Burns District

Office, Hines, Oregon. May 1993.

____. 1993c. Andrews Plan Amendment for Recreation

Access Surrounding the Steens Mountain
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-3

Loop Road. Burns District Office, Hines,

Oregon. June 1993.

____. 1994a. A partial Inventory of Meadows on

Public Land in the Pueblo Mountains

(Pueblo-Lone Mountain Allotment. Burns

BLM.

____. 1994b. The Riddle Brothers Ranch Histori

Cultural Management Plan, Environmental

Assessment. 

____. 1994c. Rangeland Reform ’94, Draft

Environmental Impact Statement Executive

Summary.

____. 1995a. Southeastern Oregon Resource

Management Plan (SEORMP) Process and

Preliminary Issues. Vale District Office, Vale,

Oregon. August 1995.

____. 1995b. Pueblo-Lone Mountain Management

Plan EA. August 1995.

____. 1995c. Pueblo-Lone Mountain Allotment

Management Plan. Burns District, Hines,

Oregon.

____. 1995d. Interim Management Policy for Lands

under Wilderness Review H-8550-1.

____. 1996a. Kiger Mustang Area of Critical Concern

Management Plan.

____. 1996b. Riddle Mountain and Kiger Wild Horse

Herd Management Area Plan.

____. 1997a. Standards for Rangeland Health and

Gu idelin e s for Livestock Gra zin g

Management. August 1997.

____. 1997b. Upper Columbia River Basin Draft

Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1.

May 1997.

____. 1998a. Noxious Weed Management Project

Environmental Assessment EA No. OR-020-

98-05. Hines, Oregon. April 16, 1998.

____. 1999. Burns District Environmental Assessment

for Commercial Day Use Activities.

____. 2000a. Proposed Southeast Oregon Resource

Management Plan and Final Environmental

Impact Statement. Volume 1 of 3 - Text. Vale

District Office, Oregon. December 2000.

____. 2000b. Interior Columbia Basin Final

Environmental Impact Statement. December

2000.

____. 2001a. Final Decision Record for Projects for

Implementation of the Steens Mountain

Cooperative Management and Protection Act

of 2000 Environmental Assessment, EA-OR027-01-27. Burns District Office, Hines,

Oregon. 

____. 2001b. Steens Mountain CMPA Interim

Management Policy. April 20, 2001.

____. 2001c. Projects for Implementation of the Steens

Mountain Cooperative Management and

Protection Act of 2000 Environmental

Assessment, EA-OR-027-01-27.Burns District

Office, Hines, Oregon. April 25, 2001.

____. 2001d. Decision Record and Finding of No

Significant Impact for Steens Mountain Trail

Maintenance. Burns District Office, Hines,

Oregon.

____. 2001e. Land Use Planning Handbook. H-1601-1

Handbook. Last updated: January 5, 2001.

____. 2001f. National Management Strategy for

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on

Public Lands. Washington, D.C. January 19,

2001.

____. 2001g. Wilderness Management.

____. 2001h. Wilderness Management: Final Rule.

January 16, 2001.

____. 2001. Steens Mountain in the Summer

(http://www.or/blm/gov/steens/background/b

ackground_page.htm). 

____. 2001. Steens Mountain Area Resources

Document prepared for the Steens Mountain

Advisory Council.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Baseline PFC Map. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: ACEC Map with Potentials.

2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Range Improvements. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Noxious Weeds. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Current Geologic Map. 2001.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-4

____. 2001. GIS Map: Grazing Allotments. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Area Closed to Mineral Leasing

Including Interim WSR Corridor. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Fire. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: CMPA Top 10 Landowners Not

in Exchanges Plus Pre-Exchange Owners and

Acres Per Title Plat. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Sensitive Plants. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Burns District Base Map. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: General Vegetation. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: General Soils. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Fish. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: WSAs pre- and post-act

(smaller size). 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Steens Mountain w/Boundaries

and Exchanges. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: 8.5 x 11 Boundaries of Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) RAs in Oregon.

2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Wildlife. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Post-Act Base Map with

Exchanges. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: New WSAs Post-Act &

Exchanges. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Small Congressional

Designations. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Range Condition. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Base Map with RNAs, ACECs,

HMAs, WJMA and Recreation area. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Roads Closed in Wilderness.

