U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office August 1995 John Day Resource Management Plan Record of Decision Rangeland Pro.gram U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management John Day Resource Management Plan Record of Decision Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) Prepared By Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision John Day Resource Management Plan Three Rivers Resource Area Burns District, Burns, Oregon This resource management plan documents the decisions reached by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for managing 182,120 acres of public land in the Three Rivers Resource Area. Major decisions are to: Continue to authorize grazing permits at the 1982 total preference level of 25,323 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). Management systems will be developed, maintained or revised for 14 Improve category allotments. Competitive forage will be available for wildlife and wildhorses at current levels except for bighorn sheep which will be emphasized. Provide 240 AUMs of competition forage to wild horses from 14,290 acres of BLM managed lands. Include 4,170 acres of grazing allotment number 4052 in the Murderers Creek Herd Management Area to provide additional winter use areas available for wild horses. Manage 32,242 acres of commercial forest land for a sustainable harvest level of approximately 21.7 million board feet per decade and sell minor forest products where consistent with protection of other resource values. Identify 5,240 acres for disposal through sale and an additional 16,000 acres for disposal through sale, exchange or transfer when in the public interest. Leave all locatable minerals on public lands in the planning area open to entry under the provisions of the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, except for 120 acres currently under protective withdrawal. All lands currently available for mineral leasing will remain available and no additional leasing restrictions are imposed. Material sales will continue when consistent with other resource values. Designate 121,945 acres as open and 60,175 acres as available for limited motorized vehicle use in the John Day Planning Unit. Modify grazing systems or construct improvements to enhance 28 stream miles in Improve allotments. Develop instream structures along an additional 55 miles of streams supporting anadromous fisheries. Construct a fish ladder to open up 85 miles of stream habitat to anadromous fish. Alternatives Considered and Rationale for Decision Four alternatives for managing the public lands in the John Day planning area were analyzed in the Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed Resource Management Plan (the Preferred Alternative in the Resource Management Plan/EIS) emphasizes management, production on a sustained yield basis and use of renewable resources on the majority of public lands in the John Day planning area while providing protection, maintenance or enhancement of cultural, soil, ‘water, botanical and recreational resource values and big, small and nongame habitats. This alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative and the one that has been selected for the John Day Resource Management Plan. The proposed Resource Management Plan best meets national guidance, best satisfies the planning criteria and best resolves issues while contributing to the local economy. The Emphasize Production of Commodities Alternative would have provided economic benefits to the local economy through production of goods and services on public lands to meet local and possibly regional demands. The Emphasize Enhancement of Natural Resources Alternative would have provided protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment for its enjoyment and use by present and future generations. The Continuation of Present Management Alternative would have provided for management of all resources at current levels. This is the No Action Alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Mitigation Measures All protective measures and standard operating procedures identified in the plan will be taken to mitigate adverse impacts. These measures will be strictly enforced during implementation. Monitoring and evaluation will tell how effective these measures are in minimizing environmental impacts. Therefore, additional measures to protect the environment may be taken during or following monitoring. District Manager Recommendation I recommend adoption of the Preferred Alternative of the John Day Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement of November 14, 1984 with the following modification: Provide wild horse herd winter season use of portions of the original (1971) designated herd area but outside the revised herd area boundary when climatic and vegetation conditions warrent, as determined through consultation with the Forest Supervisor and the Murderers Creek Ranch Supervisor. Date August 28, 1985 State Director Approval I approve the John Day Resource Management Plan decisions as recommended. Individual grazing decisions to implement the rangeland program portions of the RMP will be issued to the affected lessees for those allotments where changes are proposed and agreement has not been reached. Those decisions will explain and provide for the protest and/or appeal procedures under 43 CFR 4160 and 43 CFR 4.470. Oregon State Director Bureau of Land Management d of Decision as provided in 40 CFR 1505.2. Date August 28, 1985 Table 1 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Allocations/Outputs Issue Forest Management, Timber Production Base’ -Full Timber Production -Multiple Use Constrained -Approx. Ave. Annual Timber S.Sl& Forage Allocation -Riparian Habitat Management --Improved Riparian Habitat -Short Term -Livestock Forage -New/Revised AMPslCRMPs -Range Improvement Costs -Big Game Forage3 -Wild Horse Forage3 -Bighorn Sheep -New/Revised Activity Plans (Wildlife, Wild Horses, Forestry) -Long Term -Livestock Forage” -Big Game Forage -Wild Horses -Bighorn Sheep Land Ownership Adjustments -By Sale -By Sale, Exchange or Transfers Off Road Vehicle Use Designations -Open -Restricted Closed6 Mineral Management’ -Open to Leasing -Restricted Leasing -Closed to Leasing -Open to Material Sales -Closed to Material Sales -Open to Location Claims -Closed lo Location Claims8 Unit of Alt. A Ah. B Alt. C. Alt. D Measure Preferred Production Enhancement No Action Acres 30,962 31,609 16,667 31,433 Acres 1,260 1,007 4,094 1,105 MMbf 2.17 2.21 1.32 2.20 Miles 28.5 26.5 76.0 26.5 AUMs 25,323 25,872 21,023 25,323 NO. 14 14 14 2 $ 431,220 470,000 163,000 91,000 AUMs 500 500 500 500 AUMs 240 0 5,301 240 AUMs 192 192 192 96 NO. 11 11 11 3 AUMs 25,734 27,361 21,023 23,323 AUMs 500 500 500 500 AUMs 240 0 5,301 240 AUMs 360 360 360 360 Public Acres 5,240 21,014 0 36,779 Public Acres 16,000 16,000 0 0 Acres 121,945 121,945 121,945 121,945 Acres 49,652 49,652 49,652 49,652 Acres 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 Acres 344,632 344,632 344,632 344,632 Acres 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 ACK?S 4,765 4,765 4,765 4,765 ACK?S 345.212 345.212 345,212 345,212 Acres 14,908 14,906 14,906 14,906 Acres 360,000 360,000 630,000 360.000 Acres 120 120 120 120 Table of Contents Page R e c o r d o f D e c i s i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Chapter I-Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose and Need... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maintenance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amendments and Revisions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valid Existing Rights.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Involvement and Consistency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultation Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, and Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Alternatives, Environmental Consequences and Environmental Preferability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changestothe Proposed Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2-John Day Resource Management Plan Decisions Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest Management Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forage Management Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wild Horse Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Ownership Adjustment Actions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring the John Day Resource Management Plan. . . . . . Ongoing Management Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil, Water and Air Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mining Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Resource Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Botanical Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cadastral Survey and Engineering Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . Realty Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recreation Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilderness Study Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......3 . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . .6 7 9 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 8 .21 .23 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 .24 .24 2 4 2 5 2 5 .25 2 5 Appendices Appendix A: General Best Forest Management Practices.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..27 Appendix B: Authorized Livestock Use.. ..............................(29 Appendix C: Range Developments and Standard Operating Procedures. . . . . . 32 Appendix D: Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Appendix E: Habitat Management Techniques.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..36 Appendix F: Opportunities for Sale of Public Land.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Appendix G: Criteria for Land Ownership Adjustment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 List of Maps and Tables Maps 1 General Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Land Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Existing Commercial Forest Lands.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘. ‘14 4 Selective Management Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5 Wildlife Habitat.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 19 6 Fish Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7 Murderer’s Creek Herd Management Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Tables l-l Surface Ownership-John Day Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3 l-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2-l Determination of Sustainable Harvest Levels.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2-2 Commercial Forestland Set-Asides and Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2-3 Range Projects for Improve Catagory Allotments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 2-4 Summary of Projected Grazing Use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I8 2-5 Land Ownership within Murderer’s Creek Herd Management Area.. . . . . . . .21 2-6 Plant Species Under Review for Nomination for Threatened or Endangered Status in the John Day RMP Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 -N- i l MAP 1 G E N E R A L L O C A T I O N M A P Burns District Environmental Impact Statement Areas Legend 0 John Day Resource Monogemant Plan/ EIS Area @ BLM S t a t e O f f i c e m R i l e y Grozlng M a n a g e m e n t E I S A r e a v BLM D i s t r i c t O f f i c e m D r e w s e y Grazing M a n a g e m e n t E I S A r e a - D i s t r i c t B o u n d a r y --Planning Unit Boundary ndrews G r a z i n g Manogemsnt E I S Arsa __~ Environmrntal Impact S ta tement Boundary \ v Salem . Prinevills VRoseburg vhtedford OREGON 2 Introduction This plan contains the decisions on all land use proposals presented in the November, 1985 final environmental impact statement. It describes in general terms the implementation, monitoring, and amendment processes and tells how each resource will be managed, the order in which projects will be managed, the order in which projects will be carried out, and what support will be needed. This plan does not present information on environmental consequences, rationale, consistency, or effects of the management. This information was previously covered in the draft and final environmental impact statements, which may be obtained by contacting the Burns District Office. Wilderness study areas within the planning area will be addressed in the BLM Oregon Statewide Wilderness EIS. After the public comments on the draft wilderness EIS have been reviewed a final environmental impact statement will be prepared and a recommendation will be submitted to Congress for action. The rangeland program summary portion of this document summarizes the livestock grazing management program and grazing decisions reached through this plan and consultation with affected parties. The rangeland program summary describes which selective management category each allotment falls into and gives a proposed schedule for issuance of grazing decisions where stocking rates are known. It also details the studies and actions to be taken to determine proposed stocking rates for those allotments where stocking rates are not known. Purpose and Need This plan provides a broad framework for multiple use management on public land. This plan makes land use allocations, sets broad production goals, and protects important resource values. In addition to meeting the requirements in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for land use planning (43 CFR, Part 1600), this plan satisfies the BLM’s policy to (1) respond to the court mandate (Natural Resources Defense Council et al. versus Watt (Civil Action 1963.75)) requiring the BLM to complete a livestock grazing environmental impact statement; and (2) identify public land as open, closed, or limited for off-road vehicle use (Executive Order 