2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Base Map Andrews/Steens.

2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Subbasins and 303(d) Listed

Streams. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Cultural Resources. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Smaller Map of all WSAs and

Boundaries. 2001.

____. 2001. GIS Map: Minerals Potential and

Withdrawal Area. 2001.

Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department

o f Environment al Qu alit y . 1990 .

Memorandum of Agreement.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1998.

A User Guide to Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition and the Supporting

Science for Lentic Areas. Riparian Area

Management: TR 1737-15.

____. 1999. A User Guide to Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition and the Supporting

Science for Lotic Areas. Riparian Area

Management: TR 1737-16.

Bureau of Land Management, USFWS, USFS, ODFW,

Oregon Division of State Lands. 2000.

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe

Ecosystems Management Guidelines. August

21, 2000. Oregon State Office, Portland,

Oregon BLM. 27 pp.

Campton, D.E. and J.M. Johnston. 1985. 

Electrophoretic Evidence for a Genetic

Admixtureof Native and NonnativeRainbow

Trout in the Yakima River, Washington.

Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society. 114:782-93.

Connelly, J.W. 1982. An Ecological Study of Sage

Grouse in Southeastern Idaho. PhD.

Dissertation, Washington State University,

Pullman, Washington. 84 pp.Connelly, J.W.

and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-Term Changes in

Sage Grouse Centrocercus Urophasianus

Populations in Western North America.

Wildlife Biology 3:123-128. 

Connelly, J.W., H.W. Browers, and R.J. Gates. 1988.

Seasonal Movements of Sage Grouse in

Southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife

Management 52:116-122.

Crawford, J.A. and R.S. Lutz. 1985. Sage Grouse

Populations in Oregon, 1941-1983. Murrelet

66:69-74.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-5

Crespin, B. 1990. The Riddle Brothers Ranch Historic

District Cultural Resources Management

Plan. Manuscript on file at the BLM Burns

District Office, Hines, Oregon.

Crowe, E. 1996. Quaking Aspen and Black

Cottonwood: Historical and Present-day

Distribution in the Blue Mountains. In:

Natural Resources News. Blue Mountains

Natural Resource Institute. January 1996.

Dambacher, J.M., K.K. Jones, and H.W. Li. 2000.

Assessment of Stream Populations and

Habitat of Great Basin Redband Trout.

Completion Report Fish Research Project

#99HQAG0047. Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Dayton, William. 1960. Notes on Western Range

Forbs. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Agriculture Handbook 161.

Dennis, W.B. 1902. A Borax Mine in Southern

Oregon: The Engineering and Mining Journal,

April 26, 1902, p. 581.

Eddleman, L.E. 1987. Establishment of Western

Juniper in Central Oregon. In: Everett, R.L.

compiler. Proceedings, Pinyon Juniper

Conference Reno, Nevada, January 1986.

General Technical Report INT-215, 255-259

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service Intermountain Research Station,

Ogden, Utah.

Eddleman, L.E. 1984. Ecological Studies on Western

Juniper in Central Oregon. In: Oregon State

University Extension Service, Proceedings,

Western Juniper Management Short Course,

pp. 27-35. Bend, Oregon. October 15-16. 

Eddleman, L.E., P.M. Miller, and P.L. Dysart. 1994.

Western Juniper Woodlands of the Pacific

Northwest, Science Assessment, Scientific

Contract Report. Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, Science

Integration Team, Terrestrial Staff, Range

Task Group.

Elmore, W. 1992. Riparian Responses to Grazing

Practices. In: Naiman, R.G. ed., Watershed

Management: Balancing Substainability and

Environmental Change, pp. 443-445. Springer

Verlag, New York.

Elmore, E., B. Kauffman. 1993. Riparian and

Watershed Systems: Degradation and

Restoration. Ecological Implications of

Livestock Herbivores in the West, pp. 212-

231.

Evans, J.G. 1994. Geology of the Malheur, Jordan, and

Andrews Resource Areas, Malheur and

Harney Counties, Oregon. In: Smith, C.L.

Mineral and Energy Resources of the BLM

Malheur-Jordan Resource Areas, Southeastern

Oregon, A1-A43. U.S. Geological Survey.

Fausch, K.D. 1988. Tests of Competition Between

Native and Introduced Salmonids in Streams:

What Have We Learned? Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 45:2238-

2246. 

Ferns, M.L. and D.F. Huber. 1984. Mineral Resources

Map of Oregon. Geological Map Series GMS36, Scale 1:500,000. Oregon Department of

Geology and Mineral Industries.

Ferns, M.L., H.C. Brooks, and J.G. Evans. 1993.

Geologic map of the Vale 30 X 60 Minute

Quadrangle, Malheur County, Oregon and

Owyhee County, Idaho. Geological Map

Series GMS-77, Scale 1:100,000. Oregon

Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries.

Ferns, M.L., H.C. Brooks, and J.G. Evans. 1993.

Geologic map of the Mahogany Mountain 30

X 60 Minute Quadrangle, Malheur County,

Oregon and Owyhee County, Idaho.

Geological Map Series GMS-78, Scale

1:100,000. Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries.

Fiero, Bill. 1986. Geology of the Great Basin.

University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.

see especially pp. 6-10, 123-138.

Franklin, J.R. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural

Vegetation of Oregon and Washington.

General Technical Report PNW-8. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,

Oregon.

Frewing-Runyon, L. 1995. The Importance and

Dependency of the Livestock Industry on

Federal Lands in the Columbia River Basin.

Unpublished manuscript circulated April 10,

1995, for public review. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-6

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Interior Columbia River Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla,

Washington. 59 pp.

Frewing-Runyon, Leslie. 1999. Environmental Justice

Screening in NEPA Analysis for Oregon,

Washington, and Northern California. Oregon

State Office. Portland, Oregon. March 1999.

17 pp.

Friedman, Irving and Norman Peterson. 1971.

Obsidian Hydration Dating Applied to Dating

of Basaltic Volcanic Activity: Science, vol.

172, p. 1028, June 4, 1971 and reprinted in

The Ore Bin, August 1971, vol. 33, no. 8, pp.

158-159.

Ganskopp, D.C. 1984. Habitat Use and Spatial

Interactions of Cattle, Wild Horses, Mule

Deer and California Bighorn Sheep in the

Owyhee Breaks of Southeast Oregon. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Oregon State University,

Corvallis, OR.

Gates, R.J. 1983. Sage Grouse, Lagomorph and

Pronghorn Use of a Sagebrush Grassland

Burn Site on the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory. Master’s Thesis, Montana State

University, Bozeman, Montana. 135 pp.

Gill, R.B. 1965. Distribution and Abundance of a

Population of Sage Grouse in North Park,

Colorado. Master’s Thesis, Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Godwin, L.H., W.H. Lee, and S. Moore. 1980. Lands

Valuable for Geothermal Resources –

Oregon, Revised. Classification Map, scale

1:500,000. U.S. Geological Survey,

Conservation Division, Western Region.

Grayson, D.K., 1993. The Desert’s Past, a Natural

Prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington and London, see

especially pp. 102-111, 212-213.

Hanski, I. And M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation

Dynamics: Brief History and Conceptual

Domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean

Society. 42:3-16. 

Hanson, M.L., W. Bowers and R. Perkins. 1993.

Lahontan Subbasins Fish Management Plan.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Portland, Oregon.

Hemphill-Haley, Mark, 1987. Quaternary Stratigraphy

and Late Holocene Faulting along the Base of

the Astern Escarpment of Steens Mountain,

Southeast Oregon: Humboldt State University

Master’s Thesis, 77 pp., Humboldt, California.

Hemphill-Haley, M.A., W.D. Page, R. Burke, and G.A.

Carver. 1989. Holocene Activity of the Alvord

Fault, Steens Mountain, Southeast Oregon.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland,

California for U.S. Geological Survey Grant

No. 14-08-0001-G1333.

House Report 101-405 (Arizona Desert Wilderness Act

of 1990). Appendix A, Grazing Guidelines.

Hupp, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1989. Topographic

Distribution of Sage Grouse Foraging in

Winter. Journal of Wildlife Management

53:823-829.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, W-160-R-21,

Sept. 1994.

Johnson, J.A. 1994. Geologic Map of the Krumbo

Reservoir Quadrangle, Harney County,

Southeastern Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2267,

see especially the 11-page booklet that

accompanies the map.