11989). It also will be used to calculate, in part, a sustained yield harvest level of forest products from BLM managed commercial forestlands in eastern Oregon. Description of the Planning Area The John Day Planning Area (see Maps 1 and 2), which is part of Oregon’s Burns District, comprises those public lands within Grant County and a northern portion of Harney County. The planning area is bordered on the north and east by the Vale District and on the west by the Prineville District. Public lands within the John Day Planning Area tend to be scattered and isolated parcels. Table l-l Surface Ownership - Land Ownership - John Day Planning Unit of the Three Rivers Resource Area Federal (BLM Administered’) Federal (USFS Administered) Federal (Park Service MyWstered) Private TOW Acres 9’0 of Total 182,120 6.1 1.671.035 66.6 27,447 6,300 2 .s 1.120,!393 37.3 3,007,896 too.0 The John Day Resource Management Plan Area (planning area) incorporates the John Day Planning Unit and those forestlands located in the Drewsey (4,143 acres) and Riley (4,442 acres) Planning Units. The RMP/EIS addressed impacts and allocations of those forestlands within the Drewsey and Riley Planning Units. The Drewsey and Riley Planning Units are presently managed through existing planning documents that provide guidance for all resource programs. All management actions pertain to public lands administered by the Three Rivers Resource Area, except where specifically stated otherwise. lmplentation Decisions in the plan will be implemented over a period of years and must be tied to the BLM budgeting process. Therefore, priorities have been established for each resource to guide the order of implementation. The priorities link the planned actions in the resource management plan with the budget process. Priorities for each program will be reviewed annually to help develop the annual work plan commitments for the coming year. The priorities may be revised based upon new 3 Bureau goals. The priorities of implementation are presented by resource in Chapter 2. Activity plans and environmental assessments may be required prior to conducting specific actions such as timber harvesting. For example, forest management plans will show specific project locations; describe and analyze the impacts of specific actions associated with development, operation, and rehabilitation of the project; and compare project costs with project benefits. Monitoring This plan will be evaluated every five years and at other times as appropriate, based upon the sensitivity of the resources to the decisions involved. This type of monitoring will be conducted to review the plan as a whole to determine the need for revision or amendment. Specific actions within the plan will also be montiored annually. Individual resources will be monitored as explained in Chapter 2. Periodic evaluation will determine whether actions are consistent with current policy, whether original assumptions were correct and impacts correctly predicted, whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether significant changes have been made in related plans of other federal agencies or state or local governments, or whether new data is of significance to the plan. Annual resource monitoring will also help to establish long-term use and resource condition trends and provide valuable information for future planning. Ultimately, resource monitoring and plan evaluation will determine whether there is sufficient cause to warrant maintenance, amendment, or revision of the plan. Maintenance This plan will be amintained as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. This maintenance will be limited to refining or documenting a previously approved decision. It shall not expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the plan. Maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Formal public involvement will not be necessary to maintain the plan. Amendments and Revisions This plan may be amended or revised if major changes are necessary. Monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances or a proposed action that may result in change in the scope, terms, or conditions of the plan would warrant an amendment or revision. An amendment will be analyzed either in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. The public and other agencies will be included in the amendment and revision processes. Valid Existing Rights This plan will not repeal valid existing rights on public lands. Valid existing rights are those claims or rights to public land that takes precedence over the actions in this plan. Valid existing rights may be held by other federal agencies or by private individuals or companies. Valid existing rights may pertain to mining claims, oil and gas leases, rights- of-way, and water rights. Administrative Actions Various types of administrative actions will require special attention beyond the scope of this plan. Administrative actions are the day-to-day transactions required to serve the public and to provide optimal use of the resources. These actions are in conformance with the plan. They include issuance of permits for fuelwood, sawtimber, Christmas trees, and competitive and commercial recreation activities; lands actions, including issuance of grants, leases, permits, and resolution of trespass; facility maintenance; law enforcement; enforcement and monitoring of permit stipulations; cadastral surveys to determine legal land ownership; and engineering support to assist in mapping, designing, and implementing projects. These and other administrative actions will be conducted at the resource area, district, or state offices. The degree to which these actions are carried out will be based upon BLM policy, available personnel, and funding levels. Public Involvement and Consistency This resource management plan was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of specialists from the Burns District Office. Writing of the RMP began in October, 1983; however a complex process that began in 1981 preceded the writing phase. This process included resource inventory, public participation, interagency coordination and preparation of a management situation analysis (on file in the Burns District Office). Consultation and coordination with agencies, organizations and individuals occurred in a variety of ways throughout the planning process. Burns District Advisory Council The Bureau’s Burns District Advisory Council participated in a review of the preliminary draft of the Preferred Alternative and scoping analysis. 4 U S D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E I N T E R I O R B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t BURNS DISTRICT September 1985 MAP 2 Land Status B L M L a n d u s Forest s e r v i c e A l d r i c h MOuntain W S A Malheur River -Bluebucket C r e e k W S A m S t r a w b e r r y M o u n t a i n s WSA Their review and subsequent feedback was helpful in formulation of the Preferred Alternative. Public Participation On January 28, 1981 a notice was published in the Federal Register and local news media to announce the formal start of the RMP planning process. On February 10, 1981 two public meetings were held in Grant County to aid the Burns District on initial issue identification for the John Day RMP Area. A few days later a meeting was held with the U. S. Forest Service to discuss issues and concerns. A letter was sent to affected range users and government agencies in March 1981 to announce a vegetative and soils inventory would be conducted that field season and the resulting data would be used in the RMP Shortly thereafter, in April 1981 Planning Report Number 1 was sent to the public to request further definition of major issues within the planning’ area. Planning Report Number 2, published in June 1981, requested comments from the public in 14 preliminary issues derived by the earlier process. In December 1982 Planning Report Number 3, a Federal Register Notice, and local news media publications suggested that an amendment to the existing plan might be more appropriate than a total plan revision. It also provided an opportunity to comment on proposed criteria for the formulation of alternatives. Public comments and staff analysis confirmed the need for continuation of the RMP process. On October 18, 1983 a notice of document availability was published in the Federal Register and subsequently in the local news media for the John Day Resource Management Plan Proposed Land Use Alternatives brochure. This document provided an outline of proposed alternatives, listed major issues and revised planning criteria. Three alternatives portrayed various resource programs showing an arrangement from emphasis on production of commodities to emphasis on enhancement of natural values with a mid-ground alternative attempting to establish a point between the two. The fourth alternative portrays the existing situation. Four major issues were displayed and eleven planning criteria were cited for development or selection of the Preferred Alternative. Other informal coordination with the public and government agencies took place throughout the planning process by means of personal contacts, phone calls, etc. The draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 15, 1984. The notice of availability and a public involvement opportunities announcement were published in the Federal Register. This notice announced a 90 day comment period commencing on June 16, 1984 and ending September 13, 1984. Over 800 copies of the draft EIS were mailed to Federal, state and local governments, private groups and organizations and individuals for review and comment. News releases provided information of how to obtain copies of the draft. Public meetings were held in Burns on July 25, 1984 and John Day on July 26, 1984. The District and Area Managers as well as members of the interdisciplinary team answered questions on the documents and encouraged public comment letters. A total of 21 comment letters were received during the 90 day comment period. Responses to these comment letters and the public meetings were provided in the final EIS. The notice of availability for the final EIS was published on November 30, 1985 in the Federal Register. This notice announced the commencement of the protest period, which would end on December 31, 1984. Over 1,000 copies of the final EIS were mailed to Federal, state and local governments, private groups, organizations and individuals. Two protests were received, reviewed and denied by the Director of the BLM. The Governor of Oregon did not identify any inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies or programs or recommend any changes in the proposed plan. BLM analyses indicated that the proposed plan was the most consistent alternative with the Department of Conservation and Development statewide planning goals and the Forestry Program for Oregon. Consultation Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, and Cultural Resources Informal and formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be initiated on all proposed actions which may affect any Federally listed threatened or endangered species. Consultation will be done in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. An appropriate level of inventory to identify historic and prehistoric sites or features will be conducted in areas proposed for a Bureau initiated or authorized surface disturbing projects (i.e., range improvements, timber sales, road construction), land sales or exchanges. Sites discovered are evaluated using criteria for placement on the National 6 Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6) in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The BLM considers the effect of any proposed undertaking on sites which meet the National Register criteria by following regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800) or a memoranda of agreement negotiated with the Council. In most cases, adverse effects to National Register quality sites are avoided by relocating ground disturbing activities. Where relocating a planned project is not feasible, mitigation of adverse effects to significant cultural properties may be necessary. Mitigation will usually be an attempt to extract and preserve those attributes of a site which qualify it for the National Register. For example, many prehistoric sites are significant for the information they may provide about ancient Indian lifeways and cultural adaptations. Various levels of site recording, excavation, and analysis can often retrieve the important information, preserving it in records and reports. Sites with socio-cultural values or aesthetic and recreational values suitable for public interpretation may be more difficult to mitigate by data recovery. Decisions about the treatment of such sites will be made on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Summary of Alternatives, Environmental Consequencesand Environmental Preferability Four multiple use alternatives for the management of public lands in the John Day Planning Area were developed and analyzed in accordance with the Bureau’s planning regulations issued under authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The alternatives responded to three major issues which were identified through the planning process: Forest Management, Forage Use and Land Ownership Adjustment. The purpose of the alternatives was to present and evaluate options for managing, protecting and enhancing public resources. Each alternative was a master plan that would provide a framework within which future, more site- specific decisions would be made, such as defining the intensity of management of various resources, developing activity plans (e.g., grazing allotment management plans and transportation plans) or issuing rights-of-way, leases or permits (see Table 1). The four alternatives considered were: A. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would emphasize the management, production, and use of renewable resources on the majority of the public lands in the John Day RMP area. Management would be directed toward providing a flow of renewable resources from the public lands on a sustained yield basis. This alternative represents the Bureau’s favored management approach. Grazing permits would be authorized at the 1982 total preference level of 25,323 AUMs. There would be 14 management systems developed, maintained or revised for Improve category allotments which comprise 47 percent of the grazing lands and 51 percent of the total preference AUMs. There would be 32,242 acres of commercial forestland on which the sustained harvest level is based. The sustainable harvest level would be approximately 2.17 MMbf annually or 21.7 MMbf for a ten-year period. Minor forest products would be sold where consistent with other resource values. Forage availability for wildlife and wild horses would continue at current levels except for bighorn sheep. The wild horse Herd Management Area (HMA) would be reduced in size, but the planned herd size would remain at 100 animals. Livestock grazing adjacent to 28.5 stream miles in Improve category allotments would be coordinated to enhance fish habitats. Vegetation manipulation and implementation of water developments would occur to improve fish and wildlife habitat, primarily big game habitat. lnstream structures would be developed along 55 miles of stream supporting anadromous fisheries. A fish ladder would be constructed to open up 85 miles of streams to anadromous fish. There would be 5,240 acres identified for disposal through sales with an additional 16,000 acres available depending upon a case by case analysis of other resource values. Exchanges and transfers to other federal agencies would take place when natural resource values would benefit. B. Emphasize Production of Commodities Alternative This alternative would emphasize providing economic benefits to the local economy. Multiple use management would emphasize the production of goods and services on public lands within the John Day RMP area to meet local and possibly regional demands. On grazing permits with I category allotments there would be a slight increase in authorized grazing use. Livestock grazing would be allowed throughout the planning area but grazing use within I category allotments would be managed according to activity plans. There would be 32,616 acres of commercial forestland on which the sustainable timber harvest level is based. The sustainable harvest level would be 2.21 MMbf annually or 22.1 MMbf for the decade. The sale of minor forest products would be optimized. Forage use for wildlife would continue at current levels except for bighorn sheep. Wild horse use on public land would be reduced or excluded focusing horse use in normal years on National Forestlands. A wild horse winter use area would be established for use in hard winters. There would be construction and development of fresh water impoundments to provide cold and warm water fisheries. There would be 21,014 acres identified for disposal through sales with an additional 16,000 acres available depending upon a case by case analysis of other resource values. Exchange and transfers to other federal agencies would take place when natural resource values would benefit. C. Emphasize Enhancement of Natural Resources Alternative This alternative would emphasize protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment within the planning area. The enjoyment and use of the natural environment for present and future generations, both locally and nationally, would be emphasized. Grazing permits would continue to be used at the 1982 total preference level of 25,323 AUMs. Activity plans would be maintained or revised as needed. Constraints upon the grazing program would be minimal and primarily would be reflected in implementation of activity plans. Riparian restrictions would be based upon previously proposed or existing pastures and existing exclosures. On grazing permits within I category allotments There would be 32,538 acres of commercial there would be a 25 percent decrease in livestock forestlands on which the sustainable harvest level is use over the short term. An additional decrease in based. The annual sustainable harvest level would livestock use would occur over time as wild horse be 2.20 MMbf or 22.0 MMbf for the decade. use increases. Range developments would be Woodland products would be utilized based upon imDlemented where aooroDriate to meet other demand. Forage availability to wildlife would continue at current levels in the short term except for bighorn sheep. Forage used by wild horses would receive a maximum increase to 5,061 AUMs over time and the HMA would remain at present size. Livestock grazing would be restricted or excluded from 76 streamside miles of riparian zone through management or fencing of affected allotments. lnstream structures would be developed in 55 miles of stream supporting anadromous fisheries. A fish ladder would be constructed to open up 85 miles of streams to anadromous fish. Under this alternative no lands would be identified for sales. Ownership adjustments would function through an active exchange program that would emphasize protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment. D. No Action Alternative This alternative allows for the management and flow of outputs from the public lands and resources in the planning area at their present levels. The planning area is presently operating under a 1974 Management Framework Plan (MFP) and formal management direction is derived from the MFP with on-the-ground ac tions following an interdisciplinary analysis process. resource needs. Livestock’grazing would be restricted or excluded from 76 miles of streamside nparian zone through management of fencing of affected allotments. There would be 22,961 acres of commercial forestland on which the sustainable timber harvest level is based. The sustainable harvest level would be 1.32 MMbf annually or 13.2 MMbf for the decade. Multiple use constraints and set-asides would be expanded. Old growth values would be preserved. Sales of woodland products would be restricted to protect other resource values. Forage availability to wildlife and wild horses would:y to wildlife and wild horse would continue at current levels. Constraints on timber!nt lev ls. Constraints on timber harvesting to protect big game habitat would bemtect big game habitat would be.~ based on existing constraints and set-asides. Wildlife developments would be implemented for big game and fish habitat. There would be 36,779 acres identified for disposal through sales. a Environmental Consequences and Comparison of Impacts Table l-2 compares the impacts of each alternative Impacts were described in detail in Chapter 4 of the DEIS and summerired in the FEIS. Both documents are available for inspection in the Burns District Office. Environmental Preferability of the Alternatives Environmental preferability is judged using the criteria in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Title I. Section 101(b) of NEPA establishes the following goals: 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the nvironmenl for succeeding generations; 2. assure for all Americans a safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation. risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences: 4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, and environment which supports a diversity and variety of individual choice; 5. achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. The Preferred Alternative in the EIS ranked first in overall environmental preferability. It was felt to be in compliance with all NEPA goals especially goals 1. 3. 5 and 6. The Preferred AlternatIve was followed by the Emphasize Enhancement of Natural Resources (Alternative C). While Alternative C was felt to be in greater compliance with goal 2 than the Preferred Alternative. It was felt that I did not comply as well with goals 5 and 6. The Emphasize Production of Commodities Alternative (Alternative B) was in greatest compliance with goal 6 and to a lesser degree goals 1 and 5 because of its emphasis on maximum productivity. The continue present management or No Action Alternative (Alternative D) was felt to be in compliance with goals 2 and 4 because it maintains current conditions. This alternative was not in compliance with goals 1, 3. 5 and 6 since it makes no attempt to enhance environmental quality of diversity and does n t improve social or economic well being Changes to the Proposed Plan During recent consultation and coordination with personnel of the Malheur National Forest. the proposed Herd Management Area boundary for the Murderers Creek wild horse herd was modified to include some 4,170 additional acres of public (BLM administered) land (see map 7), This modification was made to insure that BLM and the USFS will be able to provide adequate winter forage areas for the wild horses. All of the additional acreage is in allotment number 4052. however, no change in forage allocations (AUMs) for livestock, wildlife or wild horses is contemplated at this time, because the total competitive forage required by the horses will remain the same and there is no USFS plan to increase the herd size. Loss in Soil Productivity Timber Harvest’ Livestock Grazing Water (Sediment Yield) Timber Harvest’ Livestock Grazing fiiparian Condition Range Condition Forage Production Disturbance from range Improvements Timber H?rvest Level2 Wild Horses Herd size Size of HMA Wildlife Mule Deer Elk Other Upland Species Wetland Species Riparian Species Fish Populations3 +M +L +H +M Economic Conditions Local personal income ($1000) 69.236.0 Local employment (jobs) 3,429 + = beneficial, = adverse, NC = no change L = low, M = medium, H = high Table 1-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Environmental Consequences Unit of Existing Measure Situation Alternatives A B c D Preferred Production Enhancement No Action +L +L +M +L +L +L +L NC +L +L +M +L +L +L +L NC +L +L +M NC +L CL +L NC 6.6 10.3 3.9 8.2(1000 AUMs) 6.2 (acres) 0 41 41 (MMbf) 3.4 2.17 2.21 (no.) 100 (1000 acres) 143.1 90.9 100 100 522 100 90.9 143.1 143.1 NC -L +L NC NC -M +H NC NC NC NC NC +L -M +H NC +L -!A +H NC -46.5 -19.6 -262.0 -21.4 -2 -1 -11 -2 10 Chapter 2 John Day Resource Management Plan Decisions Introduction This chapter describes the Resource Management Plan, which provides a mid-ground or balance between the protection of resources and the production and development of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Management actions were selected on the basis of their ability to resolve the issues raised during the planning process, satisfy planning criteria and public input, and mitigate environmental consequences. The plan is the Preferred Alternative identified in the John Day Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (RMPIEIS). No significant changes have occurred from the proposed plan in the Final RMP/EIS. Approval of the RMP marks the completion of one stage of the planning process. The RMP is not a final implementation decision on actions which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations. More site specific plans or activity plans, such as habitat management plans (HMPs) will be done through the resource activity programs. Procedures and methods for accomplishing the objectives of the RMP will be developed through the activity plan. Further environmental analyses will be conducted and additional engineering and other studies or project plans will be done if needed. Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Plan The overall goal of the plan is to emphasize production of livestock forage and other commodities while accommodating wildlife, recreation, visual resources, water quality and wild horses. The multiple use trade-offs between resources help maintain and protect big, small and nongame habitat, riparian and aquatic habitat, recreation use, cultural and botanical resources, esthetics, and wild horses. Objectives: 1) Improve and maintain vegetative condition to benefit livestock and wildlife. Maintain all existing improvements and continue existing activity plans. In allotments where potential exists for resource improvement, implement management systems and/or range improvements. Coordinate livestock use in riparian zones in order to protect water quality and enhance anadromous and other sport fisheries. Allocate additional competitive forage to livestock before wildlife wherever present big game population objectives are exceeded; 2) Enhance water quality and manage aquatic habitat with particular attention to those watershed with major downstream uses including native anadromous species, other sports fisheries, and agriculture; 3) Alter timber management practices on those forestlands critical to habitat management for the enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, wilderness, water quality, and recreation; 4) Manage upland habitat for diversity to provide for a variety of wildlife species; 5) Keep public lands and roads open for a variety of recreational uses; 6) Reduce the existing Murderer’s Creek Herd Management Area while maintaining wild horse numbers at current management levels; 7) Keep public lands open for exploration/development of mineral resources, rights-of-way and other public purposes; 8) Improve the Bureau’s land base in John Day Planning Area for maximum public use or benefit through transfers to other Federal agencies, state or private exchanges or sale of public lands. Planned Management Actions Under the Proposed Plan This section describes the planned actions, outlines what support would be needed, if any, and determines priorities for implementing the planned actions. The planned management actions will be used as a mechanism to resolve the planning issues displayed in the preferred alternative within the Draft RMP/EIS and the proposed plan in the final RMP/EIS. These documents are available for inspection in the Burns District Office. The priorities were established based on public demands, administration policy, and Department of the Interior and BLM directives. Therefore, these priorities may be revised as policy and directives change. The highest priority for each resource is maintaining its base program. This includes funding normal operating costs, completing administrative duties, and processing public inquiries. Priorities are separated into three categories - high, medium and low based upon comparative ranking of the management actions. The listed support actions are foreseeable at this time. The need for additional support actions, such as engineering and other studies, or specific project plans may be identified as a result of further planning. All such actions will be designed to achieve the objectives of the RMP Additional 12 environmental analyses will be conducted where appropriate to supplement the analysis in the RMPIEIS. Forest Management Actions Manage 32,242 acres of commercial forestland within the 15 management units (see Map 3. Tables 2-1 and 2-2) for the commercial tree species. This includes 30,962 acres available for full timber production and 1,280 acres on which timber management practices and yields will be constrained for multiple use purposes. Major commercial tree species include Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, Grand fir, Lodgepole pine, Western larch, Engelmann spruce, and Western white pine. Manage woodlands for forest products when consistent with other resource uses. A sustainable harvest level of 2.17 MMbf annually, or 21.7 MMbf per decade is planned based on existing inventories, however a new sustainable harvest level will be calculated in 1986 in conjunction with a forest inventory which is underway. The actual volume offered may be less than the full biological potential depending upon the number of acres allocated to other uses and the operational constraints built into this land use plan in order to meet multiple use objectives, especially critical wildlife forage and cover areas, streams Table 2-1 Determination of Sustainable Harvest Levels for the John Day PIa% Are2:-~ No Planned Timber Harvest (Acres) Non-Commercial Forest Land Non-Operable Multiple Use Set-Aside2 Sub-Total Timber Production Base (Acres) Full Timber Production Multiple Use Constrained3 Sub-Total Total Forest Land (Acres) Approximate Annual Timber Sale Program (MMbf.)4 7,103 3,292 1,828 12,223 30,962 1,280 32,242 44,465 2.17 Table 2-2 Commercial Forestland Set- Asides and Constraints for Multiple Use in the John Day Planning Area Multiple Use Set-Aside -Fisheries/Riparian -Bald Eagle --Recreation/Visual -Research Natural Area Total Multiple Use Constrained Acres 956 711 131 30 1,828 -Wildlife 1,280 Total 1,280 identified as supporting fisheries and all Visual Resource Management Class I areas. Manage forestland to minimize losses or damage to commercial tree species from insects and disease. Develop road systems and manage for harvest of commercial tree species as prescribed in Appendix A-General Best Forest Management Practices. Commercially thin within the timber sale boundaries where feasible and with a preference for Ponderosa pine where appropriate. Pre-commercially thin approximately 200 acres per year. Dispose of slash concentrations in excess of 15 tons per acre with prescribed fire while maintaining at least 12 tons per acre for nutrient replacement. Dispose of heavy concentrations of standing dead material through a fuelwood sale program. Dispose of dead and down material through sale or free use. Support Cadastral survey and some engineering support will be needed to aid design and layout of timber sales and access roads. The timber sale plan is updated annually to reflect changes in direction and resource data. Develop timber management and woodland management plans. Fire management support will be needed for management of natural fire in meeting forest management resource objectives. Acquisition of legal access to public land will be needed to open areas for commercial forestland management. Acquisition of legal access to public land to open areas for fuelwood will only be pursued if the access also benefits other resource values. 13 US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau o f Land Management BURNS DISTRICT Existing Commercial Forest Lands Implementation and Monitoring Activity plans will define the resources for the planning area, state specific management objectives, specify planned actions, coordinate various resource values, and identify harvest levels, cutting cycles, and silvicultural practices for the commercial forest or woodland resource. Timber and fuelwood sales, timber stand improvement (e.g., thinning), reforestation, slash disposal, and road construction are examples of specific actions proposed in activity plans. Manuals and policy will offer other specific guidance for implementation of these actions. Environmental analyses and forest plans will further identify project implementation and mitigation measures. Commercial forest and woodland products will be offered for sale. Competitive bidding will be the preferred method for selling commercial timber. Fuelwood, posts, poles, and boughs will be sold to the general public. Periodic forest inventories will be conducted in an effort to monitor the forest and woodland resources. Inventory data will be incorporated into activity plans and will assist in defining the sustainable harvest level. Monitoring of these projects will ensure proper implementation. The basic process of monitoring for forestry practices involves on-site inspection of the project. Generally, a pre-work conference is conducted to familiarize the contractor or purchaser with the project area, contract requirements, and other project specifics. During the project life, periodic inspections of the work performance and progress are conducted by the forester. At the end of the project, a final inspection is generally conducted to check for work quality and proper completion of all contract requirements. An assessment of the project is made at that point and recommendations for amending future like projects are made to ensure future successes and streamlining. Implementation Priorities High - Revise and update existing timber management plan to reflect management direction of the resource management plan. Medium - Prepare woodland management plan for large tracts of manageable woodland. Factors considered when determining the priority of management areas include: l Accessibility to product and market; 0 Demand for woodland products; l Opportunities to complement other resources. Low - Designate selected areas for post, pole and fuelwood permit areas in lieu of preparation of woodland management plan. Forage Management Actions Continue present management on 127,723 acres (143 allotments) to benefit livestock and wildlife by maintaining and improving ecological condition. The allotments within which this action and other grazing management actions would take place are listed in Appendix 6. The selective management areas are displayed on Map 4. Maintain existing structural and nonstructural range improvements throughout the planning area. These range improvements consist of 37 water impoundments, 31 springs, 13 seedings, 66 fences, 1 corral, 4 cattleguards, and 2 trails. Implement structural range improvements (fences, pipelines, water developments and springs) in I category allotments to benefit range and riparian habitat conditions, improving early and middle ecological conditions, and maintaining and improving late ecological condition on 56,042 acres (14 allotments). Implement grazing treatments on 56,042 acres (14 allotments) and maintain existing grazing treatments on 26,990 acres (3 allotments) to maintain and improve range and riparian habitat conditions. Implement vegetation manipulation on 4,390 acres within 9 allotments with the goal of increasing future livestock forage primarily to resolve other resource problems on the allotments by shifting grazing pressure away from problem areas. Authorize all grazing use at present levels to maintain and improve present range condition. Monitoring studies will show changes in condition which will determine whether stocking levels should be adjusted or whether grazing management should be refined. The level of livestock forage use in the short term is 25,323 AUMs (see Appendix B for AUMs by allotment). Implement grazing treatments on 56,042 acres within 14 allotments and maintain existing grazing treatments on 28,990 acres within 3 allotments to maintain and improve range and riparian habitat conditions. Adjust the season of use on 37,784 acres within 8 allotments to provide for growth requirements of perennial plants, manipulate grazing use on riparian zones and protect fragile soils. Manage 28.5 miles of riparian zone in I allotments to enhance natural values through Bureau/Lessee coordinated grazing treatments and range improvements (see Appendix C). 15 U S D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E I N T E R I O R B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t BURNS DISTRICT September 1985 MAP 4 Selective Managament Areas Pm Allotment Numbers - Allotment Boundaries 0 (M] Maintdn E ( I ) Improve [Cl) Custodial l The rsmaining unmarked parcsls of BLM land are sither C2 custodial allotments or unollotted 1 6 Develop or revise 14 management plans (AMPS or CRMPs) on I allotments and in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Dayville Grazing Association and the Malheur National Forest, and revise the CRMP for the Murderers Creek Ranch, updating the grazing portion of the plan. Each allotment’s proposed range development program was subjected to a Rangeland Investment Analysis. This analysis process was used to design and evaluate the economic efficiency of various combinations of range improvements and management actions. Table 2-3 displays range projects for Improve category allotments. Livestock grazing administrative functions will continue including issuing grazing licenses, processing allotment transfers, establishing and interpreting range monitoring studies. conducting field examinations, supervising allotments, processing trespass actions, making public contacts, and completing benefit-cost analysis studies for proposed range improvement projects. Support Fire management support will be required for project layout, design, and implementation for vegetative manipulation through prescribed fire. There would be a support need for survey and design features for range improvement and vegetative manipulation and benefit/cost analyses for those range improvements (see Table 2-3). Water rights will have to be secured for water developments. Coordination would occur with lessees and affected parties on livestock manipulation and development or refinement of management plans. Implementation and Monitoring Implementing and monitoring the livestock grazing portion of this plan will require several separate actions that overlap in time, some of which are underway. These actions include: allotment categorization; AMPs/CRMPs development (range improvement implementation); monitoring of range conditions and trend; determination of stocking levels; forage use decisions; and monitoring to determine if selective management criteria are being fulfilled (see Appendix D). Implementation Priorities. High - Implement AMPslCRMPs based upon selective management (see Appendix 6). Priorities for AMPKRMP implementation are as follows: 0 Issue forage use decisions on Custodial category allotments, 1986 l Complete or revise partially completed AMPs/CRMPs: 0 Issue forage use decisions on Improve category allotments; 0 Issue forage use decisions on Maintain category allotments; Table 2-!-Range Projects for Improve ca~te~v Allotments1 Allot. NO. Seeding (AC) Brush Control A!& Fence (Mi.) Spring Devel. W-J.) 4007 155 600 0 2 4049 0 700 3.0 0 4052 0 400 6.5 6 4066 300 600 0 2 4066 0 0 0 2 4097 300 460 0.5 3 4096 200 247 0.5 0 4103 100 260 6.3 2 4120 570 950 0 1 4124 260 200 2.5 1 41512 0 0 0 0 4156 0 0 1.2 1 41632 0 0 0 0 4164 0 0 3.0 0 Total 1905 4437 23.5 20 Pipeline Reservoin Disturb. (Mi.) A+?:) v!CL 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 0 4 i 2 1 1 7 4 i 0 0 0 27 606 706 436 606 9 473 246 305 961 295 0 7 0 6 4666 Benefit/ BLM Cost Ratio 1.5/l 1.2/l 1.3/l 1.4/l 5.6/l 1.2/l 2.4/l 1.6/l 1.2/l 1.2/l NA 11.7/l NA 4.2/l Table 2-4 Summary of Projected Grazing Use (AU+) Improve Allotments’ No. Name 4007 Windy Point 4049 Battle Creek 4052 Big Baldy 4066 Sheep Gulch 4066 Rudio Mtn. 4097 Trout Creek 4096 East Cr.