Johnson, D., D. Richard Lycan, J. Sweet, M. Heuhaus,

and A. Schaedel. 1985. Atlas of Oregon

Lakes. Oregon State University Press,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Johnson, R., V. Litz, and K.A. Cheek. 1995. Assessing

the Economic Impacts of Outdoor Recreation

in Oregon. College of Forestry, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kagan, J. and S. Caicco. 1996. Manual of Oregon

Actual Vegetation. Oregon National Heritage

Program, Portland, Oregon.

Karl, M.G. and S.G. Leonard. 1996. Western Juniper

(Juniperus Occidentalis Ssp. occidentalis) in

the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of

the Klamath and Great Basin: Science

Assessment. Review Draft. Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project,

Science Integration Team, Terrestrial Staff

Range Task Group. Walla Walla, Washington.

Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian Area Management: Grazing

Management in Riparian Areas. TR 1737-4,
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-7

Bureau of Land Management. Denver,

Colorado. 44 pp.

Klebenow, P.A. 1969. Sage Grouse Nesting and Brood

Habitat in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife

Management 33:649-661.

Kochert, M.N., et al. 1989. Responses of Raptors to

Livestock Grazing in the Western United

States. In: Proceedings, Western Raptor

Management Symposium and Workshop.

National Wildlife Federation, Washington,

D.C. 320 pp.

Kunkel, C.M. 1976. Biology and Production of the

Redband Trout in Four Southeastern Oregon

Streams. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Leckenby, D.A., A.W. Adams, and R.W. Roberts.

1971. Mule Deer Winter Range Ecology and

Manage ment. Orego n State Game

Commission. Pittman Robertson Project

Report W-70-R-1.

Li, H.W., G.A. Lamberti, T. Pearsons, C.Tait, J. Li and

J. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative Effects of

Riparian Distribution along High Desert

Trout Streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon.

Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society.

Libbey, F.W. 1960. Boron in Alvord Valley, Harney

County, Oregon. The Ore Bin, vol. 22, no. 10,

pp. 97-105.

Logan, B. and B. Clinch. 1991. Montana Forestry

BMPs. Montana Department of State Lands,

Missoula, Montana.

Mackie, R.J. 1970. Range Ecology and Relationships

of Mule Deer, Elk, and Cattle in the Missouri

River Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monogram

20. 79 pp.

Mansfield, Donald H. 1995. Vascular Flora of Steens

Mountain, Oregon. Journal of the Idaho

Academy of Science. Vol. 31 - No. 2.

December, 1995.

Markle, D.F. and D.L. Hill, Jr. 2000. Taxonomy and

Distribution of the Malheur Mottled Sculpin,

Cottus benderei. Northwest Science

74(3):202-211.

Martin, Robert E. 1982. Fire History and Its Role in

Succession.

McDonald, F. 1994. The Riddle Brothers Ranch

Historic District Cultural Resources

Manag emen t Plan, Env ironm enta l

Assessment. Manuscript on file at the BLM

Burns District Office, Hines, Oregon.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of Forest and

Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes

and Their Habitats. Special Publication 19.

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

751 pp. 

Meeuwig, R.O. 1970. Sheet Erosion on Intermountain

Summer Ranges. U.S. Dep artment of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper

INT-85.

Miller, R.F. and Weigan, P.E. 1994. Holocene

Changes in Semiarid Pinyon-juniper

Woodlands. Bioscience 44:465-474.

Miller, R.F., T. Svejcar, M. Willis, and L. Eddleman.

1996. History, Ecology and Management of

Western Juniper Woodlands and Associated

Shrublands: an Annual Report of Preliminary

Results and Progress for 1995. Eastern

Oregon Agricultural Research Center. 33 pp.

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1998. Fire History and

Juniperus Occidentalis Hook. Encroachment

in Artemesia Steppe. American Midland

Naturalist. In submission.

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1995. Historical Expansion

of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in

Southeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist

55:37-45.

Minor, S.A., J.J. Rytuba, J.J. Grubensky, D.B. Vander

Meulen, C.A. Goeldner and K.J. Tegtmeyer.