-Pine H. 4103 Rockpile 4120 Ferris Creek 4124 Smokey Creek 4151 Kinzua 4156 Rudio Creek 4163 Creek 4164 Corral Gulch Short Term 407 630 1743 292 590 566 374 926 260 307 1170 369 51 318 Long Term* 427 a72 1630 307 620 596 393 974 294 322 1229 367 53 334 Medium - Monitor allotments to establish stocking rates where data indicates reduction in forage use or where data is inconclusive or nonexistent. Low - Issue grazing decisions where no reductions are required or reductions are negotiated with lessee. Wildlife and Fish Management Wildlife habitat will be managed to support a proposed bighorn sheep population of 150. Presently an estimated 60 bighorn sheep inhabit the Aldrich Mountain area. The plan will supply approximately 500 AUMs of big game forage, primarily for mule deer, within I category allotments only. Implement grazing treatments and range improvements to resolve wildlife concerns. Appendix E lists some but not all of the Habitat Management techniques that may be used. Maintain existing wildlife water developments. Revise or develop habitat management plans. Develop planned wildlife seedings on 220 acres and juniper/brush control on 1,320 acres. Maintain and improve the current level of habitat diversity. Utilize existing road systems and limit new permanent road entries by emphasizing the use of special timber harvest techniques. Restrict human activity adjacent to active raptor nesting and roosting areas during specific periods of the year. Manage 28.5 miles of riparian zone to enhance natural values through Bureau/Lessee coordinated grazing treatments and range improvements. During timber harvesting retain buffer strips on streams supporting or having the potential to support fish. Expand steelhead territory by providing passage through man-made and natural barriers. Improve pool to riffle ratio on approximately 50 miles of resident and/or anadromous fish streams by constructing weirs and deflectors, and placing boulders in streams. Construct and develop fresh water impoundments to provide cold and warm water fisheries while providing for other downstream users. Acquire lands, through exchange, to increase and/or expand wildlife habitat. BLM ownership on the South Fork, John Day River includes 23.3 miles of the South Fork and tributaries. An additional 8 miles of fish habitat on BLM administered lands will be made accessible for summer steelhead when upstream passage is provided at lzee Falls on the South Fork. Construction of a combination of jump pools and laddering is anticipated to be funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) under the Northwest Power Planning Act of 1980. The cost of this project and the habitat enhancement planned above the falls on portions of 85 stream miles is estimated at $1,004,700. Cooperators are the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, USFSBPA, BLM, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and private landowners. Support Fire management support will be required for project layout, design, and implementation for vegetative manipulation through prescribed fire. The support need for survey and design features for wildlife improvements and vegetative manipulation. Water rights will have to be secured for water developments. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife engineering skills will have to be secured for survey and design features for the lzee Falls fish ladder. The district will need an explosives expert to dislodge man-made and natural barriers within affected streams. Coordinate with lessees and affected parties on livestock manipulation, and development or refinement of management plans. Develop monitoring studies. Implementation and Monitoring Habitat management plans (HMPs) will be written for selected areas of wildlife habitat, e.g., bighorn 18 US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau o f Land Management BURNS DISTRICT September 1885 MAP 5 Wildlife Habitat *nt.lop. wint.r “.“S. US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau o f Land Management BURNS DISTRICT Sepfember 1985 MAP 6 Fish Habitat - Summer steelhead spawning +tHt S!Jring Chinook Salmon spawning -Rainbow Trout ,Anadromous Fish Holding and Immigrat ion Areas sheep, bald eagles, resident and anadromous fish. The plans will include detailed information on species emphasis, management objectives, constraints, planned actions, coordination with other programs and agencies, environmental analyses, implementation schedule and cost analyses and evaluation procedures. Priorities will be determined by need (shortage of habitat, conflict with other uses, potential or opportunity for improvement, etc.). Crucial habitats will be monitored for forage production, habitat condition changes, and overall effectiveness of improvements (see Maps 5 and 6). Cooperative agreements with ODF&W will be developed to coordinate wildlife introductions on public lands. Monitoring will include browse studies, photo trend, eagle inventory, and remote sensing. Wildlife habitat monitoring will enable the Bureau to make decisions on forage allocation and seasonal use restrictions may be made after monitoring described in grazing management. Streams will be monitored to ensure maintenance of water quality and riparian conditions and to evaluate the effectiveness of stream improvement practices. This monitoring includes riparian inventory and photo trend, water quality inventory, biotic condition index, fish census and remote sensing of riparian habitat. The priority in which these streams will be monitored and funded for Improvement is based upon characteristics of the fisheries and the intensity of management (see Appendix E). Implementation Priorities High - Monitor, maintain or improve habitat for threatened or endangered species, e.g., bald eagles. Monitor, maintain or improve aquatic habitat on those streams having good potential for fish management. Priorities will be based upon criteria set forth in Appendix G. Monitor, maintain or improve riparian habitat as identified in the Draft RMP/EIS. Monitor, maintain or improve bighorn sheep range Medium - Monitor, maintain or improve winter range for mule deer and elk. Place priorities for specific treatment in those areas having the greatest problems, the best potential or both, Monitor, maintain or improve aquatic habitat streams having nonintensive management values, Low - Monitor and maintain aquatic habitat on streams having little or no fish management value Monitor, maintain or improve habitat for game and nongame species of high interest in the area. Wild Horse Management Maintain present wild horse herd management plan numbers but reduce the herd management area to 97,320 acres as shown in Table 2-5. The herd management area will be adjusted to an existing fenced boundary. Jointly revise the herd management plan with the USFS and ODF&W. Coordinate with USFS to continue monitoring wild horse populations and habitat conditions. Wild horse use adjustments will be made by the Bear Valley Ranger District, USFS, when herd numbers reach the target level. Table 2-5 Land Ownership Within the Murderer’s Creek Herd Management Area (Acres) USFS 73.600 76% BLM 14,290 15% ODF&W 6,160 6% Private 3,270 3% Total 97.320 100% Support Coordinate with affected parties to revise the Murderer’s Creek Herd Management Plan. Continue wild horse monitoring studies. Coordinate and consult with herd management plan members in removal of wild horses outside the modified herd management area. Expedite disposal of wild horses through the BLM administered adoption program. Implementation and Monitoring Monitor wild horse forage and water requirements within proposed herd management area. Coordinate removal of wild horses with USFS when target levels have been reached. Coordinate adoption capabilities with Forest Service for Murderer’s Creek HMA excess animals. Implementation Priorities High - Remove wild horses outside the modified herd management area. Coordinate monitoring of wild horse populations. Medium - Monitor, maintain or improve forage and water requirements within proposed herd management area. Low - Revise the Murderer’s Creek Herd Management Plan. 21 D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E I N T E R I O R B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t BURNS DISTRICT September lee5 MAP 7 M u r d e r e r s C r e e k H e r d M a n a g e m e n t A r e a Land Ownership Adjustment Actions This plan designates the following land transfer actions in priority order: 1. BLM/Other Federal Jurisdictional Transfers; 2. Transfers to State and Local Agencies (Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) and other actions); 3. State Exchanges; 4. Private Exchanges; 5. Sales; 6. Desert Land Entries. This plan will allow BLM to offer 5,240 acres (see Appendix F) for sale and an additional 16,000 acres will be considered for sale, exchange or transfer when in the public interest. Land disposal actions will be guided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) Sec. 203, Bureau policies and the Criteria for Land Ownership Adjustment as shown in Appendix G. The remaining 160,880 acres of public land in the planning unit will not be disposed of through sales. Support Support will be needed for conducting land appraisal reports to estimate the value of public land identified for disposal. Support will also be needed to conduct mineral, cultural, and threatened and endangered species resource evaluations. These evaluations will contribute to the environmental analyses on land disposals. Cadastral surveys to delineate specific tracts may be needed in some cases. Implementation and Monitoring Land ownership adjustment criteria has been adopted as part of the approval of this plan (see Appendix G). In any given year, up to 20 percent of the 5,240 acres could be offered for sale. However, should any or all of the additional 16,000 acres be incorporated in the sale program the amount of annual acres offered for sale could increase. Site specific environmental analyses will be prepared for proposed disposals. A 45-day public comment period will be provided prior to the disposal action. Implementation Priorities High - BLM/other federal jurisdictional transfers and withdrawals and transfer to other Federal, State and local agencies (R&PP and other actions) and exchanges. Medium - Sales. Low - Desert Land Entries Monitoring the John Day Resource Management Plan The implementation of the John Day RMP will be monitored during the life of the plan to ensure that management actions are meetrng their intended purposes. Specific management actions arising from proposed activity plan decisions will be compared with the RMP objectives to ensure consistency with the intent of the plan. Formal plan evaiuations will take place at intervals not to exceed 5 years. These evaluations will assess the progress of plan implementation and determine if: (1) management actions are resulting in satisfactory progress toward achieving objectives, (2) actions are consistent with current policy, (3) original assumptions were correctly applied and impacts correctly predicted, (4) mitigation measures are satisfactory, (5) it is still consistent with the plans and policies of State or local government, other Federal agencies, and Indian tribes, (6) new data are available that would require alteration of the plan. As part of the plan evaluation the appropriate government entities will be requested to review the plan and advise the District Manager of its continued consistency with their officially approved resource management related plans, programs and policies. Advisory groups will also be consulted during the evaluation in order to secure their input. Upon completion of a periodic evaluation or in the event that modifying the plan become necessary, the Burns District Manager will determine what, if any, changes are necessary to ensure that the management actions of the plan are consistent with its objectives. If the District Manager finds that a plan amendment is necessary, an environmental analysis of the proposed change will be conducted and a recommendation on the amendment will be made to the State Director. If the amendment is approved, it may be implemented 30 days after public notice. Potential minor changes, refinements or clarifications in the plan may take the form of maintenance actions. Maintenance actions respond to minor data changes and incorporation of activity 23 plans. Such maintenance is limited to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan. Plan maintenance will not result in expansion in the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved RMF! Maintenance actions are not considered a plan amendment and do not require the formal public involvement and interagency coordination process undertaken for plan amendments. A plan amendment may be initiated because of the need to consider monitoring findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances, or a proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions and decisions of the approved plan. Ongoing Management Programs The John Day RMPlElS focused on three significant resource management issues. The following ongoing BLM management programs and actions will continue: Soil, Water and Air Management The inventory and evaluation on project level planning of soil, water and air resources on public lands will continue. Soils will be managed to maintain productivity and to minimize erosion. Corrective actions will take place, where practicable, to resolve erosive conditions, Water sources necessary to meet BLM program objectives will be developed and filed on according to applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. Water quality of perennial streams will continue to be monitored, and climatological data will continue to be gathered. Mining Administration Areas not specifically withdrawn from mineral entry will continue to be managed through the 43 CFR 3809 regulations and the mining laws to help meet demand for minerals while preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of other resource values. Activities in areas under wilderness review will continue to be managed under the 43 CFR 3602 regulations to protect their wilderness character until the wilderness designation issue is resolved, Fire Management The Burns District will continue fire suppression activities in Grant County. A district-wide fire management plan will be developed that will enhance resource management when used at the activity planning stage. Levels of suppression or limited suppression (or protection) will be identified that will take into consideration public concern and safety, private and/or public impacts, existing management systems, and intermingled land ownership at the activity planning level. Prescribed fire planning will be coordinated with Oregon Department of Forestry and adjacent landowners. Cultural Resource Management Cultural resource clearances will be completed on all projects requiring BLM approval or initiated by the BLM that include surface disturbance. Areas or sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places will be considered for nomination. Botanical Resources Presently there are no federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) plants known in the RMP area. However, 12 plant species are under review for possible listing as T&E as shown in Table 2-6. Inventories will be conducted to define populations and habitat. To identify any potential impacts on those plants, the Bureau will continue to conduct surveys prior to any significant surface disturbing activity (see Appendix C, Standard Operating Procedures No. 4). Table 2-6 Plant Species Under Review for Nomination for Threatened or Endangered Status’ Scientific Name for Plant Species Notice Review Category 2 Lomatium laevigatum 2 Lunia serpentina 1 Rorippa columbiae 2 Astragalus diaphanus 2 Thelypodium eucosmum 2 Silene scaposa var. scaposa 2 Astragalus tegetarioides 2 Lupinus biddlei 2 Lupinus cusickii 2 Collomia macrocalyx 2 Eriogonum prociduum 2 Castilleja xanthotricha 2 ’ As pUblished in “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review Of Plant Taxa Ior listing as Endangered or Thleatened species“ Federal Register “0,. 45. NO, 24. 12,15,*0 and WI, 48, NO. 229, 11,28/83. 2 category 1 = SUniCien, biological ,“stitication *xists ,m listing as en- dangered or threatened StatUS. Categaly 2 = Further study is needed 10 determine if biological justifica- tion lo, listing exists. categories are subject to change as new information becOmeS wailable. 24 Cadastral Survey and Engineering Programs Cadastral surveys and engineering activities will continue to be conducted in support of resource management programs. The road maintenance program will continue. Existing approved contracts will not be affected by the RMP Realty Program All existing corridors will be designated without further review. Corridor widths vary depending on the number of parallel facilities, but are a minimum of 2,000 feet. Applicants will be encouraged to locate new facilities within existing corridors to the extent possible. In addition the following areas have been identified as areas to be avoided when locating facilities or corridor routes: 1. South Fork of the John Day River Canyon, from Deer Creek to the junction of the South Fork Road with Grant Co. Road No. 42; 2. BLM lands providing bighorn sheep habitat in the vicinity of Aldrich Mountain as shown on Map 5; 3. BLM lands within the Murderers Creek Cooperative Wildlife Management Area. Proposed corridors and applications for local rights- of-way and for use of the public lands through land use permits, leases, and cooperative agreements will continue to be considered individually. Recommendations made and actions approved will be consistent with the objectives of the RMP. The withdrawal review program will continue to ensure that such withdrawals are still needed and consistent with present management. Revocation of existing withdrawals would be consistent with this RMP if the withdrawal review process determines they are no longer needed. Their revocation and opening to applicable public land laws would be consistent with the plan. No additional BLM withdrawals are proposed. Recreation Management Recreational and visual resources will be evaluated as a part of activity and project planning. Dispersed recreational activities will continue commensurate with demand. Developed recreation sites where low public use levels and/or deteriorated facility conditions do not justify the expenditure of additional maintenance funds will be closed or maintenance transferred to other entities. This plan designates 121,945 acres as open for of - road vehicle use. Another 49,692 acres are identified for seasonal closures to enhance wildlife habitat in the cooperative road management areas (i.e. big game hunting seasons). The remaining 10,523 acres are subject to the BLM Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. Wilderness Study Areas The wilderness study areas will continue to be managed following the guidance of the Bureau’s Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. This policy will be in effect until an area is released from interim management. If an area is designated wilderness it will be managed under the guidelines of BLM’s Wilderness Management Policy. 25 Appendix A-General Best Forest Management Practices The following Best Forest Management Practices (BFMP) are taken from the Oregon Statewide Planning Manuals and the Oregon Forest Practice Rules (Oregon Department of Forestry 1980). Generally, BFMP applications were selected to avoid rather than mitigate impacts. In addition, all road standards and designs will correspond to BLM Manual 9113. Road System Logging road locations, particularly on sensitive areas, should be evaluated by a forester, soil scientist, wildlife biologist, and other specialists as needed. The location should be fitted to the topography to minimize cut and fill situations. In areas of important big game habitat, consultation with the wildlife biologist will be necessary to reduce impacts on wildlife, particularly in areas such as ridgelines, saddles, and upper drainage heads. Where alternative locations are not possible, incorporate mitigating measures into road development plans. Avoid stream crossings, if possible. If not possible, minimize approach cuts and fills and channel disturbance, and maintain stream bank vegetation. Do not locate stream crossings strictly on a grade basis. Choose a stable site and adjust grade to it, when possible. Keep stream disturbance to an absolute minimum. If necessary, include short road segments with steeper grades, consistent with traffic needs and safety, to avoid problem areas or to take advantage of terrain features. For timber harvest spur roads, take advantage of natural landing areas (flatter, better drained, open areas) to reduce soil disturbance associated with log landings and temporary work roads. Vary road grades where possible to reduce concentrated flow in road drainage ditches and to reduce erosion on road surfaces. Design drainage ditches, water bars, drain dips, culvert placement, etc., in a manner that will disperse runoff and minimize cut and fill erosion Install culverts or drain dips frequently enough to avoid accumulations of water that will cause erosion of road ditches and the area below the culvert and drain dip outlets. Seed (revegetate) cuts and fills the first fall season following disturbance. Deposit excess material in stable locations well above the high water level and never into the stream channel. Do not allow any material, including sidecast soil, stumps, logs, or other material to be deposited into a stream. Plan ditch gradients steep enough (generally greater than 2,) to prevent sediment deposition When installing culverts and drain dips, avoid changes in channel orientation and place these structures to conform to the natural channel gradient. Design culverts for maximum stream flow (e.g., twenty-five year discharge). Skew culverts approximately 30 degrees toward the inflow to provide better inlet efficiency. Provide rock or other basins at the outlet of culverts and rock the drain dips if economically feasible. In some areas, alternating inslope and outslope sections can be built into the road, especially if road grades are rolled to dispose of road surface flow. Obtain all necessary permits for stream crossings before beginning activities. Maintain all roads immediately after logging and the primary roads whenever necessary by cleaning ditch lines, blading debris from empty landings, trimming damaged culvert ends, and cleaning out culvert openings. Grade the primary road surfaces as often as necessary to retain the original surface drainage (either insloped or outsloped). Take care to avoid casting graded material over the fill slope. Monitor surface drainage during wet periods and close the road if necessary to avoid undue damage. Haul all excess material removed by maintenance operations to safe disposal areas. Apply stabilization measures on disposal sites if necessary to assure that erosion and sedimentation do not occur. Vary the steepness of slopes on cut and fill slopes commensurate with the strength of the soil and bedrock material as established by an engineering geologist or other specialist in soil mechanics. Control roadside brush only to the extent required for good road maintenance. 27 Silvicultural Time logging activities to the season in which soil damage can be kept to acceptable limits. suspension systems which include cable and aerial. Each system impacts ground vegetation to different degrees relative to the soil disturbance resulting from the harvest system used. For example, the tractor system would cause the greatest impact to existing vegetation and an aerial full suspension system would cause the least disturbance. Design and locate skid trail and skidding operations to avoid across ridge and across drainage operation, and to minimize soil compaction. Install water bars on skid trails when logging is finished (forester and/or soil scientist will provide assistance as requested or needed). Avoid trapping and turning small streams out of their natural beds into tractor trails and landings. Confine tractor skidding operations to slopes of less than 35 percent. Leave appropriate snags and/or large dead trees for wildlife, as per current BLM Snag Management Policy Guidelines and Agriculture Handbook No. 553 (USDA 1979). If debris should enter any stream, such debris shall be removed concurrently with the yarding operation and before removal of equipment from the project site. Removal of debris shall be accomplished in such a manner that natural streambed conditions and streambank vegetation are not disturbed. Provide appropriate width buffer strips adjacent to perennial streams, springs, and wet meadows. Logging techniques in riparian areas in non perennial streams would be designed to minimize the amount of sediment-laden overland flow that reaches perennial stream channels. Avoid logging across any stream supporting fisheries. Reforest all cutover lands with a commercial species to minimum stocking levels (100-150 trees/acre within 5-15 years. The differences in stocking level numbers are related to the differences in site class. For more detail refer to the BLM TPCC Manual 5250. Slash disposal will be done in a manner conducive to revegetation and advantageous to wildlife. Slash will be burned when necessary and such burning will be in conformance with state air pollution regulations. Logging units will be laid out in a manner that would reduce the risk of windthrow. The selection of trees in shelterwoods will be made in a manner that would improve the genetic composition of the reforested stand. Disturbed areas will be artificially reforested when natural forest regeneration cannot be reasonably expected in 5-15 years. Yarding practices to be employed during the planning period consist of tractor systems, ground and partial suspension cable systems, and full 28 Appendix 6: Current Livestock Authorization and Existing Range Condition 4001 4002 4003 4004 4005 4006 4007 4006 4009 4010 4011 4012 4013 4014 4015 4016 4017 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4025 4026 4027 4026 4029 4030 403, 4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4036 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4049 4050 405, 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4059 4060 Baker tiity- C l 4061 Scott Creek C l 4062 Warren Creek M 4063 Oxbow Fields C2 4065 Eas, Franks Creek C2 4066 Kidd Creek c2 4067 Sheep cr. Butte c2 4066 Sheep Gulch I 4069 Big Springs c2 Johnny Creek Fall Creek Slickear M,“, Hamilton Mtn, Water Spout Gulch Damon Creek Windy Point Big Wall Creek Birch Creek Slide Creek C G River John Day Middle Fork Mud springs Dixie Board Creek Rains Canyon Murderer’s Creek Poleline Long Hollow Triple Fork POrl”g”eSe Sidehill Top Road Neal Butte North Fork Powersite Coyote Field Mosquito Creek Bullock Gulch Long Gulch Rim Stonehill Juniper Dayville Aldrich Ml”. Poison Creek Franks Creek Johnny Cake Mtn. Mahogany Soda Creek Sear Gulch Three Mile Little Indian Sanle Creek Jinks Creek Axe Gulch Big Baldy “liver Fields Cl c2 c2 c2 c2 C2 ‘0 C l C2 C2 C2 :; c2 Cl C2 c2 M c2 Ei C2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 Cl C l c2 c2 C l C2 c2 C2 I Ei I C2 Wrightman C a n y o n C2 Mt. Vernon c2 Dam Creek c2 Warm Springs Creek C2 Cold Sorinos c2 1.160 657 3.274 160 60 160 2,514 40 3.169 40 24 10 67 2 1 1 50 1 46 226 135 40 562 240 2.548 160 329 17.315 160 80 320 160 40 79 39 5 5 333 2 1 14 3 1 1 712 1,894 120 160 60 14 52 2 2 1 40 1 20 1 654 5 746 13 4w 5 1,640 1.45, 1,237 2,617 280 320 2,023 74 60 200 94 22 41 27 3 6 50 1 1 4 4,956 556 63 11,132 200 40 160 120 40 10 108 1, 5 217 280 4 640 10 1,907 29 640 16 140 1 644 1,463 2,676 10 23 72 1163,499 107 3 C C C C C C C C C C C C : C C C C C C C S E C C C C E C I- C C H C C C C C C C : C z : C C C : C C E E E C C C Begin 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 0, 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 10 01 04 01 04 01 05 3, 04 01 06 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 06 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 06 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 06 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 06 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 03 01 04 01 “ s e T o t a l 196 60 537 20 10 12 407 4 366 5 31 13 5 77 30 319 25 41 2.000 2, 6 20 27 6 9 119 316 20 20 6 5 3 41 92 40 141 182 246 223 30 64 405 9 6 25 70 7 6 0 6 3 0 89 10 1,743 45 6 20 15 5 36 60 236 60 14 61 165 576 292 17 29 Appendix I3 (continued) NRL AIJMS Allot. Allotment Acres Livestock Livestock Graziw Period Percent Active Allot. B e g i n End FL 4077 4076 4082 4083 4064 4065 4066 4067 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4096 40% 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4106 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 411, 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4116 4119 4120 412, 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4126 4129 4130 4131 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4136 4139 4140 414, 4143 4144 4145 30 415, 41.54 FOX c2 Round Top c2 Willow Creek c2 Capsutile C r e e k C2 C~“~nww,d C r e e k C l M o o n M o u n t a i n C2 Gibson Hill C2 Jack of Clubs c2 , 9 2 0 c2 Lower Damon c2 Barber Pole Butte C2 Rudio Ml”. Blue Basin ‘0 East MonLmlent c2 Magpie Creek c2 Juniper Rid@? c2 Littld Beach- c2 West Bologna Creek C2 Dry Creek c2 Fields Creek C2 Hi Desert c2 Trout Creek East Creek-Pine Hill South Fork Pyramid Point k?e canyon Terrace Little Wall Creek Big Canyon Creek Funny Butte Dustin Point Cottonwood Forks Courthouse Rock Long Creek Mtn. Canyon Mtn. Small Pasture Beech Creek Black Canyon Ferris Creek Airport Big Send Canyon Smoky Creek Umatilla Abrahams Draw Kimberly Cummings Creek Selshaw Creek Marks Creek Day Creek Whiskey Gulch Vaughn Lookout Gibson Creek Baldwin Gulch White Bone Yard Shirl Tail Creek Pine Creek Silvies Wyllie TWO County Kinrua Morgan Creek c2 c2 C2 c2 I C2 c2 C l EE c2 C2 C2 C l c2 c2 c2 c2 Ci C2 I c2 C2 c2 I c2 C2 C2 E c2 Cl c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 c2 C2 C2 c2 M c2 C l I 0 40 360 60 60 3,113 240 40 2w 16u 240 1 2 9 1 34 660 3 3.660 227 966 27 413 6 80 1 60 360 60 200 ’ ,092 400 2.839 1,640 40 160 233 164 4.916 1 5 6 3 61 10 113 62 1 5 1,075 1.001 ,.2w 156 320 146 1,042 620 1,556 460 120 4 2 106 14 26 25 30 2 6 2 135 2 1.119 944 3,177 320 260 160 2,213 ~~~~~~~ 6’9 40 240 160 642 60 1,563 455 453 119 120 320 60 1.480 40 335 11,035 40 13,796 9,493 1,647 54 4 24 1, 1 2 1 20 23 37 5 3 1 6, 14 I 5 2 10 5 22 8 i 2 6 2 2, 1 5 367 1 136 195 46 C C C C C C C : H C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C F C C E C C C : C E C C C E C C C C C C E C C C C C C C C C C C C : 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 0, 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 0, 1, 01 07 0, 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 06 01 04 01 05 0, 04 01 04 01 07 0, 04 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 06 01 05 01 1, 0, 06 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 16 04 01 04 01 04 0, 07 01 04 01 06 0, 04 01 04 01 04 0, 05 01 04 01 06 01 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 05 0, 05 0, 04 01 05 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 C 04 01 1, 30 100 I, 30 100 06 0, 100 11 30 100 09 30 100 1, 3 0 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 0601 loo 10 15 74 11 30 100 11 30 100 ,I 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 0630 100 11 30 100 09 15 100 11 30 100 09 30 100 09 3 0 100 ,I 3 0 100 ,031 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 1, 3 0 100 1, 30 100 1, 3 0 100 11 3 0 100 ,I 3 0 100 11 30 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 1 0 0 1 l o o 09 30 100 06 15 100 11 01 100 11 3 0 100 1, 30 100 0430 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 1, 3 0 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 1, 3 0 100 11 30 100 06 0, 100 , 0 3 1 1 0 0 1, 01 1 0 0 11 30 100 10 0, 1 0 0 11 3 0 100 ,I 30 100 0631 1 0 0 1, 30 100 1, 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 ,I 30 100 11 3 0 100 10 3, 100 11 3 0 100 “se Total 5 20 9 10 204 30 6 25 26 36 26 590 220 62 1, 10 45 12 26 214 60 566 374 5 20 39 20 670 69 9 2 6 215 200 240 20 63 20 216 23 194 55 15 17 1 140 166 260 40 25 11 307 113 6 40 20 60 5 160 56 55 15 20 53 10 146 6 30 47 2.500 5 1.105 1.170 370 Appendix B (continued) 4155 4156 4157 4158 4159 Slackhorse Draw Rudio Creek 4160 4161 4163 4164 4167 4166 4172 4173 4174 4175 Bologna Creek oean Creek CWk Corral Gulch curry Grub Creek Cummings Fork Eagle Rock Reynolds Creek Boulder C l 2,696 ‘0 2,326 40 C2 280 c2 660 c2 440 c2 40 I 706 1 2,653 c2 200 C2 80 c2 320 :; 160 157 c2 40 4176 01ck Creek C l 1,000 4177 Clark Creek c2 483 4176 Cheatgrass c2 40 4160 King him c2 160 4181 Dog Cr, Ridge C2 120 4163 OSUF c2 160 4164 Pass Creek c2 60 4166 Cockran Creek c2 160 4166 Big Flats C l 3.637 4300 Unleased Category Public Land Numbers 67 46 1 8 21 4 1 96 212 10 26 6 20 5 2 2 1 1 3 10 44 ClSS C C C C C C C E C C C : C C H s C C H C C C H C B e g i n 04 01 11 30 100 540 04 01 11 30 100 369 04 01 0631 1 0 0 5 06 01 11 30 100 35 06 01 11 30 100 65 04 01 07 01 04 10 05 01 04 01 04 01 10 01 05 15 06 01 06 01 11 30 100 09 30 100 04 26 100 06 15 060 06 01 100 10 31 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 100 11 30 1 0 0 11 30 100 07 30 100 06 15 100 06 30 100 09 01 1 0 0 37 5 51 316 20 05 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 05 01 06 01 09 01 100 05 01 11 30 100 04 01 11 30 100 05 01 1 0 3 1 100 04 15 11 30 100 04 15 11 30 100 10 40 16 10 5 227 60 4 16 6 6 16 10 10 16 64 3 5 0 9 2 7 31 Appendix C-Range Developments and Standard Operating Procedures The following is a discussion of typical design features and construction (see Table 2-3 for a summary of improvements and treatments). There are many special design features that can be made part of a project’s design, that are not specifically discussed in this Appendix. One example of a special design feature would be the use of a specific color of fence post to blend with the surrounding environment and thereby mitigate some of the visual impact of the fence. These mitigating design features will be developed, if needed, for individual projects at the time an environmental analysis is completed. Structural Improvements Fences Fences will be constructed to provide exterior allotment boundaries, divide allotments into pastures, protect streams, and control livestock. Most fences will be three or four wire with steel posts with intermediate wire stays. Existing fences that create wildlife movement problems will be modified. Proposed fence lines will not be bladed or scraped. Gates or cattleguards (gates with cattleguards) will be installed where fences cross existing roads. For any fences in wildlife migration areas, the need for let-down fences to allow passage of wildlife will be analyzed. These fences will be let down when livestock are not present. Water Impoundments Reservoirs, including dugouts and waterholes, and catchments will be constructed with earth-moving machinery. The essential steps in constructing a dam for a reservoir are the excavation of a keyway, backfilling a core of non-permeable material and placing other fill to a prescribed height and slope. Generally, all fill material is excavated on-site. Dugouts are very small reservoirs whose dams do not have a keyway and core. Depending upon feasibility, some reservoirs with a fill of over 15 feet will be fenced and water piped to a trough or waterhole. Waterholes are excavated holes in non- permeable material with the spoil placed adjacent to the hole. Catchments are rainfall catching projects consisting of a fenced watershed apron and a impermeable waterhole, bag, tank or trough. Catchments may have large aprons for livestock or very small ones for wildlife guzzlers. Spring Development Springs will be developed or redeveloped using a backhoe to install a buried collection system, usually consisting of drain tile or perforated pipe and a collection box. A short pipeline could be installed to deliver water to a trough for use by livestock and wildlife. Ramps, rocks, or floatboards would be provided in all water troughs for small birds and mammals to gain access to and/or escape from the water. Normally the spring area and the overflow are fenced to exclude livestock following development. New spring developments and new reservoirs will cause a permanent decrease in upland key species composition on 5 to 10 acres surrounding the new water source due to heavy utilization and trampling by livestock concentrating in the area. As springs are developed, water will be diverted to livestock water troughs and fencing will protect riparian vegetation where significant overflow occurs. Consequently, a new increase would occur over the long term in both woody and herbaceous riparian key species at springs. Pipelines Wherever possible, water pipelines will be buried Most pipelines would have water troughs and sometimes storage tanks. Wells Well sites will be selected based on geologic reports that predict the depth to reliable aquifers. All applicable state laws and regulations that apply to the development of ground water will be observed. Nonstructural Improvements Vegetation Manipulation Vegetation manipulation (brush control and brush control with seeding) is proposed primarily in portions of the big sagebrush vegetation type where significant improvement in the range condition rating will require more than 15 years using grazing management alone. Vegetation manipulation projects will be designed using irregular patterns, untreated patches, etc., to provide for optimum edge effect for visual and wildlife considerations. Layout and design will be coordinated with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists. Burning The proposed methods of brush and juniper control are burning, chainsawing, chaining or plowing. 32 Burning would temporarily reduce sagebrush because sagebrush does not resprout following fire. The effect of burning on perennial bunchgrasses varies with the intensity of the fire, season of the burn and the species of grass in the burn area. The composition of Sandberg’s bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, cheatgrass and squirreltail, where present, will increase on areas proposed for burning. Several studies in Idaho indicate that fall burning does not harm most perennial herbaceous species (Britton 1976). Seeding Seeding will be accomplished by use of the rangeland drill in most cases. Broadcast seeding will occur on small disturbed areas, rough terrain and rocky areas. Preparation for seeding (brush control) will be by burning or mechanical treatment. Based on observations of existing seedings in the RMP area and studies of similar areas in Oregon, crested wheatgrass will comprise 50 to 90 percent of the seeded area. Species composition following any treatment would vary according to the success of the brush control, the survival of other species in the seed mixture and the amount of precipitation in the year following seeding. It is anticipated that the existing road and trail system will provide access for range improvement constructlon. It is assumed that normal maintenance such as replacement of pipeline sections, fence posts and retreatment of vegetation manipulations would occur. Standard Operating Procedures The following procedures will be followed in the construction of all management facilities and for vegetation manipulations. 1. Specific proposed projects will be evaluated individually through the analysis process to determine whether they would have significant adverse environmental impacts. 2. Roads or trails to new construction or project sites will not normally be constructed. Use of existing roads and trails will be encouraged. 3. To comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 36 CFR 800, and Executive Order 11593, all areas where ground is to be disturbed by range developments will be inventoried for prehistoric and historic features. Where feasible, all sites found by this inventory will be avoided. If sites are found to be eligible for the national register and cannot be avoided, a determination of the effect of the project on the site(s), including appropriate mitigating measures if necessary, will be done in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. No action affecting the site will be taken until the Advisory Council and SHPO has had the opportunity to make comments. If buried cultural remains are encountered during construction, the operator must discontinue construction until the BLM evaluates the discovery and determines the appropriate action. 4. No action will be taken by the BLM that could jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. An endangered species clearance with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will be required before any part of the plan would be implemented that could affect an endangered species or its habitat. In situations where data are insufficient to make an assessment of proposed actions. surveys of potential habitats will be made before a decision is made to take any action that could affect threatened or endangered species. Should the BLM determine that there could be an effect on a federally listed species, formal consultation with the FWS will be initiated. In the interim period before formal consultation, the BLM will not take any action that would make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would foreclose the consideration of modifications or alternatives to the proposed action. When the FWS opinion is received, if it should indicate the action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the action would be abandoned or altered as necessary. The BLM also will comply with any state laws applying to animal or plant species identified by the state as being threatened or endangered (in addition to the federally listed species). 5. All actions will be consistent with the BLM’s Visual Resource Management criteria. The management criteria for the specific Visual Class will be followed. 6. Wildlife escape devices will be installed and maintained in water troughs. 7. In crucial wildlife habitat (winter ranges, fawning/calving areas, strutting grounds, etc.), construction work on projects will be scheduled during seasons when the animals are not concentrated to avoid or minimize disturbances 33 8. Surface disturbance at all project sites will be held to a minimum. Disturbed soil will be rehabilitated to blend into the surrounding soil surface and reseeded as needed with a mixture of grasses, forbs and browse as applicable to replace ground cover and reduce soil loss from wind and water eroston. 9. Analysis of cost effectiveness will be done on an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) basis prior to the installation of any management facility or land treatment. 10. Generally all areas where vegetative manipulations occur will be totally rested from grazing during at least two growing seasons following treatment. 11. Vegetative manipulation projects will be done in irregular patterns creating more edge (more than strip and block manipulation), with islands of vegetation left for cover. 12. All land treatment projects on crucial wildlife ranges would be limited in size, where appropriate, by the cover requirements of wildlife. 