1987. Geologic Map of the High Steens and

Little Blitzen Gorge Wilderness Study Areas,

Harney County, Oregon. U.S. Geological

Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF1876.

Minor, S.A., Donald Plouff, L.E. Esparza, and T.J.

Peters. 1987. Mineral Resources of the High

Steens and Little Blitzen Gorge Wilderness

Study Areas, Harney County, Oregon. U.S.

Geological Survey Bulletin 1740-A. 21 pp.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-8

Moskowitz, D. and G. Rahr. 1994. Native Trout

Report: an Analysis of the Status and Management of

Oregon’s NativeTrout with Management

Recommendations for Conservation. Native

Trout Conservation Council. Portland,

Oregon.

Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and Riparian Management

in Southwestern Montana. pp. 117-120 In:

Gresswell R.E., Barton, B.A., and Kerschner,

J.L., eds. Practical Approaches to Riparian

Resource Management: an Educational

Workshop. Bureau of Land Management,

Billings, Montana.

National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

and Bureau of LandManagement. 1998

Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management

Policy;Implementation Procedures Reference

Guide. National Interagency Fire Center.

Boise, Idaho.

Nussbaum. R.A., E.E. Brodie, Jr. and R.M. Stor. 1983.

Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific

Northwest. University of Idaho Press,

Moscow. 332 pp.

Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN).

2000.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 1997. Noxious

Weed Policy and Classification System.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. Salem,

Oregon.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Water

Quality Limited Streams Database.

____. 1988. Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint

Sources of Water Pollution. Planning and

Monitoring Section, Water Quality Division,

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,

Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.1990. Mule

Deer Plan.

____. 1992-1997. Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep

Management Plan. 1992-1997. Portland,

Oregon..

____. 1992. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. July

1992. Portland, Oregon.

____. 1993. Oregon Cougar Management Plan. Public

Review Draft. Proposed for Adoption, March

1993.

____. 1997. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Sensitive Species. December 1997.

____. 1997. Catlow Redband Trout and Catlow Tui

Chub Conservation Agreement and Strategy.

____. 1999. Conservation Status of Oregon Basin

Redband Trout. Public Review Draft 4-12-99.

Oregon Economic and Community Development

Department. 2001. Economic Data. State of

Oregon, Salem, Oregon.

____. Oregon Resident Labor Force, Unemployment

and Employment Tables, Various Years.

Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council. 1995.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and

Animals of Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage

Program, Portland, Oregon. 84 pp.

____. 1998. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

of Oregon. March, 1998.

____. 1998a. Oregon Natural Heritage Plan. Natural

Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land

Board, Salem, Oregon. 137 pp.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2000. SE

Oregon Recreation Plan for Harney, Lake

and Malheur Counties.

____. 1994. Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan 1994-

1999. Portland, Oregon.

Oregon State University Extension Economic

Information Office. 2000. 2000 Oregon

County and State Agricultural Estimates.

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Oregon Tourism Commission. 2001. Oregon Travel

Impacts 1991-2000 Detailed County

Estimates.

Orr, E.L., W.N. Orr, and E.M. Baldwin. 1992. Geology

of Oregon, 4th ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing,

Dubuque, Iowa. 254 pp.

Peters, S.G., G. Albino, H.C. Brooks, J.G. Evans, R.R.

Carlson, G.H. Lee, A. Griscom, and P.F.

Halvorson. 1994. Economic Geology: Deposit
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-9

Models and Tracts for Undiscovered Metallic

Resources in the Malheur-Jordan-Andrews

Resource Areas, Southern Oregon. In: Cole,

S.L., ed. Energy and Mineral Resources of the

BLM Malheur-Jordan Resource Areas,

Southeastern Oregon. Administrative report

B1-B19, U.S. Geological Survey.

Proceedings, BLM Workshop: “The Ecology and

Management of Microbiotic Soil Crusts in the

Great Basin and Snake River Plain” Oct. 29-

30, 1996. Boise, Idaho.

Puchy, Claire A. and David B. Marshall. 1993. Oregon

Wildlife Diversity Plan, 2nd ed. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,

Oregon.

Quigley, Thomas M., Richard W. Haynes, and Russell

T. Graham, tech. eds. September 1996.

Integrated Scien tific Ass es sm ent for

Ecosystem Management in the Interior

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath

and Great Basins. PNW-GTR-385. USDA,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station.