34 Appendix D-Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation The effects of implementation will be monitored and evaluated on a periodic basis over the life of the plan. The general purposes of this monitoring and evaluation will be: (1) To determine if an action is fulfilling the purpose and need for which it was designed, or if there is a need for modification or termination of an action. (2) To discover unanticipated and/or unpredictable effects. (3) To determine if mitigation measures are working as prescribed. (4) To ensure that decisions are being implemented as scheduled. (5) To provide continuing evaluation of consistency with state and local plans and programs. (6) To provide for continuing comparison of plan benefits versus costs, including social, economic, and environmental. A resource objective monitoring plan has been written. This plan provides a framework for choosing the study methods to collect the information needed to issue and implement specific management decisions which effect watershed, wildlife, and range. More specific objectives will be developed in the AMPS. These objectives are site specific and relevant to specific management applications. Monitoring efforts will focus on allotments in the Improve category. For the range program, methodologies are available for monitoring vegetative trend, forage utilization, actual use (livestock numbers and periods of grazing), and climate. The data collected from these studies will be used to evaluate current stocking rates, to schedule pasture moves by livestock, to determine levels of forage competition, to detect changes in plant communities, and to identify patterns for forage use. The methodology and intensity of study that is chosen for a particular allotment will be determined by the nature and severity of the resource conflicts that are present in that allotment. For the wildlife program, monitoring will be directed at the biotic resource components using both temporary and permanent studies. The findings from these studies can be used to monitor responses in habitat condition and trend; monitor forage availability, composition, and vigor; monitor changes in cover and habitat effectiveness; and monitor habitat management objectives. The data collected from the monitoring and evaluation process will be analyzed and fed back into the decision-making process. This will provide information regarding the effects of the land use decisions, the adequacy of mitigation methods, etc. If monitoring indicates that significant unexpected adverse impacts are occurring or that mitigating measures are not working as predicted, it may be necessary to amend or revise the AMPS. Conversely, if implementation and mitigating efforts are highly successful, monitoring and evaluation efforts may be reduced. In this case, an allotment could be reclassified from an Improve to an Maintain Selective Management category. 35 Appendix E-Habitat Management Techniques Riparian habitat needs will be taken into consideration in developing livestock grazing systems and pasture designs. Some of the techniques that can be used to lessen impacts are: 0 management activities in riparian zones will be designed to maintain or, where possible, improve riparian habitat condition; l changing class of stock from cow/calf pairs to herded sheep or yearlings; @either eliminating hot season grazing (i.e., grazing during the hottest part of summer) or scheduling hot season grazing on a rotational basis (e.g., only one year out of every three); 0 locating salt away from riparian zones; 0 laying out pasture fences so that each pasture has as much riparian habitat as possible; l locating fences so that they do not confine or concentrate livestock near the riparian zone; l developing alternative sources of water to lessen the grazing pressure on the riparian habitat; and l as a last resort, excluding livestock completely from riparian by protective fencing. Where applicable, the following management tools may be used to alleviate wildlife habitat conflicts that may occur: 0 managing public vehicle access to maintain the habitat effectiveness of security cover and key seasonal habitat (such as winter range) for deer and elk; Odesigning and/or authorizing roads and utility corridors to avoid riparian zones to the extent practicable; l maintaining adequate untreated peripheral zones around important moist-sites (i.e. wet sedge meadows, springs, riparian zones); 0 maintaining adequate thermal and security cover on deer and elk habitat, particularly within timber stands adjacent to primary winter foraging areas. Aquatic Habitat The John Day Basin is extremely important in terms of supporting wild runs of anadromous fish as well as resident populations of both warm and cold water species. A great deal of angling interest exists for all game species found in the basin. Management priorities and techniques are discussed below. Intensive Management Streams which support or have the potential to support anadromous fish will be intensively managed to improve the existing fisheries resource. Specific management objectives and actions can be found in the John Day Basin Aquatic Habitat Management Plan. Due to the expected lo-year time period required for full implementation of the HMP priorities have been established with the cooperation of ODF&W, U.S. Forest Service, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. These priorities for management (and expenditures) are based on the following criteria: l the importance of the drainage to anadromous fish runs in relation to the entire John Day River Basin; l the existing condition of the aquatic habitat; l the potential for response with management; and l the percentage of the stream on public lands. All streams selected for intensive management will eventually be improved but their priority would depend on their ranking when evaluated with the above criteria. Types of habitat management practices that may be used to improve the fisheries would include: l stabilizing eroding streambanks with rock riprap, juniper placement and/or revegetation; l constructing fences to restrict livestock from damaged riparian areas; l creating spawning and rearing areas with instream placement of log and rock weirs, log and rock deflectors and boulders; 0 removing debris that restricts flow or fish mrgration; 0 providing fish passage over barriers to migration movements; 0 working with other agencies or landowners on a cooperative basis to improve aquatic habitat; and l providing protection by imposing restrictions on surface disturbing activities (see Nonintensive Management). Nonintensive Management Nonintensive management will be practiced on streams not covered under intensive management. Types of restrictions or management practices to protect fish habitat which enhances the fisheries resource may include: 0 leaving buffer strips of vegetation between streams and areas of surface disturbance, e.g., road construction, surface mining. or logging operations, 0 building sediment gathering structures to prevent sediment from entering streams from surface disturbing activities, 0 locating roads out of tiparian or wetland areas. Roads crossing streams would be positioned so as to cause minimal damage to riparian, stream, or wetland habitat and to provide for unobstructed 36 37 Appendix F-Opportunities for Sale of Public Land Opportunities for Sale of Public Lands Legal Description State: Oregon District Office: Burns County: Grant Willamette Meridian Legal Description T. 7 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 15: WBNEX, N%SEB Sec. 23: WVzNWV4 T. 6 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 22: SW%SE% Sec. 27: NW%. E%NWX, NWXSEX Sec. 35: NWVASE%. NE%SW% T. 6 S., Ft. 30 E., Sec. 20: SW%NW% T. 9 S., Ft. 26 E., Sec. 22: EVzNEVa, NWXNE% Sec. 34: NW’hNE’h. SE’ANE’h T. 9 S., Ft. 29 E., Sec. 21: SE%NE1/4 Sec. 30: NVzSEB T. 13 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 28: S~hSh Total 160 80 240 T. 14 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 28: SE%, SE%NW% 200 Sec. 32: SW’hSW’V4 40 240 T. 17 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 17: NWXNE% 40 40 280 80 400 Sec. 20: NW%SW% 40 Sec. 22: SEXNWX 40 Sec. 25: EVzSEX SW%SE% 120 Sec. 29: SE%NE’%. N%SEY, WXNW% 200 Sec. 30: SE%NE%. E%SE% SWXSE% 160 40 Sec. 31: WXNEV, NWXSEV, SE%SEX 160 Sec. 32: NWXNEVU, NW1hSE%. SW%SW% 120 120 T. 17 S., R. 27 E., 80 Sec. 30: SWXNW%. W1/2SW% 200 Sec. 31: WV2W1/2 40 80 T. 16 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 1: S%SE% Sec. 4: NE1/aSW% Sec. 5: NWXNW% Sec. 8: NZXSWX, SW%SWV~ Sec. 9: S/2S1/2 Sec. 10: Sl/zSW1/4 Sec. 12: S%NWX. E%SWX. SW’hNWw Sec. 31: E%NW%, SWXNEJV4, NW%SW% T. 9 S., R. 32 E., Sec. 18: SW%SE% SElhSWVd Sec. 27: SE%SW% T. 10 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 1: SEXNEVd T. 10 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 21: NE%SE% Sec. 32: NEXNWV4 T. 10 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 21: NW%NE% T. 11 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 29: SW% Sec. 30: NWXNEX, NW%SWV4 Sec. 32: NWVdNEV4, NE%NWVo 160 280 80 40 120 40 40 40 80 40 160 80 80 320 Total T. 12 S., R. 27 E., Sec. 2: SW%SE% 40 Sec. 3: SE’%SE% 40 80 160 NW’hSE’h Sec. 13: N%NW% Sec. 17: W%NW% Sec. 19: NEXSEVe Sec. 21: SW%NEX Sec. 25: N%NWX Sec. 26: SE%NEX Sec. 28: S%SE%, E%NW% NW’/aNE% T. 16 S., R. 27 E., Sec. 2: SW’hSWV4 Sec. 10: SW%SWV, NWXSE% Sec. 11: S%NEl/q, NW% Sec. 12: SVZNYZ T. 20 S., R. 32 E., Sec. 9: SE%SE’A 800 120 160 180 80 40 40 80 160 80 240 80 80 40 40 80 40 200 1280 40 80 240 160 520 40 Grand Total 5240 30 Appendix G-Criteria for Land Ownership Adjustment The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 includes specific criteria for use in categorizing public land for retention or disposal, and for identifying acquisition priorities. This list is not considered all-inclusive, but represents the major factors to be evaluated. These criteria may be modified in the future to assure consistency with changes in Federal law or policy. The criteria to be used are public resource values, including but not limited to: l Threatened or Endangered or sensitive plant and animal species habitat; 0 riparian areas; l fish habitat; 0 nesting/breeding habitat for game animals; 0 key big game seasonal habitat; 0 developed recreation sites and recreation access; 0 Class A scenery; 0 municipal watersheds; l energy and mineral potential; l significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; 0 wilderness and areas being studied for wilderness; 0 accessibility of the land for public uses; l amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for recovering those Investments; l difficulty or cost of administration (manageability); l suitability of the land for management by another federal agency; 0 significance of the decision in stabilizing business, social and economic conditions, and/or lifestyles; 0 whether private sites exist for the proposed use; l encumbrances, including but not limited to withdrawals, or existing leases or permits; *consistency with cooperative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies; and l suitability (need for change in land ownership or use) for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or economic development, such as industrial, residential, or agricultural (other than grazing) development. The land ownership adjustment criteria identified above will be considered in land reports and environmental analyses prepared for specific adjustment proposals. exchanges or both may be permitted based on site- specific application of the land ownership adjustment criteria. Land to be acquired by the BLM through exchanges, generally, must: 0 facilitate access to public land and resources, or 0 maintain or enhance important public values and uses, or 0 maintain or enhance local social and economic values in public ownership, or *facilitate implementation of other aspects of the John Ray RMP. Public land to be sold must meet the following disposal criteria derived from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act: *such land must be difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and must not be suitable for management by another federal department or agency; @such land must have been acquired for a specific purpose and must no longer be required for that or any other federal purpose; or @disposal of such land will serve important public objectives than can only be achieved prudently or feasibly if the land is removed from public ownership, and if these objectives outweigh other public objectives and values that would be served by maintaining such land in federal ownership. Generally, exchanges are the preferred method of disposal but sales will be utilized when: 0 it is required by national policy; 0 it is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis, and where disposal through exchange would cause unacceptable delays; l the level of interest in a specific tract indicates that competitive bidding is desirable for reasons of fairness; or *disposal through exchange is not feasible. The preferred method of selling public land will be by competitive bidding at public auction to qualifying purchasers. However, modified competitive bidding procedures may be used when there is not legal public access to a tract, when necessary to avoid jeopardizing an existing use on adjacent land, or to avoid dislocation of existing public land users. Public land may be sold by direct sale at fair market value when: Transfers to other public agencies will be considered where improved management efficiency would result. Minor adjustments involving sales or l such land is needed by state or local governments; @direct sale is needed to protect equities arising from authorized use; 39 *direct sale is needed to protect equities resulting from inadvertent, unauthorized use that was caused by surveying errors or title defects; or l there is only one adjacent landowner and no legal public access.