Quigley, Thomas M., and S.J. Arbelbide Jr., tech. eds.

1997. An A ssessment of Ec osystem

Components in the Interior Columbia Basin

and Portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-504.

Four vols. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Rangeland Form ’94 Draft EIS Executive Summary.

Reed-Jerofke, Linda. 1999. Personal Communication.

Reformatted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Burns,

Oregon. August, 1977.

Reyna, N. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of

Commun ities: Economic and Soc ial

Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin

Communities and an Estimation of Effects on

Communities from the Alternatives of the

Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin

Draft Environmental Impact Statements. 

Reisenbichler, R.R. 1977. Effects of Artificial

Propogation of Anadromous Salmonids on

Wild Populations. In Hassler, T.J. and R.R.

Vankirk, eds., Genetic Implications of

Steelhead Management. Special Report 77-1.

California Cooperative Fishery Research

Unit:2-3. Arcata, California.

Rieman, B., D. Lee., J. McIntyre [and others]. 1993

Consideration of Extinction Risks for

Salmonids. Fish Habitat Rela tionship s

Technical Bulletin Numbe r 14. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Eureka, California.

Roberts, B.C. 1995. Best Management Practices of

Erosion and Sediment Control. 

Roché, C. and L.C. Burrill. 1992. Squarrose

Knapweed. Pacific Northwest Extension

Publication PNW 422. Corvallis, Oregon.

Two pp.

Roche’, B.F., C.T. Roche’, R.C. Chapman. 1994.

Impacts of Grassland Habitat on Yellow

Starthistle (Centarua solstitialis) Invasion.

Northwest Science 68(2):86-96.

Schlosser, I.J. 1982. Trophic Structure, Reproductive

Success and Growth Rate of Fishes in a

Natural and Modified Headwater Stream.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences. 39:968-978.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater

Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries

Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Severson, K.E. and J.N. Rinne. 1988. Increasing

Habitat Diversity in Southwestern Forests and

Woodlands via Prescribed Fire.

Smith, Cole L., ed. Mineral and Energy Resources of

the BLM Malheur-Jordan-Andrews Resource

Areas, Southeastern Oregon: U.S. Geological

Survey administrative report to the BLM for

the Southeast Oregon Resource Management

Plan that will be published as a U.S.G.S.

professional paper in approximately 2002.

St. Clair, L. and J. Johansen. 1993. Introduction to the

Symposium on Soil Crust Communities. Great

Basin Naturalist. Vol. 53.

State of Oregon, Department of Forestry. Various

Annual Reports, 1985-1998. Oregon Timber

Harvest Report. Salem, Oregon. One p.

Stearley, R.F. and G.R. Smith. 1983. Phylogeny of the

Pacific Trouts and Salmons (Oncorhynchus)

and genera of theFamily Salmonidae.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-10

Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society. 122:1-33.

Tait, C.K., J. Li, G. Lamberti, T. Pearsons and H. Li.

1994. Relationships between Riparian Cover

and the Community Structure of High Desert

Streams. Journal of the North American

Benthological Society. 13: 45-56. 

Thomas, J.W. et al. Wildlife Habitats in Managed

Rangelands - The Gre at Ba sin of

Southeastern Oregon.

Thurwo, R. 1988. Wood River Fisheries Investigations.

Job Performance Report. Project F-73-R-10.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise,

Idaho.

Trainer, C.E., J. Lemos, T.P. Kistner, W.C. Lightfoot,

and D.E. Toweil. 1981. Mortality of Mule

Deer Fawns in Southeastern Oregon, 1968-

1979. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife Research Report 10. 113 pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. 2000 Census of

Population and Housing. U.S.Census Bureau.

U.S. Department of Transportation Report. 1994. No.

FHWA-FLP-94-005. National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. U.S. Geological Survey

Water Da ta Re port OR-95-1, Water

Resources Data, Oregon, Water Year 1995.

Water Resources Division, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). Undated.

Catlow Redband Trout and Catlow Tui Chub

Conservation Agreement and Strategy. 

____. 1982.Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Team.

____. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle.

____. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants. 50 CFR 17.11. GPO, Washington,

D.C.

____. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing

as Endangered or Threatened Species,

Proposed Rules. Federal Register, 56

(115):58804-58836.

____. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Borax Lake Chub,

Gila boraxobius. Portland, Oregon. February

4, 1997.

____. 2000. Status Review for Great Basin Redband

Trout. Portland, Oregon. February 2000.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Status of the

Interior Columbia Basin, Summary of

Scientific Findings. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical

Report PNW -GTR-385, Portland, Oregon.

144 pp.

U.S. Forest Service and BLM. 1997. Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Eastside Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Walla Walla, Washington.

____. 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for

Ecosystem Management in the Interior

Columbia Basin.

Vavra, L.A. and F.A. Sneva. 1978. Diets of Grazing

Animals Using Common Range in Eastern

Oregon..

Volland, L.A. and J.D. Dell. 1981. Fire Effects on

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Vegetation. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Norwest Region

Rangeland Management/Aviation and Fire

Management Report. R6 RM 067. Portland,

Oregon. 23 pp.

Walker, G.W. and N.S. MacLeod. 1991. Geologic Map

of Oregon, scale 1:500,000. U.S. Geological

Survey. Portland, Oregon.

Wallace, R.L. 1981. Morphological Study of Native

trout Populations of Owyhee County, Idaho.

Final Report Contract ID-010-DT0-002.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. Boise, Idaho. 49 pp. 

Wallestad, R.O. and D.B. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and

Nesting of Sage Grouse Hens in Central

Montana. Journal of W ildlife Management

38:630-633.

Wayland, R.G. and W.H. Lee. 1980. Lands Valuable

for Sodium and Potassium – Oregon, Revised.

Map scale 1:500,000. U.S. Geological Survey,

Conservation Division, Western Region.

Portland, Oregon.
ANALYSIS OF THE ANDREW S MANAGEMEN T UNIT/STEENS MOUNTA IN

MANAGEMEN T SITUATION COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND 

AND SUBBASIN REVIEW PROTECTION AREA RMP/EIS

1078J.AMS Final.V5 to pdf.wpd

11-11

Weissenborn, ed. 1969. Mineral and Water Resources

of Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries Bulletin 64. see

especially pp. 157 and 184.

West, N.E. 1984. Successional Patterns and

Productivity Potentials of Pinyon-juniper

Ecosystems. In: Developing strategies for

rangeland management. National Research

Council/National Academy of Sciences, 1301-

1332. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Williams, Howel, and Robert R. Compton. 1953.

Quicksilver Deposits of Steens Mountain and

Pueblo Mountains, Southeast Oregon: U.S.

Geological Survey Bulletin 995-B, 76 pages

and three plates.

Williams, J.E. and C.E. Bond. 1983. Status and Life

History Notes on the Native Fishes of the

Alvord Basin, Oregon and Nevada. Great

Basin Naturalist. 43(3):409-420.

Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A Hendrickson [and

others]. 1989. Fishes of North America

Endangered, Threatened or of Special

Con cern. American Fisheries Society.

Bethesda, Maryland. 14(6): 2-20.

Williams, J.E. 1995. Threatened Fish of the World:

Gila boraxobius Williams and Bond, 1980

(Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of

Fishes. 43: 294.

Williams, R.N. 1991. Genetic Analysis and Taxonomic

Status of Cutthroat Trout from Willow Creek

and Whitehorse Creek in Southeastern

Oregon. Evolutionary genetics Lab Report 91-

3. Boise State University. Boise, Idaho.

Williams, T.R. and M.S. Bedinger. 1984. Selected

Geologic and Hydrologic Characteristics of

the Basin and Range Province, Western

United States, Pleistocene Lakes and

Marshes: U.S. Geolo g ical Survey

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I1522-D, scale 1:2,500,000.

Willis, M.J. 1993. Sage Grouse in Oregon. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife Research

Report No. 15. 54 pp.

Wright, H.A. and C.M. Britton. 1976. Fire Effects on

Veg etation in Western Rangeland

Communities.

Zoellick, B. 1995. Summer Water Temperatures and

the Distribution of Redband Trout in Four

Streams in the Owyhee Mountains.

Unpublished information presented at Idaho

Chapter Annual Meeting of American

Fisheries Society. Boise, Idaho.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank