U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Burns District Office HC 74-l 2533 Highway 20 W. Hines, Oregon 97738 ONRC Action v. Bureau of Land Management Administrative Reco September 1991 Proposed Three Rivers Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I - Text As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historii places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLM-OR-ES-91-29-1792 Cover Photo - Federal Land Offfce - Temporary Headquarters in the Burns Hotel building from 18891891. Predecessor to the Taylor Grazing Service and Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Proposed Three Rivers Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by Burns District Off ice State Director, OregonMlashington District Manager, Burns I United States Department of the Interior TAKE-md BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT OFFICE HC 74-12533 Hwy 20 West Hines, Oregon 97738 - In IN REPLY REFER TO: September 20, 1991 Dear Public Land User: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Three Rivers Planning Area, Bums District, Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management has prepared this document in partial fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Proposed RMP Final EIS is designed to stand alone from the Draft RMP/EIS which was published in October 1989. However, the interested reader may find it useful to refer to the Draft RMP/EIS when using this document. The public devoted a tremendous amount of effort in providing in- depth input on the Draft RMP/EIS. The Bums District received 225 individual comment letters containing over 1,200 specific comments. The Planning Team has assessed these comments and utilized the input in making substantive changes in the Proposed RMP. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who took the time to provide us with these comments. We feel that your efforts have resulted in a stronger and clearer RMP. This Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains a summary comparison of the alternatives considered (including the Proposed Plan), an introduction, the Proposed Plan, the environmental consequences of the Proposed Plan, revisions to the Draft RMP/EIS, public comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS, and the Bureau’s response to those comments. The Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP has been revised as a result of public comment and internal review.The Proposed Plan reflects these changes in the refinement of management objectives and in management actions. If you desire assistance with this document you may contact the Area Manager, Craig M. Hansen, (503) 5735241. If you would like to have your interests/concerns considered by the District Manager as he makes the final decisions which will guide the management of the public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area for the next 10 - 15 years, please do so in writing prior to the close of the public comment period on October 21,1991. Comments should be sent to: District Manager Bureau of Land Management Burns District Office HC 74-l 2533 Hwy 20 West Hines, Oregon 97738 The final decisions will be based on the analysis contained in the EIS, any additional data available, public input, management feasibility, policy and legal constraints. Approval of the plan will be documented in a record of decision which will be made available to the public. The resource management planning process includes an opportunity for administrative review via a plan protest to the BLM Director if you believethe approvalof a proposed RMPwould be in error. (See 43 CFR 1610.5-2.) careful adherence to these guidelines will assist in preparing a protest that will assure the greatest consideration to your point of view. . . . III Only those persons or organizations who participated in our planning process leading to this RMP may protest. If our records do not indicate that you had any involvement in any stage in the preparation of a proposed RMP or amendment, your protest will be dismissed without further review. A protesting party may raise only those issues which he or she submitted for the record during the planning process. New issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the Burns District of Three Rivers Area Managerforconsideration in plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as otherwise appropriate. The period forfiling a plan protest begins when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes in the Federal Register its Notice of Availability of the final environmental impact statement concerning the proposed RM or amendment. The protest period extends for30 days. There is no provisionfor anyextensionof time. To be considered “timely,“your protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. Also, although not a requirement, we suggest that you send your protest by certified mail, return receipt requested. Protests must be filed in writing to: Director (760) Bureau of Land Management 1849 “C” Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 In order to be considered complete, your protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information: 1. The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. 2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 3. A statement of the part or pails of the proposed RMP being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc. included in the document. 4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted during the planning process or a reference to the date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the record. 5. A concise statement explaining why the BLM State Director’s decision is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical part of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents, environmental analysis documents, available planning records (i.e., meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). A protest which merely expresses disagreement with the Oregon/Washington State Director’s proposed decision, without any data will not provide us with the benefit of your information and insight. In this case, the Director’s review will be based on the existing analysis and supporting data. The Proposed RMP cannot be approved until the Governor of Oregon has had an opportunity to review it. Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval of this RMP may protest such approval. Complete instructions on filing a protest are presented in Chapter 5. The deadline for filing a protest is October 21, 1991. Thank you for your continued interest in the multiple use management of your public lands. Sincerely, Mike Green District Manager vi Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. Purpose and Need Introduction, The Planning Area ............................................................................................... l-3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... l-3 Planning Process ..................................................................................................................... l-3 Planning Issues and Their Resolution ...................................................................................... l-3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study ..................................................................................... l-7 Analysis of Public Comment on the DRMP/DEIS ..................................................................... l-7 Planning Criteria ..................................................................................................................... l-l 1 Chapter 2. The Proposed Plan Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Management Objectives .......................................................................................................... .2-2 Rationale.. ................................................................................................................................ 2-2 Allocations. ............................................................................................................................... 2-2 Management Actions ................................................................................................................ 2-2 Procedures to Implement ......................................................................................................... 2-2 Monitoring Needs ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 Index to Program Packages ..................................................................................................... 2-3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 Soil Management .................................................................................................... 2-15............... Forestry and Woodlands ........................................................................................................ 2-21 Grazing Management.. ........................................................................................................... 2-33 Wild Horses and Burros.. ........................................................................................................ 2-43 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 2-51 Special Status Species ........................................................................................................... 2-56 Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 2-66 Aquatic Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 2-96 Fire Management ................................................................................................................. 2-101 Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers.. .............................................................................. 2-l 07 Areas of Criiical Environmental Concern .............................................................................. 2-137 Visual Resource Management ............................................................................................. 2-148 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 2-152 Energy and Minerals.. ........................................................................................................... 2-156 Lands and Realty ................................................................................................................. 2-l 77 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................ .2-199 Biological Diversity .............................................................................................................. .2-200 Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 Analysis ............................................................................................... 3-2..................................... Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 3-2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ .3-2 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 3-2 Soil Management ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 Forestry and Woodlands .......................................................................................................... 3-3 Grazing Management .............................................................................................................. .3-4 Wild Horses and Burros.. .......................................................................................................... 3-6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 3-7 vii Special Status Species ............................................................................................................ .3-9 Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................................................ .3-9 Aquatic Habitat ...................................................................................................................... .3-12 Fire Management .................................................................................................................. .3-15 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 3-15 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................... .3-17 Visual Resources .................................................................................................................. .3-17 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ .3-21 Energy and Minerals.. ............................................................................................................ .3-22 Lands and Realty .................................................................................................................. .3-23 Economic Conditions.. ........................................................................................................... .3-25 Chapter 4. Revisions to the DRMP/DEIS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Text Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Chapter 5. Consultation and Distribution Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS Have Been Sent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Consistency Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Protest Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Chapter 6. List of Preparers, Glossary, and References List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... .6-2 Glossary .................................................................................................................................. .6-4 References ............................................................................................................................ .6-13 List of Tables Table Number Title Page Sl Comparison of Management Objectives ..................................................................................................... xiii s2 Comparison of the Alternatives.. ................................................................................................................ xxii Chapter 1 1.1 Resource Management Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-6 Chapter 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Surface Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2-l 1 Headcut and Gully Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20 Typical 1 0-Yr Timber Sale Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32 Part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection, Location and Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32 Part 2. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Locations and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 Part 3. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests Stand Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 Grazing Management Manual Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42 . . .VIII 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.10 2.1 1 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 Private Water Sources Selected for Acquisition of Permanent Access (Listed in Priority) .................................................................................................................................... .2-48 Representative Characteristics by Wild Horse and Burro Herd ............................................................... .2.49 Rangeland Improvements For Wild Horses and Burros .......................................................................... .2-50 Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions ............................................................. .2-54 Recommended Management/Use Constraints in Old Growth Management Areas ................................. .2-55 Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) ................................................................................................. .2-61 Grazing Management Adjustments for Special Status Species ................................................................ 2-63 Proposed Big Game Allocations ............................................................................................................ ..2-8 3 Wetland Habitat Condition ...................................................................................................................... .2-87 Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment ..................................................................... 2-92 Diamond Craters Management Actions ................................................................................................ .2-l 25 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory .......................................................................................................... 2-127 Eligibility Assessment and Potential Classification - Wild and Scenic River Inventory ........................................................................................................ .2-l 28 Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values - Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory ....................................................................................................... 2-l 29 Suitability Determination For Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek.. .......................................................... .2-l 30 Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, Oregon/Washington .................................................................................................................. .2-134 Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations .............................................................................................................. 2-l 68 Geothermal Lease Stipulations ............................................................................................................ ..2-16 8 Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals ............................................................. .2-l 69 Mineral Material Sites ......................................................................................................................... ...2-175 Summary of Acreage Closed to the Operation of the Mining Laws ....................................................... .2-l 76 Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements ................................................................... .2-191 Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal .................................................................................................. 2-193 Withdrawal, Classification and Review Actions ..................................................................................... .2-197 Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Streams and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality From Implementation of the Selected Afternative .............................................................. .3-4 Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality Condition Trend from Implementation of the Proposed Plan.. ................................................................................... 3-4 Impacts to Range Condition.. .................................................................................................................... .3-6 Impacts to Stocking Levels with and without Range Improvements .......................................................... .3-6 Impacts to Range Condition in Herd Management Areas .......................................................................... 3-8 Wild Horse and Burro Management Levels and Forage Allocation ........................................................... .3-8 Vegetation Type in the Three Rivers RA .................................................................................................. 3-10 Degree of Impacts to Special Status Species of the Proposed Plan ...................................................... ..3- 11 Impacts to Big Game Habitat Conditions (acres) ..................................................................................... 3-13 Impacts to Riparian Habitat Conditions .................................................................................................... 3-13 Impacts to Wetland Habitat Condition ..................................................................................................... .3-13 Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend ........................................ ..3-14 Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat ..................................... ..3-14 Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Three Rivers RA ................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Projected Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Chickahominy Reservoir.. ...................................... .3-18 Projected Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Diamond Craters ................................................... .3-18 Impacts to Off-Road Vehicle Designations.. ............................................................................................. 3-19 Proposed Off-Road Vehicle Designations Areas and Acres ..................................................................... 3-20 Impacts to Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 3-20 Current VRM Classification ...................................................................................................................... 3-21 Proposed VRM Classification .................................................................................................................. 3-21 Impacts to Oil and Gas Leasing Categories ............................................................................................ .3-23 ix 3.23 Impacts to Geothermal Leasing Categories ............................................................................................ .3-23 3.24 Impacts to Lands, Realty, Withdrawals and Classifications ...................................................................... 3-25 3.25 Timber Harvest 1980-l 987 ..................................................................................................................... .3-26 3.26 Impacts To Livestock Grazing Operations, Proposed Plan ..................................................................... .3-27 Chapter 4 4.1 4.2 Timber Harvest 1980/l 987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Impacts to Ranching Operations by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Chapter 6 6.1 List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 6-2 Appendix 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 General Best Forest Management Practices ......................................................................................... l-3 Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protection ................................................................ l-7 Stream Segments Proposed for Livestock Removal.. .......................................................................... l-l 1 Riparian Area Grazing Systems and Inventory .................................................................................... l-13 Stream Segments Proposed for Immediate Grazing System Implementation.. .................................... l-15 Stream Segments Proposed for Case-by-Case Grazing System Implementation ............................... l-17 Stream Segments Which Lack Sufficient Data for Grazing System Implementation.. ................................................................................................................................. l-19 Actions Proposed in Three Rivers Portion of the Burns District Wetlands HMP ................................................................................................................................... l-21 Allotment Management Summaries - Introduction ............................................................................... l-23 Allotment Categories ......................................................................................................................... f-171 Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................... l-177 Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range Improvements .............................................. l-l 79 Range Improvement Costs ................................................................................................................ l-181 Potential Range Improvements by Allotment ..................................................................................... l-183 Description of Existing and Proposed ACECs ................................................................................... l-187 Recommended Management/Use Constraints in ACECs .................................................................. l-195 Off-Road Vehicle Designations - Federal Register Notice ................................................................. l-197 Calculation of Three Rivers Average Annual Recreation Growth.. ..................................................... l-199 Projected Recreation Visits To BLM-Administered Lands in the Three Rivers Resource Area for the years 2000 and 2010 ............................................................... l-201 Gold Development Scenario.. ............................................................................................................ l-203 Appendix 2 Comment Letters and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..II-5 X List of Maps Map Map Title Number Page Gen-1 General Location .................................................................................................................................. l-2 Gen-2 Land Status .......................................................................................................................................... l-4 WQ-1 Watery Quality.. ................................................................................................................................... .2-8 S-l General Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 2-16 s-2 Erosion Condition Classes ................................................................................................................. 2-18 F-l Existing Commercial Forestlands ....................................................................................................... 2-22 F-2 Woodlands ......................................................................................................................................... 2-26 F-3 Dry Mountain Old Growth Forest Stand ............................................................................................. .2-28 F-4 Emigrant Old Growth Forest Stand.. ................................................................................................... 2-29 F-5 Craft Old Growth Forest Stand ........................................................................................................... 2-30 F-6 Bluebucket Old Growth Forest Stand ................................................................................................ .2-31 RM-1 Livestock Grazing Allotments ............................................................................................................. 2-34 RM-2 Areas Excluded From Livestock Grazing.. .......................................................................................... 2-38 RM-3 Potential Vegetation Manipulation and Seeding ................................................................................ .2-40 WH-1 Active Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas.. ............................................................................ .2-46 ss-1 Special Status Species ....................................................................................................................... 2-64 WL-1 Mule Deer Range ............................................................................................................................... 2-88 WL-2 Elk Range and Wetland/Plays Habitats ............................................................................................. .2-90 FM-l Resource Values at Risk .................................................................................................................. 2-102 FM-2 Fire Management Zones ................................................................................................................ ..2-10 4 R-l Recreation Use Areas .................................................................................................................... ..2-10 8 R-2 Recreation Off-Road Vehicle Designation ........................................................................................ 2-112 R-3 Recreational Minerals.. ..................................................................................................................... 2-l 18 WSR-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory ..................................................................................................... 2-l 22 WSR-2 Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek ............................................................................................... 2-l 24 ACEC-1 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................. 2-l 38 ACEC-2 South Narrows ................................................................................................................................. 2-l 42 ACEC-3 Diamond Craters ............................................................................................................................ ..2-14 3 ACEC-4 Silver Creek/Dry Mountain.. .............................................................................................................. 2-l 44 ACEC-5 Foster Flat ........................................................................................................................................ 2-l 45 ACEC-6 Kiger Mustang .................................................................................................................................. 2-l 46 ACEC-7 Biscuitroot ........................................................................................................................................ .2-l 47 VRM-1 Visual Resource Management Classes .......................................................................................... ..2-15 0 M-l Coal, Oil and Gas Potential .............................................................................................................. 2-158 M-2 Geothermal Resources Potential.. .................................................................................................... 2-l 60 M-3 Major Locatable Minerals Potential .................................................................................................. .2-164 M-4 Mineral Materials Sites .................................................................................................................... .2-l 66 LR-1 Land Tenure Zones .......................................................................................................................... 2-178 LR-2 Right-of-Way Corridors, Exclusion, Avoidance Areas ....................................................................... 2-184 LR-3 Critical Access Needs .................................................................................................................... ..2-18 6 xi Xii Summary Each alternative was a complete land use plan thatprovided a framework for the multiple-use manage- Five multiple-use alternatives for the management of public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area were developed and analyzed in the Three Rivers Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DFEIS) in accordance with the BLM’s planning regulations issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The alternatives responded to major issues identified through the planning process. These include manage- ment of livestock grazing, adjustment of land tenure, meeting wildlife forage demands and improving habitat condition, fire management and special management areas. ment of the full spectrum of resources present in the Plan,ning Area. The resource management objectives which guided the analysis in each alternative are summarized by program below. The reader should note that the objectives were the same for all aterna- tives. However, the means for meeting each objective and the degree to which each objective would be met varied considerably between alternatives. Through public comment on the DRMP/DEIS, management objectives for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/ FEIS) have been modified, refined or expanded. Table Sl provides a program-by-program comparison of objectives between the Draft and Proposed Plan. Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS PRMP/FEIS Air Quality Prevent deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the Resource Area (RA). Water Quality Soils Protect or enhance ground water quality and improve water quality of streams on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as established (per stream) by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Improve and/or maintain soil erosion conditions at moderate erosion condition class or better. Prevent significant deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the Resource Area PA). Improve surface water quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality requirements for all beneficial uses consistent with DEQ Nonpoinf Source Assessment and Manage- ment Plan, where BLM authorized actions are having a negative effect on water quality. Protect or enhance groundwater quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as established by DEQ. Prevent deterioration of soil re- sources by ensuring that BLM- administered lands are in stable or upward observed apparent trend categories as outlined in “Rangeland .XIII Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Forestry and Woodlands Livestock Grazing Wild Horses and Burros Manage the identified commercial Manage the 7,722 acres of identified forestland timber base for a commercial forestland timber base nondeclining sustained yield. for a nondeclining sustained yield. Manage approximately 235,000 acres of noncommercial forestlands and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diversity, watershed protection and rangeland productiv- ity. Manage approximately 50,000 acres of available productive noncommer- cial forestlands and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diver- sity, minor forest products, water- shed protection and rangeland productivity. Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal material, etc., consistent with other resource objectives. Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal materials, etc., consistent with other resource objectives. Implement long-term rangeland management designed to resolve identified resource conflicts/con- cerns and achieve management objectives delineated for each allotment. Maintain viable wild horse and burro herds in the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain and Warm Springs active Herd Manage- ment Areas (HMAs) within estab- lished maximum and minimum numbers. Monitoring in Oregon and Washing- ton” BLM Handbook H1734-2. Rehabilitate areas with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human influ- enced) sediment delivery to fluvial systems. Resolve resource conflicts and concerns and achieve management objectives as identified, for each allotment in Appendix 1, Table 9. Maintain healthy populations of wild horses within the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, and Riddle Mountain HMAs, and wild horses and burros in the Warm Springs HMA. Enhance the management and protection of herd areas and herds in the following HMAs: Kiger, xiv Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, Management Objectives, DRMP/DEiS PRMP/FEiS Vegetation Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain, Palomino Buttes and Warm Springs. Enhance and perpetuate the special or rare and unique characteristics that distinguish the respective herds in the RA. Protect, restore and enhance the Maintain, restore or enhance the variety of plant species and commu- diversity of plant communities and nities in abundances and distribu- plant species in abundances and tions that provide for their continued distributions which prevent the loss existence and normal functioning. of specific native plant community types or indigenous plant species Control the proliferation of noxious within the RA. weeds on public lands where concentrations pose a serious menace to human health and safety, domestic livestock or wildlife habitat. Special Status Species (see Glos- sary) Prevent significant risk to the well- being of special status species or their habitat by BLM-authorized actions. Restore or enhance habitat of special status species. Maintain and improve critical or essential habitatof species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to prevent deterioration and provide recovery. Maintain, restore or enhance the habitat of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species to maintain the populations at a level which will avoid endangering the species and the need to list the species by either State or Federal governments. Ensure that BLM-authorized actions within the RA do not result in the xv Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, Management Objectives, DRMPlDEiS PRMP/FEiS Wildlife Habitat Management Maintain or improve 334,910 acres of deer winter range, 376,670 acres of deer summer range, 234,211 acres of elk winter range, and 105,380 acres of elk summer range currently in satisfactory condition. Improve approximately 170,500 acres of deer winter range; 293,000 acres of deer summer range; 21,300 acres of elk winter range; 43,100 acres of elk summer range currently in unsatisfactory condition to satis- factory condition by the year 2000. Manage livestock forage production to support wildlife population levels identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). need to list special status species or jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. SSS 4: Increase the state of BLM’s knowledge and information concern- ing the status and distribution of special status species. Maintain 335,000 acres of deer winter range, 375,000 acres of deer summer range, 235,000 acres of elk winter range and 105,000 acres of elk summer range currently in satisfactory condition as described in the glossary. Improve approximately 170,000 acres of deer winter range; 295,000 acres of deer summer range; 20,000 acres of elk winter range; 45,000 acres of elk summer range, currently in unsatisfactory condition to satis- factory condition by the year 2000. Manage forage production to support big game population levels identified by ODFW. Maintain good quality wetland, playa and meadow habitat where it currently exists. Improve component deficient wetland habitat to good condition and provide for wetland and meadow habitat expansion, by the year 1997 (see Table 2.14). xvi Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat is in good or better habitat condition (proper functioning condition) by the year 1997. Restore, maintain or enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife species habitat within the RA. Wetland, Reservoir and Meadow Habitat Improve wetland habitat in lower than good habitat condition, by the year 1997. Provide for wetlands and meadow habitat expansion. Fiiparian Habitat Raptors Maintain or enhance raptor habitat. Aquatic Habitat Ensure that 75 percent or more of Ensure that 75 percent or more of aquatic habitat is in good or better aquatic habitat is in good or better condition and that none is in poor condition and that none is in poor condition by the year 2000. condition by the year 2000. Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat is in good or better habitat condition by the year 1997. Ensure that a minimum of 75 percent of aquatic habitat is in good or better condition, and none is in poor condition, by the year 1997. Enhance existing warmwater fish Improve existing warmwater fish habitat to good or better condition habitat to good or better condition and and provide for increased provide for increased warmwater warmwater game fish production by game fish production by the year the year 2000. Expand warmwater 2000. Expand warn-water fish habitat, fish habitat consistent with no as opportunities arise, and when no conflict with existing fish populations conflicts occur with existing game fish as opportunities arise. populations. xvii Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMPlDElS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Hazardous Materials Eliminate the introduction of hazard- ous materials on public land and remove any discovered deposits. Fire Recreation As determined through values at risk As determined through values at risk analysis, maximize the protection of analysis, maximize the protection of life, property and high value sensi- life, property and high value sensi- tive resources from the detrimental tive resources from the detrimental effects of wildfire. effects of wildfire. Consistent with values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial uses of prescribed fire and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000, establish Special Recre- ation Management Areas (SRMAs) where the presence of high quality natural resources and current or potential demand warrants intensive use practices to protect the area for its scientific, educational and/or recreational values. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000, provide opportunities for unstructured outdoor recreation activities with the necessary facilities and services to accommodate a projected increase in dispersed recreation-related visits within the planning unit. Eliminate the introduction of hazard- ous materials on public lands and remove any discovered hazardous waste. Consistent with values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial use of prescribed fire and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000 establish and manage intensive-use areas, where the presence of high quality natural resources and the current or poten- tial demand warrants intensive use practices to protect the areas for their scientific, educational and/or recreational values while accommo- dating the projected increase in use for recreation activities specific to the areas. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000, provide opportunities for unstructured outdoor recreation activities with the necessary facilities and services to accommodate a projected 24.5 percent increase in dispersed recreation use within the Three Rivers RA from an estimated 84,000 visits in 1989 to an estimated 104,500 visits by the year 2000. . . .XVIII Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Visual Resources Cultural Resources Energy and Minerals Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Retain existing ACECs, if relevance and importance are still valid. Designate additional ACECs, including extensions to existing ACECs, where relevance and importance criteria are clearly met. Provide special management attention to protect important natural, cultural or scenic resources on approximately 95,049 acres. Manage ACECs in accord with the basis for each designation. Protect, maintain, enhance or rehabilitate the visual resource values as inventoried and evaluated by managing all public lands in accordance with the Visual Re- source Management (VRM) System. Protect, maintain, enhance or rehabilitate the visual resource values as inventoried and evaluated by managing all public lands in accordance with the VRM System. Protect the cuItural/paleontological values in the RA from accidental or intentional loss and provide special emphasis to high value sites. Increase the opportunity for the public’s sociocultural, educational and recreational uses of the area’s cultural/ paleontological resources. Protect the cultural and paleontologi- cal values in the RA from accidental or intentional loss, while providing special emphasis to high value sites and conserving those resources of overriding scientific or historic importance. Provide for the conservation of cultural/paleonfological resources of overriding scientific or historic importance. Increase the opportunity for the public’s sociocultural, educational and recreational uses of the area’s cultural and paleontological re- sources. Provide maximum leasing opporfu- Provide maximum leasing opporlu- nity for oil, gas and geothermal nity for oil, gas and geoiiiermal exploration and development by exploration and development by utilizing the least restrictive leasing utilizing the least restrictive leasing categories necessary to protect categories necessary to protect sensitive resources. sensitive resources. Continue to meet public demand for mineral materials from public lands in the RA, on a case-by-case basis. Continue to meet public demand for mineral materials from public lands in the Planning Area on a case-by- case basis except for 64,315 acres xix Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Lands and Realty Provide maximum opportunity in areas identified as open to the operation of mining laws for explora- tion and location of locatable minerals on public lands mineral estate in the RA. Provide maximum opportunity for the leasing and development of solid leasable minerals. Consolidate public landholdings and Consolidate public landholdings and acquire lands with significant acquire lands with high public resource values to ensure effective resource values to ensure effective administration and improve resource administration and improve resource management. Retain in public management. Retain in public ownership landholdings with signifi- ownership landholdings with high cant resource values. public resource values. Meet public needs for use authoriza- tions, such as rights-of-way, leases and permits. Meet public needs for use authoriza- tions such as rights-of-way, leases and permits. Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands. Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands. Acquire public and administrative access to public land where it does not currently exist. Acquire and maintain legal public and administrative access to public land consistent with other resource values. Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the required purpose. Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the required purpose. in ACECs, WSAs and scenic corridors. Provide maximum opportunity in areas identified as open to the operation of mining laws for explora- tion and location of locatable minerals on public lands mineral estate in the planning area. Provide maximum opportunity for the leasing and development of solid leasable minerals other than coal. Public lands will remain open and available for coal exploration and development, unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. xx Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS The anticipated effects of the management actions contained in each of the alternatives and the Proposed Resource Management Plan are summarized by major program. Biological Diversity Maintain viable populations of native plants and animals well distributed throughout their geographic range. Maintain natural genetic variability within and among populations of native species. Maintain representative examples of the full spectrum of ecosystems, biological communities, habitats and their ecological processes. Provide for the increase of the scientific understanding of biological diversity and conservation. xxi The anticipated effects of the management actions contained in each of the alternatives, including the Proposed Plan, are summarized by major resource program in Table S2. Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY (STREAM MILES) EXCELLENT 0.00 GOOD 0.00 FAIR 20.65 POOR 84.25 UNKNOWN 22.65 TOTAL 127.55 WATER QUALITY (SURFACE ACRES) EXCELLENT 0 GOOD 45 FAIR 4001 POOR 445 TOTAL 4491 FOREST MANAGEMENT TIMBER BASE ACRES 8605 DECADAL HARVEST (MMBF) 6.02 GRAZING MANAGEMENT LIVESTOCK FORAGE CONDITION (ACRES) EXCELLENT 38402 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114.75 117.65 116.00 37.65 5.15 5.70 3.75 3.75 3.75 60.70 35.70 111.60 6.15 6.15 7.80 29.20 72.55 10.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.15 0.00 127.55 127.55 127.55 127.55 127.55 127.55 1351 0 0 0 0 0 3090 4441 1301 1301 876 825 0 0 3140 3140 3560 411 50 50 50 50 55 3255 4491 4491 4491 4491 4491 4491 4868 8263 8263 7722 8700 9291 3.41 5.78 5.78 5.40 6.09 6.50 45732 39078 GOOD 562683 671073 573434 FAIR 823683 731704 831031 POOR 251516 206930 211896 UNKNOWN 33634 54479 54479 42563 624579 809510 178787 54479 TOTAL 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 INITIAL STOCKING LEVELS (AUMs) STOCKING LEVELS 150472 54891 107283 133208 WILD HORSES AND BURROS FORAGE CONDITION (ACRES) STINKINGWATER GOOD 36778 62078 51269 51269 FAIR 42853 17553 28362 28362 POOR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7963 1 79631 79631 79631 xxii 39056 50379 43937 651217 739265 644729 812302 705217 796266 173658 160578 170510 33685 54479 54476 1709918 1709918 1709918 150472 161222 164622 51269 51269 51269 28362 28362 28362 0 0 0 7963 1 79631 79631 Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL KIGER GOOD 12985 22693 15225 FAIR 23831 14123 21591 POOR 0 0 0 TOTAL 36816 36816 36816 15225 15225 15225 15225 21591 21591 21591 21591 0 0 0 0 36816 36816 36816 36816 7223 7223 7223 7223 20797 20797 20797 20797 0 0 0 0 28020 28020 28020 28020 195525 195525 195525 225525 137465 137465 137465 137465 123824 123824 123824 93824 456814 456814 456814 456814 RIDDLE MTN. GOOD 6000 6000 7223 FAIR 22021 22021 20797 POOR 0 0 0 TOTAL 28021 2802 1 28020 WARM SPRINGS GOOD 133064 138064 225525 FAIR 199926 195926 137465 POOR 123824 122824 93824 TOTAL 456814 456814 456814 PALOMINO BUTTES GOOD 22068 30068 45368 FAIR 35300 3998 1 12000 POOR 12681 0 12681 TOTAL 70049 70049 70049 45368 50368 12000 12000 12681 7681 70049 70049 50368 12000 7681 70049 12000 7681 70049 48295 1 480000 478238 372961 47530 50000 52243 157520 53048 1 530000 53048 1 53048 1 611371 610000 564784 472257 90592 90000 137179 229706 701963 700000 701963 701963 24563 1 245000 234211 234211 9920 10000 21340 21340 25555 1 255000 25555 1 25555 1 127680 130000 105380 105380 20800 20000 43100 43100 148480 150000 148480 148480 WILDLIFE HABITAT DEER WINTER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 3349 10 505396 48 1298 UNSATISFACTORY 195571 25085 49183 TOTAL 53048 1 53048 1 530481 DEER SUMMER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 376670 669808 616371 UNSATISFACTORY 325293 32155 85592 TOTAL 701963 701963 701963 ELK WINTER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 234211 255551 24563 1 UNSATISFACTORY 21340 0 9920 TOTAL 25555 1 25555 1 25555 1 ELK SUMMER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 105380 148480 127680 UNSATISFACTORY 43100 0 20800 TOTAL 148480 148480 148480 XXIII Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN HABITAT (ACRES) GOOD 116.7 515.0 FAIR 255.8 37.0 POOR 207.5 28.0 UNKNOWN 102.0 102.0 TOTAL 682.0 682.0 AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITION (STREAM MILES) EXCELLENT 0.00 GOOD 8.10 FAIR 26.40 POOR 41.70 UNKNOWN 7.45 TOTAL 83.65 WETLAND HABITAT (ACRES) GOOD 50 FAIR 911 POOR 390 UNCONTROLLABLE 3140 TOTAL 4491 EXPANSION 200 PLAYA HABITAT TREND (ACRES) UPWARD 0 STATIC 8655 DOWNWARD 0 FIRE MANAGEMENT FIRE SUPPRESSION CLASSES (ACRES) FULL,W/O PRESC. 0 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.90 74.50 73.50 73.50 14.75 6.95 6.95 7.45 7.45 47.90 2.20 2.20 2.70 2.70 21 .oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.65 83.65 83.65 83.65 83.65 956 956 956 956 956 395 395 395 395 395 0 0 0 0 0 3140 3140 3140 3140 3140 4491 4491 4491 4491 4491 670 300 490 490 200 8655 8350 7155 8655 0 0 0 0 0 8155 0 300 1500 0 500 67724 67724 67724 63600 1184230 462080 FULL, W/ PRESC. 1709918 1180114 1180114 1180114 COND., W/ PRESC. 0 462080 462080 462080 RECREATION SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS ACRES 16656 17176 OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) OPEN 1599764 911704 LIMITED 100064 788434 CLOSED 10090 10090 TOTAL 1709918 1710228 515.0 515.0 515.0 118.8 37.0 37.0 37.0 234.2 28.0 28.0 28.0 227.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 682.0 682.0 682.0 682.0 17176 17176 17656 16656 16696 1570994 1556825 1592633 1599764 1584384 124834 143003 113205 100064 115444 14090 10090 4080 10090 10090 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 515.0 37.0 28.0 102.0 682.0 12.90 67.75 3.00 0.00 83.65 956 395 0 3140 4491 200 0 0 8655 67724 1709918 1180114 0 462080 xxiv Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS DESIGNATIONS (STREAM MILES) WILD 0.0 5.4 0.0 SCENIC 0.0 0.0 5.4 TOTAL 0.0 5.4 5.4 DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) WILD 0 1730 0 SCENIC 0 0 1730 TOTAL 0 1730 1730 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACRES) 5.4 0.0 5.4 5.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1730 1804 0 0 0 0 0 0 1730 1804 0 0 DIAMOND CRATERS ONAIACEC 16656 17136 17136 SOUTH NARROWS ACEC 160 160 160 SILVER CR. RNA/ACEC 640 640 640 SILVER CR. EXT. RNA/ACEC 0 960 960 FOSTER FLAT RNAIACEC 0 1870 1870 DRY MTN. EXT. RNA/ACEC 0 2240 2240 KIGER MUSTANG ACEC 0 66244 36619 BISCUITROOT ACEC 0 6000 6000 TOTAL 17456 95250 65625 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 17136 17056 16656 16656 160 160 160 160 640 640 640 640 960 1280 0 0 720 2690 0 0 2240 2084 0 0 36619 64639 0 0 6000 6500 0 6000 64475 95049 17456 23456 CLASS DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) CLASS I 8610 8580 8580 CLASS II 120621 131131 131131 CLASS III 425600 419550 419550 CLASS IV 1155087 1150657 1150657 CULTURAL RESOURCES 8580 2290 126581 139535 421770 419431 1152987 1148662 8610 8580 120621 122061 425600 424190 1155087 1155087 ACTIVELY MANAGED SITES LITHIC SCATTERS OCCUPATION/CAMP QUARRY ROCK SHELTER ROCK ART TRASH DUMP STRUCTURE OTHER 51 371 51 51 51 51 6 77 86 77 77 77 77 28 29 37 29 29 29 29 6 27 31 27 27 27 27 2 18 19 18 18 18 18 0 2 11 2 2 2 2 0 4 6 4 4 4 4 0 6 11 6 6 6 6 2 TOTAL 214 572 214 214 214 214 44 XXV Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL ENERGY AND MINERALS FLUID ENERGY MINERALS (OIL AND GAS LEASE ACRES) CATEGORY 1 1328111 1134069 1442231 CATEGORY 2 7875 17 890588 644735 CATEGORY 3 98075 184046 126737 CATEGORY 4 113331 113331 113331 TOTAL 2327034 2322034 2327034 SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS (ACRES) AVAIL. TO LEASE 2198267 2175887 2171331 NOT AVAILABLE 17936 40316 44872 MINERAL MATERIALS AVAIL. SITES 24 24 24 ACRES AVAILABLE 2114337 2114337 2114337 LOCATABLE MINERALS (ACRES) WITHDRAWN 44912 59532 57902 AVAILABLE 1670921 1656301 1657931 LANDS AND REALTY LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT (ACRES) ZONE 1 1577559 1469864 1575597 ZONE 2 121559 199220 93599 ZONE 3 10800 40834 40722 TOTAL 1709918 1709918 1709918 CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS LINEAR MILES 123 185 185 EXCLUSION/AVOIDANCE AREAS (ACRES) EXCLUSION AREAS 0 114710 20385 AVOIDANCE AREAS 0 0 79525 TOTAL 0 114710 99910 1499029 1499000 1328111 2166464 602987 603000 787517 0 111687 111700 98075 47239 113331 113300 113331 113331 2327034 2327000 2327034 2327034 2 192467 2 192467 2198267 2183451 23736 23736 17936 32752 24 24 24 24 2114337 2114337 2114337 2114337 45162 1670671 147809 1 1484899 1577559 1081509 193304 188325 121559 531764 38523 36694 10800 96646 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709919 185 185 123 185 20385 17885 0 20385 64475 95530 0 0 84860 113415 0 20385 49652 44912 44912 1666181 1670921 1670921 1715833 xxvi -- __-_-- -___ -------------- ._. ’- 1-- Chapter 1Purpose and Need - L- -Portland v Salem v Eugene ~ Prineville LEGEND @ BLM State Office v BLM District Office - Burns District Boundary Three Rivers Planning Area U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT THREE RIVERS RMP April 1991 MAP GEN-1 GENERAL LOCATION l-2 Introduction. The Planning The Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan/ Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) is a comprehensive framework for managing public lands and for guiding the allocation of resources in the Three Rivers Planning Area (PA) over the next 10 to 15 years. The impacts associated with managing public land (Map GEN-1) in the high desert area of Eastern Oregon are analyzed in this document. The Three Rivers PA contains 1,709,918 acres of public land that lie within portions of Harney (1,587,073 acres), Grant (8,484 acres), Lake (91,505 acres) and Malheur Counties (22,856 acres) (Map GEN-2). The PA contains approxi- mately 51,501 acres which are within the Lakeview District (31,444 acres Federal, 18,562 acres State, 1,495 acres private), but that are administered by the Three Rivers Resource Area (RA). Surface management prescriptions have been developed for these areas by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team. The Ochoco and Malheur National Forests and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are the other major Federal land management agencies in the planning area. The PA is situated in the northern half of the Burns District on the northern extreme of the Great Basin and the southern end of the Blue Mountains. The PA is generally character- ized as high desert with large expanses dominated by sagebrush typical of the Great Basin. The Great Basin influence gives way in the northern and eastern portions of the PA where stands of pine and fir are found. Purpose and Need The purpose and need for the RMP/EIS is to guide the future management of public land resources in the Three Rivers PA. To accomplish this it is necessary to identify and resolve multiple-use conflicts (issues) related to the management of public lands in the PA. The plan is intended to fulfill require- ments of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare comprehensive land use plans that are consistent with the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield. FLPMA also requires public participation and close coordination with other agencies. The RMP/EIS process results in decisions determining how the various resources will be managed to best meet present and future public needs. This plan establishes parameters for all resources on BLM-administered land in the Three Rivers PA, with the exception of the potential recommendations on the designa- tion of Malheur RivedBluebucket Creek and Stonehouse Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The wilderness study process has been ongoing since 1979 and is beyond the scope of this RMP effort. Recommendations as to whether or not the areas are suitable for wilderness designation have been analyzed in a final statewide wilderness EIS. It is also the purpose and need of this planning process to provide for and encourage direct public involvement in the decision-making process affecting the management of public lands in the PA. Toward this goal, the planning process is open to public involvement at every step. Planning Process The BLM planning process is conducted in nine stages. Table 1 .l summarizes these stages and displays the status of each. Planning Issues and Their Resolution Five planning issues have been identified and carried into the process of developing the Draft RMP/EIS (DRMP/DEIS). Public input was received in response to an initial scoping brochure issued by the BLM in September of 1987. Public meetings were conducted in Burns on October 19, 1987, and in Bend on OctobetQ2, 1987. The five planning issues were confirmed, through public comment, as being signifi- cant and timely. 1. Grazing Management Issue Grazing management practices prescribed in preceding land use plans (the Riley and Drewsey Grazing ElSs and Management Framework Plans (MFPs)) have not been fully implemented and it now appears that they cannot be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. This leads to a condition in which there is potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values and (b) conflict over the use of resources. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Are changes needed in the grazing management program identified in the Drewsey and Riley Grazing EISs/MFPs? If so, what kinds of changes are needed? Where are they needed? Should there be a priority of some areas over others? If so, what area(s) should receive highest priority and how should priorities be established? Resolution of the Issue Changes in the grazing management program which have been identified concern establishing multiple-use manage- ment objectives and implementing grazing systems to meet these objectives. All allotments have gone through the selective management categorization process to assign a category to each allot- ment. Areas with a high level of conflicts and concerns are a higher priority to implement management in than areas with few conflicts. Allotments in the Improve (I) category are generally higher priority than Maintain (M) or Custodial (C) allotments. 2. Land Tenure Issue Land ownership patterns within the RA contain some areas of scattered tracts and/or intermingled ownerships. Such patterns present problems for the efficient management and utilization of the public’s resources. The means to relieve such problems are through exchanges with other landown- ers, transfers to other agencies and the public sale of identified tracts. Such actions can lead to the potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) loss of a l-3 OREGON LEGEND I I BLM Lands I USFS Lands I Other Federal Lands State Lands 1-1 Private Lands District Boundary - Planning Area Boundary Planning Unit Boundary 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP GEN-2 LANDSTATUS Table 1 .l . Resource Management Planning Process 1. Identification of Issues Completed Oct. ‘87 2. Development of Planning Criteria Ongoing 3. Data Collection/Consolidation Completed July ‘88 4. Analysis of the Management Situation Completed Nov. ‘88 5. Formulation of Alternatives Completed Jan. ‘89 6. Estimation of Effects Completed March ‘89 7. Selection of Preferred Alternative and Public Review and Comment Periods A. Draft RMP/EIS Completed March ‘90 B. Final RMP/EIS August-September ‘91 8. Approved Resource Management Plan Scheduled Dec. ‘91 9. Monitoring and Evaluation of RMPlElS Ongoing Upon Approval resource or environmental value, (c) conflict over the use of resources, and (d) high public concern relating to the use or preservation of a resource. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Is there a need to consolidate public landholdings? If so, what lands would be most important? Are there lands that should be identified for disposal through sale, exchange or transfer from public ownership? If so, which lands? Are there privately held lands which should be acquired to enhance public values? If so, which lands? Are there lands which should be retained in public ownership and not made available for any form of disposal, including exchange? If so, which lands? Resolution of the Issue The Proposed Plan identifies three zones where various land tenure management actions may take place. Zone 1 lands will generally be retained in Federal ownership. These are also areas where acquisition of lands with important public values will be emphasized. Thus, public landholdings will be consolidated in Zone 1. Zone 2 lands have been identified for sale under the R&PP Act and exchange for other lands with more important public values. Zone 3 lands are generally isolated unmanageable tracts and have been identified for disposal by sale or exchange. The management direction outlined in the Proposed Plan will provide much more opportunity for land tenure adjustment actions over that which currently exists. This will help meet the primary objectives identified in the plan of consolidating landownership (both public and private) retention and acquisition of lands with important public values and disposal of isolated unmanageable tracts. 3. Wildlife Forage Demands andHabitat Condition Issue Existing management decision documents do not ad- equately address recent shifts in elk populations or concerns over deer winter range conditions. To accommodate these concerns it may be necessary to revise some forage and land use allocations. Such allocations have the potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) conflict over the uses of resources, and (c) high public concern over the use or preservation of a resource value. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Should BLM allocate forage for elk from public land? If so, for what target population levels? Are there management actions that BLM should undertake to improve the condition of deer winter range? If so, what and where? How much should other resource uses such as livestock grazing be changed to accommodate such modifications? Resolution of the Issue The Proposed Plan allocates levels of competitive forage to meet the demands of benchmark numbers of big game in the Planning Area. These amounts may be adjusted during the allotment evaluation process. Management actions in the Proposed Plan would improve deer winter range by providing needed browse and improved vigor of available browse. 4. Fire Management Issue BLM’s fire management strategy has been primarily one of full suppression. This practice is both expensive and neglects the beneficial uses of fire as a management tool in certain applications. Changes in current fire management strategies could involve the establishment of three zones: full suppression, conditional suppression, and prescribed fire. Establishing these strategies could cause concern over the 1-6 potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) a serious loss of a resource or environmental value, and (c) high public concern relating to the preserva- tion of a resource value. Considerations in Resolving the Issue With the understanding that the BLM will continue to meet its responsibility to protect life and property, are there areas where conditional suppressions of wildfire would be appro- priate? If so, where? Are there areas where either natural or prescribed fire would be a beneficial management tool? If so, where? Should the use of prescribed fire place more emphasis on the improvement of air quality than on the maintenance of plant communities? Are there areas where full fire suppression should be retained to protect important public/private values? If so, where? Resolution of the Issue The RMP established 462,080 acres identified for conditional fire use, these lands are shown as Zone B on Fire Manage- ment Map 2 (Map FM-2). Prescribed fire has been identified as a possible beneficial management tool on 1,646,310 acres or approximately 96 per cent of the resource area. These lands are listed as Zones B and C on Map FM-2. Due to the specifications identified through the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan and the Clean Air Act, placing emphasis on prescribed fire rather than air quality was not possible. Working to balance the prescribed fire program and air quality standards was the only solution. Based on values at risk of both public and private values, 63,608 acres were established as a full suppression only zone, shown as Zone A on FM-Map 2. 5. Special Management Areas Issue Special management designations are in place on three sites in the RA - Diamond Craters Outstanding Natural Area (ONA), South Narrows Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and Silver Creek Research Natural Area (RNA). Special designations and/or the absence of them can lead to the potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) major conflict over the use of resources, and (c) high public concern relating to the use or preserva- tion of a resource value. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Should the three existing areas be retained under their current special designations? Which, if any, of the proposed nine additional ACECs should be designated? Which, if any, segments of free-flowing and eligible river segments should be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System? Are there other areas or sites in the RA for which special designation is needed to further protect or enhance the habitat of listed threatened, endangered or sensitive species; to provide scientific and educational study opportunities; or to preserve outstanding or unique scenic, botanical, geologic, cultural or other resource values? If so, where? What are the values? Resolution of the Issue The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team examined the three areas with existing special management designations in terms of the Bureau’s relevance and importance criteria. This analysis resulted in the recommendation to retain the special management designations for all three areas. of the nine additional areas nominated for special management designation consideration, the ID team analysis resulted in a recommendation that five of the nine areas be given a special management designation. Further review of the values of the RA indicates that existing or proposed man- agement adequately protects other areas with important resource values, and, therefore, there were no other areas which require a special management designation at this time. Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study Ongoing Statewide Wilderness Study. The wilderness study process has continued since 1979 and has progressed beyond the level of detail contained in this RMP/EIS process. Two areas, Malheur RiverIBluebucket Creek (5,560 acres) and Stonehouse WSA, (12,325 acres in the planning unit, the remaining 9,000 acres in Andrews Resource Area) are being considered for designation as wilderness (Map ACEC-1). No further analysis of these areas for wilderness will be included in this document; however, portions of some WSAs are considered for designation as ACECs. Noxious Weed Control. Control of noxious weeds is ad- dressed in detail in the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program EIS (BLM, 1987). As such, noxious weed control needs in the RA were not considered to be a planning issue. Grasshopper Control. Periodic outbreaks of grasshoppers do occur in the RA and can be a significant problem. BLM has entered into a memorandum of understanding (which can be renewed annually as needed) with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the control of grasshoppers on public lands in the RA. An environmental assessment of the local effects of the APHIS control was completed in 1986. As such, grass- hopper control in the RA was not considered to be a planning issue. Analysis of Public Comment on the DRMP/DEIS A number of concerns emerged from public input on the DRMP/DEIS with significant divergences of views about management strategies that BLM should pursue in the Three Rivers RA. Because of this divergence of views, the planning team undertook an expanded public contact process. A brochure detailing the major concerns was distributed to 549 individuals, organizations and agencies in August of 1990. Nine individuals responded to the brochure by returning a clip-out contact form. Personal contact was made with all nine individuals by either the planning team leader or an appropriate team member to address their concerns. The following is a summary of the major concerns raised through l-7 the full public involvement process on the DRMP/DEIS as well as the general direction that has been taken to address those concerns. Accuracy and Sufficiency of BLM Data and Analysis Methods Commenters were concerned about the accuracy and the sufficiency of BLM’s data collection and analysis methods in a number of topic areas. Primary among these are range- land, water quality, riparian habitat and soils monitoring and evaluation: Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation - Commenters were concerned that BLM rangeland monitoring and evaluation techniques are flawed and that BLM applied them beyond what can be scientifically supported. This concern has been addressed by adding an explanation of the monitoring and evaluation process. It was reiterated that the methods and process used to evaluate grazing are within Bureau procedures. Water Quality - Commenters expressed concern about BLM definitions of water quality. Commenters were concerned about whether or not it is necessary for BLM to comply with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality standards for nonpoint source pollution, especially where water courses typically cross several ownerships. commenters were also concerned about the capability of BLM to define and measure the parameters necessary to adequately address water quality. Water quality standards were developed by Federal action under the Clean Water Act of 1977,33 U.S.C. Responsibility for reviewing and revising water quality standards was relegated to appropriate State agencies. Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to coordinate land use planning and management activities with Federal and State agencies, and comply with all applicable State laws (see FLPMA, Sec. 202(c)(8) and (9)). The DEQ has established levels of nonpoint source pollution of waters in the State of Oregon. Additionally, BLM and DEQ developed an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Action Plan in April 1990, that would implement these standards on public lands under Bureau jurisdiction. BLM biologists have the necessary equipment and expertise to measure these water quality parameters, assess condition and trend of sensitive aquatic habitats, and make recom- mendations to management concerning these sensitive ecosystems. Riparian Habitat - Commenters expressed concern about adequate definition of riparian habitat condition classes, especially as related to both water quality and aquatic habitat condition classes. Commenters were also concerned that BLM had classified some areas as riparian habitat that do not meet the definition. The Bureau definition of riparian habitat was used to classify areas as riparian. Stream segments with no data have not, as yet, been classified and a determination as to whether or not these segments contain riparian habitat will be made as data are collected. Riparian habitat condition, aquatic habitat condition and water quality are interrelated. However, the condition of one is not entirely dependent upon the condition of the other two. Factors used to rate these conditions are discussed in Appendix 1, Table 4. Water Commenters expressed concerns about management of various resources either directly or indirectly associated with water. Primary among these are water quality, fisheries and riparian habitat, and uplands management; also related to this topic is BLM consideration of Wild and Scenic Rivers: Water Quality Management - Commenters expressed concerns about BLM’s management proposals to address water quality problems. Some commenters were concerned that BLM was not proposing sufficiently stringent manage- ment to resolve identified water quality problems while other commenters were concerned that BLM was “going too far.” Severity of management objectives assure that BLM- managed waters meet requirements established by DEQ for nonpoint sources of pollution in Oregon. Management actions are based upon an MOU and Action Plan developed between BLM and DEQ in April 1990, and BLM Best Management Practices. Application of these prescriptions are expected to improve poor water quality on 55 miles of streams and establish good conditions on approximately 38 miles of streams. Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management - Commenters expressed concern that BLM fisheries and riparian manage- ment proposals were either too vaguely written to adequately assess their potential effectiveness or they provided “loopholes” that might reduce their effectiveness. Other commenters expressed concern that the management prescriptions that were presented would be excessively disruptive of established livestock operations” Management prescriptions have been rewritten to be more clear and precise. Prescriptions allow for interaction with affected interests, including permittees, in development of management activities that will meet water quality and other multiple-use objectives. The Proposed Plan focuses on the protection, restoration and enhancement of aquatic and riparian habitat to the extent possible under guidelines promulgated by FLPMA. Uplands - Commenters expressed concern that manage- ment prescriptions for riparian habitat management would impose excessively restrictive limitations on livestock grazing on associated uplands. This concern was addressed by an explanation of the riparian utilization levels and deleting the upland utilization level in riparian pastures. Upland utilization levels will be established at the activity plan level. Wild and Scenic Rivers - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not proposed more rivers, streams and reaches for designation as Wild or Scenic. Three Rivers RA conducted a river inventory and evaluation following the process outlined in the Guidelines for Fulfilling Requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 1-8 After completion of the process, one river segment, the Middle Fork of the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek, met all the requirements to be recommended for designation under the Act. Portions of the river inventory and evaluation have been included to illustrate the required steps which were followed (see Tables 2.17 through 2.20). Ancient Forests Commenters expressed concern that BLM had neither identified any forest stands as ancient forest nor proposed any management prescriptions for ancient forest stands. This concern has been addressed by the identification of four separate stands which either currently meet old growth ponderosa pine stand criteria or will grow into these old growth characteristics in a relatively short period of time. Stand management guidelines will be developed for each stand to guide long-term maintenance or enhancement of old growth characteristics of the stands. Economic Assessment Commenters presented a variety of concerns about the “Economics” of the RMP. Primary among these concerns were economic impacts, performing Takings Implications Assessments (TIA), project costs and performing Benefit/ Cost Analysis (B/C): Economic Impacts - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not adequately assessed the potential economic impacts that implementing the RMP would have on the local/ regional economy. This concern has been addressed by reevaluating the economic impacts of the implementation of each of the alternatives presented in the draft as well as the impacts of the Proposed Plan. This analysis includes both the direct and the indirect (frequently referred to as the multiplier effect) impacts to both income and employment. TIA - Commenters expressed a concern that BLM is not complying with requirements laid out in Executive Order 12630, by not performing a TIA prior to any reduction of authorized livestock grazing. The provisions of Executive Order 12630 do not apply to adjustments of BLM livestock grazing permits. As such, TlAs are not performed in the RMP/EIS. Project Costs - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not adequately displayed what the various project types would cost. This concern has been addressed by presenting generalized project cost estimates. Refer to Appendix 1, Tables 13 and 14. B/C - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not provided detailed B/C analysis on the investments that would be required under the various alternatives and, as a result, there was insufficient information with which to adequately choose between alternatives. BLM planning is a tiered system with the most generalized land use planning performed at the RMP level. Increased detail and site specificity is considered at successive tiers in the system, activity planning and project planning. The information needed to appropriately conduct B/C analysis is usually only available at these more detailed tiers of the planning system. As such, B/C analysis is deferred to activity and project planning. Follow-Through Commenters expressed concern that BLM would not have the funds or the staff to actually follow through with the management prescriptions that have been proposed in the RMP. The composition of this RMP has been based on three primary guidelines: (1) Management prescriptions should be realistic, both in terms of accomplishing stated objectives and being reasonably achievable. (2) Management prescrip- tions should not be strictly funding dependent. That is, progress toward accomplishing management objectives should not depend upon substantial increases in base funding. (3) Management prescriptions should be derived interdisciplinarily to assure the maximum support base for their eventual implementation. Based on these guidelines, BLM feels confident that we will be able to follow through with the commitments made through the RMP. Forage Allocation Priorities Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not provided a sufficient basis for establishing forage allocation priorities which favored wildlife and wild horses over livestock. This concern was addressed by an explanation in how forage will be allocated. The forage allocation process was modified from the DRMP/DEIS so that forage will be allocated to wildlife in accordance with the agreements between BLM and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and forage will be allocated between livestock and wild horses on the basis of the results of monitoring and evaluation procedures. Land Tenure Adjustment Commenters expressed concern that BLM should not reduce the private lands tax base in Harney County through any land tenure adjustments authorized under the RMP. This concern has been addressed by clarifying the intent of the RMP as to land tenure adjustment. Most commenters felt that the DRMPlDEIS heavily emphasized acquisition of private land through direct purchase. Although direct purchase remains a limited option in the Proposed Plan the management actions have been modified and responses to the commenters developed which provide more emphasis and clarification of acquisition by exchange whereby no significant loss of the private land base in the county would be expected. Off-Road Vehicle Use (ORV) Commenters expressed concern that the RMP too heavily promoted open ORV use and that sensitive resource values would be threatened. l-9 The actions addressing ORV use have been rewritten to address specific ORV use areas and the use of cross- country routes on designated and approved roads and trails. The actions also incorporate the directions established in Executive Order 11644 for the Bureau to manage this valid and accepted use on Bureau-administered lands, but also to ensure the protection of areas where ORV use would cause or is causing considerable adverse impacts on natural, cultural or historical resources. References to maximizing ORV use have been dropped from the land management proposals. Vegetation Conversions Commenters expressed a variety of concerns about Vegeta- tion Conversions. Primary among these were seedings, the use of crested wheatgrass, juniper control and fire manage- ment policy: Seedings - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had “proposed” too many acres to be seeded and that such seedings would result in declines in habitat and species diversity. This concern was addressed by revising the overall ap- proach that is being taken to seedings. First, no specific seedings are being “proposed” through the RMP. Where seedings would help in meeting overall multiple-use objec- tives in a given area, they may be considered. Second, multiple-use constraints will be applied to all seeding (and other vegetation conversion) proposals to ensure that the diversity of plant species and communities is not adversely affected and that special habitat features such as big game winter range browse are retained. Third, as with other rangeland management prescriptions, seedings will be undertaken only after substantial consultation, coordination and cooperation with affected interests. Crested Wheatgrass - Commenters expressed concern that where seedings are implemented, only native grass, forbs and browse species should be utilized and that no more crested wheatgrass should be planted. The selection of species to be seeded is dependent on the multiple-use objectives of the proposed seeding and site characteristics (rainfall, soil types, etc.). Seeding mixtures will be determined with interdisciplinary interaction and will undergo multiple-use and environmental consideration through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation process. Juniper Control - Commenters expressed concern that in some sections of the RA juniper encroachment has become a serious resource problem. Concern was expressed that BLM fire management policy has contributed to the juniper encroachment problem through suppression of wildfires and that a more extensive use of prescribed burning should be proposed. This concern has been addressed through the identification of 462,080 acres for conditional fire use and 1 ,184,230 acres (96 percent of the RA) identified for prescribed fire use as a management tool to assist in the meeting of resource objectives. Fire Management - Commenters expressed concern that not enough acreage was proposed by BLM for conditional fire suppression and that more acreage should be proposed for prescribed fire. An associated concern was that the 3,000 acres per year limitation on prescribed fire should be relaxed (that is, more acres per year should be allowed). The concern relating to the desire to see more acreage identified under conditional suppression was reevaluated by the ID team. Due to the values at risk involved, including life, property and fire-sensitive resource values, the acreage identified was not changed. Concerns relating to prescribed fire were also reevaluated. Additional areas for possible prescribed fire use were identified; however, acreage burned per year limitations are based on Oregon’s Smoke Management Plan and air quality constraints and, therefore, cannot be increased. Wild Horses and Burros Commenters presented a variety of concerns relative to Wild Horses and Burros. Primary among these were interactions between wild horses and riparian management, designation of a Kiger Horse ACEC, and Burro Management: Wild Horses and Riparian Management - Commenters expressed concern that riparian management objectives would be impaired in wild horse herd management areas if horses could not be excluded from seasonlong use of riparian areas. Yet to exclude them from such areas appeared to conflict with the goal of maintaining the ‘I.... wild and free-roaming nature.....” of the wild horses. This concern has been addressed in the overall objectives of the RMP, which direct all management to be based on multiple-use and sustained yield. The Wild and Free- Roaming Horse and Burro Act also requires that a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships exist in each Herd Management Area (HMA). Allotment evaluations will address specific objectives and management actions in each HMA, including objectives and actions for riparian areas. To meet the overall objectives of each area may require that horses be excluded from some portions of riparian areas. Kiger ACEC - Commenters expressed concern that the establishment of an ACEC for the Kiger horses would result in an unacceptable impact on existing long-term ranching operations within the immediate area of the ACEC. This concern has been addressed through the response to comments section. Here it is explained that there is no proposed increase in herd area size, horse herd numbers or increases in forage allocated to wild horses. Impacts to ranching operations would be minimal at most. Such impacts may be increased traffic and visitation of the area. No significant changes in the manner in which the Kiger and Riddle Mountain HMAs are proposed. Burros - Commenters expressed concern that no active management of the burro herd, a portion of the overall Warm Springs HMA, was being proposed. This program was reevaluated during the response to comments process and the direction of burro management was changed as such. Burros will be actively managed in the Warm Springs HMA to reflect their unique presence in the Three Rivers RA. l-10 Biological Diversity In recent years, biological diversity has emerged as an issue of considerable interest to the multiple-use management of public lands. While a commonly agreed upon definition of “biological diversity” has not yet been developed, it is generally acknowledged that such diversity occurs on at least three levels: - the diversity of genetic characteristics within a species: -the diversity of species within a community; and, - the diversity of communities within an ecosystem. Within this context, maintenance of biological diversity under the concepts of multiple-use management requires mainte- nance of viable populations including appropriate genetic variability for individual species as well as the maintenance of communities and ecosystems with their full range of functions. The depletion and fragmentation of ecosystems and their components are major concerns. So too, are the recovery of endangered species and degraded habitats, and the inventory and monitoring of biological resources. Certain aspects of the interest in biological diversity are addressed by existing and potential “preserves” such as parks, refuges, wilderness areas and other similar protected areas. However, such areas are considered to be insufficient to fully encompass the issue because of their limited size and distribution. In addition, it is not reasonable to expect to be able to fully address the issue by simply creating addi- tional “preserves”. As such, public lands managed under multiple-use must provide the continuity between these protected areas for biological diversity. Recognizing this, BLM has begun to incorporate biological diversity into its land use planning as one of the many multiple-uses for which the Bureau manages. It is believed that public lands managed by BLM can best continue to produce a full array of goods and services from lands that sustain biologically diverse ecosystems. A considerable body of law and regulation exists which addresses various aspects of biological diversity. However, no federal legislation has been passed into law which provides a single comprehensive base for the management of biological diversity. Important acts which guide BLM in the maintenance of diversity include FLPMA (1976), the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (1973), the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, as amended (1978), the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (1971) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) the Wilderness Act (1964) NEPA (1969), and the many acts relating to various species of wildlife. Within such existing guidance, integration of the overall concepts associated with the maintenance of biological diversity into the Three Rivers RMP has resulted in many management objectives, corresponding management actions, use and management constraints, and standard operating procedures which have been designed to restore, maintain or enhance various elements of biological diversity within the Planning Area. Planning Criteria Planning criteria are utilized to guide the planning process. They are derived from law, regulation and policy. BLM has utilized three sets of planning criteria for the Three Rivers RMP: 1) FLPMA criteria, 2) Identification of Conflicts and Opportunities, and 3) Alternative Formulation Criteria. Planning Criteria from FLPMA of 1976 Section 202(c) of the FLPMA provides that, in the develop- ment and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of the Interior shall: 1. Use and observe the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield; 2. Use an interdisciplinary approach to integrate consider- ation of physical, biological, economic and other sci- ences; 3. 4. Give priority to the designation of ACECs ; Rely on the inventory of public lands, their resources and other values; 5. 6. Consider present and potential uses of the public lands; Consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means and sites for realiza- tion of those values; 7. Weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; 8. Provide for compliance with applicable pollution laws; 9. To the extent possible, coordinate land use inventory, planning, and management of public lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal agencies and State and local governments. Section 302(b) of FLPMA requires the Secretary to manage the public lands so as to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands. Planning Criteria Used in the Identifi-cation of Conflicts/Opportunities Conflicts - Management practices will be identified as management conflicts if any of the following conditions prevails: 1. Management of one resource significantly constrains or diminishes the use of another resource; 2. Agency guidance requires that land use allocations which are not currently in effect be made through the plan; 3. Existing land use allocations conflict with current agency resource management policies or guidance; 4. Documented public controversy exists regarding the management of a resource. Opportunities - Management practices will be identified as management opportunities if either of the following condi- tions prevails: 1. Management conflicts identified through the above criteria can be resolved in alternative ways with readily available management practices; l-11 2. Appreciable public demand exists for resource uses or conditions sustainable in the RA, but is currently under- represented. Management Objectives Management objectives for the various resources must: 1. Be measurable/quantifiable in terms of location, area involved and timeframe; 2. Be reasonably achievable within an appropriate timeframe, normal budgetary limitations and with existing technology; 3. Be purposeful in terms of resolving a significant conflict, realizing an identified opportunity, or maintaining a currently desirable condition; 4. Provide relatively clear and complete program guidance; 5. Be reasonably independent of other management objectives. Planning Criteria for AlternativeFormulation Each alternative formulated and assessed in the DRMP/ DEIS shall: 1. Directly assess the degree of accomplishment of the identified management objectives; 2. Be in accordance with the discretionary limits established through applicable laws, regulations and agency policies; 3. Provide for reasonable, feasible and practical guidance for management of public lands and resources through a full range of options; 4. Provide a complete land use plan. At least one alternative among those assessed in the DRMPI DEIS will provide for each of the following: 1. Continuation of present management practices; 2. Emphasizing the use, production or extraction of renew- able and nonrenewable resources (although not neces- sarily in the same alternative); 3. Emphasizing the protection and enhancement of natural systems and sensitive resources; 4. Emphasizing a balancing of production and extraction interests with protection and enhancement interests. 1-12 Chapter 2 The Proposed Plan Introduction There have been a number of substantial changes that have been made to the proposed land use decision format that was presented in the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS). Much of this has been done in response to comments that were received on the DRMP/DEIS. Theplanning team has composed the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS) in such a way that the reader will be able to readilytrack the Management Objectives, Alloca- tions, Management Actions, Procedures to Implement and Monitoring Needs. Every “decision” proposed through the planning process is actually a string of components. Primary among these components are Objectives, Allocations and Management Actions. Associated with the decision compo- nents are support components. Primary among these are the Rationale, Geographic Reference, Decision Class, Support and Constraint, Prcceduresto Implement and Monitoring Needs. The following material defines and expands upon these various components. Management Objectives - The management objective is an expression of what we have as the desired end result of our management effcrts. In expressing an objective, we have attempted to describe it so that 1) the expected results are clearly stated, 2) the objective is specific, 3) the objective is measurable, and 4) the objective is realistic. The measurability of the objective is usually expressed in terms of physical units (acres, tons, AUMs, etc.) and in terms of quality classes (satisfactory, good, fair, late seral, etc.). Where timeframes apply, they have been incorporated. Rationale - The rationale is an expression of the primary reasoning behind why it is important to pursue the stated objective. The rationale is usually expressed in terms of law, regulation, policy, custom, etc.; whatever it is that answers the question, “Why do we want to achieve this objective?” Allocations - For every “decision string” there is usually an allocation. Allocations should be one of threetypes: 1) land use allocations, 2) resource allocations, and 3) administrative allo- cations. Land use allocations are expressed in terms of area (acres, miles, etc.). Theydefine: allowableuses/activities, restricted uses/activities, prohibited uses/activities. Resource allocations are expressed in terms of “resource units” such as AUMs, MMBF, user days, tons, etc. Administrative allocations are commitments of the Bureau to perform a procedure or process when a given set of conditions or a specified timeframe is met. Administrative allocations are expressed in terms of the conditions or timeframes thaiwould invoke them and the procedures that would be applied. Each allocation (except administrative allocations) usually be- gins with an expression such as, “Allocate.....or Designate.... .‘I Each allocation is associated with a specific objective and is identifiedbyauniquealpha-numericreferencenumbersuchas WL2-2.This identiiiesthe allocation asthe second action under the second objective in the wildlife program. Management Action - Management actions are measures that are to be undertaken in orderto attain or achieve the stated objective. There are two primary elements to management actions. Action to be taken is a clear statement of what the manage- ment action is. It is framed in appropriate physical units, quality index classes, and timeframes and is solidly linked to its management objective. Where a management action is constrained by specific mitigations or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP S), these are referenced as part of the management action. Geographic Reference is used where amanagement action or an allocation applies to a specific geographic area. The most common means of identifying such areas is the use of allotment numbers. Decision Class designations are utilized to characterize decision strings in one of three classes. Class 1 decisions are BLM initiated and are those plan decisions that require immediate action. Class 2 decisions are BLM initiated and are those plan decisions that have been identified for implementation, but that do not require immediate action. Class 3 decisions are invoked externally and are those decisions that require action only when an activity is initiated externally. Support and Constraint reflect the interactions between each proposed decision and all other proposed decisions in the Proposed Plan. ‘Supported By” for a given proposed decision indicates that its implementation would be sup- ported by other proposed decisions as indicated. Similarly, “Constrained By” indicates which other decisions would constrain the implementation of a given decision. Each management action is associated with a specific man- agement objective and is identified by a unique alpha-numeric reference number such asGM 1.5. This identifiesthe allocation as the fifth action under the first objective in the Grazing Management program. Procedures To Implement - The Procedures to Implement section is a support function. This section is used to identify the major processes, steps, etc., needed to put a specific manage- ment action into effect. There are three primary aspects to the Procedures to Implement. Additional planning/environmental assessment needed iden- tifies whether activity planning is needed to put the “deci- sion” into effect. This section also notes if site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation would be required priorto on-the-ground implementation of the management action. “Manualized” procedures notes where implementation of a management action is governed by specific procedures defined in the manual or an approved handbook, etc., and cites the manual/handbook reference where such proce- dures can be located. ‘CCC” requirements identifies consultation, coordination, cooperation requirements associated with the allocation or management action. Monitoring Needs - There are three aspects to monitoring. The first is monitoring whether or not the RMP is being imple- mented. The second is monitoring the resources to determine whether or not the identified management objectives are being accomplished. The third aspect is a monitoring of the overall RMP to determine whether or not the identified management 2-2 objectives and management actions are still appropriate or if the RMP needs to be amended. The PRMP/FEIS addresses itself to the first two aspects -tracking the implementation of the plan and monitoring the effects of the plan on the resources. Overall evaluations of an RMP, usually conducted on a 5-year timeframe, are directed through Bureau Manual procedures and are not detailed here. Tracking of the RMP will be accomplished primarily through the regular publication of planning updates which will detail progress being made in both implementing actions and in accomplishmentof objectives. Alsospecifictracking mecha- nisms such as Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) Up- dates will be utilized as required for selected programs. Monitoring Needs are usually program and decision spe- cific. In general the reader will be able to see the type of monitoring technique or procedure that would be applied. Where appropriate, specific references are cited for moni- toring guidance. The normal frequency or intervals under which the resource monitoring technique(s) will be applied (e.g., annually, monthly, at least three times in any given 5 year period, etc.) are also identified for most decisions. Such actions are dependent upon funding and staffing levels in any given year and are, therefore, provided only as general indicators. ProgramPackages-ThePRMP/FEIShasbeencomposedon a program-by-program basis. Individual program packages may be located as follows: AQ WQ SM F %B :ss WL AQ FM R ACEC VRM CR EM II: BD Program Page Air Quality 2-3 Water Quality 2-4 Soils 2-15 Forestry and Woodlands 2-21 Grazing Management 2-33 Wild Horses and Burros 2-43 Vegetation 2-51 Special Status Species 2-56 Wildlife Habitat 2-66 Aquatic Habitat 2-96 Fire Management 2-l 01 Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers 2-l 07 ACECs 2-l 37 Visual Resources 2-l 48 Cultural Resources 2-l 52 Energy and Minerals 2-l 56 Lands and Realty 2-l 77 Hazardous Materials 2-199 Biodiversity 2-200 Air Quality Objective and Rationale AQ 1: Prevent significant deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the RA. Rationale: The BLM, as well as the Burns District, must meet or exceed air quality standards in accordance with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Federal Clean Air Act. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AQ 1 .l : Limit prescribed burning in sagebrush-grass areas to less than 3,000 acres (or equivalent of 24,000 tons of fuels) per year. Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement 1. Estimate fuel loading on each burn site prior to completion of plan. 2. Ensure burn plans are accurate with acreage sizes and actual tons per acre. 3. Ensure through planning process that no more than allow- able acreage is planned per year. SupportedBy:WQl.ll, F1.8,V1.1,AH1.11,BD1.1. 4. Environmental Assessment (EA). Monitoring Needs: - Review of burn plan, pre- and post-burn calculations of acreage and tonnage on site. - Annual Work Plan (AWP) identification. - Maintain accurate records of both acreage and tonnage burned to date. 2-3 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AQ 1.2: Limit prescribed burning in forested areas to less than 200 acres (orthe equivalent of 6,000 to 7,000 tons of fuels) per year. Procedures to Implement: 1. Estimate fuel loading on each burn site prior to completion of burn plan. Geographic Reference: Three Rivers FIA. Decision Class: 2 2. Ensure accuracy as to burn size and actual tons per acre. 3. Ensure through planning process that no more than allow- able acreage is planned per year. SupportedBy:WQ1.11,F1.8,V1.1,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.10, WL7.12, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. Monitoring Needs: - Review burn plans, pre- and post-burn calculations of acre- age. - Identify actual acres burned per site. - Identify through AWP process. - Maintain accurate records of both acreage and tonnage burned to date. AQ 1.3: Mitigate projects which have the potential to have a significant negative impact on air quality prior to approval of such projects. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1 .l 1, SM 1 .l, V 1 .l, WL 1.3, WL 2.2, WL 7.10, WL 7.12, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Assesspotentialimpactstoairqualityfrom proposed projects through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. 2. Develop (a) effective and (b) cost-efficient mitigation(s). 3. Apply and enforce mitigations as a condition of approval. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic review of NEPA documentation. - Field review of compliance with mitigating measures. Water Quality Objective and Rationale WQ 1: Improve surface water quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality requirements for all beneficial uses consistent with DEQ Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Plan, where BLM-authorized actions are having a negative effect on water quality (see Table 2.1). Rationale: The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan states that the Bureau will protect habitat of all sensitive and candidate species to maintain or improve population levels. DEQ has identified water quality requirements for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters stimulating a joint BLMlDEQ Memorandum oi Agreement (MOA) and Action Plan of April 1990, to implement these standards on public lands. BLM Oregon/Washington Riparian Enhancement Plan requires that the Bureau improve water quality on public lands to good or better condition by 1997. Allocation/Management Action WQ 1 -1: On a case-by-case basis and after adequate public involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting surface water quality and not needed for administration or fire protec- tion on public lands. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1 Develop necessary NEPA documentation on proposed clo- sures 2. Coordination with pertinent local, State and Federal agen- cies. Decision Class: 2 3. Public notification through EA process. SupportedBy:SMl.l,SM2.2,SSS3.1,AHi.l, R2.1,R2.14, BD1.5. Constrained By: R 2.1. Monitoring Needs: Water quality studies on select streams, 1 O-l 2 times/year. 2-4 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs - Macroinvertebrate analysis will coincide with water quality studies, two-three times/year. - Photo-trend, annually on select streams. Streams will be prioritized based on allotment category, special management areas, and concerns for sensitive species or their habitat. Streams will be studied for 1 year with new streams selected annually. WQ 1.2: All timber harvest must meet or exceed Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) standards and BLM Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Appendix 1, Table 1 for General Best Forest Management Practices). Additionaily, any commercial timber harvest must meet guidelines for Summary of Recom- mended Practices for Stream Protection (see Appendix 1, Table 2), while retaining woody vegetation in a strip along each side of all perennial streams, and all other stream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows which can signifi- cantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Slope of Land Adjacent to Source Width of Buffer Strip On Each Bank O-40 percent 40-50 percent 50-60 percent 60-70 percent Decision Class: 2 lOOft. 125ft. 145ft. 165ft. Supported By: WQ 1.9, F 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 6.4, WL 7.20, AH 1.6, AH 1.7, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM BMPs for watershed protection. 2. Timber sale review. 3. Develop NEPA documentation. 4. Coordination with affected interests, State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor compliance with OFPA during and after timber cut. - Where applicable, monitor impacts on water quality - 1 O-12 times/year. WQ 1.3: Modify existing BMPs or develop new BMPs, as needed, consistent with BLM/DEQ MOA and Action Plan of April 1990. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. 2. Coordinateon new BMP development with State and Wash- ington Office as required. Supported By: GM 1 .l, SSS 3.1, R 2.10, BD 1.5. 3. Compliance with State and Federal laws required under FLPMA, Section 202 (c) 8 and 9. Monitoring Needs: - Implement monitoring of water quality on select streams to identify effectiveness of management actions and compli- ance with DEQ Nonpoint Source Management Plan. 2-5 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WQ 1.4: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3, with poor water quality, related to BLM- administered riparian area conditions. Once riparian areas improve to fair condition, or after 5 years, implement grazing systems on I and M category allotments that allow a maximum of IO percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and 50 percent on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or are systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Procedures to Implement: 1. Allotment evaluations. 2. Use supervision and adjustment. 3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 4. Develop NEPA documentation. 5. Review of pasture design. 6. Construct protective facilities where appropriate. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 2.1, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, WL6.1, WL7.5, WL7.17, AH 1.2, R2.10, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. - Photo trend on riparian - annually in select areas. - Use utilization monitoring - continually when used. - Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three times/year. - Water quality sampling on select streams 1 O-12 times/year. WQ 1.5: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1 ,Table5 infairorgoodcondition, that allow nomore than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian species and no more than 50 percent total utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation annually; or are systems which are de- signed to promote speedy riparian recovery and maintenance of good conditions (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SM 1 .I, SM 2.1, GM 1 .I, GM 1.3, WHB 1.3, V 1.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1,WL6.2,WL7.5,WL7.18,AH 1.3, R2.10, R2.12, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Allotment evaluations. 2. Use supervision and adjustment. 3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 4. Develop NEPA documentation where applicable. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend on riparian - annually in select areas. - Use utilization - annually. - Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three samples/year. - Water quality sampling on select streams - lo-12 times/ year. WQ 1.6: Inventory stream segments listed on Appendix 1, Table 7 and determine management actions required to meet the water quality and riparian objective. Procedures to Implement: 1. Fund through the AWP process. 2. Collect and compile data. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. Decision Class: 2 3. Develop grazing systems as needed during the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) and allotment evaluation process. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: SM 2.1, SSS 2.1, SSS 4.1, WL 6.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.19, AH 1.4, BD 1.3. - Where applicable monitor via: Photo-trend studies annually on select streams. Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams, two-three samples/year. Water quality sampling on select streams, 1 O-l 2 samples/year. 2-6 Allocation/Management Action WQ 1.7: Maintain existing livestock exclosures on approxi- mately 4 miles of streams (Wickiup Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Paul Creek, Silver Creek and Rough Creek), seven reservoirs and District wetland developments (Willow, State, Twin Springs, Stinkingwater Ponds No. 1 and No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoirs, Seiloff Dikes and Lake-on-the-Trail). Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SM2.1,GM 1.4,V1.2,V 1.3, SSS2.1, SSS2.4, SSS3.1, WL4.1,WL5.1, WL5.2, WL7.16,AH 1.5, R2.10, LR 1 .l, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Maintainexisting statusthrough allotmentevaluation, AMPS and Habitat Management Plans (HMPs). 2. Coordinate with permittees and other interested parties. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect exclosure fences - annually. - Repair as needed. - Photo trend studies - annually on select streams. - Water quality sampling on select streams - lo-12 times/ year. WQ 1.8: Exclude livestock from the following reservoirs, lakes, springs and ponds except where grazing livestock will benefit waterfowlorshorebird habitatorotherwiIdlifevalues:Ryegrass Spring, Willow Reservoir, State Reservoir, Greenspot Reser- voir, Twin Springs Reservoir, Stinkingwater Ponds No. 1 and No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoir, Seiloff Dikes, Lake-on-the-Trail, Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir and Silver Lake Pond. Geographic Reference: As above. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GM1.4,V1.2,V1.3,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL4.1, WL5.1,WL5.2,WL7.14,WL6.16,AH2.2,R2.10,BD1.2,BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Ensure alternate adequate sources of water for livestock prior to exclusion. 2. BLM BMPs and water quality/riparian objectives. 3. FLPMA management guidelines - Section 102(a)7 and 8. 4. Coordinate with affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect exclosures - annually. - Repair enclosures as needed. - Photo trend studies on predetermined sites to identify im- pacts of management actions - annually. WQ 1.9: Ensure that all newly constructed permanent roads on BLM-administered lands meet General Best Forest Manage- ment Practices presented in Appendix 1, Table 1. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQl.2,SM2.2,F1.2,SSS3.1,WL6.6,AH1.7, R2.10, BD 1.5. WQ 1.10: Actively suppress wildfire and rehabilitate burned portions within 1 mile of perennial water, when consistent with BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Policy and within available funding. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SM1.2,V1.1,WL1.1,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.9, 7.10, AH 1.10, FM 1.1, FM2.1, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM/DEQ MOA and Action Plan of April 1990 for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters. 2. BLM BMPs and Manual 9113. 3. BLM water quality and riparian goals by 1997. 4. Coordination with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor contractor compliance. Procedures to Implement: 1. NEPA documentation - case-by-case where required. 2. BLM BMPs. 3. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. 4. Develop and implement District Fire Suppression and Fire Rehabilitation Plan. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor rehabilitation plan with water quality monitoring on those streams being impacted - 1 O-l 2 times/year. - Photo trend - annually in select areas. 2-7 -[Al- OREGON Water Quality Segments Water Quality Areas A-Silver Cr., Rough Cr., Nicoll Cr., Sawmill Cr., Wickiup Cr., Claw Cr., Dairy Cr., and Tributaries B-Silvies River, Poison Cr., Myrtle Cr., Hay Cr., Yellowjacket Cr., Emigrant Cr., and Tributaries C-Prater Cr., Rattlesnake Cr., C OW Cr., Pine Cr., and Tributaries D-Malheur River, Cottonwood Cr., Stinkingwater Cr., and Tributaries E-S. Fk. Malheur R., Coleman Cr., Stinkingwater Cr., Crane Cr., Alder Cr., and Tributaries F-Riddle Cr., Deep Cr., Smyth Cr., and Tributaries 0 10 MILES J 3% N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP WQ-1 WATER QUALITY 2-9 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WQ 1.11: Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial water, to less than 20 percent of the land area in that particular subbasin, in any one year. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 1. Develop NEPA documentation on prescribed burns. 2. Implement conditional suppression techniques. 3. Develop a Fire Rehabilitation Plan on wildfires as needed. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:SM1.2,V1.1,SSS3.1,AH1.11,R2.10,BD1.1, BD 1.5. - To be developed on a case-by-case basis. - Photo trend - annually in select areas. WQ 1.12: Implement streambank stabilization projects on streams with less than 90 percent stable streambanks, espe- ciallywhere healing hasnotoccurredwithin5yearsof achange in the grazing system or livestock removal. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WHB1.3,SSSZ.l,SSS2.6,AH1.9,R2.10,BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop necessary NEPA documentation on proposed projects. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. 3. Project identification and funding through AWP. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend on unstable banks annually after change in grazing system or livestock removal. - Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- tem - 1 O-l 2 times/year. WQ 2: Protect or enhance groundwater quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as established by DEQ. Rationale: The Oregon Legislature passed the Groundwater Protection Act of 1989 which requires State agencies to coordinate groundwater protection conservation and restoration practices. DEQ has adopted Statewide Groundwater Quality Protection Rules that provide the strategy for dealing with groundwater contamination. The BLM will coordinate and cooperate fully with DEQ implementation of these procedures. WQ 2.1: Cooperate with appropriate State agencies in devel- opment and implementation of groundwater monitoring and protection processes. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Assist DEQwith implementation of the Groundwater Protec- tion Act of 1989. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:WQ1.3,SM2.2,V1.3,WL5.2,WL5.3,WL7.17, EM 2.1, HM 1 .l, HM 1.2. - To be developed in conjunction with DEQ. 2-l 0 Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area Stream Name Allotment WQ WQ AH AH Cat. Miles Condition Trend Condition Trend Comments Devine Creek Poison Creek Silvies River Landing Creek Hay Creek Silver Creek Claw Creek Wickiup Creek Dry Lake Upper Valley Upper Valley Claw Creek Packsaddle Mineral Canyon Packsaddle Dairy Creek Claw Creek Sawmill Creek Upper Valley Rough Creek Claw Creek Nicoll Creek Dry Lake Skull Creek Yellow Jacket Cr. Beaver Dam Cr. Emigrant Creek Spring Creek v Varien Creek 2 Alder Creek Unallotted Lone Pine Silvies Silvies River Silvies Meadow Silvies Canyon Silvies Meadow East Silvies Landing Creek Hay Creek Packsaddle Claw Creek Hotchkiss Skull Creek Hay Creek Sawtooth (MNF) Emigrant Creek Hay Creek Sawtooth(MNR) Spring Creek Varien Canyon Alder Creek N/A 1 M Ifi M M M I I I I M M I I I 1 I I C M lvl C IA M C I 3.00 Fair 0.25 Poor 0.20 Poor 1.50 Poor 0.50 Poor 2.25 Poor 0.25 Poor 0.75 Poor 3.00 Poor 2.00 Poor 1.10 Poor 2.00 Poor 0.45 Poor 1.50 Poor 1.10 Poor 0.25 Poor 2.30 Poor 0.25 Poor 1 .oo Fair 0.60 Poor 1.20 Poor 0.75 Poor 0.25 Poor 0.75 Poor 0.75 Poor 0.50 Fair 3.50 Poor 0.40 Poor 0.30 Fair 0.50 Fair 1 .oo ? 0.20 ? 0.50 ? 0.40 ? 4.80 Poor Static Declining Static Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Static Declining Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Static Improving Static Declining Declining Static Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining ? ? ? ? Declining Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Good ? ? ? ? Poor Static Declining Static Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Declining Static Declining Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Improving Static Declining Declining Static Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining ? ? ? ? Declining Runoff From Highway 395 Temp, Sil?, Livestock Upstream Impacts Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing Temp, Silt, Logging Silt, Large Bedload, Upstream Impacts Forest Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Excluded 1987 Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest Temp, Silt, Grazing System Working Silt, Temp, Past Logging Silt, Livestock, Upstream Impacts Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987 Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987 Silt, Temp, Watershed Impacts from Logging and Grazing Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest Silt, Upstream Impacts from Cattle and Logging Temp, Silt, Livestock Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) Stream Name Allotment WQ WQ AH AH Cat. Miles Condition Trend Condition Trend Comments Bluebucket Creek Coleman Creek Cottonwood Creek Lee Creek M.F. Malheur R. Paul Creek Deep Creek S.F. Malheur R. Rattlesnake Creek Stinkingwater Cr. Smyth Creek Warm Springs Cr. Coyote Creek Coffeepot Creek Newell Creek Little Pine Creek Warm Springs Creek. . - Mule Creek Moff et Table Alder Creek Coleman Creek Cottonwood Creek Moffet Table River Moffet Table Riddle Mountain Deep Creek Venator Stockade Camp Harney Dawson Butte Stinkingwater Mountain Smyth Creek Buck Mountain Mountain Texaco Basin Riddle Mountain Riddle Coyote Camp Harney Lamb Ranch FFR Pine Creek Mill Gulch Mule Creek I I I 1 M I I I M I C M M I I I I I I I I M I M I I M M I M I i.60 Poor 1.30 Poor 3.35 Poor 2.35 Fair 0.25 Poor 0.50 Poor 1.35 Poor 0.30 Poor 0.80 Poor 2.30 Fair 0.60 Fair 0.30 Poor 1.30 Poor 1.25 Poor 1.35 Poor 1 .oo Poor 1.70 Fair 0.75 Poor 0.50 Poor 1.25 Poor 0.50 Poor 1 .oo Fair 0.60 Fair 2.30 Poor 1.50 Poor 0.40 Fair 3.00 Poor 3.00 Poor 1 .oo Poor 2.00 Poor 2.20 Poor 0.75 Fair 3.50 Poor 3.50 Poor 1.25 Poor 2.00 Poor Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining Declining Improving Static Improving Declining Static Static Static Static Improving Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining tatic E eclining Declining Declining Improving Static Declining Declining Declining Declining Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good ? ? Poor Poor Poor Fair Static Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining Declining Improving Declining Improving Declining Static Static Static Improving Improving Improving Improving Declining Declining Declining Static Declining Declining Static ? ? Declining Improving Improving Static Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Logging Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Excluded Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, TDS, Irrigation, Livestock Grazing System Working Drains Essentially Roadless Area Temp, Sift, Excluded in 1981 Temp, Silt, Livestock High in Drainage, Poor Cattle Access Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock (Forest), Grazing System Working Temp, Silt, Livestock (Forest), Grazing System Working Temp, Silt, Livestock (Private), System Working When Followed Temp, Silt, Livestock (Private), System Working When Followed Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Livestock (Upstream Watershed) Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Partial Livestock Exclusion High in Drainage; Poor Cattle Access Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Riparian Pasture 1988 Temp, Silt, Livestock, Upstream Impacts from Forest Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) Stream Name Allotment WQ WQ AH AH Cat. Miles Condition Trend Condition Trend Comments Crane Creek Buzzard Creek Flat Creek Mountain Creek Poison Creek East Creek Dog Creek Mill Creek Cow Creek Little Muddy Cr. Mahon Creek Swamp Creek Riddle Creek Prather Creek Alder Creek W. Warm Springs Silvies Silvies Silvies Poison Creek East Cr-Pine Hill Silvies Camp Harney Cow Creek Little Muddy Cr. Mahon Creek Kiger Smyth Creek Unallotted Riddle Mountain Happy Valley Riddle Coyote Hamilton Ind. Dry Lake Prather Creek Devine I 5.25 I 0.50 1.50 1 0.40 0.50 M 0.25 C 0.25 id 0.75 0.75 M 2.50 I 0.50 M 1.50 M 1.50 I 0.50 I 1.50 0.50 I 2.00 1.20 I 3.30 I 2.50 i 0.75 1.50 M 4.00 Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Poor Poor ? ? ? ? ? Declining Static Declining Static Static Static Static Declining ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Static Declining ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fair Fair ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Good Fair Fair ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Static Static ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Static Declining Static ? ? ? ? Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock Rip. pasture 1988 Notes: Criteria for Evaluating Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Water quality and aquatic habitat data were routinely collected from stations established to identify current conditions, impacts of present management and improvements associated with changes in management on water quality and aquatic habitat condition. All streams were surveyed by experienced biologists using standard physical and biological stream survey methodology. Water quality data, collected by Bureau biologists, were evaluated in conjunction with DEQ information on nonpoint-source assessment of waters within the Three Rivers RA. Standardsforcollection and evaluation of water quality data weredeveloped by Federal action underthe Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. Datawere gathered and evaluated on water chemistry, temperature, turbidity and discharge. Water quality condition ratings were based on thresholds established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEQ for beneficial uses of waters. Each stream was evaluated against its own potential. The Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution, published by DEQ in 1988, ranked stream condition as severe, moderate or with no problem. For consistency with other BLM data, the Three Rivers planning team converted DEQ rankings into poor, fair, good or excellent condition, respectively, when using these data in the PRMP/FEIS. Aquatic habitat data were collected from predetermined monitoring stations where management actions to protect or enhance aquatic resources were in place or under consideration. Parameters examined included percent stream shaded; vegetation composition, vigor and abundance; intensity of livestock use within the riparian zone; and extent of grazing use on riparian species. Additional data were collected on streambank stability, extent of gullying, quality and quantity of spawning gravel, pool quality, pool-riffle ratios, v instream cover, and aquatic invertebrate and fish population composition, distribution and abundance. G Table 2.1. Surface Water and Acuatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) A good stream reach requires more than 65 percent shading from overstory woody and herbaceous species, and water quality condition exceeding DEQ thresholds for beneficial uses of water. Generally, characteristics used in rating aquatic habitat condition were adapted from Bowen, et al., 1979 and Binns, 1982. They are: Excellent Condition Shading streambank cover exceeding 80 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian cover, in that location, both understory and woody shade providing species (if appropriate) with a mixture of age classes, more than 90 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures rarely exceeding 70 “F during midday during summer with diurnal fluctuations of less than 18 “F, pH of 6.5 to 9.0, more than 75 percent of total riffle-rubble area free of siltation less than .03 inch in size, instream cover available over at least 50 percent of the total stream area (rocks, turbulent water in pools or riffles, debris, tree roots, overhanging banks or aquatic vegetation), and overhanging vegetation no more than 2 feet above the water surface over more than 50 percent of the streambanks. Good Condition Shading streambank cover of 65 to 80 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, both understory species and wood shading species reduced from Excellent Condition habitat, 80 to 90 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures rarely exceeding 74 “F during midday during summer with diurnal fluctuations of 18 to 24 OF, pH of 6.5 to 9.0, 65 percent of total riffle-rubble area free of siltation less than 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over 40 to 50 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over 40 to 50 percent of the streambanks. Fair Condition Shading streambankcover of 40 to 65 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, with plant species noticeably reduced in diversity, 50 to 80 percent of streambanks stable, watertemperatures commonly exceed 74 OF during midday during summer but rarely exceed 78 “F with diurnal fluctuations of 24to 28 “F, pH of 6.0 to 9.0, 50 to 65 percent of total riffle-rubble areafree of siltation lessthan 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over25 to 40 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over 25 to 40 percent of the streambanks. Poor Condition Shading streambank cover less than 40 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, with typical riparian plant species greatly reduced or missing, less than 50 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures often exceed 78 “F with diurnal fluctuation of 30 to 35 “F, pH of 4.5 to 10.0, less than 50 percent of total riffle-rubble areafreefrom siltation less than 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over lessthan 25 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over lessthan 25 percent of the streambanks. Soil Management Objective and Rationale SM 1: Prevent deterioration of soil resources by ensuring that BLM-administered lands are in stable or upward observed apparent trend categories as outlined in “Rangeland Monitoring in Oregon and Washington” BLM Handbook H1734-2. Rationale: Protection of soil resources ensures continued biologic productivity and prevention of Federal land degradation. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SM 1 -1: Modify surface management practices (livestockgraz- ing, off-road vehicle use, forest management, etc.) on areas with a downward-observed apparent trend or specific soil problems such as active headcutting or gullying (Appendix 1, Table 9 for areas of currently known specific soil problems). Procedures to Implement: Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:AQ1.3,WQl.l2,WQ2.1,SM2.1,F1.2,F1.3, F2.1,GMl.l,GMl.4,WHB1.3,V1.l,Vl.2,SSS2.1,SSS 2.4,SSS3.1, WL4.1, WL5.1,WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.6, WL7.5,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL7.20,WL7.27,AHl.l, AH 1.2, AH 1.3,AH 1.7,AH 1.9, R2.1, R2.12, CR 1.2, LR3.1, LR5.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 1 . Inventory soils and current erosion conditions and establish watershed monitoring stations on a priority basis. 2. Incorporate soil management objectives into rangeland monitoring and evaluation procedures. 3. Adjust off-road vehicle plan to reflect soil management objectives. 4. Follow State of Oregon’s General Best Forest Management Practices as outlined in Appendix 1, Table 1. Monitoring Needs: Constrained By: R 2.2. - Soil inventory is in progress. - Observed apparent trend evaluation will combine soil and vegetation elements as outlined in “Rangeland Monitoring in Oregon and Washington.” - Specific soil problems, such as active headcutting or gully- ing will be noted, with locations, on the forms. - Photographs will be taken of specific soil problems annually to facilitate tracking condition through time. - Observed apparent trend will be done a minimum of once every 5 years on I allotments and a minimum of once very 10 years on M and C allotments. SM 1.2: Rehabilitate burned areas where erosion hazard is high and/or natural revegetation potential is low. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:WQ1.1O,WQ1.11,WQ2.1,SM2.2,WL1.3,WL 2.2, WL7.10, AH l.lO,AH 1.11. Procedures to Implement: 1. Write an EA on each fire when rehabilitation is necessary. 2. Methods to protect soil resources (seeding, contourfurrow- ing, etc.) will be designed on a site-specific basis. Monitoring Needs: - Sites should be monitored at least annually until stabilized. - Erosion problems such as rilling, headcutting and gullying will be noted with location and photographs. - Once the site has stabilized, observed apparent trend will be completed a minimum of once every 5 years on I allotments and a minimum of once very 10 years on M and C allotments. 2-l 5 OREGON I A A-AQUIC FRIGID AND CRYIC SOILS OF BASINS AND VALLEYS. B-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON FORESTED MOUNTAINS AND PLATEAUS. C-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. D-XERIC/ARIDIC MESIC SOILS ON TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS. E-XERICIARIDIC MESIC SOILS ON GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. F-XERIC/ARIDIC FRIGID SOILS ON GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. G-ARIDICIXERIC FRIGID SOILS ON TERRACES AND IN BASINS. H-ARIDIC/XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON PLATEAUS AND UPLANDS. I-LAVA FLOWS J-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS. NOTE: This general soils map is not designed to show the kind Of sOi1 0” a specific site. A site inspection is required to best evaluate specific soils and land capabilities. C O MPIL E D FROM : USDA-SCS, General Soils Map. State of Oreoon, 1966 4Y N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP S-l GENERAL SOILS 2-11 ?OSION CONDITION CLASS (Soil Surface Factors) IES OREGON lzz?l Moderate Severe I Unclassified U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP S-2 Objective and Rationale SM 2: Rehabilitate areas with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human influenced) sediment delivery to fluvial systems. Rationale: Reduction of upland erosion and sediment delivery to fluvial systems can be correlated with improved water quality and aquatic habitat. Rehabilitation of localized erosion problems will improve and protect biologic productivity on uplands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SM 2.1: Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies on watershed up- lands where modification of management practices alone do not facilitate stabilization of erosion concerns. (See Table 2.2 for a list of possible methods.) Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. inventory and map areas of significant accelerated erosion. 2. Prepare an activity plan for proposed projects. 3. Watershed improvement projects will be designed on a site- specific basis. Suooorted Bv: WQ 1.4. WQ 1.5. WQ 1.6. WQ 1.7. WQ 1.12. Monitoring Needs: S&2.1,&2.4,SSS2.5,SSS2.6,AH’l.2,AH 1’.3,AH1.4, AH1.5,AH1.7,AH1.8,AH1.9,R2.12,EM2.1,LR3.1,BD1.3. - Photograph stations will be established on selected sites and retaken on a regular periodic basis to monitor rehabili- tation progress. Watershed improvements will be inspected regularly and repairs or modifications made when needed to ensure effectiveness. Once rehabilitation has been achieved, observed apparent trend will be used to monitor erosion condition. SM 2.2: Minimize erosion from roads, mines and other human activities by controlling runoff concentration and velocity. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Mitigations and stipulations in EA and approval document. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WQ 1.1, WQ 1.9, SM 1.2, WL6.6, AH 1.1, AH 1.7, AH 1.9, AH 1.10, AH 1.11, R2.1, CR 1.2, EM 2.1. Constrained By: R 2.2. - Regular inspections and maintenance of mining activities to assure compliance with stipulations. Periodic inspection of other surface disturbing activities. Table 2.2. Headcut and Gully Control Methods - Check dams - Erosion barriers in headcuts - Mulch - Straw bales - Erosion blankets - Sandbags - Rock - Establishment of vegetation in gully - Riprap - Rock -Juniper -Dispersion of runoff above headcut or gully - Contour furrows - Log contouring - Vegetation - Filling gullies and establishing vegetation 2-20 Forestry and Woodlands Program Objective and Rationale F 1: Manage the 7,722 acres of identified commercial forestland timber base for a nondeclining sustained yield. Rationale: This type of management will allow harvesting of timber products while ensuring their perpetuity within the principles of multiple-use management (FLPMA-1976). Timber stand improvement projects as well as advertised and negotiated sales of forest products will continue to contribute to local demand for forest products. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 1.1: Allocate 7,722 acres of forestland to the commercial forestland timber base (see Map F-l). Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. In effect upon approval of the RMP. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: GM 1.1. - N/A. Constrained By: WQ 1.9, LR 1 .l . F 1.2: Allocate timber harvests for a long-term 1 O-year decadal harvest of 5.40 million board feet (MMBF) subject to Oregon Forest Practices Standards (Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2. See also Table 2.3, 1 O-year Timber Sale Plan). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.9, SM 2.2, WL 6.6, AH 1.7, VRM 1.4, LR 2.6, LR 4.1. Constrained By: WQ 1.2, SM 1.1, SSS 3.1, AH 1.6, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Plan for and offer an advertised timber sale once every 2-4 years. 2. Conduct site-specific EAs prior to approval of individual harvest actions. 3. Design harvest blocks to conform to Visual Resource Man- agement (VRM) class standards. 4. Follow General Best Forest Management Practices, Appen- dix 1, Table 1. 5. Precommercial thin an average of 53 acres of commercial forestland annually. Monitoring Needs: - As prescribed through Best Forest Management Practices. - Prepare a report of progress annually. 2-21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURN DISTRICT DREGON April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP LEGEND MAP F-l I *MC Commercial Forest Base acreage EXISTING COMMERCIAL FOREST LANDSas of 1989 SCALETimber Management Units as identified in the 1985 approved John Day Resource Management Plan 75 5 MllFJS Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 1.3: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (Appendix 1, Table 2) while retaining woody vegetation in astripalong each side of all perennial streamsand allother stream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can significantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Slope of Land Adjacent to Source Width of Buffer Strip On Each Bank 0 - 40 percent lOOft. 40 - 50 percent 125ft. 50 - 60 percent 145ft. 60 - 70 percent 165ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial forestland, see Map F-l. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.3, SM 1.1, WL 6.4, WL 7.20, AH 1.6, R 2.10. Procedures to implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed to conform to these stan- dards. The design will be documentedin the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Stan- dards will be enforced through contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 1.4: In an effort to support biodiverse resource management, maintain 30 to 60-acre blocks of big game cover so that approximately 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains suitable for big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover) as defined in “Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests” (USDA-FS, Agriculture Hand- book 553.1979). Procedures to Implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to conform to these standards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- ministration. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: V 1.1, WL 1.1, WL 7.9, BD 1.1. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 1.5: Exclude forest management activities within 660 feet of raptor nests, from March 1 through August 15, depending on specific needs of the species and the site. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 7.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to conform to these standards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- ministration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 1.6: Retain nest trees and provide for perch trees within 660 feet of nest trees. Procedures to Implement: Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 7.1. 1. Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to conform to these standards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- ministration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. 2-23 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 1.7: Allocate 482 acres of commercial forestland as pon- derosa pine old growth forest management areas (see Table 2.4 and Maps F-3 through F-6). Decision Class: 1 Supported By: V 1.4, V 1.5, WL 7.21, WL 7.26, R 2.12, ACEC 1.5, BD 3.5, BD 3.8. Procedures to Implement: 1. Remove four identified old growth forest areas (see Table 2.4, Part 2) from the commercial forestland timber base acreage. Monitoring Needs: - Publish the approved ROD for this RMP. F 1.8: Develop fuel treatment plan for each timber sale in consultation and coordination with the District Fire Manage- ment Officer to: 1) Treat slash accumulations in excess of 1 O-1 2 tons per acre; and 2) Selectively treat slash accumulations of less than IO tons per acre. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: FM 1 .l, FM 2.1, FM 2.2 Constrained By: AQ 1 .l , AQ 1.2. 0 bjective and Rationale Procedures to Implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed to conform to these stan- dards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Stan- dards will be enforced through contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 2: Manage approximately 50,000’ acres of available productive noncommercial forestlands and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diversity, minor forest products, watershed protection and rangeland productivity. Rationale: Woodland species (primarily juniper woodlands) provide critical wildlife cover on winter ranges and minor woodlands praducts such as fuelwood, posts, poles, and ornamental foliage. However, heavy concentrations of juniper types have adverse effects on range condition, watershed condition and overall habitat diversity. Woodland management is required to ensure maintenance of beneficial woodland values while reducing the adverse effects of juniper concentrations. l Until an intensive woodland inventory is completed, this figure, derived from District vegetation records, will be used for planning purposes. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 2.1: Remove or thin selected concentrations of western juniper which adversely affect rangeland, watershed, wildlife habitat or other management objectives. Allocate the potential forwoodland product harvests for a long-term 1 O-year decadal harvest of up to approximately 3.13 MMBF of firewood, post and pole material (625 cords). Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required prior to on-the-ground implementation of juniper control activi- ties. 2. Establish woodland harvest areas within areas identified for prescribed burning. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:SM1.1,GM1.3,WHB1.3,WL7.12,FMl.1,FM 2.1. Ccnstrained By: V 1 .l , SSS 3.1, AH 1 .I 1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. - Monitoring of juniper control activities will occur for each activity in order to ensure adherence to RMP management objectives. - Annual monitoring of vegetal material (post, pole and fire- wood) permits. 2-24 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 2.2: Prohibit harvest of juniper foliage, fuelwood and posts and poles from big game winter range in the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Protect this geographic area by avoiding juniper control activity proposals. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WL 1.4, WL 2.3, WL 7.11, FM 1.1, FM 2.1. - None required. Constrained By: F 3.3, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5. Objective and Rationale F 3: Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal materials, etc., consistent with other resource objectives. Rationale: Occasionally, natural disasters (insects, disease, wildfire, etc.) may require the need for a forest management activity to dispose of or curtail the spread of the specific problem. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 3.1: Dispose of some heavy concentrations of standing dead material by use of sale permits. Leave some for the enhance- ment of other diverse resource values. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: FM 1 .I, FM 2.1. Constrained By: F 2.2, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Site-specific analysis or NEPA documentation would be required to determine the need for individual or commercial sale permits. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will occur for each activity in order to ensure adherence to NEPA documentation mitigations. F 3.2: Dispose of selected dead and down material by use of sale permits and free use permits. Leave most for enhance- ment of other diverse resource values. Decision Class: 2 Constrained By: SM 1 .I, F 2.2, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, WL 1.4, WL 7.10, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventor-y/site exam. 2. Issue vegetal sale permits and/or free use permits before the threat of a disaster becomes apparent. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor all forestland conditions in order to identify the potential disaster areas. F 3.3: Dispose of live vegetal materials by use of permits for selected areas only. Decision Class: 2 Constrained By: SM 1 .I, F 2.2. Procedures to Implement: I. Inventory, site identification. 2. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required prior to the issuance of sale permits for these products. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will occur at each permit area in order to ensure adherence to NEPA documentation mitigations. 2-25 2-26 OREGON lzzl Fuelwood Harvest Prohibited Designated Fuelwood Harvest Areas 1. Squaw Creek Area 2. Mill Creek Area 3. Crow Camp Area 4. Alder Creek Area 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP F-2 WOODLANDS 2-27 T. 21 S. T. 22 S. LEGEND Proposed Dry - Mountain RNAIACEC lszzzl Proposed Old GrowthForest Stand d-N- II DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP E r -\ BLM Land ; \_,--v. -..-. ./ - -., MAP F-3 / National Forest Land “iCU\Cl P f / DRY MOUNTAIN Other Land 1 ,I R.iCl P A F-l’ OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND -1BURNS _ H H I I I DIST-__ - 1 0 1 2 Miles OREGON 2-28 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Proposed Old Growth -N- BURNS DISTRICT - Management Area II April 1991 tm Proposed Old Growth THREE RIVERS RMPForest Stand t BLM Land r-.. \i ___,-\., _,----Y MAP F-4/ EMIGRANT CREEKNational Forest Land I j R,icy P rl~ ..g‘: 2 < Other Land 1 OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND 1.:BURNS _ D,ST ~. 1 >-- OREGON 1 0 1 Mile 2-29 - 2-30 LEGEND I Proposed Old Growth -N- - Management Area Ezl Proposed Old Growth Forest Stand II r-- BLM Land -7( 1 j_- , -_.,--Y--.’ -< ‘\ National Forest Land Other Land L--- OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP MAP F-5 CRAFT POINT OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND I 0 I 1 Mile Ft.33 1/2E. R. 34 E. T. 18 S. I DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORLEGEND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT Proposed Malheur River - -N- - Bluebucket Creek Wild River I lzzl Proposed Old Growth Forest Stand 9 April 1991 I THREE RIVERS RMP i BLM Land TV.-, ! _-,--.- ~ MAP F-6 ” ” i ------. // National Forest Land OlCWiC” P L z BLUEBUCKET CREEK--- I Other Land i Rile< P A ;< ‘, J i OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND ( “T- .BURN5 0157 -- i 1 1 Mile\ \- OREGON -- - 2-31 Table 2.3. Typical lo-Year Timber Sale Plan Estimated Approximate Legal Description’ Quarter Volume No. Fiscal Year Sale Name Tract No. T. R. Sec. Sold (MMBF) Acres 1991 Pine Springs Salvage 91-4 22s 29E 5,6,7,20 23s 28E 1 23s 29E 6 1 st 1.510 388 sold 1993 South Silvies 1995 Gus’s Well 1999 Dry Mountain 2001 Negotiated 93-l 95-l 99-1 20s 32E 21s 27E 22s 26E Undetermined IO,21 3rd ,400 116 proposed 9,lO 3rd 2.124 500 proposed 22,23 3rd ,666 222 proposed 4th .700 200 proposed TOTALS: 5.400 1,426 ‘Actual sites volumes and acreages may differ based on revised inventories, timber markets. legal acces8, catastrophic events. etc. Table 2.4. part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection, Locationand Justlflcation Part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection Criteria (for Three Rivers Planning Area) 1. Stand size should generally be not less than 40 contiguous acres. 2. Stand should consist of mature and overmature trees in the overstory and well into the mature growth stage. At least 15 trees per acre should exceed 20 inches DBH. 3. Stands usually contain a multilayered canopy and trees of two or more age classes. Total crown closure should exceed 50 percent. 4. Standing dead trees (snags) and a high level of down woody material should be present. Snags should average two or more per acre. 5. Evidence of herbaceous plants composed of grasses, sedges and forbs should be present. Table 2.4. Part 2. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Locations and Sizes Name Legal Description Acres 1. Dry Mountain T. 22 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 3, 10 2. Emigrant Creek T. 20 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 31 3. Craft T. 21 S., R. 33 E., Sec. 18 4. Bluebucket T. 18 S., R. 34 E., Sec. 33,34 Total: Table 2.4. Part 3. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Justification 180 70 126 106 482 Due to this designation, forest management activities in these areas would not occur. Secondary management activities may be necessary if naturalfuelsaccumulatetodangerous levels, thusthreateningthe existenceoftheoldgrowthstand,orwherevegetation manipulation is needed to maintain stand structure and species composition. These stands are intended to provide habitat for a number of dependent wildlife species, such as the pileated woodpecker, flying squirrel, white headed woodpecker, as well as other nondependent species, both large and small. In addition, these stands are intended to provide for the enhancement of other diverse resources including water, fisheries, recreation, etc. A multilayered canopy with shaded conditions and a large number of dead snags per acre are considered optimum for old growth habitat. Not all of these designated acres are currently in a suitable old growth condition. In time, these stands will become suitable and meet the definition of old growth ponderosa pine forest as defined in Table 2.4, Part 1. 2-32 Grazing Management Program Objective and Rationale GM 1: Resolve resource conflicts and concerns and achieve management objectives as identified, for each allotment in Appendix 1, Table 9. Rationale: The BLM is instructed to manage the public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield by the FLPMA and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). Livestockgrazing is identified as a major use of the public land and is to be conducted in a manner which will meet multiple-use and sustained yield objectives. Allocation/Management Action GM 1 .l : Implement management practices to resolve conflicts and concerns and meet multiple-use objectives identified in Appendix 1, Table 9, within 5 years of approval of the plan, on 57 I category allotments and within 10 years on 53 M category allotments (see Appendix 1, Table 10 for allotment categoriza- tion). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.3, SM 1 .I, WHB 1.3, V 1 .l, V 1.2, V 1.3, SSS2.l,SSS2.2,SSS2.4,SSS4.l,FM2.l,WLl.2,WL2.1, WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.7, WL7.4, WL7.5, WL 7.6,WL7.8,WL7.15,WL7.16,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL 7.27,LR1.1,LR1.2,LR1.3,AH1.2,AH1.3,R2.12,ACEC1.1, CR 2.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 3.1. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop, modify or revise AMPS or Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMPs) which identify allotment spe- cific multiple-use management objectives and grazing sys- tems. Prioritize allotments on the basis of the following criteria: Wildlife Habitat - Considers the number of wildlife habi- tats present and potentials for improvement. RiparianMletlands - Considers the amount of riparian/ wteland habitat present, current conditiona nd manage- ment effectiveness in meeting aquatic habitat objectives. Fisheries -Considers the amount of aquatic habitat present, habitat condition, water quality, and manage- ment effectiveness in meeting aquatic habitat objectives. Recreation-Considerstheamountandtype(extensiveor intensive) recreation use(s) present and management effectiveness for meeting recreation objectives. Wilderness Study Areas - Considers presence or ab- sence of WSA and management effectiveness in meet- ing IMP objectives. Wild and Scenic Rivers-Considers presence or absence of nominated/designated river, riverclassification (Wild, Scenic, Recreational or combination) and management effectiveness in meeting objectives for classification(s). WaterQuaIityMlatersheds - Considers the degree to DEQ water quality thresholds for established beneficial uses are being met. Wild Horses and Burros - Considers the presence or absence of an active herd management area, condition of wild horse and burro habitat and management effec- tiveness for meeting wild horse and burro objectives. Listed Threatened or Endangered Species -Considers presence or absence of T & E species habitat, stability of the species and management effectiveness for meeting listed species recoveryorother management objectives. SpecialStatusSpecies-Considerspresenceorabsence of Federal Candidate, Bureau sensitive or Assessment species; stability of species/habitat and management effectiveness in meeting special status species objec- tives. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including RNAs and ONAs) - Considers presence or absence of ACEC and management effectiveness in meeting ACEC objectives 2-33 2-34 OREGON Allotment Boundary and Number 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP RM-1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 2 5 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 2. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level of grazing use, which may be necessary to meet manage- ment objectives. 3. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements may be required to implement changes in grazing systems or level of grazing use. 4. CCC with permittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, USFWS. Specific manual guidance for implementing this management action are located in Table 2.5. Monitoring Needs: - Range monitoring and evaluation will bedonein accordance with the Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitor- ing Plan. See Appendix 1, Table 11. GM 1.2: Establish an initial stocking level in the RA of 150,472 AUMs. Stocking levels will be reviewed and adjusted, if neces- sary and in accordance with the results of monitoring studies and allotment evaluations every 5 years for I category and every IO years for M category allotments. See Appendix 1, Table 9 for allotment specific initial stocking levels. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: SSS 2.1, WL 3.1, BD 1.3. Constrained By: WQ 1.4, SM 1.1, WHB 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level ofgrazing use which may be necessary to meet multiple-use management objectives. 2. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements may be required to implement changes in grazing systems or level of grazing use. 3. Consultation, cooperation and coordination (CCC) with per- mittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, USFWS. Specific manual guidance for implementing this management action are located in Table 2.5. Monitoring Needs: - Range monitoring and evaluation will bedonein accordance with Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitoring Plan. See Appendix 1, Table 11. GM 1.3: Utilize rangeland improvements, as needed, to sup- port achievement of multiple-use management objectives for each allotment as shown in Appendix 1, Table 9 and Map RM- 3. Range improvements will be constrained by the Standard Procedures and Design Elements shown in Appendix 1, Table 12. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1 .I, SM 2.1, FM 2.1, FM 2.2,F2.1,WHB1.3,WHB2.4,SSS4.1,‘/1.2,WL4.1,WL5.1, WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.7, WL7.5, WL7.9, WL 7.14, WL7.15, WL7.16, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19,AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 2.1, R 2.12, VRM 1.4, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Projects will be designed to sustain or enhance overall multiple-use values within the project area. 2. Site-specific NEPA documentation will be prepared for each project or group of projects. 3. Site examinations will be performed to identify and protector enhance sensitive resource values within potential project areas. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in NEPA documentation on individual projects. Constrained By: AQ 1 .I, AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, SSS3.2,WL1.3,WL1.5,WL2.2,WL7.7,WL7.1O,WQ1.11, Vl.l,AH 1.11,VRM1.1,VRM1.2,VRM1.3,CR2.2,BD1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 2-36 GM 1.4: Designate approximately 1,683,500 acres as available for livestock grazing. Excludegrazingfromapproximately26,400acresexceptwhere grazing livestock will benefit waterfowl or shorebird habitat or other wildlife values. See Map RM-2. These are: Hatt Butte Windy Point Silver Creek RNAIACEC Diamond Craters ONAACEC Devine Canyon South Narrows ACEC Chickahominy Recreation Site Radar Hill ORV Area Hines Field Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Extn. Foster Flat RNAACEC Ryegrass Spring Willow Reservoir State Reservoir Twin Springs Reservoir Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 Stinkingwater Pond No. 2 Big Foot Reservoir Seiloff Dikes Lake-on-the-Trail Dry Lake Silver Creek Exclosure Rough Creek Exclosure Paul Creek Exclosure Cottonwood Creek Exclosure Greenspot Reservoir Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir Silver Lake Pond Total 80 ac.’ 520 ac. 640 ac. 17,136 ac. 480 ac. 160 ac. 400 ac. 240 ac. 455 ac. 1,280 ac.’ 2,690 ac.3 320 ac. 7 ac. 6 ac. 18 ac. 5 ac. 5 ac. 35 ac. 50 ac. 320 ac. 780 ac. 100 ac. 450 ac. 60 ac. 90 ac. 5 ac.4 15 ac4 60 ac.4 26,407 ac. cants, in accordance with regulations and manual proce- dures, where site examinations determine that a grazing treatment would be beneficial. 3. CCC with permittees and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance checks and use supervision will be necessary to prevent unauthorized use. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Grazing authorizations affected by exclusions may be can- celled, modified or suspended according to regulations and manual procedures. 2. Grazing authorizations may be issued to qualified appli- ‘This exclusion included only the top of Hatt Butte. 2Excluded upon designation as an RNAACEC and completion of land exchange to acquire a 640-acre inholding. aExcluded upon designation as an RNAACEC and completion of a perimeter fence. 4Excluded upon completion of exclosure fence. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .l, V 1.3, V 1.4, SSS 2.4, WL4.1, WL4.2, WL7.14,WL7.15, WL7.16, WL7.22, WL7.23, WL7.24, WL7.25, WL7.28, AH 1.5, AH 1.7, R 1.1, R 1.2, R 1.4, R2.10,ACEC1.1,ACEC1.2,ACEC1.3,ACEC1.4,BD3.1,BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 2-37 I 2-38 OREGON ------____ -____---- i la Excluded (Locations are Approximate) 0 10 MILES / 4l N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP RM-2 AREASEXCLUDEDFROM LIVESTOCK GRAZING i 3 I 2-40 OREGON Vegetation Manipulation Seeding ( Locations are approximate 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP RM-3 POTENTIAL VEGETATION MANIPULATION & SEEDING I 2-41 Table 2.5. Grazing Management Manual Guidance Manual Sections Manual Handbooks 4100 - Grazing Administration (Excl. of Alaska) 4100 - Grazing Administration (Excl. of Alaska), Oregon Supplement H-401 O-l - Range Management Records 41 IO - Qualifications and H-41 1 O-l - Qualifications and Preference Preference 4120 -Grazing Management 4130 - Authorizing Grazing Use 4150 - Unauthorized Grazing Use 4160 - Administrative Remedies 4400 - Rangeland Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation 4410 - Ecological Site Inventory H-41 20-l - Grazing Management H-41 30-l - Authorizing Grazing Use H-4150-1 - Unauthorized Grazing Use H-41 60-l - Administrative Remedies H-4400-1 - Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation H-4410-1 - National Range Handbook H-l 734-2 - Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Oregon Supplement 1740 - Renewable Resource Improvements and 1741 - Renewable Resource improvements and Treatments 1742 - Emergency Fire Rehabilitation 1743 - Renewable Resource Investment Analysis Technical References TR-4400-1 - Rangeland Monitoring: Planning for Monitoring TR-4400-2 - Rangeland Monitoring: Actual Use Studies TR-4400-3 - Rangeland Monitoring: Utilization Studies TR-4400-4 - Rangeland Monitoring: Trend Studies H-1740-1 -Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Treatments Procedures H-l 741-l - Fencing H-l 741-2 - Water Developments H-l 742-l - Emergency Fire Rehabilitation H-1743-1 -Resource Investment Analysis User Handbook for the SageRam Computer Program TR-4400-7 - Rangeland Monitoring: Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation TR-4400-9 -Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring: Selected Bibliography of Remote Sensing Applications TR-1737-3 -Riparian Area Management: Inventory and Monitoring of Riparian Areas TR-1737-4 - Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management in Riparian Areas 2-42 Wild Horse and Burro Program Objective and Rationale WHB 1: Maintain healthy populations of wild horses within the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, and Riddle Mountain Herd Management Areas (HMAs), and wild horses and burros in the Warm Springs HMA (see Map WH-1). Rationale: Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 requires BLM to manage wild free-roaming horses and burros under multiple-use in a manner that is designed to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 1 .l : Continue to allocate the following acres and AUMs in active HMAs: Procedures to Implement: Kiger HMA 36,618 ac. 984 AUMs Stinkingwater HMA 79,631 ac. 960 AUMs Riddle Mountain HMA 28,021 ac. 672 AUMs Warm Springs HMA 456,855 ac. 2,424 AUMs Palomino Buttes HMA 71,544 ac. 768 AUMs Total 672,669 ac. 5,808 AUMs Decision Class: 1 Supported By: GM 1 .l, WHB 2.4, WL 1.4, WL 3.1, R 2.16. 1. Continued upon approval of the RMP. 2. Horses will be removed in a timely manner from all areas outside of these designated areas. 3. Horses will be removed using approved methods. 4. Develop interpretive signs for all of the HMAs. Monitoring Needs: - Annual herd population inventories. Constrained By: WQ 1.4, ACEC 1.4, BD 3.4. WHB 1.2: Retain inactive status on the following herd areas (HA S ): Second Flat HA Diamond Craters HA Middle Fork HA East Wagontire HA Miller Canyon HA State owned portion of Riddle Mountain HA Decision Class: 1 8,281 ac. 48,077 ac. 37,885 ac. 158,048 ac. 6,572 ac. 47,015 ac. Procedures to Implement: 1. Continued on approval of the RMP. 2. Remove horses with approved methods if they are identified in these areas. 3. Place “horse wires” at all gates surrounding HMA bound- aries. 4. Ensure that permittees close gates after gathering cattle in the fall. 5. Place “Keep Gate Closed” signs at all boundary gates of the HMAs. Monitoring Needs: - Conduct annual or biannual inventories to assess if there are horses in these areas. 2-43 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 1.3: Adjust wild horse and burro herd population levels in accordance with the results of monitoring studies and allotment evaluations, where such adjustments are needed in order to achieveandmaintainobjectivesforathriving naturalecological balance and multiple-use relationships in each HA (Appendix 1, Table 9). Permanent adjustments would not be lower than the estab- lished minimum numbers in order to maintain viability. The appropriate management level would be based on the analysis of trend in range condition, utilization, actual use and other factors which provide for the protection of the public range from deterioration. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, WHB 2.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, WL 3.1, WL 7.27, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. Constrained By: GM 1.2, WL 6.1, WL 6.2, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, AH 1.2, AH 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Use currently approved methods for control of herd popula- tion levels. 2. Prepare allotment evaluations priorto any permanent change in the appropriate management level. 3. Prepare NEPA documentation prior to any adjustments in population levels. 4. Formal evaluations would beconducted about every5 years with annual updates thereafter. ODFW would be consulted during the evaluation process. Monitoring Needs: - Annual collection of utilization, actual use and climate re- ports. - Long and short-term trend in range condition studies con- ducted every 3-5 years. - Wild horse and burro use area mapping and reporting. Objective and Rationale WHB 2: Enhance the management and protection of HAS and herds in the following HMAs: Kiger, Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain, Palomino Buttes and Warm Springs. Rationale: The Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 directs the BLM to manage and protect wild horses and burros. Section 103(a) of FLPMA provides for areas to be designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) when this area will protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or other natural systems. Allocation/Management Action WHB 2.1: Acquire legal access to specific sources of private land and water upon which horsesdepend. Table 2.6describes the location and priority for acquisition. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Refer to LR 1 .I for procedures in the process of acquisition through easements, exchanges or fee acquisition. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: LR 1 .l, LR 4.1, WHB 2.2: Designate 64,639 acres of the Kiger and Riddle Mountain HMAs as an ACEC for the Kiger mustang. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.16, ACEC 1.7, LR 1.5, BD 2.4. BD 3.7. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop specific objectives for the management of these areas. 2. Prepare a specific management plan for this ACEC. 3. Update affected Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs)/ AMPS to reflect any special management considerations. Monitoring Needs: - Assess objectives through the accepted allotment evalua- tion process. 2-44 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 2.3: Select for high quality horses when gathered horses are returned to the range (see Table 2.7 for characteristics). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WHB 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Initiate gatherings based on monitoring and other data. 2. Select studs and mares for return to the range based on color and conformation standards established in HMAPs. Monitoring Needs: - Track adoption records to determine trends in adoption rates. WHB 2.4: Provide facilities and water sources necessary to ensure the integrity of the individual herds (see Table 2.8). Procedures to Implement: 1. Submit projects to AWP. Geographic Reference: Warm Springs, Kiger, Palomino Buttes Decision Class: 2 2. Develop site-specific NEPA documentation. 3. Coordinate with affected parties. 4. Contract work or Force Account development. Supported By: GM 1.3, WHB 1 .l , WHB 3.1, LR 1 .I. Constrained By: WL 1.4, WL 5.2, WL 7.15, WL 7.16. Monitoring Needs: - AWP tracking. - Project development inspections. Objective and Rationale WHB 3: Enhance and perpetuate the special or rare and unique characteristics that distinguish the respective herds in the RA. Rationale: Color, type, distinctive markings, size and weight of members of the various herds are characteristic of the historic background of those herds. It is highly desirable to retain this cultural/historical linkage. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 3.1: Limit any releases of wild horses or burros into an HMAto individuals which exhibitthe characteristicsdesignated for that HMA (see Table 2.7). Geographic Reference: HMAs. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WHB 2.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Select horses with special, rare or unique qualities for return to the range based on the established criteria. Monitoring Needs: - Age and sex ratios. WHB 3.2: Manage burros for a maximum of 24 head in the west side of the Warm Springs HMA. The allocation of forage for burros is within the total allocation for the Warm Springs HMA. Geographic Reference: Warm Springs HMA. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. The current inventory of burros is seven animals. When the population has increased to 15 or more animals, the mini- mum management number will be maintained at 15. 2. The gathering and return procedures will be conducted using the currently approved method. 3. Determine why burros have remained stable, at only seven animals, by either blood testing or genetic testing if they are captured during a gathering. Monitoring Needs: - Regular periodic inventory to aid in determining population dynamics - early summer. - Use area mapping. - Habitat Trend Studies - Initiate. 2-45 2 OREGON HERD MANAGEMENT AREA (HMA) 1. Palomino Buttes HMA 2. Warm Springs HMA 3. Stinkingwater HMA 4. Kiger HMA 5. Riddle Mtn. HMA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP WH-1 ACTIVE WILD HORSE AND BURRO HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS Table 2.6. Private Water Sources Selected for Acquisition of Permanent Access (Listed in Priority Order) Herd Management Area Parcel Name Size Location Kiger Yank Springs Stinkingwater Poison Creek 160 acres Jones/Ausmus Flat 120 acres Stinkingwater Cr. #l 840 acres Stinkingwater Cr. #2 Little Stinkingwater #l Little Stinkingwater #2 Little Stinkingwater #3 Kiger Swamp Creek 480 acres 640 acres 80 acres 80 acres 440 acres 400 acres T. 20 S., R. 34 E., sec. 33, NWl/4, N1/2SW1/4, W1/2SE1/4 and SEli4SWll4; sec. 32, W1/2NE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4. T. 30 S., R. 33 E., sec. 13, SElI4. T. 23 S., R. 34 E., sec. 25, W1/2SW1/4 and SWl/4NWl/4. T. 23 S., Ft. 35 E., sec. 30, W1/2NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, and NWl/4NWl/4; sec. 19, All. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 7, All. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 13, NWl/4NW1/4; sec. 12, SW1/4SW1/4. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 12, W1/2NW1/4. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 1, Wl/2NWl/4 and NWlI4SWll4. T. 22 S., R. 35 E., sec. 36, W1/2. T. 29 S., R. 33 E., sec. 36, SlI2 and S1/2NW1/4. 2-48 Table 2.7. Representative Characteristics by Wild Horse and Burro Herd Herd Kiger/Riddle Mountain Colormype Dun, red dun, grulla, buckskin (claybank) and variations; Spanish mustang type. Markings Dorsal stripes Size 13-15 hands Weight 750-I ,000 Ibs. Palomino Buttes Light-colored, palominos, buck- skins, duns, red duns and sorrels; saddle type. N/A Warm Springs Horses Any color, especially Appaloosa; saddle We. N/A Warm Springs Burros Dark brown-grey color phase type burros. Stinkingwater Any color, especially red and blue roan, no palominos; saddle type. N/A 14-16 hands 950-l .300 Ibs. 14-16 hands 950-I ,300 Ibs. 8-l 0 hands 450-750 Ibs. 14-16 hands 950-I ,300 Ibs. 2-49 Table 2.8. Rangeland Improvements for Wild Horses and Burros Herd Management Type of Area Improvement Name Location Kiger Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Cattleguard Lambing Basin Lambing Basin Rex Reservoir Yank Spr. Rim S. Swamp Cr. Swamp Spr. T. 29 S., R. 34 E. T. 30 S., R. 34 E. T. 30 S., R. 34 E. T. 30 S., R. 33 E. T. 30 S., R. 33 E. T. 30 S., R. 34 E. Warm Springs 4NElf4 Stinkingwater Palomino Buttes Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Cattleguard Cattleguard Cattleguard Cattleguard Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Well and Pipeline Tadpole T. 27 S., R. 26 E. Glenns T. 27 S., R. 26 E. Horse Head T. 28 S., R. 27 E. Durbin WH T. 30 S., R. 29 E. Buckskin Lake WH T. 30 S., R. 29112E. Wilson T. 29 S., R. 27 E. Paradise T. 29 S., R. 27 E. Jack Smart T. 27 S., R. 26 E. Crow Camp T. 23 S., R. 35 E. Upper Fay Canyon T. 24 S., R. 28 E. W. Palomino Bt. T. 24 S., R. 28 E. N. Grassy Bt.WH T. 24 S., R. 28 E. Ruly’s WH T. 24 S., R. 29 E. Palomino Bt.Well T. 25 S., R. 28 E. sec. 32, SW1 I4 sec. 9, NE114 sec. 16, SW1 /4 sec. 24, SE1/4 sec. 1, NWl/4 sec. 36, SE114 sec. 35, NEl/ sec. 36, NW114 sec. 15, SWl/4 sec. 23, SE114 sec. 30, NW114 sec. 7 sec. 8 sec. 6 sec. 29, SE114 sec. 1, NE1/4 sec. 11, sw1/4 sec. 28, SE114 sec. 19, SW1 I4 sec. 22, NE1/4 2-50 Vegetation Program Objective and Rationale V 1: Maintain, restore or enhance the diversity of plant communities and plant species in abundances and distributions, which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous plant species within the RA. Rationale:FLPMAmandatesthatpubliclands be managedinamannerthat willprotectthequalityoftheecological resourcesamong others. The BLM is committed to maintaining and enhancing the vegetation of the RA in terms of diversity and abundance of species and diversity of plant communities. Such diversity is necessary to sustain the variety of uses that BLM managed lands receive. Allocation/Management Action V 1.1: Evaluate and mitigate significant anticipated adverse impacts of BLM-authorized land tenure adjustments, surface disturbing or vegetation conversion activities, prior to their occurrence, to the vegetation diversity of the RA. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: AQ 1.1, AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.9,WQ1.10,WQ1.11,SM1.1,F1.4,GM1.1,V1.2,V1.3,V 1.6,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,SSS3.2,SSS3.3.,WL1.1,WL1.3,WL 1.4, WL2.2, WL5.1, WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.6, WL7.4,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.8,WL7.9,WL7.1O,WL7.11,WL 7.15, WL7.16, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.27,AH 1.2, AH1.3,AH1.10,AH1.11,R1.1,CR2.1,CR2.2,LR1.1,LR 2.3, LR 2.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: LR 1 .l . Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Conduct records examination and/or site examination for special status species. 2. Analyze the impacts to vegetation diversity on the species and ecosystem level of the RA in all NEPA documents. 3. Design and apply measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts to vegetation diversity. 4. Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial water, to less than 20 percent of land area in that particular subbasin in any one year. 5. Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall bethermal cover) asdefined in”Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests.” 6. Considerthe high publicvalueof vegetation diversity in land exchanges, purchases or disposals in which public owner- ship of vegetation communities contributing to such diver- sity could be affected. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic and systematic updates of the existing vegetation inventory of the RA including distributions, extent and eco- logical status. V 1.2: Adjust overall grazing management practices within the RA so that no more than 10 percent of the native vegetation condition determined by Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) is in early seral status and so that at least 40 percent is in late seral or Potential Natural Community (PNC) by 2009. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .I, GM l.l,GM 1.3,GM 1.4, WHB 1.3,Vl.l, SSS2.1, SSS2.4, SSS 3.1,WL1.2,WL1.3,WL2.1,WL2.2,WL4.1,WL6.1,WL6.2, WL6.3,WL7.5,WL7.14,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL7.27, WL7.28, AH 1.2, AH 1.3,AH 1.5, R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Complete ESI inventory of RA by 1994 to provide baseline information on the plant communities and ecological status of the RA. 2. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all allotments in RA within 2 years of ESI completion. 3. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all wild horse HMAPs within 2 years of ESI completion. 4. Implement and maintain databases for integration of ESI data with other resource data within the RA. Monitoring Needs: - AMP monitoring: actual use/utilization/t rend/cover. - HMAP monitoring: utilization. - Reinventory of ESI within 20 years. 2-51 Allocation/Management Action V 1.3: Implement identified actions from the Three Rivers RA portion of the Burns District Wetlands HMP to restore and enhance specified wetlands by no later than the year 2000, including but not limited to those actions shown in Appendix 1, Table 8. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy: WQ1.7, WQ 1.8, GM 1 .l,GM 1.4,V1.4, WL4.1, WL5.1, WL5.2, WL5.3, WL7.14, WL7.15, WL7.16, WL7.27, WL 7.28, AH 1.5, LR 1 .I, LR 1.3. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5. V 1.4: Designate three areas (6,054 acres) and retain one existing area (640 acres) meeting Oregon Natural Heritage Plan cell needs as RNA/ACECs. (See Appendix 1, Table 15 and Table 16 for specific acreages, allowable uses and use restrictions.) Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:GM 1.4, WL5.1, WL5.2, WL7.15, WL7.16, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, WL 7.28, R 2.1, R 2.16, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, ACEC 1.5, VRM 1.2, LR 1 .l, LR 1.5, LR 2.3, LR 5.1, BD 3.1, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Survey and design. 2. NEPA document and AWP funding. 3. Collect playa baseline information. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on a regular periodic basis. - Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop ACEC Management Plans which address specific management objectives and actions and clearly delineate use restrictions. 2. Implement on-the-ground actions defined in ACEC plans. Monitoring Needs: - Ensure ACEC plans are completed within 3 years of the approval of the RMP. - Periodic systematic on-the-ground assessments. V 1.5: Manage a total of 786 acres in four major areas as described in Table 2.9 and shown on Maps F-3 through F-6for maintenance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine old growth forest. (Note: This acreage includes 482 acres from thecommercialforestland base,304acresarefortheestablish- ment of administrative boundaries.) Geographic Reference: 5503, 5511, 7010,7030, 7051. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.7, V 1.4, WL7.21, WL 7.26, FM 2.1, R 2.1, R2.12,R2.16,ACEC1.5,LR1.1,LR1.5,LR2.3,BD3.5,BD 3.8. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop stand management guides which address the following: a. Management actions to maintain existing old growth char- acteristics (see note below) of the stand. b. Management actions to promote continued succession to- ward old growth conditions (see note below) of the stand. c. Fuels treatment. d. Insect infestation. e. Management/use restrictions (see Table 2.10). Note: Examples of such management actions include: stand manipulation for tree age, tree size and species composition; maintenance of desired snag density; maintenance of canopy closure and appropriate canopy layers; maintenance of down woody materials; maintenanceof the nativeshrub/herbcompo- nent; and creation or maintenance of gaps/openings and the overall stand configuration. 2. Coordinate and integrate these guides with overlapping designations. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in stand management guides or overlapping designation’s activity plan. 2-52 Allocation/Management Action V1.6:Apply approved weed control methods including manual, biological and chemical control methods as identified in the Weed Control EIS and Burns District Weed Control EA in an integrated pest management program to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds into areas presently free of such weeds and to improve the ecological status of sites which have been invaded byweeds. Weed control activities will be prioritized and funded based on the following criteria, as identified in Burns District’s Weed Control EA: Priority I: Potential New Invaders - Emphasizes education and awareness; Priority II: Eradication of New Invaders-Emphasizes eradica- tion, priority funding; Priority III: Established Infestations - Emphasizes contain- ment and control. (See glossary for definition of noxious weeds.) Decision Class: 2 Supported By: V 1 .l, BD 1 .l . Constrained By: SSS 3.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. 2. 3. 4. Inventory. Prioritize infestations. Apply manual or biological control procedures if appropri- ate. Where chemical control is required, evaluate site for im- pacts, complete and submit pesticide use proposal (PUP) to Oregon State Office for approval. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring to determine effectiveness of applied treatments will be done at least annually for the 5 years following treatment. - NEPA documents compliance monitoring, if appropriate. Table 2.9. Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions Tract 1 - Dry Mountain The old growth management area on Dry Mountain consists of two parcels totaling 180 acres. These are located in Harney County approximately 28 miles west of Burns, Oregon, and 10 miles north of Highway 20 adjacent to the Ochoco National Forest boundary on the southwest side of Dry Mountain. These tracts are in the Claw Creek Allotment (No. 7010). These tracts are also entirely within the boundary of the proposed Dry Mountain RNAACEC. If the RNA/ACEC is designated, these old growth areas will be managed in conjunction with the RNA/ACEC. The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of old and large ponderosa pine trees with a 40-70 percent crown closure. The understory contains smaller ponderosa pine trees, many species of shrubs and other herbaceous species. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth characteristics and to promote continued succession toward old growth. After designation, a management plan specific to the Dry Mountain RNAIACEC will be written. This management plan will include astand management guide which incorporates the allowable uses/useconstraintsshown inTable2.10forthe Dry Mountainoldgrovvthtractsand identifies possible management actions required to meet the goals. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 22 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 3, portions of SE1/4; Sec. IO, portions of the NElf4. Tract 2 - Emigrant Creek The old growth management area on Emigrant Creek consists of two parcels of old growth which total 70 acres. However, a buffer zone will be managed in conjunction with these 70 acres to create a management unit totaling 230 acres. This management unit is located approximately 20 miles northwest of Burns adjacent to the Malheur National Forest boundary along Emigrant Creek. This area is within the Skull Creek Allotment (No. 7030) and the Sawtooth MNF Allotment (No. 7051). The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with a 40-70 percent crown closure. These trees are very old and large exceeding 2 feet in diameter and over 100 feet in height. The understory consists of younger ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. In some stands, the understory is very dense, limiting other species. Other portions of the stand 2-53 Table 2.9. Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions (continued) contain a moderate ground cover of Idaho fescue and antelope bitterbrush with some mountain mahogany, wax currant and other shrub species. Scattered rotting logs are present. In addition to the old growth stands, this area also contains outstanding scenic, recreational, wildlife and fishery resource values. Current utilization of the area is extensive in nature. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth characterrstrcs and to promote continued succession toward old growth. Afterthe RODforthe Proposed Plan, a stand management guide will be wntten. A single guide incorporating both the Emigrant Creek Old Growth Management Area and the Craft Point Area (Tract 3) may be developed or separate guides for each may be required. The stand management guide will incorporate the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 and identify possible management actions required to meet the goals. It will also contain any management actions needed to control or enhance other values of the area. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 20 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 31, Lot 1, NE1/4NW1/4, N1/2NE1/4 and those portions of Lot 2, SE1/4NW1/4 and S1/2NE1/4 which lie north of Culp Ranch Road. Tract 3 - Craft Point The old growth management area near Craft Point consists of one parcel of old growth which totals 126 acres. However, a buffer zone will be managed in conjunction with these 126 acres to create a management unit totaling 270 acres. This management unit is located approximately 25 miles northeast of Burns, and 10 miles north of Highway 20 adjacent to the Malheur National Forest boundary near Craft Pornt. This area is within the Pine Creek Allotment (No. 5503). The,old growth stand overstory consists of ponderosa pine trees which are quite scattered. These trees are very old and exceed 21 inches In diameter. In some areas the understory of ponderosa pine trees is very dense. These are much smaller trees. Mountain mahogany occurs in some patches. Other resource values of this area include outstanding wildlife habitat, particularly for deer and elk, and recreational and scenic values. Access to this area is quite limited and current recreational use is slight. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth characterrstrcs and to promote continued succession towardold growth. After the ROD for the Proposed Plan, a stand management guide will be written. A single guide incorporating both the Craft Point Old Growth Management Area and the Emigrant Creek Area (Tract 2) may be developed or separate guides for each may be required. The stand management guide will incorporate the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 and identify possible management actions required to meetthe goals. It will also contain any management actions needed to control or enhance other values of the area. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 21 S., R. 33 E., Sec. 18, Lot 2, E1/2NW1/4 and NE1/4. Tract 4 - Bluebucket Creek The old growth management area on Bluebucket Creek consists of four approximately 45 miles northeast of Burns, along Bluebucket Creek an 8 arcels totaling 106 acres. These are located in Harney County the Middle Fork of the Malheur River. These tracts are located in the Moffet Table Allotment (No. 5511). These tracts are also within the boundary of the proposed Middle Fork of the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River. If this river is designated as a Wild and Scenic River, these old growth areas will be managed in conjunction with this designation. This area is also within the Malheur RiveVBluebucket Creek WSA; however, this WSA has not been proposed for wilderness designation. The old growth stands contain an overstory consistin closure. Theunderstorycontainsponderosapine and 8 of old and large ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with a 40-70 percent crown ouglasfirtreesofvaryingagesanddensities. Insomeareas,theunderstorycanopy cover exceeds 70 percent and in other areas it is much less dense. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth charactenstics and to promote continued succession toward old RiveVBluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River will be written, ix rowth. After designation! a management plan specific to the Malheur IS management plan will include a stand management guide which incorporates the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 for the Bluebucket Creek old growth tracts and identifies possible management actions required to meet the goals. These management actions will have to conform to the restrictions imposed by the overlapping Wild and Scenic River designation. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 18 S., R. 34 E., Sec. 33, portions thereof Sec. 34, portions thereof. . Table 2.10. Recommended Management/Use Constraints in Old Growth Management Areas Old Management Land Major Commercial Fire Old Growth Growth Unit Tenure Rights- Timber ORV Wild Livestock Suppression Prescribed Vegetation Management Areas Acres Acres Adjustment Of-Way Harvest Use Horses Grazing Activities Burning Treatment 1. Dry Mountain 180 1 Zl R P L N/A R* R R R 2. Emigrant Creek 70 230 Zl R P 0 N/A 0 R 0 R 3. Craft Point 126 270 Zl R P 0 N/A 0 R 0 R 4. Bluebucket Crk 106 2 Zl P P L N/A R’ R P P t~racts to be managed on cqunction with the overiapplng Dry Mountan RNAfACEC deslgnatlon 2Tracts to be managed I” conjunction with the overlapping Malheur Rrver/Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic Rwer designation Fluid Solid Energy Leasable Minerals Minerals Mineral Materials Organized Education Locatable Public Wood Plant (Repeated Rock Minerals Camping Activities Gathering Collection Consumptive) Hounding 1. Dry Mountain NSO NL P R P R P R R R 2. Emigrant Creek NSO 0 0 0 0 0 P R 0 0 3. Craft Point NSO 0 0 0 0 0 P R 0 0 4. Bluebucket Crk NSO NL P R 0 0 P R 0 R Zl = Zone 1, relenton and acqusn~on R’ = Restricted to provisions of AMP L = LImited to w&sting roads and trails W = Wathdraw from mineral entry P = Prohlbned use or acl~on 0 = Open to use or actwity NSO = No surface occupancy R = Restwted use or actlon. N/A = Not appkcable NL = No leasing Special Status Species Objective and Rationale SSS 1: Maintain and improve critical or essential habitat (see Map SS-1) of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to prevent deterioration and provide recovery. (See Table 2.11 for current list of threatened or endangered species.) Rationale: Protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species is required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 1.1: Evaluate the Burns District Bald Eagle Communal Winter Roost HMP on a yearly basis and implement any newly developed management actions in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5536, 7009, 7010. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.6, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL 7.3, FM 1.1, LR 1.1, BD 1.5, BD 2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Current management actions in the existing HMP have been implemented, but new management actions identified through coordination and consultation with ODFW, USFWS - Bald Eagle Recovery Team and USDA-FS will be imple- mented in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. 2. Update HMP if needed. Monitoring Needs: - Conduct coordinated bald eagle winter roost counts on an annual basis. SSS 1.2: Implement any actions in the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan for which BLM is responsible in the RA, to provide for the recovery of the peregrine falcon. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Specific actions, when identified, will be funded through the AWP process. 2. NEPA documentation will be written on a case-by-case basis. Supported By: F 1.6, GM 1.4, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL 7.3, WL 7.4, WL 7.28, R 2.1, LR 1 .l, BD 1.5, BD 2.2. 3. CCC with USFWS. Monitoring Needs: Needs oped. will be identified when specific actions are devel- 2-56 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSSl.3: Implementthe BLM responsible management actions listed in the Stephanomeriamalheurensis, Malheurwirelettuce, Draft Recovery Plan until the final recovery plan is approved. Upon approval of the final recovery plan, implement all appro- priate actions from it. Actions in the draft recovery plan include but are not limited to the following: - Maintain and enhance existing habitat. - Conduct systematic searches for new populations and habitat. - Secure new colonies. - Determine population trends. - Establish additional plantings/populations. - Develop a management program to protect newly estab- lished populations of plants. - EnforcelawsandregulationsthatprotectMalheurwirelettuce. - Maintain viable off-site seed bank. Geographic Reference: 7001, 7058. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1.4, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.28, R 2.1, ACEC 1.1, LR 1 .l, LR 2.3, BD 1.5, BD 2.3, BD 3.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Write an HMP or other appropriate activity plan incorporat- ing the Recovery Plan. 2. Continueongoingstudies underexisting BLM/USFWSCon- servation Agreement until this plan is terminated. 3. Develop and implement studies and actions identified in Recovery Plan or other activity plan. 4. Implement management recommendations from studies which will lead to recovery of species. 5. CCC with USFWS. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in Recovery Plan and BLMIUSFWS Conserva- tion Agreement, HMP or other activity plans. Objective and Rationale SSS 2: Maintain, restore or enhance the habitat (see Map SS-1) of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species to maintain the populations at a level which will avoid endangering the species and the need to list the species by either State or Federal governments. (See Table 2.11. for current lists of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species.) Rationale: Protection of candidate and sensitive species is provided for by BLM policy. BLM Manual 6840 directs that BLM shall carry out management activities consistent with the principles of multiple-use for the conservation of candidate and sensitive species and their habitat. It also directs that BLM shall ensure that any activities authorized, funded or carried out do not contribute to the need to list any species. BLM policy, as expressed in Fish and Wildlife 2000, commits BLM to maintain sensitive species populations at stable or improving levels. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 2.1: Adjust overall grazing management practices as necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or enhance their habitat. (See Table 2.12 for current list of actions and allotments which they may affect.) Procedures to Implement: 1. Consultation with permittees and other affected interests. 2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.4,WQ1.5,WQ1.6,WQ1.7,WQ1.8, WQ 1.12,SM l.l,SM2.1,GM l.l,GM 1.2,GM 1.3,GM 1.4, WHB 1.3,‘.‘1.1,V1.2,‘/1.3,SSS2.4, SSS2.6,SSS3.1,SSS3.2, SSS3.3,SSS4.2, WL5.1,WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL 6.5, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, WL 7.7, WL 7.15, WL 7.16, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, WL7.19,WL7.24, W17.27, WL7.28,AH 1.2,AH 1.3,AH 1.4,AH 1.5,AH 1.9, R2.12,ACEC 1.3, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD1.3, BD 1.5, BD 3.3. Constrained By: WL 1.5. cial status species. 3. Adjust AMP S , HMPs and other activity plans as needed. 4. Incorporate special status species management objectives into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- propriate. 5. Develop NEPA documentation and AWP funding where project developments (fences) are required. 6. Establish monitoring as appropriate. Monitoring Needs: - As identified in AMP S , HMPs or other activity plans. 2-57 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 2.2: Allocate the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountain area for the long-term enhancement of California bighorn sheep habitat. (NOTE: This is a management action for specific management emphasis and does not indicate a reduction in AUMs in these allotments based on bighorn sheep AUMs.) Procedures to Implement: 1, Prohibit a livestock class change that would result in a domestic sheep permit in grazing allotments 5530, 5531, 5560 and 5565. Update Burns Dist. Bighorn Sheep HMP to reflect this decision. Coordinate this change with ODFW, affected permittees and other affected interests. Include this as a management objective in appropriate AMP S . Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5530, 5531, 5560, 5565. Decision Class: 1 2.3. 4. Supported By: GM 1.1, WL 7.27, LR 1.1, LR 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - Annual utilization monitoring for forage. - Sheep population numbers will be monitored annually by ODFW. SSS 2.3: Determine habitat deficiencies within 2 miles of nest sites for ferruginous hawks and correct identified deficiencies. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5303, 5306, 5309, 5313, 7019,702l. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.6, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL 7.3, WL 7.4, WL 7.6. 1. Inventory and evaluate ferruginous hawk habitat to identify habitat deficiencies. 2. Provide nest platforms in areas identified as nest-site defi- cient. 3. Improve habitat for prey species within 2 miles of nest sites. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic assessments to determine effectiveness of steps taken. - Assessment of utilization of nest sites. SSS 2.4: Maintain existing livestock exclosures along about 4 miles of streams to enhance habitat for Malheur mottled sculpin or redband trout. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5522, 5310, 7010, 7012. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.5, WQ 1.7, SM 1.1, SM2.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.4,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.2,WL7.18,WL7.27,WL7.28,AH 1.3, AH 1.5, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- tion and maintenance of fences which are the responsibility of District to maintain. 2. Coordination with affected permittees. Monitoring Needs: - Inspection prior to livestock turnout; inspection during graz- ing season. SSS 2.5: lmplement fish habitat enhancement work on those portions of the Middle Fork of the Malheur River and its tributaries which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat, as proposed in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power Planning Council. These actions include but are not limited to the following: bank shaping and revegetation, instream boulder placement, protec- tive fencing, spawning gravel, placement, etc. Geographic Reference: Middle Fork Malheur River and tribu- taries. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SM 2.1, AH 1.8. Constrained By: R 2.12, VRM 1 .l Procedures to Implement: 1. Wait until wilderness status is determined. 2. Coordinate activities through the WSA and WSR IMP. 3. Ensure activities in WSA or WSR are consistent with IMP and proposed future management. 4. Develop NEPA documentation and compliance report. 5. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Establish several permanent sample stations for fisheries and water quality monitoring. - Waterqualitytoidentifyprojectimpact-threetofivetimes/year. - Conduct the following on a regular periodic basis: Macroinvertebrate analysis Fish inventory Photo trend 2-58 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 2.6: Implement streambank stabilization projects on streams which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat and which have less than 90 percent stablestreambanks. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop NEPA compliance on proposed projects. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.12, SM 2.1, AH 1.9. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend - annually. - Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- tem - three times/year. SSS 2.7: Acquire lands necessary to protect special status species and their habitat. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SSS1.1,WL5.3,WL6.5,R2.13,LR1.1,LR1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.4, BD2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory to identify if lands are needed. 2. Pursue acquisition through exchange or purchase. 3. Adjust activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. Objective and Rationale SSS 3: Ensure that BLM-authorized actions within the RA do not result in the need to list special status species or jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. (See Table 2.11 for current lists of special status species.) Rationale: BLM is directed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that any Federal action authorized, funded or carried out does not jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction of critical habitat. BLM is directed by policy (6840 Manual) to ensure that Federal actions do not contribute to the need to list species as threatened or endangered: . Allocation/Management Action SSS 3.1: Protect special status species and their habitat from BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities and land tenure adjustments. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQl.l,WQ1.2,WQ1.3,WQ1.4,WQ1.7,WQ 1.8,WQ1.9,WQ1.11,SMl.l,F1.3,V1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS 2.4,SSS3.2, SSS3.3, WL1.3, WL2.2,WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3,WL6.4,WL6.6,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.8,WL7.1O,WL 7.16, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.20, WL7.22,WL7.24, WL 7.25, AH 1.1, AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 1.5, AH 1.6, AH 1.7, AH 1.11, R2.1, R2.12,ACECl.l,ACEC 1.3,ACEC1.4, LR2.5, LR5.1,BD1.1,BD1.2,BD1.3,BD1.5,BD3.1,BD3.3,BD3.4. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Conduct a records examination and a site examination for special status species prior to BLM-authorized actions oc- curring. 2. Conduct site examinations during appropriate season. 3. Examine impacts and develop mitigation measures through NEPA process. 4. Apply necessary mitigation measures. 5. Consult with USFWS on “may affect” situations. 6. Enhance habitat for special status species where opportu- nities arise. 7. Establish and apply lease stipulations priorto issuance of oil and gas or geothermal leases. 8. Apply contract stipulations to allow work to be stopped if special status species are discovered to be present in or adjacent to a project area. 9. Adjust clearance and mitigation activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document compliance. 2-59 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 3.2: Allow no sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds when determined by a wildlife biolo- gist to be detrimental to sage grouse habitat requirements. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SSS 3.1, WL 7.7, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory all sage grouse habitat for strutting grounds. 2. Ensure that sufficient sagebrush is retained on a case-by- case basis via the NEPA process. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance and effectiveness monitoring of NEPA docu- ment. SSS 3.3: Fence overflow areas at all spring developments to provide meadow habitat for sage grouse. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- tion and maintenance of fences which are the responsibility of District to maintain. Supported By: GM 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 7.18, BD 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance of NEPA document. - Fence maintenance/inspections. Objective and Rationale SSS4: Increase the state of BLM’s knowledge and information concerning the status and distribution of special status species. (See Table 2.11 for current lists of special status species.) Rationale: FLPMA directs BLM to prepare and maintain, on a continuing basis, an inventory of all public lands and their resource values. BLM Policy (6600 Manual) is to ensure special status species inventory and monitoring priorities are consistent with legal mandates, BLM priorities and applicable activity plans. BLM policy, as expressed in Fish and Wildlife 2000, places an emphasis on developing data bases to identify distributions and habitat of special status species and on implementing a monitoring system to track population trends and habitat conditions. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 4.1: Conduct and record systematic inventories of popu- lations and distributions of special status species. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.6, SSS 1 .l, SSS 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, AH 1.4, BD 1.3, BD 2.1, BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Adjust inventory activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. 2. Develop and maintain data bases. 3. Coordinate with Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and ODFW. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-60 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS4.2: Conduct monitoring and evaluation studies on special status species on a regular periodic basis. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1 .I, SSS 1 .l , SSS 1.2, SSS 1.3, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.3, WL 7.5, WL 7.27, BD 1.3, BD 2.1, BD 2.2, BD 2.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop monitoring plans for special status species as needed. 2. Develop HMPs, species management guidesorotheractiv- ity plans where BLM activities have a significant effect on special status species. 3. Adjust monitoring activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. 4. Develop and maintain data bases. 5. Coordinate with ODA and ODFW. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. Table 2.1 I. Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) Common Name Scientific Name Status Malheur mottled sculpin Redband trout Birds American peregrine falcon Bald eagle Ferruginous hawk Western snowy plover Long-billed curlew Western sage grouse Columbian sharptailed grouse Western yellow-billed cuckoo White faced ibis (Great Basin population) Mammals Gray Wolf Canis lupus California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana North American lynx Felis lynx canadensis Preble’s shrew (Malheur shrew) Sorex preblei Spotted bat Euderma macula turn Amphibians and Reptiles Spotted frog Plants Rana pretiosa Deschutes milkvetch Barren valley collomia Cusick’s buckwheat Prostrate buckwheat Bogg’s Lake Hedge Hyssop Shelly’s ivesia Cottus bairdi ssp. Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi Falco peregrinus ana turn Haliaeetus leucocephalus Buteo regalis Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Numenius americanus Centrocercus urophasianus phaios Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Plegadis chihi Astragalus tegetarioides Collomia renacta Eriogonum cusickii Eriogonum prociduum Gratiola heterosepala lvesia rhypara v. shellyi C C LE& S LT & S C&S C&S C C : C LE & S C&S C C E 2-61 Table 2.11. Special Status Species (March 1,199l) Common Name Scientific Name Status Biddle’s lupine Cusick’s lupine Oregon semaphoregrass Columbia cress Malheur wirelettuce Leiberg’s clover L upin us biddlei Lupinus cusickii Pleuropogon oreganus Rorippa columbiae Stephanomeria malheurensis Trifolium leibergii Assessment Species (Three Rivers RA) Common Name Scientific Name Birds Northern goshawk Northern saw-whet owl Burrowing owl Lesser scaup (breeding pop) Upland sandpiper Bufflehead (breeding pop) Swainson’s hawk Bobolink Snowy egret (breeding pop) Greater sandhill crane Franklin’s gull (breeding pop) Black rosy finch (Steens Mtn) Flammulated owl American white pelican (breeding pop) White-headed woodpecker Black-backed woodpecker Three-toed woodpecker Horned grebe (breeding pop) Western bluebird Forster’s tern Accipter gentilis Aegolius acadicus Athene cunicularia Aythya affinis Bartramia longicauda Bucephala albeola Buteo s wainsoni Dolichonyx orzyivorus Egretta thula Grus canadensis tabida Larus pipixcan Leucosticte arctoa atrata Otus flammeolus Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Picoides albolarvatus Picoides articus Picoides tridactylus Podiceps auritus Sialia mexicana Sterna forsteri Mammals White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Amphibians and Reptiles Common kingsnake California mountain kingsnake Desert horned lizard Northern leopard frog Lampropeltis getulus Lamprepeltis zonata Phrynosoma platyrhinos Rana pipiens Plants Iodine Bush Brandegee’s onion Sierra onion Rock melic Allenrolfea occidentalis Allium brandegei Allium campanulatum Melica s tricta EC&S C LE & S C Status A A A A A A A :: A A A A A ; A t A A A A it A A A A Note: Known populations of only plant assessment species are shown on Map SS-1. A = Assessment Species (see Glossary) B = Bureau Sensitive; LE = Listed Endangered (Federal); S = State Listed C = Federal Candidate 1 & 2; LT = Listed Threatened (Federal); 2-62 Table 2.12. Grazing Management Adjustments for Special Status Species Actions Allotments Potentially Affected Implement grazing systems on long-billed curlew nesting habi- tat so that at least one-third of the habitat will be undisturbed through the critical nesting period of May 1 -July 15. Implement grazing systems on all sage grouse ranges to improve forb production and availability. Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3 which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat in poor condition related to BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing systemson I and M category allotments which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization, on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- ery. Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 5 with redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat which allow no more than IO percent utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are de- signed to promote speedy riparian recovery or maintenance of good conditions. Develop grazing systems designed to improve riparian habitat along streams listed in Appendix, Table 6, which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat, on a case-by-case basis as funding becomes available. Continue to monitor grazing impacts on habitat of snowy plovers and develop appropriate grazing management strate- gies if necessary. Establish monitoring to evaluate grazing impacts on special status plant species and develop appropriate grazing manage- ment strategies if necessary. 5001;5301;5302;5303;5305;5306;5309;7001;7056. 5101;5102;5104;5105;5106;5201;5213;5307;5308;5310; 5313;5317;5321;5327;5329;5330;5501;5502;5503;5504; 5505;5506;5507;5508;5509;5510;5511;5513,5514;5515; 5517; 5521; 5522; 5524; 5528; 5529; 5530; 5531; 5532; 5533; 5535;5536;5537;5546;5565;5566;5571;7001;7002;7003; 7004;7005;7006;7008;7009;7010;7011;7012;7015;7016; 7017; 7018; 7019; 7020; 7021; 7023; 7024; 7025; 7036; 7037; 7038;7040;7042;7043;7049. 5307;5511 ;5524,5531 ;5532;5536;5566;7010;7030. 5105; 5205; 5206; 5307; 5309; 5310; 5327; 5329; 5330; 5511; 5522;5524;5530;5532;5536;5537;7009;7010;7011;7012; 7027;7031;7032;7033;7035;7040;7041;7053;7080. 4143;5201;5310;5511;7011; 7035;7043; 7051. 7001; 7002; 7018. 4143;5001;5301;5313;5503;5528;5530;5537;5538;5566; 7001; 7016; 7019; 7023; 7024. 2-63 2-64 hewn Populations or Habitat OREGON WILDLIFE SPECIES Snowy Plover Nesting Habitat m Long-billed Curlew Nesting Habitat California Bighorn Sheep Habitat 0 Bald Eagle Winter Roost Areas Cl Ferruginous Hawk Nests n Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds I Redband Trout or Malheur Mottled Sculpin Habitat . PLANT SPECIES 1. Allium brandegei 2. Allium campanulatum 3. Eriogonum cusickii 4. Lupinus biddlei 5. Lupinus cusickii 8. Metica stricta 7. Rorippa columbiae 8. Stephanomeria malheurensis 9. Trifoliumoleibergii 10 MILES u N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP SS-1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Wildlife Habitat Objective and Rationale WL 1: Maintain 335,000 acres of deer winter range, 375,000 acres of deer summer range, 235,000 acres of elk winter range and 105,000 acres of elk summer range (see Maps WL-1 and WL-2) currently in satisfactory condition as described in the glossary. Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The BLM is committed to provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions of big game animals to the American people. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 1 -1: Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover) as defined in “Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests.” Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented on a case-by-case basis during timber sale design and NEPA documentation and contract prepa- ration. Geographic Reference: Commercial Timberlands. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.4, V 1.1, WL7.8, WL7.9,AH 1.11, BD 1.1. Monitoring Needs: - Timber sale contract administration and post timber sale visual monitoring to ensure that NEPA documentation and contract specifications have been followed. WL 1.2: Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems on all allotments within big game ranges with priority given to I and M category allotments. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5510, 5507, 5533, 7006, 7009,7010,7011, 7015, 7016,7022,7025, 7051. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implement grazing systems during AMP, CRMP and allot- ment evaluation processes. Monitoring Needs: Decision Class: 2 Utilization, actual use, climate in accordance and Washington monitoring standards. with Oregon Supported By: GM 1.1, WL 2.1, WL 7.27. 2-66 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 1.3: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage in deer and elk winter range currently supporting browse. Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter ranges. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 acres per burn site. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WQ 1.10, SM 1.2, V 1.1, SSS 3.1, WL 2.2, WL 7.10, WL 7.26, AH 1.11, ACEC 1.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.5, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WHB 1.3. - Escaped Fire Analysis, Fire Year Report. WL 1.4: Prohibit harvest of woodland products such as fuel wood, posts, poles and juniper foliage from big game winter range in the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). Procedures to Implement: 1. Issue no woodland products permits for this area. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 1 - Compliance checks within this area. Supported By: F 2.2, WL 7.11, BD 1 .l, V 1 .l . WL 1 S: Minimize barriers to wildlife movement. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 1. This will be implemented during NEPA documentation and contractswill bewrittentoreflectthefencedesignonacase- by-case basis. 2. Construct all new fences to BLM standards for the wildlife species present. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will be done as part of the contract inspection. Objective and Rationale WL 2: Improve approximately 170,000 acres of deer winter range; 295,000 acres of deer summer range; 20,000 acres of elk winter range; 45,000 acres of elk summer range (see Maps WL-1 and WL-2), currently in unsatisfactory condition to satisfactory condition by the year 2000. Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The BLM is committed to provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions of big game animals to the American people. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 2.1: Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems on all allotments within big game ranges with priority given to I and M category allotments. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implement grazing systems during AMP, CRMP and allot- ment evaluation processes. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5510, 5507, 5533, 7006,7009,7010,7011, 7015, 7016, 7022, 7025,705l. Decision Class: 2 Monitoring Needs: - Utilization, actual use, climate in accordance with Oregon and Washington monitoring standards. SuppottedBy:GMl.l,V1.2,WL1.2,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.27, BD 1.2. 2-67 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 2.2: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage in deer and elk winter range currently supporting browse. Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter range. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1 .lO, SM 1.2, GM 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, WL 7.10, WL 7.26, ACEC 1.5, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WHB 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 acres per burn site. Monitoring Needs: - Escaped Fire Analysis. - Fire Year Report. WL: 2.3: Continue the individual juniper tree burning or cutting program in units of less than 100 acres. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5307, 5308, 5309,5310,5503,5511,5517,5532,5535,5536,7009,7010, 7030,7043. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 2.1, WL 7.12, FM 2.1, FM 2.2. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Layout, survey, design, AWP, Memorandums of Under- standing (MOUs). 2. NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor plant responses for 3 years after implementation, then every 5 years. - Monitoring will be accomplished by photo plots. WL 2.4: Provide water in mule deer summer range where that habitat component is deficient. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7010, 7014, 7015, 7024. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SSS 3.1, WL 7.13, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Install at least 8 guzzlers of 2,000 to 3,000 gallon capacity in deer summer range. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect guzzlers on an annual basis to determine use and maintenance needs. 2-68 Objective and Rationale WL 3: Manage forage production to support big game population levels identified by ODFW. Rationale: By MOU with ODFW, the BLM has agreed to recognize the Department as the agency responsible for management of the fish and wildlife resources of the State of Oregon and to practice those forms of land and resource management that will benefit fish and wildlife, consistent with a sound multiple-use program. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is a citizens’ commission whose members are appointed by the Governor. In 1982, the Commission adopted population levels for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. These numbers, by management unit, were arrived at through an exhaustive, statewide public participation process. The approximate 7,800 AUM figure was arrived at by using recent census data provided by ODFW, season of use, percent of the allotment administered by BLM, the numbers of a particular animal that will consume 800 pounds of air dry forage in a month, and the dietary overlap of the big game species with cattle. FLPMA directs the BLM to manage for sustained yield. To prevent over-utilization of forage in an allotment, which could affect the sustainable yield, AUMs for big game have been allocated on an allotment-by-allotment basis. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 3.1: Allocate competitive forage to big game as follows: Procedures to Implement: Antelope Deer Elk 512 AUMs 4,706 AUMs 2,618 AUMs 1. Allotment monitoring, evaluations, and decisions or agree- ments. These figures are delineated by allotment in Table 2.13. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 1 - Actual use, utilization,climate and cole browse transects. To be evaluated during allotment evaluations. - Census data from ODFW yearly. Supported By: GM 1.2, WHB 1.1, WHB 1.3, BD 1.2, V 1.2. Objective and Rationale WL 4: Maintain good quality wetland, playa and meadow habitat where it currently exists (see Table 2.14 and Map WL-2). Rationale: A major goal of Fish and Wildlife 2000 is to perpetuate a diversity of waterfowl for the Nation by managing wetlands for this resource. The habitats are also of key importance for many species other than waterfowl and a healthy diversity of these species is dependent upon good quality wetlands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 4.1: Maintain the project developments at Bigfoot Reser- voirs, Rye Grass, Lake-on-the-Trail, North Stinkingwater Pond, South Stinkingwater Pond, Dry Lake, Seiloff Dike and all spring developments. Allow livestock grazing in these areas only to remove matted vegetation which is inhibiting waterfowl nesting. Procedures to Implement: 1. Make all fenced wetland areas pastures within particular allotments so that licensing of use or nonuse takes place on an annual basis. Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.7,WQ1.8,SM1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,V1.2, V 1.3, WL 7.8, WL 7.14, AH 1.5, BD 1.2. 2. Perform needed fence maintenance identified during use supervision visits. 3. AWP funding of maintenance needs. Monitoring Needs: - Continue wetland photo trend monitoring annually. - Check spring overflow enclosure fences at least every 5 years for maintenance needs. 2-69 Objective and Rationale WL 5: Improve component deficient wetland habitat to good condition and provide for wetland and meadow habitat expansion, by the year 1997 (see Table 2.14). Rationale: A major goal of Fish and Wildlife 2000 is to perpetuate a diversity of waterfowl for the Nation by managing wetlands for this resource. The habitats are alsoof key importance for many species otherthan waterfowl and a healthy diversity of these species is dependent upon good quality wetlands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 5.1: Provide good quality nest cover and late season brood water at the locations listed on Appendix 1 ,Table 8 as proposed in the Burns District Wetlands HMP. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 8. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Project survey and design. 2. NEPA documentation; AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .l , GM 1.3, GM 1.4, V 1 .l, V 1.3, SSS 2.1, WL 5.3, WL 7.15, BD 1.1, BD 1.3. - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on an annual basis. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5, BD 1.5. WL 5.2: Determine and implement needed actions on playa lakebeds to provide good quality seasonal and permanent (where feasible) wetland habitat. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Sheep Lake, Nordell Lake, Dry Lake, Rimrock Lake, Foster Lake, Munsey Lake, Silver Lake, Chain Lake, Weaver Lake, Palomino Lake and Lake-on-the-Trail. 1. Collect baseline data on these and other playas to deter- mine condition and feasibility for improvement. 2. Design improvement strategies. 3. NEPA documentation for proposed improvements. 4. AWP funding. Decision Class: 2 Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:WQ1.7,WQ1.8,GM1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,V1.1, V1.4,SSS2.1, WL1.5,WL7.16,WL7.25, R2.1,ACEC1.4, BD 1 .l , BD 1.3, BD 3.4. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, BD 1.5. - Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years after baseline data collection. - Monitor results of improvements yearly for the first 5 years, then in conjunction with allotment monitoring and evaluation schedules. 2-70 Allocation/Management Action WL 5.3: Place high emphasis on land exchanges and acquisi- tions which increase the acreage or manageability of wetlands in public ownership. Geographic Reference: Areawide (see Table 2.14), especially Silvies Valley and Silver Lake Pond. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:V1.3,SSS2.7,WL5.1,WL7.15,R2.15,LRl.l, LR 1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.4. Constrained By: V 1 .l , SSS 3.1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Specificprocessing requirementsforexchanges, purchases, and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners or proponents. Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers RMP and other planning documents. Securefunding forprocessing proposalsthrough the BLM’s budget process. Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres transferred within the various land tenure zones. - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on an annual basis. Objective and Rationale WL 6: Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat listed in Table 2.15 is in good or better habitat condition (proper functioning condition) by the year 1997. Rationale:FLPMAdirectsthatthepubliclandsbe managedinamannerthatwillprovidefoodand habitatforfish andwildlife. Riparian areas provide food and other habitat requirements for more wildlife species than any other habitat type in the RA. This objective is consistent with the overall BLM objective for riparian areas and reflects the current Oregon-Washington riparian policy. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 6.1: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3, which have poor water quality related to BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing systems on I and M category allotments which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs, and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 3. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, V 1.1, V 1.2, SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL7.5, WL7.17,AH 1.2,BDl.l,BDl.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. 2-71 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 6.2: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 5, which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- ery or maintenance of good condition (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 5. Decision Class: 2 - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM 1 .l, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, WHB 1.2, V 1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1,WL7.5,WL7.18,AH1.3, R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. WL6.3: Develop grazing systems designed to improve riparian habitat along streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 6 on a case- by-case basis as funding becomes available. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on stream with no data. Geographic Reference: Appendix I, Table 6. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.6, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, WHB 1.2, V 1.1,V1.3,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL7.5,WL7.19,AH1.4,BD1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 2. NEPA documentation and annual work plan funding. Monitoring Needs: - Utilization monitoring every fifth year until specific system is designed and implemented. Constrained By: WL 1.5. WL 6.4: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (see Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2, General Best Forest Management Practices and Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protec- tion, respectively) while retaining woody vegetation strips along each side of all perennial streams and all otherstream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can signifi- cantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented during timber sale design, documented in the timber sale EA, reflected in the timber sale contract and enforced during contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - On-the-ground timber sale unit boundary inspection priorto the actual sale. Slope Width of Buffer on Each Bank O-40 percent 100ft. 40-50 percent 125ft. SO-60 percent 145ft. 60-70 percent 165ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial timberlands. - Contract administration during timber harvest. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.2, F 1.3, WL 7.20, AH 1.6. 2-72 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 6.5: Place high emphasis on land exchanges and acquisi- tions which increase the acreage or manageability of riparian in public ownership. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide (see Table 2.15). Decision Class: 3 1. Specificprocessing requirementsforexchanges, purchases, and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: Supported By: SSS 2.1, SSS 2.7, R 2.13, R 2.15, LR 1.1, LR 1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.3, BD 1.4. Constrained By: V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. - Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners or proponents. - Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers RMP and other planning documents. - Securefundingforprocessing proposalsthrough the BLM’s budget process. - Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. - Prepare NEPAdocumentation, appraisal and title reportsto determine if the proposal is in the public interest. - Issue a Noticeof Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. - Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres transferred within the various land tenure zones. WL 6.6: Ensure that all newly constructed permanent roads on BLM-administered lands meet Oregon General Best Forest Practices standards presented in Appendix 1, Table 1 and Table 2. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQl.9,SMl.l,SM2.2,Fl.2,SSS3.1,AH1.6, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Survey and design specifications for roads will be consistent with BLM standards and will be analyzed during NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Construction activities will be monitored as they occur. WL6.7: Inventory stream segments listed in Appendix 1, Table 7, and determine management actions required to meet the riparian objective. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Fund through the AWP process. 2. Collect and compile data. 3. Develop grazing systems as needed using the AMP and allotment evaluation process. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy: WQ1.6,GM 1.1, GM 1.3,Vl.l,SSS2.1,AH 1.4, BD 1.1, BD 1.3. - Utilization monitoring annually to every fifth year until spe- cific system is implemented and operational. 2-73 Objective and Rationale WL 7: Restore, maintain or enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife species habitat within the RA. Rationale: FLPMA mandatesthat public lands be managed in a mannerthat will protectthequalityofthe ecological resources among others. The BLM is committed to maintaining and enhancing the wildlife habitat of the RA in terms of diversity and abundance of habitat. Such diversity is necessary to sustain the variety of uses received by land BLM manages. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.1: Prohibit destruction of raptor nests or nest sites and provide for perch sites within one-eighth mile of nest sites through BLM authorized actions. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy: F1.5, F 1.6, SSS 1.1, SSS 1.2, SSS2.3, WL7.4, WL 7.6, BD 2.1, BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Continue to update and maintain the RA raptordatabase as new data become available. 2. Cross reference all proposed actions in EA with the data- base to determine nest occurrence. 3. Perform on-the-ground inspections of potential locations where actions could be detrimental to nests or nest sites. Monitoring Needs: - Check current nest site locations at 5 to 10 year intervals to determine activity and update database on a continuing basis. WL7.2: Require that all power poles and transformers erected on public lands be installed using design features which will prevent electrocution of raptors. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 Procedures to Implement: 1. Initiate under terms and conditions of applicable right-of- way grants. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect new powerlines and poles, between 6 months and 2 years of construction, to determine if any problem poles exist and take corrective action where applicable. WL 7.3: Prohibit application of pesticides for rodent control on public land within 2 miles of active raptor nests. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:SSSl.l,SSS1.2,SSS2.3,WL7.6,BD2.1,BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Review all Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) NEPA documen- tation to ensure compliance with the management action. Monitoring Needs: - Through NEPA document review and all PUP S . 2-74 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.4: Identify component deficient raptor habitat and take management actions to correct the deficiencies. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GMl.l,Vl.l,SSS2.3,WL7.1,WL7.6,BDl.l. Procedures to Implement: 1. Cross reference the raptor database with ESI data to deter- mine suitable areas which are not currently used. 2. Inventory these areas to determine if a habitat deficiency exists. 3. Take appropriate corrective actions. Monitoring Needs: - After corrective actions have been implemented, monitor raptor use of the area for at least 3 consecutive years following the action. WL 7.5: Adjust overall grazing management practices as necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or enhance their habitat. (See Table 2.12 for current list of actions and allotments which they may affect.) Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1 .l , GM 1 .l, GM 1.2, V 1 .l , V1.2, SSS2.1, WL6.1, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.27, AH 1.2,AH 1.3, BD 1.1 BD 1.2, BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Consultation with permittees and affected interests. 2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- cial status species. 3. Adjust AMPS and HMPs as needed. 4. Incorporate special status species management objectives into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- propriate. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. WL 7.6: Determine habitat deficiencies within 2 miles of nest sites for ferruginous hawks and correct identified deficiencies. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5303, 5306, 5309, 5313,7019, 7021. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GMl.l,Vl.l,SSS2.3,WL6.2, WL7.1, WL7.3, BD 1 .l. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and evaluation of ferruginous hawk habitat to identify habitat deficiencies. 2. Provide nest platforms in areas identified as nest-site defi- cient. 3. Improve habitat for prey species within 2 miles of nest sites. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic assessments to determine effectiveness of steps taken. - Assessment of utilization of nest sites. WL 7.7: Allow no big sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds when determined by a wildlife biolo- gist to be detrimental to sage grouse habitat requirements. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory all sage grouse habitat for strutting grounds. 2. Ensure that sufficient sagebrush is retained on a case-by- Decision Class: 2 case basis via the NEPA process. Supported By: V 1 .l , SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, WL 6.3, WL Monitoring Needs: 7.4, BD 1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. - Compliance monitoring of EA. 2-75 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.8: Fence overflow areas at all spring developments to provide meadow habitat. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: I. Develop District program for regular inspection and mainte- nance of fences which are the responsibility of District to maintain. Supported By: GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.3, WL 1.1, WL 4.1, WL 7.14, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance - EA. - Fence maintenance/inspections. WL 7.9: Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of wildlife cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable wildlife thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover). Geographic Reference: Commercial Timberlands (see Map F- 1). Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.11,F1.4,V1.1,V1.4,WL1.1,AH1.11, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented on a case-by-case basis during timber sale design and EA and contract preparation. Monitoring Needs: -’ Timber sale contract administration and post timber sale visual monitoring to ensure that EA and contract specifica- tions have been followed. WL7.10: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage in winter range areas currently supporting browse. Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter ranges. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.10,WQ1.11,SM1.2,GM1.3,V1.1,SSS 3.1,WL1.3, WL2.2, WL7.26,AH l.ll,ACECI.5,BD l.I,BD 1.5, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WHB I .3. - Escaped Fire Analysis, Fire Year Report. Procedures to Implement: 1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 acres per burn site. 2. NEPA documentation and site examination procedures for all vegetation conversion proposals in these areas. Monitoring Needs: WL 7.11: Prohibit harvest of woodland products such as fuel wood, posts, poles and juniper foliage from the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). Geographic Reference: See Map F-2. Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: I. Issue no woodland products permits for this area. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance checks within this area. 2-76 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL: 7.12: Continuethe individual junipertree burning or cutting program in units of less than 100 acres. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5307, 5308, 5309,5310,5503,5511,5517,5532,5535,5536,7009,7010, 7030.7043. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 2.1. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, V 1.1, SSS 3.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: I. Layout, survey, design, AWP, MOUs. 2. NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor plant responses for 3 years after implementation, then every 5 years. - Monitoring will be accomplished by photo plots. WL 7.13: Provide water for wildlife species in areas where that habitat component has been specifically identified as deficient. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7010, 7014, 7015,7024. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 2.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Install at least 8 guzzlers of 2,000 to 3,000 gallon capacity in deer summer range. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect guzzlers on an annual basis to determine use and maintenance needs. WL 7.14: Maintain the project developments at Bigfoot Reser- voirs, Rye Grass, Lake-on-the-Trail, North Stinkingwater Pond, South Stinkingwater Pond, Dry Lake, Seiloff Dike and all spring developments. Allow livestock grazing in these areas only to remove matted vegetation. Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 WL 7.15: Provide good quality nest cover and late season brood water at the locations listed on Appendix 1, Table 8 as proposed in the Burns District Wetlands HMP. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 8. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GM1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,Vl.l,VI.3,V1.4,SSS 2.1,WL5.1,WL5.3,WL7.25,ACEC1.4,BDl.l,BD1.3,BD 3.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Make all fenced wetland areas pastures within particular allotments so that licensing of use or nonuse takes place on an annual basis. 2. Perform needed fence maintenance identified during use supervision visits. 3. AWP funding of maintenance needs. Monitoring Needs: - Continue wetland photo trend monitoring annually. - Check spring overflow enclosure fences at least every 5 years for maintenance needs. Procedures to Implement: 1. Project survey and design. 2. NEPA document preparation; AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on an annual basis. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5, BD 1.4, BD 1.5. 2-77 Allocation/Management Action WL 7.16: Determine and implement needed actions on playa lakebeds to provide good quality seasonal and permanent (where feasible) wetland habitat. Geographic Reference: Sheep Lake, Nordell Lake, Dry Lake, Rimrock Lake, Foster Lake, Munsey Lake, Silver Lake, Chain Lake, Weaver Lake, Palomino Lake and Lake-on-the-Trail (see also Map WL-2). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 2.1, WL5.2, BD 1.1, BD 1.3. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5, BD 1.4, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Collect baseline data on these and other playas to deter- mine condition and feasibility for improvement. 2. Design improvement strategies. 3. EA process for proposed improvements. 4. AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years after baseline data collection. - Monitor results of improvements yearly for the first 5 years, then in conjunction with allotment monitoring and evaluation schedules. WL 7.17: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3, which have poor water quality related to BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing system on I and M category allotments which allow no more than IO percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs, and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix I, Table 4). Geographic Reference: See Appendix I, Table 3. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM I .l , GM 1 .I, GM 1.3, GM 1.4, V 1 .l, V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.1,WL7.5,AQ1.2,R2.I,BD1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: I. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. WL 7.18: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 5, which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- ery or maintenance of good condition (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 5. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.5, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, WHB 1.2, V l.l,VI.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1, WL6.2, WL7.5,AH1.3, R 2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for the first five years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 2-78 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.19: Develop grazing systems designed to improve ripar- ian habitat along streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 6 on a case-by-case basis as funding becomes available. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. Geographic Reference: Appendix 1, Table 6. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.4,WQ1.6,SM1.l,GMl.1,GM1.3,V1.1, V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.3,WL7.5,AH1.4,BD1.1,BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 2. EA preparation and annual work plan funding. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicble, every 3 to 5 years after implementation. WL 7.20: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (see Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2) while retaining woody vegetation strips along each side of all perennial streams and all otherstream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can signifi- cantly affect water quality. Buff erstrips would be established as follows: Slope Width of Buffer On Each Bank O-40 percent lOOft. 40-50 percent 125 ft. 50-60 percent 145ft. 60-70 percent 165 ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial timberlands. Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented during timber sale design, documented in the timber sale EA, reflected in the timber sale contract and enforced during contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - On-the-ground timber sale unit boundary inspection priorto the actual sale. - Contract administration during timber harvest. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.2, SM 1.1, F 1.3, V 1 .I, WL 6.4, AH 1.6, ACEC 1.5, LR 2.3, BD 1.1, BD 3.5. WL 7.21: Manage 780 acres in four major areas for mainte- nance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine old growth and the wildlife species dependent upon old growth characteristics. Geographic Reference: Allotments No. 5503, 5511, 7010, 7030, 7051 (see Maps F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6). Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:F1.7,Vl.l,V1.4,V1.5,WL7.26,R2.1,R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 3.5, BD 3.8, ACEC 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop management prescriptions with wildlife habitat objectives included. 2. Design and implement management actions for promotion of areas to old growth. Monitoring Needs: - To be developed in the old growth management plan. 2-79 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Burns District Office HC 74-l 2533 Highway 20 W. Hines, Oregon 97738 ONRC Action v. Bureau of Land Management Administrative Reco September 1991 Proposed Three Rivers Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I - Text As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historii places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLM-OR-ES-91-29-1792 Cover Photo - Federal Land Offfce - Temporary Headquarters in the Burns Hotel building from 18891891. Predecessor to the Taylor Grazing Service and Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Proposed Three Rivers Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by Burns District Off ice State Director, OregonMlashington District Manager, Burns I United States Department of the Interior TAKE-md BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT OFFICE HC 74-12533 Hwy 20 West Hines, Oregon 97738 - In IN REPLY REFER TO: September 20, 1991 Dear Public Land User: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Three Rivers Planning Area, Bums District, Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management has prepared this document in partial fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Proposed RMP Final EIS is designed to stand alone from the Draft RMP/EIS which was published in October 1989. However, the interested reader may find it useful to refer to the Draft RMP/EIS when using this document. The public devoted a tremendous amount of effort in providing in- depth input on the Draft RMP/EIS. The Bums District received 225 individual comment letters containing over 1,200 specific comments. The Planning Team has assessed these comments and utilized the input in making substantive changes in the Proposed RMP. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who took the time to provide us with these comments. We feel that your efforts have resulted in a stronger and clearer RMP. This Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains a summary comparison of the alternatives considered (including the Proposed Plan), an introduction, the Proposed Plan, the environmental consequences of the Proposed Plan, revisions to the Draft RMP/EIS, public comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS, and the Bureau’s response to those comments. The Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP has been revised as a result of public comment and internal review.The Proposed Plan reflects these changes in the refinement of management objectives and in management actions. If you desire assistance with this document you may contact the Area Manager, Craig M. Hansen, (503) 573-5241. If you would like to have your interests/concerns considered by the District Manager as he makes the final decisions which will guide the management of the public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area for the next 10 - 15 years, please do so in writing prior to the close of the public comment period on October 21,1991. Comments should be sent to: District Manager Bureau of Land Management Burns District Office HC 74-l 2533 Hwy 20 West Hines, Oregon 97738 The final decisions will be based on the analysis contained in the EIS, any additional data available, public input, management feasibility, policy and legal constraints. Approval of the plan will be documented in a record of decision which will be made available to the public. The resource management planning process includes an opportunity for administrative review via a plan protest to the BLM Director if you believethe approvalof a proposed RMPwould be in error. (See 43 CFR 1610.5-2.) careful adherence to these guidelines will assist in preparing a protest that will assure the greatest consideration to your point of view. . . . III Only those persons or organizations who participated in our planning process leading to this RMP may protest. If our records do not indicate that you had any involvement in any stage in the preparation of a proposed RMP or amendment, your protest will be dismissed without further review. A protesting party may raise only those issues which he or she submitted for the record during the planning process. New issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the Burns District of Three Rivers Area Managerforconsideration in plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as otherwise appropriate. The period forfiling a plan protest begins when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes in the Federal Register its Notice of Availability of the final environmental impact statement concerning the proposed RM or amendment. The protest period extends for30 days. There is no provisionfor anyextensionof time. To be considered “timely,“your protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. Also, although not a requirement, we suggest that you send your protest by certified mail, return receipt requested. Protests must be filed in writing to: Director (760) Bureau of Land Management 1849 “C” Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 In order to be considered complete, your protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information: 1. The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. 2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 3. A statement of the part or pails of the proposed RMP being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc. included in the document. 4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted during the planning process or a reference to the date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the record. 5. A concise statement explaining why the BLM State Director’s decision is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical part of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents, environmental analysis documents, available planning records (i.e., meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). A protest which merely expresses disagreement with the Oregon/Washington State Director’s proposed decision, without any data will not provide us with the benefit of your information and insight. In this case, the Director’s review will be based on the existing analysis and supporting data. The Proposed RMP cannot be approved until the Governor of Oregon has had an opportunity to review it. Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval of this RMP may protest such approval. Complete instructions on filing a protest are presented in Chapter 5. The deadline for filing a protest is October 21, 1991. Thank you for your continued interest in the multiple use management of your public lands. Sincerely, Mike Green District Manager vi Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. Purpose and Need Introduction, The Planning Area ............................................................................................... l-3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... l-3 Planning Process ..................................................................................................................... l-3 Planning Issues and Their Resolution ...................................................................................... l-3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study ..................................................................................... l-7 Analysis of Public Comment on the DRMP/DEIS ..................................................................... l-7 Planning Criteria ..................................................................................................................... l-l 1 Chapter 2. The Proposed Plan Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Management Objectives .......................................................................................................... .2-2 Rationale.. ................................................................................................................................ 2-2 Allocations. ............................................................................................................................... 2-2 Management Actions ................................................................................................................ 2-2 Procedures to Implement ......................................................................................................... 2-2 Monitoring Needs ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 Index to Program Packages ..................................................................................................... 2-3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 Soil Management .................................................................................................... 2-15............... Forestry and Woodlands ........................................................................................................ 2-21 Grazing Management.. ........................................................................................................... 2-33 Wild Horses and Burros.. ........................................................................................................ 2-43 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 2-51 Special Status Species ........................................................................................................... 2-56 Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 2-66 Aquatic Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 2-96 Fire Management ................................................................................................................. 2-101 Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers.. .............................................................................. 2-l 07 Areas of Criiical Environmental Concern .............................................................................. 2-137 Visual Resource Management ............................................................................................. 2-148 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 2-152 Energy and Minerals.. ........................................................................................................... 2-156 Lands and Realty ................................................................................................................. 2-l 77 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................ .2-199 Biological Diversity .............................................................................................................. .2-200 Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 Analysis ............................................................................................... 3-2..................................... Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 3-2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ .3-2 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 3-2 Soil Management ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 Forestry and Woodlands .......................................................................................................... 3-3 Grazing Management .............................................................................................................. .3-4 Wild Horses and Burros.. .......................................................................................................... 3-6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 3-7 vii Special Status Species ............................................................................................................ .3-9 Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................................................ .3-9 Aquatic Habitat ...................................................................................................................... .3-12 Fire Management .................................................................................................................. .3-15 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 3-15 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................... .3-17 Visual Resources .................................................................................................................. .3-17 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ .3-21 Energy and Minerals.. ............................................................................................................ .3-22 Lands and Realty .................................................................................................................. .3-23 Economic Conditions.. ........................................................................................................... .3-25 Chapter 4. Revisions to the DRMP/DEIS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Text Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Chapter 5. Consultation and Distribution Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS Have Been Sent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Consistency Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Protest Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Chapter 6. List of Preparers, Glossary, and References List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... .6-2 Glossary .................................................................................................................................. .6-4 References ............................................................................................................................ .6-13 List of Tables Table Number Title Page Sl Comparison of Management Objectives ..................................................................................................... xiii s2 Comparison of the Alternatives.. ................................................................................................................ xxii Chapter 1 1.1 Resource Management Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-6 Chapter 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Surface Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2-l 1 Headcut and Gully Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20 Typical 1 0-Yr Timber Sale Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32 Part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection, Location and Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32 Part 2. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Locations and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 Part 3. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests Stand Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 Grazing Management Manual Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42 . . .VIII 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.10 2.1 1 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 Private Water Sources Selected for Acquisition of Permanent Access (Listed in Priority) .................................................................................................................................... .2-48 Representative Characteristics by Wild Horse and Burro Herd ............................................................... .2.49 Rangeland Improvements For Wild Horses and Burros .......................................................................... .2-50 Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions ............................................................. .2-54 Recommended Management/Use Constraints in Old Growth Management Areas ................................. .2-55 Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) ................................................................................................. .2-61 Grazing Management Adjustments for Special Status Species ................................................................ 2-63 Proposed Big Game Allocations .............................................................................................................. 2-83 Wetland Habitat Condition ...................................................................................................................... .2-87 Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment ..................................................................... 2-92 Diamond Craters Management Actions ................................................................................................ .2-l 25 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory .......................................................................................................... 2-127 Eligibility Assessment and Potential Classification - Wild and Scenic River Inventory ........................................................................................................ .2-l 28 Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values - Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory ....................................................................................................... 2-l 29 Suitability Determination For Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek.. .......................................................... .2-l 30 Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, Oregon/Washington .................................................................................................................. .2-134 Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations .............................................................................................................. 2-l 68 Geothermal Lease Stipulations ............................................................................................................ ..2-16 8 Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals ............................................................. .2-l 69 Mineral Material Sites ......................................................................................................................... ...2-175 Summary of Acreage Closed to the Operation of the Mining Laws ....................................................... .2-l 76 Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements.. ................................................................. .2-191 Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal .................................................................................................. 2-193 Withdrawal, Classification and Review Actions ..................................................................................... .2-197 Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Streams and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality From Implementation of the Selected Atternative .............................................................. .3-4 Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality Condition Trend from Implementation of the Proposed Plan.. ................................................................................... 3-4 Impacts to Range Condition.. .................................................................................................................... .3-6 Impacts to Stocking Levels with and without Range Improvements .......................................................... .3-6 Impacts to Range Condition in Herd Management Areas .......................................................................... 3-8 Wild Horse and Burro Management Levels and Forage Allocation ........................................................... .3-8 Vegetation Type in the Three Rivers RA .................................................................................................. 3-10 Degree of Impacts to Special Status Species of the Proposed Plan ...................................................... ..3- 11 Impacts to Big Game Habitat Conditions (acres) ..................................................................................... 3-13 Impacts to Riparian Habitat Conditions .................................................................................................... 3-13 Impacts to Wetland Habitat Condition ..................................................................................................... .3-13 Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend ........................................ ..3-14 Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat ..................................... ..3-14 Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Three Rivers RA ................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Projected Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Chickahominy Reservoir.. ...................................... .3-18 Projected Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Diamond Craters ................................................... .3-18 Impacts to Off-Road Vehicle Designations.. ............................................................................................. 3-19 Proposed Off-Road Vehicle Designations Areas and Acres ..................................................................... 3-20 Impacts to Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 3-20 Current VRM Classification ...................................................................................................................... 3-21 Proposed VRM Classification .................................................................................................................. 3-21 Impacts to Oil and Gas Leasing Categories ............................................................................................ .3-23 ix 3.23 Impacts to Geothermal Leasing Categories ............................................................................................ .3-23 3.24 Impacts to Lands, Realty, Withdrawals and Classifications ...................................................................... 3-25 3.25 Timber Harvest 1980-l 987 ..................................................................................................................... .3-26 3.26 Impacts To Livestock Grazing Operations, Proposed Plan ..................................................................... .3-27 Chapter 4 4.1 4.2 Timber Harvest 1980/l 987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Impacts to Ranching Operations by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Chapter 6 6.1 List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 6-2 Appendix 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 General Best Forest Management Practices ......................................................................................... l-3 Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protection ................................................................ l-7 Stream Segments Proposed for Livestock Removal.. .......................................................................... l-l 1 Riparian Area Grazing Systems and Inventory .................................................................................... l-13 Stream Segments Proposed for Immediate Grazing System Implementation.. .................................... l-15 Stream Segments Proposed for Case-by-Case Grazing System Implementation ............................... l-17 Stream Segments Which Lack Sufficient Data for Grazing System Implementation.. ................................................................................................................................. l-19 Actions Proposed in Three Rivers Portion of the Burns District Wetlands HMP ................................................................................................................................... l-21 Allotment Management Summaries - Introduction ............................................................................... l-23 Allotment Categories ......................................................................................................................... l-171 Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................... l-177 Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range Improvements .............................................. l-l 79 Range Improvement Costs ................................................................................................................ l-181 Potential Range Improvements by Allotment ..................................................................................... l-183 Description of Existing and Proposed ACECs ................................................................................... l-187 Recommended Management/Use Constraints in ACECs .................................................................. l-195 Off-Road Vehicle Designations - Federal Register Notice ................................................................. l-197 Calculation of Three Rivers Average Annual Recreation Growth.. ..................................................... l-199 Projected Recreation Visits To BLM-Administered Lands in the Three Rivers Resource Area for the years 2000 and 2010 ............................................................... l-201 Gold Development Scenario.. ............................................................................................................ l-203 Appendix 2 Comment Letters and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..II-5 X List of Maps Map Map Title Number Page Gen-1 General Location .................................................................................................................................. l-2 Gen-2 Land Status .......................................................................................................................................... l-4 WQ-1 Watery Quality.. .................................................................................................................................... 2-8 S-l General Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 2-16 s-2 Erosion Condition Classes ................................................................................................................. 2-18 F-l Existing Commercial Forestlands ....................................................................................................... 2-22 F-2 Woodlands ......................................................................................................................................... 2-26 F-3 Dry Mountain Old Growth Forest Stand ............................................................................................. .2-28 F-4 Emigrant Old Growth Forest Stand.. ................................................................................................... 2-29 F-5 Craft Old Growth Forest Stand ........................................................................................................... 2-30 F-6 Bluebucket Old Growth Forest Stand ................................................................................................ .2-31 RM-1 Livestock Grazing Allotments ............................................................................................................. 2-34 RM-2 Areas Excluded From Livestock Grazing.. .......................................................................................... 2-38 RM-3 Potential Vegetation Manipulation and Seeding ................................................................................ .2-40 WH-1 Active Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas.. ............................................................................ .2-46 ss-1 Special Status Species.. ..................................................................................................................... 2-64 WL-1 Mule Deer Range ............................................................................................................................... 2-88 WL-2 Elk Range and Wetland/Plays Habitats ............................................................................................. .2-90 FM-l Resource Values at Risk .................................................................................................................. 2-102 FM-2 Fire Management Zones ................................................................................................................ ..2-10 4 R-l Recreation Use Areas .................................................................................................................... ..2-10 8 R-2 Recreation Off-Road Vehicle Designation ........................................................................................ 2-112 R-3 Recreational Minerals.. ..................................................................................................................... 2-l 18 WSR-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory ..................................................................................................... 2-l 22 WSR-2 Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek ............................................................................................... 2-l 24 ACEC-1 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................. 2-l 38 ACEC-2 South Narrows ................................................................................................................................. 2-l 42 ACEC-3 Diamond Craters ............................................................................................................................ ..2-14 3 ACEC-4 Silver Creek/Dry Mountain.. .............................................................................................................. 2-l 44 ACEC-5 Foster Flat ........................................................................................................................................ 2-l 4.5 ACEC-6 Kiger Mustang .................................................................................................................................. 2-l 46 ACEC-7 Biscuitroot ........................................................................................................................................ .2-l 47 VRM-1 Visual Resource Management Classes .......................................................................................... ..2-15 0 M-l Coal, Oil and Gas Potential .............................................................................................................. 2-158 M-2 Geothermal Resources Potential.. .................................................................................................... 2-l 60 M-3 Major Locatable Minerals Potential ................................................................................................. ..2-16 4 M-4 Mineral Materials Sites .................................................................................................................... .2-l 66 LR-1 Land Tenure Zones .......................................................................................................................... 2-178 LR-2 Right-of-Way Corridors, Exclusion, Avoidance Areas ....................................................................... 2-184 LR-3 Critical Access Needs .................................................................................................................... ..2-18 6 xi Xii Summary Each alternative was a complete land use plan thatprovided a framework for the multiple-use manage- Five multiple-use alternatives for the management of public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area were developed and analyzed in the Three Rivers Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DFEIS) in accordance with the BLM’s planning regulations issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The alternatives responded to major issues identified through the planning process. These include manage- ment of livestock grazing, adjustment of land tenure, meeting wildlife forage demands and improving habitat condition, fire management and special management areas. ment of the full spectrum of resources present in the Plan,ning Area. The resource management objectives which guided the analysis in each alternative are summarized by program below. The reader should note that the objectives were the same for all aterna- tives. However, the means for meeting each objective and the degree to which each objective would be met varied considerably between alternatives. Through public comment on the DRMP/DEIS, management objectives for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/ FEIS) have been modified, refined or expanded. Table Sl provides a program-by-program comparison of objectives between the Draft and Proposed Plan. Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS PRMP/FEIS Air Quality Prevent deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the Resource Area (RA). Water Quality Soils Protect or enhance ground water quality and improve water quality of streams on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as established (per stream) by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Improve and/or maintain soil erosion conditions at moderate erosion condition class or better. Prevent significant deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the Resource Area PA). Improve surface water quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality requirements for all beneficial uses consistent with DEQ Nonpoint Source Assessment and Manage- ment Plan, where BLM authorized actions are having a negative effect on water quality. Protect or enhance groundwater quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as established by DEQ. Prevent deterioration of soil re- sources by ensuring that BLM- administered lands are in stable or upward observed apparent trend categories as outlined in “Rangeland .XIII Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Forestry and Woodlands Livestock Grazing Wild Horses and Burros Manage the identified commercial Manage the 7,722 acres of identified forestland timber base for a commercial forestland timber base nondeclining sustained yield. for a nondeclining sustained yield. Manage approximately 235,000 acres of noncommercial forestlands and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diversity, watershed protection and rangeland productiv- ity. Manage approximately 50,000 acres of available productive noncommer- cial forestlands and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diver- sity, minor forest products, water- shed protection and rangeland productivity. Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal material, etc., consistent with other resource objectives. Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal materials, etc., consistent with other resource objectives. Implement long-term rangeland management designed to resolve identified resource conflicts/con- cerns and achieve management objectives delineated for each allotment. Maintain viable wild horse and burro herds in the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain and Warm Springs active Herd Manage- ment Areas (HMAs) within estab- lished maximum and minimum numbers. Monitoring in Oregon and Washing- ton” BLM Handbook H1734-2. Rehabilitate areas with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human influ- enced) sediment delivery to fluvial systems. Resolve resource conflicts and concerns and achieve management objectives as identified, for each allotment in Appendix 1, Table 9. Maintain healthy populations of wild horses within the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, and Riddle Mountain HMAs, and wild horses and burros in the Warm Springs HMA. Enhance the management and protection of herd areas and herds in the following HMAs: Kiger, xiv Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS PRMP/FEIS Vegetation Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain, Palomino Buttes and Warm Springs. Enhance and perpetuate the special or rare and unique characteristics that distinguish the respective herds in the RA. Protect, restore and enhance the Maintain, restore or enhance the variety of plant species and commu- diversity of plant communities and nities in abundances and distribu- plant species in abundances and tions that provide for their continued distributions which prevent the loss existence and normal functioning. of specific native plant community types or indigenous plant species Control the proliferation of noxious within the RA. weeds on public lands where concentrations pose a serious menace to human health and safety, domestic livestock or wildlife habitat. Special Status Species (see Glos- sary) Prevent significant risk to the well- being of special status species or their habitat by BLM-authorized actions. Restore or enhance habitat of special status species. Maintain and improve critical or essential habitatof species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to prevent deterioration and provide recovery. Maintain, restore or enhance the habitat of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species to maintain the populations at a level which will avoid endangering the species and the need to list the species by either State or Federal governments. Ensure that BLM-authorized actions within the RA do not result in the xv Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, Management Objectives, DRMPlDElS PRMP/FEIS Wildlife Habitat Management Maintain or improve 334,910 acres of deer winter range, 376,670 acres of deer summer range, 234,211 acres of elk winter range, and 105,380 acres of elk summer range currently in satisfactory condition. Improve approximately 170,500 acres of deer winter range; 293,000 acres of deer summer range; 21,300 acres of elk winter range; 43,100 acres of elk summer range currently in unsatisfactory condition to satis- factory condition by the year 2000. Manage livestock forage production to support wildlife population levels identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). need to list special status species or jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. SSS 4: Increase the state of BLM’s knowledge and information concern- ing the status and distribution of special status species. Maintain 335,000 acres of deer winter range, 375,000 acres of deer summer range, 235,000 acres of elk winter range and 105,000 acres of elk summer range currently in satisfactory condition as described in the glossary. Improve approximately 170,000 acres of deer winter range; 295,000 acres of deer summer range; 20,000 acres of elk winter range; 45,000 acres of elk summer range, currently in unsatisfactory condition to satis- factory condition by the year 2000. Manage forage production to support big game population levels identified by ODFW. Maintain good quality wetland, playa and meadow habitat where it currently exists. Improve component deficient wetland habitat to good condition and provide for wetland and meadow habitat expansion, by the year 1997 (see Table 2.14). xvi Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat is in good or better habitat condition (proper functioning condition) by the year 1997. Restore, maintain or enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife species habitat within the RA. Wetland, Reservoir and Meadow Habitat Improve wetland habitat in lower than good habitat condition, by the year 1997. Provide for wetlands and meadow habitat expansion. Riparian Habitat Raptors Maintain or enhance raptor habitat. Aquatic Habitat Ensure that 75 percent or more of Ensure that 75 percent or more of aquatic habitat is in good or better aquatic habitat is in good or better condition and that none is in poor condition and that none is in poor condition by the year 2000. condition by the year 2000. Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat is in good or better habitat condition by the year 1997. Ensure that a minimum of 75 percent of aquatic habitat is in good or better condition, and none is in poor condition, by the year 1997. Enhance existing warmwater fish Improve existing warmwater fish habitat to good or better condition habitat to good or better condition and and provide for increased provide for increased warmwater warmwater game fish production by game fish production by the year the year 2000. Expand warmwater 2000. Expand warmwater fish habitat, fish habitat consistent with no as opportunities arise, and when no conflict with existing fish populations conflicts occur with existing game fish as opportunities arise. populations. xvii Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMPlDElS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Hazardous Materials Eliminate the introduction of hazard- ous materials on public land and remove any discovered deposits. Fire Recreation As determined through values at risk As determined through values at risk analysis, maximize the protection of analysis, maximize the protection of life, property and high value sensi- life, property and high value sensi- tive resources from the detrimental tive resources from the detrimental effects of wildfire. effects of wildfire. Consistent with values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial uses of prescribed fire and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000, establish Special Recre- ation Management Areas (SRMAs) where the presence of high quality natural resources and current or potential demand warrants intensive use practices to protect the area for its scientific, educational and/or recreational values. During the lo-year period from 1990 to 2000, provide opportunities for unstructured outdoor recreation activities with the necessary facilities and services to accommodate a projected increase in dispersed recreation-related visits within the planning unit. Eliminate the introduction of hazard- ous materials on public lands and remove any discovered hazardous waste. Consistent with values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial use of prescribed fire and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000 establish and manage intensive-use areas, where the presence of high quality natural resources and the current or poten- tial demand warrants intensive use practices to protect the areas for their scientific, educational and/or recreational values while accommo- dating the projected increase in use for recreation activities specific to the areas. During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000, provide opportunities for unstructured outdoor recreation activities with the necessary facilities and services to accommodate a projected 24.5 percent increase in dispersed recreation use within the Three Rivers RA from an estimated 84,000 visits in 1989 to an estimated 104,500 visits by the year 2000. . . .XVIII Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Visual Resources Cultural Resources Energy and Minerals Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Retain existing ACECs, if relevance and importance are still valid. Designate additional ACECs, including extensions to existing ACECs, where relevance and importance criteria are clearly met. Provide special management attention to protect important natural, cultural or scenic resources on approximately 95,049 acres. Manage ACECs in accord with the basis for each designation. Protect, maintain, enhance or rehabilitate the visual resource values as inventoried and evaluated by managing all public lands in accordance with the Visual Re- source Management (VRM) System. Protect, maintain, enhance or rehabilitate the visual resource values as inventoried and evaluated by managing all public lands in accordance with the VRM System. Protect the cuItural/paleontological values in the RA from accidental or intentional loss and provide special emphasis to high value sites. Increase the opportunity for the public’s sociocultural, educational and recreational uses of the area’s cultural/ paleontological resources. Protect the cultural and paleontologi- cal values in the RA from accidental or intentional loss, while providing special emphasis to high value sites and conserving those resources of overriding scientific or historic importance. Provide for the conservation of cultural/paleontological resources of overriding scientific or historic importance. Increase the opportunity for the public’s sociocultural, educational and recreational uses of the area’s cultural and paleontological re- sources. Provide maximum leasing opportu- Provide maximum leasing opponu- nity for oil, gas and geothermal nity for oil, gas and geoiiiermal exploration and development by exploration and development by utilizing the least restrictive leasing utilizing the least restrictive leasing categories necessary to protect categories necessary to protect sensitive resources. sensitive resources. Continue to meet public demand for mineral materials from public lands in the RA, on a case-by-case basis. Continue to meet public demand for mineral materials from public lands in the Planning Area on a case-by- case basis except for 64,315 acres xix Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS Lands and Realty Provide maximum opportunity in areas identified as open to the operation of mining laws for explora- tion and location of locatable minerals on public lands mineral estate in the RA. Provide maximum opportunity for the leasing and development of solid leasable minerals. Consolidate public landholdings and Consolidate public landholdings and acquire lands with significant acquire lands with high public resource values to ensure effective resource values to ensure effective administration and improve resource administration and improve resource management. Retain in public management. Retain in public ownership landholdings with signifi- ownership landholdings with high cant resource values. public resource values. Meet public needs for use authoriza- tions, such as rights-of-way, leases and permits. Meet public needs for use authoriza- tions such as rights-of-way, leases and permits. Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands. Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands. Acquire public and administrative access to public land where it does not currently exist. Acquire and maintain legal public and administrative access to public land consistent with other resource values. Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the required purpose. Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the required purpose. in ACECs, WSAs and scenic corridors. Provide maximum opportunity in areas identified as open to the operation of mining laws for explora- tion and location of locatable minerals on public lands mineral estate in the planning area. Provide maximum opportunity for the leasing and development of solid leasable minerals other than coal. Public lands will remain open and available for coal exploration and development, unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. xx Table Sl. Comparison of Management Objectives Management Objectives, DRMP/DEIS Management Objectives, PRMP/FEIS The anticipated effects of the management actions contained in each of the alternatives and the Proposed Resource Management Plan are summarized by major program. Biological Diversity Maintain viable populations of native plants and animals well distributed throughout their geographic range. Maintain natural genetic variability within and among populations of native species. Maintain representative examples of the full spectrum of ecosystems, biological communities, habitats and their ecological processes. Provide for the increase of the scientific understanding of biological diversity and conservation. xxi The anticipated effects of the management actions contained in each of the alternatives, including the Proposed Plan, are summarized by major resource program in Table S2. Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY (STREAM MILES) EXCELLENT 0.00 GOOD 0.00 FAIR 20.65 POOR 84.25 UNKNOWN 22.65 TOTAL 127.55 WATER QUALITY (SURFACE ACRES) EXCELLENT 0 GOOD 45 FAIR 4001 POOR 445 TOTAL 4491 FOREST MANAGEMENT TIMBER BASE ACRES 8605 DECADAL HARVEST (MMBF) 6.02 GRAZING MANAGEMENT LIVESTOCK FORAGE CONDITION (ACRES) EXCELLENT 38402 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114.75 117.65 116.00 37.65 5.15 5.70 3.75 3.75 3.75 60.70 35.70 111.60 6.15 6.15 7.80 29.20 72.55 10.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.15 0.00 127.55 127.55 127.55 127.55 127.55 127.55 1351 0 0 0 0 0 3090 4441 1301 1301 876 825 0 0 3140 3140 3560 411 50 50 50 50 55 3255 4491 4491 4491 4491 4491 4491 4868 8263 8263 7722 8700 9291 3.41 5.78 5.78 5.40 6.09 6.50 45732 39078 GOOD 562683 671073 573434 FAIR 823683 731704 831031 POOR 251516 206930 211896 UNKNOWN 33634 54479 54479 42563 624579 809510 178787 54479 TOTAL 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 INITIAL STOCKING LEVELS (AUMs) STOCKING LEVELS 150472 54891 107283 133208 WILD HORSES AND BURROS FORAGE CONDITION (ACRES) STINKINGWATER GOOD 36778 62078 51269 51269 FAIR 42853 17553 28362 28362 POOR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7963 1 79631 79631 79631 xxii 39056 50379 43937 651217 739265 644729 812302 705217 796266 173658 160578 170510 33685 54479 54476 1709918 1709918 1709918 150472 161222 164622 51269 51269 51269 28362 28362 28362 0 0 0 7963 1 79631 79631 Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL KIGER GOOD 12985 22693 15225 FAIR 23831 14123 21591 POOR 0 0 0 TOTAL 36816 36816 36816 15225 15225 15225 15225 21591 21591 21591 21591 0 0 0 0 36816 36816 36816 36816 7223 7223 7223 7223 20797 20797 20797 20797 0 0 0 0 28020 28020 28020 28020 195525 195525 195525 225525 137465 137465 137465 137465 123824 123824 123824 93824 456814 456814 456814 456814 RIDDLE MTN. GOOD 6000 6000 7223 FAIR 22021 22021 20797 POOR 0 0 0 TOTAL 28021 2802 1 28020 WARM SPRINGS GOOD 133064 138064 225525 FAIR 199926 195926 137465 POOR 123824 122824 93824 TOTAL 456814 456814 456814 PALOMINO BUTTES GOOD 22068 30068 45368 FAIR 35300 3998 1 12000 POOR 12681 0 12681 TOTAL 70049 70049 70049 45368 50368 12000 12000 12681 7681 70049 70049 50368 12000 7681 70049 12000 7681 70049 48295 1 480000 478238 372961 47530 50000 52243 157520 53048 1 530000 53048 1 53048 1 611371 610000 564784 472257 90592 90000 137179 229706 701963 700000 701963 701963 24563 1 245000 234211 234211 9920 10000 21340 21340 25555 1 255000 25555 1 25555 1 127680 130000 105380 105380 20800 20000 43100 43100 148480 150000 148480 148480 WILDLIFE HABITAT DEER WINTER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 3349 10 505396 48 1298 UNSATISFACTORY 195571 25085 49183 TOTAL 53048 1 53048 1 530481 DEER SUMMER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 376670 669808 616371 UNSATISFACTORY 325293 32155 85592 TOTAL 701963 701963 701963 ELK WINTER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 234211 255551 24563 1 UNSATISFACTORY 21340 0 9920 TOTAL 25555 1 25555 1 25555 1 ELK SUMMER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) SATISFACTORY 105380 148480 127680 UNSATISFACTORY 43100 0 20800 TOTAL 148480 148480 148480 XXIII Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN HABITAT (ACRES) GOOD 116.7 515.0 FAIR 255.8 37.0 POOR 207.5 28.0 UNKNOWN 102.0 102.0 TOTAL 682.0 682.0 AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITION (STREAM MILES) EXCELLENT 0.00 GOOD 8.10 FAIR 26.40 POOR 41.70 UNKNOWN 7.45 TOTAL 83.65 WETLAND HABITAT (ACRES) GOOD 50 FAIR 911 POOR 390 UNCONTROLLABLE 3140 TOTAL 4491 EXPANSION 200 PLAYA HABITAT TREND (ACRES) UPWARD 0 STATIC 8655 DOWNWARD 0 FIRE MANAGEMENT FIRE SUPPRESSION CLASSES (ACRES) FULL,W/O PRESC. 0 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.90 74.50 73.50 73.50 14.75 6.95 6.95 7.45 7.45 47.90 2.20 2.20 2.70 2.70 21 .oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.65 83.65 83.65 83.65 83.65 956 956 956 956 956 395 395 395 395 395 0 0 0 0 0 3140 3140 3140 3140 3140 4491 4491 4491 4491 4491 670 300 490 490 200 8655 8350 7155 8655 0 0 0 0 0 8155 0 300 1500 0 500 67724 67724 67724 63600 1184230 462080 FULL, W/ PRESC. 1709918 1180114 1180114 1180114 COND., W/ PRESC. 0 462080 462080 462080 RECREATION SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS ACRES 16656 17176 OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) OPEN 1599764 911704 LIMITED 100064 788434 CLOSED 10090 10090 TOTAL 1709918 1710228 515.0 515.0 515.0 118.8 37.0 37.0 37.0 234.2 28.0 28.0 28.0 227.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 682.0 682.0 682.0 682.0 17176 17176 17656 16656 16696 1570994 1556825 1592633 1599764 1584384 124834 143003 113205 100064 115444 14090 10090 4080 10090 10090 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 515.0 37.0 28.0 102.0 682.0 12.90 67.75 3.00 0.00 83.65 956 395 0 3140 4491 200 0 0 8655 67724 1709918 1180114 0 462080 xxiv Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS DESIGNATIONS (STREAM MILES) WILD 0.0 5.4 0.0 SCENIC 0.0 0.0 5.4 TOTAL 0.0 5.4 5.4 DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) WILD 0 1730 0 SCENIC 0 0 1730 TOTAL 0 1730 1730 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACRES) 5.4 0.0 5.4 5.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1730 1804 0 0 0 0 0 0 1730 1804 0 0 DIAMOND CRATERS ONAIACEC 16656 17136 17136 SOUTH NARROWS ACEC 160 160 160 SILVER CR. RNA/ACEC 640 640 640 SILVER CR. EXT. RNA/ACEC 0 960 960 FOSTER FLAT RNAIACEC 0 1870 1870 DRY MTN. EXT. RNA/ACEC 0 2240 2240 KIGER MUSTANG ACEC 0 66244 36619 BISCUITROOT ACEC 0 6000 6000 TOTAL 17456 95250 65625 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 17136 17056 16656 16656 160 160 160 160 640 640 640 640 960 1280 0 0 720 2690 0 0 2240 2084 0 0 36619 64639 0 0 6000 6500 0 6000 64475 95049 17456 23456 CLASS DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) CLASS I 8610 8580 8580 CLASS II 120621 131131 131131 CLASS III 425600 419550 419550 CLASS IV 1155087 1150657 1150657 CULTURAL RESOURCES 8580 2290 126581 139535 421770 419431 1152987 1148662 8610 8580 120621 122061 425600 424190 1155087 1155087 ACTIVELY MANAGED SITES LITHIC SCATTERS OCCUPATION/CAMP QUARRY ROCK SHELTER ROCK ART TRASH DUMP STRUCTURE OTHER 51 371 51 51 51 51 6 77 86 77 77 77 77 28 29 37 29 29 29 29 6 27 31 27 27 27 27 2 18 19 18 18 18 18 0 2 11 2 2 2 2 0 4 6 4 4 4 4 0 6 11 6 6 6 6 2 TOTAL 214 572 214 214 214 214 44 XXV Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) PROGRAM BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL ENERGY AND MINERALS FLUID ENERGY MINERALS (OIL AND GAS LEASE ACRES) CATEGORY 1 1328111 1134069 1442231 CATEGORY 2 7875 17 890588 644735 CATEGORY 3 98075 184046 126737 CATEGORY 4 113331 113331 113331 TOTAL 2327034 2322034 2327034 SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS (ACRES) AVAIL. TO LEASE 2198267 2175887 2171331 NOT AVAILABLE 17936 40316 44872 MINERAL MATERIALS AVAIL. SITES 24 24 24 ACRES AVAILABLE 2114337 2114337 2114337 LOCATABLE MINERALS (ACRES) WITHDRAWN 44912 59532 57902 AVAILABLE 1670921 1656301 1657931 LANDS AND REALTY LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT (ACRES) ZONE 1 1577559 1469864 1575597 ZONE 2 121559 199220 93599 ZONE 3 10800 40834 40722 TOTAL 1709918 1709918 1709918 CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS LINEAR MILES 123 185 185 EXCLUSION/AVOIDANCE AREAS (ACRES) EXCLUSION AREAS 0 114710 20385 AVOIDANCE AREAS 0 0 79525 TOTAL 0 114710 99910 1499029 1499000 1328111 2166464 602987 603000 787517 0 111687 111700 98075 47239 113331 113300 113331 113331 2327034 2327000 2327034 2327034 2 192467 2 192467 2198267 2183451 23736 23736 17936 32752 24 24 24 24 2114337 2114337 2114337 2114337 45162 1670671 147809 1 1484899 1577559 1081509 193304 188325 121559 531764 38523 36694 10800 96646 1709918 1709918 1709918 1709919 185 185 123 185 20385 17885 0 20385 64475 95530 0 0 84860 113415 0 20385 49652 44912 44912 1666181 1670921 1670921 1715833 xxvi -- __-_-- -___ -------------- ._. ’- 1-- Chapter 1Purpose and Need - L- -Portland v Salem v Eugene ~ Prineville LEGEND @I BLM State Office v BLM District Office - Burns District Boundary Three Rivers Planning Area U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT THREE RIVERS RMP April 1991 MAP GEN-1 GENERAL LOCATION l-2 Introduction. The Planning The Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan/ Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) is a comprehensive framework for managing public lands and for guiding the allocation of resources in the Three Rivers Planning Area (PA) over the next 10 to 15 years. The impacts associated with managing public land (Map GEN-1) in the high desert area of Eastern Oregon are analyzed in this document. The Three Rivers PA contains 1,709,918 acres of public land that lie within portions of Harney (1,587,073 acres), Grant (8,484 acres), Lake (91,505 acres) and Malheur Counties (22,856 acres) (Map GEN-2). The PA contains approxi- mately 51,501 acres which are within the Lakeview District (31,444 acres Federal, 18,562 acres State, 1,495 acres private), but that are administered by the Three Rivers Resource Area (RA). Surface management prescriptions have been developed for these areas by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team. The Ochoco and Malheur National Forests and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are the other major Federal land management agencies in the planning area. The PA is situated in the northern half of the Burns District on the northern extreme of the Great Basin and the southern end of the Blue Mountains. The PA is generally character- ized as high desert with large expanses dominated by sagebrush typical of the Great Basin. The Great Basin influence gives way in the northern and eastern portions of the PA where stands of pine and fir are found. Purpose and Need The purpose and need for the RMP/EIS is to guide the future management of public land resources in the Three Rivers PA. To accomplish this it is necessary to identify and resolve multiple-use conflicts (issues) related to the management of public lands in the PA. The plan is intended to fulfill require- ments of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare comprehensive land use plans that are consistent with the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield. FLPMA also requires public participation and close coordination with other agencies. The RMP/EIS process results in decisions determining how the various resources will be managed to best meet present and future public needs. This plan establishes parameters for all resources on BLM-administered land in the Three Rivers PA, with the exception of the potential recommendations on the designa- tion of Malheur RivedBluebucket Creek and Stonehouse Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The wilderness study process has been ongoing since 1979 and is beyond the scope of this RMP effort. Recommendations as to whether or not the areas are suitable for wilderness designation have been analyzed in a final statewide wilderness EIS. It is also the purpose and need of this planning process to provide for and encourage direct public involvement in the decision-making process affecting the management of public lands in the PA. Toward this goal, the planning process is open to public involvement at every step. Planning Process The BLM planning process is conducted in nine stages. Table 1 .l summarizes these stages and displays the status of each. Planning Issues and Their Resolution Five planning issues have been identified and carried into the process of developing the Draft RMP/EIS (DRMP/DEIS). Public input was received in response to an initial scoping brochure issued by the BLM in September of 1987. Public meetings were conducted in Burns on October 19, 1987, and in Bend on OctobetQ2, 1987. The five planning issues were confirmed, through public comment, as being signifi- cant and timely. 1. Grazing Management Issue Grazing management practices prescribed in preceding land use plans (the Riley and Drewsey Grazing ElSs and Management Framework Plans (MFPs)) have not been fully implemented and it now appears that they cannot be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. This leads to a condition in which there is potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values and (b) conflict over the use of resources. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Are changes needed in the grazing management program identified in the Drewsey and Riley Grazing EISs/MFPs? If so, what kinds of changes are needed? Where are they needed? Should there be a priority of some areas over others? If so, what area(s) should receive highest priority and how should priorities be established? Resolution of the Issue Changes in the grazing management program which have been identified concern establishing multiple-use manage- ment objectives and implementing grazing systems to meet these objectives. All allotments have gone through the selective management categorization process to assign a category to each allot- ment. Areas with a high level of conflicts and concerns are a higher priority to implement management in than areas with few conflicts. Allotments in the Improve (I) category are generally higher priority than Maintain (M) or Custodial (C) allotments. 2. Land Tenure Issue Land ownership patterns within the RA contain some areas of scattered tracts and/or intermingled ownerships. Such patterns present problems for the efficient management and utilization of the public’s resources. The means to relieve such problems are through exchanges with other landown- ers, transfers to other agencies and the public sale of identified tracts. Such actions can lead to the potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) loss of a l-3 OREGON LEGEND I I ELM Lands I USFS Lands I Other Federal Lands State Lands 1-1 Private Lands District Boundary - Planning Area Boundary Planning Unit Boundary 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP GEN-2 LANDSTATUS Table 1 .l . Resource Management Planning Process 1. Identification of Issues Completed Oct. ‘87 2. Development of Planning Criteria Ongoing 3. Data Collection/Consolidation Completed July ‘88 4. Analysis of the Management Situation Completed Nov. ‘88 5. Formulation of Alternatives Completed Jan. ‘89 6. Estimation of Effects Completed March ‘89 7. Selection of Preferred Alternative and Public Review and Comment Periods A. Draft RMP/EIS Completed March ‘90 B. Final RMP/EIS August-September ‘91 8. Approved Resource Management Plan Scheduled Dec. ‘91 9. Monitoring and Evaluation of RMPlElS Ongoing Upon Approval resource or environmental value, (c) conflict over the use of resources, and (d) high public concern relating to the use or preservation of a resource. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Is there a need to consolidate public landholdings? If so, what lands would be most important? Are there lands that should be identified for disposal through sale, exchange or transfer from public ownership? If so, which lands? Are there privately held lands which should be acquired to enhance public values? If so, which lands? Are there lands which should be retained in public ownership and not made available for any form of disposal, including exchange? If so, which lands? Resolution of the Issue The Proposed Plan identifies three zones where various land tenure management actions may take place. Zone 1 lands will generally be retained in Federal ownership. These are also areas where acquisition of lands with important public values will be emphasized. Thus, public landholdings will be consolidated in Zone 1. Zone 2 lands have been identified for sale under the R&PP Act and exchange for other lands with more important public values. Zone 3 lands are generally isolated unmanageable tracts and have been identified for disposal by sale or exchange. The management direction outlined in the Proposed Plan will provide much more opportunity for land tenure adjustment actions over that which currently exists. This will help meet the primary objectives identified in the plan of consolidating landownership (both public and private) retention and acquisition of lands with important public values and disposal of isolated unmanageable tracts. 3. Wildlife Forage Demands andHabitat Condition Issue Existing management decision documents do not ad- equately address recent shifts in elk populations or concerns over deer winter range conditions. To accommodate these concerns it may be necessary to revise some forage and land use allocations. Such allocations have the potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) conflict over the uses of resources, and (c) high public concern over the use or preservation of a resource value. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Should BLM allocate forage for elk from public land? If so, for what target population levels? Are there management actions that BLM should undertake to improve the condition of deer winter range? If so, what and where? How much should other resource uses such as livestock grazing be changed to accommodate such modifications? Resolution of the Issue The Proposed Plan allocates levels of competitive forage to meet the demands of benchmark numbers of big game in the Planning Area. These amounts may be adjusted during the allotment evaluation process. Management actions in the Proposed Plan would improve deer winter range by providing needed browse and improved vigor of available browse. 4. Fire Management Issue BLM’s fire management strategy has been primarily one of full suppression. This practice is both expensive and neglects the beneficial uses of fire as a management tool in certain applications. Changes in current fire management strategies could involve the establishment of three zones: full suppression, conditional suppression, and prescribed fire. Establishing these strategies could cause concern over the 1-6 potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) a serious loss of a resource or environmental value, and (c) high public concern relating to the preserva- tion of a resource value. Considerations in Resolving the Issue With the understanding that the BLM will continue to meet its responsibility to protect life and property, are there areas where conditional suppressions of wildfire would be appro- priate? If so, where? Are there areas where either natural or prescribed fire would be a beneficial management tool? If so, where? Should the use of prescribed fire place more emphasis on the improvement of air quality than on the maintenance of plant communities? Are there areas where full fire suppression should be retained to protect important public/private values? If so, where? Resolution of the Issue The RMP established 462,080 acres identified for conditional fire use, these lands are shown as Zone B on Fire Manage- ment Map 2 (Map FM-2). Prescribed fire has been identified as a possible beneficial management tool on 1,646,310 acres or approximately 96 per cent of the resource area. These lands are listed as Zones B and C on Map FM-2. Due to the specifications identified through the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan and the Clean Air Act, placing emphasis on prescribed fire rather than air quality was not possible. Working to balance the prescribed fire program and air quality standards was the only solution. Based on values at risk of both public and private values, 63,608 acres were established as a full suppression only zone, shown as Zone A on FM-Map 2. 5. Special Management Areas Issue Special management designations are in place on three sites in the RA - Diamond Craters Outstanding Natural Area (ONA), South Narrows Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and Silver Creek Research Natural Area (RNA). Special designations and/or the absence of them can lead to the potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) major conflict over the use of resources, and (c) high public concern relating to the use or preserva- tion of a resource value. Considerations in Resolving the Issue Should the three existing areas be retained under their current special designations? Which, if any, of the proposed nine additional ACECs should be designated? Which, if any, segments of free-flowing and eligible river segments should be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System? Are there other areas or sites in the RA for which special designation is needed to further protect or enhance the habitat of listed threatened, endangered or sensitive species; to provide scientific and educational study opportunities; or to preserve outstanding or unique scenic, botanical, geologic, cultural or other resource values? If so, where? What are the values? Resolution of the Issue The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team examined the three areas with existing special management designations in terms of the Bureau’s relevance and importance criteria. This analysis resulted in the recommendation to retain the special management designations for all three areas. of the nine additional areas nominated for special management designation consideration, the ID team analysis resulted in a recommendation that five of the nine areas be given a special management designation. Further review of the values of the RA indicates that existing or proposed man- agement adequately protects other areas with important resource values, and, therefore, there were no other areas which require a special management designation at this time. Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study Ongoing Statewide Wilderness Study. The wilderness study process has continued since 1979 and has progressed beyond the level of detail contained in this RMP/EIS process. Two areas, Malheur RiverIBluebucket Creek (5,560 acres) and Stonehouse WSA, (12,325 acres in the planning unit, the remaining 9,000 acres in Andrews Resource Area) are being considered for designation as wilderness (Map ACEC-1). No further analysis of these areas for wilderness will be included in this document; however, portions of some WSAs are considered for designation as ACECs. Noxious Weed Control. Control of noxious weeds is ad- dressed in detail in the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program EIS (BLM, 1987). As such, noxious weed control needs in the RA were not considered to be a planning issue. Grasshopper Control. Periodic outbreaks of grasshoppers do occur in the RA and can be a significant problem. BLM has entered into a memorandum of understanding (which can be renewed annually as needed) with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the control of grasshoppers on public lands in the RA. An environmental assessment of the local effects of the APHIS control was completed in 1986. As such, grass- hopper control in the RA was not considered to be a planning issue. Analysis of Public Comment on the DRMP/DEIS A number of concerns emerged from public input on the DRMP/DEIS with significant divergences of views about management strategies that BLM should pursue in the Three Rivers RA. Because of this divergence of views, the planning team undertook an expanded public contact process. A brochure detailing the major concerns was distributed to 549 individuals, organizations and agencies in August of 1990. Nine individuals responded to the brochure by returning a clip-out contact form. Personal contact was made with all nine individuals by either the planning team leader or an appropriate team member to address their concerns. The following is a summary of the major concerns raised through l-7 the full public involvement process on the DRMP/DEIS as well as the general direction that has been taken to address those concerns. Accuracy and Sufficiency of BLM Data and Analysis Methods Commenters were concerned about the accuracy and the sufficiency of BLM’s data collection and analysis methods in a number of topic areas. Primary among these are range- land, water quality, riparian habitat and soils monitoring and evaluation: Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation - Commenters were concerned that BLM rangeland monitoring and evaluation techniques are flawed and that BLM applied them beyond what can be scientifically supported. This concern has been addressed by adding an explanation of the monitoring and evaluation process. It was reiterated that the methods and process used to evaluate grazing are within Bureau procedures. Water Quality - Commenters expressed concern about BLM definitions of water quality. Commenters were concerned about whether or not it is necessary for BLM to comply with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality standards for nonpoint source pollution, especially where water courses typically cross several ownerships. commenters were also concerned about the capability of BLM to define and measure the parameters necessary to adequately address water quality. Water quality standards were developed by Federal action under the Clean Water Act of 1977,33 U.S.C. Responsibility for reviewing and revising water quality standards was relegated to appropriate State agencies. Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to coordinate land use planning and management activities with Federal and State agencies, and comply with all applicable State laws (see FLPMA, Sec. 202(c)(8) and (9)). The DEQ has established levels of nonpoint source pollution of waters in the State of Oregon. Additionally, BLM and DEQ developed an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Action Plan in April 1990, that would implement these standards on public lands under Bureau jurisdiction. BLM biologists have the necessary equipment and expertise to measure these water quality parameters, assess condition and trend of sensitive aquatic habitats, and make recom- mendations to management concerning these sensitive ecosystems. Riparian Habitat - Commenters expressed concern about adequate definition of riparian habitat condition classes, especially as related to both water quality and aquatic habitat condition classes. Commenters were also concerned that BLM had classified some areas as riparian habitat that do not meet the definition. The Bureau definition of riparian habitat was used to classify areas as riparian. Stream segments with no data have not, as yet, been classified and a determination as to whether or not these segments contain riparian habitat will be made as data are collected. Riparian habitat condition, aquatic habitat condition and water quality are interrelated. However, the condition of one is not entirely dependent upon the condition of the other two. Factors used to rate these conditions are discussed in Appendix 1, Table 4. Water Commenters expressed concerns about management of various resources either directly or indirectly associated with water. Primary among these are water quality, fisheries and riparian habitat, and uplands management; also related to this topic is BLM consideration of Wild and Scenic Rivers: Water Quality Management - Commenters expressed concerns about BLM’s management proposals to address water quality problems. Some commenters were concerned that BLM was not proposing sufficiently stringent manage- ment to resolve identified water quality problems while other commenters were concerned that BLM was “going too far.” Severity of management objectives assure that BLM- managed waters meet requirements established by DEQ for nonpoint sources of pollution in Oregon. Management actions are based upon an MOU and Action Plan developed between BLM and DEQ in April 1990, and BLM Best Management Practices. Application of these prescriptions are expected to improve poor water quality on 55 miles of streams and establish good conditions on approximately 38 miles of streams. Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management - Commenters expressed concern that BLM fisheries and riparian manage- ment proposals were either too vaguely written to adequately assess their potential effectiveness or they provided “loopholes” that might reduce their effectiveness. Other commenters expressed concern that the management prescriptions that were presented would be excessively disruptive of established livestock operations. Management prescriptions have been rewritten to be more clear and precise. Prescriptions allow for interaction with affected interests, including permittees, in development of management activities that will meet water quality and other multiple-use objectives. The Proposed Plan focuses on the protection, restoration and enhancement of aquatic and riparian habitat to the extent possible under guidelines promulgated by FLPMA. Uplands - Commenters expressed concern that manage- ment prescriptions for riparian habitat management would impose excessively restrictive limitations on livestock grazing on associated uplands. This concern was addressed by an explanation of the riparian utilization levels and deleting the upland utilization level in riparian pastures. Upland utilization levels will be established at the activity plan level. Wild and Scenic Rivers - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not proposed more rivers, streams and reaches for designation as Wild or Scenic. Three Rivers RA conducted a river inventory and evaluation following the process outlined in the Guidelines for Fulfilling Requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 1-8 After completion of the process, one river segment, the Middle Fork of the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek, met all the requirements to be recommended for designation under the Act. Portions of the river inventory and evaluation have been included to illustrate the required steps which were followed (see Tables 2.17 through 2.20). Ancient Forests Commenters expressed concern that BLM had neither identified any forest stands as ancient forest nor proposed any management prescriptions for ancient forest stands. This concern has been addressed by the identification of four separate stands which either currently meet old growth ponderosa pine stand criteria or will grow into these old growth characteristics in a relatively short period of time. Stand management guidelines will be developed for each stand to guide long-term maintenance or enhancement of old growth characteristics of the stands. Economic Assessment Commenters presented a variety of concerns about the “Economics” of the RMP. Primary among these concerns were economic impacts, performing Takings Implications Assessments (TIA), project costs and performing Benefit/ Cost Analysis (B/C): Economic Impacts - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not adequately assessed the potential economic impacts that implementing the RMP would have on the local/ regional economy. This concern has been addressed by reevaluating the economic impacts of the implementation of each of the alternatives presented in the draft as well as the impacts of the Proposed Plan. This analysis includes both the direct and the indirect (frequently referred to as the multiplier effect) impacts to both income and employment. TIA - Commenters expressed a concern that BLM is not complying with requirements laid out in Executive Order 12630, by not performing a TIA prior to any reduction of authorized livestock grazing. The provisions of Executive Order 12630 do not apply to adjustments of BLM livestock grazing permits. As such, TlAs are not performed in the RMP/EIS. Project Costs - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not adequately displayed what the various project types would cost. This concern has been addressed by presenting generalized project cost estimates. Refer to Appendix 1, Tables 13 and 14. B/C - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not provided detailed B/C analysis on the investments that would be required under the various alternatives and, as a result, there was insufficient information with which to adequately choose between alternatives. BLM planning is a tiered system with the most generalized land use planning performed at the RMP level. Increased detail and site specificity is considered at successive tiers in the system, activity planning and project planning. The information needed to appropriately conduct B/C analysis is usually only available at these more detailed tiers of the planning system. As such, B/C analysis is deferred to activity and project planning. Follow-Through Commenters expressed concern that BLM would not have the funds or the staff to actually follow through with the management prescriptions that have been proposed in the RMP. The composition of this RMP has been based on three primary guidelines: (1) Management prescriptions should be realistic, both in terms of accomplishing stated objectives and being reasonably achievable. (2) Management prescrip- tions should not be strictly funding dependent. That is, progress toward accomplishing management objectives should not depend upon substantial increases in base funding. (3) Management prescriptions should be derived interdisciplinarily to assure the maximum support base for their eventual implementation. Based on these guidelines, BLM feels confident that we will be able to follow through with the commitments made through the RMP. Forage Allocation Priorities Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not provided a sufficient basis for establishing forage allocation priorities which favored wildlife and wild horses over livestock. This concern was addressed by an explanation in how forage will be allocated. The forage allocation process was modified from the DRMP/DEIS so that forage will be allocated to wildlife in accordance with the agreements between BLM and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and forage will be allocated between livestock and wild horses on the basis of the results of monitoring and evaluation procedures. Land Tenure Adjustment Commenters expressed concern that BLM should not reduce the private lands tax base in Harney County through any land tenure adjustments authorized under the RMP. This concern has been addressed by clarifying the intent of the RMP as to land tenure adjustment. Most commenters felt that the DRMPlDEIS heavily emphasized acquisition of private land through direct purchase. Although direct purchase remains a limited option in the Proposed Plan the management actions have been modified and responses to the commenters developed which provide more emphasis and clarification of acquisition by exchange whereby no significant loss of the private land base in the county would be expected. Off-Road Vehicle Use (ORV) Commenters expressed concern that the RMP too heavily promoted open ORV use and that sensitive resource values would be threatened. 1-9 The actions addressing ORV use have been rewritten to address specific ORV use areas and the use of cross- country routes on designated and approved roads and trails. The actions also incorporate the directions established in Executive Order 11644 for the Bureau to manage this valid and accepted use on Bureau-administered lands, but also to ensure the protection of areas where ORV use would cause or is causing considerable adverse impacts on natural, cultural or historical resources. References to maximizing ORV use have been dropped from the land management proposals. Vegetation Conversions Commenters expressed a variety of concerns about Vegeta- tion Conversions. Primary among these were seedings, the use of crested wheatgrass, juniper control and fire manage- ment policy: Seedings - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had “proposed” too many acres to be seeded and that such seedings would result in declines in habitat and species diversity. This concern was addressed by revising the overall ap- proach that is being taken to seedings. First, no specific seedings are being “proposed” through the RMP. Where seedings would help in meeting overall multiple-use objec- tives in a given area, they may be considered. Second, multiple-use constraints will be applied to all seeding (and other vegetation conversion) proposals to ensure that the diversity of plant species and communities is not adversely affected and that special habitat features such as big game winter range browse are retained. Third, as with other rangeland management prescriptions, seedings will be undertaken only after substantial consultation, coordination and cooperation with affected interests. Crested Wheatgrass - Commenters expressed concern that where seedings are implemented, only native grass, forbs and browse species should be utilized and that no more crested wheatgrass should be planted. The selection of species to be seeded is dependent on the multiple-use objectives of the proposed seeding and site characteristics (rainfall, soil types, etc.). Seeding mixtures will be determined with interdisciplinary interaction and will undergo multiple-use and environmental consideration through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation process. Juniper Control - Commenters expressed concern that in some sections of the RA juniper encroachment has become a serious resource problem. Concern was expressed that BLM fire management policy has contributed to the juniper encroachment problem through suppression of wildfires and that a more extensive use of prescribed burning should be proposed. This concern has been addressed through the identification of 462,080 acres for conditional fire use and 1 ,184,230 acres (96 percent of the RA) identified for prescribed fire use as a management tool to assist in the meeting of resource objectives. Fire Management - Commenters expressed concern that not enough acreage was proposed by BLM for conditional fire suppression and that more acreage should be proposed for prescribed fire. An associated concern was that the 3,000 acres per year limitation on prescribed fire should be relaxed (that is, more acres per year should be allowed). The concern relating to the desire to see more acreage identified under conditional suppression was reevaluated by the ID team. Due to the values at risk involved, including life, property and fire-sensitive resource values, the acreage identified was not changed. Concerns relating to prescribed fire were also reevaluated. Additional areas for possible prescribed fire use were identified; however, acreage burned per year limitations are based on Oregon’s Smoke Management Plan and air quality constraints and, therefore, cannot be increased. Wild Horses and Burros Commenters presented a variety of concerns relative to Wild Horses and Burros. Primary among these were interactions between wild horses and riparian management, designation of a Kiger Horse ACEC, and Burro Management: Wild Horses and Riparian Management - Commenters expressed concern that riparian management objectives would be impaired in wild horse herd management areas if horses could not be excluded from seasonlong use of riparian areas. Yet to exclude them from such areas appeared to conflict with the goal of maintaining the ‘I.... wild and free-roaming nature.....” of the wild horses. This concern has been addressed in the overall objectives of the RMP, which direct all management to be based on multiple-use and sustained yield. The Wild and Free- Roaming Horse and Burro Act also requires that a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships exist in each Herd Management Area (HMA). Allotment evaluations will address specific objectives and management actions in each HMA, including objectives and actions for riparian areas. To meet the overall objectives of each area may require that horses be excluded from some portions of riparian areas. Kiger ACEC - Commenters expressed concern that the establishment of an ACEC for the Kiger horses would result in an unacceptable impact on existing long-term ranching operations within the immediate area of the ACEC. This concern has been addressed through the response to comments section. Here it is explained that there is no proposed increase in herd area size, horse herd numbers or increases in forage allocated to wild horses. Impacts to ranching operations would be minimal at most. Such impacts may be increased traffic and visitation of the area. No significant changes in the manner in which the Kiger and Riddle Mountain HMAs are proposed. Burros - Commenters expressed concern that no active management of the burro herd, a portion of the overall Warm Springs HMA, was being proposed. This program was reevaluated during the response to comments process and the direction of burro management was changed as such. Burros will be actively managed in the Warm Springs HMA to reflect their unique presence in the Three Rivers RA. l-10 Biological Diversity In recent years, biological diversity has emerged as an issue of considerable interest to the multiple-use management of public lands. While a commonly agreed upon definition of “biological diversity” has not yet been developed, it is generally acknowledged that such diversity occurs on at least three levels: - the diversity of genetic characteristics within a species: -the diversity of species within a community; and, - the diversity of communities within an ecosystem. Within this context, maintenance of biological diversity under the concepts of multiple-use management requires mainte- nance of viable populations including appropriate genetic variability for individual species as well as the maintenance of communities and ecosystems with their full range of functions. The depletion and fragmentation of ecosystems and their components are major concerns. So too, are the recovery of endangered species and degraded habitats, and the inventory and monitoring of biological resources. Certain aspects of the interest in biological diversity are addressed by existing and potential “preserves” such as parks, refuges, wilderness areas and other similar protected areas. However, such areas are considered to be insufficient to fully encompass the issue because of their limited size and distribution. In addition, it is not reasonable to expect to be able to fully address the issue by simply creating addi- tional “preserves”. As such, public lands managed under multiple-use must provide the continuity between these protected areas for biological diversity. Recognizing this, BLM has begun to incorporate biological diversity into its land use planning as one of the many multiple-uses for which the Bureau manages. It is believed that public lands managed by BLM can best continue to produce a full array of goods and services from lands that sustain biologically diverse ecosystems. A considerable body of law and regulation exists which addresses various aspects of biological diversity. However, no federal legislation has been passed into law which provides a single comprehensive base for the management of biological diversity. Important acts which guide BLM in the maintenance of diversity include FLPMA (1976), the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (1973), the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, as amended (1978), the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (1971) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) the Wilderness Act (1964) NEPA (1969), and the many acts relating to various species of wildlife. Within such existing guidance, integration of the overall concepts associated with the maintenance of biological diversity into the Three Rivers RMP has resulted in many management objectives, corresponding management actions, use and management constraints, and standard operating procedures which have been designed to restore, maintain or enhance various elements of biological diversity within the Planning Area. Planning Criteria Planning criteria are utilized to guide the planning process. They are derived from law, regulation and policy. BLM has utilized three sets of planning criteria for the Three Rivers RMP: 1) FLPMA criteria, 2) Identification of Conflicts and Opportunities, and 3) Alternative Formulation Criteria. Planning Criteria from FLPMA of 1976 Section 202(c) of the FLPMA provides that, in the develop- ment and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of the Interior shall: 1. Use and observe the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield; 2. Use an interdisciplinary approach to integrate consider- ation of physical, biological, economic and other sci- ences; 3. 4. Give priority to the designation of ACECs ; Rely on the inventory of public lands, their resources and other values; 5. 6. Consider present and potential uses of the public lands; Consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means and sites for realiza- tion of those values; 7. Weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; 8. Provide for compliance with applicable pollution laws; 9. To the extent possible, coordinate land use inventory, planning, and management of public lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal agencies and State and local governments. Section 302(b) of FLPMA requires the Secretary to manage the public lands so as to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands. Planning Criteria Used in the Identifi-cation of Conflicts/Opportunities Conflicts - Management practices will be identified as management conflicts if any of the following conditions prevails: 1. Management of one resource significantly constrains or diminishes the use of another resource; 2. Agency guidance requires that land use allocations which are not currently in effect be made through the plan; 3. Existing land use allocations conflict with current agency resource management policies or guidance; 4. Documented public controversy exists regarding the management of a resource. Opportunities - Management practices will be identified as management opportunities if either of the following condi- tions prevails: 1. Management conflicts identified through the above criteria can be resolved in alternative ways with readily available management practices; l-11 2. Appreciable public demand exists for resource uses or conditions sustainable in the RA, but is currently under- represented. Management Objectives Management objectives for the various resources must: 1. Be measurable/quantifiable in terms of location, area involved and timeframe; 2. Be reasonably achievable within an appropriate timeframe, normal budgetary limitations and with existing technology; 3. Be purposeful in terms of resolving a significant conflict, realizing an identified opportunity, or maintaining a currently desirable condition; 4. Provide relatively clear and complete program guidance; 5. Be reasonably independent of other management objectives. Planning Criteria for AlternativeFormulation Each alternative formulated and assessed in the DRMP/ DEIS shall: 1. Directly assess the degree of accomplishment of the identified management objectives; 2. Be in accordance with the discretionary limits established through applicable laws, regulations and agency policies; 3. Provide for reasonable, feasible and practical guidance for management of public lands and resources through a full range of options; 4. Provide a complete land use plan. At least one alternative among those assessed in the DRMPI DEIS will provide for each of the following: 1. Continuation of present management practices; 2. Emphasizing the use, production or extraction of renew- able and nonrenewable resources (although not neces- sarily in the same alternative); 3. Emphasizing the protection and enhancement of natural systems and sensitive resources; 4. Emphasizing a balancing of production and extraction interests with protection and enhancement interests. 1-12 Chapter 2 The Proposed Plan Introduction There have been a number of substantial changes that have been made to the proposed land use decision format that was presented in the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS). Much of this has been done in response to comments that were received on the DRMP/DEIS. Theplanning team has composed the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS) in such a way that the reader will be able to readilytrack the Management Objectives, Alloca- tions, Management Actions, Procedures to Implement and Monitoring Needs. Every “decision” proposed through the planning process is actually a string of components. Primary among these components are Objectives, Allocations and Management Actions. Associated with the decision compo- nents are support components. Primary among these are the Rationale, Geographic Reference, Decision Class, Support and Constraint, Prcceduresto Implement and Monitoring Needs. The following material defines and expands upon these various components. Management Objectives - The management objective is an expression of what we have as the desired end result of our management effcrts. In expressing an objective, we have attempted to describe it so that 1) the expected results are clearly stated, 2) the objective is specific, 3) the objective is measurable, and 4) the objective is realistic. The measurability of the objective is usually expressed in terms of physical units (acres, tons, AUMs, etc.) and in terms of quality classes (satisfactory, good, fair, late seral, etc.). Where timeframes apply, they have been incorporated. Rationale - The rationale is an expression of the primary reasoning behind why it is important to pursue the stated objective. The rationale is usually expressed in terms of law, regulation, policy, custom, etc.; whatever it is that answers the question, “Why do we want to achieve this objective?” Allocations - For every “decision string” there is usually an allocation. Allocations should be one of threetypes: 1) land use allocations, 2) resource allocations, and 3) administrative allo- cations. Land use allocations are expressed in terms of area (acres, miles, etc.). Theydefine: allowableuses/activities, restricted uses/activities, prohibited uses/activities. Resource allocations are expressed in terms of “resource units” such as AUMs, MMBF, user days, tons, etc. Administrative allocations are commitments of the Bureau to perform a procedure or process when a given set of conditions or a specified timeframe is met. Administrative allocations are expressed in terms of the conditions or timeframes thalwould invoke them and the procedures that would be applied. Each allocation (except administrative allocations) usually be- gins with an expression such as, “Allocate.....or Designate.... .‘I Each allocation is associated with a specific objective and is identifiedbyauniquealpha-numericreferencenumbersuchas WL2-2.This identiiiesthe allocation asthe second action under the second objective in the wildlife program. Management Action - Management actions are measures that are to be undedaken in orderto attain or achieve the stated objective. There are two primary elements to management actions. Action to be taken is a clear statement of what the manage- ment action is. It is framed in appropriate physical units, quality index classes, and timeframes and is solidly linked to its management objective. Where a management action is constrained by specific mitigations or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP S), these are referenced as part of the management action. Geographic Reference is used where amanagement action or an allocation applies to a specific geographic area. The most common means of identifying such areas is the use of allotment numbers. Decision Class designations are utilized to characterize decision strings in one of three classes. Class 1 decisions are BLM initiated and are those plan decisions that require immediate action. Class 2 decisions are BLM initiated and are those plan decisions that have been identified for implementation, but that do not require immediate action. Class 3 decisions are invoked externally and are those decisions that require action only when an activity is initiated externally. Support and Constraint reflect the interactions between each proposed decision and all other proposed decisions in the Proposed Plan. “Supported By” for a given proposed decision indicates that its implementation would be sup- potted by other proposed decisions as indicated. Similarly, “Constrained By” indicates which other decisions would constrain the implementation of a given decision. Each management action is associated with a specific man- agement objective and is identified by a unique alpha-numeric reference number such asGM 1.5. This identifiesthe allocation as the fifth action under the first objective in the Grazing Management program. Procedures To Implement - The Procedures to Implement section is a support function. This section is used to identify the major processes, steps, etc., needed to put a specific manage- ment action into effect. There are three primary aspects to the Procedures to Implement. Additional planning/environmental assessment needed iden- tifies whether activity planning is needed to put the “deci- sion” into effect. This section also notes if site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation would be required priorto on-the-ground implementation of the management action. “Manualized” procedures notes where implementation of a management action is governed by specific procedures defined in the manual or an approved handbook, etc., and cites the manual/handbook reference where such proce- dures can be located. “CCC” requirements identifies consultation, coordination, cooperation requirements associated with the allocation or management action. Monitoring Needs - There are three aspects to monitoring. The first is monitoring whether or not the RMP is being imple- mented. The second is monitoring the resources to determine whether or not the identified management objectives are being accomplished. The third aspect is a monitoring of the overall RMP to determine whether or not the identified management 2-2 objectives and management actions are still appropriate or if the RMP needs to be amended. The PRMP/FEIS addresses itself to the first two aspects -tracking the implementation of the plan and monitoring the effects of the plan on the resources. Overall evaluations of an RMP, usually conducted on a 5-year timeframe, are directed through Bureau Manual procedures and are not detailed here. Tracking of the RMP will be accomplished primarily through the regular publication of planning updates which will detail progress being made in both implementing actions and in accomplishmentof objectives. Alsospecifictracking mecha- nisms such as Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) Up- dates will be utilized as required for selected programs. Monitoring Needs are usually program and decision spe- cific. In general the reader will be able to see the type of monitoring technique or procedure that would be applied. Where appropriate, specific references are cited for moni- toring guidance. The normal frequency or intervals under which the resource monitoring technique(s) will be applied (e.g., annually, monthly, at least three times in any given 5 year period, etc.) are also identified for most decisions. Such actions are dependent upon funding and staffing levels in any given year and are, therefore, provided only as general indicators. ProgramPackages-ThePRMP/FEIShasbeencomposedon a program-by-program basis. Individual program packages may be located as follows: AQ WQ SM F %B :ss WL AQ FM R ACEC VRM CR EM II: BD Program Page Air Quality 2-3 Water Quality 2-4 Soils 2-15 Forestry and Woodlands 2-21 Grazing Management 2-33 Wild Horses and Burros 2-43 Vegetation 2-51 Special Status Species 2-56 Wildlife Habitat 2-66 Aquatic Habitat 2-96 Fire Management 2-l 01 Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers 2-l 07 ACECs 2-l 37 Visual Resources 2-l 48 Cultural Resources 2-l 52 Energy and Minerals 2-l 56 Lands and Realty 2-l 77 Hazardous Materials 2-199 Biodiversity 2-200 Air Quality Objective and Rationale AQ 1: Prevent significant deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the RA. Rationale: The BLM, as well as the Burns District, must meet or exceed air quality standards in accordance with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Federal Clean Air Act. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AQ 1 .l : Limit prescribed burning in sagebrush-grass areas to less than 3,000 acres (or equivalent of 24,000 tons of fuels) per year. Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement 1. Estimate fuel loading on each burn site prior to completion of plan. 2. Ensure burn plans are accurate with acreage sizes and actual tons per acre. 3. Ensure through planning process that no more than allow- able acreage is planned per year. SuppottedBy:WQl.ll, F1.8,V1.1,AH1.11,BD1.1. 4. Environmental Assessment (EA). Monitoring Needs: - Review of burn plan, pre- and post-burn calculations of acreage and tonnage on site. - Annual Work Plan (AWP) identification. - Maintain accurate records of both acreage and tonnage burned to date. 2-3 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AQ 1.2: Limit prescribed burning in forested areas to less than 200 acres (orthe equivalent of 6,000 to 7,000 tons of fuels) per year. Procedures to Implement: 1. Estimate fuel loading on each burn site prior to completion of burn plan. Geographic Reference: Three Rivers FIA. Decision Class: 2 2. Ensure accuracy as to burn size and actual tons per acre. 3. Ensure through planning process that no more than allow- able acreage is planned per year. SupportedBy:WQ1.11,F1.8,V1.1,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.10, WL7.12, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. Monitoring Needs: - Review burn plans, pre- and post-burn calculations of acre- age. - Identify actual acres burned per site. - Identify through AWP process. - Maintain accurate records of both acreage and tonnage burned to date. AQ 1.3: Mitigate projects which have the potential to have a significant negative impact on air quality prior to approval of such projects. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1 .l 1, SM 1 .I, V 1 .l, WL 1.3, WL 2.2, WL 7.10, WL 7.12, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Assesspotentialimpactstoairqualityfrom proposed projects through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. 2. Develop (a) effective and (b) cost-efficient mitigation(s). 3. Apply and enforce mitigations as a condition of approval. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic review of NEPA documentation. - Field review of compliance with mitigating measures. Water Quality Objective and Rationale WQ 1: Improve surface water quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality requirements for all beneficial uses consistent with DEQ Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Plan, where BLM-authorized actions are having a negative effect on water quality (see Table 2.1). Rationale: The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan states that the Bureau will protect habitat of all sensitive and candidate species to maintain or improve population levels. DEQ has identified water quality requirements for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters stimulating a joint BLMlDEQ Memorandum oi Agreement (MOA) and Action Plan of April 1990, to implement these standards on public lands. BLM Oregon/Washington Riparian Enhancement Plan requires that the Bureau improve water quality on public lands to good or better condition by 1997. Allocation/Management Action WQ 1 -1: On a case-by-case basis and after adequate public involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting surface water quality and not needed for administration or fire protec- tion on public lands. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1 Develop necessary NEPA documentation on proposed clo- sures 2. Coordination with pertinent local, State and Federal agen- cies. Decision Class: 2 3. Public notification through EA process. SupportedBy:SMl.l,SM2.2,SSS3.1,AHi.l, R2.1,R2.14, BD1.5. Constrained By: R 2.1. Monitoring Needs: Water quality studies on select streams, 1 O-l 2 times/year. 2-4 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs - Macroinvertebrate analysis will coincide with water quality studies, two-three times/year. - Photo-trend, annually on select streams. Streams will be prioritized based on allotment category, special management areas, and concerns for sensitive species or their habitat. Streams will be studied for 1 year with new streams selected annually. WQ 1.2: All timber harvest must meet or exceed Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) standards and BLM Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Appendix 1, Table 1 for General Best Forest Management Practices). Additionaily, any commercial timber harvest must meet guidelines for Summary of Recom- mended Practices for Stream Protection (see Appendix 1, Table 2), while retaining woody vegetation in a strip along each side of all perennial streams, and all other stream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows which can signifi- cantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Slope of Land Adjacent to Source Width of Buffer Strip On Each Bank O-40 percent 40-50 percent 50-60 percent 60-70 percent Decision Class: 2 lOOft. 125ft. 145ft. 165ft. Supported By: WQ 1.9, F 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 6.4, WL 7.20, AH 1.6, AH 1.7, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM BMPs for watershed protection. 2. Timber sale review. 3. Develop NEPA documentation. 4. Coordination with affected interests, State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor compliance with OFPA during and after timber cut. - Where applicable, monitor impacts on water quality - 1 O-12 times/year. WQ 1.3: Modify existing BMPs or develop new BMPs, as needed, consistent with BLM/DEQ MOA and Action Plan of April 1990. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. 2. Coordinateon new BMP development with State and Wash- ington Office as required. Supported By: GM 1 .l, SSS 3.1, R 2.10, BD 1.5. 3. Compliance with State and Federal laws required under FLPMA, Section 202 (c) 8 and 9. Monitoring Needs: - Implement monitoring of water quality on select streams to identify effectiveness of management actions and compli- ance with DEQ Nonpoint Source Management Plan. 2-5 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WQ 1.4: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3, with poor water quality, related to BLM- administered riparian area conditions. Once riparian areas improve to fair condition, or after 5 years, implement grazing systems on I and M category allotments that allow a maximum of 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and 50 percent on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or are systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Procedures to Implement: 1. Allotment evaluations. 2. Use supervision and adjustment. 3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 4. Develop NEPA documentation. 5. Review of pasture design. 6. Construct protective facilities where appropriate. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 2.1, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, WL6.1, WL7.5, WL7.17, AH 1.2, R2.10, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. - Photo trend on riparian - annually in select areas. - Use utilization monitoring - continually when used. - Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three times/year. - Water quality sampling on select streams 1 O-12 times/year. WQ 1.5: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1 ,Table5 infairorgoodcondition, that allow nomore than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian species and no more than 50 percent total utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation annually; or are systems which are de- signed to promote speedy riparian recovery and maintenance of good conditions (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SM 1 .l, SM 2.1, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, WHB 1.3, V 1.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1,WL6.2,WL7.5,WL7.18,AH 1.3, R2.10, R2.12, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Allotment evaluations. 2. Use supervision and adjustment. 3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 4. Develop NEPA documentation where applicable. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend on riparian - annually in select areas. - Use utilization - annually. - Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three samples/year. - Water quality sampling on select streams - lo-12 times/ year. WQ 1.6: Inventory stream segments listed on Appendix 1, Table 7 and determine management actions required to meet the water quality and riparian objective. Procedures to Implement: 1. Fund through the AWP process. 2. Collect and compile data. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. Decision Class: 2 3. Develop grazing systems as needed during the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) and allotment evaluation process. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: SM 2.1, SSS 2.1, SSS 4.1, WL 6.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.19, AH 1.4, BD 1.3. - Where applicable monitor via: Photo-trend studies annually on select streams. Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams, two-three samples/year. Water quality sampling on select streams, 1 O-l 2 samples/year. 2-6 Allocation/Management Action WQ 1.7: Maintain existing livestock exclosures on approxi- mately 4 miles of streams (Wickiup Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Paul Creek, Silver Creek and Rough Creek), seven reservoirs and District wetland developments (Willow, State, Twin Springs, Stinkingwater Ponds No. 1 and No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoirs, Seiloff Dikes and Lake-on-the-Trail). Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SM2.1,GM 1.4,V1.2,V 1.3, SSS2.1, SSS2.4, SSS3.1, WL4.1,WL5.1, WL5.2, WL7.16,AH 1.5, R2.10, LR 1 .l, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Maintainexisting statusthrough allotmentevaluation, AMPS and Habitat Management Plans (HMPs). 2. Coordinate with permittees and other interested parties. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect exclosure fences - annually. - Repair as needed. - Photo trend studies - annually on select streams. - Water quality sampling on select streams - lo-12 times/ year. WQ 1.8: Exclude livestock from the following reservoirs, lakes, springs and ponds except where grazing livestock will benefit waterfowlorshorebird habitatorotherwiIdlifevalues:Ryegrass Spring, Willow Reservoir, State Reservoir, Greenspot Reser- voir, Twin Springs Reservoir, Stinkingwater Ponds No. 1 and No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoir, Seiloff Dikes, Lake-on-the-Trail, Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir and Silver Lake Pond. Geographic Reference: As above. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GM1.4,V1.2,V1.3,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL4.1, WL5.1,WL5.2,WL7.14,WL6.16,AH2.2,R2.10,BD1.2,BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Ensure alternate adequate sources of water for livestock prior to exclusion. 2. BLM BMPs and water quality/riparian objectives. 3. FLPMA management guidelines - Section 102(a)7 and 8. 4. Coordinate with affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect exclosures - annually. - Repair enclosures as needed. - Photo trend studies on predetermined sites to identify im- pacts of management actions - annually. WQ 1.9: Ensure that all newly constructed permanent roads on BLM-administered lands meet General Best Forest Manage- ment Practices presented in Appendix 1, Table 1. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.2,SM2.2,F1.2,SSS3.1,WL6.6,AH1.7, R2.10, BD 1.5. WQ 1.10: Actively suppress wildfire and rehabilitate burned portions within 1 mile of perennial water, when consistent with BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Policy and within available funding. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SM1.2,Vl.l,WLl.l,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.9, 7.10, AH 1.10, FM 1.1, FM2.1, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM/DEQ MOA and Action Plan of April 1990 for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters. 2. BLM BMPs and Manual 9113. 3. BLM water quality and riparian goals by 1997. 4. Coordination with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor contractor compliance. Procedures to Implement: 1. NEPA documentation - case-by-case where required. 2. BLM BMPs. 3. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. 4. Develop and implement District Fire Suppression and Fire Rehabilitation Plan. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor rehabilitation plan with water quality monitoring on those streams being impacted - 1 O-l 2 times/year. - Photo trend - annually in select areas. 2-7 -[Al- OREGON Water Quality Segments Water Quality Areas A-Silver Cr., Rough Cr., Nicoll Cr., Sawmill Cr., Wickiup Cr., Claw Cr., Dairy Cr., and Tributaries B-Silvies River, Poison Cr., Myrtle Cr., Hay Cr., Yellowjacket Cr., Emigrant Cr., and Tributaries C-Prater Cr., Rattlesnake Cr., C OW Cr., Pine Cr., and Tributaries D-Malheur River, Cottonwood Cr., Stinkingwater Cr., and Tributaries E-S. Fk. Malheur R., Coleman Cr., Stinkingwater Cr., Crane Cr., Alder Cr., and Tributaries F-Riddle Cr., Deep Cr., Smyth Cr., and Tributaries 0 10 MILES J 3% N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP WQ-1 WATER QUALITY 2-9 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WQ 1.11: Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial water, to less than 20 percent of the land area in that particular subbasin, in any one year. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 1. Develop NEPA documentation on prescribed burns. 2. Implement conditional suppression techniques. 3. Develop a Fire Rehabilitation Plan on wildfires as needed. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:SM1.2,V1.1,SSS3.1,AH1.11,R2.10,BD1.1, BD 1.5. - To be developed on a case-by-case basis. - Photo trend - annually in select areas. WQ 1.12: Implement streambank stabilization projects on streams with less than 90 percent stable streambanks, espe- ciallywhere healing hasnotoccurredwithin5yearsof achange in the grazing system or livestock removal. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WHB1.3,SSS2.1,SSS2.6,AH1.9,R2.10,BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop necessary NEPA documentation on proposed projects. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. 3. Project identification and funding through AWP. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend on unstable banks annually after change in grazing system or livestock removal. - Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- tem - 1 O-l 2 times/year. WQ 2: Protect or enhance groundwater quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as established by DEQ. Rationale: The Oregon Legislature passed the Groundwater Protection Act of 1989 which requires State agencies to coordinate groundwater protection conservation and restoration practices. DEQ has adopted Statewide Groundwater Quality Protection Rules that provide the strategy for dealing with groundwater contamination. The BLM will coordinate and cooperate fully with DEQ implementation of these procedures. WQ 2.1: Cooperate with appropriate State agencies in devel- opment and implementation of groundwater monitoring and protection processes. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Assist DEQwith implementation of the Groundwater Protec- tion Act of 1989. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:WQ1.3,SM2.2,V1.3,WL5.2,WL5.3,WL7.17, EM 2.1, HM 1 .l, HM 1.2. - To be developed in conjunction with DEQ. 2-l 0 Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area Stream Name Allotment WQ WQ AH AH Cat. Miles Condition Trend Condition Trend Comments Devine Creek Poison Creek Silvies River Landing Creek Hay Creek Silver Creek Claw Creek Wickiup Creek Dry Lake Upper Valley Upper Valley Claw Creek Packsaddle Mineral Canyon Packsaddle Dairy Creek Claw Creek Sawmill Creek Upper Valley Rough Creek Claw Creek Nicoll Creek Dry Lake Skull Creek Yellow Jacket Cr. Beaver Dam Cr. Emigrant Creek Spring Creek v Varien Creek 2 Alder Creek Unallotted Lone Pine Silvies Silvies River Silvies Meadow Silvies Canyon Silvies Meadow East Silvies Landing Creek Hay Creek Packsaddle Claw Creek Hotchkiss Skull Creek Hay Creek Sawtooth (MNF) Emigrant Creek Hay Creek Sawtooth(MNR) Spring Creek Varien Canyon Alder Creek N/A 1 M Ifi M M M I I I I M M I I I 1 I I C M Id C IA M C I 3.00 Fair 0.25 Poor 0.20 Poor 1.50 Poor 0.50 Poor 2.25 Poor 0.25 Poor 0.75 Poor 3.00 Poor 2.00 Poor 1.10 Poor 2.00 Poor 0.45 Poor 1.50 Poor 1.10 Poor 0.25 Poor 2.30 Poor 0.25 Poor 1 .oo Fair 0.60 Poor 1.20 Poor 0.75 Poor 0.25 Poor 0.75 Poor 0.75 Poor 0.50 Fair 3.50 Poor 0.40 Poor 0.30 Fair 0.50 Fair 1 .oo ? 0.20 ? 0.50 ? 0.40 ? 4.80 Poor Static Declining Static Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Static Declining Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Static Improving Static Declining Declining Static Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining ? ? ? ? Declining Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Good ? ? ? ? Poor Static Declining Static Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Declining Static Declining Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Improving Static Declining Declining Static Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining ? ? ? ? Declining Runoff From Highway 395 Temp, Sil?, Livestock Upstream Impacts Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing Temp, Silt, Logging Silt, Large Bedload, Upstream Impacts Forest Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Excluded 1987 Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest Temp, Silt, Grazing System Working Silt, Temp, Past Logging Silt, Livestock, Upstream Impacts Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987 Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987 Silt, Temp, Watershed Impacts from Logging and Grazing Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest Silt, Upstream Impacts from Cattle and Logging Temp, Silt, Livestock Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) Stream Name Allotment WQ WQ AH AH Cat. Miles Condition Trend Condition Trend Comments Bluebucket Creek Coleman Creek Cottonwood Creek Lee Creek M.F. Malheur R. Paul Creek Deep Creek S.F. Malheur R. Rattlesnake Creek Stinkingwater Cr. Smyth Creek Warm Springs Cr. Coyote Creek Coffeepot Creek Newell Creek Little Pine Creek Warm Springs Creek. . - Mule Creek Moff et Table Alder Creek Coleman Creek Cottonwood Creek Moffet Table River Moffet Table Riddle Mountain Deep Creek Venator Stockade Camp Harney Dawson Butte Stinkingwater Mountain Smyth Creek Buck Mountain Mountain Texaco Basin Riddle Mountain Riddle Coyote Camp Harney Lamb Ranch FFR Pine Creek Mill Gulch Mule Creek I I I 1 M I I I M I C M M I I I I I I I I M I M I I M M I M I i.60 Poor 1.30 Poor 3.35 Poor 2.35 Fair 0.25 Poor 0.50 Poor 1.35 Poor 0.30 Poor 0.80 Poor 2.30 Fair 0.60 Fair 0.30 Poor 1.30 Poor 1.25 Poor 1.35 Poor 1 .oo Poor 1.70 Fair 0.75 Poor 0.50 Poor 1.25 Poor 0.50 Poor 1 .oo Fair 0.60 Fair 2.30 Poor 1.50 Poor 0.40 Fair 3.00 Poor 3.00 Poor 1 .oo Poor 2.00 Poor 2.20 Poor 0.75 Fair 3.50 Poor 3.50 Poor 1.25 Poor 2.00 Poor Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining Declining Improving Static Improving Declining Static Static Static Static Improving Improving Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Peclining tatic E eclining Declining Declining Improving Static Declining Declining Declining Declining Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Pwr Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good ? ? Poor Poor Poor Fair Static Declining Declining Declining Declining Improving Declining Declining Improving Declining Improving Declining Static Static Static Improving Improving Improving Improving Declining Declining Declining Static Declining Declining Static ? ? Declining Improving Improving Static Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Logging Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Excluded Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, TDS, Irrigation, Livestock Grazing System Working Drains Essentially Roadless Area Temp, Silt, Excluded in 1981 Temp, Silt, Livestock High in Drainage, Poor Cattle Access Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock (Forest), Grazing System Working Temp, Silt, Livestock (Forest), Grazing System Working Temp, Silt, Livestock (Private), System Working When Followed Temp, Silt, Livestock (Private), System Working When Followed Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Silt, Livestock (Upstream Watershed) Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Partial Livestock Exclusion High in Drainage; Poor Cattle Access Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Riparian Pasture 1988 Temp, Silt, Livestock, Upstream Impacts from Forest Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) Stream Name Allotment WQ WQ AH AH Cat. Miles Condition Trend Condition Trend Comments Crane Creek Buzzard Creek Flat Creek Mountain Creek Poison Creek East Creek Dog Creek Mill Creek Cow Creek Little Muddy Cr. Mahon Creek Swamp Creek Riddle Creek Prather Creek Alder Creek W. Warm Springs Silvies Silvies Silvies Poison Creek East Cr-Pine Hill Silvies Camp Harney Cow Creek Little Muddy Cr. Mahon Creek Kiger Smyth Creek Unallotted Riddle Mountain Happy Valley Riddle Coyote Hamilton Ind. Dry Lake Prather Creek Devine I 5.25 I 0.50 1.50 1 0.40 0.50 M 0.25 C 0.25 id 0.75 0.75 M 2.50 I 0.50 M 1.50 M 1.50 I 0.50 I 1.50 0.50 I 2.00 1.20 I 3.30 I 2.50 i 0.75 1.50 M 4.00 Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Poor Poor ? ? ? ? ? Declining Static Declining Static Static Static Static Declining ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Static Declining ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fair Fair ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Good Fair Fair ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Static Static ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Static Declining Static ? ? ? ? Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural Temp, Silt, Livestock Rip. pasture 1988 Notes: Criteria for Evaluating Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Water quality and aquatic habitat data were routinely collected from stations established to identify current conditions, impacts of present management and improvements associated with changes in management on water quality and aquatic habitat condition. All streams were surveyed by experienced biologists using standard physical and biological stream survey methodology. Water quality data, collected by Bureau biologists, were evaluated in conjunction with DEQ information on nonpoint-source assessment of waters within the Three Rivers RA. Standardsforcollection and evaluation of water quality data weredeveloped by Federal action underthe Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. Datawere gathered and evaluated on water chemistry, temperature, turbidity and discharge. Water quality condition ratings were based on thresholds established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEQ for beneficial uses of waters. Each stream was evaluated against its own potential. The Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution, published by DEQ in 1988, ranked stream condition as severe, moderate or with no problem. For consistency with other BLM data, the Three Rivers planning team converted DEQ rankings into poor, fair, good or excellent condition, respectively, when using these data in the PRMP/FEIS. Aquatic habitat data were collected from predetermined monitoring stations where management actions to protect or enhance aquatic resources were in place or under consideration. Parameters examined included percent stream shaded; vegetation composition, vigor and abundance; intensity of livestock use within the riparian zone; and extent of grazing use on riparian species. Additional data were collected on streambank stability, extent of gullying, quality and quantity of spawning gravel, pool quality, pool-riffle ratios, v instream cover, and aquatic invertebrate and fish population composition, distribution and abundance. G Table 2.1. Surface Water and Acuatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) A good stream reach requires more than 65 percent shading from overstory woody and herbaceous species, and water quality condition exceeding DEQ thresholds for beneficial uses of water. Generally, characteristics used in rating aquatic habitat condition were adapted from Bowen, et al., 1979 and Binns, 1982. They are: Excellent Condition Shading streambank cover exceeding 80 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian cover, in that location, both understory and woody shade providing species (if appropriate) with a mixture of age classes, more than 90 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures rarely exceeding 70 “F during midday during summer with diurnal fluctuations of less than 18 “F, pH of 6.5 to 9.0, more than 75 percent of total riffle-rubble area free of siltation less than .03 inch in size, instream cover available over at least 50 percent of the total stream area (rocks, turbulent water in pools or riffles, debris, tree roots, overhanging banks or aquatic vegetation), and overhanging vegetation no more than 2 feet above the water surface over more than 50 percent of the streambanks. Good Condition Shading streambank cover of 65 to 80 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, both understory species and wood shading species reduced from Excellent Condition habitat, 80 to 90 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures rarely exceeding 74 “F during midday during summer with diurnal fluctuations of 18 to 24 OF, pH of 6.5 to 9.0, 65 percent of total riffle-rubble area free of siltation less than 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over 40 to 50 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over 40 to 50 percent of the streambanks. Fair Condition Shading streambankcover of 40 to 65 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, with plant species noticeably reduced in diversity, 50 to 80 percent of streambanks stable, watertemperatures commonly exceed 74 OF during midday during summer but rarely exceed 78 “F with diurnal fluctuations of 24to 28 “F, pH of 6.0 to 9.0, 50 to 65 percent of total riffle-rubble areafree of siltation lessthan 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over25 to 40 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over 25 to 40 percent of the streambanks. Poor Condition Shading streambank cover less than 40 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, with typical riparian plant species greatly reduced or missing, less than 50 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures often exceed 78 “F with diurnal fluctuation of 30 to 35 “F, pH of 4.5 to 10.0, less than 50 percent of total riffle-rubble areafreefrom siltation less than 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over lessthan 25 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over lessthan 25 percent of the streambanks. Soil Management Objective and Rationale SM 1: Prevent deterioration of soil resources by ensuring that BLM-administered lands are in stable or upward observed apparent trend categories as outlined in “Rangeland Monitoring in Oregon and Washington” BLM Handbook H1734-2. Rationale: Protection of soil resources ensures continued biologic productivity and prevention of Federal land degradation. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SM 1 -1: Modify surface management practices (livestockgraz- ing, off-road vehicle use, forest management, etc.) on areas with a downward-observed apparent trend or specific soil problems such as active headcutting or gullying (Appendix 1, Table 9 for areas of currently known specific soil problems). Procedures to Implement: Decision Class: 2 Suppor-tedBy:AQ1.3,WQ1.12,WQ2.1,SM2.1,F1.2,F1.3, F2.1,GM1.1,GM1.4,WHB1.3,V1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS 2.4,SSS3.1, WL4.1, WL5.1,WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.6, WL7.5,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL7.20,WL7.27,AHl.l, AH 1.2, AH 1.3,AH 1.7,AH 1.9, R2.1, R2.12, CR 1.2, LR3.1, LR5.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 1 . Inventory soils and current erosion conditions and establish watershed monitoring stations on a priority basis. 2. Incorporate soil management objectives into rangeland monitoring and evaluation procedures. 3. Adjust off-road vehicle plan to reflect soil management objectives. 4. Follow State of Oregon’s General Best Forest Management Practices as outlined in Appendix 1, Table 1. Monitoring Needs: Constrained By: R 2.2. - Soil inventory is in progress. - Observed apparent trend evaluation will combine soil and vegetation elements as outlined in “Rangeland Monitoring in Oregon and Washington.” - Specific soil problems, such as active headcutting or gully- ing will be noted, with locations, on the forms. - Photographs will be taken of specific soil problems annually to facilitate tracking condition through time. - Observed apparent trend will be done a minimum of once every 5 years on I allotments and a minimum of once very 10 years on M and C allotments. SM 1.2: Rehabilitate burned areas where erosion hazard is high and/or natural revegetation potential is low. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:WQ1.1O,WQ1.11,WQ2.1,SM2.2,WL1.3,WL 2.2, WL7.10, AH l.lO,AH 1.11. Procedures to Implement: 1. Write an EA on each fire when rehabilitation is necessary. 2. Methods to protect soil resources (seeding, contourfurrow- ing, etc.) will be designed on a site-specific basis. Monitoring Needs: - Sites should be monitored at least annually until stabilized. - Erosion problems such as rilling, headcutting and gullying will be noted with location and photographs. - Once the site has stabilized, observed apparent trend will be completed a minimum of once every 5 years on I allotments and a minimum of once very 10 years on M and C allotments. 2-l 5 OREGON I A A-AQUIC FRIGID AND CRYIC SOILS OF BASINS AND VALLEYS. B-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON FORESTED MOUNTAINS AND PLATEAUS. C-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. D-XERIC/ARIDIC MESIC SOILS ON TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS. E-XERICIARIDIC MESIC SOILS ON GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. F-XERIC/ARIDIC FRIGID SOILS ON GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. G-ARIDICIXERIC FRIGID SOILS ON TERRACES AND IN BASINS. H-ARIDIC/XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON PLATEAUS AND UPLANDS. I-LAVA FLOWS J-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS. NOTE: This general soils map is not designed to show the kind Of sOi1 0” a specific site. A site inspection is required to best evaluate specific soils and land capabilities. C O MPIL E D FROM : USDA-SCS, General Soils Map. State of Oreoon, 1966 4YN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP S-l GENERAL SOILS 2-11 ?OSION CONDITION CLASS (Soil Surface Factors) IES OREGON lzz?l Moderate Severe I Unclassified U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP S-2 Objective and Rationale SM 2: Rehabilitate areas with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human influenced) sediment delivery to fluvial systems. Rationale: Reduction of upland erosion and sediment delivery to fluvial systems can be correlated with improved water quality and aquatic habitat. Rehabilitation of localized erosion problems will improve and protect biologic productivity on uplands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SM 2.1: Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies on watershed up- lands where modification of management practices alone do not facilitate stabilization of erosion concerns. (See Table 2.2 for a list of possible methods.) Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. inventory and map areas of significant accelerated erosion. 2. Prepare an activity plan for proposed projects. 3. Watershed improvement projects will be designed on a site- specific basis. Suooorted Bv: WQ 1.4. WQ 1.5. WQ 1.6. WQ 1.7. WQ 1.12. Monitoring Needs: Ss’$2.1,&2.4,SSS’2.5,SSS2.6,AH’l.2,AH 1’.3,AH1.4, AH1.5,AH1.7,AH1.8,AH1.9,R2.12,EM2.1,LR3.1,BD1.3. - Photograph stations will be established on selected sites and retaken on a regular periodic basis to monitor rehabili- tation progress. Watershed improvements will be inspected regularly and repairs or modifications made when needed to ensure effectiveness. Once rehabilitation has been achieved, observed apparent trend will be used to monitor erosion condition. SM 2.2: Minimize erosion from roads, mines and other human activities by controlling runoff concentration and velocity. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Mitigations and stipulations in EA and approval document. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WQ 1.1, WQ 1.9, SM 1.2, WL6.6, AH 1.1, AH 1.7, AH 1.9, AH 1.10, AH 1.11, R2.1, CR 1.2, EM 2.1. Constrained By: R 2.2. - Regular inspections and maintenance of mining activities to assure compliance with stipulations. Periodic inspection of other surface disturbing activities. Table 2.2. Headcut and Gully Control Methods - Check dams - Erosion barriers in headcuts - Mulch - Straw bales - Erosion blankets - Sandbags - Rock - Establishment of vegetation in gully - Riprap - Rock -Juniper -Dispersion of runoff above headcut or gully - Contour furrows - Log contouring - Vegetation - Filling gullies and establishing vegetation 2-20 Forestry and Woodlands Program Objective and Rationale F 1: Manage the 7,722 acres of identified commercial forestland timber base for a nondeclining sustained yield. Rationale: This type of management will allow harvesting of timber products while ensuring their perpetuity within the principles of multiple-use management (FLPMA-1976). Timber stand improvement projects as well as advertised and negotiated sales of forest products will continue to contribute to local demand for forest products. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 1.1: Allocate 7,722 acres of forestland to the commercial forestland timber base (see Map F-l). Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. In effect upon approval of the RMP. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: GM 1.1. - N/A. Constrained By: WQ 1.9, LR 1 .l . F 1.2: Allocate timber harvests for a long-term 1 O-year decadal harvest of 5.40 million board feet (MMBF) subject to Oregon Forest Practices Standards (Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2. See also Table 2.3, 1 O-year Timber Sale Plan). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.9, SM 2.2, WL 6.6, AH 1.7, VRM 1.4, LR 2.6, LR 4.1. Constrained By: WQ 1.2, SM 1.1, SSS 3.1, AH 1.6, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Plan for and offer an advertised timber sale once every 2-4 years. 2. Conduct site-specific EAs prior to approval of individual harvest actions. 3. Design harvest blocks to conform to Visual Resource Man- agement (VRM) class standards. 4. Follow General Best Forest Management Practices, Appen- dix 1, Table 1. 5. Precommercial thin an average of 53 acres of commercial forestland annually. Monitoring Needs: - As prescribed through Best Forest Management Practices. - Prepare a report of progress annually. 2-21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURN DISTRICT DREGON April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP LEGEND MAP F-l I *MC Commercial Forest Base acreage EXISTING COMMERCIAL FOREST LANDSas of 1989 SCALETimber Management Units as identified in the 1985 approved John Day Resource Management Plan 75 5 MllFJS Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 1.3: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (Appendix 1, Table 2) while retaining woody vegetation in astripalong each side of all perennial streamsand allother stream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can significantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Slope of Land Adjacent to Source Width of Buffer Strip On Each Bank 0 - 40 percent lOOft. 40 - 50 percent 125ft. 50 - 60 percent 145ft. 60 - 70 percent 165ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial forestland, see Map F-l. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.3, SM 1.1, WL 6.4, WL 7.20, AH 1.6, R 2.10. Procedures to implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed to conform to these stan- dards. The design will be documentedin the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Stan- dards will be enforced through contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 1.4: In an effort to support biodiverse resource management, maintain 30 to 60-acre blocks of big game cover so that approximately 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains suitable for big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover) as defined in “Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests” (USDA-FS, Agriculture Hand- book 553.1979). Procedures to Implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to conform to these standards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- ministration. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: V 1.1, WL 1.1, WL 7.9, BD 1.1. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 1.5: Exclude forest management activities within 660 feet of raptor nests, from March 1 through August 15, depending on specific needs of the species and the site. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 7.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to conform to these standards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- ministration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 1.6: Retain nest trees and provide for perch trees within 660 feet of nest trees. Procedures to Implement: Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 7.1. 1. Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to conform to these standards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- ministration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. 2-23 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 1.7: Allocate 482 acres of commercial forestland as pon- derosa pine old growth forest management areas (see Table 2.4 and Maps F-3 through F-6). Decision Class: 1 Supported By: V 1.4, V 1.5, WL 7.21, WL 7.26, R 2.12, ACEC 1.5, BD 3.5, BD 3.8. Procedures to Implement: 1. Remove four identified old growth forest areas (see Table 2.4, Part 2) from the commercial forestland timber base acreage. Monitoring Needs: - Publish the approved ROD for this RMP. F 1.8: Develop fuel treatment plan for each timber sale in consultation and coordination with the District Fire Manage- ment Officer to: 1) Treat slash accumulations in excess of 1 O-1 2 tons per acre; and 2) Selectively treat slash accumulations of less than IO tons per acre. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: FM 1 .l, FM 2.1, FM 2.2 Constrained By: AQ 1 .l , AQ 1.2. 0 bjective and Rationale Procedures to Implement: 1. Timber sales shall be designed to conform to these stan- dards. The design will be documented in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Stan- dards will be enforced through contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - Post activity on-site reviews. F 2: Manage approximately 50,000’ acres of available productive noncommercial forestlands and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diversity, minor forest products, watershed protection and rangeland productivity. Rationale: Woodland species (primarily juniper woodlands) provide critical wildlife cover on winter ranges and minor woodlands praducts such as fuelwood, posts, poles, and ornamental foliage. However, heavy concentrations of juniper types have adverse effects on range condition, watershed condition and overall habitat diversity. Woodland management is required to ensure maintenance of beneficial woodland values while reducing the adverse effects of juniper concentrations. l Until an intensive woodland inventory is completed, this figure, derived from District vegetation records, will be used for planning purposes. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 2.1: Remove or thin selected concentrations of western juniper which adversely affect rangeland, watershed, wildlife habitat or other management objectives. Allocate the potential forwoodland product harvests for a long-term 1 O-year decadal harvest of up to approximately 3.13 MMBF of firewood, post and pole material (625 cords). Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required prior to on-the-ground implementation of juniper control activi- ties. 2. Establish woodland harvest areas within areas identified for prescribed burning. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:SM1.1,GM1.3,WHB1.3,WL7.12,FMl.1,FM 2.1. Ccnstrained By: V 1 .l , SSS 3.1, AH 1 .I 1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. - Monitoring of juniper control activities will occur for each activity in order to ensure adherence to RMP management objectives. - Annual monitoring of vegetal material (post, pole and fire- wood) permits. 2-24 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 2.2: Prohibit harvest of juniper foliage, fuelwood and posts and poles from big game winter range in the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Protect this geographic area by avoiding juniper control activity proposals. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WL 1.4, WL 2.3, WL 7.11, FM 1.1, FM 2.1. - None required. Constrained By: F 3.3, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5. Objective and Rationale F 3: Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal materials, etc., consistent with other resource objectives. Rationale: Occasionally, natural disasters (insects, disease, wildfire, etc.) may require the need for a forest management activity to dispose of or curtail the spread of the specific problem. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs F 3.1: Dispose of some heavy concentrations of standing dead material by use of sale permits. Leave some for the enhance- ment of other diverse resource values. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: FM 1 .I, FM 2.1. Constrained By: F 2.2, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Site-specific analysis or NEPA documentation would be required to determine the need for individual or commercial sale permits. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will occur for each activity in order to ensure adherence to NEPA documentation mitigations. F 3.2: Dispose of selected dead and down material by use of sale permits and free use permits. Leave most for enhance- ment of other diverse resource values. Decision Class: 2 Constrained By: SM 1 .I, F 2.2, V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, WL 1.4, WL 7.10, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventor-y/site exam. 2. Issue vegetal sale permits and/or free use permits before the threat of a disaster becomes apparent. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor all forestland conditions in order to identify the potential disaster areas. F 3.3: Dispose of live vegetal materials by use of permits for selected areas only. Decision Class: 2 Constrained By: SM 1 .I, F 2.2. Procedures to Implement: I. Inventory, site identification. 2. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required prior to the issuance of sale permits for these products. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will occur at each permit area in order to ensure adherence to NEPA documentation mitigations. 2-25 2-26 OREGON lzzl Fuelwood Harvest Prohibited Designated Fuelwood Harvest Areas 1. Squaw Creek Area 2. Mill Creek Area 3. Crow Camp Area 4. Alder Creek Area 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP F-2 WOODLANDS 2-27 T. 21 S. T. 22 S. LEGEND Proposed Dry - Mountain RNAIACEC lszzzl Proposed Old GrowthForest Stand d-N- II DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP E r -\ BLM Land ; \_,--v. -..-. ./ - -., MAP F-3 / National Forest Land “iCU\Cl P f / DRY MOUNTAIN Other Land 1 ,I R.iCl P A F-l’ OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND -1BURNS _ H H I I I DIST-__ - 1 0 1 2 Miles OREGON 2-28 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Proposed Old Growth -N- BURNS DISTRICT - Management Area II April 1991 tm Proposed Old Growth THREE RIVERS RMPForest Stand t BLM Land r-.. \i ___,-\., _,----Y MAP F-4/ EMIGRANT CREEKNational Forest Land I j R,icy P rl~ ..g‘: 2 < Other Land 1 OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND 1.:BURNS _ D,ST ~. 1 >-- OREGON 1 0 1 Mile 2-29 - 2-30 LEGEND I Proposed Old Growth -N- - Management Area Ezl Proposed Old Growth Forest Stand II r-- BLM Land -7( 1 j_- , -_.,--Y--.’ -< ‘\ National Forest Land Other Land L--- OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP MAP F-5 CRAFT POINT OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND I 0 I 1 Mile Ft.33 1/2E. R. 34 E. T. 18 S. I DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORLEGEND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT Proposed Malheur River - -N- - Bluebucket Creek Wild River I lzzl Proposed Old Growth Forest Stand 9 April 1991 I THREE RIVERS RMP i BLM Land TV.-, ! _-,--.- ~ MAP F-6 ” ” i ------. // National Forest Land OlCWiC” P L z BLUEBUCKET CREEK--- I Other Land i Rile< P A ;< ‘, J i OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND ( “T- .BURN5 0157 -- i 1 1 Mile\ \- OREGON -- - 2-31 Table 2.3. Typical lo-Year Timber Sale Plan Estimated Approximate Legal Description’ Quarter Volume No. Fiscal Year Sale Name Tract No. T. R. Sec. Sold (MMBF) Acres 1991 Pine Springs Salvage 91-4 22s 29E 5,6,7,20 23s 28E 1 23s 29E 6 1 st 1.510 388 sold 1993 South Silvies 1995 Gus’s Well 1999 Dry Mountain 2001 Negotiated 93-l 95-l 99-1 20s 32E 21s 27E 22s 26E Undetermined IO,21 3rd ,400 116 proposed 9,lO 3rd 2.124 500 proposed 22,23 3rd ,666 222 proposed 4th .700 200 proposed TOTALS: 5.400 1,426 ‘Actual sites volumes and acreages may differ based on revised inventories, timber markets. legal acces8, catastrophic events. etc. Table 2.4. part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection, Locationand Justlflcation Part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection Criteria (for Three Rivers Planning Area) 1. Stand size should generally be not less than 40 contiguous acres. 2. Stand should consist of mature and overmature trees in the overstory and well into the mature growth stage. At least 15 trees per acre should exceed 20 inches DBH. 3. Stands usually contain a multilayered canopy and trees of two or more age classes. Total crown closure should exceed 50 percent. 4. Standing dead trees (snags) and a high level of down woody material should be present. Snags should average two or more per acre. 5. Evidence of herbaceous plants composed of grasses, sedges and forbs should be present. Table 2.4. Part 2. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Locations and Sizes Name Legal Description Acres 1. Dry Mountain T. 22 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 3, 10 2. Emigrant Creek T. 20 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 31 3. Craft T. 21 S., R. 33 E., Sec. 18 4. Bluebucket T. 18 S., R. 34 E., Sec. 33,34 Total: Table 2.4. Part 3. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Justification 180 70 126 106 482 Due to this designation, forest management activities in these areas would not occur. Secondary management activities may be necessary if naturalfuelsaccumulatetodangerous levels, thusthreateningthe existenceoftheoldgrowthstand,orwherevegetation manipulation is needed to maintain stand structure and species composition. These stands are intended to provide habitat for a number of dependent wildlife species, such as the pileated woodpecker, flying squirrel, white headed woodpecker, as well as other nondependent species, both large and small. In addition, these stands are intended to provide for the enhancement of other diverse resources including water, fisheries, recreation, etc. A multilayered canopy with shaded conditions and a large number of dead snags per acre are considered optimum for old growth habitat. Not all of these designated acres are currently in a suitable old growth condition. In time, these stands will become suitable and meet the definition of old growth ponderosa pine forest as defined in Table 2.4, Part 1. 2-32 Grazing Management Program Objective and Rationale GM 1: Resolve resource conflicts and concerns and achieve management objectives as identified, for each allotment in Appendix 1, Table 9. Rationale: The BLM is instructed to manage the public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield by the FLPMA and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). Livestockgrazing is identified as a major use of the public land and is to be conducted in a manner which will meet multiple-use and sustained yield objectives. Allocation/Management Action GM 1 .l : Implement management practices to resolve conflicts and concerns and meet multiple-use objectives identified in Appendix 1, Table 9, within 5 years of approval of the plan, on 57 I category allotments and within 10 years on 53 M category allotments (see Appendix 1, Table 10 for allotment categoriza- tion). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.3, SM 1 .I, WHB 1.3, V 1 .l, V 1.2, V 1.3, SSS2.l,SSS2.2,SSS2.4,SSS4.l,FM2.l,WLl.2,WL2.1, WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.7, WL7.4, WL7.5, WL 7.6,WL7.8,WL7.15,WL7.16,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL 7.27,LR1.1,LR1.2,LR1.3,AH1.2,AH1.3,R2.12,ACEC1.1, CR 2.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 3.1. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop, modify or revise AMPS or Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMPs) which identify allotment spe- cific multiple-use management objectives and grazing sys- tems. Prioritize allotments on the basis of the following criteria: Wildlife Habitat - Considers the number of wildlife habi- tats present and potentials for improvement. RiparianMletlands - Considers the amount of riparian/ wteland habitat present, current conditiona nd manage- ment effectiveness in meeting aquatic habitat objectives. Fisheries -Considers the amount of aquatic habitat present, habitat condition, water quality, and manage- ment effectiveness in meeting aquatic habitat objectives. Recreation-Considerstheamountandtype(extensiveor intensive) recreation use(s) present and management effectiveness for meeting recreation objectives. Wilderness Study Areas - Considers presence or ab- sence of WSA and management effectiveness in meet- ing IMP objectives. Wild and Scenic Rivers-Considers presence or absence of nominated/designated river, riverclassification (Wild, Scenic, Recreational or combination) and management effectiveness in meeting objectives for classification(s). WaterQuaIityMlatersheds - Considers the degree to DEQ water quality thresholds for established beneficial uses are being met. Wild Horses and Burros - Considers the presence or absence of an active herd management area, condition of wild horse and burro habitat and management effec- tiveness for meeting wild horse and burro objectives. Listed Threatened or Endangered Species -Considers presence or absence of T & E species habitat, stability of the species and management effectiveness for meeting listed species recoveryorother management objectives. SpecialStatusSpecies-Considerspresenceorabsence of Federal Candidate, Bureau sensitive or Assessment species; stability of species/habitat and management effectiveness in meeting special status species objec- tives. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including RNAs and ONAs) - Considers presence or absence of ACEC and management effectiveness in meeting ACEC objectives 2-33 2-34 OREGON Allotment Boundary and Number 0N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP RM-1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 2 5 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 2. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level of grazing use, which may be necessary to meet manage- ment objectives. 3. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements may be required to implement changes in grazing systems or level of grazing use. 4. CCC with permittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, USFWS. Specific manual guidance for implementing this management action are located in Table 2.5. Monitoring Needs: - Range monitoring and evaluation will bedonein accordance with the Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitor- ing Plan. See Appendix 1, Table 11. GM 1.2: Establish an initial stocking level in the RA of 150,472 AUMs. Stocking levels will be reviewed and adjusted, if neces- sary and in accordance with the results of monitoring studies and allotment evaluations every 5 years for I category and every IO years for M category allotments. See Appendix 1, Table 9 for allotment specific initial stocking levels. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: SSS 2.1, WL 3.1, BD 1.3. Constrained By: WQ 1.4, SM 1.1, WHB 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level ofgrazing use which may be necessary to meet multiple-use management objectives. 2. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements may be required to implement changes in grazing systems or level of grazing use. 3. Consultation, cooperation and coordination (CCC) with per- mittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, USFWS. Specific manual guidance for implementing this management action are located in Table 2.5. Monitoring Needs: - Range monitoring and evaluation will bedonein accordance with Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitoring Plan. See Appendix 1, Table 11. GM 1.3: Utilize rangeland improvements, as needed, to sup- port achievement of multiple-use management objectives for each allotment as shown in Appendix 1, Table 9 and Map RM- 3. Range improvements will be constrained by the Standard Procedures and Design Elements shown in Appendix 1, Table 12. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1 .l, SM 2.1, FM 2.1, FM 2.2,F2.1,WHB1.3,WHB2.4,SSS4.1,‘/1.2,WL4.1,WL5.1, WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.7, WL7.5, WL7.9, WL 7.14, WL7.15, WL7.16, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19,AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 2.1, R 2.12, VRM 1.4, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Projects will be designed to sustain or enhance overall multiple-use values within the project area. 2. Site-specific NEPA documentation will be prepared for each project or group of projects. 3. Site examinations will be performed to identify and protector enhance sensitive resource values within potential project areas. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in NEPA documentation on individual projects. Constrained By: AQ 1 .l, AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, SSS3.2,WL1.3,WL1.5,WL2.2,WL7.7,WL7.1O,WQ1.11, Vl.l,AH 1.11,VRM1.1,VRM1.2,VRM1.3,CR2.2,BD1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 2-36 GM 1.4: Designate approximately 1,683,500 acres as available for livestock grazing. Excludegrazingfromapproximately26,400acresexceptwhere grazing livestock will benefit waterfowl or shorebird habitat or other wildlife values. See Map RM-2. These are: Hatt Butte Windy Point Silver Creek RNAIACEC Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC Devine Canyon South Narrows ACEC Chickahominy Recreation Site Radar Hill ORV Area Hines Field Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Extn. Foster Flat RNA/ACEC Ryegrass Spring Willow Reservoir State Reservoir Twin Springs Reservoir Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 Stinkingwater Pond No. 2 Big Foot Reservoir Seiloff Dikes Lake-on-the-Trail Dry Lake Silver Creek Exclosure Rough Creek Exclosure Paul Creek Exclosure Cottonwood Creek Exclosure Greenspot Reservoir Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir Silver Lake Pond Total 80 ac.’ 520 ac. 640 ac. 17,136 ac. 480 ac. 160 ac. 400 ac. 240 ac. 455 ac. 1,280 ac.’ 2,690 ac.3 320 ac. 7 ac. 6 ac. 18 ac. 5 ac. 5 ac. 35 ac. 50 ac. 320 ac. 780 ac. 100 ac. 450 ac. 60 ac. 90 ac. 5 ac.4 15 ac4 60 ac.4 26,407 ac. cants, in accordance with regulations and manual proce- dures, where site examinations determine that a grazing treatment would be beneficial. 3. CCC with permittees and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance checks and use supervision will be necessary to prevent unauthorized use. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Grazing authorizations affected by exclusions may be can- celled, modified or suspended according to regulations and manual procedures. 2. Grazing authorizations may be issued to qualified appli- ‘This exclusion included only the top of Hatt Butte. 2Excluded upon designation as an RNA/ACEC and completion of land exchange to acquire a 640-acre inholding. aExcluded upon designation as an RNA/ACEC and completion of a perimeter fence. 4Excluded upon completion of exclosure fence. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .l, V 1.3, V 1.4, SSS 2.4, WL4.1, WL4.2, WL7.14,WL7.15, WL7.16, WL7.22, WL7.23, WL7.24, WL7.25, WL7.28, AH 1.5, AH 1.7, R 1.1, R 1.2, R 1.4, R2.10,ACEC1.1,ACEC1.2,ACEC1.3,ACEC1.4,BD3.1,BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 2-37 I 2-38 OREGON ------____ -____---- i la Excluded (Locations are Approximate) 0 10 MILES/ 4l N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP RM-2 AREASEXCLUDEDFROM LIVESTOCK GRAZING i 3 I 2-40 OREGON Vegetation Manipulation Seeding ( Locations are approximate 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP RM-3 POTENTIAL VEGETATION MANIPULATION & SEEDING I 2-41 Table 2.5. Grazing Management Manual Guidance Manual Sections Manual Handbooks 4100 - Grazing Administration (Excl. of Alaska) 4100 - Grazing Administration (Excl. of Alaska), Oregon Supplement H-401 O-l - Range Management Records 41 IO - Qualifications and H-41 1 O-l - Qualifications and Preference Preference 4120 -Grazing Management 4130 - Authorizing Grazing Use 4150 - Unauthorized Grazing Use 4160 - Administrative Remedies 4400 - Rangeland Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation 4410 - Ecological Site Inventory H-41 20-l - Grazing Management H-41 30-l - Authorizing Grazing Use H-4150-1 - Unauthorized Grazing Use H-41 60-l - Administrative Remedies H-4400-1 - Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation H-4410-1 - National Range Handbook H-l 734-2 - Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Oregon Supplement 1740 - Renewable Resource Improvements and 1741 - Renewable Resource improvements and Treatments 1742 - Emergency Fire Rehabilitation 1743 - Renewable Resource Investment Analysis Technical References TR-4400-1 - Rangeland Monitoring: Planning for Monitoring TR-4400-2 - Rangeland Monitoring: Actual Use Studies TR-4400-3 - Rangeland Monitoring: Utilization Studies TR-4400-4 - Rangeland Monitoring: Trend Studies H-1740-1 -Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Treatments Procedures H-l 741-l - Fencing H-l 741-2 - Water Developments H-l 742-l - Emergency Fire Rehabilitation H-1743-1 -Resource Investment Analysis User Handbook for the SageRam Computer Program TR-4400-7 - Rangeland Monitoring: Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation TR-4400-9 -Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring: Selected Bibliography of Remote Sensing Applications TR-1737-3 -Riparian Area Management: Inventory and Monitoring of Riparian Areas TR-1737-4 - Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management in Riparian Areas 2-42 Wild Horse and Burro Program Objective and Rationale WHB 1: Maintain healthy populations of wild horses within the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, and Riddle Mountain Herd Management Areas (HMAs), and wild horses and burros in the Warm Springs HMA (see Map WH-1). Rationale: Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 requires BLM to manage wild free-roaming horses and burros under multiple-use in a manner that is designed to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 1 .l : Continue to allocate the following acres and AUMs in active HMAs: Procedures to Implement: Kiger HMA 36,618 ac. 984 AUMs Stinkingwater HMA 79,631 ac. 960 AUMs Riddle Mountain HMA 28,021 ac. 672 AUMs Warm Springs HMA 456,855 ac. 2,424 AUMs Palomino Buttes HMA 71,544 ac. 768 AUMs Total 672,669 ac. 5,808 AUMs Decision Class: 1 Supported By: GM 1 .l, WHB 2.4, WL 1.4, WL 3.1, R 2.16. 1. Continued upon approval of the RMP. 2. Horses will be removed in a timely manner from all areas outside of these designated areas. 3. Horses will be removed using approved methods. 4. Develop interpretive signs for all of the HMAs. Monitoring Needs: - Annual herd population inventories. Constrained By: WQ 1.4, ACEC 1.4, BD 3.4. WHB 1.2: Retain inactive status on the following herd areas (HA S ): Second Flat HA Diamond Craters HA Middle Fork HA East Wagontire HA Miller Canyon HA State owned portion of Riddle Mountain HA Decision Class: 1 8,281 ac. 48,077 ac. 37,885 ac. 158,048 ac. 6,572 ac. 47,015 ac. Procedures to Implement: 1. Continued on approval of the RMP. 2. Remove horses with approved methods if they are identified in these areas. 3. Place “horse wires” at all gates surrounding HMA bound- aries. 4. Ensure that permittees close gates after gathering cattle in the fall. 5. Place “Keep Gate Closed” signs at all boundary gates of the HMAs. Monitoring Needs: - Conduct annual or biannual inventories to assess if there are horses in these areas. 2-43 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 1.3: Adjust wild horse and burro herd population levels in accordance with the results of monitoring studies and allotment evaluations, where such adjustments are needed in order to achieveandmaintainobjectivesforathriving naturalecological balance and multiple-use relationships in each HA (Appendix 1, Table 9). Permanent adjustments would not be lower than the estab- lished minimum numbers in order to maintain viability. The appropriate management level would be based on the analysis of trend in range condition, utilization, actual use and other factors which provide for the protection of the public range from deterioration. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, WHB 2.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, WL 3.1, WL 7.27, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. Constrained By: GM 1.2, WL 6.1, WL 6.2, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, AH 1.2, AH 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Use currently approved methods for control of herd popula- tion levels. 2. Prepare allotment evaluations priorto any permanent change in the appropriate management level. 3. Prepare NEPA documentation prior to any adjustments in population levels. 4. Formal evaluations would beconducted about every5 years with annual updates thereafter. ODFW would be consulted during the evaluation process. Monitoring Needs: - Annual collection of utilization, actual use and climate re- ports. - Long and short-term trend in range condition studies con- ducted every 3-5 years. - Wild horse and burro use area mapping and reporting. Objective and Rationale WHB 2: Enhance the management and protection of HAS and herds in the following HMAs: Kiger, Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain, Palomino Buttes and Warm Springs. Rationale: The Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 directs the BLM to manage and protect wild horses and burros. Section 103(a) of FLPMA provides for areas to be designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) when this area will protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or other natural systems. Allocation/Management Action WHB 2.1: Acquire legal access to specific sources of private land and water upon which horsesdepend. Table 2.6describes the location and priority for acquisition. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Refer to LR 1 .I for procedures in the process of acquisition through easements, exchanges or fee acquisition. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: LR 1 .l, LR 4.1, WHB 2.2: Designate 64,639 acres of the Kiger and Riddle Mountain HMAs as an ACEC for the Kiger mustang. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.16, ACEC 1.7, LR 1.5, BD 2.4. BD 3.7. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop specific objectives for the management of these areas. 2. Prepare a specific management plan for this ACEC. 3. Update affected Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs)/ AMPS to reflect any special management considerations. Monitoring Needs: - Assess objectives through the accepted allotment evalua- tion process. 2-44 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 2.3: Select for high quality horses when gathered horses are returned to the range (see Table 2.7 for characteristics). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WHB 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Initiate gatherings based on monitoring and other data. 2. Select studs and mares for return to the range based on color and conformation standards established in HMAPs. Monitoring Needs: - Track adoption records to determine trends in adoption rates. WHB 2.4: Provide facilities and water sources necessary to ensure the integrity of the individual herds (see Table 2.8). Procedures to Implement: 1. Submit projects to AWP. Geographic Reference: Warm Springs, Kiger, Palomino Buttes Decision Class: 2 2. Develop site-specific NEPA documentation. 3. Coordinate with affected parties. 4. Contract work or Force Account development. Supported By: GM 1.3, WHB 1 .l , WHB 3.1, LR 1 .I. Constrained By: WL 1.4, WL 5.2, WL 7.15, WL 7.16. Monitoring Needs: - AWP tracking. - Project development inspections. Objective and Rationale WHB 3: Enhance and perpetuate the special or rare and unique characteristics that distinguish the respective herds in the RA. Rationale: Color, type, distinctive markings, size and weight of members of the various herds are characteristic of the historic background of those herds. It is highly desirable to retain this cultural/historical linkage. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WHB 3.1: Limit any releases of wild horses or burros into an HMAto individuals which exhibitthe characteristicsdesignated for that HMA (see Table 2.7). Geographic Reference: HMAs. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WHB 2.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Select horses with special, rare or unique qualities for return to the range based on the established criteria. Monitoring Needs: - Age and sex ratios. WHB 3.2: Manage burros for a maximum of 24 head in the west side of the Warm Springs HMA. The allocation of forage for burros is within the total allocation for the Warm Springs HMA. Geographic Reference: Warm Springs HMA. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. The current inventory of burros is seven animals. When the population has increased to 15 or more animals, the mini- mum management number will be maintained at 15. 2. The gathering and return procedures will be conducted using the currently approved method. 3. Determine why burros have remained stable, at only seven animals, by either blood testing or genetic testing if they are captured during a gathering. Monitoring Needs: - Regular periodic inventory to aid in determining population dynamics - early summer. - Use area mapping. - Habitat Trend Studies - Initiate. 2-45 2 OREGON HERD MANAGEMENT AREA (HMA) 1. Palomino Buttes HMA 2. Warm Springs HMA 3. Stinkingwater HMA 4. Kiger HMA 5. Riddle Mtn. HMA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP WH-1 ACTIVE WILD HORSE AND BURRO HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS Table 2.6. Private Water Sources Selected for Acquisition of Permanent Access (Listed in Priority Order) Herd Management Area Parcel Name Size Location Kiger Yank Springs Stinkingwater Poison Creek 160 acres Jones/Ausmus Flat 120 acres Stinkingwater Cr. #l 840 acres Stinkingwater Cr. #2 Little Stinkingwater #l Little Stinkingwater #2 Little Stinkingwater #3 Kiger Swamp Creek 480 acres 640 acres 80 acres 80 acres 440 acres 400 acres T. 20 S., R. 34 E., sec. 33, NWl/4, N1/2SW1/4, W1/2SE1/4 and SEli4SWll4; sec. 32, W1/2NE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4. T. 30 S., R. 33 E., sec. 13, SElI4. T. 23 S., R. 34 E., sec. 25, W1/2SW1/4 and SWl/4NWl/4. T. 23 S., Ft. 35 E., sec. 30, W1/2NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, and NWl/4NWl/4; sec. 19, All. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 7, All. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 13, NWl/4NW1/4; sec. 12, SW1/4SW1/4. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 12, W1/2NW1/4. T. 23 S., R. 35 E., sec. 1, Wl/2NWl/4 and NWlI4SWll4. T. 22 S., R. 35 E., sec. 36, W1/2. T. 29 S., R. 33 E., sec. 36, SlI2 and S1/2NW1/4. 2-48 Table 2.7. Representative Characteristics by Wild Horse and Burro Herd Herd Kiger/Riddle Mountain Colormype Dun, red dun, grulla, buckskin (claybank) and variations; Spanish mustang type. Markings Dorsal stripes Size 13-15 hands Weight 750-I ,000 Ibs. Palomino Buttes Light-colored, palominos, buck- skins, duns, red duns and sorrels; saddle type. N/A Warm Springs Horses Any color, especially Appaloosa; saddle We. N/A Warm Springs Burros Dark brown-grey color phase type burros. Stinkingwater Any color, especially red and blue roan, no palominos; saddle type. N/A 14-16 hands 950-l .300 Ibs. 14-16 hands 950-l ,300 Ibs. 8-l 0 hands 450-750 Ibs. 14-16 hands 950-l ,300 Ibs. 2-49 Table 2.8. Rangeland Improvements for Wild Horses and Burros Herd Management Type of Area Improvement Name Location Kiger Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Cattleguard Lambing Basin Lambing Basin Rex Reservoir Yank Spr. Rim S. Swamp Cr. Swamp Spr. T. 29 S., R. 34 E. T. 30 S., R. 34 E. T. 30 S., R. 34 E. T. 30 S., R. 33 E. T. 30 S., R. 33 E. T. 30 S., R. 34 E. Warm Springs 4NE1/4 Stinkingwater Palomino Buttes Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Cattleguard Cattleguard Cattleguard Cattleguard Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Waterhole Cleanout Well and Pipeline Tadpole T. 27 S., R. 26 E. Glenns T. 27 S., R. 26 E. Horse Head T. 28 S., R. 27 E. Durbin WH T. 30 S., R. 29 E. Buckskin Lake WH T. 30 S., R. 29112E. Wilson T. 29 S., R. 27 E. Paradise T. 29 S., R. 27 E. Jack Smart T. 27 S., R. 26 E. Crow Camp T. 23 S., R. 35 E. Upper Fay Canyon T. 24 S., R. 28 E. W. Palomino Bt. T. 24 S., R. 28 E. N. Grassy Bt.WH T. 24 S., R. 28 E. Ruly’s WH T. 24 S., R. 29 E. Palomino Bt.Well T. 25 S., R. 28 E. sec. 32, SW1 I4 sec. 9, NE114 sec. 16, SW1 /4 sec. 24, SE1/4 sec. 1, NW1/4 sec. 36, SE114 sec. 35, NEl/ sec. 36, NW114 sec. 15, SW1/4 sec. 23, SE114 sec. 30, NW114 sec. 7 sec. 8 sec. 6 sec. 29, SE114 sec. 1, NE1/4 sec. 11, sw1/4 sec. 28, SE114 sec. 19, SW1 I4 sec. 22, NE1/4 2-50 Vegetation Program Objective and Rationale V 1: Maintain, restore or enhance the diversity of plant communities and plant species in abundances and distributions, which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous plant species within the RA. Rationale:FLPMAmandatesthatpubliclands be managedinamannerthat willprotectthequalityoftheecological resourcesamong others. The BLM is committed to maintaining and enhancing the vegetation of the RA in terms of diversity and abundance of species and diversity of plant communities. Such diversity is necessary to sustain the variety of uses that BLM managed lands receive. Allocation/Management Action V 1.1: Evaluate and mitigate significant anticipated adverse impacts of BLM-authorized land tenure adjustments, surface disturbing or vegetation conversion activities, prior to their occurrence, to the vegetation diversity of the RA. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: AQ 1.1, AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.9,WQ1.10,WQ1.11,SM1.1,F1.4,GM1.1,V1.2,V1.3,V 1.6,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,SSS3.2,SSS3.3.,WLl.l,WL1.3,WL 1.4, WL2.2, WL5.1, WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL6.6, WL7.4,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.8,WL7.9,WL7.1O,WL7.11,WL 7.15, WL7.16, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.27,AH 1.2, AH1.3,AH1.10,AH1.11,R1.1,CR2.1,CR2.2,LR1.1,LR 2.3, LR 2.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: LR 1 .l . Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Conduct records examination and/or site examination for special status species. 2. Analyze the impacts to vegetation diversity on the species and ecosystem level of the RA in all NEPA documents. 3. Design and apply measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts to vegetation diversity. 4. Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial water, to less than 20 percent of land area in that particular subbasin in any one year. 5. Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall bethermal cover) asdefined in”Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests.” 6. Considerthe high publicvalueof vegetation diversity in land exchanges, purchases or disposals in which public owner- ship of vegetation communities contributing to such diver- sity could be affected. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic and systematic updates of the existing vegetation inventory of the RA including distributions, extent and eco- logical status. V 1.2: Adjust overall grazing management practices within the RA so that no more than 10 percent of the native vegetation condition determined by Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) is in early seral status and so that at least 40 percent is in late seral or Potential Natural Community (PNC) by 2009. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .l, GM l.l,GM 1.3,GM 1.4, WHB 1.3,Vl.l, SSS2.1, SSS2.4, SSS 3.1,WL1.2,WL1.3,WL2.1,WL2.2,WL4.1,WL6.1,WL6.2, WL6.3,WL7.5,WL7.14,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL7.27, WL7.28, AH 1.2, AH 1.3,AH 1.5, R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Complete ESI inventory of RA by 1994 to provide baseline information on the plant communities and ecological status of the RA. 2. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all allotments in RA within 2 years of ESI completion. 3. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all wild horse HMAPs within 2 years of ESI completion. 4. Implement and maintain databases for integration of ESI data with other resource data within the RA. Monitoring Needs: - AMP monitoring: actual use/utilization/t rend/cover. - HMAP monitoring: utilization. - Reinventory of ESI within 20 years. 2-51 Allocation/Management Action V 1.3: Implement identified actions from the Three Rivers RA portion of the Burns District Wetlands HMP to restore and enhance specified wetlands by no later than the year 2000, including but not limited to those actions shown in Appendix 1, Table 8. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy: WQ1.7, WQ 1.8, GM 1 .l,GM 1.4,V1.4, WL4.1, WL5.1, WL5.2, WL5.3, WL7.14, WL7.15, WL7.16, WL7.27, WL 7.28, AH 1.5, LR 1 .l, LR 1.3. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5. V 1.4: Designate three areas (6,054 acres) and retain one existing area (640 acres) meeting Oregon Natural Heritage Plan cell needs as RNA/ACECs. (See Appendix 1, Table 15 and Table 16 for specific acreages, allowable uses and use restrictions.) Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:GM 1.4, WL5.1, WL5.2, WL7.15, WL7.16, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, WL 7.28, R 2.1, R 2.16, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, ACEC 1.5, VRM 1.2, LR 1 .l, LR 1.5, LR 2.3, LR 5.1, BD 3.1, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Survey and design. 2. NEPA document and AWP funding. 3. Collect playa baseline information. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on a regular periodic basis. - Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop ACEC Management Plans which address specific management objectives and actions and clearly delineate use restrictions. 2. Implement on-the-ground actions defined in ACEC plans. Monitoring Needs: - Ensure ACEC plans are completed within 3 years of the approval of the RMP. - Periodic systematic on-the-ground assessments. V 1.5: Manage a total of 786 acres in four major areas as described in Table 2.9 and shown on Maps F-3 through F-6for maintenance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine old growth forest. (Note: This acreage includes 482 acres from thecommercialforestland base,304acresarefortheestablish- ment of administrative boundaries.) Geographic Reference: 5503, 5511, 7010,7030, 7051. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.7, V 1.4, WL7.21, WL 7.26, FM 2.1, R 2.1, R2.12,R2.16,ACEC1.5,LR1.1,LR1.5,LR2.3,BD3.5,BD 3.8. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop stand management guides which address the following: a. Management actions to maintain existing old growth char- acteristics (see note below) of the stand. b. Management actions to promote continued succession to- ward old growth conditions (see note below) of the stand. c. Fuels treatment. d. Insect infestation. e. Management/use restrictions (see Table 2.10). Note: Examples of such management actions include: stand manipulation for tree age, tree size and species composition; maintenance of desired snag density; maintenance of canopy closure and appropriate canopy layers; maintenance of down woody materials; maintenanceof the nativeshrub/herbcompo- nent; and creation or maintenance of gaps/openings and the overall stand configuration. 2. Coordinate and integrate these guides with overlapping designations. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in stand management guides or overlapping designation’s activity plan. 2-52 Allocation/Management Action V1.6:Apply approved weed control methods including manual, biological and chemical control methods as identified in the Weed Control EIS and Burns District Weed Control EA in an integrated pest management program to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds into areas presently free of such weeds and to improve the ecological status of sites which have been invaded byweeds. Weed control activities will be prioritized and funded based on the following criteria, as identified in Burns District’s Weed Control EA: Priority I: Potential New Invaders - Emphasizes education and awareness; Priority II: Eradication of New Invaders-Emphasizes eradica- tion, priority funding; Priority III: Established Infestations - Emphasizes contain- ment and control. (See glossary for definition of noxious weeds.) Decision Class: 2 Supported By: V 1 .l, BD 1 .l . Constrained By: SSS 3.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. 2. 3. 4. Inventory. Prioritize infestations. Apply manual or biological control procedures if appropri- ate. Where chemical control is required, evaluate site for im- pacts, complete and submit pesticide use proposal (PUP) to Oregon State Office for approval. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring to determine effectiveness of applied treatments will be done at least annually for the 5 years following treatment. - NEPA documents compliance monitoring, if appropriate. Table 2.9. Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions Tract 1 - Dry Mountain The old growth management area on Dry Mountain consists of two parcels totaling 180 acres. These are located in Harney County approximately 28 miles west of Burns, Oregon, and 10 miles north of Highway 20 adjacent to the Ochoco National Forest boundary on the southwest side of Dry Mountain. These tracts are in the Claw Creek Allotment (No. 7010). These tracts are also entirely within the boundary of the proposed Dry Mountain RNAACEC. If the RNA/ACEC is designated, these old growth areas will be managed in conjunction with the RNA/ACEC. The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of old and large ponderosa pine trees with a 40-70 percent crown closure. The understory contains smaller ponderosa pine trees, many species of shrubs and other herbaceous species. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth characteristics and to promote continued succession toward old growth. After designation, a management plan specific to the Dry Mountain RNAIACEC will be written. This management plan will include astand management guide which incorporates the allowable uses/useconstraintsshown inTable2.10forthe Dry Mountainoldgrowthtractsand identifies possible management actions required to meet the goals. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 22 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 3, portions of SE1/4; Sec. IO, portions of the NElf4. Tract 2 - Emigrant Creek The old growth management area on Emigrant Creek consists of two parcels of old growth which total 70 acres. However, a buffer zone will be managed in conjunction with these 70 acres to create a management unit totaling 230 acres. This management unit is located approximately 20 miles northwest of Burns adjacent to the Malheur National Forest boundary along Emigrant Creek. This area is within the Skull Creek Allotment (No. 7030) and the Sawtooth MNF Allotment (No. 7051). The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with a 40-70 percent crown closure. These trees are very old and large exceeding 2 feet in diameter and over 100 feet in height. The understory consists of younger ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. In some stands, the understory is very dense, limiting other species. Other portions of the stand 2-53 Table 2.9. Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions (continued) contain a moderate ground cover of Idaho fescue and antelope bitterbrush with some mountain mahogany, wax currant and other shrub species. Scattered rotting logs are present. In addition to the old growth stands, this area also contains outstanding scenic, recreational, wildlife and fishery resource values. Current utilization of the area is extensive in nature. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth characterrstrcs and to promote continued succession toward old growth. Afterthe RODforthe Proposed Plan, a stand management guide will be wntten. A single guide incorporating both the Emigrant Creek Old Growth Management Area and the Craft Point Area (Tract 3) may be developed or separate guides for each may be required. The stand management guide will incorporate the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 and identify possible management actions required to meet the goals. It will also contain any management actions needed to control or enhance other values of the area. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 20 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 31, Lot 1, NE1/4NW1/4, N1/2NE1/4 and those portions of Lot 2, SE1/4NW1/4 and S1/2NE1/4 which lie north of Culp Ranch Road. Tract 3 - Craft Point The old growth management area near Craft Point consists of one parcel of old growth which totals 126 acres. However, a buffer zone will be managed in conjunction with these 126 acres to create a management unit totaling 270 acres. This management unit is located approximately 25 miles northeast of Burns, and 10 miles north of Highway 20 adjacent to the Malheur National Forest boundary near Craft Pornt. This area is within the Pine Creek Allotment (No. 5503). The,old growth stand overstory consists of ponderosa pine trees which are quite scattered. These trees are very old and exceed 21 inches In diameter. In some areas the understory of ponderosa pine trees is very dense. These are much smaller trees. Mountain mahogany occurs in some patches. Other resource values of this area include outstanding wildlife habitat, particularly for deer and elk, and recreational and scenic values. Access to this area is quite limited and current recreational use is slight. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth characterrstrcs and to promote continued succession towardold growth. After the ROD for the Proposed Plan, a stand management guide will be written. A single guide incorporating both the Craft Point Old Growth Management Area and the Emigrant Creek Area (Tract 2) may be developed or separate guides for each may be required. The stand management guide will incorporate the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 and identify possible management actions required to meetthe goals. It will also contain any management actions needed to control or enhance other values of the area. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 21 S., R. 33 E., Sec. 18, Lot 2, E1/2NW1/4 and NE1/4. Tract 4 - Bluebucket Creek The old growth management area on Bluebucket Creek consists of four approximately 45 miles northeast of Burns, along Bluebucket Creek an 8 arcels totaling 106 acres. These are located in Harney County the Middle Fork of the Malheur River. These tracts are located in the Moffet Table Allotment (No. 5511). These tracts are also within the boundary of the proposed Middle Fork of the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River. If this river is designated as a Wild and Scenic River, these old growth areas will be managed in conjunction with this designation. This area is also within the Malheur RiveVBluebucket Creek WSA; however, this WSA has not been proposed for wilderness designation. The old growth stands contain an overstory consistin closure. Theunderstorycontainsponderosapine and 8 of old and large ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with a 40-70 percent crown ouglasfirtreesofvaryingagesanddensities. Insomeareas,theunderstorycanopy cover exceeds 70 percent and in other areas it is much less dense. The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth charactenstics and to promote continued succession toward old RiveVBluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River will be written, ix rowth. After designation! a management plan specific to the Malheur IS management plan will include a stand management guide which incorporates the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 for the Bluebucket Creek old growth tracts and identifies possible management actions required to meet the goals. These management actions will have to conform to the restrictions imposed by the overlapping Wild and Scenic River designation. Description of Site: Willamette Meridian: T. 18 S., R. 34 E., Sec. 33, portions thereof Sec. 34, portions thereof. . Table 2.10. Recommended Management/Use Constraints in Old Growth Management Areas Old Management Land Major Commercial Fire Old Growth Growth Unit Tenure Rights- Timber ORV Wild Livestock Suppression Prescribed Vegetation Management Areas Acres Acres Adjustment Of-Way Harvest Use Horses Grazing Activities Burning Treatment 1. Dry Mountain 180 1 Zl R P L N/A R* R R R 2. Emigrant Creek 70 230 Zl R P 0 N/A 0 R 0 R 3. Craft Point 126 270 Zl R P 0 N/A 0 R 0 R 4. Bluebucket Crk 106 2 Zl P P L N/A R’ R P P t~racts to be managed on cqunction with the overiapplng Dry Mountan RNAfACEC deslgnatlon 2Tracts to be managed I” conjunction with the overlapping Malheur Rrver/Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic Rwer designation Fluid Solid Energy Leasable Minerals Minerals Mineral Materials Organized Education Locatable Public Wood Plant (Repeated Rock Minerals Camping Activities Gathering Collection Consumptive) Hounding 1. Dry Mountain NSO NL P R P R P R R R 2. Emigrant Creek NSO 0 0 0 0 0 P R 0 0 3. Craft Point NSO 0 0 0 0 0 P R 0 0 4. Bluebucket Crk NSO NL P R 0 0 P R 0 R Zl = Zone 1, relenton and acqusn~on R’ = Restricted to provisions of AMP L = LImited to w&sting roads and trails W = Wathdraw from mineral entry P = Prohlbned use or acl~on 0 = Open to use or actwity NSO = No surface occupancy R = Restwted use or actlon. N/A = Not appkcable NL = No leasing Special Status Species Objective and Rationale SSS 1: Maintain and improve critical or essential habitat (see Map SS-1) of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to prevent deterioration and provide recovery. (See Table 2.11 for current list of threatened or endangered species.) Rationale: Protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species is required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 1.1: Evaluate the Burns District Bald Eagle Communal Winter Roost HMP on a yearly basis and implement any newly developed management actions in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5536, 7009, 7010. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.6, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL 7.3, FM 1.1, LR 1.1, BD 1.5, BD 2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Current management actions in the existing HMP have been implemented, but new management actions identified through coordination and consultation with ODFW, USFWS - Bald Eagle Recovery Team and USDA-FS will be imple- mented in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. 2. Update HMP if needed. Monitoring Needs: - Conduct coordinated bald eagle winter roost counts on an annual basis. SSS 1.2: Implement any actions in the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan for which BLM is responsible in the RA, to provide for the recovery of the peregrine falcon. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Specific actions, when identified, will be funded through the AWP process. 2. NEPA documentation will be written on a case-by-case basis. Supported By: F 1.6, GM 1.4, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL 7.3, WL 7.4, WL 7.28, R 2.1, LR 1 .l, BD 1.5, BD 2.2. 3. CCC with USFWS. Monitoring Needs: Needs oped. will be identified when specific actions are devel- 2-56 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSSl.3: Implementthe BLM responsible management actions listed in the Stephanomeriamalheurensis, Malheurwirelettuce, Draft Recovery Plan until the final recovery plan is approved. Upon approval of the final recovery plan, implement all appro- priate actions from it. Actions in the draft recovery plan include but are not limited to the following: - Maintain and enhance existing habitat. - Conduct systematic searches for new populations and habitat. - Secure new colonies. - Determine population trends. - Establish additional plantings/populations. - Develop a management program to protect newly estab- lished populations of plants. - EnforcelawsandregulationsthatprotectMalheurwirelettuce. - Maintain viable off-site seed bank. Geographic Reference: 7001, 7058. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1.4, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.28, R 2.1, ACEC 1.1, LR 1 .l, LR 2.3, BD 1.5, BD 2.3, BD 3.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Write an HMP or other appropriate activity plan incorporat- ing the Recovery Plan. 2. Continueongoingstudies underexisting BLM/USFWSCon- servation Agreement until this plan is terminated. 3. Develop and implement studies and actions identified in Recovery Plan or other activity plan. 4. Implement management recommendations from studies which will lead to recovery of species. 5. CCC with USFWS. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in Recovery Plan and BLMIUSFWS Conserva- tion Agreement, HMP or other activity plans. Objective and Rationale SSS 2: Maintain, restore or enhance the habitat (see Map SS-1) of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species to maintain the populations at a level which will avoid endangering the species and the need to list the species by either State or Federal governments. (See Table 2.11. for current lists of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species.) Rationale: Protection of candidate and sensitive species is provided for by BLM policy. BLM Manual 6840 directs that BLM shall carry out management activities consistent with the principles of multiple-use for the conservation of candidate and sensitive species and their habitat. It also directs that BLM shall ensure that any activities authorized, funded or carried out do not contribute to the need to list any species. BLM policy, as expressed in Fish and Wildlife 2000, commits BLM to maintain sensitive species populations at stable or improving levels. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 2.1: Adjust overall grazing management practices as necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or enhance their habitat. (See Table 2.12 for current list of actions and allotments which they may affect.) Procedures to Implement: 1. Consultation with permittees and other affected interests. 2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.4,WQ1.5,WQ1.6,WQ1.7,WQ1.8, WQ 1.12,SM l.l,SM2.1,GM l.l,GM 1.2,GM 1.3,GM 1.4, WHB 1.3,‘.‘1.1,V1.2,‘/1.3,SSS2.4, SSS2.6,SSS3.1,SSS3.2, SSS3.3,SSS4.2, WL5.1,WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3, WL 6.5, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, WL 7.7, WL 7.15, WL 7.16, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, WL7.19,WL7.24, W17.27, WL7.28,AH 1.2,AH 1.3,AH 1.4,AH 1.5,AH 1.9, R2.12,ACEC 1.3, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD1.3, BD 1.5, BD 3.3. Constrained By: WL 1.5. cial status species. 3. Adjust AMP S , HMPs and other activity plans as needed. 4. Incorporate special status species management objectives into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- propriate. 5. Develop NEPA documentation and AWP funding where project developments (fences) are required. 6. Establish monitoring as appropriate. Monitoring Needs: - As identified in AMP S , HMPs or other activity plans. 2-57 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 2.2: Allocate the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountain area for the long-term enhancement of California bighorn sheep habitat. (NOTE: This is a management action for specific management emphasis and does not indicate a reduction in AUMs in these allotments based on bighorn sheep AUMs.) Procedures to Implement: 1, Prohibit a livestock class change that would result in a domestic sheep permit in grazing allotments 5530, 5531, 5560 and 5565. Update Burns Dist. Bighorn Sheep HMP to reflect this decision. Coordinate this change with ODFW, affected permittees and other affected interests. Include this as a management objective in appropriate AMP S . Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5530, 5531, 5560, 5565. Decision Class: 1 2.3. 4. Supported By: GM 1.1, WL 7.27, LR 1.1, LR 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - Annual utilization monitoring for forage. - Sheep population numbers will be monitored annually by ODFW. SSS 2.3: Determine habitat deficiencies within 2 miles of nest sites for ferruginous hawks and correct identified deficiencies. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5303, 5306, 5309, 5313, 7019,702l. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.6, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL 7.3, WL 7.4, WL 7.6. 1. Inventory and evaluate ferruginous hawk habitat to identify habitat deficiencies. 2. Provide nest platforms in areas identified as nest-site defi- cient. 3. Improve habitat for prey species within 2 miles of nest sites. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic assessments to determine effectiveness of steps taken. - Assessment of utilization of nest sites. SSS 2.4: Maintain existing livestock exclosures along about 4 miles of streams to enhance habitat for Malheur mottled sculpin or redband trout. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5522, 5310, 7010, 7012. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.5, WQ 1.7, SM 1.1, SM2.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.4,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.2,WL7.18,WL7.27,WL7.28,AH 1.3, AH 1.5, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- tion and maintenance of fences which are the responsibility of District to maintain. 2. Coordination with affected permittees. Monitoring Needs: - Inspection prior to livestock turnout; inspection during graz- ing season. SSS 2.5: lmplement fish habitat enhancement work on those portions of the Middle Fork of the Malheur River and its tributaries which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat, as proposed in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power Planning Council. These actions include but are not limited to the following: bank shaping and revegetation, instream boulder placement, protec- tive fencing, spawning gravel, placement, etc. Geographic Reference: Middle Fork Malheur River and tribu- taries. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SM 2.1, AH 1.8. Constrained By: R 2.12, VRM 1 .l Procedures to Implement: 1. Wait until wilderness status is determined. 2. Coordinate activities through the WSA and WSR IMP. 3. Ensure activities in WSA or WSR are consistent with IMP and proposed future management. 4. Develop NEPA documentation and compliance report. 5. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Establish several permanent sample stations for fisheries and water quality monitoring. - Waterqualitytoidentifyprojectimpact-threetofivetimes/year. - Conduct the following on a regular periodic basis: Macroinvertebrate analysis Fish inventory Photo trend 2-58 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 2.6: Implement streambank stabilization projects on streams which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat and which have less than 90 percent stablestreambanks. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop NEPA compliance on proposed projects. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.12, SM 2.1, AH 1.9. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend - annually. - Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- tem - three times/year. SSS 2.7: Acquire lands necessary to protect special status species and their habitat. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SSS1.1,WL5.3,WL6.5,R2.13,LR1.1,LR1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.4, BD2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory to identify if lands are needed. 2. Pursue acquisition through exchange or purchase. 3. Adjust activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. Objective and Rationale SSS 3: Ensure that BLM-authorized actions within the RA do not result in the need to list special status species or jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. (See Table 2.11 for current lists of special status species.) Rationale: BLM is directed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that any Federal action authorized, funded or carried out does not jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction of critical habitat. BLM is directed by policy (6840 Manual) to ensure that Federal actions do not contribute to the need to list species as threatened or endangered: . Allocation/Management Action SSS 3.1: Protect special status species and their habitat from BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities and land tenure adjustments. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQl.l,WQ1.2,WQ1.3,WQ1.4,WQ1.7,WQ 1.8,WQ1.9,WQ1.11,SMl.l,F1.3,V1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS 2.4,SSS3.2, SSS3.3, WL1.3, WL2.2,WL5.2, WL6.1, WL6.2, WL6.3,WL6.4,WL6.6,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.8,WL7.1O,WL 7.16, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.20, WL7.22,WL7.24, WL 7.25, AH 1.1, AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 1.5, AH 1.6, AH 1.7, AH 1.11, R2.1, R2.12,ACECl.l,ACEC 1.3,ACEC1.4, LR2.5, LR5.1,BD1.1,BD1.2,BD1.3,BD1.5,BD3.1,BD3.3,BD3.4. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Conduct a records examination and a site examination for special status species prior to BLM-authorized actions oc- curring. 2. Conduct site examinations during appropriate season. 3. Examine impacts and develop mitigation measures through NEPA process. 4. Apply necessary mitigation measures. 5. Consult with USFWS on “may affect” situations. 6. Enhance habitat for special status species where opportu- nities arise. 7. Establish and apply lease stipulations priorto issuance of oil and gas or geothermal leases. 8. Apply contract stipulations to allow work to be stopped if special status species are discovered to be present in or adjacent to a project area. 9. Adjust clearance and mitigation activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document compliance. 2-59 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 3.2: Allow no sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds when determined by a wildlife biolo- gist to be detrimental to sage grouse habitat requirements. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SSS 3.1, WL 7.7, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory all sage grouse habitat for strutting grounds. 2. Ensure that sufficient sagebrush is retained on a case-by- case basis via the NEPA process. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance and effectiveness monitoring of NEPA docu- ment. SSS 3.3: Fence overflow areas at all spring developments to provide meadow habitat for sage grouse. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- tion and maintenance of fences which are the responsibility of District to maintain. Supported By: GM 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 7.18, BD 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance of NEPA document. - Fence maintenance/inspections. Objective and Rationale SSS4: Increase the state of BLM’s knowledge and information concerning the status and distribution of special status species. (See Table 2.11 for current lists of special status species.) Rationale: FLPMA directs BLM to prepare and maintain, on a continuing basis, an inventory of all public lands and their resource values. BLM Policy (6600 Manual) is to ensure special status species inventory and monitoring priorities are consistent with legal mandates, BLM priorities and applicable activity plans. BLM policy, as expressed in Fish and Wildlife 2000, places an emphasis on developing data bases to identify distributions and habitat of special status species and on implementing a monitoring system to track population trends and habitat conditions. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS 4.1: Conduct and record systematic inventories of popu- lations and distributions of special status species. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.6, SSS 1 .l, SSS 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, AH 1.4, BD 1.3, BD 2.1, BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Adjust inventory activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. 2. Develop and maintain data bases. 3. Coordinate with Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and ODFW. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-60 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs SSS4.2: Conduct monitoring and evaluation studies on special status species on a regular periodic basis. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1 .I, SSS 1 .l , SSS 1.2, SSS 1.3, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.3, WL 7.5, WL 7.27, BD 1.3, BD 2.1, BD 2.2, BD 2.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop monitoring plans for special status species as needed. 2. Develop HMPs, species management guidesorotheractiv- ity plans where BLM activities have a significant effect on special status species. 3. Adjust monitoring activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. 4. Develop and maintain data bases. 5. Coordinate with ODA and ODFW. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. Table 2.1 I. Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) Common Name Scientific Name Status Malheur mottled sculpin Redband trout Birds American peregrine falcon Bald eagle Ferruginous hawk Western snowy plover Long-billed curlew Western sage grouse Columbian sharptailed grouse Western yellow-billed cuckoo White faced ibis (Great Basin population) Mammals Gray Wolf Canis lupus California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana North American lynx Felis lynx canadensis Preble’s shrew (Malheur shrew) Sorex preblei Spotted bat Euderma macula turn Amphibians and Reptiles Spotted frog Plants Rana pretiosa Deschutes milkvetch Barren valley collomia Cusick’s buckwheat Prostrate buckwheat Bogg’s Lake Hedge Hyssop Shelly’s ivesia Cottus bairdi ssp. Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi Falco peregrinus ana turn Haliaeetus leucocephalus Buteo regalis Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Numenius americanus Centrocercus urophasianus phaios Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Plegadis chihi Astragalus tegetarioides Collomia renacta Eriogonum cusickii Eriogonum prociduum Gratiola heterosepala lvesia rhypara v. shellyi C C LE& S LT & S C&S C&S C C : C LE & S C&S C C E 2-61 Table 2.11. Special Status Species (March 1,199l) Common Name Scientific Name Status Biddle’s lupine Cusick’s lupine Oregon semaphoregrass Columbia cress Malheur wirelettuce Leiberg’s clover L upin us biddlei Lupinus cusickii Pleuropogon oreganus Rorippa columbiae Stephanomeria malheurensis Trifolium leibergii Assessment Species (Three Rivers RA) Common Name Scientific Name Birds Northern goshawk Northern saw-whet owl Burrowing owl Lesser scaup (breeding pop) Upland sandpiper Bufflehead (breeding pop) Swainson’s hawk Bobolink Snowy egret (breeding pop) Greater sandhill crane Franklin’s gull (breeding pop) Black rosy finch (Steens Mtn) Flammulated owl American white pelican (breeding pop) White-headed woodpecker Black-backed woodpecker Three-toed woodpecker Horned grebe (breeding pop) Western bluebird Forster’s tern Accipter gentilis Aegolius acadicus Athene cunicularia Aythya affinis Bartramia longicauda Bucephala albeola Buteo s wainsoni Dolichonyx orzyivorus Egretta thula Grus canadensis tabida Larus pipixcan Leucosticte arctoa atrata Otus flammeolus Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Picoides albolarvatus Picoides articus Picoides tridactylus Podiceps auritus Sialia mexicana Sterna forsteri Mammals White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Amphibians and Reptiles Common kingsnake California mountain kingsnake Desert horned lizard Northern leopard frog Lampropeltis getulus Lamprepeltis zonata Phrynosoma platyrhinos Rana pipiens Plants Iodine Bush Brandegee’s onion Sierra onion Rock melic Allenrolfea occidentalis Allium brandegei Allium campanulatum Melica s tricta EC&S C LE & S C Status A A A A A A A :: A A A A A ; A t A A A A it A A A A Note: Known populations of only plant assessment species are shown on Map SS-1. A = Assessment Species (see Glossary) B = Bureau Sensitive; LE = Listed Endangered (Federal); S = State Listed C = Federal Candidate 1 & 2; LT = Listed Threatened (Federal); 2-62 Table 2.12. Grazing Management Adjustments for Special Status Species Actions Allotments Potentially Affected Implement grazing systems on long-billed curlew nesting habi- tat so that at least one-third of the habitat will be undisturbed through the critical nesting period of May 1 -July 15. Implement grazing systems on all sage grouse ranges to improve forb production and availability. Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3 which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat in poor condition related to BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing systemson I and M category allotments which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization, on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- ery. Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 5 with redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat which allow no more than IO percent utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are de- signed to promote speedy riparian recovery or maintenance of good conditions. Develop grazing systems designed to improve riparian habitat along streams listed in Appendix, Table 6, which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat, on a case-by-case basis as funding becomes available. Continue to monitor grazing impacts on habitat of snowy plovers and develop appropriate grazing management strate- gies if necessary. Establish monitoring to evaluate grazing impacts on special status plant species and develop appropriate grazing manage- ment strategies if necessary. 5001;5301;5302;5303;5305;5306;5309;7001;7056. 5101;5102;5104;5105;5106;5201;5213;5307;5308;5310; 5313;5317;5321;5327;5329;5330;5501;5502;5503;5504; 5505;5506;5507;5508;5509;5510;5511;5513,5514;5515; 5517; 5521; 5522; 5524; 5528; 5529; 5530; 5531; 5532; 5533; 5535;5536;5537;5546;5565;5566;5571;7001;7002;7003; 7004;7005;7006;7008;7009;7010;7011;7012;7015;7016; 7017; 7018; 7019; 7020; 7021; 7023; 7024; 7025; 7036; 7037; 7038;7040;7042;7043;7049. 5307;5511 ;5524,5531 ;5532;5536;5566;7010;7030. 5105; 5205; 5206; 5307; 5309; 5310; 5327; 5329; 5330; 5511; 5522;5524;5530;5532;5536;5537;7009;7010;7011;7012; 7027;7031;7032;7033;7035;7040;7041;7053;7080. 4143;5201;5310;5511;7011; 7035;7043; 7051. 7001; 7002; 7018. 4143;5001;5301;5313;5503;5528;5530;5537;5538;5566; 7001; 7016; 7019; 7023; 7024. 2-63 2-64 hewn Populations or Habitat OREGON WILDLIFE SPECIES Snowy Plover Nesting Habitat m Long-billed Curlew Nesting Habitat California Bighorn Sheep Habitat 0 Bald Eagle Winter Roost Areas Cl Ferruginous Hawk Nests n Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds I Redband Trout or Malheur Mottled Sculpin Habitat . PLANT SPECIES 1. Allium brandegei 2. Allium campanulatum 3. Eriogonum cusickii 4. Lupinus biddlei 5. Lupinus cusickii 8. Melica stricta 7. Rorippa columbiae 8. Stephanomeria malheurensis 9. Trifoliumoleibergii 10 MILES u N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP SS-1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Wildlife Habitat Objective and Rationale WL 1: Maintain 335,000 acres of deer winter range, 375,000 acres of deer summer range, 235,000 acres of elk winter range and 105,000 acres of elk summer range (see Maps WL-1 and WL-2) currently in satisfactory condition as described in the glossary. Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The BLM is committed to provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions of big game animals to the American people. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 1 -1: Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover) as defined in “Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests.” Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented on a case-by-case basis during timber sale design and NEPA documentation and contract prepa- ration. Geographic Reference: Commercial Timberlands. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.4, V 1.1, WL7.8, WL7.9,AH 1.11, BD 1.1. Monitoring Needs: - Timber sale contract administration and post timber sale visual monitoring to ensure that NEPA documentation and contract specifications have been followed. WL 1.2: Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems on all allotments within big game ranges with priority given to I and M category allotments. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5510, 5507, 5533, 7006, 7009,7010,7011, 7015, 7016,7022,7025, 7051. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implement grazing systems during AMP, CRMP and allot- ment evaluation processes. Monitoring Needs: Decision Class: 2 Utilization, actual use, climate in accordance and Washington monitoring standards. with Oregon Supported By: GM 1.1, WL 2.1, WL 7.27. 2-66 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 1.3: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage in deer and elk winter range currently supporting browse. Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter ranges. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 acres per burn site. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WC 1.10, SM 1.2, V 1.1, SSS 3.1, WL 2.2, WL 7.10, WL 7.26, AH 1.11, ACEC 1.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.5, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WHB 1.3. - Escaped Fire Analysis, Fire Year Report. WL 1.4: Prohibit harvest of woodland products such as fuel wood, posts, poles and juniper foliage from big game winter range in the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). Procedures to Implement: 1. Issue no woodland products permits for this area. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 1 - Compliance checks within this area. Supported By: F 2.2, WL 7.11, BD 1 .l, V 1 .l . WL 1.5: Minimize barriers to wildlife movement. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 1. This will be implemented during NEPA documentation and contractswill bewrittentoreflectthefencedesignonacase- by-case basis. 2. Construct all new fences to BLM standards for the wildlife species present. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will be done as part of the contract inspection. Objective and Rationale WL 2: Improve approximately 170,000 acres of deer winter range; 295,000 acres of deer summer range; 20,000 acres of elk winter range; 45,000 acres of elk summer range (see Maps WL-1 and WL-2), currently in unsatisfactory condition to satisfactory condition by the year 2000. Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The BLM is committed to provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions of big game animals to the American people. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 2.1: Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems on all allotments within big game ranges with priority given to I and M category allotments. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implement grazing systems during AMP, CRMP and allot- ment evaluation processes. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5510, 5507, 5533, 7006,7009,7010,7011, 7015, 7016, 7022, 7025,705l. Decision Class: 2 Monitoring Needs: - Utilization, actual use, climate in accordance with Oregon and Washington monitoring standards. SupportedBy:GMl.l,V1.2,WL1.2,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.27, BD 1.2. 2-67 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 2.2: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage in deer and elk winter range currently supporting browse. Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter range. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1 .lO, SM 1.2, GM 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, WL 7.10, WL 7.26, ACEC 1.5, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WHB 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 acres per burn site. Monitoring Needs: - Escaped Fire Analysis. - Fire Year Report. WL: 2.3: Continue the individual juniper tree burning or cutting program in units of less than 100 acres. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5307, 5308, 5309,5310,5503,5511,5517,5532,5535,5536,7009,7010, 7030,7043. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 2.1, WL 7.12, FM 2.1, FM 2.2. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Layout, survey, design, AWP, Memorandums of Under- standing (MOUs). 2. NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor plant responses for 3 years after implementation, then every 5 years. - Monitoring will be accomplished by photo plots. WL 2.4: Provide water in mule deer summer range where that habitat component is deficient. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7010, 7014, 7015, 7024. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SSS 3.1, WL 7.13, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Install at least 8 guzzlers of 2,000 to 3,000 gallon capacity in deer summer range. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect guzzlers on an annual basis to determine use and maintenance needs. 2-68 Objective and Rationale WL 3: Manage forage production to support big game population levels identified by ODFW. Rationale: By MOU with ODFW, the BLM has agreed to recognize the Department as the agency responsible for management of the fish and wildlife resources of the State of Oregon and to practice those forms of land and resource management that will benefit fish and wildlife, consistent with a sound multiple-use program. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is a citizens’ commission whose members are appointed by the Governor. In 1982, the Commission adopted population levels for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. These numbers, by management unit, were arrived at through an exhaustive, statewide public participation process. The approximate 7,800 AUM figure was arrived at by using recent census data provided by ODFW, season of use, percent of the allotment administered by BLM, the numbers of a particular animal that will consume 800 pounds of air dry forage in a month, and the dietary overlap of the big game species with cattle. FLPMA directs the BLM to manage for sustained yield. To prevent over-utilization of forage in an allotment, which could affect the sustainable yield, AUMs for big game have been allocated on an allotment-by-allotment basis. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 3.1: Allocate competitive forage to big game as follows: Procedures to Implement: Antelope Deer Elk 512 AUMs 4,706 AUMs 2,618 AUMs 1. Allotment monitoring, evaluations, and decisions or agree- ments. These figures are delineated by allotment in Table 2.13. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 1 - Actual use, utilization,climate and cole browse transects. To be evaluated during allotment evaluations. - Census data from ODFW yearly. Supported By: GM 1.2, WHB 1.1, WHB 1.3, BD 1.2, V 1.2. Objective and Rationale WL 4: Maintain good quality wetland, playa and meadow habitat where it currently exists (see Table 2.14 and Map WL-2). Rationale: A major goal of Fish and Wildlife 2000 is to perpetuate a diversity of waterfowl for the Nation by managing wetlands for this resource. The habitats are also of key importance for many species other than waterfowl and a healthy diversity of these species is dependent upon good quality wetlands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 4.1: Maintain the project developments at Bigfoot Reser- voirs, Rye Grass, Lake-on-the-Trail, North Stinkingwater Pond, South Stinkingwater Pond, Dry Lake, Seiloff Dike and all spring developments. Allow livestock grazing in these areas only to remove matted vegetation which is inhibiting waterfowl nesting. Procedures to Implement: 1. Make all fenced wetland areas pastures within particular allotments so that licensing of use or nonuse takes place on an annual basis. Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.7,WQ1.8,SM1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,V1.2, V 1.3, WL 7.8, WL 7.14, AH 1.5, BD 1.2. 2. Perform needed fence maintenance identified during use supervision visits. 3. AWP funding of maintenance needs. Monitoring Needs: - Continue wetland photo trend monitoring annually. - Check spring overflow enclosure fences at least every 5 years for maintenance needs. 2-69 Objective and Rationale WL 5: Improve component deficient wetland habitat to good condition and provide for wetland and meadow habitat expansion, by the year 1997 (see Table 2.14). Rationale: A major goal of Fish and Wildlife 2000 is to perpetuate a diversity of waterfowl for the Nation by managing wetlands for this resource. The habitats are alsoof key importance for many species otherthan waterfowl and a healthy diversity of these species is dependent upon good quality wetlands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 5.1: Provide good quality nest cover and late season brood water at the locations listed on Appendix 1 ,Table 8 as proposed in the Burns District Wetlands HMP. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 8. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Project survey and design. 2. NEPA documentation; AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: Supported By: WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .l , GM 1.3, GM 1.4, V 1 .l, V 1.3, SSS 2.1, WL 5.3, WL 7.15, BD 1.1, BD 1.3. - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on an annual basis. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5, BD 1.5. WL 5.2: Determine and implement needed actions on playa lakebeds to provide good quality seasonal and permanent (where feasible) wetland habitat. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Sheep Lake, Nordell Lake, Dry Lake, Rimrock Lake, Foster Lake, Munsey Lake, Silver Lake, Chain Lake, Weaver Lake, Palomino Lake and Lake-on-the-Trail. 1. Collect baseline data on these and other playas to deter- mine condition and feasibility for improvement. 2. Design improvement strategies. 3. NEPA documentation for proposed improvements. 4. AWP funding. Decision Class: 2 Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:WQ1.7,WC?1.8,GM1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,V1.1, V1.4,SSS2.1, WL1.5,WL7.16,WL7.25, R2.1,ACEC1.4, BD 1 .l , BD 1.3, BD 3.4. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, BD 1.5. - Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years after baseline data collection. - Monitor results of improvements yearly for the first 5 years, then in conjunction with allotment monitoring and evaluation schedules. 2-70 Allocation/Management Action WL 5.3: Place high emphasis on land exchanges and acquisi- tions which increase the acreage or manageability of wetlands in public ownership. Geographic Reference: Areawide (see Table 2.14), especially Silvies Valley and Silver Lake Pond. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:V1.3,SSS2.7,WL5.1,WL7.15,R2.15,LRl.l, LR 1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.4. Constrained By: V 1 .l , SSS 3.1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Specificprocessing requirementsforexchanges, purchases, and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners or proponents. Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers RMP and other planning documents. Securefunding forprocessing proposalsthrough the BLM’s budget process. Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres transferred within the various land tenure zones. - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on an annual basis. Objective and Rationale WL 6: Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat listed in Table 2.15 is in good or better habitat condition (proper functioning condition) by the year 1997. Rationale:FLPMAdirectsthatthepubliclandsbe managedinamannerthatwillprovidefoodand habitatforfish andwildlife. Riparian areas provide food and other habitat requirements for more wildlife species than any other habitat type in the RA. This objective is consistent with the overall BLM objective for riparian areas and reflects the current Oregon-Washington riparian policy. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 6.1: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3, which have poor water quality related to BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing systems on I and M category allotments which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs, and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 3. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, V 1.1, V 1.2, SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL7.5, WL7.17,AH 1.2,BDl.l,BD1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. 2-71 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 6.2: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 5, which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- ery or maintenance of good condition (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. Monitoring Needs: Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 5. Decision Class: 2 - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM 1 .l, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, WHB 1.2, V 1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1,WL7.5,WL7.18,AH1.3, R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. WL6.3: Develop grazing systems designed to improve riparian habitat along streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 6 on a case- by-case basis as funding becomes available. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on stream with no data. Geographic Reference: Appendix 1, Table 6. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.6, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, WHB 1.2, V 1.1,V1.3,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL7.5,WL7.19,AH1.4,BD1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 2. NEPA documentation and annual work plan funding. Monitoring Needs: - Utilization monitoring every fifth year until specific system is designed and implemented. Constrained By: WL 1.5. WL 6.4: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (see Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2, General Best Forest Management Practices and Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protec- tion, respectively) while retaining woody vegetation strips along each side of all perennial streams and all otherstream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can signifi- cantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented during timber sale design, documented in the timber sale EA, reflected in the timber sale contract and enforced during contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - On-the-ground timber sale unit boundary inspection priorto the actual sale. Slope Width of Buffer on Each Bank O-40 percent 100ft. 40-50 percent 125ft. 50-60 percent 145ft. 60-70 percent 165ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial timberlands. - Contract administration during timber harvest. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.2, F 1.3, WL 7.20, AH 1.6. 2-72 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 6.5: Place high emphasis on land exchanges and acquisi- tions which increase the acreage or manageability of riparian in public ownership. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide (see Table 2.15). Decision Class: 3 1. Specificprocessing requirementsforexchanges, purchases, and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: Supported By: SSS 2.1, SSS 2.7, R 2.13, R 2.15, LR 1.1, LR 1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.3, BD 1.4. Constrained By: V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. - Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners or proponents. - Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers RMP and other planning documents. - Securefundingforprocessing proposalsthrough the BLM’s budget process. - Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. - Prepare NEPAdocumentation, appraisal and title reportsto determine if the proposal is in the public interest. - Issue a Noticeof Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. - Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres transferred within the various land tenure zones. WL 6.6: Ensure that all newly constructed permanent roads on BLM-administered lands meet Oregon General Best Forest Practices standards presented in Appendix 1, Table 1 and Table 2. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.9,SM1.1,SM2.2,F1.2,SSS3.1,AH1.6, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Survey and design specifications for roads will be consistent with BLM standards and will be analyzed during NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Construction activities will be monitored as they occur. WL6.7: Inventory stream segments listed in Appendix 1, Table 7, and determine management actions required to meet the riparian objective. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Fund through the AWP process. 2. Collect and compile data. 3. Develop grazing systems as needed using the AMP and allotment evaluation process. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy: WQ1.6,GM 1.1, GM 1.3,Vl.l,SSS2.1,AH 1.4, BD 1.1, BD 1.3. - Utilization monitoring annually to every fifth year until spe- cific system is implemented and operational. 2-73 Objective and Rationale WL 7: Restore, maintain or enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife species habitat within the RA. Rationale: FLPMA mandatesthat public lands be managed in a mannerthat will protectthequalityofthe ecological resources among others. The BLM is committed to maintaining and enhancing the wildlife habitat of the RA in terms of diversity and abundance of habitat. Such diversity is necessary to sustain the variety of uses received by land BLM manages. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.1: Prohibit destruction of raptor nests or nest sites and provide for perch sites within one-eighth mile of nest sites through BLM authorized actions. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy: F1.5, F 1.6, SSS 1.1, SSS 1.2, SSS2.3, WL7.4, WL 7.6, BD 2.1, BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Continue to update and maintain the RA raptordatabase as new data become available. 2. Cross reference all proposed actions in EA with the data- base to determine nest occurrence. 3. Perform on-the-ground inspections of potential locations where actions could be detrimental to nests or nest sites. Monitoring Needs: - Check current nest site locations at 5 to 10 year intervals to determine activity and update database on a continuing basis. WL7.2: Require that all power poles and transformers erected on public lands be installed using design features which will prevent electrocution of raptors. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 Procedures to Implement: 1. Initiate under terms and conditions of applicable right-of- way grants. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect new powerlines and poles, between 6 months and 2 years of construction, to determine if any problem poles exist and take corrective action where applicable. WL 7.3: Prohibit application of pesticides for rodent control on public land within 2 miles of active raptor nests. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:SSSl.l,SSS1.2,SSS2.3,WL7.6,BD2.1,BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Review all Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) NEPA documen- tation to ensure compliance with the management action. Monitoring Needs: - Through NEPA document review and all PUP S . 2-74 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.4: Identify component deficient raptor habitat and take management actions to correct the deficiencies. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GMl.l,Vl.l,SSS2.3,WL7.1,WL7.6,BDl.l. Procedures to Implement: 1. Cross reference the raptor database with ESI data to deter- mine suitable areas which are not currently used. 2. Inventory these areas to determine if a habitat deficiency exists. 3. Take appropriate corrective actions. Monitoring Needs: - After corrective actions have been implemented, monitor raptor use of the area for at least 3 consecutive years following the action. WL 7.5: Adjust overall grazing management practices as necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or enhance their habitat. (See Table 2.12 for current list of actions and allotments which they may affect.) Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1 .l , GM 1 .l, GM 1.2, V 1 .l , V1.2, SSS2.1, WL6.1, WL7.17, WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.27, AH 1.2,AH 1.3, BD 1.1 BD 1.2, BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Consultation with permittees and affected interests. 2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- cial status species. 3. Adjust AMPS and HMPs as needed. 4. Incorporate special status species management objectives into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- propriate. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. WL 7.6: Determine habitat deficiencies within 2 miles of nest sites for ferruginous hawks and correct identified deficiencies. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5303, 5306, 5309, 5313,7019, 7021. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GMl.l,Vl.l,SSS2.3,WL6.2, WL7.1, WL7.3, BD 1 .l. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and evaluation of ferruginous hawk habitat to identify habitat deficiencies. 2. Provide nest platforms in areas identified as nest-site defi- cient. 3. Improve habitat for prey species within 2 miles of nest sites. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic assessments to determine effectiveness of steps taken. - Assessment of utilization of nest sites. WL 7.7: Allow no big sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds when determined by a wildlife biolo- gist to be detrimental to sage grouse habitat requirements. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory all sage grouse habitat for strutting grounds. 2. Ensure that sufficient sagebrush is retained on a case-by- Decision Class: 2 case basis via the NEPA process. Supported By: V 1 .l , SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, WL 6.3, WL Monitoring Needs: 7.4, BD 1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. - Compliance monitoring of EA. 2-75 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.8: Fence overflow areas at all spring developments to provide meadow habitat. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop District program for regular inspection and mainte- nance of fences which are the responsibility of District to maintain. Supported By: GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.3, WL 1.1, WL 4.1, WL 7.14, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance - EA. - Fence maintenance/inspections. WL 7.9: Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of wildlife cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable wildlife thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover). Geographic Reference: Commercial Timberlands (see Map F- 1). Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.11,F1.4,V1.1,V1.4,WL1.1,AH1.11, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented on a case-by-case basis during timber sale design and EA and contract preparation. Monitoring Needs: -’ Timber sale contract administration and post timber sale visual monitoring to ensure that EA and contract specifica- tions have been followed. WL7.10: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage in winter range areas currently supporting browse. Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter ranges. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.10,WQ1.11,SM1.2,GM1.3,V1.1,SSS 3.1,WL1.3, WL2.2, WL7.26,AH l.ll,ACEC1.5,BD l.l,BD 1.5, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WHB 1.3. - Escaped Fire Analysis, Fire Year Report. Procedures to Implement: 1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 acres per burn site. 2. NEPA documentation and site examination procedures for all vegetation conversion proposals in these areas. Monitoring Needs: WL 7.11: Prohibit harvest of woodland products such as fuel wood, posts, poles and juniper foliage from the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). Geographic Reference: See Map F-2. Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Issue no woodland products permits for this area. Monitoring Needs: - Compliance checks within this area. SupportedBy:F2.2,WL1.4,BDl.l,BD3.5,Vl.ll,ACEC1.5. 2-76 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL: 7.12: Continuethe individual junipertree burning or cutting program in units of less than 100 acres. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5307, 5308, 5309,5310,5503,5511,5517,5532,5535,5536,7009,7010, 7030.7043. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 2.1. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, V 1.1, SSS 3.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Layout, survey, design, AWP, MOUs. 2. NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor plant responses for 3 years after implementation, then every 5 years. - Monitoring will be accomplished by photo plots. WL 7.13: Provide water for wildlife species in areas where that habitat component has been specifically identified as deficient. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7010, 7014, 7015,7024. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 2.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Install at least 8 guzzlers of 2,000 to 3,000 gallon capacity in deer summer range. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect guzzlers on an annual basis to determine use and maintenance needs. WL 7.14: Maintain the project developments at Bigfoot Reser- voirs, Rye Grass, Lake-on-the-Trail, North Stinkingwater Pond, South Stinkingwater Pond, Dry Lake, Seiloff Dike and all spring developments. Allow livestock grazing in these areas only to remove matted vegetation. Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 WL 7.15: Provide good quality nest cover and late season brood water at the locations listed on Appendix 1, Table 8 as proposed in the Burns District Wetlands HMP. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 8. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:GM1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,Vl.l,V1.3,V1.4,SSS 2.1,WL5.1,WL5.3,WL7.25,ACEC1.4,BDl.l,BD1.3,BD 3.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Make all fenced wetland areas pastures within particular allotments so that licensing of use or nonuse takes place on an annual basis. 2. Perform needed fence maintenance identified during use supervision visits. 3. AWP funding of maintenance needs. Monitoring Needs: - Continue wetland photo trend monitoring annually. - Check spring overflow enclosure fences at least every 5 years for maintenance needs. Procedures to Implement: 1. Project survey and design. 2. NEPA document preparation; AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robe1 pole readings and brood counts on an annual basis. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5, BD 1.4, BD 1.5. 2-77 Allocation/Management Action WL 7.16: Determine and implement needed actions on playa lakebeds to provide good quality seasonal and permanent (where feasible) wetland habitat. Geographic Reference: Sheep Lake, Nordell Lake, Dry Lake, Rimrock Lake, Foster Lake, Munsey Lake, Silver Lake, Chain Lake, Weaver Lake, Palomino Lake and Lake-on-the-Trail (see also Map WL-2). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, V 1 .l, SSS 2.1, WL5.2, BD 1.1, BD 1.3. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, WL 1.5, BD 1.4, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Collect baseline data on these and other playas to deter- mine condition and feasibility for improvement. 2. Design improvement strategies. 3. EA process for proposed improvements. 4. AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years after baseline data collection. - Monitor results of improvements yearly for the first 5 years, then in conjunction with allotment monitoring and evaluation schedules. WL 7.17: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3, which have poor water quality related to BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing system on I and M category allotments which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs, and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 3. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM 1 .l , GM 1 .l, GM 1.3, GM 1.4, V 1 .l, V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.1,WL7.5,AQ1.2,R2.1,BD1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. WL 7.18: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 5, which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- ery or maintenance of good condition (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 5. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.5, SM 1.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.3, WHB 1.2, V l.l,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1, WL6.2, WL7.5,AH1.3, R 2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. 2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for the first five years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 2-78 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.19: Develop grazing systems designed to improve ripar- ian habitat along streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 6 on a case-by-case basis as funding becomes available. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no data. Geographic Reference: Appendix 1, Table 6. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.4,WQ1.6,SM1.l,GMl.1,GM1.3,V1.1, V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.3,WL7.5,AH1.4,BD1.1,BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 2. EA preparation and annual work plan funding. Monitoring Needs: - Trend photos. - Utilization monitoring where applicble, every 3 to 5 years after implementation. WL 7.20: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (see Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2) while retaining woody vegetation strips along each side of all perennial streams and all otherstream courses, springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can signifi- cantly affect water quality. Buff erstrips would be established as follows: Slope Width of Buffer On Each Bank O-40 percent lOOft. 40-50 percent 125 ft. 50-60 percent 145ft. 60-70 percent 165 ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial timberlands. Procedures to Implement: 1. Will be implemented during timber sale design, documented in the timber sale EA, reflected in the timber sale contract and enforced during contract administration. Monitoring Needs: - On-the-ground timber sale unit boundary inspection priorto the actual sale. - Contract administration during timber harvest. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.2, SM 1.1, F 1.3, V 1 .I, WL 6.4, AH 1.6, ACEC 1.5, LR 2.3, BD 1.1, BD 3.5. WL 7.21: Manage 780 acres in four major areas for mainte- nance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine old growth and the wildlife species dependent upon old growth characteristics. Geographic Reference: Allotments No. 5503, 5511, 7010, 7030, 7051 (see Maps F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6). Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:F1.7,Vl.l,V1.4,V1.5,WL7.26,R2.1,R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 3.5, BD 3.8, ACEC 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop management prescriptions with wildlife habitat objectives included. 2. Design and implement management actions for promotion of areas to old growth. Monitoring Needs: - To be developed in the old growth management plan. 2-79 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/ Monitoring Needs WL 7.22: Retain designation and approved management of the: Procedures to Implement: South Narrows ACEC 160 acres Diamond Craters ONAIACEC 16,656 acres Silver Creek RNAIACEC 640 acres Geographic Reference: See Maps ACEC-2, ACEC3, ACEC- 4. 1. Revise existing ACEC plans as necessary. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in the existing plans. Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:GM1.4,V1.1,V1.4,SSS3.1,R1.1,R2.1,R 2.2,ACEC1.1,VRM1.2,LR1.1,LR1.5,LR2.3,BD1.1,BD1.3, BD 1.5, BD 3.1. WL 7.23: Designate an additional 400 acres as part of the Diamond Craters ONAIACEC. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: See Map ACEC-3. Decision Class: 1 1. Revise Diamond Craters Management Plan to reflect clo- sure to grazing except for limited 1 day trailing permits. 2. Make other revisions if necessary. Monitoring Needs: SupportedBy:GM1.4,Rl.l,R2.1, R2.16,ACEC1.2,VRM 1.2, EM 3.1, LR 1.1, LR 1.5, LR 2.3, LR 5.1, BD 3.2. - As defined in the Diamond Craters Management Plan. - Compliance monitoring of livestock trailing permits. WL 7.24: Designate an additional 1,280 acres as part of the Silver Creek RNA/ACEC following the acquisition of a 640-acre private inholding (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Silver Creek RNA/ ACEC Addition). Geographic Reference: 7010 (see Map ACEC-4). Decision Class: 1 Supported By: GM 1.4, V 1 .l, V 1.4, SSS 2., SSS 3.1, R 2.1, R 2.16,ACEC 1.3,VRM 1.2, LR 1.1, LR 1.5, LR2.3, BD 1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5, BD 3.3. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Acquire 640 acres private inholding through land exchange. 2. ReviseQdateexisting RNA/ACEC managementplanwithin 2 years of establishment to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16. 3. Prepare NEPA documentation and construct fence addition within 2 years of establishment. 4. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from graz- ing allotment base and update AMP to reflect this change (43 CFR). Monitoring Needs: - As defined in management plan. - Fence maintenance inspection prior to livestock turn out. 2-80 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs WL 7.25: Designate 2,690 acres as Foster Flat RNA/ACEC (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Foster Flat RNA/ACEC). Geographic Reference: 7002 (see Map ACEC-5). Procedures to Implement: Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:GM1.4,Vl.l,V1.4,SSS3.1,WL5.2,WL7.15, R2.1,R2.16,ACEC1.4,ACEC1.5,VRM1.2,LR1.1,LR2.3, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5, BD 3.4, BD 3.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 1. Prepare RNAIACEC management plan to reflectconstraints in Appendix 1, Table 16 and to address specific manage- ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval of RMP. 2. Prepare NEPA documentation and fence RNA within 2 years of approval of RMP. 3. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- tion and maintenance of fences which are the District’s responsibility to maintain. 4. Coordinate with affected permittees. 5. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from allot- ment base and update AMP to reflect this change. Monitoring Needs: - Fence maintenance inspection on a quarterly basis, except during grazing season, May through August, when it will be done monthly. - Establish baseline monitoring, including periodic on-the- ground assessments, general photo plots, and aspecies list within 3 years of approval of RMP. WL 7.26: Designate 2,084 acres as Dry Mountain RNAIACEC (See Appendix 1, Table 15, Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC). Geographic Reference: 7011 (see Map ACEC-4). Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:F1.7,V1.1,V1.4,V1.5,WL7.21,R2.1,R2.16, ACEC 1.5, VRM 1.2, LR 1.1, LR 2.3, BD 1 .l, BD 3.5, BD 3.8. Procedures to Implement: 1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflectconstraints in Appendix 1, Table 16 and to address specific manage- ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval of RMP. 2. Coordinate with USDA-FS in plan preparation and monitor- ing establishment. 3. Coordinate with affected permittees. 4. Incorporate management actionsand constraints from Table 2.10 for ponderosa pine old growth areas into the RNA/ ACEC plan. Monitoring Needs: - Establish baseline monitoring within 3 years of approval of RMP to involve periodic systematic on-the-ground assess- ments. WL 7.27: Implement management practices to resolve con- flicts and concerns and meet multiple-use objectives identified in Appendix 1, Table 9, within 5 years of approval of the plan on 57 I category allotments and within 10 years of approval of the plan on 53 M category allotments (see Appendix 1, Table 10 for allotment categorization). Geographic Reference: Areawide. Procedures to Implement: 1. 2. Develop, modify or revise AMPS or CRMPs which identify allotment specific multiple-use management objectives and grazing systems. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- ments in management practices and/oradjustments in level of grazing use which may be necessary to meet manage- ment objectives. Decision Class: 2 3. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements Supported By: SM 1 .l, GM 1 .l, WHB 1.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, WL 1.2, WL2.1, WL7.9, R2.12, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. may be required to implement changes in grazmg systems or level of grazing use. 4. CCC with permittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, USFWS. Specific manual guidance for implementing this management action are located in Table 2.5. Monitoring Needs: - Range monitoring and evaluation will be done in accordance with Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitoring Plan. See Appendix 1, Table 11. 2-81 Allocation/Management Action WL 7.28: Exclude grazing from approximately 26,400 acres except where grazing livestock will benefit waterfowl or shore- bird habitat orotherwildlife values. See Map RM-2. These are: Hatt Butte Windy Point Silver Creek RNAIACEC Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC Devine Canyon South Narrows ACEC Chickahominy Recreation Site Radar Hill ORV Area Hines Field Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Extn. Foster Flat RNAIACEC Ryegrass Spring W illow Reservoir State Reservoir Twin Springs Reservoir Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 Stinkingwater Pond No. 2 Big Foot Reservoir Seiloff Dikes Lake-on-the-Trail Dry Lake Silver Creek Exclosure Rough Creek Exclosure Paul Creek Exclosure Cottonwood Creek Exclosure Greenspot Reservoir Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir Silver Lake Pond Total 80 ac.’ 520 ac. 640 ac. 17,136 ac. 480 ac. 160 ac. 400 ac. 240 ac. 455 ac. 1,280 ac.2 2,690 ac3 320 ac. 7 ac. 6 ac. 18ac. 5 ac. 5 ac. 35 ac. 50 ac. 320 ac. 780 ac. 100 ac. 450 ac. 60 ac. 90 ac. 5 ac. 4 15ac.4 60 ac. 4 26,407 ac. ‘Th!s exclusion includes only the top of Hatt Butte *Excluded upan designation as an RNAIACEC and completion of land exchange to acquwe a MO-acre inholding “Excluded upon deslgnatlon as an RNPJACEC and completion of a pertmeter fence. ‘Excluded upon completion of exclosure fence. Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Grazing authorizations affected by exclusions may be cancelled, modified or suspended according to regulations and manual procedures. 2. Grazing authorizations may be issued to qualified applicants in accordance with regulations and manual proce- dures where site examinations determine that a grazing treat- ment would be beneficial. 3. CCC with permittees. Monitoring Needs: Compliance checks and use supervision will be nec- essary to prevent unauthorized use. SupportedBy:SMl.1,GMl.4,V1.2,Vl.4,SSS1.3,SSS2.1, SSS 2.4, AH 1.5, ACEC 1 .l, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 2.3, BD 3.1, BD 3.3, BD 3.4. 2-82 Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations Allotment Allotment Number Name Total Public Land Needs’ Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage* Antelope Deer Elk Antelope Deer Elk Wildlife (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) Total 5001 Harney-Crane 5002 Catterson Sec. 13 5003 Malheur Slough 5005 Withers FFR 5101 Devine Ridge 5102 Prather Creek 5103 Lime Kiln/Set. 30 5104 Soldier Creek 5105 Camp Harney 5106 Cow Creek 5107 Manning Field 5109 Purdy FFR 5110 Reed FFR 5111 Temple FFR 5112 Smith FFR 5113 Rattlesnake FFR 5201 Coleman Creek 5202 Hunter 5203 Catterson 5204 Slocum 5205 Venator 5206 Stockade FFR 5207 Coyote Creek 5208 Emmerson 5209 Crane 5211 Beckley Home 5212 Mahon Ranch 5213 Beaver Creek 5214 Hamilton 5215 Davies 5216 Quier FFR 5217 Thompson FFR 5218 Bennett FFR 5219 Hamilton FFR 5301 Princeton 5302 Big Bird 5303 Dry Lake 5305 Crow’s Nest 5306 Rocky Ford 5307 Smyth Creek 5308 Kiger 5309 Happy Valley 5310 Riddle Mountain 5311 Virginia Valley FFR 5313 Burnt Flat 5316 Virginia Valley 5317 Hatt Butte 5318 Black Butte 5319 Driveway 5321 Hamilton Ind. 5322 Briggs FFR 5323 Clemens’ FFR 5324 Riddle FFR 5325 Marshall Diamond FFR 5326 Jenkins’ N. Lake FFR 5327 Jenkins’ B. FFR 5328 Fisher FFR 5329 Riddle-Coyote 5330 Deep Creek 9 9 9 12 10 9 25 25 25 25 25 25 44 44 44 44 44 48 20 44 56 12 152 84 236 41 18 78 392 45 12 149 52 16 16 16 27 89 27 16 16 50 11 11 33 14 207 7 7 340 143 139 981 462 113 22 1 1 1 :A 1 2 17 1 17 17 17 17 146 50 123 263 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 2 4 6 1 15 8 43 8 4 :7 8 2 9 10 3 3 3 0 5 17 5 3 3 9 2 2 6 3 37 2 1 61 26 25 177 83 20 16 8 52 12 0 ;; 12 12 104 36 88 188 64 0 0 0 0 60 9 5 24 125 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 23 16 16 4 0 6 17 8 5 6 12 5 5 0 0 0 0 11 7 42 6 5 170 64 117 371 1 162 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-83 Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued) Allotment Allotment Number Name Total Public Land Needs’ Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage* Antelope Deer Elk Antelope Deer Elk Wildlife (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) Total 5501 East Cow Creek 5502 Rock Creek 5503 Pine Creek 5504 State Field 5505 Little Muddy Creek 5506 Muddy Creek 5507 Wolf Creek 5508 Baker-Knowles 5509 W illiams’ Dripp Spr. 5510 Jones Dripp Spring 5511 Moff et Table 5512 Clark’s River 5513 Shelley 5514 Coal Mine Creek 5515 Mule Creek 5516 Birch Creek 5517 Otis Mountain 5518 Newell Field 5519 Big Upson Field 5520 Little Upson 5521 Rocky Basin 5522 Cottonwood Creek 5523 Tub Springs/Hart 5524 Dawson Butte 5525 Mill Gulch 5526 Chalk Hills 5527 Riverside FFR 5528 Cooler 5529 House Butte 5530 River 5531 Stinkingwater 5532 Mountain 5533 Buchanan 5534 Mahon Creek 5535 Miller Canyon 5536 Alder Creek 5537 Buck Mountain 5538 Riverside 5539 W & C Blaylock FFR 5540 Lute Field 5541 Home Ranch Exclosure 5542 Marshall FFR 5543 Devine Flat Field 5544 Brooks Field 5545 Sunshine Field 5546 Druitt Field & FFR 5547 Lake Field 5548 Griffin FFR 5549 Howard’s FFR 5550 Jordan’s FFR 5551 Lillard’s FFR 5552 Miller FFR A 5553 Miller FFR B 5554 J. Fran. Miller FFR 5555 Ott FFR 5556 Pine Creek FFR 5557 J & G Kane FFR 5558 J&GFFR 5559 Sword’s FFR 2-84 16 12 72 30 10 10 10 10 52 41 466 5 490 210 112 39 40 40 1,120 92 92 92 116 182 46 14 17 2 1 95 7 32 56 28 17 3 11 11 11 241 3 1 6 1 1 39 2 28 101 42 17 8 12 231 50 42 36 60 6 IO 60 132 96 24 1 6 132 200 108 301 29 63 595 187 126 921 12 125 280 1,246 139 75 72 39 15 493 10 2 17 17 274 13 230 20 11 28 3 10 IO 115 92 10 8 84 1 88 38 20 7 7 7 202 18 15 19 42 31 100 3 54 6 11 107 33 23 166 2 22 51 225 25 27 26 42 15 12 68 40 20 12 8 8 8 172 4 28 20 72 28 352 12 12 196 164 24 9 159 1 128 58 35 15 15 15 377 19 20 20 72 51 172 3 0 0 20 78 0 6 0 54 6 12 113 33 66 528 4 34 4:: 209 38 26 0 3 0 0 43 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued) Allotment Allotment Number Name Total Public Land Needs’ Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage* Antelope Deer Elk Antelope Deer Elk Wildlife (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) Total 5560 Vicker’s FFR 5561 Wilber FFR 5562 Williams’ FFR 5563 Arnold’s FFR 5564 Wheeler Basin 5565 Upton Mountain 5566 Texaco Basin 5567 Miler FFR 5568 Byron’s FFR 5569 Floyd’s FFR 5570 River FFR 5571 Lamb Ranch 5572 Krueger FFR Subtotal 7001 East Warm Springs 7002 West Warm Springs 7003 East Wagontire 7004 West Wagontire 7005 Glass Butte 7006 Rimrock Lake 7007 Hat Butte 7008 Sheep Lake - Shields 7009 Dry Lake 7010 Claw Creek 7011 Upper Valley 7012 Packsaddle 7013 Zoglmann 7014 Badger Spring 7015 Second Flat 7016 Juniper Ridge 7017 Cluster 7018 Silver Lake 7019 Palomino Butte 7020 Sand Hollow 7021 Weaver Lake 7022 Dog Mountain 7023 West Sagehen 7024 East Sagehen 7025 Gouldin 7026 Horton Mill 7027 Emigrant Creek 7028 Stinger Creek 7029 Spring Creek 7030 Skull Creek 7031 Hay Creek 7032 Hotchkiss 7033 Silvies River 7034 Scat Field 7035 Silvies Meadows 7036 Hayes 7037 Coal Pit Springs 7038 Curry Gordon 7039 Cave Gulch 7040 Landing Creek 7041 East Silvies 7042 Dole Smith 7043 Lone Pine 100 2,073 988 380 72 84 56 44 48 36 80 30 30 22 104 40 8 20 280 92 168 68 40 8 80 20 20 10 62 80 35 14 6 0 0 0 0 14 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,279 2,661 212 2,271 1,900 4,383 442 644 477 420 64 139 153 225 411 886 14 56 56 379 249 193 26 24 1,465 182 374 146 351 582 243 84 7 7 70 1,962 155 17 21 19 58 379 157 57 168 243 246 14 751 29 35 134 4 31 17 129 49 99 38 7 9 5 4 5 i 3 3 3 11 4 1 2 28 9 17 21 25 96 3 22 12 92 35 45 31 7 4 32 22 1 34 28 8 34 11 11 2 2 1 24 8 8 45 45 8 28 80 116 86 73 12 25 27 46 74 160 3 10 10 68 45 34 5 5 264 33 68 27 64 105 43 15 1 1 13 354 29 3 4 4 10 68 29 10 30 43 50 3 135 24 20 32 32 6 20 179 154 93 82 17 29 32 67 107 259 9 35 22 160 91 38 6 7 292 42 85 27 103 131 43 16 1 1 13 386 49 5 30 13 18 68 29 10 30 75 82 9 163 2-85 Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued) Allotment Number Allotment Name Total Public Land Needs’ Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage* Antelope Deer Elk Antelope Deer Elk Wildlife (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) Total 7044 Cowing 7045 Whiting 7046 Baker Field 7047 Peabody 7048 Varien Canyon 7049 Forks of Poison Creek 7050 Clemens 7051 Sawtooth MNF 7052 Lone Pine Fields 7053 Silvies Canyon 7054 Cricket Creek 7055 Hoover Fields 7056 Double 0 7057 Wright’s Point 7058 Narrows 7059 Carp 7060 Castle 7080 Devine Canyon 7081 Harney Basin 7082 Hines Field 7084 The Odd 320 7085 Rainbow Creek 7087 Silver Creek Valley 7088 Sunset Valley Subtotal 4040 Poison Creek 4096 Hi Desert 4097 Trout Creek 4098 East Creek-Pine Hill 4126 Abrahams Draw 4138 White 4143 Silvies 7 14 7 12 7 29 173 22 6 i 3 7 18 1 1 3 1 1 3: 4 4 1 1 2 4 13 5 1 46 IO 35 6 24 5 14 10 0 0 0 5 5 1 3 7 7 0 1 8 26 1 5 5 4 2 4 1: 4 0 1 IO 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 10 0 1 0 6 2,910 13,067 8 21 8 14 32 105 8 35 0 0 1 7 24 210 794 291 2,364 566 3,220 22 7 90 34 0 7 56 4 1: 6 0 1 38 16 4 64 24 0 4 40 21 886 31 0 6 80 Subtotal 81 392 216 9 71 152 232 Total 5,064 25,738 3,671 512 4,706 2,618 7,835 ‘Total public landforageneeds for big game species have been developed in cooperation with ODFW. The figures presented have been computed on the basis of theamount of forage (in pounds, air dried) needed to sustain a big game animal for one month times the nunixrof months the big game animal typically spends on public land within the respective allotments times the target number of animals of each species prorated to each allotment. The resulting big game forage need in pounds is then converted to AUMs by dividing by800 (pounds. air dried per standard AM). ‘Thedietsof biggamespeciesvaryfromthoseof livestock(catt!einthiscase). Theportions oftherespeciivedietsthat overlapbetween big gamespecfesand livestockis referred toas competitive forage. Allocations of forage to big game in this RMPiElS are of competitive forage only. The remainder of the big game forage needs are accommodated by “unallocated” forage which is not a normal component of livestockdiets. Therefore. the competitive allocations would provide the forage needed for benchmark numbers of big game. 2-86 Table 2.14. Wetland Habitat Condition Wetland Area Allotment BLM Acres’ Condition Trend Allotment Number Spring/Reservoir Name FiKzztziBr Dry Lake Skull Creek 45 7 7009 7030 State Reservoir Greenspot Reservoir Skull Creek Skull Creek Fair Poor kg:;: Upward Downward 7030 7030 Twin Springs Reservoir Alder Creek 18 Poor 5536 Dry Lake Stinkingwater Pond #l Dry Lake House Butte 780 Fair 5 Good Upward Upward Static 5303 5529 Stinkingwater Pond #2 Bigfoot Reservoir Seiloff Dikes House Butte East Warm Springs West Warm Springs z5 50 Good Static 5529 Good Static 7001 Good Static 7002 Lake-on-the-Trail West Warm Springs 320 Poor Upward 7002 Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir Silvies 15 Fair Static 4143 W arm Springs Reservoir Texaco Basin River Riverside 1,840 800 350 E:: Poor Static 5566 Static 5530 Static 5538 Moon Reservoir Silver Lake 100 Poor-Fair Static 7018 Chickahominy Reservoir Silver Lake Pond Silver Creek Valley Sunset Valley Poor Static 7078 Fair Static 7088 Playa Name Foster Lake 2700 Lamb Lake East Warm Spring Hat Butte 60 Sheep Lake Sheep Lake-Shields 130 Cecil Lake Sheep Lake-Shields 150 Nordel Lake Sheep Lake-Shields 110 Dry Lake Dry Lake 130 100 250 170 400 300 :z 450 30 100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 7001 7007 7008 7008 7008 7009 W est Chain Lake East Chain Lake Chain Lake Munsey Lake W eaver Lake Rimrock Lake Squaw Lake Burnt Flat Comeg z s Lake Mary’s ake Palomino Buttes W eaver Lakes Palomino Buttes East Warm Springs W eaver Lake Rimrock Lake Burnt Flat Burnt Flat Burnt Flat Burnt Flat 7019 Playa, heavy spring waterfowl use. 7021 Playa, heavy spring waterfowl use. 7019 Playa, proposed for wetland development. 7001 Heavy sage grouse use late summer. 7021 Heavy spring waterfowl use. 7006 Heavy spring migration use by waterfowl. 5213 Moderate spring waterfowl use. 5313 Antelope and sage grouse use in summer and fall. 5313 Moderate waterfowl use spring; sandhill crane nest 1986. 5313 Antelope use in summer. Livestock excluded 1987; brood pond construction The area is being excluded in summer of 1988; WII .P lanned. take many years to recover. Excluded in 1986. Heavy sediment from surrounding area. Needs exclusion to establish a filterin strip. Exclu 8 ed 1988; filter strip establishment should be quick; some waterfowl use. Fenced into its own pasture 1980, grazed once 80-87, dry 88, fair nest cover; heavy waterfowl migration use. Excluded 1981; good nesting cover and broodwater, heavy migration use in fall. Same as No. 1 and sandhill cranes present at nesting time. Excluded 1978; good nesting cover and brood water, fair migration use. Built in 1976 and excluded in 1981, aood nestina cover. brood water and migration use. .- I Excluded 1986, playa, goodwaterfowl and shorebird habitat in most years, dry some years. BLM ownership of Dam and l/2 of reservoir, good brood water and migration use. Fair nest cover. Large fluctuations make vegetation establishment very difficult. Winter graze in River Allotment. Deferred in Texaco Basin for heavy migration use by waterfowl, recreation use, heavy fishing use in good water years, 1977 and 1988. Large fluctuations; portions accessible to livestock; heavy use by migrat- ing waterfowl and shorebirds. Hea Goo 7 recreation use; mostly fishing. vegetative growth each year, grazed-no residual cover for next season nesting. Heavy migration use. Nominated as RNA. Important for sage grouse and antelope, playa. Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. Playa, seasonlong livestock use, moderate antelope use, heavy spring waterfowl use. IQ ‘Acres include surface waler acres at capacity or high water mark plus associated vegetation do 2-88 OREGON . . . .. . . .I . . . . . . . . Mule Deer Summer Range lfzl Mule Deer Winter Range 0N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP WL-1 MULE DEER RANGE 2-90 OREGON Wetland/Reservoir Habitat Cl Major Playas h1X-i Elk Winter Range Elk Summer Range I5 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP WL-2 ELK RANGE and WETLAND/PLAYA HABITAT Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment Allot. Stream Name Allot. Miles Acres Cond. Trend No. Comment Devine Creek Unallotted Poison Creek Lone Pine Silvies River Silvies River Silvies Meadow Silvies Canyon Landing Creek Silvies Meadow East Silvies Landing Creek Hay Creek Hay Creek Silver Creek Packsaddle Claw Creek 3.00 12.0 Good Static - 0.25 1.0 Poor Static 7043 1.50 17.4 Fair Static 7033 0.50 4.0 Fair Static 7035 2.25 26.2 Fair Static 7053 0.25 5.0 Poor Static 7035 0.75 10.0 Fair Down 7041 3.00 24.0 Fair Down 7040 2.00 35.0 Fair UP 7031 1.10 7.0 Good Static 7012 Dry Lake 0.45 32.0 Poor Upward 7010 2.00 15.2 Good Static 7010 1 so 17.5 Good Down 7009 Upper Valley 1.10 7.0 Good Static 7011 Claw Creek Upper Valley 0.25 4.0 Poor Down 7011 Claw Creek 2.30 12.0 Poor Static 7010 Wickiup Creek Packsaddle 1.25 18.0 Good Upward 7012 Mineral Canyon Packsaddle 0.60 1.0 Poor Static 7012 Dairy Creek Claw Creek 1.20 8.2 Fair Down Sawmill Creek Upper Valley 0.75 Rough Creek Claw Creek 0.25 0.75 3.0 2.0 15.0 Good Static Good Static Poor Upward 7010 7011 7010 7010 Excluded from livestock- Highway 395 impacts. Heavy livestock use. Grazing system not being followed. Grazing system not beingfollowed. Grazing system not being followed. Heavily impacted by livestock. Grazing system not beingfollowed. Grazing system not beingfollowed. Need to formalize grazing season. Beaver dams. Silver Creek RNA, heavy bedload movement from upstream, ex- cluded 1986. Excluded 1987, cutbanks, lack of willows. Narrow cyn., little livestock use. Livestock season of use highly variable from year to year. Cutbanks, sagebrush moving in due to lower water table. Extreme cutting. Upper 2 mi. has little riparian veg- etation, high fast runoff. Lower portion extreme cutting heavy live- stock use. Heavily impacted by logging and livestockgrazing in past. Excluded 1978, heavy bedload movement from upstream. Heavily impacted by logging and livestockgrazing in past. Excluded 1978, heavy bedload movement from upstream and currently has low potential due to soil loss to bedrock. Seasonof livestockuse highlyvari- able, late summer removal of her- baceous riparian vegetation. Livestock season of use may be problem, cutbanks. Excluded 1987. Steep Narrow Rocky Canyon, inaccessibleto live- stock. Excluded 1987. Lacking woody ri- parian vegetation some small cutbanks. 2-92 Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment (continued) Allot. Stream Name Allot. Miles Acres Cond. Trend No. Comment Nicoll Creek Dry Lake 0.75 3.0 Good Static 7009 Skull Creek Emigrant Creek Yellowjacket Creek Spring Creek Varien Creek Beaver Dam Cr. Buzzard Creek Alder Creek Alder Creek 4.80 15.0 Poor Static 5536 Bluebucket Cr. Moffet Table 1.85 4.0 Fair Static 5511 1.05 3.0 Poor Static 5511 Coleman Creek Alder Creek Cottonwood Cr. Lee Creek M.F. Malheur River Paul Creek Riddle Mountain 0.60 4.0 Fair 0.30 2.0 Poor Deep Creek Deep Creek 1.30 6.0 Good Skull Creek 3.50 23.5 Poor Static 7030 Hotchkiss 0.5 2.0 ? ? 7032 Emigrant Creek 0.50 Hay Creek 1 .oo Sawtooth (MNF) 0.20 Hay Creek 0.40 Spring Creek 0.50 Varien Canyon 0.40 Sawtooth (MNF) 0.30 W. Warm Springs 1.50 W. Warm Springs Coleman Creek 4.35 24.0 Poor Static 5536 1.35 4.0 Fair Static 5536 0.25 1 .o Poor Static 5201 Cottonwood Cr Moffet Table Moffet Table 0.50 2.0 Fair 1.35 6.0 Fair 0.30 1.0 Poor 2.30 8.0 Fair River 0.80 5.0 Fair 0.50 3.0 Good Static 7027 4.0 ? ? 7031 1 .o ? ? 7051 0.5 ? ? 7031 3.0 ? ? 7029 1.0 Good Static 7048 1 .o Fair Static 7051 14.0 Poor Static 7002 5.0 Poor Upward 7002 Upward 5522 Static 5522 Static 5511 Heavy livestock use. Downward 5511 Upward 5530 Upward 5310 Static 5310 Static 5330 Narrow rough canyon inaccessible to livestock. Road impacts. Lack of woody riparian vegetation, cutbanks. Grazing system not designed for riparian improvement. FFR FFR Condition unknown. FFR FFR FFR Creek area below fenced spring, probably can become perennial with meadow improvement. Meadow and creek area near spring. Metal gully plugs installed and area excluded in 1986. 3 mi. acquired in PX in 1985, traded out of 1.5 miles. Areaproposedforexclusion, WSA, grazing system maintaining fair. Heavy logging, grazing and road impacts. Heavy livestock use, season of use conflict. Heavy livestock use, season of use conflict. Heavy livestock use, season of use conflict. Excluded 1981. Heavy livestock use, grazing system implementation delayed; WSA. Fenced grazing system 1981 ;early use every other year (1 month). Excluded 1981. Grazing season conflict. Poor livestock access. Acquired in 1984 State exchange. 2-93 Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment (continued) Allot. Stream Name Allot. Miles Acres Cond. Trend No. Comment Ltl Muddy Cr. Little Muddy Cr. 1.50 6.0 ? ? 5505 Mahon Creek Mahon Creek 1.50 6.0 ? ? 5534 Warm Sprgs.Cr. Mill Gulch 1.25 5.0 ? ? 5525 Mule Creek Mule Creek 1.25 8.0 ? ? 5515 S.Fk. Malheur Venator 1.25 6.0 Fair Static 5205 River Stockade 1.35 4.0 Fair Static 5206 Rattlesnake Cr. Camp Harney 2.70 16.0 Good Upward 5105 Stinkingwater Creek Smyth Creek Smyth Creek Riddle Creek Happy Valley 2.00 8.0 Fair Riddle Mountain 1.20 5.0 Fair Unallotted 0.50 2.0 ? Riddle Coyote 3.30 12.0 Fair Hamilton Ind. 2.50 10.0 Fair Dry Lake 0.75 2.0 ? Buck Mountain 3.00 12.0 PoorWarm Sprgs Cr. Dawson Butte 0.75 5.0 Fair Stinkingwater Mountain Mountain Texaco Basin Coffeepot Creek Camp Harney Coyote Creek Riddle Mountain Riddle Coyote Little Pine Cr. Pine Creek 0.50 1.25 1 .oo 0.50 0.60 0.40 1.50 2.30 3.0 Poor 5.0 Poor 5.0 Fair 3.0 Poor 4.0 Good 2.0 Good 5.0 Fair 10.0 Poor 3.00 12.0 Poor 1 .oo 4.0 Poor 0.75 3.0 Fair 2.00 6.0 Fair 2.20 7.0 Fair 2.00 8.0 Fair Newell Creek Cow Creek 2-94 Lamb Ranch FFR 1.25 Cow Creek 0.50 6.0 2.0 Data needed. Data needed. Data needed. (Poor is my guess.) Data needed. (Poor?) Good herbaceous, no woody. Good herbaceous, no woody. Grazing system implemented 1981; rest 4 years. Graze each spring during April. Upward 5524 Static 5524 Static 5531 Downward 5532 Static 5532 Static 5532 Static 5307 Downward 5307 Static 5307 Grazing system implemented 1980; early graze improvement in herbaceous. No system with riparian emphasis. Nosystem with riparian emphasis. Herbaceous okay, woody bad, some cutbanks. Heavy use by livestock. Poor livestock access. Poor livestock access. Gap fencing needed. Heavy livestock use; evidence of prior perennial flow - old beaver dams. Static 5309 Downward 5310 ? Downward 5329 Downward 5327 ? 5303 ? 5537 Downward 5532 Static 5566 Static 5105 Improving 5310 Static 5329 Improving 5503 Good herbaceous;fairwoody; look at system. System being implemented 1988. Early season grazing use. Acquired in 1989 Headwaters many spring, may be opportunity with new fire rehabili- tation seeding. May have opportunity for early use pasture. Good livestock access. Good herbaceous, fair woody. Riparian pasture 1988. Acquired in 1989. Being grazed early has shown im- provement. Need to formalize early grazing system. ? 5571 Obtained in State exchange 1984. No data. ? 5106 No condition data. Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment (continued) Allot. Stream Name Allot. Miles Acres Cond. Trend No. Comment Mill Creek Camp Harney 2.50 10.0 ? ? 5105 Crane Creek Alder Creek 5.00 20.0 ? ? 5536 Silvies River Silvies 0.20 1.0 Fair ? 4143 Flat Creek Silvies 0.40 2.0 Fair ? 4143 Mountain Creek Silvies 0.50 5.0 Fair Static 4143 Poison Creek Silvies 0.25 2.0 3.0 Fair Static 4143 Dog Creek Silvies 0.75 3.0 ? ? 4143 East Creek Prather Creek Swamp Creek Poison Creek 0.25 East Creek- Pine Hill 0.75 3.0 ? ? 4098 Need inventory data. Prather Creek 1.50 Devine 2.25 Kiger Smyth Creek 0.5 1.5 5.0 7.0 2.0 5.0 Fair Static 4040 ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? 5102 5101 5308 5307 Condition and trend not known. Need inventory. Condition and trend unknown. Need inventory data. Small parcel within private. Good herbaceous, good opportu- nity for wetland enhancement. Good opportunity for wetland en- hancement or large fishery reser- voir; fair herbaceous. Good opportunity for wetland en- hancement or large fishery reser- voir; fair herbaceous. Good herbaceous in lower portion, fair opportunity for wetland en- hancement. Need inventory data. 2-95 Aquatic Habitat Objective and Rationale AH 1: Ensure that a minimum of 75 percent of aquatic habitat is in good or better condition, and none is in poor condition, by the year 2000. Rationale: The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan states that the Bureau will protect habitat of all sensitive and candidate species to maintain or improve population levels. DEQ has identified water quality requirements for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters stimulating a joint BLM/DEQ MOU and Action Plan of April 1990, to implement these standards on public lands. BLM Oregon/Washington Riparian Enhancement Plan requires that the Bureau improve water quality on public lands to good or better condition by 1997. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AH 1 .l : On a case-by-case basis and after adequate public involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting aquatic habitat and not needed for administration or fire protection on public lands. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.1,SM1.1,SM2.2,SSS3.1,R2.1,R2.10, ED 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop NEPA documentation on proposed closures. 2. Coordinate with pertinent local, State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend - annually on select streams. - Water quality studies on select streams - 1 O-l 2 times/year. Constrained By: R 2.1. AH 1.2: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 3 with poor water quality related to BLM- administered riparian area conditions. Once aquatic habitat improves to fair condition, or after 5 years, implement grazing systems on I and M category allotments that allow a maximum of 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and 50 percent on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or are systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, SM 1 .l , SM 2.1, GM 1 .l , GM 1.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, WL 6.1, WL 7.5, WL7.17, R 2.10, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Allotment evaluations, AMP S , HMPs. 2. Use supervision. 3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 4. Develop NEPA documentation. 5. Review of pasture design. Monitoring Needs: Photo trend - annually on select streams. Use utilization monitoring continually when used. Water quality on select streams - 1 O-l 2 times/year. Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three times/year. 2-96 Allocation/Management Action AH 1.3: Implement grazing systems, on aquatic habitats listed in Appendix 1, Table 5, that are in fair or good condition, that allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian species and no morethan 50 percent total utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation annually; or are systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery and mainte- nance of good conditions (see Appendix 1, Table 4). Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.5, SM 1 .l , SM 2.1, GM 1 .l , GM 1.3, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.4, SSS 3.1, WL 6.2, WL 7.5, WL 7.18, R 2.10, R2.12, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Allotment evaluations, AMPS, HMPs. 2. Use supervision. 3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend - annually on select streams. - Use-utilization monitoring - continually when used. - Water quality sampling on select streams - 1 O-l 2 times/ year. - Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three times/year. AH 1.4: Inventory stream segments listed on Appendix 1, Table 7, and determine management actions required to meet water quality and riparian objective. Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.6, SM 2.1, SSS 2.1, SSS 4.1, WL 6.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.19, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Fund through the AWP process. 2. Collect and compile data. 3. Develop grazing systems as needed during the AWP and allotment evaluatiion process. Monitoring Needs: - Photo-trend - annually on select streams. - Water quality analysis 1 O-l 2 times/year. - Macroinvertebrate analysis - two-three times/year, AH 1.5: Maintain existing livestock exclosures on approxi- mately 4 miles of fish habitat and three reservoirs (Wickiup Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Paul Creek, SilverCreekand Rough Creek), seven reservoirs and District wetland developments (Willow, State, Twin Springs, Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 and No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoirs, Seiloff Dikes and Lake-on-the-Trail). Geographic Reference: See above. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.7, SM 2.1, GM 1.4, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.4, SSS 3.1, WL 4.1, WL 7.28, BD 1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Maintain existing status through allotment evaluation, AMPS and HMPs. 2. Coordinate with permittees and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Inspect exclosure fences - annually. - Repair as needed. - Photo trend studies - annually on select streams. - Water quality on select streams - 1 O-12 times/year. 2-97 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AH 1.6: All timber harvest must meet or exceed Oregon Forest Practices Act Standards and BLM Best Management Practices (see Appendix 1, Table 1 for Oregon General Best Forest Management Practices). Additionally, any commercial timber harvest must meet guidelines for stream protection in logging operations (Appendix 1, Table 2), while retaining woody veg- etation in a strip along each side of all perennial streams, and all other stream courses, springs, seeps and associated mead- ows which can significantly affect aquatic habitat. Buffer strips would be established as follows: Slope of Land Adjacent to Source Width of Buffer Strip On Each Bank O-40 percent lOOft. 40-50 percent 125ft. 50-60 percent 145ft. 60-70 percent 165ft. Geographic Reference: Commercial forestland, see Map F-l. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.2, F 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 6.4, WL 7.20, R 2.10, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Apply BLM BMPs for watershed protection. 2. NEPA review of impacts associated with each project. 3. Coordinate with Division of State Lands and ODFW if instream activities would occur. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor compliance with site inspections. - Where applicable, monitor impacts on water quality - lo-12 times/year. AH 1.7: In drainages containing fish habitat, ensure that all newly constructed, permanent roads on BLM-administered lands, meet Oregon forest practices standards presented in Appendix 1, Table 1 (Oregon General Best Forest Manage- ment Practices), Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:WQ1.9,SMl.l,SM2.1,SM2.2, F1.2,GM1.4, SSS3.1, WL6.6, R2.10, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM BMPs and Manual 9113. 2. BLM water quality and riparian goals by 1997. 3. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor contractor compliance. - Water quality studies on select stream reaches - lo-12 times/year. AH 1.8: Implement fish habitat enhancement work on the Middle Forkof the Malheur River as identified in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power Planning Council Proposal. These actions include, but are not limited to bank shaping and revegetation, instream boulder placement, protective fencing, spawning gravel placement, etc. Geographic Reference: Middle Fork Malheur River. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: SM 2.1, SSS 2.5, R 2.1, R 2.10. Constrained By: R 2.12, VRM 1 .l . Procedures to Implement: 1. Wait until wilderness status is determined. 2. Coordinate activities through the River IMP. 3. Any activity in WSA or WSR would be consistent with IMP and proposed future management. 4. Develop NEPA documentation. 5. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Establish several permanent sample stations for fisheries and water quality monitoring. - Water quality to identify project impact - lo-12 times/year during monitoring years. - Macroinvertebrate analysis - two-three times/year during monitoring years. - Fish inventory - annually, where applicable. - Photo trend - during monitoring years. 2-98 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AH1.9: lmplementstreambankstabilization projectsonstreams with less than 90 percent stable streambanks, especially where healing has not occurred within 5 years of a change in the grazing system or livestock removal. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1 .12, SM 1 .l , SM 2.1, SM2.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.6, R 2.10, BD 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop NEPA documentation on proposed projects. 2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend - annually on select streams. - Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- tem - lo-12 times/year during monitoring years. AH 1.10: Actively suppress wildfire and rehabilitate burned portions within 1 mile of perennial water, when consistent with BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Policy and within available funding. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:WQ1.lO,SM1.2,SM2.2,V1.1,FM1.1,FM2.1, R2.10, BD 1.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop and implement District Fire Suppression and Re- habilitation Plan. 2. BLM BMPs. 3. NEPA documentation. 4. Coordinated with affected interests and appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor Rehabilitation Plan with water quality - 1 O-12 times/ year. - Photo trend - annually in select areas. AH 1 .ll : Restrict vegetation conversion by mechanical and/or prescribed fire treatment in any subbasin to less than 20 percent of that land area within 1 mile of aquatic habitat, in that particular subbasin, in any 1 year. This would exclude wildfire rehabilitation activities. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1 .ll, SM 1.2,SM2.2, F2.1, V 1.1, SSS3.1, WL1.1,WL1.3,WL7.9,WL7.10,R2.1o,BD1.1,BD1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Development of project design including prescribed burn plan (where applicable). 2. NEPA documentation on all treatment proposals. Monitoring Needs: - Photo trend - annually in select areas. Constrained By: FM 2.1. 2-99 Objective and Rationale AH 2: Improve existing warmwaterfish habitatto good or better condition and providefor increased warmwater gamefish production by the year 2000. Expand warmwater fish habitat, as opportunities arise, and when no conflicts occur with existing game fish populations. Rationale:TheFLPMAof 1976directsthatpubliclands be managed in a mannerthatwillprovidefood and habitatforfishandwildlife. The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan directs the Bureau to improve habitats for high value fish species. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs AH 2.1: Where feasible, include designcriteria in new reservoir construction on BLM-administered land to allow warmwater game fish production. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1.3, R 2.10. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implementation would be as new reservoir construction opportunities develop. 2. NEPA review of each proposed project. 3. Coordinate with pertinent State and Federal agencies to secure necessary permits and clearances. Monitoring Needs: - Monitor warmwater fish populations via fish population assessment techniques once every 3 years. AH 2.2: Evaluate all existing BLM reservoirs now supporting coldwater game fish for quality of fishery. Where coldwater game fish production is poor and the reservoir would be better suited for warmwater game fish production, recommend to ODFW that management be changed accordingly. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implement over life of planning document. 2. Coordinate with ODFW and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: Decision Class: 2 - Monitor fish population introductions via fish population assessment techniques in conjunction with ODFW, once every 3 years. Supported By: WQ 1.8, R 2.10, LR 1.5. AH 2.3: Construct new reservoirs suitable for warmwater game fish production as opportunities arise and funding is available. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 2.10. Procedures to Implement: 1. Implement over life of planning document as opportunity arises. 2. NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - None. AH 2.4: Implement projects designed to increase warmwater fish spawning and rearing habitat, specifically in Moon Reser- voir, Warm Springs Reservoir and other warmwater sites, as appropriate. Geographic Reference: Moon Reservoir, Warm Springs Res- ervoir. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Project design and NEPA documentation. 2. BLM BMPs. 3. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and Federal agencies. Monitoring Needs: - Conduct fish population assessment once every 3 years following implementation of projects.Supported By: R 2.10, LR 1.5. 2-l 00 Allocation/Management Action AH 2.5: Expand warmwater fish habitat, where evaluations indicate suitability for warmwater game fish production. Recommend to ODFW that all reservoirs found to be suitable, be stocked with warmwater game fish. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 2.10. Procedures to Implement/ Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. NEPA review where appropriate. 2. BLM BMPs. 3. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and Federal agencies. 4. Work in conjunction with ODFW developing fish population assessment information. Monitoring Needs: - Fish population assessment and water quality analysis prior to stocking and annually, thereafter. Fire Management Objective and Rationale FM 1: As determined through values at risk analysis (Map FM-l), maximize the protection of life, property and high value sensitive resources from the detrimental effects of wildfire. Rationale: The 9200 Fire Management Manual identifies fire suppression as a high priority activity within the BLM. Life, property and resources are the three major oriorities in all fire suooression tactics. Areas identified as full suppression only are areas where threat to life, property and high *resource values exist. ’ Allocation/Management Action FM 1 .l : Provide initial attack, full suppression of natural and human-caused fires in areas identified as Zone A on Map FM- 2 (approximately 63,600 acres). Allow no prescribed fire in Zone A. Geographic Reference: Harney Basin, Blue Bucket WSA, Devine Canyon. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:WQl.lO,F1.8,F2.1,F3.1,F3.2. Constrained By: WQ 1.1, AH 1.1, AH 1.10. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Identify full suppression only areas. 2. Continuefullsuppressionactionswithinthiszone, nochanges from current management. 3. Ensure coordination with Area Resource Specialist (advi- sor) is completed prior to the use of any mechanical equip- ment in or near special use areas and or special status species habitats. Monitoring Needs: - Post fire monitoring of suppression effects. - Post fire critique with Fire Management and RA personnel. - Pre- and post fire season review with Fire staff and RA personnel. 2-l 01 2-l(12 OREGON RESOURCE VALUES AT RISK Class 1 (Low Vaue) . . . .El l * ’ ’ Class 3. . . .. . . . t-S3 Class 4 Class 5 I I ( None 1 Class 6 (High Value) 0N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP FM-l RESOURCE VALUES AT RISK OREGON lzl Zone AFull Suppression Only . . . El Zone B*::. . Conditional Fire Use Zone C Full Suppression & Prescribed Burning 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP FM-2 FIRE MANAGEMENT ZONES Objective and Rationale FM 2: Consistent with values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial use of prescribed fire and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. Rationale: The BLM recognizes only two types of fire, that being wildfire and prescribed fire. When properly managed, both can be of beneficial use to the resources the BLM manages. In areas of low values at risk and under predetermined conditions, natural caused fires can be managed to assist the District in meeting resource objectives (as identified in Appendix 1, Table 9). Within areas of high resource value, prescribed burning, with adequate planning, can also be used to meet identified resource objectives. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs FM 2.1: Provide initial attack, full supression of natural and human-caused fires, and utilize prescribed fire to achieve land and habitat management objectives on 1 ,184,230 acres iden- tified as Zone C on Map FM-2. Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. Decision Class: 2 or 3 SupportedBy:F1.8,F2.1, F3.1, F3.2,GMl.l,GM1.3,V1.5, WL 2.3, BD 3.8. Procedures to Implement: 1. Continue current management. Monitoring Needs: - Post-season fire critique. - Pre- and post-field season meetings between Fire Manage- ment and RA. - Photograph and study areas established for all prescribed fires. Constrained By: WQ 1 .l , WQ 1 .l 1, V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, WL 1.1, WL 1.3, WL2.2, WL7.7, WL7.9, WL7.10, AH l.l,AH l.lO,AH 1.11, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. - Burn Boss and Cost after eachAnalysis Reports project. FM 2.2: Provide conditional suppression of natural fires and utilize prescribed fire to achieve land and habitat management objectives in areas identified as Zone Bon Map FM-2, approxi- mately462,080 acres, (see Appendix 1, Table 9for site-specific resource objectives). General fire suppression parameters are shown below; specific parameters may be re-examined as necessary by the Authorized Officer (District Manager) in consultation with the District Fire Management Officer. Wildfires burning simultaneously (depending on complexity) 22 Fire Size c 2,500 acres Air Temperature c 86 “F Wind Speed at 20’ <7MPH Fine Fuel Moisture > 9 percent Flame Length c 7 feet Rate of Forward Spread c 1,300 ft. hr. Suppression Forces > 50 percent Available of crews/equip. Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: F 1.8, GM 1.3, WL 2.3. Constrained By: AQ 1 .l , AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, V 1 .l , SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, WL 1.3, WL 2.2, WL 7.7, WL 7.10, AH 1.1, AH 1.10, AH 1.11, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Complete activity planning for all areas identified for condi- tional burning. Identify all limiting factors, equipment types and use, allowable acreages and site-specific EAs where necessary. 2. Conduct yearly preseason meetings with Fire staff and RA staff to identify possible conflicts and/or needs for the field seasons. 3. Design site-specificfuel treatment plans in coordination and consuttation withthe District Fire Management Officerthrough the NEPA process. 4. Establish criteria for monitoring actual resource changes to determine if resource objectives are being met. 5. Thorough coordination between District Fire Management Officer and Area Resource Specialists will ensure both conditional and prescribed fire actions will meet site-specific resource values. Monitoring Needs: - Post fire critiques. - Pre- and post-season reviews. - Photograph plots or study plots established within identified areas. - Burn Boss and Cost Analysis Reports after each project. - Real time fire monitoring including fire behavior, fire effects, weather, etc. 2-l 06 Recreation Objective and Rationale R 1: During the 1 O-year period from 1990 to 2000, establish and manage intensive-use areas, where the presence of high quality natural resources and the current or potential demand warrants intensive use practices to protect the areas for their scientific, educational and/or recreational values while accommodating the projected increase in use for recreation activities specific to the areas (see Map R-l). Rationale: 1. Federal regulations authorize the BLM to designate recreation sites (relatively small tracts of land which have value for concentrated and intensive recreation use that usually require construction and maintenance of public facilities), 43 CFR 2070; to establish and manageONAs (toprovideforprotection oftheoutstanding naturalfeatures through management of recreation activities in the area) - 43 CFR 8352; and FLPMA provides that BLM give priority to the identification of ACEC. Allocation/Management Action R 1.1: Continue implementation of the Diamond Craters Rec- reation Management Plan as approved (1985), to accommo- date a projected 33 percent increase in recreation use from 12,450 visits in 1989 to 16,550 visits by the year 2000. This is considering a moderate model scenario for recreation activity consumption projections. Specific actions are noted in the plan to accomplish management of Diamond Craters as an ONA. A total land use allocation proposed for this special area is an estimated 17,656 acres. See Table 2.16 for specific actions. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1.4, WHB 1.2, V 1 .l, WL 7.22, WL 7.23, R 2.16, ACEC 1 .l, ACEC 1.2, VRM 1.2, CR 2.5, LR 1.4, LR 5.1, BD 1.1, BD3.1, BD3.2. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Specific procedures, as defined in BLM Manuals 2100 and 2200 (Lands) which govern the actions for acquisition of 600 additional acres and the withdrawal of a total of 1,000 acres. Note: Since approval of the recreation management plan, 400 acres recommended for acquisition have been acquired but not withdrawn from mineral entry. 2. Preparation of an Interpretive Prospectus. 3. Preparation of a Development Concept Plan (DCP). 4. Preparation of a Site Development Plan (SDP). 5. Coordination with USFWS (Malheur Refuge), Harney County and numerous scientists and educators from various col- leges, universities and organizations. 6. Cadastral survey of boundaries. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. R 1.2: Manage 400 acres (see Map R-l) at Chickahominy Reservoir as a high use recreation area. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Process to withdraw from mineral entry. 2. Process to eliminate grazing use, including fencing of BLM acres (400 acres). Supported By: GM 1.4, AH 1.1, AH 2.2, R 1.3, R 2.1, R 2.10, R 2.16, CR2.4, EM3.1, EM4.1, LR5.1. 3. Coordination with private landowners, ODFW, Harney County. Monitoring Needs: - Annual recreation site maintenance and safety inspection. - Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. - Periodic inspection of larger area, fenced in cooperation with ODFW, to eliminate livestock grazing on the majority of the area surrounding Chickahominy Reservoir. 2-l 07 2-l( m OREGONRECREATION USE AREAS 1. Snowmobile Use 2. Snowmobile Use 3. Chickahominy Recreation Site 4. Burns to Bend ORV Race Route 5. Cross-Country Skiing, Sledding, Tubing, Snowmobiling 6. Radar Hill ORV Area 7. Sagehen Hill Nature Trail 8. Wild Horse Viewing Area 9. Moon Reservoir Recreation Site 10. Wrights Point Geologic Area 11. Diamond Craters ONA 12. Desert Trail Route 13. Wild Horse Viewing Area 14. Warm Springs Recreation Area 15. Diamond Loop Backcounty Byway Route 16. Silvies River Fishing Access Trail 17. Clear Creek Rockhounding Area 0N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP R-l RECREATION USE AREAS 2- Allocation/Management Action R 1.3: Upgrade Chickahominy Recreation Site to accommo- date a projected 26 percent increase in recreation use from 27,000 visits in 1989 to 34,000 visits by the year 2000. This is considered a moderate model scenario for recreation activity consumption projections. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 1.2. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM Manual 8300, Subparts 8320, 8322,8323: 2. Preparation of a DCP. 3. Preparation of a SDP. 4. NEPA documentation for additional facilities development. 5. Set priorities to develop specific features in SDP as funding (including Challenge Grants) becomes available over a 3 to 5 year period. 6. Program to fund maintenance personnel, equipment and supplies to manage and operate a high standard camp- ground development on a long-term basis. 7. Program to fund visitor services including campground host(s) and provisions for information and interpretation services pertaining to the site and its resources. Monitoring Needs: - Annual recreation site maintenance and safety inspection. - Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. - Continuing visitor use analysis. - Continuing evaluation of information, interpretation and facility needs. R 1.4: Allocate approximately 240 acres near Radar Hill, in the foothills above Burns and Hines, as an ORV area to accommo- date the needs of the local population (T. 23 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 20, 21, 28). See Map R-l for location of the proposed area. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1.4, AH 1 .l, R 2.1. Constrained By: V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Public outreach to notify publicof management decision and direction. 2. Actively pursue the issuance of a lease with a local organi- zation with capability, expertise and willingness to operate theareaon aday-to-day basis. If no potential leasee isfound within a5-yearperiodfollowingtheapprovalofthismanage- ment plan, the District will continue to manage the facility as part of the Recreation Resources Management Program. 3. Development of site plan. 4. Construction and installation of facilities such as fencing, signing, gates, rest rooms, parking and staging area, access off paved county road. 5. Cooperation requirements: - Local ORVorganization or other group willing to operate the area. - Harney County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement needs. - Allotment users (Gouldin Allotment) for livestock grazing management. Monitoring Needs: - Annual on-site inspection to evaluate (1) performance of lessee in meeting permit stipulations, (2) need to replace or repair facilities, and, (3) impacts of motorized vehicle use on natural environment. 2-110 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to implement/Monitoring Needs R 1.5: Allocate approximately 280 acres for the development and operation of the Burns Butte Public Shooting Range (T. 23 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 21, N1/2SE1/4). Decision Class: 2 Constrained By: SSS 3.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement 1. Public outreach to notify public of management decision. 2. Construction and development of facilities including signing and fencing to establish safety zone and warn public of shooting range. 3. CCC with Harney County Sheriff’s Department, local youth organizations, local civic groups, Harney County Chamber of Commerce. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic patrols to check boundaries, signing and fencing to ensure public is protected from any dangers created by establishing a shooting range. Objective and Rationale R 2: During the IO-year period from 1990 to 2000, provide opportunities for unstructured outdoor recreation activities with the necessary facilities and services to accommodate a projected 24.5 percent increase in dispersed recreation use within the Three Rivers RA from an estimated 84,000 visits in 1989 to an estimated 104,500 visits by the year 2000. Rationale: FLPMA provides for recreation on public lands as an integral component of multiple-use management. Unstructured, dispersed activity is a predominent feature of recreational usage in the Three Rivers RA. E.O. 11644 and 11989 direct Federal agencies to define zones of use (and nonuse) for off-road vehicles on public lands to provide for ORV usage while protecting sensitive resource values. ItisBLMpolicythat,asexpressedthrough Recreation2000:AStrategicPlan,“TheBLMwillensurethecontinuedavailabilityof public land for a diversity of resource-dependent outdoor recreation opportunities...” Such diverse opportunities in the Three Rivers RA include fishing, rockhounding, hiking and trails, driving for pleasure, etc. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1975, as amended, directs the Secretary of Interior to study and make recommendations to Congress on the suitability or nonsuitability of rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs R 2.1: Implement and manage ORV areas (see Map R-2) designated in the Federal Register on February 20, 1987, as well as a prior designation for South Narrows. Exceptions are Warm Springs Reservoir area (23,811 acres), Squaw Lake area(6,500acres) and Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek(2,080 acres). The open areas now free of ORV use, but susceptible to ORV damage, will be closed or limited in future designations when a determination is made that the use of ORVs will cause, or is causing, significant adverse impacts on natural, cultural or historical resources of particular areas or trails on public lands. Specific designations are: Procedures to Implement: 1. Public notification of management decisions. 2. Establishment of each area’s boundary on the ground. 3. Signing of area’s boundary to note limitation or closure, particularly in high use areas. 4. Mapping of closed or limited areas. 5. Brochures noting ORV designations and ORV recreational opportunities in the RA. Consultation and coordination (by specific areas): grazing allotment users, private landown- ers, USFWS, Harney County, various interested organiza- tions and individuals. Continue Closed Designation On Acres 6. Prepare and implement emergency closures where moni- toring data indicates that unacceptable resource damage is, or will be occurring from ORV usage. Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek fpa;;;fealheur River-Bluebucket Cr. WSA) Windy Point Devine Canyon S. Narrows 2,040 30 280 1,040 160 Monitoring Needs: - Periodic patrols to check boundaries, signing and vehicle use within areas. - Establishment of baseline data and photo points to deter- mine impacts of future resource damage. - Rehabilitation of specific sites if necessary. 2-111 2-112 OREGONm CLOSED TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE 1. Devine Canyon 2. Malheur River - Bluebucket Creek 3. Windy Point 4. Hat Butte 5. South Narrows ACEC 6. Burns Butte Shooting Range ILIMITED OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE 7. Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 8. Malheur River - Bluebucket Creek WSA 9. Stonehouse WSA 10. Warm Springs Reservoir 11. Silver Creek RNA (Includes addition) 12. Foster Flat RNA 13. Dry Mountain RNA Addition 14. Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 15. Kiger Mustang ACEC 16. Chickahominy Reservoir The remainder of the Resource Area is open to ORV travel. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA IWIAP R-2 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS 2-’ 3 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Implement Closed Designations On M.Fk. Malheur River Wild River 250 The proposed closed acres will be redesignated from current limited designation acres. Excluding private parcels included in the proposed river designation, 2,080 closed acres (which is recommended to be reduced to 2,040 acres) already encompass the river corridor, except for an estimated 250 BLM acres. Burns Butte Public Shooting Range (including safety zone) Continue Limited Designation On 280 Malheur River-Bluebucket Cr.WSA 3,270 (interim designation) Stonehouse WSA 5,825 (interim designation-acres are in Three Rivers RA portion not designated closed) Silver Creek RNAACEC 640 Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 16,656 Warm Springs Reservoir 2,961 Designated in Reservoir Pasture No. 5566, which is 4,121 acres less 1 ,I 60 acresof Bureau of Reclamation lands for atotal of 2,961 acres. Implement Limited Designation On Acres Chickahominy Recreation Site Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC Silver Creek RNAACEC addition Foster Flat RNA Dry Mountain RNA addition Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC Kiger Herd ACEC Squaw Lake (revocation of prior designation) 400 400 640 2,690 2,084 6,500 64,639 6,500 Malheur River-Bluebucket Cr. WSA (partial revocation of prior 2,080-acre closed designatioy All RA acres were designated as either open, closed or limited under the ORV designation of February 20, 1987. Therefore, all proposed limited acres will be redesignated from current open designated acres, with the exception of Squaw Lake and Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek WSA which will be redesignated from current closed designated acres. The proposed closed acres will be redesignated from current open designated acres. Implement Open Designations On (Revocation of Prior Designation) Warm Springs Reservoir 20,850 The proposed open acres will be redesignated from current limited designated acres in old River Pasture No. 5530 which is Carey Tables Pasture, River Pasture and Lake Pasture totaling 18,449 acres and North Slope Pasture No. 5538 totaling 2,401 acres. Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:WQ1.1,SM1.1,SM2.2,V1.4,V1.5,SSS1.3,WL 7.21, WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, AH 1 .l, AH 1.8,R1.1,R1.4,R2.2,R2.3,R2.4,ACEC1.1,ACEC1.2,ACEC 1.3,ACEC1.4,ACEC1.5,ACEC1.6,CR2.1, BD2.3,BD3.1, BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.8. Constrained By: SM 1 .l. 2-114 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs R 2.2: Revoke the current limited ORV designation of 23,811 acresforWarmSprings Reservoirwiththeexceptionoftheland within Reservoir Pasture between the reservoirwater level and the county access road on the west side of the reservoir (2,961 BLM acres). The area includes lands administered by the BOR (1,160 acres). If an MOU is established with BOR, BLM will manage the total land surface area from the reservoir water level to the other established ORV management boundaries. Note: ORV use has not occurred within this area as expected since the limited designation was imposed in 1987. It is not necessary to manage such a large area for limited vehicle use. Rather, the area near Warm Springs Reservoir is being im- pacted by vehicle use and limitations need to be continued to protect the fragile soils on the points and surrounding low hills. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.1, LR 5.4. Constrained By: WQ 1 .I, SM 1 .l. Procedures to Implement: 1. Public notification of management decisions. 2. Establishment of each area’s boundary on the ground. 3. Signing of each area’s boundary to note limitation orclosure, particularly in high use areas. 4. Mapping of closed or limited areas. 5. Brochures noting ORV designations and ORV recreational opportunities in the RA. CCC (by specific areas): grazing allotment users, private landowners, USFWS, Harney County, various interested organizations and individuals. 6. Prepare and implement emergency closures where moni- toring data indicates that unacceptable resource damage is, or will be occurring from ORV usage. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic patrols to check boundaries, signing and vehicle use within areas. - Establishment of baseline data and photo points to deter- mine impacts of future resource damage. R 2.3: Replace the current closed ORV designation of 6,500 acresinthesquaw Lakeareawithadesignationlimitingvehicle use to existing designated roads to be consistent with the limited designation on lands surrounding the parcel. Note: Protection of this 6,500-acre area by closing it to vehicle use is not warranted. Area is part of Stonehouse WSA which has been designated for vehicle use limited to existing, desig- nated roads.Thislimiteddesignationcould also bemadeforthe 6,500-acre closed portion to provide access on the several dead-end roads and still provide protection for the natural features in the Squaw Lake area. Procedures to Implement: 1. RMP planning process as part of the published notice in the Federal Register. Monitoring Needs: - Regular periodic surveillance. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.1, EM 4.1, LR 2.4. R 2.4: Redesignate 40 acres of the current closed ORV designation of 2,080 acres for the Middle Fork Malheur River- Bluebucket Creek with a designation limiting vehicle use to existing designated roads to be consistent with the limited designation on WSA lands adjacent to the parcel on the west. Procedures to Implement: 1 RMP planning process as part of the published notice in the Federal Register. Monitoring Needs: Note: A low standard road in the northwest corner of the current closed area was inadvertently closed to vehicle use by the original designation in 1987. By allowing limited use, the road will provide access for monitoring needs and maintenance of range improvements such as spring developments, reservoirs and fences. - Regular periodic surveillance. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.1, LR 2.4. 2-115 Allocation/Management Action R 2.5: Identify usable cross-country route(s) on designated roads and trails to accommodate the needs of the public for organized cross-country events. Approval of applications for such events would be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to specific permit stipulations. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: R 2.1. Constrained By: SM 1 .I. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Establishment of specific user needs. 2. Layout of proposed routes. 3. Issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits (SRUP) with stipulations, bonding, fee payments and accompanying NEPA documentation including analysis of environmental impacts and measures for mitigation. Monitoring Needs: - Case-by-case. R 2.6: Provide and maintain minimal facilities (rest rooms, boat ramp, parking area and periodic maintenance of the access road) to enhance the fishing opportunities during the high spring and summer use season at Moon Reservoir. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: AH 2.4, AH 2.5, R 2.10, LR 4.1, LR 4.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Preparation of Site Development Plan (SDP). 2. Obtaining of funds utilizing Facility Grants (State Marine Board) and Challenge Grants. 3. Construction of on-site facilities. 4. Annual maintenance and upkeep through Recreation Main- tenance Program (4712). 5. CCC/partnership with private landowners. Monitoring Needs: - Annual recreation maintenance inspection of site. - Annual access road maintenance inspection. - Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. R 2.7: Provide minimum sanitation, picnicking and boat launch- ing facilities and their maintenance at Warm Springs Reservoir to enhance water sports and fishing opportunities. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: AH 2.4, AH 2.5, R 2.10, LR 4.1, LR 5.1, LR 5.2, LR 5.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Preparation of SDP. 2. Obtaining funds for construction utilizing Facility Grants (State Marine Board) and Challenge Grants. 3. Construction of on-site facilities. 4. MOU with BOR; Cooperative Management Agreements (CMAs) with other groups. 5. Annual maintenance and upkeep through Recreation Main- tenance Program (4712). 6. CCC with BOR; Harney County, Oregon State Marine Board, possible local organizations as volunteers and coop- erative sponsors. (BOR administers the reservoir and im- mediate surrounding area). Interagency Agreement; CMAs with organizations if no transfer of Federal funds is involved. Monitoring Needs: - Annual recreation maintenance inspection of site. - Annual access road maintenance inspection. - Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 2-116 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs R 2.8: Continue to provide for incidental recreational use of the Clear Creek area (T. 22 S., R. 35 E., Sec. 18) for collection of semi-precious stones, utilizing hand tools for excavation. No mechanized equipment such as backhoes, bulldozers, tren- chers, etc. will be allowed for removal of overburden or the resource. Decision Class: 1 and 2 Supported By: SM 1 .l , SM 2.1, CR 2.7. Procedures to Implement: 1. Reinventory of petrified wood resource. 2. Delineation and signing of boundaries of specific area. 3. Development of activity plan. 4. Development of information signs and rock hounding bro- chure. Area will be managed for safe use by visitors. 5. CCC with Harney County Sheriff’s Department; local rockhounders. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic patrols of area to monitor use. - Annual inspection to evaluate impacts on the resource and the natural environment. - Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. - Annual safety inspection. R 2.9: Develop and manage trails to provide access for utiliza- tion of resources and to accommodate recreation activities such as hiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and bicycling. Current priorities for trail marking or developments are: 1. Sign the portion of the Desert Trail from U.S. Highway 78 to Diamond Craters which crosses the RA for approximately 35 miles. 2. Develop approximately one-half mile of trail with minimal facilities to provide fishing access to a portion of the Silvies River administered by the BLM (T. 21 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 14, 23). Note: There may be additional milesof the Desert Trail in the RA if the proposed route north of U.S. Highway 78 reenters the Burns District from the Vale District. Decision Class: 2 Supported By:AH l.l,AH 1.2,AH 1.3,AH 1.6,AH 1.7,AH 1.8, AH1.9,AH1.10,AH1.11,AH2.1,AH2.2,AH2.3,AH2.4,AH 2.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Identification of additional trails to satisfy visitor needs and demands as ongoing process (including Desert Trail). 2. Preparation of Trail Development Plan for fishing access. 3. Development of trail and facilities (includes grading of access road, signing, turn-around/parking area. 4. Public notification in local newspaper, location of feature on District Recreation Map (N1/2), and publication in Chamber of Commerce revisions of their recreation publications. 5. CCC with Desert Trail Association, Harney County Cham- ber of Commerce, Isaac Walton League, private landown- ers, other resource users. Monitoring Needs: Annual access road maintenance inspection. Annual trail maintenance inspection. Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. Visitor use analysis to determine usage. Review CMA with Oregon Trail Association to ensure ad- equacy for trail management. R 2.10: Manage the waters in the RA to expand and enhance fishing opportunities. Procedures to Implement: Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.3, WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, WQ 1.9,WQ1.11,WQ1.12,SM1.1,SM2.1,SM2.2,F1.3,GM1.4, V 1.2, V 1.3, SSS 2.1, SSS 2.4, SSS 2.5, SSS 2.6, WL 4.1, WL 6.1, WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.4, WL 7.5, WL 7.14, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, WL7.19, WL7.20, WL7.27, WL7.28,AH 1.7, AH 1.8, R 2.6, R 2.9, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. 1. Development of specific project designs. 2. Develop NEPA documentation. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-117 I 2-118 OREGON Petrified Wood Thunder Egg Obsidian Agate 10 MlLES 1 uN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP R-3 RECREATIONAL MINERALS 2-’ 9 Allocation/Management Action R 2.11: Manage the Diamond Loop (comprised of the county road from Princeton through Diamond Craters ONA, the Happy Valley Road, Diamond Lane and portions of State Highway 205) as a Back Country Byway connecting to the Steens Mountain Loop (also a Back Country Byway) at the town of Frenchglen. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.16. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Agreements and partnerships with principal cooperators. 2. Rehabilitation of visual resources. 3. Signing and interpretation. 4. Public Outreach- Harney County Chamber of Commerce, State Highway Department, local citizens, USFWS. 5. Development of interpretive facilities. 6. Dedication process. Monitoring Needs: - Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. - Review of various brochures and maps of specific areas along proposed byway for accuracy and need for changes/ revisions. - Review of agreements with various entities to ensure ad- equacy of byway management. R 2.12: Recommend, through a legislative EIS, the inclusion of a 5.4.mile section of the Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek, adjacent to the Malheur National Forest, as a Wild River included in the National Wild and Scenic River System (see Tables 2.17,2.18,2.19 and 2.20 and Maps WSR- 1 and WSR-2). Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.5, SM 1 .l, SM 2.1, F 1.7, GM 1 .I, GM 1.3, V 1.5, SSS2.1, SSS3.1, WL6.2, WL7.18, WL7.21, WL7.27, AH1.3,FM1.1,R2.1,R2.15,R2.16,VRM1.1,VRM1.2,EM 3.1, LR2.4, LR5.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5, BD3.8. Procedures to Implement: 1. Identify action as a “preliminary administrative recommen- dation.” 2. Prepare a Wild and Scenic River Study Report possibly as a statewide consolidated effort. 3. Prepare legislative EIS. 4. Prepare Record of Decision. 5. Initiate interim management protection (see Table 2.21). 6. Initiate interim boundary determination. 7. Initiate public land order for a 3-year period. 8. CCC with USDA-FS (Malheur National Forest) Harney County. Monitoring Needs: - On-the-ground interim management surveillance. - Completion of implementation procedures. R 2.13: Acquire by exchange or purchase on a “willing buyer/ seller” basis approximately 400 private acres within a one-half mile corridor on the segment of the Middle Forkof the Malheur River recommended for designation as a Wild River. Actual river frontage would be in Section 16 and in Section 21, T. 18 S., R. 34 E. and would include approximately 1.3 river miles. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:SSS2.7,WL6.5,R2.15,LRl.l,LR5.1,LR5.4, BD 1.4. Procedures to Implement: 1. Specificprocessing requirementsforexchanges, purchases, and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners or proponents. Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM’s budget process. Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. 2-120 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres transferred within the various land tenure zones. R 2.14: Coordinate with the Ochoco National Forest to conduct a Wild and Scenic River study process for Silver Creek. This study follows a three-step assessment process (determination of eligibility, classification and determination of suitability) to determine Silver Creeks potential for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Formation of joint inventory team and utilize data/informs- tion from both agencies. 2. Develop a resource assessment to identify any “outstanding remarkable values.” 3. Proceed with interim management. 4. Develop a River Management Plan if assessment process indicates the creek is suitable for a recommended designation. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. R 2.15: Acquire legal and physical access to specific areas to Procedures to Implement: enhance hunting, fishing, rockhounding and other dispersal recreation activities. Specific areas are located on Map LR-1. 1. BLM manuals 2100, 2100-l) H2101-1 and other pertinent guidance provide specific direction for access acquisition. Decision Class: 2 Briefly, this guidance includes: - Review access acquisition needs to determine specific priorities. Supported By: WL 5.3, WL 6.5, R 2.13, ACEC 1 .l, ACEC 1.2, - Determine feasibility and options for each access need. ACEC1.3,ACEC1.4,ACEC1.5,ACEC1.6,ACEC1.7,CR2.7, - Determine the potential for landowner interest and potential. LR 1.1, LR 1.3, LR 1.5, LR 4.1, LR 4.2, LR 4.3, LR 5.2, BD 2.4, - Negotiate and process easements or fee acquisitions with land- BD 3.1, BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6. BD 3.7. owners in accordance with the authority applicable to the specific acquisition. Monitoring Needs: - AWP process. R 2.16: Provide informational and educational opportunities to en- hance experiences and increase knowledge of the use or protection of natural resources, the BLM’s land management role and the responsibility of the recreating public in using the public lands. Specific opportunities by priority are: Developmentof geologic interpretive site at Wright’s Point as part of the Steens Initiative. Interpretation of designated special management areas (Silver Creek RNA, Diamond Craters ONA, Chickahominy Recreation Site, Middle Fork Malheur Wild and Scenic River, Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC, Kiger Mustang ACEC and others) as delineated in their respective management plans. Continued maintenance and enhancement of Sagehen Hill Nature Trail. Location and development of interpretive sites along travel routes to support the Watchable Wildlife program which includes wild horses (Palomino Buttes, Warm Spring Reservoir area and other sites). Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identification of specific sites for development. Preparation of activity/interpretive plan(s). Developmentofbrochure(s)andon-sitesigning/interpretive features. Public Outreach -notification in local newspaper, revision of current Bureau maps and other publications. CCC with Harney County Chamber of Commerce, private landowners, ODFW, USFWS, wild horse interest groups, environmental groups such as Audubon, Native Plant Soci- ety. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic patrols to monitor use. - Annual sign maintenance/replacement and facility mainte- nance inspection. - Annual inspection to evaluate impacts on resource and natural environment. - Review of brochures to revise/update. SupportedBy:WHBl.l,WHB 1.2,WHB2.2,V 1.3,V 1.4,V 1.5, R 1.1, R 2.11, CR 2.1, CR 2.4, CR 2.5, CR 2.6, CR 2.7, BD 2.4, BD 3.1, BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.8. 2-121 OREGON II WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SEGMENTS 0 Silvies River - SEGMENTS A,B l Middle Fork Malheur River - SEGMENTS A,B,C,D . South Fork Malheur River - SEGMENT A ,o MLES , u N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP WSR-1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS INVENTORY 2-123 R 34 E R 33 l/2 E ‘), ,-,,/-..----i, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT Recommended Wild River Area April 1991 THREE RIVERS RMP El Designated Closed to -JOREGONOff-Road Vehicle Use MAP WSR-2. . . . I.3 . . . . . Proposed Additional Closed MALHEUR RIVER AND BLUEBUCKET CREEK. . . .. to Off-Road Vehicle Use -N- PROPOSED WILD RIVER DESIGNATION Is3 Proposed Change from Closed 1 0to Limited Off-Road Vehicle Use 1 MileH I I 2-124 Table 2.16. Diamond Craters Management Actions’ The management plan involves 16 separate actions to resolve the issue and accomplish the management objective. The identified issue discussed in Part I is listed along with the planned management actions which need to be implemented. 1. Acquire the following parcels of private land adjacent to the present boundaries of Diamond Craters ONA, if they become available. Adjustments can be through land exchanges or by purchase. 2. Z : E1/2, Sec. 16, T. 28 S., R. 32 E. W1/2NE1/4,NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 32 E. C. SE1/4SE1/4, Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 31 E. Acquire mineral estate to W1/2, Sec. 16, T. 28 S., R. 32 E., and SE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 31 E. 3. 4. Protect cultural sites and, where feasible, interpret for public information and education. Continue the cooperative law enforcement and search and rescue agreement with the Harney County Sheriff’s Department to enforce regulations and provide visitor protection. The Department patrols the area to deter vandalism and guard against removal of slab lava and the destruction of other natural resources. The agreement outlines the responsibilities of both agencies and the amount and type of assistance each will provide in law enforcement situations. It should remain in force as long as it is economically feasible and acts as a viable management tool. 5. Monitor the resource impacts of recreation use through: Periodic patrols by vehicle and foot. Locating traffic counters at strategic locations to record visitors entering and leaving the area and using specific sites. Recordation of group numbers and purposes for using the ONA. Issuance of special recreation use permits for specific recreation, scientific study and education uses. Periodic visit use analysis as visitor numbers and/or recreation uses change from the present pattern. Photograph points for caves and other sensitive features to establish a visual base-line to determine physical changes and impacts. 6. 7. Visitor Use Allocation System - Action Reserved. The current use level does not yet warrant this. Develop an interpretive program for users which focuses on: t : Visitor awareness of outstanding natural, scenic and cultural resources. Environmentally acceptable visitor behavior which will protect cultural resources, wildlife habitat and populations, the natural character of the Craters and the enjoyment of the area by recreationists. a. 9. c. ORV use. Allow motorized vehicle use only on designated roads by initiating an ORV designation and posting of the area. Require special recreation use permits for individuals and groups in those cases involving specific recreation, scientific study and education activities which affect the recreational use of the other visitors or have an impact on the area’s resource values. Fees may or may not be charged depending on the Bureau’s determination of use. Determination will be made on a case-by-case basis with specific stipulations regulating use. IO. 11. 12. 13. 14. Rehabilitate areas where cinders and slab lava have been removed and review all future leasing and material disposal operations causing surface disturbance under the most stringent interpretation of applicable regulations. Adopt a policy of letting natural fire burn within the ONA. Develop a central information center. Provide interpretation using trailguides and brochures with small on-site location markers rather than installing interpretive signs. Develop parking areas or pull-outs near points of observation where vehicular parking space is needed. 2-l 25 Table 2.16. Diamond Craters Management Actions’ (continued) 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Maintain natural conditions at points of interest where visitor use and recreational developments could destroy or significantly alter resource values. Provide minimum signing for essential services only, including traffic management, facility and recreation use management, and the signing of the boundary around the edge of the withdrawal. Maintain the road to Oliver Springs to allow safe travel of passenger cars. Do not maintain the road to Little Red Cone but keep it at a low standard of construction to allow passage of high clearance vehicles. Close roads or trails that are not necessary for management of the area. Develop no additional roads to allow motorized vehicle use in Diamond Craters. Allow the proposed High Desert Trail to go through Diamond Craters. Also develop other trails to accommodate and enhance the recreation experience offered by the area, while using the trails as a tool to provide protection of fragile resources. ‘As Noted I” Dramad Craters Recreation Management Plan, November 1985 2-126 Malheur Hover (Segment A) to wsA 5. bounaary (OR-2-14) T.18S.,R.34E., Sec. 32 (includes Bluebucket Creek) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment B) WSA boundary in Sec. 32, T.l8S., R34E., to U.S. Hlghway 20 Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment C) U.S. Highway 20 to slack water, Sec. 11 T.22S., R.36E. Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment D) Slack water, Sec. 11 T.22S., R36E., to confluence with S. Fork Malheur River 29 435 (5%) x 12 1,270 (3.5%) X 12 1,425 (15.5%) X X Vale District boundary Sec. 8, T.26S., R.36E. to confluence with Middle Fork Malheur River S. Fk Malheur River (Segment A) 24 2,085 (29%) X ‘Nationwide Rivers Inventory a - Scenic e Historical “Designated State Scenic Waterway or other special State designation b - Recreational I - Cultural %talewde Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan - Rivers Inventory c Geological g Other (including Ecological) “Three Rivers Resource Area Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory d - Fish and Wildlile ‘ShorelIne and adjacent lands wthin one-quarter mile of the river mean high water level v ‘Solitude and Prlmltive Types 01 Recreation; Ecological Values ;3 4 Table 2.18. Eligibility Assessment and Potential Classification - Wild and Scenic River Inventory Free-Flowing Outstandingly’Remarkable Eligibility Values Values Potential Classification DeterminationRiver Name Yes No abcdef g Wild Scenic Recreational Eligible Noneligible Silvies River (Segment A) Silvies River (Segment B) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment A) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment B) Middle Fork Malhuer River (Segment C) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment D) S. Fork Malheur River (Segment A) X X X X X X x2 x X X X X X X X X X 1 a - Scenic b- Recreational c . Geological d - Fish and Wildlife e - Historical f Cultural g - Other (including Ecological) ‘Solitude and prlmltive types of recreation 2-l 28 Table 2.19. Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values -Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory River Name Description of Values - Either Outstandingly Remarkable or LackThereof and Evaluation Statement of Free-flowing Character Silvies River (Segment A) Silvies River (Segment B) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment A) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment B) Middle Fork Malheur River (Segment C) Middle Fork - non-free-flowing due to irrigation diversions; values Malheur River associated with reservoir waters (Segment D) - lacks outstandingly remarkable values S. Fork Malheur River (Segment A) - free-flowing low rainbow trout populations 1 limited jump shooting of waterfowl - lacks outstandingly remarkable values - free-flowing - low rainbow trout populations; moderate smallmouth bass populations - limited rafting in s ringtime - lacks outstanding y remarkable values P -non-free-flowing, due to irrigation diversions and channelization; - low populations of smallmouth bass; - lacks outstandingly remarkable values - free-flowing - outstanding scenery throughout corridor - outstanding solitude and opportunities for primitive recreation - variety of vegetation - free-flowing - low rainbow trout populations - limited rafting in s ringtime - lacks outstanding y remarkable values P - free-flowing - low rainbow trout; moderate smallmouth bass populations - limited rafting in springtime - lacks outstandingly remarkable values 2-l 29 Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek 1. Characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This river section is in a natural condition and possesses outstanding primitive values and opportunities for solitude. Outside sights and sounds do not have a major adverse effect on the river section, because of vegetative and topographic screening. The Malheur and Bluebucket Creek Canyons, coupled with their intermittent drainages and the steep canyon walls, serve to provide a feeling of solitude and help to preserve the primitive values. The landform of the canyons and flat plateaus with the addition of the clear, flowing streams; a large variety of vegetation; numerous combinations and contrast of colors; and, few cultural modifications, create a corridor of outstanding scenic quality. The river area has a scenic quality rating of “A” as defined in the BLM Visual Resource Inventor-y Handbook, H- 841 O-l. The biological diversity is relatively rare within the Lake-Harney-Malheur County region and represents an unusually well-preserved and representative ecosystem. 2. Current status of landownership, use in the area, including the amount of private land involved and associated or conflicting uses. a. Total acres within the corridor: 1,840 BLM-administered: 1,425 Private ownership: 400 State ownership: 15 A o P proximately 24 percent of the river length and 22 percent of the corridor area is in private ownership. The majority the private land is located between the designated USDA-FS segment and the portion of the river administered by the BLM. b. Associated or conflicting uses: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Current Management The area is located within the 5,560-acre Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA which is managed under Wilderness IMP. It is also within a VRM Class I area established by previous planning decisions which also established an area administered (but not designated) for primitive values. The reach of the Middle Fork of the Malheur River, including a portion of Bluebucket Creek is within the 2,080-acre primitive management area. The primitive management area is within the current WSA boundaries. Energy and Minerals There are no mining claims in the river corridor. Potential for locatable minerals is low. The area has moder- ate potential for the occurrence of oil and gas based on favorable source and host rocks present beneath the thick cover of tertiary basalts and sediments. However, no oil and gas or geothermal leases existed at the time of preparation of this report. Water Resource Development The river corridor has a power site reserve for water power and storage development. This “reserve” is scheduled for review in the next few years which may lead to revocatron. The potential for power site development is considered very low. There are no existing water resource developments within the study corridor. Transportation, Facilities and Developments The river and creek are accessed via primitive roads on the flatter terrain above and considerably beyond the river corridor. There are no develo Er ed a jeep trail on private land enters recreation trails within this segment, but a primitive trail accessed from luebucket Canyon corridor via the northern rim in Section 34. The private land in Sections 16 and 21 has a very primitive road that accesses the river from the east. There is no structural development associated with the private land, other than livestock fencing. Recreation Activities The river corridor provides outstandingly remarkable opportunities for solitude and primitive types of recre- ation. The principle recreation activities are fishing and hunting. Additional activities include hiking, dispersed camping, horseback riding, sightseeing and photography. 2-l 30 Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek (continued) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Recreation use of the area is light due to ruggedness of terrain, access and distance from population centers. The current use for the segment is estimated at less than 100 recreation visitor days per year, mostly local (Harney County) residents. There is little current or potential recreation use by residents outside the Lake- Harney-Malheur County region. Recreational use is anticipated to increase at a modest rate as a functron of the increasing value of semi-primitive recreational opportunities. Wildlife and Fisheries The combination of nearby cover and riparian ecosystems in the river corridor support Rocky Mountain elk (winter range), mule deer, black bear, mountain lion and a variety of other game and nongame animals. The rimrock and rocky bluffs add to the diversity and habitats available along the river. The area outside the corridor contains a sage grouse strutting ground and some nesting sites may be within the river corridor. The sage grouse is a candidate for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. Other game birds in the area include: ruffed grouse, blue grouse, valley quail and mourning dove. The Malheur River supports an inland trout fishery. The river segment contains native rainbow/redband trout as well as mountain whitefish in the larger, deeper pools.l/ The segment also has the possibility of containing the Malheur mottled sculpin. The rainbow/redband trout and the Malheur mottled sculpin are listed as category 2 species by the USFWS. This designation implies that the species will be further studied and may, as a result, be added to the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List. Streamflow The south side of the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness is the origin of the waters of the Malheur River. The headwaters of the watershed are at high elevation with higher than average precipitation. Consequently, the Malheur River maintains late summer streamflow that supports a high quality fishery. Geology The Middle Fork Malheur River Canyon is rugged and steep, with a depth of 600 feet in the north and 800 feet in the south. The canyon’s width varies from 0.5 to 1 mile. Bluebucket Creek, also a flows east to west, joining the Malheur River near the center of the WSA. Basalt rimrock orm the upper edges P erennial stream, of the Bluebucket Creek Canyon walls which slope sharply to the bottom of the drainage. Surface rocks above the river are mostly Tertiar which in turn are capped by the younger basalt lows from Moffet Table and Battle Mountain. Very little ISY basalt flows, overlain by tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, known about the underlying pre-tertiary rocks. Cultural Resources The rivers of the area provided a Columbia Plateau cultural area. -P rehistoric travelway between the Great Basin cultural area and the, he Malheur River provided fishing, hunting and gathering opportunrtres as well as a cam l ing area. Historically, as the horse culture expanded, this area continued to be an overlap between the olumbia Plateau and Great Basin bands. Logan Valley, located at the headwaters of the Malheur, was a principle con .g. regating incomplete for the area, sign1 and trading area. While systematic cultural resource inventones are rcant cultural resource sites are likely to be located wrthrn the river corndor. Historically, there is evidence of logging in the river canyon and the river may have been used by early settlers to transport logs to a downstream mill. Timber Harvest The river segment contains limited land classified as commercial timberland. The small commercial sites (22 acres) are generally fragile, rocky or otherwise constrained. Livestock Grazing The river corridor is within two grazing allotments. The operations are cow/calf with a deferred rotation grazing system and a seasonlong use season. Water developments in the form of developed springs and reservorrs service the allotments and help keep the cattle on the tablelands above the river. Livestock access to the river is limited due to the steep sidehills and rocky cliffs which form natural barriers. Existing drift fencing also serves to keep cattle off the river, thus protecting the riparian area. 2-131 Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek (continued) 12) Botanical Steep hillsides occur along the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek. The north-facing slopes are a pon- derosa r>ineIwheatarass communitv. There is also a small amount of Doualas fir alona Bluebucket Creek. The south-facing slopes are dominated’by bunchgrass. The species occurring-here are blijebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass and some forbs. The potential natural community species in the pon- derosa pine community include ponderosa pine, big sagebrush, bitterbrush, mountain maho wheatgrass and Sandberg’s bluegrass. The potential natural community species in the bunt ?I any, bluebunch grass commu- nity are probably bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass and some forbs. Western juniper, ponderosa B ine, Douglas fir, quaking aspen and cottonwood form the overstory in the riparian areas. Shrubs inclu e red osier dogwood, wax currant, mountain alder, Wood’s rose, Lewis’ mock orange, chokecherry and several species of willow. Grasses and forbs include redtop, Kentucky bluegrass, sagewort and many others. Riparian habitat is in a relatively early ecological status due to heavy livestock pressure during the growing season. No Federal candidate plants are known to exist in the river corridor. 13) Wilderness The river corridor is within the Malheur Fiiver/Bluebucket Creek WSA and contains many of the features which give the study area its wilderness character. The river and Bluebucket Creek are the major attractions in the WSA and provide the opportunity for the recreation activities previously mentioned. The canyons also provide opportunitres for solitude because of topographic and vegetative screening. One of the two special features found in the WSA and within the river corridor is native redband trout which is a candidate for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. 3. Affected potential uses if designated or not designated. a. Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and related waters which would be enhanced, foreclosed or curtailed if the area were included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: :I Enhanced -scenic values, primitive values including primitive recreation activities. Foreclosed - potential timber harvest on 22 acres commercial forestland - potential mining claims and locatable mineral development if designated and classified Wild. 3)b. Diminished - livestock grazing improvements and access for mineral leases.The values which could be foreclosed or diminished if the area is not protected as part of the System. ;I Foreclosed - expansion of the National Wild and Scenic River System. Diminished - scenic and primitive values; primitive recreation 4. Public, State, local or Federal interest in designation of the river, including the extent to which the administration of the river, including the costs thereof, may be shared by State, local, or other agencies and individuals. Interest is shown by State and Federal agencies and other than local publics for designation. The BLM river segment could be cooperatively administered with the contiguous USDA-FS sections already designated Wild or Scenic in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. The BLM section, including private lands and a portion of Bluebucket Creek, is 5.4 miles in length. The USDA-FS sections total 13.7 miles in length and, when the BLM section is added, the combined reaches total 19.1 miles. Approximately 400 private acres could be acquired by exchan e or purchase on a “willing buyer/seller” basis within the corridor. Actual river frontage would be in the private acres in 8 ection 16 and Section 21, T. 18 S., R. 34 E., and would include approximately 1.3 river miles. Local public interest is low except for specific livestock operators/private landowners who would be affected by possible reduced grazing use and by acquisition of certain parcels within the generally rim-to-rim corridor. 5. Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands and interests in lands and of administering the area if it is added to the System. a. The following are expected funding requirements for the Malheur River for the next 5 years: Expenses Expected Additional Independenbof Designation Fv#?leiw$x%?ed General Administration Costs of Implementation Development of Management Plan Developments Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs Total - First 5 Years $4,000 $2,500 $ 5,000 $17.000 $6,000 $15;250 $10,000 $39,750 2-132 Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek (continued) 3) b. Potential exchanges for private lands and purchase of scenic easements 1) Exchanges = $12,000 for administrative process. 2) Recreation Trail Easements = $1,500 for easement purchases and $10,000 for administrative process. Land and Water Conservation Funds (L&WCF) acquisition = $32,000, but contingent upon Congressional approval to purchase private lands within corridor. Acquisition of approximately 310 acres in the northern portion of the corridor would be the first priority. Other private parcels are near the rim and some boundary adjustments could be made and still adequately protect the river values. 6. Ability of the agency to manage the river area or segment as a Wild and Scenic River. The BLM Burns District has the ability to manage the river segment. The river does not have high visitor use attributable to intensive water recreational activities; raftin is limited to a short season during the sPring runoff. The main uses are sightseeing, hiking, backpacking and some frs rng and hunting using the present primitrve trails along the river for access.4 Developments needed to provide these continued uses with the addition of some interpretation; mapping and trail improvements is minimal and low key. It should be noted that the BLM-administered portion of the river and creek (4.1 miles) is not contiguous with the USDA- FS designated segment, some private land containing approximately 1.3 river miles, needs to be acquired or easements or cooperative agreements negotiated to provide cooperative river management with the USDA-FS. Historical or existing rights which would be adversely affected as to foreclose, extinguish, curtail, infringe or constitute a taking which would entitle the owner to just compensation if the area were Included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Adequate consideration will be given to rights held by owners, applicants, lessees or claimants. No known historical or existing rights are present, but trail easements would be necessary to compensate the owners for trail development and public use along the river or exchange or purchase of private parcels to acquire administration of the corridor. Other issues and concerns identified in the land use planning process. General administration and operation and maintenance costs are estimated to continue at $2,500 annually. Definitions of funding categories: General Administration: Recurring activities such as river patrol, cleanup, easement administration. Development of Management Plan: District and State Office workmonth costs, document printing. Cost of implementation: One time only costs such as boundary posting, map development, development of individual property plans. Development Costs: Capital investment, i.e., development of facilities O&M: Recurring costs associated with maintenance of facilities a. No new road construction would be allowed into drainage. The primitive road in Sections 16, 21 and 22, providing access down to river from the east side, could be closed to motor vehicle use if the river was designated as Wild but could be left open under a Scenic designation. b. Methods of fire fighting would be limited. Use of heavy equipment would be prohibited under a Wild designation but might only be restricted under a Scenic designation. C. Additional drift fencing would be allowed along rims, but any cross-fencing of the river and creek would be prohibited. d. Fisheries rehabilitation for instream structure development and bank rehabilitation would be prohibited unless mitigation of impacts would allow it. ‘The taxonomy of inland ralnbow trout and redband trout. in this geographic area. is not clearly defined. *The wer segment IS within the Malheur River4luebucket Creek WSA. No wnprovemsnts are allowed that would change the wilderness character for which the study area was established. A stream h&tat improvement prqect costing $41,000 wouM be foregone. The construclion of 2 miles of fence to control livestock use and improve riparian habitat and enhance redband trout habitat would be allowed. About 0.5 mile would be wnhln the river corridor. mostly near the top of the rims. 2-133 Table 2.21. Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, Oregon/Washington The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542 as amended) established a method for providing Federal protection for certain of our remaining free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Rivers are included in the system so that they may benefit from the protective management and control of development for which the Act provides. The following guidelines and standards are summarized from the February 3, 1970 and August 26, 1982, joint Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture guidelines. They are intended to apply to formally designated rivers through incorporation in formal management plans which are normally developed within 3 years of designation. The guidelines also apply on an interim basis on designated rivers prior to management plan approval and to rivers or river se ments which have been found to be eligible for consideration as additions to the national system through the BLM’s land use p annrng process. The guidelines have been presented for each classification to enhance clarity. Section 1 O(a) of theY Act states that: “Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such a manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration, primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its esthetic, scenic, historrc, archaeologic and scientific features. Management plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development on the special attributes of the area.” This section is interpreted by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture as stating a nondegradation and enhancement policy for all designated river areas, regardless of classification. Wild Rivers Wild Rivers are defined by the Act to be “...Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.” Management Objective for Wild Rivers Management of Wild River areas should give primary emphasis to protecting the values which make it outstandingly remarkable while providing river-related outdoor recreation opportunities in a primitive setting. Management Standards for Wild Rivers Allowable management practices might include construction of minor structures for such purposes as improvement of fish and game habitat; grazing; area will remain natura P rotection from fire, insects or disease: rehabilitation or stabilization of damaged resources, provided the appearing and the practices of structures will harmonize with the environment. Such things as trail bridges, an occasional fence, natural-appearing water diversions, ditches, flow measurement or other water management devices, and similar facilities may be permitted if they are unobtrusive and do not have a significant direct adverse effect on the natural character of the area. The following program management standards apply: a. Forest Practices: Cutting of trees will not be permitted except when needed in association with a primitive recreation experi- ence (such as clearing for trails and protection of users) or to protect the environment (such as control of fire). Timber outside the boundary, but within the visual corridors, should, where feasible, be managed and harvested in a manner to provide special emphasis to visual quality. b. Water Quality: Water quality will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or Federally approved State standards. c. Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be permitted. No flood control dams, levees, or other works are allowed in the channel or river corridor. The natural appearance and essen- tially primitive character of the river area must be maintained. All water supply dams and major diversions are prohibited. d. Minina: New minina claims and mineral leases are orohibited within one-auarter mile of the river. Valid existina claims would not be abrogated and: subject to existing regulations (e.g., 43 CFR 3809) arid any future regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe to protect the rivers included in the National System, existing mining activity would be allowed to con- tinue. All mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation, pollution, and visual impairment. Reasonable access will be permitted. e. Road Construction: No new roads or other provisions for overland motorized travel would be permitted within a narrow incised river valley, or if the river valley is broad, within one-quarter mile of the river bank. A few inconspicuous roads leading to the boundary of the river area may be permitted. f. Agriculture and Livestock Grazing: Agricultural use is restricted to a limited amount of domestic livestock grazing and hay production to the extent currently being practiced. Row crops are prohibited. g. Recreation Facilities: Major public-use areas, such as campgrounds, interpretive centers, or administrative headquarters are located outside Wild River areas. Simple comfort and convenience facilities, such as fireplaces or shelters may be provided as necessary within the river area. These should harmonize with the surroundings. Unobtrusive hiking and horseback riding trail bridges could be allowed on tributaries, but would not normally cross the designated river. 2-l 34 Table 2.21. Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, Oregon/Washington (continued) h. Public Use and Access: Recreation use, including, but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting and boating is encouraged in Wild River areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river environment. Public use and access may be regulated and distributed where necessary to protect and enhance Wild River values. i. Rights-of-Way: New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless prohibited by other plans, orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new rights-of-way are indicated, Wild River values must be fully evaluated in the selection of the site. j. Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water could be permitted, but is generally not compatible with this classification. Scenic Rivers Scenic Rivers are defined by the Act to be “...Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” Management Objective for Scenic Rivers Management of Scenic River areas should maintain and provide outdoor recreation opportunities in a near natural setting. The basic distinctions between a Wild and a Scenic River area are the degree of development, type of land use and road accessibil- ity. In general, a wide range of agricultural, water management, silvicultural and other practices could be compatible with Scenic River values, providing such practices are carried on in such a way that there is no substantial adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. Management Standards for Scenic Rivers The same considerations enumerated for Wild River areas should be considered, except that motorized vehicle use may, in some cases, be appropriate and that development of large scale public-use facilities within the river area, such as moderate size cam grounds, public information centers, and administrative headquarters, would be compatible if such structures were screene 8 from the nver. The following program management standards apply: a. Forest Practices: A wide range of silvicultural practices could be allowed provided that such practices are carried on in such a way that there is no substantial adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. The river area should be maintained in its near natural environment. Timber outside the boundary but within the visual scene area should be managed and har- vested in a manner which provides special emphasis on visual quality. b. Water Quality: Water quality will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or Federally approved State standards. c. Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development: No develo ment of hydroelectric power facilities would be allowed. Flood control dams and levees would be prohibited. All water supply 8 ams and major diversions are prohibited. Maintenance of existing facilities and construction of some new structures would be permitted provided that the area remains natural in appear- ance and the practices or the structures harmonize with the surrounding environment. d. Mining: Subject to existing regulations (e.g., 43 CFR 3809) and any future regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe to protect the values of rivers included in the National System, new mining claims and mineral leases could be allowed. All mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation, pollution and visual impairment. Reasonable access will be permitted. e. Road Construction: Existing roads may occasionally bridge the river area and short stretches of conspicuous or long stretches of inconspicuous and well-screened roads or screened railroads could be allowed. Maintenance of existing roads and any new roads will be based on the type of use for which roads are constructed and the type of use that will occur in the river area. f. Agriculture and Livestock Grazing: In comparison to Wild River areas, a wider range of agricultural and livestock grazing uses is permitted to the extent currently practiced. Row crops are not considered as an intrusion of the “largely primitive” nature of Scenic corridors as long as there is not a substantial adverse effect on the natural-like appearance of the river area. g. Recreation Facilities: Larger scale public use facilities, such as moderate size campgrounds, public information centers, and administrative headquarters are allowed if such structures are screened from the river. h. Public Use and Access: Recreation use, including but not limited to hiking, fishing, huntin and boating, is encouraged in Scenic River areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river environment. Pub IC use and access may be regulatedB and distributed where necessary to protect and enhance Scenic River values. i. Rights-of-Way: New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless prohibited by other plans, orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new rights-of-way are indicated, scenic river values must be fully evaluated in the selection of the site. 2-l 35 Table 2.21. Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, Oregon/Washington (continued) j. Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, prohibited or restricted to protect the river values. Recreation Rivers Recreational Rivers are defined by the Act to be “ . ..Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.” Management Objective for Recreation Rivers Management of Recreational River areas should be designed to protect and enhance existing recreational values. The primary objective will be to provide opportunities for engaging in recreation activities dependent on or enhanced by the largely free- flowing nature of the river. Standards for Recreation Rivers Recreation facilities may be established in close proximity to the river, although Recreation River classification does not require extensive recreation developments. Recreational facilities may still be kept to a minimum, with visitor services provided outside the river area. Future construction of impoundments, diversions, straightening, riprapping, and other modification of the water- way or adjacent lands would not be permitted except in instances where such developments would not have a direct and adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. The following program management standards apply: a. Forest Practices: Timber harvesting would be allowed under standard restrictions to protect the immediate river environment, water quality, scenic, fish and wildlife, and other values. b. Water Quality: Water quality will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or Federally approved State standards. c. Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be allowed. Existing low dams, diversion works, riprap and other minor structures may be maintained provided the waterway remains generally natural In appearance. New structures may be allowed provided that the area remains natural in appearance and the practices or structures harmonize with the surrounding environment. d. Mining: Subject to existing regulations (e.g:, 43 CFR 3809) and any future regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe to protect values of rivers included In the National System, new mining claims and mineral leases are allowed and existing operations are allowed to continue. All mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface distur- bance, sedimentation, pollution, and visual impairment. Reasonable access will be permitted. e. Road Construction: Existing parallel roads or railroads can be maintained on one or both river banks. There can be several bridge crossings and numerous river access points. f. Agriculture and Livestock Grazing: In comparison to Scenic River areas, lands may be managed for a full range of agriculture and livestock grazing uses, consistent with current practices. g. Recreation Facilities: Inter retive centers, administrative headquarters, campgrounds and picnic areas may be established in close proximity to the river. l-r owever, recreational classification does not require extensive recreation development. h. Public Use and Access: Recreation use, including but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting and boating, is encouraged in Recreation River areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river environment. Public use and access may be regulated and distributed where necessary to protect and enhance Recreation River values. i. Rights-of-Way: New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless prohibited by other plans, orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new rights-of-way are indicated, Recreation River values must be fully evaluated in the selection of the site. j. Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water will generally be permitted, on existing roads. Controls will usually be similar to surrounding lands and waters. 2-l 36 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Objective and Rationale ACEC 1: Provide special management attention to protect important natural, cultural or scenic resources on approximately 95,049 acres (see Map ACEC-1). Rationale: FLPMA gives priority to the designation and protection of ACECs and to the prevention of irreparable damage to the important resources of the ACEC. ACEC designation is the principal BLM designation where special management is required to protect important natural, cultural and scenic resources. BLM policy, as expressed in the BLM Manual 1613, directs that managers will give precedence to the identification, evaluation and designation of such areas. BLM Native American policy, as expressed in BLM Manual 8160, directs the use of ACEC designations where needed to protect traditional Native American lifeways practiced upon public lands. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs ACEC 1 .l : Retain designation and approved management of the: South Narrows ACEC, 160 acres, for Critical Habitat of officially listed endangered species (see Map ACEC-2); Dia- mond Craters ONAIACEC, 16,656 acres, for unique geologic features (see Map ACEC-3); and SilverCreek RNAIACEC, 640 acres (see Map ACEC-4), for one Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (ONHP) aquaticnatural areacell. (See Appendix 1, Table 15 for detailed ACEC descriptions. See Appendix 1, Table 16 for allowable uses/use constraints.) Procedures to implement: 1. Revise existing ACEC plans as necessary. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in the existing plans. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: GM 1.4, WHB 1.2, V 1.4 SSS 1.3, WL 7.22, WL 7.28, R 1.1, R 2.1, R 2.11, R 2.16, VRM 1.2, EM 1 .l, EM 4.1, LR 1.1, LR 1.5, LR2.3, BD 2.3, BD3.1. ACEC 1.2: Designate an additional 400 acres as part of the Diamond Craters ONIVACEC (see Map ACEC3). Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Revise Diamond Craters Management Plan to reflect clo- sure to grazing except for limited 1 day trailing permits. 2. Make other revisions if necessary. Supported By:GM 1.4, WHB 1.2, WL7.22, WL7.23, WL7.28, RI.I,R2.1,R2.1l,R2.16,ACECl.l,VRM1.2,EMI.1,EM1.4, Monitoring Needs: LRi.i,LR2.3,LR5.1, BD3.1,BD3.2. - As defined in the Diamond Craters Management Plan. - Compliance monitoring of livestock trailing permits. ACEC 1.3: Designate an additional 1,280 acres as part of the Silver Creek RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-4) for two ONHP natural area cells, following the acquisition of a 640-acre private inholding (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Silver Creek RNAIACEC Addition). Geographic Reference: 7010. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: GM 1.4, V 1.4, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.28, R 2.1,R2.16,ACEC1.1,VRM1.2,EM1.1,EM4.1,LR1.1,LR 1.5, LR 2.3, BD 3.1, BD 3.3. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Procedures to implement: 1. Acquire 640 acres private inholding through land exchange. 2. Revise/updateexisting RNA/ACEC management plan within 2 years of establishment to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16. 3. Prepare NEPA documentation and construct fence addition within 2 years of establishment. 4. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from graz- ing allotment base and update AMP to reflect this change. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in management plan. - Fence maintenance inspection prior to livestock turnout. 2-l 37 2-138 II A I 3 OREGON EXISTING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS A. Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek WSA B. Stonehouse WSA C. Diamond Craters ONAIACEC D. Silver Creek RNA/ACEC E. South Narrows ACEC F. Dry Mountain RNA (USFS Proposed) PROPOSEDSPECIALMANAGEMENTAREAS 1 Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Addition 2 Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 3 Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC Addition 4 Kiger Mustang ACEC 5 Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 10 MLESI 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP ACEC- 1 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs ACEC 1.4: Designate 2,690 acres as Foster Flat RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-5) for one ONHP natural area cell (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Foster Flat RNA/ACEC). Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: 7002. Decision Class: 1 1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management planto reflectconstraints in Appendix 1, Table 16 and to address specific manage- ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval of RMP. 2. Prepare NEPA documentation and fence RNA within 2 years of approval of RMP. Supported By: GM 1.4, V 1.4, WL 7.25, WL 7.28, R 2.1, R 2.16, VRM 1.2, EM 1 .I, EM 4.1, LR 1 .l, LR 2.3, BD 3.4. 3. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- tion and maintenance of fences which are the District’s responsibility to maintain. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 4. Coordinate with affected permittees. 5. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from allot- ment base and update AMP to reflect this change. Monitoring Needs: - Fence maintenance inspection on a quarterly basis, except during grazing season, May through August, when it will be done monthly. - Establish baseline monitoring, including periodic on-the- ground assessments, general photo plots, and a species list within 3 years of approval of RMP. ACEC 1.5: Designate 2,084 acres as Dry Mountain RNA/ ACEC (see Map ACEC-4), for five ONHP natural area cells (See Appendix 1, Table 15, Dry Mountain RNAJACEC). Geographic Reference: 7011 Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16, and to address specific manage- ment actions which are required within 3 years of approval of RMP. 2. Coordinate with USDA-FS in plan preparation and monitor- ing establishment. Supported By: F 1.7, V 1.4, V 1.5, WL 7.21, WL 7.26, R 2.1, R 2.16,VRM1.2,EM1.1,EM4.1,LR1.1, LR1.5,LR2.3,BD3.5, BD 3.8. 3. Coordinate with affected permittees. 4. Incorporate management actionsand constraints from Table 2.10 for ponderosa pine old growth areas into the RNA/ ACEC plan. Monitoring Needs: - Establish baseline monitoring within 3 years of approval of RMP to involve periodic systematic on-the-ground assess- ments. ACEC 1.6: Designate 6,500 acres as the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC (see Map ACEC-7) for preservation of Native American root-gathering (see Appendix I, Table 15, Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC). Geographic Reference: Allotments Nos. 5503, 5529, 5531, 5533. Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Coordinate with livestock operators and tribal leaders. 2. Prepare ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16, and to address specific management actions which are required within 3 years of approval of RMP. 3. Develop MOU with tribal groups. 4. Develop monitoring to ensure appropriate harvest levels are maintained. SupportedBy:R2.1,R2.16,VRM1.2,CR2.1,EM1.1,EM2.1, EM4.1, LR 1.1, LR 1.5, LR2.3, BD3.6. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in the management plan. 2-140 Allocation/Management Action ACEC 1.7: Designate the Kiger and Riddle HMAs of 64,639 acres as the Kiger Mustang ACEC (see Map ACEC-6) for unique characteristics of wild horses (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Kiger Mustang ACEC). Decision Class: 1 Supported By: WHB 1 .l , WHB 2.2, WHB 2.3, WHB 3.1, R 2.1, R2.16, EMl.l,EM4.1,LR1.1,LR1.5, LR2.3, LR4.1, LR4.2, BD 2.4. BD 3.7. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Write a plan incorporating management objectives and use constraints for the Kiger ACEC within 3 years of approval of RMP (see Appendix 1, Table 16). 2. Update AMPS as necessary to incorporate ACEC objec- tives. 3. Coordinate with affected permittees and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic on-the-ground assessments of utilization and wild horse movements will be conducted. 2-141 R. 31 E. I--) L-r/) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND ,, i BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTD,PW.,.l PA ACEC Boundary I i BURNS DISTRICT! Me” PA .<.y ,I ) - April 1991 BLM Land Other Land THREE RIVERS RMP MAP ACEC-2 SOUTH NARROWS ACEC 1 Mile I 2-l 42 FL 31 E. R. 32 E. R. 33 E. -\ I ‘L/r--- ,/y-x : DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND I /“rrwse” PA / BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT c;;, : BURNS DISTRICT ACEC Boundary ’ H’lef *A & )I/ - April 1991 El \ BURNS ‘- BLM Land ‘L DlST -- - THREE RIVERS RMPL-- OREGON I Other Land MAP ACEC-3 I DIAMOND CRATERS ONAIACEC 1 0 1 2 Miles H F-I 1 I 1 LEGEND 1 ‘?,/ __ _,.., -7 -‘.. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR /’ DrewrC” PA -/ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ;, BURNS DISTRICT - ACEC Boundary R,lP,P4 ..i“ zj ;_. April 1991 I 0,5T 7:. : /BURNS BLM Land THREE RIVERS RMP- -- OREGON National Forest Land MAP ACEC-4 Other Land 1 -N- II SILVER CREEK RNAIACEC AND DRY MOUNTAIN RNAIACEC 1 0 1 2 Miles w-1 4 I r i,_e,--m/-- -i) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND I i I clre.“,ei F n / BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT i i, BURNS DISTRICT / Riley PA ..;> : y- ACEC Boundary _.--- April 1991 I ( BURNS i01ST -- BLM Land I THREE RIVERS RMPL- 1-J OREGON MAP ACEC-5 FOSTER FLAT RNAIACEC l/2 0 1 H I I 2 Miles I 2-l 45 32 3i4 E. R. 33 E. R. 34 E. -h \ __,-__. -..a.- ,--\ .\ LEGEND mewicy P n / /.. - ACEC Boundary , RW *a <.- ’ Ft. 35 E. R. 36 E. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 t3 I BURNS _’BLM Land DIST THREE RIVERS RMP - I OREGON Other Land MAP ACEC-6 KIGER MUSTANG ACEC 10123456 7 Miles HHH 2-146 R. 33 E. R. 33 i/2 E. R. 34 E. Ft. 32 l/2 E. R. 33 E. R. 34 E. R. 35 E. T. 20 S. 23 pbe,..-------) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGEND {’ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTDrewsPy P 1 -/ - Biscuitroot ACEC Boundary / , R.iP, P d --;_ ;I__: ,2 1 BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 .‘.......‘.E2 Additional BURNS _DlST THREE RIVERS RMPB..... . . . . .e.... Traditional Use Areas Lo- ---- OREGON BLM Land MAP ACEC-7 National Forest Land I NATIVE AMERICAN El -N- TRADITIONAL USE AREASOther Land II 10123456 Miles FIHH I 2-l 47 Visual Resource Management Objective and Rationale VRM 1: Protect, maintain, enhance or rehabilitate the visual resource values as inventoried and evaluated by managing all public lands in accordance with the VRM System. Rationale: Activities conducted or authorized by the BLM often involve alterations of the landscape. Since one of the major components of a quality environment is its appearance and because public lands have scenic value, it is essential to perform management activities in a manner that will maintain existing visual resource values and perpetuate an attractive environment. This can be accomplished through application of the VRM System. The FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands I‘.... in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic values...that where appropriate will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition...” (Section 102a). Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs VRM 1 .l : Manage 8,580 acres as VRM Class I (see Map VRM- 1) to preserve the existing character of the landscape. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:R2.12,EMl.l,EM3.1,EM4.1,LR2.4,LR5.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class I areas through NEPA process. 2. Allow very limited management activity to ensure the level of change to the characteristic landscape is very low and does not attract attention. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document review on project proposals. VRM 1.2: Manage 133,631 acres as VRM Class II (see Map VRM-1) to retain the existing character of the landscape. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: FM 1 .l, R 2.2, EM 1 .l, EM 1.2, EM 4.1, LR 2.4, LR5.1. Constrained By: EM 2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class II through the NEPA process. 2. Allow management activities which may be seen, but do not attract the attention of the casual observer or can be mitigated to not attract the attention of the casual observer. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document review on project proposals. VRM 1.3: Manage 421,i 70 acres as VRM Class III (see Map VRM-1) to partially retain the existing character of the land- scape Decision Class: 3 Supported By: GM 1.4, R 1.2, LR 2.1, LR 2.2, LR 2.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class III through the NEPA process. 2. Allow management activities which may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer or can be mitigated so they do not dominate the view of the casual observer. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document review on project proposals. 2-l 48 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs VRM 1.4: Manage 1 ,152,987 acres as VRM Class IV (see Map VRM-1) to allow modification of the existing character of the landscape. Decision Class: 3 Procedures to Implement: 1. Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class IV through the NEPA process. 2. Allow management activities which may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document review on project proposals. VRM 1.5: Identify and rehabilitate unacceptable intrusions on public lands within the foreground corridor of travel routes through special areas, along designated byways and trails and along major travel routes through the RA. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Modify current VRM classes along byway routes to conform to the guidelines for managing these travel routes if the classes now allow major modifications to the characteristic landscape. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-l 49 2-150 OREGON I I CLASS l-Preservation CLASS II-Retention of the Landscape Character CLASS Ill-Partial Retention of the Landscape Character 0 IV CLASS IV-Modification of the LandscapeCharacter 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCE AREA MAP VRM-1 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSES il Cultural Resources Objective and Rationale CR 1: Protect the cultural and paleontological values in the RA from accidental or intentional loss, while providing special emphasis to high value sites and conserving those resources of overriding scientific or historic importance. Rationale: FLPMA directs the BLM to manage paleontological and cultural resources on the public lands in a mannerthat will protect them and provide for their proper use. The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides for the protection of paleontological resources on all Federal lands, and requires permits for those who excavate or appropriate these resources. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), as amended, defines and protects archaeological resources on Federal lands, establishes a permit system for resources over 100 years old, and requires agencies to provide for public education and continuing inventory of Federal lands. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, provides a national policy for historic preservation, establishesaNationa1 Registerof HistoricPlaces(NRHP)designationforimportantproperties,protectssitesfrom destruction without appropriate data recovery, and requires that historic properties be utilized in agency missions when warranted. E.O. 11953 directs Federal agencies to inventory public lands and to nominate eligible properties to the NRHP. BLM Manual Sections 1623 and 8100 provide management policy and use allocations for the disposition and utilization of agency-managed cultural resources. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs CR 1.1: Evaluate and nominate potentially eligible historic properties to the NRHP. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 1. Evaluate the Lost Dune Site for research potential and conservation needs: a. Conduct test excavations. b. Establish stipulations for research permits. c. Specify conditions under which conservation use may change to other uses. d. Provideforafield school at the site, focusing research on portions of the site not considered for conservation. 2. Prepare and submit nomination for the Lost Dune Site in accordance with 30 CFR 60. 3. Consider other cultural properties for listing on the NRHP: a. Evaluate properties against NRHP criteria. b. Test excavate selected sites as needed for complete evaluation. c. Complete nomination formats for the NRHP, in accord with 36 CFR 60. Monitoring Needs: - Units of accomplishment. 2-152 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs CR 1.2: Monitor site conditions and trends. Provide law en- forcement to address illicit resource use by patrolling all poten- tial NRHP sites, especialjy in the following subregions with identified enforcement problems: a. Pine Springs Basin Fire Zone b. Double 0 c. Wagontire d. Stinkingwater Mountains Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Establish schedule (timing/frequency) for monitoring and patrol. Monitoring Needs: - Select sites for photo-trend plots for annual monitoring. - Developsite-specific actions to alleviate resource degrada- tion where indicated through monitoring. Supported By: CR 1.3, SM 1 .l , SM 1.2. CR 1.3: Develop cultural resource management plans where sample inventory and cultural resource use allocations are required to address mandates of the ARPA of 1979. a. Pine Springs Basin Fire Zone b. Wagontire c. Stinkingwater Mountains d. Double 0 Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Complete activity plans in accord with BLM 8100 Manual. 2. Complete plan-specific NEPA documentation. 3. Consult with State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) on each plan. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. CR 1.4: Initiate acquisition of private inholdings on a “willing seller - willing buyer” basis where known and manageable significant resources occur on adjacent Federal and private lands. Geographic Reference:Allotment Nos. 7002,7024; Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: LR 1 .l , LR 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. CCC with owners. 2. Pursue acquisition primarily through private exchange. 3. Facilitate through a third party (e.g. Trust for Public Lands, Archaeological Conservancy, etc.) when necessary for land exchanges. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-153 Objective and Rationale CR 2: Increase the opportunity for the public’s sociocultural, educational and recreational uses of the area’s cultural and paleontological resources. Rationale: FLPMA directs the BLM to manage paleontological and cultural resources on public lands in a manner that will protect them and provide for their proper use. ARPA requires Federal agencies to provide for public education regarding archaeological resources. The NHPA requires that historic properties be utilized in agency missions when warranted and that significant cultural properites can be afforded protection by listing on the National Register. The American Indian Religious Freedom Actof 1979 (AIRFA) protects the rights of American Indians to exercise their traditional religions, and directs Federal agencies to ensure that their policies and procedures do not interfere unduly with the free exercise of sacred traditions. BLM Manual Section 8160, entitled “Native American Coordination and Consultation,” establishes an agency policy toward Native Americans, integrating the management of resources of value to American Indians into all programs. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs CR 2.1: Designate and manage 6,500 acres of Native Ameri- can root gathering areas as the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC). Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5503, 5529, 5531, 5533. Decision Class: 1 1. Prepare ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16, and to address specific management actions which are required within 3 years of approval of RMP. 2. CCC with livestock operators and tribal representatives and other interested parties. Supported By: ACEC 1.6, BD 3.6, GM 1 .l , WHB 1.3, LR 1 .l , R 2.1, V 1.1, EM 1.1, EM 2.1, CR2.2. 3. Provide for the use of the Pine Creek Community Pit by Harney County under the existing permit; do not renew county use permit upon expiration in 1992; no additional gravel pits will be authorized within this ACEC; do not authorize any additional surface disturbance or other uses that might be incompatible with ACEC objectives. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. CR 2.2: Manage those Native American traditional-use areas found on public lands and identified in the planning process, to allow for the continuation of such uses. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop an activity plan. 2. Map such lands. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5532, 5504, 5501, 5503,5529,5531,5533. Decision Class: 2 SupportedBy:BD1.1,V1.1,LR1.1,CR2.1,WHB1.3,GM1.1. 3. CCC with tribes and livestockoperators and other interested parties. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. CR 2.3: Provide for Native American requests to practice traditional cultural activities on specific lands not identified in the planning process, on a case-by-case basis where consis- tent with other multiple-use prescriptions. Procedures to implement: 1. CCC with tribes. 2. NEPA documentation. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-154 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs CR2.4: Manageobsidiansource/quarryareasforscientificand public uses. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop an activity plan including: Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7005, 7087, 7017, 7030, 7025. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 1.2, R 2.16. a. Identification of areas where public and scientific uses are encouraged. b. Protection of areas with cultural value and lesser distur- bance. c. Listing of activities suitable for the various use and protection areas, and procedures to follow for such uses. 2. Consult with SHPO. 3. NEPA documentation. 4. CCC with livestock operators. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. CR 2.5: Provide interpretation of appropriate sites including, but not limited to: a. Gap Ranch b. Malheur Lake Village Site Geographic Reference: 7006, 7001. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 1 .I, R 2.16. Procedures to Implement: 1. Design interpretive programs for each site including docu- mentary and on-site materials. Monitoring Needs: - Through AWP workload accomplishments. CR 2.6: Manage historic Properties on public lands for public use where feasible. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 1.1, R 2.16. Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory potential historic properties. 2. Evaluate for suitability for public use or interpretation. 3. Consult with the SHPO. 4. Develop site management plans. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in site management plans. R 2.7: Manage high potential fossil resource areas for scientific and hobby uses. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Inventory high potential fossil areas. 2. Update literature overview for fossil locations and research. 3. Use BLM-National Park Service (NPS) (John Day Fossil Beds National Monument). Agreement to access paleonto- logical expertise. SupportedBy:Rl.l,R2.8,R2.15,R2.16. Monitoring Needs: - Units of accomplishment. - Periodic patrol. 2-l 55 Energy and Minerals Objective and Rationale EM 1: Provide maximum leasing opportunityforoil, gas and geothermal exploration and development by utilizing the least restrictive leasing categories necessary to protect sensitive resources. Rationale: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended, Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 as amended, the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. FLPMA, Sec. 102 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The BLM’s Mineral Policy (1984) states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. The planning area has had past oil, gas and geothermal leases Allocation/Management Action EM 1.1: Allocate a total of approximately 1,499,OOO acres as open to oil, gas and geothermal leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; 603,000 acres asopen to leasing subject to special stipulations; 111,700acres asopen to leasing subject to no surface occupancy and similar major constraints; 113,300 acres as closed to leasing. The oil, gas and geothermal leasing stipulations are described in Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24. Geographic Reference: Areawide Maps M-l and M-2. Decision Class: 1 and 3 Supported By: WL 7.1, R 2.2, CR 2.1, LR 2.6, LR 5.1. ConstrainedBy:SM1.1,SM2.1,SM2.2,WHB2.2,Vl.l,V1.4, V1.5,SSS3.1,SSS3.2,WL7.7,WL7.21,WL7.22,WL7.23, WL7.24,WL7.25,WL7.26,R1.1,R1.2,R1.5,R2.1,R2.12, ACEC 1 .I, ACEC 1.2, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, ACEC 1.5, ACEC 1.6, ACEC 1.7, VRM 1.1, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3, LR 1.2, BD 1.1, BD1.5, BD2.4, BD3.1,BD3.2,BD3.3,BD3.4, BD3.5,BD3.6, BD 3.7, BD 3.8. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Township and range maps showing stipulations appropriate to each location developed for the planning area and will be included in the automated data base. In this way, the appropriate stipulations will be attached to the lease parcels. 2. All exploration applications will receive environmental re- view and NEPA documentation prior to authorization. Monitoring Needs: - As leases are terminated, descriptions of parcels are sent to the District Office, stipulations reviewed for conformance with RMP/EIS, T&E, etc.; changes to be noted on the T&R Maps, and forwarded to the Oregon State Office to be incorporated into the database and attached to leases as appropriate. 2-l 56 Objective and Rationale EM 2: Continue to meet public demand for mineral materials from public lands in the planning area on a case-by-case basis except for 64,315 acres in ACECs, WSAs and scenic corridors. Rationale: The Act of July 31, 1947 as amended (30 USC 601) the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. FLPMA, Sec. 102 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The BLM’s Mineral Policy (1984) states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. Demand for aggregate from Federal mineral estate is projected to increase over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of the increase will probably occur along the major highway systems and near smaller communities. Allocation/Management Action EM 2.1: Provide for mineral material needs in approved pits as shown in Table 2.25. New mineral materials sites will be considered on a case-by-case basis where existing sites or materials do not adequately provide for needs. The existing county material site in the Pine Creek area (T. 22 S., R. 34 E., Section 7, S1/2NENW; N1/2NENW; S1/2SENE) would be closed upon expiration of the existing county permit to meet management objectives for the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC. Unauthorized mineral materials sites will be closed and reha- bilitated on a case-by-case basis. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 3 SupportedBy:SMl.l,SM2.1,SM2.2,R2.2,R2.4,ACEC1.6, CR 2.1, BD 3.6. Constrained By: AQ 1.3, SM 1 .l, SM 2.1, SM 2.2, V 1 .l, V 1.4, V1.5,SSS3.1,SSS3.2,WL7.1,WL7.22,WL7.23,WL7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, R 1.1, R 1.2, R 1.5, R 2.1, R 2.3, R 2.12, ACEC 1 .l , ACEC 1.2, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, ACEC 1.5, ACEC 1.7, VRM 1.1, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3, CR2.1, CR2.2, CR2.4, LR 1.2,BDl.l,BD1.5,BD2.4,BD3.1,BD3.2,BD3.3,BD3.4,BD 3.5, BD 3.7, BD 3.8. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Promptly process free use permit applications for approved sources. 2. Develop site-specific mining and reclamation plans on ap- proved pits and quarries, determining appraisal values for sales, collecting fees and overseeing the reclamation of community pits in accordance with plans. Monitoring Needs: - Geologist and other resource specialists to note unautho- rized use, make periodic inspections for unauthorized use and maintain records in accordance with BLM manuals and policy. 2-l 57 OREGON F{ Oil/Gas - Low Potential I Oil/Gas - Moderate Potential Coal - Moderate Potential (All other areas not identified are lowpotential ) E --I Areas of Historical Interest --A (Oil and Gas) Q Abandoned Oil or Gas Test Hole * Well with Gas Show 0 10 MILES 0N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP M-l COAL, OIL AND GAS POTENTIAL 2-l 59 I 2-160 m Low Potential L 161 OREGON 1: :I High Potential (Direct Use) I Moderate Potential uN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP M-2 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES POTENTIAL Objective and Rationale EM 3: Provide maximum opportunity in areas identified as open to the operation of mining laws for exploration and location of locatable minerals on public lands mineral estate in the planning area (see Map M-3). Rationale: 1872 Mining Law (30 USC 22 et. seq), the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. The FLPMA, Sec. 102 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The Bureau’s Mineral Policy (1984) states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. Allocation/Management Action EM 3.1: Allocate a total of 1,666,181 acres as open to location underthe Mining Law in the planning area. 48,437.33 acres are nondiscretionary withdrawals and 1,214.89 acres are discre- tionary closures as summarized in Table 2.26. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: WL 7.22, WL 7.23, R 1 .I, R 2.2, R 2.3, R 2.4, R 2.12, LR 5.2, BD 3.1, BD 3.4. Constrained By: SM 1 .l, SM2.1, SM2.2, WHB2.2, V 1.4, SSS 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, R 2.1, ACEC 1 .l , ACEC 1.2, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, ACEC 1.5, ACEC 1.6,ACEC1.7,CR2.1,LR1.2,BD1.5, BD2.3,BD2.4,BD3.1, BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.7. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Ensure operations are in compliance with 43 CFR 3809 and 3802 regulations. 2. Act timely on notices and plans of operations. 3. Make periodic inspections in accordance with BLM manuals and policies. 4. Prepare appropriate NEPAdocumentation based on scope of project, etc. Monitoring Needs: - Regular surveillance to detect and confirm unauthorized mining activity, inspection of county records and review of pertinent literature. - Monitor active mining operations with two or more compli- ance inspections per year, contingent on funding. 2-l 62 Objective and Rationale EM 4: Provide maximum opportunity for the leasing and development of solid leasable minerals other than coal. Rationale: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended, the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 declares th.at it ,is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mlneral resources. FLPMA, Sec. 102 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands areto bemanagedinamannerwhich recognizestheNation’sneedfordomesticsourcesof mineralsandotherresources.The BLM’s Mineral Policy (1984) states the public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. Potential demand exists for sodium and potassium, etc., in the planning area. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs EM 4.1: Allocate approximately 1,499,OOO acres as open to solid leasable mineral leasing. Although the stipulations on the pros- pecting permits would be on a case-by-basis, the constraints will be similar to those for oil, gas and geothermal leasing described in Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24. Procedures to Implement: 1. Timely processing of permit applications. 2. Prepare appropriate level of environmental analyses based on the scope of the project, etc. Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 1 and 3 Supported By: WL7.1, R 2.2, CR 2.1, LR 2.6, LR 5.1. Monitoring Needs: - As required on a case-by-case basis. Constrained By: SM 1 .l, SM 2.1, SM 2.2, WHB 2.2, V 1 .I, V 1.4, V 1.5, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, WL 7.21, WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.24, WL7.25, WL7.26, R 1.1, R 1.2, R 1.5, R 2.1, R 2.12, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1.2, ACEC 1.3, ACEC 1.4, ACEC 1.5, ACEC 1.6, ACEC 1.7, VRM 1 .I, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3, LR 1.2, BD 1 .I, BD 1.5, BD 2.4, BD 3.1, BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.7, BD 3.8. Objective and Rationale EM 5: Public lands will remain o en and available for coal exploration and development, unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the nationa P, Interest. Rationale: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage pnvate enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. FLPMA, Sec. 102 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands are to be managed in a manner which reco nizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The BLM’s Mineral Policy (1984) states that public 9 ands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. EM 5.1: The planning area is not in a coal production area and no Federal coal leasing will result from this plan. For coal potential, see Map M-l. Geographic Reference: Areawide Decision Class: 1 Supported By: R 2.2, R 2.8. Constrained By: R 2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Any potential coal leasing will be guided by the Federal coal management regulations (43 CFR 3425). Under these regula- tions, interested parties ap ly for a coal lease to the BLM, Oregon State Cfftce in Port and. The application area will be P studied for acceptability utilizing four planning screens: (1) verification of coal development potential; (2) application of 20 suitability criteria; (3) surfaceownerconsultationfor split estate lands; and, (4) multiple-use trade-offs involving other resource values compared to coal. Ap lication of these screens would constitute an amendment tot If, IS RMP and would be subject to gubernatorial and public review. Areas studied would be designated as acceptable or nonacceptable for further consid- erationforleasing. Assumingthatsomeareas werefoundto be acceptable (with or without additional stipulations on mining and reclamation), the applicant maintains interest, and evi- dence of surface owner consents were provided, then these lands could be offered for competitive lease by the Secretary of the Interior. Any resulting operations must comply with all Federal and state laws and regulations dealing with coal mining and reclamation. Monitoring Needs: - As needed on a case-by-case basis. 2-l 63 r--yGold - Moderate Potential Note: All other areas are low potential 0 N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP M-3 OREGON pq Mercury Cinnabar, Uranium - High Potential Diatomite - High Potential Zeolite, Potassium Feldspars,(Known) - High Potential Zeolite. Potassium Feldspars - Moderate )I 1 :{ Gold - High Potential MAJOR LOCATABLE Ml1 POTENTIA ,L ‘JERALS 2-165 2-166 Obsidian Cinders Building Stone Sand, Gravel (Known) (All of the R.A. has potential for sand, gravel, rock material.) \ 2-167 OREGON u N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP M-4 MINERAL MATERIALS Table 2.22. Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations Leasing Category/ Resource Value Low Oil and Gas Potential (Acres)’Moderate High Unknown Total Category 1 1,431,481 67,548 0 Category 2 Sa e Grouse Go den Eagle Y Raptor Nest Sites Big Game Winter Range Sens. Wildlife Species Total 13,149 6,480 5,400 502,470 7,920 535,419 1,948 5,28: 44,080 16,260 67,568 Category 3 Administrative Site Recreation Site Critical Habitat (T&E) Sex. Wildlife Species 150 40 12,55: 840 32,307 1,040 82,564 129,496 : 160 120 : 0&vine Canyon Scenic ACECs Total Category 4 Malheur NWR W ilderness Study Areas Total 18,48: 18,483 28: 92,946 1,902 94,848 1,499,029 15,097 6,480 lo;680 546,550 24,180 602,987 150 40 160 12,675 840 32,307 1;040 82,564 129,776 92,946 20,385 113,331 ‘Acreages w&mated from BLM map sources Final acreage amounts WIII vary as ~nventortes are conducted, when species listings change and when st~pulattons are described by legal subdivision Table 2.23. Geothermal Lease Stipulations Leasing Category/ Resource Value Low Geothermal Resources P;g;tial (Acres)’Moderate Unknown Total Category 1 1 ,167,596 331,433 0 Category 2 Sa B e Grouse Go den Eagle Raptor Nest Sites Big Game Winter Range Sens. Wildlife Species Total 9,253 5,844 2.400 4.080 1,680 9;ooo 316,353 230,147 18,300 5,880 347,986 254,951 Category 3 Administrative Site Recreation Site Critical Habitat (T&E) Sens. Wildlife Species Bald Ea le w,Aquatic/ IparianMletlands Devine Canyon Scenic ACECs Total 150 40 68: 840 6,457 1,040 6,694 15,906 i 160 11,990 25,85: 75,87: 103,870 Category 4 Malheur NWR W ilderness Study Areas Total 5,56: 5,560 92,946 14,825 107,771 1,499,029 15,097 6,480 10,680 546,500 24,180 602,937 150 1% 12,675 840 32,307 1,040 82,564 129,776 92,946 20,385 113,331 ‘Acreages estlmaled from ELM map sources Final acreage amounts ~111 vary as lnventorles are conducted. when specfes lklings change and when sitpulatons are described by legal subdrawn 2-168 Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals Category 2 - Seasonal No Surface Occupancy Resource Value Being Protected -Antelope, Deer and Elk Winter Ranges. Need For Protection The major deer and Y ameanimals in the Planning Area are mule deer, pronghorn antelope and Rocky Mountain elk. During the warm seasons, ek are widely dispersed throughout the higher elevations of the Planning Area and move to lower winter ranges in late fall. These winter ranges are essential to the survival of these animals. Antelope are wide-ranging during the winter and utilize large expanses of habitat for winter range. However, in late summer, lactating does become dependent on playa and riparian areas, where available, for succulent forbs and grasses. Mule deer and elk need a relatively undisturbed habitat in order to survive the harsh winter and early spring months and to perpetuate the species. Unnecessary disturbance during this period can cause death due to starvation, stress, abortion or reabsorption of the fetus in pregnant females. Lactating female antelope require succulent vegetation for milk production during mid- and late summer months. At this time of the year, most succulent vegetation is found on playa lakebeds or riparian areas. Occupation of deer and elkwinter ranges during the winter and spring would be detrimental to these populations as would occupation of playas and riparian areas in antelope summer range. Surfaceclearin 7 operationsfordrill pads and roads would destroy vegetation that provides necessary seasonal forage. Noise and activities of the OI and gas operations would disturb big game and force them to move to other areas. This may be particularly critical if other areas are already occupied by other herds and food is in short supply. Conditions such as this could lead to the death of large portions of a big game herd. Stipulation Seasonal no surface occupancy. Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the habitat is no longer effective and is not used as winter habitat anywhere within the leasehold. Exception: Acase-by-case exception tothistiming constraint may be ranted if the authorized officerdetermines that the anticipated impacts will be minimal, due to the type of operation and climatic con E rtrons. An exception may be granted foroperations conducted on existing roads with a high volume of traff ic. An exception may also be granted in the event that extension of a project would cause less impact than delaying the project to another drilling season. Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if the area is no longer effective as habitat and is not used as winter ran 3 e. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if additional crucial habitat areas are identified, or If abitat use areas change. Resource Value Being Protected - Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds. Need for Protection All aspects of the sage grouse’s life history, nesting, feeding, etc., are in association with various types of sagebrush. No other upland game bird is so highly specialized in its food and cover requrrements and so dependent on one plant taxon, (Artemesia), as the sage grouse. Since each aspect of the life history and required covertype is essential to the grouse, removal or substantial change In any oneofthesetypesorsubtypescould bealimitingfactor. Meadow areas andalfalfafieldsprovideessentialforageand insect lifeduring the early stages of chick development. Courtship and breeding begin in late February or March, depending on climatic conditions, followed by nestin strutting grounds. B in May and June. Brood rearing continues throu h the summer. Nesting generally occurs within 2 miles of the he hen and chicks usually remain in the vicinity o the nest for the first few weeks after hatching and then move 9 to meadow areas for the summer. Harassment of the \ rouse during this period March through June) could cause considerable damage to the population, Damage to critical areas sue as meadows could also I, ave lasting effects on sage grouse populations. During the mating season, sage grouse strut at a particular site. The males restrict their activities to a radius of less than 1 mile from the strutting ground, at this time of year; the hens wander further, but usually nest within a 2 to 4-mile radius of the grounds. Stipulation Seasonal no surface occupancy within one-half mile of strutting ground (502 acres), no surface occupancy at the strutting ground (15 acres). 2-169 Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when the available data shows that the portion of the lease under the restriction no longer provides suitable habitat and grouse no longer use the area. Exception: The authorized officer can grant an exception to a specific activity if field inspection shows that grouse are not using the area and the proposed activities would not significantly degrade the habitat. An exception may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads with a high volume of traffic. Modification: A portion of the leased lands can be open to activity if field inspection shows that grouse are not using the area and the roposed activities would not significantly degrade the habitat. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the ease if additional leks, habitat or winter range areas are identified.P Resource Value Being Protected - Long-Billed Curlew and Western Snowy Plover Habitat. Need For Protection Nesting habitat for long-billed curlew and western snowy plover would be protected during the nesting season. These birds are ground nesters and nest destruction and disturbance of the birds during nesting could result in poor nest success. Both these birds are Federal candidate 2 for listing as threatened or endangered. The acres with seasonal restrictions vary through alternatives with one-quarter of the known nesting area undisturbed in the preferred alternative. Stipulation Seasonal no surface occupancy during nesting season. Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when the available datashows that the land under the restriction no longer provides suitable nesting habitat anywhere within the leasehold. Exception: The authorized officer can grant an exception to a specific activity if it is determined, on a case-by-case, basisthat curlew and plover are not using the area and that the proposed activities would not significantly degrade the habitat. An exception may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads that have a high volume of traffic. Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if field inspection shows that this area,does not contain nestin i, or that curlews and plovers are not using the area and that the proposed activities would not SI nrfrcantly degrade the ha habitat,, [tat. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if these areas are foun 8 to contain nesting habitat. Resource Value Being Protected - Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Perch and Nesting Sites Need for Protection Bald eagles are officially listed as endangered by the USFWS as provided by the Endangered Species Act, as.amended. Golden eagles are also provided similar protection but do not have endangered status. Bald eagles migrate to the Planning Area beginning in mid-November and remain until early to mid-spring, depending on the weather and available prey. Golden eagles can be found yearlong. Both bald and golden eagles have preferred daytime perch trees and nighttime roost trees. Bald eegles usually roost and perch in ponderosa pine or cottonwood trees and use fence posts or rocky outcrops when trees are not avarlabfe. Roost trees are usually located near a suitable prey base. The golden eagle locates its nest in rocky cliffs and is especrally subject to disturbance during the breeding season in the spring. The noise,,activities and human presence associated withoil and gasoperationsaredisturbingto both bald and golden eagles. These species WIII avoid an area of intense human activity. Disturbance is most critical in areas used as prey or roostrng areas and would affect golden eagle nesting success if disturbed during the breeding or nesting period. Stipulation Seasonal no surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of roost/nest sites (125 acres) and no surface occupancy at the roost/nest site (5 acres). Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when it can be shown that there are no active nests within the leasehold. 2-l 70 Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) This stipulation can be waived if the habitat is no longer effective as a winter roost anywhere within the leasehold. Exception: This stipulation can be excepted if it can be determined that the site-specific project will not affect occupation of the nest within the buffer. A lesser distance can be authorized if it is determined by the authorized officer that the species of concern would not be affected. An exception may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads that have a high volume of traffic. A case-by-case exception to this timing constraint may be granted if the authorized officer determines that the roost has minimal use (e.g., due to weatherconditions) and thetype of operations will not cause a substantial adverse impact. An exceptron may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads with a high volume of traffic. Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if circumstances change and the nest is not occupied, effective as a winter roost or the activity can be modified in a way that will be less disruptive to the species. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if additional nests are found. Resource Value Being Protected - Raptor Habitat Need For Protection Several species of raptors winter in the Planning Area. Ten species nest in the area and six other species are believed to,nest in the area. Raptors require asecluded areaof high rockcliffs ortrees as a nesting area. Raptors are normally quite wary, espectallydurrng the nesting season. Human activities can disturb the nesting birds and cause them to move to other areas. Rabbits, rodents, insects and small birds provide food for the raptors. The noise, activities and human presence associated with the oil and gas operations are disturbing to the various raptors. Raptors will normally move out of an area of intense human activity. This disturbance would be critical to raptors during their nestmg season. These normally wary birds nest in remote areas in high rock cliffs and tall trees. During the nesting season they require quiet and solitude to assure the success of mating and reproduction. Increased human activities near the nesting areas cause the raptors to move out of their nests, sometimes to not nest at all during that year. The population of several raptor species has declined in recent years. The disturbance of nesting raptors will contribute toward the declining populations. Stipulation Seasonal no surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of roost/nest sites (125 acres) and no surface occupancy at the roost/nest site (5 acres). Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when it can be shown that there are no active nests within the leasehold. Exception: This stipulation can be excepted if it can be determined that the site-specific project will not affect occupation of the nest withinthe800meterbuffer. Alesserdistancecan beauthorizedif it isdetermined bytheauthorizedofficerthatthespeciesofconcern would not be affected. An exception may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads that have a high volume of traffic. Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if circumstances change and the nest is not occupied, or the activit can be modified in a way that will be less disruptive to the species. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of t K e lease if additional nests are found. Category 3 - No Surface Occupancy Resource Valued Being Protected - Critical Habitat of Malheur Wirelettuce Malheurwirelettuce is a plant species listed as an endangered species. Critical Habitat forthis species has been officially established. The Critical Habitat of threatened or endangered species is necessary for the continued existence of the species. Need for Protection Any surface disturbance within the Critical Habitat of a threatened or endangered species can be considered to jeopsrdize its continued existence either through direct loss of individuals of the species or through reduction in the total available habitat. Stipulation No surface occupancy. Waivers, Exceptions or Modifications 2-l 71 Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when the species is recovered orwhen the species is officially recognized as extinct orwhen the habitat in question is no longer considered cntical for the survival of the species. There will be no exceptions or modifications to this stipulation. Conditions Under Which Stipulation Could Be Waived When the species is recovered, extinct or when the habitat in question is no longer considered critical for survival of the species. Resource Value Being Protected - ACE& including RNAs and ONA .PCFC ~o~lnnntlnn,erial mapaqemea t attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural and scenic values, fish or wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes. Need For Protection AC,ECs are b definition vulnerable to adverse change and are generally irreplaceable. The siting of exploration and/or development facrlrtres wou d adversely affect the resources to such an extent that the basis for the ACEC designation would no longer be valid. Y Stipulation No surface occupancy. Waivers, Exceptions or Modifications Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the ACEC designation is removed from these lands. There will be no exceptions or modifications to this stipulation for all ACECs, including RNA/ACECs and ONAIACECs, with the exception of Kiger Mustang ACEC. The following modifications may be applied to the Kiger Mustang ACEC. yodification: A modification to this stipulation may be granted if it is determined by the authorized officer that the proposed surface dsturbing activities would not degrade the habitat or otherwise be detrimental to the values for which the Kiger Mustang ACEC has been established. A modification of this stipulation to seasonal restrictions on activities may also be granted. Resource Value Being Protected - Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Habita Need for Protection Riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats in the Three Rivers Planning Area are fairly uniform and are characterized by small, shallow streams with narrow riparian zones. Flow patterns are t and storm events. They provide a critical source of ha g pically lowthroughout much of theyearwith sharp increases during snowmelt rtat diversity in terms of vegetation composition and structure for native flora and fauna. There are generally distinct wetland zones surrounded by a more uniform sagebrush, grassland or juniper community. In general, they are much more productivethan surrounding vegetation types in terms of both plant and animal biomass and species diversity. They are also severely limited, comprising less than 1 percent of the total land area. These areas provide food, cover and reduced water temperatures necessary for fisheries. Current water quality and associated fisheries could be endangered if oil and gas activities are permitted within the direct influence zone of a water body. Water quality in the Planning Area is highly susceptible to sediment impact. The normal low flows for much of the year allow sediments to rapidly settle out, smothering gravels used for spawning, food production and refuge during winter months. Actions during prelimina seismic or stratigraphic testing an iv investigations and exploratory drilling (such as road and trail construction, clearing sites for wtldcat drilling) causes surface disturbance and could result in siltation. Removal of vegetation near streams would reduce the amount of this valuable zone of plant diversity, as well as increase water temperature and cause streambanks to degrade, increasing siltation. The stream and associated riparian vegetation could be degraded during exploratory drilling operations if saline water or caustic drilling fluids are released within these areas. Surface disturbances associated with oil and gas development would cause impacts similar to those described for preliminary investigation except on a larger scale. Stipulation Nosurfaceoccupancy within live water or stream courses which contain live water during runoff periods and contribution would cause water quality standards to be exceeded in the receiving water or on slopes greater than 30 percent within 600 feet of such water courses. Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Where technical consideration would by the authorized officer. prevent any deterioration of water quality, stipulation could be waived, excepted or modified 2-172 Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) Resource Value Being Protected - Special Status Plant Species or Their Habitat These plant species are either official1 listed; or designated as sensitive by t II listed as threatened or endangered; proposed for listing; candidates for Federal listing; State e BLM State Director. Need For Protection The known sites where these plants grow are relatively restricted and surface disturbance could result in jeopardy to a particular population or to the species. It is Bureau policy to ensure that special status species are not jeopardized by any BLM-authorized activities. Stipulation No surface occupancy. (Note: Due to lack of complete inventory, this stipulation will be applied on a case-by-case basis after field inventory of the lease lands.) Waivers, Exceptions or Modifications Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined by the authorized officer that impacts can be adequately mitigated by avoidance, through standard stipulations (relocation of activities up to 200 yards). Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if it is determined by the authorized officer that the adverse impacts will not jeopardize the existence of a species. An exception may be granted if the operator submits a plan which avoids or adequately mitigates impacts. Modification: A modificationtothisstipulation maybegranted if it is determined bythe authorized officerthat a particular plant species is more abundant than previously recorded or if a plant species becomes delisted and is no longer recognized to have special status. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if a particular plant species is found to be less abundant than previously recorded or if a plant species previously not listed becomes listed or otherwise recognized to have special status. Resource Value Being Protected - Developed Recreation Site These lands are needed for public recreation purposes where intensive use requires the development and maintenance of campgrounds and other related facilities. Need for Protection On-site exploration or operation would interfere with the intended recreation purposes and existing capital investments occurring on these lands. Stipulation No surface occupancy. Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if recreation facilities are dismantled and the area dropped from intensive recreation management. Exception and Modification: None. Category 4- No Leasing Resource Value Being Protected - Devine Canyon and USDA-FS Road 41 Scenic Areas These are areas with high scenic values along heavily traveled routes. Need For Protection Oil exploration or development would detract from thescenicvalues. An oil or geothermal well would be incompatible with the scenic values of the site. Stipulation No surface occupancy. 2-173 Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation may not be waived. Exception: This stipulation may be excepted where the authorized officer determines lease operations could be conducted or mitigated to conform with VRM Class II standards. Modification: None. Resource Value Being Protected - WSAs/Proposed WSRs Need For Protection To protect the wilderness values of the WSAs until a decision is made on whether or not to designate the areas as wilderness. Federal policy prohibits the issuance of new oil and gas leases within the WSAs. Wild and scenic river values are to be protected pendrng inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Stipulation No leasing. Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if an area is released from further wilderness or WSR study and is not designated as wilderness or included in the WSR system. Exception and Modification: None. Resource Value Being Protected - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Need for Protection Oil exploration or development would interfere with activities of the wildlife refuge. Federal policy also prohibits the issuance of fluid energy leases within the refuge. Stipulation No leasing. Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications None. 2-l 74 Table 2.25. Mineral Materials Sites ID# Name Material Primar Use/ 4Permit ype Eflopment Acres Location Drewsey Sand and Gravel FUP’/Community Yes 40 Muller Stone Community No 60 Drewsey Grange Sand and Gravel FUP/Community Yes 80 T. 20 S., R. 35 E., sec. 26, NW1/4SW1/4. T. 20 S., R. 35 E., sec. 3, lot 3, N1/2SE1/4NW1/4. g. ~V~.$c 33 II2 E;/2NEllri. T. 20 S.. R. 34 E.. Kimball Flat Sand and Gravel Community Otis Creek Sand and Gravel Community Pine Creek Rock Community 7 Laton Point Rock FUPlCommunity Yes 400 8 Refuge Road Cinders FUPlCommunity Yes 9 Barton Lake Cinders FUP/Community Yes 10 Saddle Butte FUP/Community Yes 11 Voltage Gravel 12 Standcliff Stone Creek 13 Anderson Cinders Valley 14 Double 0 Stone Yes No No and 60 40 60 FUP/Community Yes 20 Community No 40 FUPlCommunity Yes 40 Community No 30 15 5-Mile Dam Sand and Gravel FUP/Community Yes 40 80 80 40 sec. 6, ids 6, 7. T. 20 S., R. 35 E., sec. 7, E1/2SE1/4; sec. 8, W1/2SW1/4. T. 20 S., R. 36 E. sec. 7, NE1/4NE1/4. T. 22 S., R. 35 E., sec. 7, Sl/2NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4NE1/4. SE1/4NE1/4NWl;4 NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4. T. 23 S., R. 33 E., sec. 2. E1/2SW1/4. ~n~2SW1/4SEl/4sEl/4 SW1/4NW1/4SE1/4. T. 26 S., R. 31 E., sec. 31 :,SE1/4SE1/4. T. 29 S., R. 33 E., sec. 19, E112SEll4. T. 28 S., R. 31 E., sec. 7, Lots 2, 3, SE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, NWll4SElf4 and SW1 /4NE1/4. T. 27 S., R. 32 E., sec. 6, W1/2SE1/4NE1/4. T. 28 S., R. 34 E., sec. 12, SE1/4SW1/4. T. 28 S., R. 35 E., sec. 5, SW1/4NW1/4. T. 26 S., R. 29 E., sec. 8, S1/2SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4 and SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4. sec. 17, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4, El;2NWl/4NE1/4NW1/4 Wl/2NWI/4NW1/4NE1/4. T. 22 S., R. 30 E., sec. 23, Lot 8 and E1/2NE1/4NW1/4. 2-l 75 Table 2.25. Mineral Materials Sites ID# Name Material 16 Juniper Ridge Primary Use/Permit Type FUP/Community Community Eeavnelopment Yes Yes Acres 40 17 and Radar Hill Pumice 40 18 Chickahominy Riprap FUP No 10 19 Fort Curry Sand and Gravel FUP Yes 20 Sagehen Sand and Gravel Community No 40 20 21 Vir inia Va ley 7 Whiting Cinders Community No Commercial/SRHA2 Yes 20 22 Rock 40 23 Choate Cinders/ Sand and Gravel CommerciaKRHA Yes 160 24 E2rant Cinders FUP Yes 40 Location T. 23 S., R. 25 E., sec. 36, NEll4SEll4. T. 23 S., R. 30 E., sec. 28, S1/2NE1/4NW1/4 N1/2SE1/4NW1/4. T. 23 S., R. 26 E., sec. 28, SW1/4NW1/4 and SW1 14; sec. 29, SE1/4NE1/4 and SEll4. T. 22 S., R. 26 E., sec. 5, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4. T. 24 S., R. 29 E., sec. 6, Lot 2(S1/2) and SW1/4NE1/4. T. 27 S., R. 35 E., sec. 18, Lot 3. T. 22 S., R. 31., sec. 29, SEll4SEll4. T. 23 S., R. 30 E., sec. 22, SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4. T. 21 S., R. 27 E., sec. 15, NE1/4NE1/4. ‘Free Use Permit 2Stock Raising Homestead Act Table 2.26. Summary of Acreage Closed to the Operation of the Mining Laws Discretionary’ Closures (Classifications) Closed, nonmetalliferous (acres) Closed, only obsidian 916.20 and chalcedony (acres) Closed, except for 298.69 mineral leasing (acres) Closed, all (acres) Totals 1,214.89 ‘See Glossary for definition of discretionary and nondiscretionary. NondiscretionaryClosures (Withdrawals) 33720.63 41,528.29 3,188.41 4q437.33 Total 3,720.63 916.20 41,826.98 3,188.41 49,652.22 2-176 Lands and Realty Objective and Rationale LR 1: Consolidate public landholdings and acquire lands with high public resource values to ensure effective administration and improve resource management. Retain in public ownership landholdings with high public resource values. Rationale: Section 102 of FLPMA makes it the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership. Consolidated land patterns would provide for better land management and administration for both public and private landowners. Retention and acquisition of lands, in publicownershipcontaining significant resource values, would provide for long-term protection and management of those values. Disposal of isolated, unmanageable tracts would provide more efficient use of lands better suited in private ownership and concentrate management efforts in significant blocks of public land. Allocation/Management Action LR 1.1: Maintain and increase public land holdings in Zone 1, as identified on Map LR-1 by retaining public lands and acquiring non-Federal lands with high public resource values. Public lands in Zone 2 may be disposed of only by sale under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act or by exchange for non-Federal lands in Zones 1 or 2. Public lands in Zone 1 may be exchanged only for non-Federal lands meeting one of the following criteria: 1. The non-Federal lands must be within or immediately adja- cent to an ACEC, SRMA, WSA designated wilderness, or proposed and designated WSR; or 2. The non-Federal lands must contain a critical access need as identified in an approved BLM land use plan, riparian or wetland values, habitat for listed Threatened and Endan- gered (T&E) species or significant cultural or historical resources. The primary mode of acquisition will be through exchanges. Purchases and donations may be utilized to acquire lands if exchange is not feasible. All fee acquisitions will be with willing landowners. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.2, F 1.7, SSS 2.7, R 1.1, R 1.2, LR 1.3, LR 1.4, LR 4.2, BD 1.4. ConstrainedBy:F1.1,F1.2,F1.7,GM1.4,V1.1,SSS2.2,SSS 3.1, CR2.1, CR2.2, LR5.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1 Specificprocessing requirementsfor exchanges, purchases, and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners or proponents. Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM’s budget process. Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres transferred within the various land tenure zones. 2-l 77 r OREGON 1 z-1 1 Land Tenure Zone uN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP LR-1 LANDTENUREZONES Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs LR 1.2: Make available for FLPMA or R&PP sale, lands in Zone 3, as shown on Lands Map LR-1, or as described in Table 2.26, where such sale is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis and disposal by exchange is infeasible or would cause unacceptable delay. Approximately 25,335 acres have been identified throughthis land use plan as potentially suitable for sale. Procedures to Implement: 1. Specific requirements for processing sales are contained in BLM Manuals 2710,2711,2740 and Handbook 271 l-1 and other pertinent guidance. Briefly these requirements in- clude: Decision Class: 3 Supported By: LR 3.2. Constrained By: V 1 .I, SSS 3.1, LR 4.2, LR 5.1, BD 1 .l, BD 1.4, BD 1.5. - Identify and prioritize tracts where an immediate need for disposal exists. In the case of an R&PP sale, review propos- als to determine if they qualify for an R&PP Act conveyance. - Secure funding for processing sales through the BLM’s budget process. - Conduct necessary resource clearance work including cul- tural, botanical and mineral reports. - Prepare NEPA documentation for the proposed sale. - Issue a Notice of Realty Action and offer tracts. - Accept offer and issue patent or deed. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. - Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres trans- ferred within the various land tenure zones. LR 1.3: Place high emphasis on improving public landholdings and blocking patterns in Silvies Valley through land tenure adjustment actions. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Specific processing requirements for exchanges, purchases and donations are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200 and other prevailing guidance. Briefly, these requirements include: SupportedBy:Vl.3,SSS2.7,WL5.3,WL6.5,LRl.l,LR4.2, BD 1.4. Constrained By: V 1 .l, SSS 3.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.4, BD 1.5. - Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners. - Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. - Secure funding for processing proposalsthrough the BLM’s budget process. - Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. - Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. - Issue a Noticeof Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. - Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. - Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres trans- ferred within the various land tenure zones. 2-180 Allocation/Management Action LR 1.4: Sell, exchange, or otherwise convey to Harney County, or other qualified entity, three solid waste disposal sites involv- ing 120 acres, currently under R&PP lease to Harney County. Terminate R&PP classifications on these lands if exchange or conveyance other than R&PP appears feasible. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Supported By: R 1 .l, LR 1 .l, LR 1.2, LR 5.2, HM l-l, HM 1.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Specificprocessingrequirementsforexchanges,purchases and donations are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200 and other prevailing guidance. Briefly, these requirements include: Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure proposals with affected landowners. Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. Securefunding forprocessing proposalsthrough the BLM’s budget process. Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and solicit public review. Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance actions and issuing patents and deeds. 2. Specific requirements for processing land sales are con- tained in BLM Manuals 2710,2711, and Handbook 271 l-l and other pertinent guidance. Briefly these requirements include: Identify and prioritize tracts where an immediate need for disposal exists. Secure funding for processing sales through the BLM’s budget process. Conduct necessary resource clearance work including cul- tural, botanical and mineral reports. Prepare NEPA documentation for the proposed sale. Issue a Notice of Realty Action and offer tracts. Accept offer and issue patent or deed. Monitoring Needs: - Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- cesses. - Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres trans- ferred within the various land tenure zones. LR 1.5: Newly acquired lands will be managed for the highest potential purpose for which they were acquired. Acquired lands with unique or fragile resources will be managed to protect those resources on an interim basis until the next plan amend- ment or revision is completed. Lands acquired without special values or management goals will be managed in the same manner as comparable or adjacent public lands. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WL 5.3, WL 6.5, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.26, R 1.1, R2.13, R2.15. Procedures to implement: 1. Interim management actions, specific to each parcel being acquired, will be identified in the NEPA documentation prepared for each land tenure action. Monitoring Needs: - Newly acquired lands will be incorporated into existing resource monitoring procedures ongoing on adjacent or comparable lands. 2-181 Objective and Rationale LR 2: Meet public needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way, leases and permits. Rationale: Rights-of-way and other land uses are recognized as major use of public lands and authorized by Section 302 and 501 of FLPMA. Section 503 of FLPMA provides for the designation of right-of-way corridors and encourages utilization of rights-of-way in-common to minimize environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way. Bureau policy, as described in BLM Manual 2801.13B1, is to encourage prospective applicants to locate their proposals within corridors. Designation of avoidance areas would provide early notice to potential applicants when they are planning right-of-way or other land use projects. Only facilities and uses would be permitted in avoidance areas which are consistent with the special designation associated with that area. Designation of exclusion zones will provide protection of lands and resources, which have values which are not compatible with rights-of-way or other land uses. The United States potential liability, under various hazardous materials statutes, would be limited if disposal of wastes, both hazardous and nonhazardous, are prohibited on public lands. Existing disposal sites operated by the county are adequate for most rural residents and businesses. Private lands are generally available for private waste disposal. If a bonafide public need for a new waste disposal site arises, land could be provided for that use by sale or exchange. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to ImplemenffMonitoring Needs LR 2.1: Designate 185 miles of public land as right-of-way corridors as shown on Map LR-2. These corridors include all trans-district electrical transmission lines, identified by the Western Regional Corridor study, all Federal and State high- ways, and all railroads. Nominal corridor width is 1,000 feet on each side of the center line of the existing facilities, except wherethealignmentforms,oriswithintheboundaryofaspecial management area, where the width will be 2,000 feet on the side opposite that boundary. Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Corridor designation will occur upon approval of the RMP. Monitoring Needs: - Application of this decision will be monitored as large scale right-of-way proposals are evaluated though the NEPA process. LR 2.2: Encourage all applicants for electrical transmission lines greater than 69 kV, all mainline fiber optic facilities, and all pipelines greater than 10 inches in diameter to locate their facilities within designated corridors (Map LR-2). Decision Class: 3 Supported By: LR 2.1. Constrained By: V 1 .l , SSS 3.1, WL 7.2, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Early contact and coordination will be made with proponents of projects which appear to meet the criteria for corridor placement. 2. Use of corridors will be considered as alternatives in the NEPA analysis prepared for a project meeting criteria for corridor placement. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring is provided for in the normal BLM accomplish- ment reporting process. LR 2.3: All special management areas, totaling 95,530 acres, are designated right-of-way and realty land use authorization avoidance areas as shown on Map LR-2. Decision Class: 1 and 3 Supported By: R 1.1. Procedures to implement: 1. Designation of avoidance areas will occur upon approval of the PRMP/FEIS. Upon receipt of a land use proposal within a special management area: - Encourage proponent to consider alternative routes and locations. - Analyze the project through the NEPA process. - If no alternatives exist, require stringent mitigation to protect the special management area and its required purpose. Monitoring Needs: 2-l 82 - Application of this decision will be monitored as individual proposals are evaluated through the NEPA process. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs LR2.4:TwoWSAstotaling 17,&35acres, asshownonMapLR- 2, are designated right-of-way and land use authorization exclusion zones, except for those rights-of-way and land use authorizations needed to provide reasonable accessto and use of non-Federal WSA inholdings, consistent with BLM’s IMP. Procedures to Implement: 1. Designation of exclusion areas occurs upon approval of the RMP. 2. All realty land use proposals will be reviewed for conformity with the plan. Decision Class: 1 and 3 3. Reject all nonconforming proposals. LR 2.5: The following activities would not be authorized on public lands: a. New public waste disposal sites. b. New or existing private waste disposal sites. c. Storage or disposal of hazardous material. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: HM 1 .l, HM 1.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Review all land use proposals to determine if they involve one or more of the prohibited activities. 2. Reject all such proposals based on nonconformance with the Three Rivers RMP. Monitoring Needs: - Application of this decision will be monitored as individual proposals are received and reviewed. LR 2.6: Applications for rights-of-way, permits, leases, and other realty actions will be processed in a timely manner, on a case-by-case basis, utilizing the NEPA process. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: R 2.2. Constrained By: AC! 1.3, WQ 1.2, WQ 1.3, WQ 1.9, SM 1.1, SM 2.1,SM2.2,F1.3,F1.4, F1.5,Vl.l,SSS2.2,SSS3.1,SSS 3.2, WL1.5, WL6.4, WL6.6, WL7.1, WL7.2, WL7.7, WL7.20, AH1.6,AH2.1,R1.2,R2.1,VRM1.1,VRM1.2,VRM1.3,CR 2.4, BD 1 .l, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM Manuals 2801,2920,2740,2912 and their associated handbooks, provide specific guidance for processing realty land use authorizations and rights-of-way. Briefly, process- ing involves: Enter into pre-application consultation with proponents. Receive application and processing fees. Conduct NEPA review of the proposal. lssueauthorizingdocumentwithconditionsderivedfromthe mitigation identified in the NEPA review. Monitor construction and long-term operation of the project. Monitoring Needs: - Individual projects will be monitored to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the authorizing document. - Monitoring of this decision will occur through the normal BLM accomplishment tracking processes. 2-183 2-184 OREGON Right-of-Way Exclusion Zones ::::;:;::::::;:::q f’ ::::::::::::::::::::::: Right-of-W.~_~.~_~_~_~,~,.,....., ay Avoidance Zones - - - Right-of-Way Corridors 0 10 MlLESi 0N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA MAP LR-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDORS, EXCLUSION AND AVOIDANCE AREAS Ir 2-185 2-186 OREGON - CrItIcal Access Needs 10 0 10 MlLES 1-5 J u N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT April 1991 THREERIVERSRESOURCEAREA MAP LR-3 CRITICAL ACCESS NEEDS Objective and Rationale LR 3: Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands. Rationale: Tres ass activities result in financial loss to the United States and damage to the public land and its resources. Section 102(a)(9) of FL B MA makes it the policy of the U.S. to collect fair market value for use of the public lands. Unless authorized, no compensation is received. Further, Section 303(g) of the act states that use, occupancyordevelopment of the public lands is contrary to any regulation of the Secretary...is unlawful and prohibited. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs LR 3.1: Detect. confirm and abate. either bv authorization or Procedures to Implement: termination, all’unauthorized use on public (and. Effect recla- mation of lands damaged by unauthorized uses. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: CR 1.2, LR 2.6, LR 3.2. 1. See BLM Manual 9232, Handbook H-9232-1, and other applicable guidance dealing with realty-related trespass. Resolution of trespass by authorization will be accom- plished utilizing the various authorities and their uidance available to the BLM. See BLM Manuals and Han ! books in the 2200, 2300, 2700 and 2900 series and other pertinent guidance. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will include regular surveillance of lands and resources where a high probability of unauthorized use exists, as well as follow-up on information concerning pos- sible tres ass provided by the public and staff. - Normal Ef LM accomplishment process will be utilized to track implementation of this decision. LR 3.2: Agricultural or occupancy trespass will be terminated, or may be authorized b Ion -term lease, sale or exchange, where the exchange, Y 9sa e or ease would serve to meet other important public objectives, in addition to resolving the tres- pass. Short-term permits may be utilized to authorize occu- pancy or agricultural trespass until a lease, sale or exchange can be affected. Decision Class: 3 Procedures to Implement: 1. See BLM Manual 9232, Handbook H-9232-1, and other applicable guidance dealing with realty-related trespass. 2. Resolution of trespass by authorization will be accom- plished utilizing the various authorities and their guidance available to the Bureau. 3. See BLM Manuals and Handbooks in the 2200,2300,2700 and 2900 series and other pertinent guidance. Supported By: LR 1 .l, LR 1.2, LR 2.5, LR 2.6, LR 3.1. Constrained By: SM 1 .l. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring will include regular surveillance of lands and resources where a high probability of unauthorized use exists, as well as follow-up on information concerning pos- sible trespass provided by the public and staff. - Normal BLM accomplishment processes will be utilized to track implementation of this decision. Objective and Rationale LR 4: Acquire and maintain legal public and administrative access to public land consistent with other resource values. Rationale: Due to the enerally fragmented nature of public lands in some parts of the RA, several critical access points, crossing private lands, lack lega access. Legal access is needed in these areas to ensure continued effective administration and public use B of these lands. This need becomes more acute as public use of these lands increases, and as landowners become more aware of the value of public and private land for recreation and other purposes. Land tenure adjustment actions (exchanges or fee purchases) can be a valuable tool for access acquisitions. However, without careful review, lands actions, particularly exchanges, can result in lost access. Other tools can also be utilized, such as constructing new roads around lands where access is restricted and the cost of acquisition would exceed the cost of construction or where such acquisition is not feasible. LR 4.1: Acquire legal or administrative access where public demand or an administrative need exists (see Map LR-3). Emphasis will be placed on providing access to areas contain- ing high public resource values. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: I. BLM manuals 2100, 2100-l., H2101-1 and other pertinent guidance provide specific direction for access acquisition. Briefly, this guidance includes: Supported By: R 2.15, LR 1 .I. Constrained By: BD 1.5. - Review access acquisition needs to determine specific priorities. - Determine feasibility and options for each access need. - Determine thepotentialfor landowner interest and potential. - Negotiate and process easements or fee acquisitions with 2-188 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs landowners in accordance with the authority applicable to the specific acquisition. Monitoring Needs: - Monitoring progress can be accomplished utilizing estab- lished AWP reporting procedures. LR 4.2: Ensure that public access is maintained or improved through all land tenure adjustment transactions. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: LR 1 .l , LR 4.1. Constrained By: SSS 3.1, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Review all disposal actions to determine if any important access to adjacent public lands is being lost. 2. Reserve public access in patents and deeds where an important access loss is identified. 3. Review all land tenure proposals to determine if important access, particularly those identified on Map LR-3, could be acquired. This could be accomplished by including the parcel that contains the access in the fee acquisition, or adding an easement to the proposal as consideration. Monitoring Needs: - In addition to monitoring progress through normal BLM tracking processes, access needs will be reviewed on a regular and periodic basis. LR 4.3: Where easement acquisition is not feasible, but signifi- cant access needs have been identified (see Map LR-3), construct new roads around private lands. Procedures to Implement: 1. Determine if the acquisition is not feasible or desirable through the NEPA process and CCCwith other landowners. Decision Class: 2 2. Secure funding for road construction through BLM budget process. Constrained By: WQ 1.9, SM 1 .l, SM 2.1, SM 2.2, V 1 .l, SSS 3. Provide for survey and design, if necessary. 3.1, SSS3.2, WL6.6, WL7.1, WL7.20,AH 1.6, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. 4. Construct road. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. Objective and Rationale LR 5: Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the required purpose. Rationale: Section 204 of FLPMA gives the Secretary the authority to make, modify, extend or revoke withdrawals and mandates review of withdrawals. Interior Departmental Policy (DM 603) further requires that: 1. All withdrawals shall be kept to a minimum, consistent with the demonstrated needs of the agency requesting the withdrawals. 2. Lands shall be available for other public uses to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the purposes of the withdrawal. 3. A current and continuing review of existing withdrawals shall be instituted. 2-l 89 Allocation/Management Action LR 5.1: Recommend that 2,715 acres identified in Table 2.9 (Lands Recommended for Withdrawal) be withdrawn from the public land laws including location and entry under the mining laws. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 1 .I, EM 3.1. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. An agency requesting a withdrawal contacts BLM and enters into pre-application consultation and negotiation. 2. Application for a withdrawal is filed by requesting agency. 3. For BLM protective withdrawals, the Secretary of Interior is petitioned to accept the application prior to its submission. 4. AFederalRegisterNoticeispublished whichsegregatesthe land for 2 years. 5. NEPA analysis, and other required reports are prepared and submitted to the BLM State Office (SO). 6. SO forwards its findings and recommendations to the Direc- tor of BLM and to requesting agency. 7. Director reviews this information and forwards to the Secre- tary of Interior. 8. Secretary approves and publishes a Public Land Order which withdraws the lands. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. LR 5.2: Recommend withdrawal review and classification continuations, modifications, revocations and terminations as displayed in Table 2.29. In addition, review all withdrawals with expiration dates and recommend extension or termination as appropriate. Decision Class: 2 Procedures to Implement: 1. Holding agency submits rejustification report. 2. Notice of proposed withdrawal continuation or extension is published in the Federal Register. 3. BLM prepares field reports and reviews withdrawal. 4. Findings and recommendations of BLM are coordinated with holding agency. 5. If holding agency concurs with findings and recommenda- tions, the Secretary approves and publishes a Public Land Order which continues, modifies or revokes the withdrawal. Classifications are terminated by decision of the authorized officer, BLM. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. LR 5.3: Consider other agency requests for withdrawal relin- quishments and modifications on a case-by-case basis. Decision Class: 3 Supported By: R 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. BLM prepares field reports and reviews withdrawal. 2. Findings and recommendations of BLM are coordinated with holding agency. 3. If holding agency concurs with findings and recommenda- tions, the Secretary approves and publishes a Public Land Orderwhichcontinues, modifiesorrevokesthewwithdrawal. Classifications are terminated by decision of the authorized officer. BLM. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. 2-l 90 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs LR 5.4: Develop a MOU to clarify resource management responsibilities for Federal lands around Warm Springs Reser- voir. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Contact BOR to determine interest and scope of MOU. 2. Negotiate agreement. 3. Enter into agreement, approved by BLM State Director and Reclamation Regional Director. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. LR5.5: Develop MOUs with USFWSand consider withdrawals and restorations to clarify management responsibilities for selected parcels along the boundary of the Malheur National W ildlife Refuge. Procedures to Implement: 1. Contact USFWS to determine interest and scope of MOU. 2. Negotiate agreement. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: R 1 .l , LR 5.3. 3. Enter into agreement, approved by BLM State Director and Reclamation Regional Director. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- ment tracking process. Table 2.27. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements The three zones shown on the Land Tenure Zone Map LR-1 cate orize the 4 8 ublic lands for potential land tenure ad’ustments (e.g., land exchanges or land sales), consistent with existing regu ations an BLM policy. Section 102(a)(l) of the r -L PMA provides that “the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.” Land Tenure Zone Map LR-1 depict three land tenure zones. Management guidelines specific to each zone are as follows: - Zone 1 lands have been identified for retention in public ownership. They are also areas where emphasis will be placed on acquisition of lands containing high 8 ublic resource values through exchange, purchase or donation. Zone 1 lands contain significant visual, wildlife, watershe , vegetative, cultural and other public resource values and are generally well blocked. - Zone 2 lands have generally fragmented landownership patterns or are suspected of having relatively lower resource values than found in Zone 1. These lands will not be sold except under the R&PP Act. Zone 2 lands may be exchanged for higher resource value lands in Zone 1 or 2. These lands can be used as trading stock for more diverse, higher resource value lands. - Zone 3 lands, as shown on Map LR-1 and described in Table 2.28, have been reviewed and based upon available informa- tion, all of these parcels have been determined to be difficult or uneconomical areas to manage. They contain lands with generally low or unknown resource values. These lands are potentially suitable for sale or exchange if significant recreation, wildlife, watershed, special status species or cultural values are not identified. FLPMA and other Federal laws, Executive Orders and policies suggest 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. They include: -wild horse HMAs -threatened or endangered or sensitive plant and animals species habitat; -areas containing scientific value, e.g., RNAs; -riparian areas; wetlands; designated floodplains; -fish habitat; -nesting/breeding habitat for game animals; -key big game seasonal habitat; -developed recreation sites and recreation access; -VRM -energy and mineral potential -significant cultural resources and sites eli ible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; -wilderness and areas being studied for WI derness;9 -accessibility of the land for public uses; 2-191 Table 2.27. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements (continued) -amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for recovering those investments; -difficulty or cost of administration (manageability); -suitability of the land for management by another Federal agency; -significance of the decision in stabilizing business, social and economic conditions, and/or lifestyles; -whether private sites exist for the proposed use; -encumbrances, including but not limited to withdrawals, or existing leases or permits; -consistency with coo erative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies; and Ii-suitability (need for c ange in landownership or use) for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or eco- nomic development, such as industrial, residential or agricultural (other than grazing development); -existing landownership patterns. The criteria identified above will be among those considered in land reports and environmental analyses prepared for specific land tenure adjustment proposals following plan implementation. Minor ad’ustments involving sales or exchan es or both ma be permitted based on site-specific application of this adjustment criteria. t ransfer to other public agencies WII be considere7 cy where improved management efficiency would result. FLPMA provides that a tract of public land may be disposed of by exchange provided that the public interest will be well served by making that exchange. In considering public interests, exchanges generally must: -facilitate access to public land and resource, or -maintain or enhance important public values and uses, or -maintain or enhance local social and economic conditions -facilitate implementation of other aspects of the Three Rivers RMP. Public lands or tracts to be sold must meet the following disposal criteria stated in the FLPMA: -“such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or -such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or -disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and eco- nomic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership.” Generally, exchanges are the preferred method of disposal but sales will be utilized when: -it is required by national policy; or -it is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis, and where disposal through exchange would cause unacceptable delays; 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: -such land is needed by State or local governments; or -direct sale is needed to protect equities arising from authorized use; or -direct sale is needed to protect equities resulting from inadvertent, unauthorized use that was caused by surveying errors or title defects; or -there is only one adjacent landowner and no public access. Site-specific environmental analysis and documentation (including categorical exclusion where appropriate) will be accom- plished for each proposed Lands Program action. Interdisciplinary impact and analysis will be tiered within the framework of this and other applicable environmental documents. General priorities exist for implementing land disposal actions. These actions include, in priority order, the following: :: :: 5. 6. 7. BLM and other Federal Jurisdictional Transfers Transfers to State and Local Agencies State Exchanges Private Exchanges Sales Agricultural Leases Desert land Entries 2-l 92 Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal Township Range Section Subdivision Acres FLPMA Disposal Criteria 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 18S 331 l2E zz 33 19s 331/2E :: swsw S.;;.;$ SWSE SESW NWNW El/2NW SE114 s1/2sw NESE,S1/2SE NENW,S1/2N1/2,NESW, NlRSE,SESE NESE 40 120 80 40 :i 160 18200 360 44ooo 120 160 480 4801% 18so0 240 40 I8600 40342” 280 ,.203(a)( 1 203CaMl \ ,\ 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l E#[: Z[:$ 203(a)(’ E[$ 19s 34E :; 21 S1/2NE,S1/2 ~$d~,Wl/2SW,ElI2SE 19s 35E S1/2Nl/2.S1/2 Ell2Elf2 N1/2NE NE1/4 MQSU2,SWSW,SESE E1/2SW1/4 ;;;p,N1/2SE,SESE SENE S1/2NW,N1/2SW,SE1/4 WI RSW,Sl/2NESW,SESW, E1/2SE,S1/2NWSE,SWSE W1/2E1/2 19s 36E 20s 30E 160 120 160 40 160 201.65 241.56 203.2 203(W) 2Wa)U 1 203(a)(l)203W 1 2OWU 12OW)U 1 20s 331/2E 20s 34E S1/2SW,SWSE N1/2SW,NWSE,SESE SESE Sll2Nll2 Lots 2, 3, 4, SENW.SWSW 2OWU 1 Lots 3,‘4, SESW,NESE,S1/2SE Lots 1. 2. 3. 4. 203(4(l) 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 1203(a)( 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l I II203(a)( 1 203(a)(l ;n$y$ Lot 4. EIRNE 40 159.8 160 118.9 28800 240 40 ii 160 480.49 20s 35E s1/2s112 pt4~~1/2SW VM~,El”NW,NESW, NlRNW.SENW.NESW. s1/2sw NESE s1/2sw El /2SW SW 20s 36E 21s 30E Lots l-6, S1/2NE, X;;,NESW,N1/2SE WI /2sw k$l, 2, NWNE,NE, 40 80 160.51 1 18.93 48.67 25.86 78.01 152.93 80 203(a)(3) 203(4(l) 203(a)(l) 2OWU 1203(W) 203(4(l) 203(4(l) 2OWU 12OWU 1 Lots 5-9 Lots 5, 6 Lot 9 Lots I, 2 ktsNIC 3, 4, 9 2-l 93 Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued) Township Range Section Subdivision Acres FLPMADisposal Criteria 21s 31E 2 7 8 ii Lots 5-I 0 Lot 8 NENE 180.88 37.05 40.0 109.69 -40 31.79 63.68 80 40.59 70.8 286.18 2Wa)U 1203(4(l) 203(4(l) 2OWU 1 2OWU 12WW 1 2WW 12OWU 1 2OWU 12Wa)U 1 2Wa)U 1 Lots 3-5 swsw 40.0 108.89 Lot 4 Lots I, 2 SENW.NESW 32 4 6 ?3 9 Lot 2 ’ Lots 19, 20 Lots5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14,20 swsw Lot 3. El/2SW 2WW 12OWU 1203(4(l) 2oWU 1203(a)(l) 203(4(l) 203(4(l) 2WW 12WW 1 2WW 12Wa)U 1 203(a)(l)2OWU 1 2Wa)U 12Wa)U 1 2OWU 1203(W) 203(4(l) 203(a)(l) 203(4(l) 2WW 1 2OWU 1203(4(l) 2Wa)U 1203(4(l) 2WW 12WW 1 203W 12OWU 1 2OWU 12OWU 1 2WW 12WW 1 2OW)U 12OWU 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 21s 34E Lot 6’ 64.9 Lot 4, SESW 80.23 SESW. SlRSE 120 NESW’ 40 34.44 80 80 40.63 120 21s 35E 22s 29E 22s 31E Lot 1 Wl l2SW Sll2SW Lot 4 SESW,EI/2SE NE,E1/2NW k’/2s3i4, SlRNW M/$N$,SWNW,NWSW Lots 2-4, SWNE,Wl/2SE Lot 7 NESE,SlRSE N1/2NE.W1/2SE 240 158.68 80 160 20:68 44.2 120 160 El 240 320 40 320 160 i3: 40 480 160 240 22s 32E 22s 321 l2E 18 2 2222s 33E NWNW,‘sWSW SESE EI/2NW,SW El/2 SESW Sll2 28 4 190 23s 25E %:2SE NWNE 235 27E 23s 34E NENW S1/2N1/2,S1/2 SE N1/2NE,SWNE,SENW NESW.NWSE El /2S\jv Lots l-5, 8-10, SWNE,S1/2NW,SE swsw All $ts I, 2, El/2NW,NE N1/2NW,SWNW,NWSW SWNE,N1/2NW,Wl/2SE NWSW SENW.NESW 80 536.6224s 27E 24s 29E 24s 30E 245 33E 8% 317 160 160 200 40 80 24s 34E 25s 29E 25s 30E Ell2Ell2 NWNW,S1/2NW,N1/2SW EE 40 40 160 240 40 79.79Lots 1 and 2 2-194 Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued) Township Range Section Subdivision Acres FLPMA Disposal Criteria 25s 31E 7 Lots 3.4, SESW.NWSE 25s 32E 25s 321/2E 25s 33E 25s 34E 26s 24E 26s 29E 26s 30E North of Harney Lake 26s 26s 30E South of Harney Lake 31E North of Malheur Lake 26s 31E South of Malheur Lake 26s 32E North of Malheur Lake 8 9 :z 30 32 K/2 SW Lot 4, SESW,S1/2SE E1/2,E1/2NW N1/2SE I?/2 NW Lots 3, 6 swsw 32 Sll2SE 6 Lot 3, N1/2SE SWSW SWNE,Nl/2NW,SENW,SESE Lot 1, N1/2NE,NENW N1/2SE ;pNE,SENW,WlRSE NE NWSW W1/2NE Lots 2, 3, NWNE NWSW Lot 7 ElRNE ii&w E1/2E1/2 Z!NE swNw wif2sw NE,NcNW,Nl;2SE,SESE NWNE Lots 1.2. SWNE.SENW SESE’ ’ NENE,S1/2NE,SE N1/2, N1/2S1/2 swsw NWNW,SENW,E1/2SW, SWSW,W1/2SE Lots l-4, N1/2NE,SWNE El/2W1/2 Lots 1, 2, El /2NW, SlRSE 1cj/~V2&/2,W1/2 SWNE,S1/2NW,NWSW swsw W1/2NW,S1/2 N1/2NW,S1/2N1/2,Sl/2 S1/2SE El/2 All SE NWNE,SENE,SWNW,SW, N1/2SE,SWSE E1/2,E1/2W1/2 W1/2NE,W1/2,N1/2SE N1/2NW N1/2N1/2 Lots 1, 2, El /2NW SESW,NESW,S1/2SE Ell2SE 151 220 155.52 80 160 160 160 40 80 91.02 4f.os7 l%l 14& 160 160 320 15?36 2% 480 2% 448.48 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 239.6 480 40 160 40 400 560 23 640 160 400 480 480 I% 161.2 160 80 160 480 159.65 400 1% 320 160 75.4 40 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)(l 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 203(a)( 1 12?62 2-l 95 Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued) FLPMA Township Range Sect ion Subdivision Acres Disposal Criteria 26s 32E South of Malhaur Lake 13 zz 25 11.5 :: 320 320 480 36.96 40 l3; 160 343.16 160 :: 295.65 :: 320 240 229.49 E1/2NE,W1/2NW,SESW,NESE, %i2E p;$,SE325626s 33E 3 Lots 2,5 Lot 1. SWSE N1/2NE SE,/4 Lots l-4, SWNESENW, E1/2SW,SWSE W1/2E1/2 iiKEW Lots 3,4, S1/2NE, ;ESWW,E1/2SW,SWSE NESE WI/2 SWNW,W1/2SW,N1/2SE,SESE LNot~S;1/2NE,SESW, S1/2NE,SENW,NESE NENE,WlRNE,NW,N1/2SW SWNE,NENW NENE, Nlr2SW NENE,NESE NENE,SWNE SENE EE S1/2SW,SWSE El/2SW,SW N1/2,SW,N1/2SE SWNW,W1/2SW S1/2NE,SE Lots 3-5, SENW SESE s1/2sw SWNE,SWSW,W1/2SE,SESE NlRNW,SENW,E1/2SE, $$E, NENE Nlr2NE N1/2NW,SENW,NESE Sl r2sw N1/2NW LNoy2aE4, NESW 26s 34E 160 360 1% ii :: 39.76 120 240 560 240 240 105.56 40 2800 26s 34E 27s 24E 27s 29E 27s 30E 27s 31E 27s 33E 27s 34E 320 40 18600 El %i5 91.83 40 38200 160 160 ii E 280 120 40 27s 35E Lots I) 2, 3, SENE SENE,NESE El/2 SWNW.Wlr2SW.SESWNW NIRNE ~;;~t=‘= swsw NlRNE,SWNE,S N1/2SW,SWSW N1/2NE,NESE SWNE 28s 24E 192 ;ENW, 28s 36E 29s 32E ;‘z 203a 1 203a 3 I II 1 The lands described above aggregate 36,693.79 acres, all in Harney County, Oregon, Willamette Meridian. 2-196 Table 2.29. Withdrawal, Classification and Withdrawal Review Actions Location Lands Recommended for Withdrawal Acres Legal Description Authority Seebygative Surface Mana ement 1 cww Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 400’ T. 28 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 204, FLPMA General Land Laws BLM sec. 36, SE1/4NEl/4, including mining NE114SE1/4 but not mineral T. 28 S., R. 32 E., leasing sec. 16, WI/2 Squaw Butte * Experiment Station 640 T. 24 S., R. 25 E., sec. 16 Sec. 204, FLPMA General Land Laws including mining Resea%r~U,KZZ but not mineral USDA leasing Chickahominy Recreation Area 400 T. 23 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 204, FLPMA General Land Laws BLM sec. 28, SW1 /4NW1/4. including mining sw1/4, but not mineral sec. 29 leasing SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4 Middle Fork Malheur - Bluebucket Creek Wid River 1,275 T. 18 S., R. 34 E., sec. 21,28, 33 Sec. 204, FLPMA General Land Laws including mining but not mineral leasing BLM Withdrawal Review Actions Withdrawal Legal Description Power Site 4 T. 30 S., R. 33 E., Reserve No. 344 sec. 25,26 Authority Executive Order Segregative Affect Public Land Laws including mining but not minerals leasing Surface Preliminary 3 Management Review Agency Recommendation BLM Terminate 20 acres Reservoir Site 4 Reserve No. 2 k Warm Springs eservoir and other lands) In 4id of Legislation Malheur Natl. W ildlife Refuge Burns-lzee Road Ochoco Natl. Forest T. 21 - 23 S., R. 36, 37 E., Executive Order 3/31/1911 Public Land Laws including non-metaliferous mining but not mineral leasing BLM Terminate 7,031 acres T. 26 S., R. 32 E., sec. 21 Executive Order 5891 7/l 611932 Public Land Laws including mining but not mineral leasing USFWS Modify 12.8 acres T. 23 S., R. 30 E., sec. 20, 21, 28 Public Land Order 4858 7/2/l 970 General Land Laws including mining but not mineral leasing USFS Terminate 48.8 acres 2-197 Table 2.29 Continued Classifications Number Surface Preliminary 3 Review Legal Description Acres Purpose Authority Management $cFative Agency Recommendation OR-12 T. 23, 24 S., R. 23 E OR-41 89 T. 24 S., R. 37 E sec. 31 OR-17348 T. 20 S., R. 36 E., 80 sec. 7 T. 29 S.. R. 32 E.. sec. 15 OR-19314 T. 26 S., R. 31 E., sec. 32 OR-42073 ;, ;;, E’s S., pires without 916.2 39.52 40 139.17 Multiple Use Classification Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 Multiple Use Classification Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 R&PP RBPP Act of 1926 Classification Lease for Solid go; Disposal R&PP R&PP Act of 1926 Classification Lease ;“r Solid $;te Disposal R&PP RBPP Act of 1926 Classification Lease for RV Park BLM Location for obsidian and chalcedony Continue BLM General Land Laws including mining but not mineral leasing Terminate BLM General Land Laws Terminate if including mining but not mineral exchange or sale appears leasing feasible BLM General Land Laws Terminate if including mining but not mineral exchange or leasing sale appears feasible BLM General Land Laws including mining Terminate if lease but not mineral ex- leasing de;;lz;kment of ‘An addltlonal 600 acres could be withdrawn d this acreage 1s acqured prror to lmplementatlon of this deasion ‘This acreage s currently owned by the State of Oregon, but could be acquired by the United States through an exchange which IS bang negotiated )Wihdrawal ard classd~cat~on review recommendations shown are very preliminary. based on InformatIon avalable at this tune. Fmal recommendations WIII be made during the withdrawal and classrf~cat~an review process which wtll consider more detailed inform&on ‘Recommendations on these wrthdrawals WIII be made by Waterpower Speaaltst I” the OregowWashlngton State Office, ELM. wth rev~ewand concurrence by the 01str1ct Office 2-198 Hazardous Materials Objective and Rationale HM 1: Eliminate the introduction of hazardous materials on public lands and remove any discovered hazardous waste. Rationale: The Clean Water Act of 1977 provided the EPA with standards for handling and deposition of contaminated material. Jurisdiction at thestate level has been relegated tothe DEC. DEQ has established requirements for handling and treatment of waste materials on all lands within the State of Oregon through the Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Divisions 100-l 10. The BLM complies with these Federal and State guidelines and coordinates extensively with DEQ personnel on all matters dealing with hazardous materials. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs HM 1.1: Inspect landfills and enforce compliance with terms and conditions of Bureau authorizations. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: LR 1.4, LR 2.5. 1. Coordination with permitted entity. 2. Regular inspection and monitoring Monitoring Needs: - Inspect landfills on a regular, periodic basis. HM 1.2: Ensurethecleanupof discovered hazardous materials sites. Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: Areawide. Decision Class: 2 Supoorted By: SM 2.2, LR 1.4, LR 2.5, LR 3.1. 1. Coordination with affected interests; Federal, State and local agencies; and BLM State and Washington Office program leads. Monitoring Needs: - Follow-up monitoring to be developed on a case-by-case basis. 2-l 99 Biological Diversity Objective and Rationale BD 1: Maintain viable populations of native plants and animals well distributed throughout their geographic range. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs BD 1.1: Evaluate and mitigate significant anticipated adverse impacts to the vegetation diversity of the RA of BLM-authorized land tenure adjustments, surface disturbing or vegetation con- version activities prior to their occurrence. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: AQ 1 .I, AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.9,WQ1.10,WQ1.11,SM1.1,F1.4,GM1.1,V1.1,V1.2,V 1.3, V 1.6, SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3, WL 1.1, WL 1.3, WL 1.4, WL 2.2, WL 5.1, WL 5.2, WL 6.1, WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL6.6, WL7.4, WL7.5, WL7.7, WL7.8, WL7.9, WL7.10,WL 7.11,WL7.15,WL7.16,WL7.17,WL,7.18,WL7.19,WL7.27, AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 1.10, AH 1.11, R 1.1, CR 2.1, CR 2.2, LR 1.1, LR2.3, LR2.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 5. 6. Conduct records examination and/or site examination for special status species. Analyze the impacts to vegetation diversity on the species and ecosystem level of the RA in all NEPA documents. Design and apply measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts to vegetation diversity. Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial water, to less than 20 percent of land area in that particular subbasin in any one year. Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of which shall be thermal cover) as defined in “Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests.” Considerthe high publicvalue of vegetation diversity in land exchanges, purchases or disposals in which public owner- ship of vegetation communities contributing to such diver- sity could be affected. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic and systematic updates of the existing vegetation inventory of the RA including distributions, extent and eco- logical status. BD 1.2: Adjust overall grazing management practices within the RA so that no more than 10 percent of the native vegetation condition determined by ESI is in early seral status and so that at least 40 percent is in late seral or PNC by 2009. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, WQ 1.7, WQ 1.8, SM 1 .l , GM 1.1,GM1.3,GM1.4,WHB1.3,V1.l,V1.2,SSS2.l,SSS2.4, SSS3.1,WL1.2,WL1.3,WL2.1,WL2.2,WL4.1,WL6.1,WL 6.2,WL6.3,WL7.5,WL7.14,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL 7.27, WL7.28,AH 1.2,AH 1.3,AH 1.5,R2.12,BDl.l, BDl.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedures to Implement: 1. Complete ESI inventory of RA by 1994 to provide baseline information on the plant communities and ecological status of the RA. 2. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all allotments in RA within 2 years of ESI completion. 3. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all wild horse HMAPs within 2 years of ESI completion. 4. Implement and maintain databases for integration of ESI data with other resource data within the RA. Monitoring Needs: - AMP monitoring: actual use/utilization/trend/cover. - HMAP monitoring: utilization. - Reinventory of ESI within 20 years. 2-200 Allocation/Management Action BD 1.3: Adjust overall grazing management practices as necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or enhance their habitat. (See Table 2.12 for current list of actions and allotments which they may affect.) Procedures to Implement 1. 2. Decision Class: 2 SupponedBy:WQ1.4,WQ1.5,WQl.6,WQ1.7,WQ1.8,WQ 1.12, SM 1.1, SM2.1,GM 1.1, GM 1.2,GM 1.3, GM 1.4, WHB 1.3,V1.1,V1.2,V1.3,SSS2.l,SSS2.4,SSS2.6,SSS3.1, SSS3.2, SSS3.3, SSS3.4,WL5.1, WL5.2,WL6.1,WL6.2, WL6.3,WL6.5,WL6.7,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.15,WL7.16,WL 7.17,WL7.18, WL7.19, WL7.24, WL7.27, WL7.28,AH 1.2, AH 1.3,AH 1.4,AH 1.5, AH 1.9, R2.12,ACEC1.3, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5, BD 3.3. 3. 4. 5. 6. Consultation with permittees and other affected interests. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- cial status species. Adjust AMP S , HMPs and other activity plans as needed. Incorporate special status species management objectives into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- propriate. Develop NEPA documentation and AWP funding where project developments (fences) are required. Establish monitoring as appropriate. Monitoring Needs: Constrained By: WL 1.5. - As identified in AMP S , HMPs or other activity plans. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs BD 1.4: Acquire lands necessary to protect special status species and their habitat. Decision Class: 2 Supported By:SSS l.i,SSS2.7, WL5.3, WL6.5, R2.13, LR 1.1, LR1.3, LR 1.5, BD 1.4, BD 2.1. BD 1.5: Protect special status species and their habitat from BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities and land tenure adjustments. Decision Class: 2 SuppottedBy:WQ1.1,WQ1.2,WQ1.3,WQ1.4,WQ1.7,WQ 1.8,WQl.9,WQ1.11,SM1.1,Fl.3,V1.1,V1.2,SSS2.l,SSS 2.4, SSS 3.1, SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3, WL 1.3, WL 2.2, WL 5.2, WL 6.1,WL6.2,WL6.3,WL6.4,WL6.6,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.8, WL 7.13, WL 7.16, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, WL 7.19, WL 7.20, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. Procedure to Implement: 1. Inventory to identify if lands are needed. 2. Pursue acquisition through exchange or purchase. 3. Adjust activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. Monitoring Needs: - Actions will be monitored through normal BM accomplish- ment tracking process. Procedures to Implement: 1. Conduct a records examination and a site examination for special status species prior to BLM-authorized actions oc- curring. 2. Conduct site examinations during appropriate season. 3. Examine impacts and develop mitigation measures through NEPA process. 4. Apply necessary mitigation measures. 5. Consult with USFWS on “may affect” situations. 6. Enhance habitat for special status species where opportu- nities arise. 7. Establish and apply lease stipulations priorto issuance of oil and gas or geothermal leases. 8. Apply contract stipulations to allow work to be stopped if special status species are discovered to be present in or adjacent to a project area. 9. Adjust clearance and mitigation activities to accommodate additions or deletions in official listings of special status species. Monitoring Needs: - NEPA document compliance. 2-201 Objective and Rationale BD 2: Maintain natural genetic variability within and among populations of native species. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs BD 2.1: Evaluate the Burns District Bald Eagle Communal Winter Roost HMP on a yearly basis and implement any newly developed management actions in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5536, 7009, 7010. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.6, SSS 1.1, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.1, WL7.3, FM 1.1, LR 1.1, BD 1.5, BD2.1. Procedures to Implement: 1. Current management actions in the existing HMP have been implemented, but new management actions identified through coordination and consultation with ODFW, USFWS - Bald Eagle Recovery Team and USDA-FS will be imple- mented in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. 2. Update HMP if needed. Monitoring Needs: - Conduct coordinated bald eagle winter roost counts on an annual basis. BD 2.2: Implement any actions in the Peregrine Falcon Rewv- ery Plan for which BLM is responsible in the RA, to provide for the recovery of the peregrine falcon. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.6, GM 1.4, SSS 1.2, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.1, SSS 4.2,WLi.l,WL7.3,WL7.4,WL7.28,R2.1,LRl.l,BD1.5, BD 2.2. Procedures to Implement: 1. Specific actions, when identified, will be funded through the AWP process. 2. NEPA documentation will be written on a case-by-case basis. 3. CCC with USFWS. Monitoring Needs: - Needs will be identified when specific actions are devel- oped. BD 2.3: Implement the BLM responsible management actions listed in the Stephanomeria malheurensis, Malheurwirelettuce, Draft Recovery Plan until the final recovery plan is approved. Upon approval of the final recovery plan, implement all appro- priate actions from it. Actions in the draft recovery plan include but are not limited to the following: - Maintain and enhance existing habitat. - Conduct systematic searches for new populations and Procedures to Implement: 1. Write an HMP or other appropriate activity plan incorporat- ing the recovery plan. habitat. - Secure new colonies. - Determine population trends. - Establish additional plantings/populations. - Develop a management program to protect newly estab- lished populations of plants. 2. Continueongoingstudies underexisting BLMIUSFWS Con- servation Agreement until this plan is terminated. 3. Develop and implement studies and actions identified in recovery plan or other activity plan. 4. Implement management recommendations from studies which will lead to recovery of species. 5. CCC with USFWS. Monitoring Needs: - Enforcelawsand regulationsthatprotectMalheurwirelettuce. - As defined in Recovery Plan and BLMIUSFWS Conserva- - Maintain viable off-site seed bank. tion Agreement, HMP or other activity plans. Geographic Reference: 7001, 7058. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: GM 1.4, SSS 1.3, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.28, R 2.1, ACEC 1.1, LR 1.1, LR 2.3, BD 1.5, BD 2.3, BD 3.1. 2-202 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs BD 2.4: Designate 64,639 acres of the Kiger and Riddle Mountain HMAs as an ACEC for the Kiger mustang. Decision Class: 1 Supported By: WHB 1 .l , WHB 2.2, WHB 2.3, WHB 3.1, R 2.1, R2.16,ACEC1.7,EM1.1,EM4.1,LR1.1,LR1.5,LR2.3,LR 4.1, LR 4.2, BD 2.4, BD 3.7. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop specific objectives for the management of these areas. 2. Prepare a specific management plan for this ACEC. 3. Update affected HMAPs/AMPs to reflect any special man- agement considerations. Monitoring Needs: - Assess objectives through the accepted allotment evalua- tion process. Objective and Rationale BD 3: Maintain representative examples of the full spectrum of ecosystem’s biological communities, habitats and their ecological processes. Provide for the increase of the scientific understanding of biological diversity and conservation. Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs BD 3.1: Retain designation and approved management of the: South Narrows ACEC, 160 acres, for Critical Habitat of officially listed endangered species (see Map ACEC-2); Diamond Cra- ters ONA/ACEC, 16,656 acres, for unique geologic features (see Map ACEC-3); and Silver Creek RNA/ACEC, 640 acres (see Map ACEC-4) for one ONHP aquatic natural area cell. (See Appendix 1, Table 15fordetailedACECdescriptions. See Appendix 1, Table 16 for allowable uses/use constraints.) Procedures to Implement: 1. Revise existing ACEC plans as necessary. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in the existing plans. Decision Class: 1 Supported By:GM 1.4, WHB 1.2, V 1.4, SSS 1.3, WL7.22, WL 7.28,R1.1,R2.1,R2.11,R2.16,ACEC1.1,VRM1.2,EM1.1, EM4.1,LRl.l,LR1.5,LR2.3, BD2.3, BD3.1. BD 3.2: Designate an additional 400 acres as part of the Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-3). Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Revise Diamond Craters Management Plan to reflect clo- sure to grazing except for limited 1 day trailing permits. 2. Make other revisions if necessary. Supported By:GM 1.4, WHB 1.2, WL7.22, WL7.23, WL7.28, R 1.1, R2.1, R2.11, R2.16,ACEC 1.1, ACEC1.2, VRM 1.2, Monitoring Needs: EM1.1,EM1.4,LR1.1,LR2.3,LR5.1,BD3.1,BD3.2. - As defined in the Diamond Craters Management Plan. - Compliance monitoring of livestock trailing permits. 2-203 Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs BD 3.3: Designate an additional 1,280 acres as part of the Silver Greek RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-4) for two ONHP naturaareacells,followingtheacquisitionof a640-acreprivate inholdiig (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Additicn). Procedures to Implement: Geographic Reference: 7010. Decision Class: 1 1. Acquire 640 acres private inholding through land exchange. 2. Revise/updateexisting RNA/ACEC managementplan within 2 years of establishment to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16. 3. Prepare NEPA documentation and construct fence addition within 2 years of establishment. 4. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from graz- ing allotment base and update AMP to reflect this change. Suppo,ted By: GM 1.4, V 1.4, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.28, R 2.1, R 2.16, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1.3, VRM 1.2, EM 1.1, EM4.1, LR 1.1 LR 1.5, LR 2.3, BD 3.1, BD 3.3. Constrained By: WL 1.5. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in management plan. - Fence maintenance inspection prior to livestock turnout. BD 3.4: Designate 2,690 acres as Foster Flat RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-5) for one ONHP natural area cell (see Appendix 1, Table ‘5, Foster Fiat RNA/ACEC). Geographic Reference: 7002. Decision Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16, and to address specific manage- ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval of RMP. 2. Prepare NEPA documentation and fence RNA within 2 years of approval of RMP. SuppotedBy:GM1.4,V1.4,WL7.25,WL7.28,R2.1,R2.16, 3. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- ACEC1.4, VRM 1.2, EM 1.1, EM4.1, LR 1.1, LR2.3, BD3.4. tion and maintenance of fences which are the District’s responsibility to maintain. Constrained By: WL 1.5. 4. Coordinate with affected permittees. 5. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from allot- ment base and update AMP to reflect this change. Monitoring Needs: - Fence maintenance inspection on a quarterly basis, except during grazing season, May through August, when it will be done monthly. - Establish baseline monitoring, including periodic on-the- ground assessments, general photo plots, and aspecies list within 3 years of approval of RMP. BD 3.5: Designate 2,084 acres as Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-4), for five ONHP natural area cells (See Appendix 1, Table 15, Dry Mountain RNAIACEC). Geographic Reference: 7011. Decisicn Class: 1 Procedures to Implement: 1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16, and to address specific manage- ment actions which are required within 3 years of approval of RMP. 2. Coordinate with USDA-FS in plan preparation and monitor- ing establishment. Supported By: F 1.7, V 1.4, V 1.5, WL 7.21, WL 7.26, R 2.1, R 2.16,ACEC1.5,VRM1.2,EM1.1,EM4.1,LR1.1,LR1.5,LR 2.3, BO 3.5, BD 3.8. 3. Coordinate with affected permittees. 4. Incorporate management actions and constraints from Table 2.10 for ponderosa pine old growth areas into the RNA/ ACEC plan. Monitoring Needs: - Establish baseline monitoring within 3 years of approval of RMP to involve periodic systematic on-the-ground assess- ments. 2-204 Allocation/Management Action BD 3.6: Designate 6,500 acres as the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC (see Map ACEC-7) for preservation of Native American root-gathering (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC). Geographic Reference: Allotments Nos. 5503, 5529, 5531, 5533. Decision Class: 1 SupportedBy:R2.1,R2.16,ACEC1.6,VRM1.2,CR2.1,EM 1.1, EM2.1, EM4.1, LR 1.1, LR 1.5, LR2.3, BD 3.6. Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs Procedures to Implement: 1. Coordinate with livestock operators and tribal leaders. 2. Prepare ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in Appendix 1, Table 16, and to address specific management actions which are required within 3 years of approval of RMP. 3. Develop MOU with tribal groups. 4. Develop monitoring to ensure appropriate harvest levels are maintained. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in the management plan. BD 3.7: Designate the Kiger and Riddle HMAs of 64,639 acres as the Kiger Mustang ACEC (see Map ACEC-6) for unique characteristics of wild horses (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Kiger Mustang ACEC). Decision Class: 1 Supported By: WHB 1 .I, WHB 2.2, WHB 2.3, WHB 3.1, R 2.1, R2.16,ACEC1.7,EM1.1,EM1.4,LR1.1,LR1.5,LR2.3,LR 4.1, LR 4.2, BD 2.4, BD 3.7. Procedures to Implement: 1. Write a plan incorporating management objectives and use constraints for the Kiger ACEC within 3 years of approval of PRMP/FEIS (see Appendix 1, Table 16). 2. Update AMPS as necessary to incorporate ACEC objec- tives. 3. Coordinate with affected permittees and other affected interests. Monitoring Needs: - Periodic on-the-ground assessments of utilization and wild horse movements will be conducted. BD 3.8: Manage a total of 786 acres in four major areas as described in Table 2.9 and shown on Maps F-3 through F-6 for maintenance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine old growth. (Note: This acreage includes 482 acres from the commercial forestland base, 304 acres are for the establish- ment of administrative boundaries.) Geographic Reference: 5503,5511,7010, 7030, 7051. Decision Class: 2 Supported By: F 1.2, V 1.4, V 1.5, WL 7.21, WL 7.26, FM 2.1, R2.1,R2.12,R2.16,ACEC1.5,LRl.l,LR1.5,LR2.3,BD3.5, BD 3.8. Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3. Procedures to Implement: 1. Develop stand management guides which address the following: a. Management actions to maintain existing old growth char- acteristics (see note below) of the stand. b. Management actions to promote continued succession to- ward old growth conditions (see note below) of the stand. c. Fuels treatment. d. Insect infestation. e. Management/use restrictions (see Table 2.10). Note: Examples of such management actions include: stand manipulation for tree age, tree size and species composition; maintenance of desired snag density; maintenance of canopy closure and appropriate canopy layers; maintenance of down woody materials; maintenanceof the nativeshrub/herbcompo- nent; and creation or maintenance of gaps/openings and the overall stand configuration. 2. Coordinate and integrate these guides with overlapping designations. Monitoring Needs: - As defined in stand management guides or overlapping designations’s activity plan. 2-205 2-206 Chapter 3Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan ----- -- - -- - -- a-z1.z-. L--.-w--- -.--~-.-- -I ------- .-= z u i h@!k -- 3-l Introduction This chapter identifies and summarizes the anticipated envi- ronmental consequences of the implementation of the Pro- posed Resource Management Plan (PRMP). A reassessment of environmental consequences of the PRMP is not normally a part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). However, both oubliccomment and internal review have led to substantive changes in the management prescriptions that were oresented in Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS (DRMP/DEIS). Therefore, it was determined that inclusion of such an impact analysis would be appropriate. Because the PRMP is a general land use plan, it depends on additional, more site-specific analyses being P erformed at the activity and project levels to determine the ull extent of the impact of a given action. The PRMP also provides a stron basis for consultation, coordination and cooperation with Ba - fected interests in on-the-ground decision-makin ?7for the implementation of specific actions. For sue processes Interactive processes to be effective, there must be some room for negotiation on the details of implementing specific manage- ment actions. As such, many of the impacts described in this chapter are relatively general in nature. Analysis Analysis of the potential impacts of the PRMP is based upon anticipatedchangesthatwouldoccurfrom existing,orbaseline, conditions or trends. Impacts are presented on a program-by- program basis. Within each program ageneralized description of existing conditions is presented as a base. Next, a descrip- tion of the primary change agents, those actions which would induce a change in existmg conditions or trends, is presented. And, finally, the anticipated impacts are presented. Impacts are usually discussed in relation to two generalized timeframes. The short term is where imoacts are exoected to occurwithinaperiodof upto51Oyearsfromtheapprovalofthe RMP. The long term is where impacts are ex FT ected to occur more than 10 years after the approval of the MP. Assumptions The following assumptions have been made in the analyses presented in this chapter: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Funding and staffing levels would be suff icient, overthe long term, to implement the Proposed RMP; Monitoring needs, as described in the Proposed RMP, would be performed as indicated and adjustments or revr- sions to management strategies would be made as determined through regular periodic evaluations; The public would be kept informed of progress in the implementation of the RMP through regular planning up- dates included in the Burns District Update or similar document; Appropriate NEPA documentation with attendant site ex- aminations would be conducted on all significant/surface- disturbing actions in the Planning Area; Standard operating procedures and design features would be applied to all developments through the NEPA documentation process; 6. 7. Appropriate maintenance would be carried out to maintain the functional capability of all existing and future developments; and, The RMP would remain in effect for 10-l 5 years and would undergo regular periodic plan maintenance throughout that time. Regional Impacts and Critical Elements of the Human Environment Analysis indicates that no impacts of regional significance would result from the im lementation of the PRMP. While interest in and concern or many of the resources in the P Planning Area are regional or national in nature, the environ- mental and socioeconomicconsequences aresignificanttothe immediate area of implementation, but not beyond. Analysis indicates that there would be no known significant adverse impactstocriticalelementsofthe human environment; airquality, floodplains, Areasof Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), cultural/paleontological resources, prime or unique farmlands, Native American religious concerns, threatened or endangered species, designated or potential Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), Wildernessor Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). These critical elements are considered in site-specific project design and implementation processes through the NEPAdocu- mentation process. Air Quality Air quality standards have been and will continue to be an important portion of the District’s prescribed fire program. Currently, the only existing Class I air quality area that could be affected IS the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area. Any prescribed burning projects that ma affect that area are reviewed for potential impacts by the x alheur National Forest. Theonl Rivers R impactstovisibilitythat haveoccurredwithintheThree esource Area (RA) were caused by either extreme wildfire conditions or by natural weather conditions, i.e., inver- sion layers or extreme winds. No significant adverse impacts, short or long-term, are ex- pected. However, if air ualit standards become more restric- 9 1tive over the life of the p an, t ere may be a need to amend the established annual acres (or tonnage) limits to remain in accordance with those restrictions. Water Quality Water resources in the Three Rivers RA lie within the Malheur Lake and Malheur River drainage basins. Water resource conflicts within the RA occur through activities associated with timber harvest, road construction, livestockgrazing, wild horse herd management and other consumptive uses of water. There are approximately 127.55 miles of stream and 4,491 acres of flat-water lake and reservoir) habitat that will be managed under the b roposed Plan. Currently, 84.25 miles of streams are in poor and 20.65 miles in fair condition within the Planning Area (See Table 3.1). Presently, no streams exhibit good water quality within the RA. Implementation of the Proposed Plan will require that all future timber harvest on BLM lands meet the Oregon Forest Practices Standards, BLM Best Management Practices, and Guidelines 3-2 for Stream Protection in Loggin Operations, with the addition of no-cut buffer strips along eat fl srde of any affected streams, springs or see s. Additionally, any newly-constructed perma- nent roadson E LM-administered lands will requirecompliance with Oregon Forest Practices Standards. Livestock will be temporarily removed from streams with poor water quality, when due to BLM-administered management, until those conditions improve to fair or 5 years have elapsed. Grazing systems designed to limit livestock utilization and promote speedy riparian recovery will be implemented on riparian vegetation once water quality attains fair or good condition or 5 years have elapsed. Streambank stabilization projects on streams with less than 90 percent stable streambanks will also improve water quality in streams. These projects will reduce streambank erosion, assist in streambank revegetation and ultimately increase late sea- son streamflow. Of the 127.55 miles of streams in the Planning Area, 37.65 miles, or 30 percent, will improve to good condition, and 60.7 miles; or 48 ’ l ercent, will improve to fair condition over the life of the plan ( ee Table 3.2). Only 29.2 miles, or 23 percent, will remain in poor condition with plan implementation. Under this plan, streams in I category allotments will receive first priority for funding, followed by M category allotments, with C allotments (3 milesor2.6 percent)continuing under existing management. Similar improvements to flat-waterwater quality will be realized with plan implementation. The exclusion of livestock from specified reservoirs, lakes, springs and ponds will reduce siltation and turbidity. Increased vegetative cover around the shorelines of these reservoirs will reduce erosion from wave action and filter overland flows. Livestock water will continue to be provided from these water bodies. Fish habitat projects will expand and/or improve fisheries and aquatic habitats in tar- geted reservoirs. New reservoir construction, suitable for warmwater game fish production, will expand that habitat. Flat-waterwaterqualitywillimproveoverthe lifeoftheplanwith 1,301 acres or29 percent improving to good condition. Only 50 acres, or 1 .l percent, will remain with poor water quality,fhis beina Seiloff Dikes, a plava with naturally elevated turbidities and alkalinities. ’ Effectiveness of these management actions, conservation practices and improvement projects will be evaluated primarily through water quality monitoring, photo-trend analysis, macroinvertebrate analysis and use utilization monitoring. Implementation of the Pry sed Plan and changes in manage- ment of range, forestlan s, npanan and aquatic habitats will help alleviate adverse impacts to waters from increased sedi- mentation, lack of shade and presence of fecal coliform bacte- ria. Improvements will bring the BLM into corn liance with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DE 8 ) standards for nonpoint sources of water pollution and fulfill BLM mandates to improve water quality to good condition by 1997. Soil Management Changes in management of range and forestlands which result in an increase in ground cover or minimize soil disturbances would have a positive effect on soils. Limiting timber harvest and controlling off-road vehicle use may decrease sediment loss, reduce headcutting, and lower the amount of sediment delivered to streams. Proper maintenance and rehabilitation of BLM roads would reduce the concentration of storm runoff and as a result, reduce soil erosion and gullying. The rehabilitation of gullies and headcuts on uplands will decrease soil erosion. Treatment projects such as juniper thinning and brush control may have short-term negative effects on soil losses, yet can have positive or negative effects on soils depending upon the condition of the site prior to treatment and the characteristics of thespecificsite. Closing and rehabilitating known unauthorized mineral material sites should have a positive effect on soils on the mined sites. Mineral activities potentially may have negative effects on soils. Localized increases in sediment production and gullying, in- creased runoff and increased sediment delivery to streams may result from mining activities. Under the Proposed Plan, accelerated soil erosion would decrease significantly. Headcutting and sediment delivery to streams would also decrease. Vegetation management and range improvements will determine the condition and trend of soil erosion and stability. No significant negative impacts to the beneficial functions of floodplains have been identified. Forestry and Woodlands Current Condition: Currently, there are approximately 13,307 acres of forestland in the Three Rivers RA. Of these acres, 9,291 acres are classified ascommercialforestland.Approximately8,873acresarewithin the timber base acreage used to derive the sustainable annual harvest volume of 621 MBF. The commercial forestland acres are primarily managed by such practices as overstor removal, commercial thinning, precommercial thinning an d’ seed tree cutting. When natural regeneration is unsuccessful, manual tree planting is per- formed. To enhance nutrient replacement into the forest soils, 12 tons of slash per acre is used as a guideline for fuel loads left on the site. If fuel loads exceed approximately 12 tons per acre, some form of slash treatment is performed. There are an estimated 234,942 acres of juniper woodlands within the RA. Currently, four harvest areas totaling 1,282 acres arebeingusedasasourceof ‘uniperposts,polesandfuelwood. The portion of the RA north o I Hrghway 20 and west of Highway 395 has been designated as a juniper bough harvesting area. Factors within the forestry program which affect forest manage- ment practices include 50-foot buffering of all nonperennial streams, springs and seeps as well as a 1 00-foot buffering of all perennial streams, springs, seeps and associated meadows. This resulted in a slightly negative impact on potential produc- tion levels. Also, the decision to protectfourpotential old growth ponderosa pine forest stands totaling 482 acres came as a result of public comment on the Three Rivers DRMP/DEIS. These areas were identified based on stand structure and their potential value to other resources. Removing these stands from the timber base will result in an approximate 5 percent reduction in the annual sale volume harvested (approximately 33 MBF). Primary factors from outside the forestry program which have an impact on the program include the decision made to restrict vegetation manipulation within variable widths of all perennial streams, springs, seeps and associated meadows to improve water quality. Variable widths are dependent on percent side slope and ran e from 100 feet to 165 feet on each bank. This decision resu ts in an approximate 3 percent reduction of9 annual harvest (approximately 20 MBF), which is in addition to the current standard buffering practice discussed above. Maintaining 30 to 60-acre blocks of big game thermal/hiding cover, protecting raptor nest trees and providing for raptor perch trees results in a very slight negative impact on annual 3-3 Table 3.1. Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality From Implementation of the Selected Alternative ;rsasrn Condition Existing Condition Short-Term Condition (stream miles) (stream miles) Long-Term Condition(stream miles) Poor 84.25 77.10 29.20 Fair 20.65 32.60 Good 60.70 0.00 2.30 37.65 Excellent 0.00 0.00 Unknown 0.00 22.65 17.85 0.00 Lake/ReservoirCondition Class Existing Condition(acres) Short-Term Condition(acres) Long-Term Condition (acres) Poor 445.00 55.00 50.00 Fair 4,001.00 Good 3,605.OO 45.00 3,140.oo 831 .OO 1,301 .ooExcellent 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 3.2. Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality Condition Trend from Implementation of the Proposed Plan Condition and Trend Existing Stream Condition/Trend (stream miles) Long-Term Stream Condition/Trend (stream miles) Existing Lake Condition/Trend (acres) Long-Term Lake Condition/Trend (acres) Poor Improving Declining Static 7.45 20.00 390.00 0.00 65.05 2.40 5.00 0.00 11.75 6.80 50.00 50.00 Good Improving Declining Static 55.05 786.00 0.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 3.75 3,215.OO 3,140.oo 22.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.95 45.00 1,301 .oo Excellent Static Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 production levels. These restrictions would primarily affect sale block layout activities and harvest timing, thus complicating sale administration. Prohibiting the harvest of juniper foliage, fuelwood, posts and poles from thebig game winter range south of Highway 20 and west of Highway 205 results in a very minor negative impact within the currently low intensity woodlands program. The existing annual harvest level of 621 MBF on 8,873 com- mercial forestland acres would be reduced to 545 MBF on 7,722 commercial forestland acres. The resulting 11 percent reduction appears to be significant within the immediate For- estryprogram. However, when this program is looked at as one segment of the Forestry program in the Three Rivers eo- graphical area, this program produceslessthan 1 percent0 9 the annual timber volume produced. Therefore, the .l percent 3-4 reductionofthe 1 percentoftheoveralltimbervolumebecomes very minor for the current well-being of the local geographical area. The net benefits to other resources such as water quality, wildlife and fisheries, outweigh the slight long-term negative impacts to the Forestry program. Since the FtA issues a relatively small amount of juniper product sales, the impact of prohibiting activities south of Highway 20 and west of Highway 205 would be slight for the short term. Grazing Management Under current grazing management practices and stocking levels, there are approximately 38,400 acres in excellent range condition. 562.600 acres in aood. 823.700 acres infair, 251,500 acres in boor’ range condhion ‘and ‘33,700 acres which are unclassified fsee Table 3.3). Active oreference is currentlv shown at 150:472 AUMs witha total estimated carrying capad- it of 155 200 AUMs available for all forage demands (see l%ble 3.4). Implementation of the Grazing Management management actions of the Proposed Plan would have a substantial impact on current grazing management practices. Theprimarychanges in the grazing program would be: - The implementation of grazing systems to meet multiple- use objectives. - Tr,hve,lzdjustment of strategic seasons of use and stocking - The potential development of management facilities or vegetation manipulation. Specifically, the potential to in- crease forage production by approximate1 Y 8,870 AUMs by vegetation manipulation on approximate y 68,900 acres. (Note: This figure derived from previously approved plan- ning and is used for analysis purposes only. All vegetation conversions will be subject to the design requirements that the treatments sustain or enhance overall multi le-use values within the project area and that the overall d? rverstty of plant species or communities not be adversely affected.) Implementation of other program management actions would also affect current grazing management practices. The primary influences on the grazing management program from the other management actions would be: The removal of livestock for 5 years from streams in poor condition. The implementation of grazing systems on streams in fair or good condition. The exclusion of livestockfrom approximately 12 reservoirs, lakes, springs or ponds. The restriction that prescribed fire within 1 mile of perennial water be restricted to less than 20 percent of the subbasin in any one year. The initial allocation of 5,808 AUMs to wild horses. The adjustment of grazing practices so that no more than 10 percentof RA is in earlyseral and at least 40 percent is in late seral to Potential Natural Community (PNC). The desi nation of RNA/ACECs to meet Oregon Natural Heritage b Ian (0NHP)cell needs. The protection of special status species and their habitat. Prohibit domestic sheep in the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountain area. Continue existing livestock exclusion on 4 miles of Malheur mottled sculpin or redband trout habitat. The prohibition of sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds if determined to be detrimental. ~ZZr$L?~~h”itat. systems to improve or enhance special Implement rotation ordeferred grazing systems in big game ranges. Continuation of the individual juniper tree burning or cutting program. Allocate 2,622 AUMs to big game. ThedesignationoftheChickahominyReservoirasaSpecial Recreation Management Area (SRMA). The degree of short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on grazing management is primarily dependent on the implemen- tation of grazing management fences and to a lesser extent on vegetation manipulation projects. If the streams proposed for 5 years of exclusion are fenced into riparian pastures, livestock use would be reduced by approxi- mately 2,680 AUMs. If these fences are not constructed, livestock would be reduced by approximately 15,172 AUMs. Table 3.3 shows expected impacts to ran e condition through implementation of the Proposed Plan. ?able 3.4 shows the short-term impactsofthe Proposed Plan with and without range improvements. The additional forage allocation to big game will have only a slight negative effect. The initial allocation of 5,808 AUMs to wild horses isthe current situation so there will be no impact on livestock grazing. Any stocking level adjustments made in horse herd areas will be made proportionally between live- stock, wildlife and wild horses which will be a positive impact. There will be a very slight negative impact from the closing or restricting of livestock grazing on an additional 4,050 acres. There is not expected to be any significant reduction of AUMs. Implementing grazing systems will have a positive impact on grazing management. Implementation of grazing systems will mitigate the need for livestock AUM reductions. The continued implementation of the standard design features for range im rovements will ensure that special status species and their ha E. rtat are protected. Development of range improvements will have a very positive impact on grazing management. Vegetative manipulation will increase forage production and range condition. An initial reduction in AUMs will occur for at least 2 years after the manipulation to allow establishment of vegetatron. In the case of prescribed fire, a reduction prior may be necessary to build up fuel. Structural improvements will allow implementation of grazing systems. The restrictions to prescribed fire will have little impact due to the special nature of the areas where the restrictions will be. Prohibiting domestic sheep from the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountain area will have no impact to existing operations, but would limit future adjustments in kind of livestock in these allotments. The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan are positive. 3-5 Range conditon will be improved by implementing grazing systems or, if necessary, reducing livestock AUMs. After 5 years,, grazing systems will be implemented and live- stock reductions for riparian habitat recover decrease. Riparian grazing systems may Y will begin to inc ude contmued rest. Other im>acts are the same as for short-term impacts. Wild Horses and Burros Wild horse populations within all of the Herd Management Areas (HMAs)exhibit stable growth ratesand are healthy. Most of the herds continue to increase at an average annual rate of at least 20 pement a year. Present estimated range conditions are shown on Table 3.5. The current management levels and forage allocations shown on Table 3.6 are maintaining healthy and viable pcpulations of horses. The small herd of seven burros in the ‘J/arm Springs HMA has remained stable for a number of years. A few horses still remain outside of the active HMAs, numbering approximately three to five head at the present time. The free-roaming status of the HMAs is good on most of the herd areas with the exception of the Kiger HMA, where the horses arefound throughout a total of five pastures. Access to water and forage has been maintained in all of the HMAs. However,, much of the ermanent live, reliable water in the Kiger and Stmkingwater H R As IS on private land. All of the HMAs are presently managed for quality horses. This program has worked quite well as evidenced by the high rate of adop- tions of horses gathered from the Three Rivers RA. Each area isfurther managed for horsesexhibiting uniqueconformation or color characteristics as shown on Table 2.7. The and k roposed Kiger Mustang ACEC designation for the Kiger rddle Mountain HMAs would highlight the unique charac- teristics that these horses possess. Long-term benefits of this designation will continue to be the high demand for these horsesduringadoptions, andwill helptoensuretheircontinued existence. Both short and long-term benefits to the HMAs would be realized through the improvement in range condition. As each allotment and HMA is analyzed through the allotment evalua- tion process, use of the forage resource would be adjusted to help in maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance. The pro’ected than es in range condition for the HMAs are shown f 4on able 3.5. hese improvements in range condition would occur because of changes in grazing systems, seasons of use and/or range improvements as identified inthe allotment evalu- ations and land use plan. Table 3.3. Impacts to Range Condition Range Condition (acres) Excellent Good Fair Poor Unclassified’ Current Condition Long-Term (5-10 yrs) Condition 38,402 39,056 562,632 651,217 823,683 812,302 251,516 173,658 33,685 33,685 1,709,918 1,709,918 ‘The number of acra listed as unclassified remains the same due to the expected completion of the Ecobgical Site Inventory (ESI) in 1992. Upon its completion, the RA will develop objectives based on seral stags rather than livestock forage mndition. Table 3.4. Impacts to Stocking Levels with and without Range Improvements Estimated Carrying Capacity Active Preference Additional Wildlife Allocation l/ Wild Horse Al ocation l/ Increase from Vegetative Treatment Reduction from Removal from streams Total Current Situation 155,165 -150,472 -5,808 -1,115 Impacts With Improvements Without Improvements 155,165 155,165 -150,472 -150,472 -2,622 -2,622 -5,808 -5,808 +8,861 -2,680 -15,172 +2,444 -18,909 ‘The wlldllfe and ~114 horse allocations remain the same throughout this table for compar!son only. Reductions WII be praporttonal between livestock. wiidllfe and wild horses 3-6 Some range improvements, especially fences, could have both oositive and neqative impacts on wild horses. Positive impacts would be expected where fences help achieve improved range condition through enhanced management of an allotment or pasture. Negative impacts would be expected where such fences interrupt traditional travel routes for the wild horses or burros and thereby decrease their free-roaming nature. Other potential ran e improvements that would have a positive effect on the horse \ erds. are water holes, wells, seedings and spring developments. These developments would improve or increase forage and reliable water sources available for use by horses. Forage and water availability will greatly enhance the wild horse and burro health and viability. The impacts from these improvements would be realized both in the short-term and long-term. Acquisition of water sources located on private land would ensure the Ion -term viability and stabilit of the herds, espe- cially in the v? arm Springs, Kiger and trnkingwater HMAs..& These areas are identified in Table 2.6. Fencing the Foster Fiat ACEC in the Warm Springs HMA would have a nealiaible imoact on horse movements in this HMA. This will not be>zrossfence, and theforage lost will be minimal (less than 1 percent). The mostsignificantpotential impacttothewild horseand burro resource is-the issue of riparian habitat, water quality and aauatic habitat imorovement. Aoproximately 15 miles of ripar- ian habitat are located within ‘the Kiger, Stinkingwater ‘and Warm Springs HMAs. One of the objectives of thus plan is to have 75 percent of the stream miles in bv 1997. To achieve this objective both rvestock and horse use7 ood or better condition would have to be controlled on, or excluded from these areas. The strateaic use of fencina is the most likelv method for such control; in -which case, horse movements wbuld be altered or possibly prohibited in some areas. Measures would be under- taken to ensure adequate sources of water and feed were maintained in the area, and that disruption of traditional travel routes would be minimized where possible. However, short- term impacts of this action would be moderate as the horses adjusted to new travel routes. Long-term benefits would be evidenced by the improved riparian habitat and water quality condition in these HMAs. Long range positive impacts to the horse and burro program will result from the land tenure classification of virtually all acres in the HMAs to Zone 1 classification. This would assure the viability and management of all of the wild horse and burro herds In the RA. Vegetation Knowledae of the current condition of this resource is limited by lack of baseline data on ecological sites, their s ecies corn sition and the seral status. Comoletion of the E A? f! d- I will estab rsh this baseline data. Table 3.7 shows the general vegetation types of the RA. The primary factors within the program which will affect vegeta- tion diversity are weed control, requirements for vegetatron diversity mitrgation measures and the required adjustments to grazing practices to meet the ecological status objectives for the RA. Outside factors which have an impact on the diversity of vegetation within the RA are: - livestock and wild horse grazing; - adjustments in grazing practices such as implementation of grazin and WI d horses from certain areas;7 systems and removal and/or exclusion of livestock - livestock and wildlife habitat improvements such as wet- lands enhancement, brush control, seeding and juniper control: fire including wildfires, prescribed fires, suppression activities and lack of fires: - recreational use, particularly ORV utilization; - timber harvest and other woodland management activities; energy and minerals development; - designation of ACECs; and, - retention of ponderosa pine old growth forest areas. Most of the impacts of the Proposed Plan on vegetation diversity will occur over a long-term timeframe. Positive im- pacts on the vegetation diversity of the RA which will occur within 5 years of the implementation of the Proposed Plan include: The retention of two ACECs, the Silver Creek RNAIACEC (640 acres) and the South Narrows ACEC (160 acres); and the designation of three additional RNA/ACECs (6,054 acres). Retention of 482 acres of mature ponderosa pine habitats as old growth management areas will have a positive effect on the vegetation diversity of the RA. Positive impacts to the vegetation diversity which will begin to occur within 5 ears of the beginning of implementation of the Proposed J Ian but which will primarily be of a long term benefit include: - Analyzing impacts to the vegetation diversity of the RA in NEPA documents will have a positive impact by requiring mitigation to prevent the loss of any significant portion of a single community type or individual plant species within the RA. - Intensive management and protection of aquatic, riparian, wetlands and playa habitats. - Implementation of grazing systems and exclusion of live- stock and wild horses from certain areas. When they occur, other actions which could affect the vegeta- tiondiversityofthe RAeitherpositivelyor negatively includethe following: - Noxious weed control would have a slight positive effect on vegetation diversity by helping to maintain the integrity of native plant communities. - Negative effects to vegetation diversity (primarily big sage- brush or juni er/big sagebrush communities) could result from as muc I! as 68,900 acres. (Note: This figure derived from previously a proved planning and is used for anal sis purposes only.) l-r 7owever, all vegetation conversions WI I be subject to design requirements that they sustain or enhance overall multiple-use values within the project area and that the overall diversity of plant species or communities not be adversely affected. The potential seeding of 46,960 acres would negatively affectthevegetationdiversityoftheRAinthoseareaswhere non-native species are established. Juniper removal by single tree juniper burning or cutting or sale of posts, poles or firewood would reduce the amount of juniper cover In the RA. This would be a negative impact for this plant species. Other native plant species may be tively impacted through the reduction in competrtron at t IF”‘- ese sites and overall species diversity in the RA may be posi- tively impacted. - Timber harvest of mature softwoods on the 7,722 acres of commercial forestland would negatively impact these plant species and the associated plant communities by removal of the trees, disturbance of the understory and alteration of the successional processes. 3-7 Table 3.5. Impacts to Range Condition in Herd Management Areas Current Range Condition Acres) Projected Range Condition (Acres) Expected Change (Acres) Stinkingwater Good 36,778 51,269 14,491 Fair 42,853 28,362 -14,491 Poor 0 0 0 Kiger Good Fair Poor 12,985 14,943 +I ,958 23,633 21,591 -1,958 0 0 0 Riddle Mountain Good Fair Poor 6,000 7,223 +1,223 22,021 20,797 -1,223 0 0 0 Warm Springs Good Fair Poor Palomino Buttes Good Fair Poor 133,064 195,296 +62,232 199,967 137,465 -62,232 123,824 123,824 0 22,068 50,368 +28,300 35,300 12,000 -23,300 14,176 9,176 -5,000 Table 3.6. Wild Horse and Burro Management Levels and Forage Allocations HMA Minimum Herd Size Maximum Herd Size Alloted AUMs Kiger Palomino Buttes Stinkingwater Riddle Mountain Warm Springs ” 984 :: if 768 ii 80 960 672 111 2% 2,424 Total 267 484 5,808 'Allows for 1510 24 burros - Minerals activity hasthe potentialfor negative impactsto the vegetation resource on a site-specific basis. - - Wildfire and wildfire suppression activities would initially have a negative impact tovegetation diversity becausethey result in the removal of vegetation and disturbance of the surface. In the long run, communities in which fire was historically a component of the community, would be posi- tively benefited by wildfires through the reinitiation of the successional cycle. Long-term wildfire suppression may have a negative impact on ve torica etation diversity in communities where fire was his- t a successional force by altering the successional cycle. he application of prescribed fire to these communi- ties may compensate for this potential negative impact. Closure of 2,570 acres to all off-road vehicle utilization and limiting ORV use on an additional 83,874 acres would positively affect vegetation diversity in those areas by pre- venting disturbance of the surface from this vehicle activity and the resultant potential for loss of native vegetation, increase in soil erosion, and invasion by noxious weeds. In 3-8 areas which remain open to casual use by ORVs, vegetation diversity could be negatively affected by such use. Special Status Species The current listing of the RA Special Status Species is pre- sented in Table 2.11 and shown on Map SS-1. Primary within program factors affecting the Special Status Species program include development and implementation of HMPs, recovery plans or other activity plans. Outside factors which influence special status species include vegetation manipulation, timber harvest, livestock and wild horse grazing, mineral and energy development, recreational uses such as ORV use, land tenure changes and fire manage- ment practices. Table 3.8 shows the expected type and degree of impacts to special status species by the Proposed Plan. lmpactstospecialstatusspecieswhich willoccurwithin5years of implementation of the Proposed Plan include the following: - Implementation of BLM actions within the Planning Area, as listed in the Pacific Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Malheur Wirelettuce Recovery Plans, would improve the habitat of these species. - Allocating the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountainareaforthe long-term enhancement of California bighorn sheep habitat would result in a positive impact to that species. - Removin livestock for 5 years from riparian zones which have Mal Tl eur mottled sculpin or redband trout habitat will have a positive impact on these species. Implementation of grazing systems which arefavorablefor riparian and aquatic habitat would also have a positive impact to these species for those stream stretches which contain habitat for these species. Impacts to special status species which will begin to occur within 5 years but which will continue to occur over a long-term GmeframeastheactionsintheProposed Planareimplemented include the following: - Preparation and implementation of HMPs for special status species would aid in the protection, restoration and en- hancement of these species and their habitat. - Western sage grouse habitat would be protected by not allowing removal of sagebrush within 2 miles of strutting grounds, ifthat removalwould bedetrimentaltosagegrouse nesting habitat. Implementing razing systems which would improveforbavailabilitywould aveapositiveeffectonsage a grouse habitat. Providing meadow habitat at spring devel- opments would also benefit this species. - Correcting habitat deficiencies of the ferruginous hawk within 2 miles of nest sites would result in a positive impact to this species and its habitat. - Inventory, monitoring and evaluation of special status spe- cies would benefit the species by refining knowledge of the species’ range and determining Its biological requirements, detecting trend in species and alerting any need for man- agement action to conserve t he species. Acquiring or retain- in 9 Federal ownership of parcels having sensitive species WI I benefit these species by having them protected and conserved by law and policy. - Establishing razing systems on long-billed curlew nesting habitat to al ow at least one-third of the habitat to beB undisturbed through the critical nesting period will be a positive impact to this species. - Protecting special status species from impact by BLM- authorized actions by conducting a site examination at the appropriate season and application of appropriate mitiga- tion measures rior to project implementation will be a positive impact or all special status species. P - The potential 68,855 acres of brush control and prescribed burning in big sagebrush communities would have the potentral to negatively affect sage grouse wintering habitat. However, potential treatment areas are not within known sage grouse winter habitat. - Potential brush control (burning, spraying, chaining) of as much as 68.855 acres in bia saaebrush and iunioer domi--I- -. nated communities and as &ch>s46,960 actesdf seeding could negatively affect the habitat of some sensitive plant species. (Note: These figures derived from previously ap- proved planning and are used for analysis purposes only. All vegetation conversions will be subject to design require- ments that they sustain or enhance overall multi le-use values within the project area and that the overall 8 rversity of plant species or communities not be adversely affected.) Areas of known or newly discovered populations will be avoided but potential habitat may be altered. - Timber harvest on 7,722 acres will have the potential to negatively affect special status species. However, site ex- aminations would be conducted prior to harvest and appro- priate mitigation measures implemented. - Energy and mineral activity has the potential for negative impacts to special status species in any areas where such development occurs. - The impact on special status plant species of fire and long- term fire suppression may be positiveor negative depending on the species and the role of fire in determining its occur- rence and distribution. Specific information is not available for any of the special status plant species. - Casual use by ORVs and the attendant noise, activity levels and surface disturbance would negatively affect special status species in those areas which remain open to such use. Wildlife Habitat Big Game The current conditions of big game habitat are listed in Table 3.9. The primary change agents from within the program affecting big game habitat include: The allocation of an additional 2,622 AUMs, for atotal of 7,836 AUMs, of competitive forage to big game. Implementation of grazing systems on all allotments in big game ranges, with priority given!0 I and M allotments. Individual juniper tree removal in loo-acre or smaller units. Aggressive suppression of wildfires in deer and elk winter ranges. Timber harvest designed to maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the treatment area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover. 3-9 cd G Table 3.7. Vegetation Types in the Three Rivers RA Vegetation Public Land Acres % of Common Assoc. Types Drewsey Riley Silvies Valley Total RA Plant Species Big Sagebrush 325,679 757,740 13,231 1,096,650 62.49 big sagebrush, rabbit brush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass, cheatgrass, wild buckwheat, bottlebrush squirreltail, needlegrass, aster, lupine, phlox, squawapple, bitterbrush Juniper 93,633 130,222 223,855 12.76 Low Sagebrush 90,283 130,550 220,833 12.58 western juniper, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, curlleaf mountain mahogany, bitterbrush low sagebrush, Sandberg’s bluegrass, Thurber’s needlegrass, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, lupine, balsamroot, phlox Stiff Sagebrush 33,441 33,441 1.91 stiff sagebrush, Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, bighead clover, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, onion, wild buckwheat, biscuitroot Crested Wheatgrass 81,120 25,419 Greasewood 8,099 12,800 Ponderosa Pine 6,337 9,801 106,539 20,899 4,240 20,378 12,810 1,400 1,162 6.07 1.19 1.16 crested wheatgrass, sweetclover greasewood, basin wildrye, saltgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail ponderosa pine, big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, bitter- brush, Douglas fir, yarrow Silver Sagebrush Desert Shrub Riparian 0.73 0.08 0.07 silver sagebrush, Nevada bluegrass, creeping wildrye spiny hopsage, shadscale 658 12,810 1,400 504 willow, alder, rose, rush, Kentucky bluegrass, sedge, smooth brome, quaking aspen, mat muhly, knotweed, cottonwood Diamond Craters 16,896 16,896 0.96 big sagebrush, phlox, moss 656,146 1,081,246 17,471 1,754,863 100.0 Table 3.8. Degree of Impacts to Special Status Species of the Proposed Plan Species impacts Bald Eagle High positive Peregrine Falcon High positive California Bighorn Sheep High positive White-faced Ibis Medium positive Ferruginous Hawk Medium positive Western Sage Grouse Medium positive Western Snowy Plover Low positive Long-billed Curlew Medium positive Redband Trout High positive Malheur Mottled Sculpin High positive Malheur Wirelettuce High positive Cusick’s Buckwheat Medium positive Biddle’s Lupine Medium positive Cusick’s Lupine Medium positive Columbia Cress Medium positive Leiberg’s Clover Medium positive - Installation of at least eight guzzlers in areas that are currently water deficient. - Maintenance of 85 percent of the browse that currently occurs on deer and elk winter ranges. - Fence construction to standards which afford movement to the big game animals present. - Prohibit harvest of juniper foliage in the area west of High- way 205 which is south of Highway 20. Primary external change agents affecting big game habitat include: - Approximately 13,800 acres of potential brush control within deer winter range. - Approximately 9,500 acres of potential seeding within deer winter range. - Potential and current minerals activities. The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on big game habitat would be positive. An improvement in deer and elk summer ranges would result from improved vigoron some sites from juniper control and prescribed burning. These ranges would also improve from added availability of water and main- tenance of cover areas. Deer and elk winter ranges would improve due to added vigor of browse and maintenance of 85 percent of the current browse areas. Antelope habitat would improve from the increased abundance and availability of forbs within their ranges. All big ame species habitat would be improved due to the availabr rty of forage for benchmark numbers, and movement7, between ranges would be ensured through fence construction standards. Predicted big game habitat conditions over the short-term are listed on Table 3.9. The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on big game habitat would be very positive. These impacts would be the same as the short-term impacts. However, the degree of im E rovement would be much greater. Lon ha itat conditions for big game are listed on 4! -term predicted able 3.9. Raptors The current conditions of raptor habitat are largely unknown. Predicted impacts of the Proposed Plan are relative to the current condition and are a measure of the degree of improve- ment expected from actions in the plan. The primary change agents from within the program affecting raptor habitat include: Protection of nest sites and providing for perch sites within 660 feet of nest sites. Requirethat all poles and transformerson public lands have design features to prevent raptor electrocution. Prohibit application of pesticides for rodent control on public land within 2 miles of active raptor nests. Identification of component deficient raptor habitat and correction of the deficiencies. The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on raptor habitat would be positive. The degree of these impacts would be low as compared to the current condition. Preventing loss of nest sites and death of birds from electrocution or poisoning would result in these impacts. The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on raptor habitat would be positive. The degree of these impacts would be moderate as compared to the current condition. Impacts would be the same as in the short-term and identification of habitat deficiencies and correction of those deficiencies would add to the degree of the positive impacts. Riparian Habitat The current conditions of streamside riparian habitat are listed in Table 3.10. The primary change agents from within the program affecting ripanan habitat include: - Exclusion of livestockfrom particular stream segments for5 years, then grazing with utilization levels orgrazing systems that will allow for continued riparian improvement. - Implementation of livestock grazing systems on particular stream segments which will provide improvement of fair or maintenance of good quality riparian. - Establishment of stream buffer strips and meeting guide- lines for stream protection in logging operations. - Give priority to land acquisitions which increase the acreage or improve the manageability of riparian habitat. - Construction of any roads in riparian areas will be to BLM standards. The primary external change agents affecting riparian habitat include: - Rehabilitation of areas burned by wildfire within 1 mile of perennial water. 3-l 1 - Restricting mechanical or prescribed fire treatment of any area within 1 mile of perennial water to 20 percent of any subbasin in any one year. - Implementation of streambank stabilization projects. The short-term impact of the Proposed Plan on riparian habitat would be positive. Table 3.10 lists the predicted conditions of riparian habitat. These improvements would be,due, in large part, to the livestock exclusions and implementatron of grazing systems designed to meet the riparian objectives. The long-term im acts to riparian habitat would be positive. Table 3.10 lists t R e oredicted conditions of rioarian habitat. These figures refleci the continued im rovement expected from grazing system implementation an 8 protection from deg- radation by construction or commercial logging activities. WetlandiPlayalMeadow Habitat The current condition of wetland habitat is listed on Table 3.11. Current playa and meadow habitat conditions are unknown. The primary change agents from within the program affecting wetland, playa and meadow habitat include: Implementation of the Three Rivers portion of the Burns District Wetlands HMP by 1997. - Fencing spring head boxes and overflow areas, - The collection of baseline data on playa lakebeds and implementing needed management changes. - Give priority to land exchanges and acquisitions which would increase the acreage or improve the manageability of public wetlands. The primary external change agents affecting wetland, playa and meadow habitat include: - Designate and protect the Foster Flat area as an RNA/ ACEC. - Implement grazing systems in I and M category allotments which are currently seasonlong grazing. The short-term impactsof the Proposed Plan on wetland, pla a and meadow habitat would be positive. Table 3.11 lists t tl e predicted condition of wetland habitat over the short-term. Playa and meadow habitat has not been inventoried and conditions are unknown. However, management actionswhich would be expected to provide improvement of these areas are in the Proposed Plan. Also, inventory of these areas is expected in the short-term. The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on wetland, playa and meadow habitat would be positive. Table 3.11 lists the predicted condition of wetland habitat. As playa and meadow habitat conditions become known, management actions for improvement will be developed and implemented, where needed, via the activity planning process. Nongame Animals and Upland GameBirds The current conditions of habitat for this large group of animals is highly variable and dependent upon the particular species in question. Very little direct data has been developed in the olannino area. Virtually all actions would have the potential to impacteither positively or negatively, oneor morespecies. An attemot has been made throughout the planning process to ensure that all habitat types currently existing in the area will remain in sufficient quantity over the long-term to provide the habitat needs of this diverse group. 3-l 2 Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat within the Three Rivers RA includes approxi- mately 84 miles of perennial and intermittent streams, and 4,006 surface acres of flat-water. Currently, these aquatic systems support a variety of game and non-game fish species, as well as recreational and commercial consumptive uses of water. Presently, 68 miles of streams and 3,906 acres of reservoirs are in poor or fair condition (see Table 3.12). Livestock WIII be temporarily removed from streams with aquatic habitats in poor condition due to BLM-administered manaaement. until those conditions improve to fair, or 5 years have elapsed. Grazing systems would be designed to limit livestock utrlization and to romote speedy riparian vegetation recovery once aquatic R abrtats attain fair or good conditions or 5 years have elapsed. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would require that all future timber harvest on BLM lands meet the General Best Forest Management Practices (Appendix 1, Table I), and Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protection (Appendix 1, Table 2); with the addition of no-cut buffer strips along each side of any affected streams, springs or seeps. Additionally, any newly-constructed permanent roads on BLM- administered lands will require compliance with Oregon Forest Practices Standards. Fish habitat and streambank stabilization projects would im- prove and expand aquatic habitats within the Planninq Area. These projects would reduce streambank erosion, as&t with reveoetation of streambanks, and ultimatelv increase late season streamflow. Of the 83.65 milesof aquatic habitat in the Planning Area! 73.50 miles or 87.9 percent, would improve to or be maintained in good condition over the life of the plan. Only 2.7 miles, or 3.2 percent, would remain or decline to poor condition. Under this plan, streams in I cate ory allotments would receivefirst riority for funding,, followed % y M category allotments, with 6 allot- ments contrnulng under existing management. Similar improvements to flat-water aquatic habitat would be realized with plan implementation. The exclusion of livestock from specific reservoirs, lakes, springs and ponds would re- duce srltation and turbidity. Increased vegetatrve cover around the shoreline of these waters would reduce erosion from wave action and filter overland flows. Livestock water would continue to be provided from these water bodies. Fish habitat projects would expand and/or improve fisheries and aquatic habitats in targeted reservoirs. New reservoir construction, suitable for warmwater game fish production, would expand that habitat. Flat-water aquatic habitatwould improveoverthe lifeofthe plan with 898 acres, or 22.4 percent, improving to good or malntain- ing good condition (see Table 3.13). Eighteen acres would reach excellent condition relative to the species persent (warmwater). Effectiveness of these management actions, conservation practices and improvement projects will be evaluated primarily through water quality monitoring, ohoto-trend analvsis. macroinvertebrate analysis and use utilization monitoring. No specific actions have been identified that wou,ld adversely affect aquatic ecosystems with plan implementatron. lmplementationofthe Proposed Plan would reducestreambank and overland erosion and improve stream shading. These management practices would result in reduced sediment loads, lower maximum water temperatures and increase late season streamflows. Subsequent changes in management of range, forestlands and riparian and aquatic habitats would bring the BLM into compliance with DEQ standards for nonpoint sources of water pollution, and fulfill BLM mandates to improve water quality and riparian habitat to good condition by the year 2000. Table 3.9. Impacts to Big Game Habitat Conditions (acres) Current Short-Term Long-Term Sat. Unsat. Sat. Unsat. Sat. Unsat. Deer Winter Range Deer Summer Range Elk Winter Range Elk Summer Range 335,000 195,000 410,000 120,000 485,000 50,000 375,000 325,000 530,000 170,000 610,000 90,000 235,000 20,000 240,000 15,000 245,000 10,000 105,000 45,000 115,000 30,000 130,000 20,000 Table 3.10. Impacts to Riparian Habitat Conditions Condition Current Conditions Short-Term Long-Term Mi. AC. Mi. AC. Mi. AC. Good 17.6 116.7 58.4 366.5 81.6 515 Fair 43.65 255.8 26.05 155.5 6.6 37 Poor 32.95 207.5 9.75 58 3.1 28 *Unknown 25.85 102.5 25.85 102.5 25.85 102.5 Total 120.05 685.5 120.05 682.5 120.05 682.5 *Inventory of stream segments with unknown conditions is expected within 5 years. For predictions the numbers have remained constant but appropriate totals will change as data becomes available. Table 3.11. Impacts to Wetland Habitat Condition Condition Class Good Fair Poor Current Short-Term Long-Term Conditions’ Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) 50 505 956 911 651 395 390 195 0 Uncontrollable 2 3,140 3,140 3,140 Subtotal 4,491 4,491 4,491 Potential Expansion 200 490 490 Total 4,691 4,981 4,981 ‘Acreage mcludes water surface acres at capaaty plus associated vegetation ‘Due to large water level fluctuations on Warm Spnngs. Moon and Chlckahomlny Reservoirs 3-13 Table 3.12. Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend Condition Trend Poor Improving Declining Static Current Stream Current Lake Stream Condition Lake Condition Condition (miles) (miles) Condition (acres) (acres) 15.15 0.00 7.00 0.00 22.90 0.50 5.00 0.00 3.65 2.20 0.00 0.00 Fair Improving Declining Static Good Improving Declining Static 5.90 1.60 24.00 0.00 13.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.80 5.85 3,870.OO 3,090.oo 0.00 19.10 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.60 54.40 100.00 898.00 Excellent Static 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 Unknown 7.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 83.65 83.65 4,006.OO 4,006.OO Table 3.13. Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Condition Current Stream Condition (miles) Stream Condition Stream Condition Short-Term Impacts Long-Term Impacts (miles) (miles) Poor 41.70 13.95 2.70 Fair 26.40 48.55 7.45 Good 8.10 13.70 73.50 Excellent 0 Unknown 7.45 Y.45 0 0 Current Lake/ Reservoir Condition (acres) Lake/Reservoir Lake/Reservoir Condition Condition Short-Term Impacts Long-Term Impacts (acres) (acres) Poor 12.00 5.00 0 Fair 3,894.OO 3,877.OO 3,090.oo Good 100.00 124.00 898.00 Excellent 0 0 18.00 Unknown 0 0 3-14 Fire Management Currently, all wildfires occurring on public lands are initial attacked with a full suppression effort following a preplanned dispatch system. Suppression efforts on fires occurring within WSAs or RNA are dictated by Interim Management Policy (IMP) as well as the Field Guide for Management Actions in WSAs. Currently, the only exception to full suppression of all wildfires occurs under a multiple fire situation where the number of ignitions exceed the initial attack and/or extended attack capa- bilities. At that point, priorities are established based on threat to life, property and resource values, respectively. Prescribed burning is done only with approved Burn Plans in place and qualified personnel actually preforming the rgnrtron process. The primary changes in the Fire Management Program through the Proposed Plan are related to the establishment of 1) 462,080 acres identified under aconditional suppression zone, 2) the addition of the Foster Flat ACEC at 2,690 acres and the possible increase of ,l,,280 acres in the Silver Creek ACEC, and 3) improved accessrbrlity into recreatron areas. - The establishment of the conditional fire use zone would, under the preestablished conditions, assist the RA and Fire Management Programs in meeting land management ob- jectives through the use of natural ignition prescribed fire. Activity level planning would be required to establrsh gurde- lines under which natural prescribed fire may occur. - The establishment of the Foster Flat ACEC and the possible increase of 1,280 acres in the Silver Creek ACEC poses an increased fire potential. These areas may, de endent on yearly weather conditions, build heavy beds of R. rghly flam- mable fine fuels. Ignitions occurring within these areas will have the potential to spread rapid1 . The Silver Creek ACEC bordering U.S. Forest Service (U s DA-FS) lands on its west and north sides is of more concern. - Improved accessibility into recreational areas will increase visitorusedaysand, inturn, increasethepotentialof human- caused fire starts. The primary possible external change agent in the prescribed fire program, is the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan. Current restrictions are expected to be increased over the next 5 to 10 years. Both short and long-term benefits should be realized through the establishment of the conditional fire use zone. Keeping current access roads to public lands open and main- tained will be of benefit to the overall fire suppression program efforts. Treatments of juniper stands will assist in breaking fuel concen- trations in those areas and provide fire breaks that might be usableascontrol linesforfuturesup ression efforts. Designing site-specificslash treatments, with F Ire Management input, for all thinning and timber sale contracts will ensure that Fire Management concerns are addressed prior to contract issu- ance. Recreation Recreation activities in the Three Rivers RA are predominantly of an unstructured,, extensive nature associated,with huntrng, fishing, rockhoundrng, camping, sightseeing, wrldlrfe vrewrng and driving for pleasure. Areawide there are estimated to be around 95,000 recreation visits per year resulting in approxi- mately 594,,000 visitor hours of recreatron use, according to information In the Burns District Recreation Management Infor- mation System (RMIS) for Fiscal Year 1989. Table 3.14 shows both low and moderate projected visitor use forthe 11 -year period from 1990 to 2000 utilizin 1989 visits for extensive (dispersed) recreation activities. Chic ahomrny Rec-3 reation Site has also been included in these projections since it is an intensive use area. Table 3.15 is specific to this site and indicates the projected use for the same period of time. The area current1 has three moderate to high intensity use areas (see Map d -1). Chickahominy Reservoir provides out- standing trout fishing opportunities and is managed coopera- tively with Harney County, ODFW, the Oregon State Marine Board and BLM. A small recreation site at Chickahominy is managed by the BLM. A second reservoir area, Warm Springs Reservoir, is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation and provides fishing and boating opportunities. The BLM services county sanitation facilities Springs. The Diamond 0 rg rovided for the public at Warm A/ACEC was designated for its outstandin designate 1 volcanicfeatures and scientific values. It is the only SRMA in the RA. Table 3.16 shows the low and moderate projected visitor use from 1990 to 2000 utilizing 1989 visitsfor intensive, site-specific recreation activities in this area. In addition to the RMIS which is updated annually to show recreation use on BLM-administered lands, the publication, The Pacific Northwest Outdoor Recreation Consumption Pro- jection Study: Oregon Project (NORPS), Oregon State Univer- sity, January, 1989, was also utilized to project recreation use through the year 2010. The method and calculations used to develop the Information in the narrative are indicated in Tables 18 and 19 of Appendix 1. Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use ORV use in the area is primarily associated with hunting, fishing and driving for pleasure. There are no extensive high use ORV areas in the RA. One 240-acre intensive use area near Hines (see Map R-2), receives concentrated all-terrain vehicle (ATV), motorcycle and 4-wheel drive use in the warmer months and sledding and tubing use in the winter months because of its hTnm,esdiate accessibility to the population centers of Burns and All BLM-administered lands in the RA have been designated for ORV mana ement as re uired in Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-Roa 2 Vehicles on B ublrc Lands. A notice in the Federal Register of February 20, 1987, designated BLM-administered lands in the Burns District for management of motorized vehicle use. Both documents are presented in Appendix 1, Table 17. Currently, there are approximately 10,000 acres of public lands closed to ORV use and approximately 50,000 acres where ORV use is limited to existing roads and trails (see Map R-2 and Table 3.17). The remainder is designated open for ORV use. Table 3.18 also summarizes the restrictions placed on ORV use through implementation of the Proposed Plan. Primary change agents within the pro ation resources are 1) Management o B ram which affect recre- SRMAs, 2) utilization of hunting op rtunities, and 3) ORV use, both intensive and dispersed. Y” he Increasing recreational useof Diamond Craters ONA and Chickahominy Reservoir indicates a need to provide new or additional developments for interpretation and en- hancement of visitor experiences as well as provide protection of natural resources. The BLM is focusing on these particular areas to provide funding and personnel to achieve manage- ment goals specific to the areas. Dispersed hunting opportunities continueto be utilized at a high level. People wanting to provide guiding services as well as local private landowners wanting to lease hunting rightson their 3-15 lands is becoming evident and often involves public lands. For some big game and waterfowl species, demand outstrips availability. This creates competition and conflicts between the hunting publics. The Proposed Plan would provide protection to natural aes- thetic values and enhance nonmotorized and and nonconsumptive uses, while also accommodating ORV and motorized recreation use (see Table 3.19, Impacts to Recre- ation). ORV use continues to be an activitv associated mainlv with other activities as a means of transpo’rtation. However, an area near Radar Hill above the towns of Burns and Hines receives high use by local citizens, particularly the youth. Management of the area to limit the spread of intensive ORV use and accompanying impacts to the natural resources is recom- mended, including the establishment of boundaries, signing and fencing. Wild and Scenic Rivers The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress (Public Law 90-542) to preserve selected rivers in natural, free-flowing conditions. There are no river segments in the RAthat were identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan’s Riv- ers Inventory or the State Scenic Waterways Designations. However, a Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory for ossible inclusion as components of the National Wild an cf Scenic Rivers System was completed for Three Rivers RA (see Map WSR-1 and Table 2.17). Tables 2.18,2.19, 2.20 and 2.21 give more detailed results of the assessment process. Primary external change agents are livestock land treatments; fire management, including prescribed burning; special area designations; ener y transportation corridors; mining; timber harvesting; and, WI dlife and fisheries enhancement projects.7 Proposed actions ma i have a positive effect on one or part of a recreation resource ut producea negativeeffectforanother. Actions to reach a balance between commodity production and enhancement of natural values would provide a positive effect on both motorized recreation activities and nonmotorized ac- tivities and aesthetics. Positive actions for motorized recreation uses are keeping areas open to ORVs, except where unaccept- able resource impacts would result, and develo ing usable intensive ORV areas and cross-country routes. F ositive ac- tions for nonmotorized recreation activities and aesthetics include removal of livestock for various time periods from certain reaches of stream with implementation of B razing systems in aquatic habitat; closing and rehabilitation o unau- thorized mineral material sites; protection and enhancement of deer, elk and antelope ranges; pursuing land exchanges to enhance wetlands; designation/protection of special manage- ment areas; streambankstabilization and instream fish habitat projects; and, prescribed fire. Actions such as closing or limiting ORV use in special designa- tion areas,,closin administration an 8, and rehabilitatin 3 roads not needed for fire protection, an protecting specificwild- life habitats have a ne ative effect on ORV use and motorized recreation activities. If atural values and aesthetics are nega- tively impacted by implementing brush control and seedings to increase livestock forage, providing or improving access for commodity values such as mining, powerline construction and fire management, allowing intensive ORV use near population centers and timber harvesting on small, scattered stands of trees. Short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on recreation re- sources are associated with scars and other changes that can be rehabilitated and healed within 5 years such as construction of recreation sites, wildlife guzzlers, instream fisheries habitat projects, and spring and well developments. Other examples are imoacts from livestock trailina. the effects of wildfires and prescribed burns and their con&l, and the use of routes for point-to-point recreation events such as ORV and horse endur- ance races. Long-term impacts are those which change the recreation use of the land through developments or initiating new manage- ment objectives to create a lasting effect on the recreation resources. An example of such impacts are new access roads for harvesting timber, mining, fire control and development of energy transmission lines (Pacificorp 500 kV line) which open areas to vehicle use which previously had limited or no access for this type of use. Other exam lesare s ? 3 ecial area designa- tions (Brscuitroot Cultural AC C), wrldli e and fisheries en- hancement projects (Middle Fork Malheur River boulder Fp lace- ments), developing intensive use recreation sites and 0 V use areas (Chickahominy and Radar Hill , riparian and waterquality henhancement projects (streamban stabilization), and large scale seeding, brush control and mining projects. The Middle Fork Malheur River, which flows throu Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA (see Map k3 h the SR-l), possesses characteristics which make the stream a worthy addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (see Table 2.20). It would befound suitable for designation as a Wild River and managed according to objectives and standards as noted in Table 2.21~ BLM has not reviously pro osed this river segment because less than 3 ml esflowthroug7 R BLM-administered lands and this has not been considered sufficient to provide adequate m.an- agement. However,, 13.7contiguous upstream milesofthe river in the Malheur National Forest have been designated Wild or Scenic in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. This would make management of the BLM-administered segment practical as part of a larger system. In addition, 1.4 miles of a tributarv, Bluebucket Creek, has also been included as part of the river se ment in the BLM recommendation. Another 1.3 miles of the %, rddle Fork Malheur River. on orivate land between the USDA-FS and BLM managed lands’is also included in the analysis, bringing the total river study (Segment A) mileage to 5.4 miles. The DRMP/DEIS indicated designation of approximately 1,730 acres (1,275 acres BLM, 355 private and 100 USDA-FS) within one-quarter mile of the river segment. It is now recommended that the boundaries extend to the rims of the canyon whether or not they are more or less than the one-quarter mile established on either side of the mean high water level of the river and creek recess The recommended boundariescld;i;i;t inp;&w _ SR 2. The recommended acreage totals 1,840 acres (I ,425 acres BLM, 400 acres private and 15 acres State) and is noted in Table 2.20 Suitability Determination. The USDA-FS acreage noted as part of the total acres for designa- tion in the DRMP/DEIS have already been included in the reach of river desi ? nated in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act o 1988. Therefore, these acres are not included in the proposal in the PRMP/FEIS. The bounda following the rims provides protection and en- compassesa Ioftheoutstandinglyremarkablevisual resources 7 and areas with biological diversity. Expansion of the boundary onto the plateau would not increase protection of the river corridor and its associated values. The primary change agent within the rogram affecting the resource is the proposed Wild River esrgnation itself. This 8. includes the designation and management of the up er onion of the Middle Forkof the Malheur River by the USD 18 -F which would be managed in coordination with the BLM’s proposed reach of the river. 3-16 Primary external change agents are a fisheries enhancement project, waterqualityenhancementprojectsand recommended nonwildernessdesignation for Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA. Actions to designate approximately 1,840 acres associated with 5.4 miles of the Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek as Wild (classification) and actions in other programs to enhance and protect water quality and fisheries would create a positive effect on Wild River reaches. Examples of such other actions are removal of livestock for various periods of time from certain reaches of streams with implementation of grazing systems in aquatic habitat, prohibiting timber harvest in stream corridors with designation of certain parcels as remnants of ancient forests and not allowing new road construction in areas influencing stream drainages. An established Visual Resource Management (VRM Class I areawithin a WSA would continue to have a positive ef i’ ect if classified Wild by Congress as would the current ORV closure with proposed changes. The proposed fisheries habitat enhancement pro’ect to de- velop more pools in the Middle Forkof the Malheur Fk rver would have a positive effect for this resource, but could produce a negative impact on scenic and wilderness values if the charac- teristic landscape is modified too much. The conti National 2 uous 13.7 miles of river reach within the Malheur orest have been designated as Wild in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. The proposed 5.4 miles of river (including a portion of Bluebucket Creek) below the forest boundary will also be designated Wild and the total 19.1 miles would be cooperatively managed by both agencies. Full (unmodified) fire suppression would be limited to prevent negative effects by allowing no permanent human-caused changes (i.e., mechanized tracks, trails, fire lines, cut timber) to become evident. If classified Wild by Congress, an automaticmineral withdrawal would foreclose future mining claims and development on public lands within the designated river corridor. The area would be designated as Category 4, No Leasing, for leasable minerals. Approximately 22 acres of commercial forest would be re- moved from the available base acreage which would reduce the potential harvest by approximately 1.5 MBF per year. Linear rights-of-way would be excluded. Short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on Wild and Scenic River resources involve development of instream fisheries habitat improvement where heavy equipment such as back- hoes used to place large boulders or logs would use the river bed for access and travel to various locatrons. Other short-term impacts would be the construction of low standard develop- mentssuch asatrailhead above Bluebucket Creek, atraildown the creek and alon the river to connect with the trail already along the river on 5 -SDA FS lands and signing (information, boundary and ORV) to enhance visitor use. These develop- ments would be completed under cooperative management with the USDA-FS on the entire length of the designated Wild River. Long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan would involve devel- opment of instream fisheries improvement where blasting would expose new rock surfaces or introduction of rock or structures from outside the area would change the character- istic landscape. Other long-term impacts of the low standard recreation developments could be increased visitor use and associated management needs. Continued vehicle access to private lands on the river utilizing a low standard road through the NW1/4 of Section 22 (see Map WSR-2) would be allowed. The designations to provide long-term resource protection (ORV closure and ancient forests) would enhance the pro- posed Wild River ciesignation. The overall changes as compared to current conditions, are not considered to be significant. In comoarison with the de facto rotection of the wild and scenic character of the Middle ForkR alheur River and Bluebucket Creek currently provided under Wilderness IMP, designation as a Wild River would not provide a significant managerial change. ACEC The RA currently has three ACECs and the current acreage of ACEC designation is 17,546 acres. External factors which could affect the ACECs in the RA are mineral and energy development and, in the Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC, livestock grazing. The primary short-term impact of the Pro osed Plan on the ACEC program is to increase the number0 P ACECs from three to seven and the amount of acreage in ACEC designation by 77,543 acres to a total of 95,049 acres. No significant negative impacts to designated areas would be expected. Positive impacts would accrue to the Silver Creek RNAACEC proposed addition and the Foster Flat RNA/ACEC when penm- eter boundary fencing to exclude livestock and wild horse grazing is constructed. A slight positive effect of designation will result from the requirement for a Plan of Operations for an locatable mineral development scenarios, although this bene r, It IS not particularly si nificant as mines have been successfully developed, within A s ECs, with Plans of Operation. Energy and mineral development would have a negative im- pact on ACECs where such development and the values for which the ACEC was established are mutually exclusive. Any development outside or adjacent to an ACEC which alters the hydrologic regime, produces excess dust or otherwise alters the environment within or ad’acent to the ACEC would have a negative impact on the AC I! C. Long-term wildfire suppression may have a negative impact on specific ACECs if the values for which a particular ACEC was established are dependent on occasional wildfires to be sus- tained. The application of prescribed fire to these communities may compensate for this potential negative impact. Visual Resources Visual resources are categorized in a two phase process. They are first assessed through an inventory process which consid- ers scenic quality (key factors include landform, vegetation, water! color adjacent scenery, scarcity, and existing cultural modifications), sensitivity (kev factors include tvoe of user, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas), and distance zones fkev factors include forearound- middleground distance zones‘;.background distance z&e and seldom-seen areas). Inventory classes are assigned based on the combination of scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zones. However, they do not bv themselves establish manaqe- ment direction. VRMclasses a;e assigned through the plannyng process. All actions that would result in surface disturbance ‘must consider the importance of visual values. Existing man- agement classes (see Glossary for VRM Classes 1 -IV) estab- lished through previous plannin B include Class 1 - 8,610 acres, Class II - 120,621 acres, Class I I - 425,600 acres, and Class IV - 1,155,087 acres. A more detailed descri tion of the acreage classifications is presented in Table 3.20, 8 urrent VRM,Classi- ficttioio. Map VRM-1 depicts areas of high visual sensrtrvrty in 3-17 Table 3.14. Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Three Rivers Resource Area RMIS Categories 1 ORV Travel 2 Other Motorized 3 Nonmotorized 4 Camping Visits 5 Hunting Visits 6 Other Land-Based 7 Fishing Visits 8 Boating Visits 9 Other Water Based 10 Winter Sports 11 Snowmobiling Visits Totals 1989 Visits (1) 5300 7650 120 33700 6200 8600 16300 1890 1010 1700 1300 83770 Av. Annual Low Growth Av. Annual Mod. Growth Growth - Low Projected Visits Growth - Mod. Projected Visits Projection Year 2000 Projection Year 2000 1 .23% 6017 2.27% 6623 0.81% 8332 1.78% 9148 1.48% 140 3.77% 170 1.19% 38111 2.61% 43375 0.19% 6330 0.55% 6575 1.35% 9877 2.83% 11277 0.81% 17752 2.31% 20442 0.63% 2021 2.31% 2370 0.36% 1050 0.83% 1102 0.97% 1881 2.04% 2081 0.86% 1423 1.50% 1515 92934 104679 Table 3.15. Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Chickahominy Res. RMIS Categories Camping Fishing Boating Visits Picnicking Site Based -Other 1989 Visits (1) 14040 9180 1890 540 1350 Av. Annual Low Growth Av. Annual Mod. Growth Growth - Low Projected Visits Growth - Mod. Projected Visits Projection Year 2000 Projection Year 2000 1.17% 15847 2.60% 18055 0.81% 9998 2.33% 11533 0.16% 1923 0.37% 1967 0.56% 573 1 .OO% 599 1 .35% 1550 2.84% 1772 Totals 27000 29891 33926 Table 3.16. Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Diamond Craters Non-Motorized RMIS Categories Non-Motorized Camping Hunting Site Based -Other 1989 Visits (1) 2000 400 50 10000 Av. Annual Low Growth Av. Annual Mod. Growth Growth - Low Projected Visits Growth - Mod. Projected Visits Projection Year 2000 Projection Year 2000 1.48% 2326 3.77% 2829 1.19% 452 2.61% 515 0.19% 51 0.55% 53 1.35% 11485 2.83% 13113 Totals 12450 14314 16510 3-l 8 Table 3.17. Impacts to Off-Road Vehicle Designations Existing Proposed (acres) (acres) Total Change (acres) Open 1,649,416 1,592,652 (includes 20,850 formerly limited around Warm Springs Reservoir) -56,783 Closed Malheur RivedBluebucket Creek WSA Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek Wild River designation Hat Butte Windy Point Devine Canyon South Narrows ACEC Squaw Lake (part of Stonehouse WSA) Burns Butte Public Shooting Range Total Limited (existing roads and ways) Diamond Craters ONAlACEC 16,656 17,056 +400 Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA 3,480 3,270 -210 Stonehouse WSA (remainder in RA) 5,825* 5,825’ 0 Warm Springs Reservoir 23,811 2,961 -20,850 Silver Creek RNA 640 1,280 +640 Squaw Lake (part of Stonehouse WSA) 6,500’ +6,500 Foster Flat RNA 2,690 +2,690 Dry Mountain RNA Addition 2,084 +2,084 Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 6,500 +6,500 Kiger Mustang ACEC 64,639 +64,639 Chickahominy Reservoir 400 +400 Total 50,412 113,205 +62,793 2,080 2,040 250 30 30 280 280 1,040 1,040 160 160 6,500* 0 280 10,090 4,080 -40 +250 0 0 0 0 -6,500 +280 -6.010 l 9,000 limited acres are in Andrews RA. 3-19 Table 3.18. Proposed Off-Road VehicleDesignations Areas and Acres Open (includes 20,850 acres formerly limited around Warm Springs Reservoir) Closed Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA and W ild River designation Hat Butte Windy Point Devine Canyon South Narrows ACEC Burns Butte Public Shooting Range Total Limited (existing roads and ways) Malheur RivedBluebucket Creek WSA 3,270 acres Squaw Lake (part of Stonehouse WSA) 6,500 acres’ Stonehouse WSA (remainder in RA) 5,825 acres* Silver Creek RNA 1,280 acres Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 17,056 acres Foster Flat RNA 2,690 acres Dry Mountain RNA Addition 2,084 acres Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 6,500 acres Kiger Mustang ACEC 64,639 acres Warm Springs Reservoir 2,961 acres Chickahominy Reservoir 400 acres 1592,652 acres 2,290 acres 30 acres 280 acres 1,040 acres 160 acres 280 acres 4,080 acres There are no change agents within the program affecting the resource. However, external change agents continually affect visual resources, particularly those which propose on-the- ground developments or some measure of management pro- tection of specific areas. Primary external change agents are livestock land treatments, fire management, including prescribed burning, and special area designation proposed b the wilderness, wildlife, recre- ation and cultural programs. f able 3.21 shows the areas and acreages to be managed under each VRM class. Actions having a positive effect on the visual character would include those which enhance water quality, protect riparian areas and wildlife habitat and maintain the natural qualities of the landscape. Examples of such actions are removing live- stock for various time periods from certain streams with imple- mentation of grazing systems after such times, maintaining existing exclosures on certain streams and reservoirs, restrict- ing vegetative conversion, designating special areas, closing open ORV areas susceptrble to damage,, closin tating unauthorized material sites, closrng an 8 and rehabili- rehabilitating roads not needed for administration or fire protection 8 urposes and retention, addition and enhancement of wetlan s. Actions having a negative effect include developing ORV intensive use areas, developing land treatments and seedings to produce additional livestock forage, new road construction, energy transmission projects in corndors, timber harvesting and mineral production. Short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on visual resources are associated with scars and other changes on the landscape that can be rehabilitated and healed within 5 years. Examples ofsuch impactsaretheeffectsof wildfiresand prescribed burns and the associated effects of fighting or controlling these fires as well as the effects of recreation site developments, wildlife enhancement projects (such as guzzlers and streambank stabilization), instream habitat improvement projects and range improvements (such as reservoirs and spring developments). Table 3.19. Impacts to Recreation Current (acres) Projected Level (acres) Total Change (acres) SRMAs ORV Use a. Closed b. Limited c. Open Rockhounding a. Prohibited b. Restricted c. Open Camping a. Prohibited b. Restricted c. Open 16,656 10,090 4,080 -6,010 50,412’ 113,205 +62,793 1,649,416 1,592,633 -56,783 16,816 17,216 +400 0 0 0 1,693,102 1,692,702 -400 0 280 +280 18,846 31,155 +12,309 1,691,072 1,678,483 -12,589 17,056 +400 ’ lnit~alacres for I~m~ledORVusewas orIgInally lOO.OMas noted in theFederal Register. February20. 1987.Sincathat time. management of the John Day RAwastransferredfrom BurnsDistrict to Prinev~lle D~slr~cl and 49,652 limited acres were also transferred from the Burns District. 3-20 Long-term impacts involve contrasts created by changes to the four basic elements of landscape’character (form, Ime, color and texture). They cannot be rehabilitated within 5 years and as a matter of course are considered permanent features on the landscape. Examples of such impacts are large vegetative conversion areas, above ground energy transmission struc- tures such as the Pacificor 500 kV powerline, mining opera- tions such as Eagle Picher R1. rnes, timber sales and thevarious access and haul roads, pipelines and other features that accompany large scale developments. The overall changes, as compared to current conditions, are not considered to be significant. Cultural Resources The condition of currently identified sites ranges from good to severely impacted, with approximately 28 percent good, 51 percent fair/somewhat impacted and 21 percent poor/severely Impacted. Agents of deterioration include, in frequency order, natural erosion and weathering; livestocktramplin and trailing; disturbance from projects such as fences, roa 8 s, seedings, etc., and vandalism. The overall trend is downward due prima- rily to erosion and vandalism. Comprehensive management of cultural resourceswould posi- tively affect the condition of the resources and increase oppor- tunities for public and scientific uses. Enhancement of condi- tions and uses at important obsidian sources, increased site atrol and monitoring, on-site interpretation, and protection of R atrve American traditional land uses would be the primary agents of change within the program. The management proposed for riparian zones that would improve water quality and aquatic habitat while reducing soil erosion, such as timber harvest buffer zones along streams, restricted livestock grazing use along streams (e.g., temporary reductions, exclosure fencing), streambank stabilization, and road closures would maintain and improve archaeological site conditions in riparian zones. Recreation program elements for ORV limitations and site boundary signing would protect traditional Native American values at the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC. Positive effects to those values would also come from the ACEC program desig- nation, the VRM Class II rotective classification, land tenure zone designation as Zl, rom the mineral program closure ofP the Pine Creek Material Site, and from protective stipulations for leasable energy minerals activities (i.e., no surface occu- pancy). Scenic Back Country Byways designations would provideopportunitiesforthe interpretation of historicpropertie.s along the route. Table 3.20. Current VRM Classification Area/Acres Class I Class II Class Ill Class IV Hatt Butte Malheur River/ Bluebucket Creek WSA Stonehouse WSA Diamond Craters Devine Canyon Scenic Area Silver Creek RNA S. Narrows ACEC Other Areas 30 2,080 3,480 6,500 5,825 16,656 I,040 640 160 92,980 425,440 1,155,087 Total 8,610 120,621 425,600 1 ,155,087 Table 3.21. Proposed VRM Classification ArealAcres Class I Class II Class Ill Class IV Hatt Butte Malheur River/ Bluebucket Creek WSA and Wild River Stonehouse WSA Diamond Craters Devine Canyon Scenic Area Silver Creek RNA S. Narrows ACEC Silver Creek Addition Foster Flat RNAACEC Dry Mtn. RNA/ACEC Addition Biscuitroot ACEC USDA-FS 41 Road (BLM acres) Other Areas Total 2,290 2,290 30 3,270 12,325 17.056 1;040 640 160 640 2,690 2,084 6,500 550 82,580 419,401 1,148,662 139,535 419,431 1 ,149,662 3-21 Archaeological sites that are not currently subject to unaccept- able levels of erosion or vandalism should be somewhat negatively affected by enhanced access for recreation uses. Surface-disturbing projects (e.g., range improvements, veg- etation conversions) and land tenure adjustments may nega- tively affect additional archaeological sites with lesser data potential; however, significant sites would be protected by following standard cultural compliance procedures. Cultural resources, including archaeological and historicsites, may be subjectto negative effects from fire and/orfiresuppres- sion activities. Uncontrolled fire may destroy standing historic structures, scorch and exfoliate prehistoric rock art, and frac- ture or alter artifacts. Fire suppression activities, particularly bulldozingto reducefuels, may altersurfacecultural resources, such that previously disturbed areas (e.g., roads, existing fire breaks, etc.) are utilized for fire breaks whenever feasible. The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on the resource are expected to be positive for cultural program objectives, for historic property interpretation and stabilization and especially for preservation of traditional Native American land uses. The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on the resource are expected to be positive for all cultural program objectives including areawide site protection, significant site data recov- ery, increased opportunity for protection and public uses of obsidian sources and fossll areas, increased site interpretatio?, andsystematicpreservationof specifictraditional NativeAmen- can land uses. Energy and Minerals Fluid Energy Minerals At the present there are no active oil and gas or geothermal production wells in the RA. Lease offers on various tracts are issued annuallyforoil and gas, but very little leasing activity has occurred in the last5to 1 Oyears. Currently,fluid energy mineral leasing is managed on aleasecategory system. In the RAthere are 1,328,lll acres that are open to leasing with standard stipulations, (Category l), 787,517 acres open to leasing with special stipulations (Category2), 98,075 acres open to leasing with no surface occupancy (Category 3) and 113,331 acres closed to leasing (Category 4). Therewould beaminorpositive impacttotheopportunityforthe development of fluid energy minerals. This results from a modest decrease in the acreage currently subject to Category 1 stipulations and an increase in the acreaae available for leading under Category 1. There would be a slkht (1 percent of total) increase in acreaae subiect to Cateaorv 3. An additional negative impact to the {otential for fluid eieriy minerals would be the limitations on the placement of roads in order to meet water quality requirements. This should not affect geophysical exploration, but could limit potential development and produc- tion. Tables 3.22 and 3.23 present summaries of the acreages under each leasing category. A more detailed presentation of the resource values being protected and leasing restrictions can be found in Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24. Due to the low current and anticipated level of fluid energy mineral activity in the Planning Area for the foreseeable future, these impacts are considered to be of low significance. Locatable and Solid Leasable Minerals Several locatable or solid leasable minerals are known to occur in the RA. Primary among these are diatomite, with an active mining operation northeast of Drewsey; mercury/cinnabar, with past substantial claim activity south of Drewsey and in the Glass Butte area; and, zeolite - a volcanic ash material - in the area of Harney Lake. Also present, in association with zeolite, are potassium (asolid leasable mineral) and feldspar. Of these minerals, only diatomite is currently under commercial produc- tion. Map M-3displaysthe areasof high and moderate potential for occurrence of these minerals. Mining law allows for explo- ration, location/leasing and development of mineral resources on public lands unless otherwise restricted. Generally, such resirictions result from either land classification (see Glbssaty) or withdrawals. Table 2.26 disDlavs a summarv of the nearlv 50,000 acres in the RA which’ ark closed (withdrawn) to th& operation of the mining laws. A significant amount of gold/silver exploration and potential development is currently occurring in the Vale District, just to the east and south of the RA. The RA contains many volcanic structural and mineralogical characteristics which are known to be associated with epithermal (see Glossary) gold deposition. There is a moderate to high potential for the localized occur- rence of gold in the RA. The orimaw action in the ProDosed Plan which would affect existing opportunities for exploiation and development of locat- able and solid leasable minerals would be an additional 2.715 acres which would be withdrawn from the operation of mining laws. Of this amount, 640 acres in the Squaw Butte Experiment Station block are in an area identified as having high potential for the occurrence of mercury/uranium/gold. The remaining 2,075 acres fall within areas classified as having low potential for the occurrence of locatable minerals (refer to Map M-3). Restrictionson such mineral development support functions as access road building would be likely to have a minor negative effect on mineral development in the Planning Area. These restrictions would not preclude mineral development, but would be likely to add tothe cost of exploration and development. With the combination of low current mineral development activity and light impacts to areas identified as having high or moderate potential for the occurrence of locatable minerals, it is con- cluded that negative impacts to these minerals are of low significance (Appendix 1, Table 20, provides a scenario of the possible impacts that could result if a substantial gold develop- ment were to occur in the Planning Area.) Therewould beaminor sitiveimpacttotheopportunityforthe development of solid easable minerals, coal, sodium and p” potassium, similar to fluid energy minerals. Due to the low current and anticipated level of solid leasable mineral activity in the Planning Area, these impacts are considered to be of low significance. Mineral Materials The primary impact to the potential for the development of mineral materials in the planning area would be the prohibition or restriction of mineral materials sites within ACECs, WSAs and scenic corridors. The acreages affected under the ACECs would be 95,030 acres. Acreages affected by WSAs and the Devine Canyon Scenic Corridor are 17,885 and 1,040 acres, respectively. Prohibitions or restrictions of existing authorized material sites would not be affected except for an existing county material site in the Pine Creek area which would be closed to meet management objectives for the potential Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC. This could be a moderate localized impact on future mineral material demands for road surfacing. However, optional material site locations are available in the vicinity, so mineral materials could be made available to satisfy such demands. Use of alternate sites could result in increased operational costs to the county through site preparation, in- creased haul distances, etc. On an overall basis, these impacts are considered to be of low significance because of the abun- dance of mineral materials and authorized material sites within the Planning Areathat would remain unaffected by the prohibi- tions or restrictions. 3-22 Recreational Minerals The Planning Area would remain open for the collection of recreational minerals except for 17,056 acres in the Diamond Craters ONAIACEC. The impacts of the closure are considered to be of low significance. Lands Currently, most lands transactions that have taken place in the RAhavebeenconductedthroughexchanges.Veryfewoutright sales have occurred in the past 10 years. In that time, only one sale has been completed, which was in an isolated 80-acre parcel north of Malheur Lake. As depicted in Table 3.24, there are currently 1577,559 acres zoned for retention in public ownership, 121,559 acres zoned for possible exchange for lands of higher resource values, and 10,800 acres zoned for exchange or outright sale. Table 3.24 depicts the acreages in the various land tenure zones of the Proposed Plan. Although less land is identified for retention, more opportunity exists under the Pro osed Plan for land tenure adjustment, particularly exchanges. This is not only due to more acres available for exchange or sale, but also these lands are more widely dispersed throughout the RA. Some Zone 1 lands would also be available for exchange, on acase-by-case basis, for non-Federal landscontaining special resource values listed in Management Action LR 1 .l. Even though significantly more acreage would be available for sale, under the Proposed Plan, little sale activity is anticipated due to current Bureau policy and budget direction that empha- sizes exchanges. Thus, Zone 3 lands would be utilized more for exchange base than for outright sale. The primary mode of land acquisition would be through land exchanges, with purchases being utilized only where exchange is not feasible and when funding is available. Historically, funding has not been available for outright purchase of land In the Three Rivers RA. Most acquisitions will be targeted at Zone 1 lands which contain high public resource values. Some activities or resources, such as cultural resources or special status species which might be discovered during re- source inventories prepared for each land tenure action, could further limit lands available for sale or exchange. The short-term impact of the Proposed Plan would be the immediate availability of more lands for exchange and sale. Specific impactsof each land tenure action cannot be predicted at this planning stage. The impacts of these actions will be analyzed through NEPA review upon development of a pro- posal and processing of the action. The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan would be consolidation of land patterns, acquisition of significant public resource values, disposal of isolated unmanageable parcels and protecting most lands from disposalcontainingsensitive resourcessuchasACECs, WSAs, deer and elk winter range, riparian and wetland areas, as well as large contiguous blocks of public lands. The impact of the Proposed Plan on county tax bases is expected to be insignificant for several reasons. First, as Table 3.22. Impacts to Oil and Gas Leasing Categories Low Moderate High Unknown Lease Potential Potential Potential Potential Total Current Change Category (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Category 1 1,431,481 67,548 0 0 1,499,029 1,328,lll 170,918 Category 2 535,419 67,568 0 0 602,987 787,517 -184,530 Category 3 111,407 280 0 0 111,687 98,075 13,612 Category 4 18,483 94,848 0 0 113,331 113,331 0 Total 2,096,790 230,244 0 0 2,327,034 2,327,034 0 Table 3.23 Impacts to Geothermal Leasing Categories Low Moderate High Unknown Lease Potential Potential Potential Potential Total Current Change Category (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Category 1 1 ,178,861 331,433 0 0 1,510,294 1,328,lll 182,183 Category 2 336,771 254,951 0 0 591,722 787,517 -185,795 Category 3 13,772 97,915 0 0 111,687 98,075 13,612 Category 4 5,560 107,771 0 0 113,331 113,331 0 Total 1,534,964 792,070 0 0 2,327,034 2,327,034 0 3-23 previously stated, most acquisition of private lands would be through exchanges, where, as much land would be applied to the tax base as is taken out. Second, many exchanges involve siqnificantly more acreaqe beino conveyed into private owner- ship than is being lost from private otinership’offsetting any direct ourchasesthat may be made. Finallv. any salesof oublic land that are made would additionally offset BLM acquisitions by purchase. Burns District records show that this situation is occurrin acquire 3 in Harney County. Over the last IO years the acreage Into Federal ownership by the BLM Lands Program a proximates the net acrea e conveyed into private owner- s R PIID . Thus data includes ourc ases bv the BLM of lands on the S&ens Mountain. ’ Realty Management Currently, most rights-of-way and other realty related authori- zations are processed on a case-by-case basis as applications or orooosals are received. Table 3.24 identifies 123 miles of right-of-waycorridors,designated underexistingplanningdocu- ments. Right-of-way corridors which were designated in these documentsarenotclearastotheirlocationorscope. Notethere are no avoidance and exclusion areas designated. The primary changes that would occur under the Proposed Plan would be formal designation of right-of-way corridors and realty related exclusion and avoidance areas as depicted on Map LR-2 and Table 3.24. The Proposed Plan would also eliminate waste disposal on and reduce unauthorized use of public lands. Other realty related proposals and applications, not affected by these changes, would continue to be considered on a case-by- case basis. Management actions in the Proposed Plan which promote commodity producing programs such as minerals or timber, generally influence realty activities because they generate demand for rights-of-way and other land use authorizations. Conversely, other management actions such as improved road standards required for water quality, riparian and aquatic habitat enhancement place constraints on the number, kind and location of realty related authorizations. The short-term impacts of the management actions under this program would be the early notification to potential applicants as to the existence of areas of special resource concern within the RA as well as the existence of areas where projects may be located with limited environmental impacts (corridors). Specific impact analysis of each project must be deferred until a proposal or application is received. All new realty related projects will be reviewed through the NEPA process at that time. The major long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan would be the limitation of realty development in avoidance and exclusion zones. On the positive side, areas with special resource con- cerns would be protected from realty related develo ment which might be incompatible with the purpose for whrc they,E were designated. On the other hand, this limitation could negatively affect specific projects requiring an expensive re- route or modification. This negative impact to industry is probably limited for several reasons. First, most of the acreaoe identified in Table 3.24 are avoidance zones which would allow some development, if necessary, and if compatible with the purposes of the designa- tion. Second1 and scattere 2 most of the areas identified are small, isolated throuqhout the RA, makinq a reroute of a proiect relatively easy or innecessary if good project planning is utilized. Finallv. most of the acreaae identified for avoidance zones is made up of the Kiger Musiang ACEC (64,639 acres) where most development scenarios would probably be com- patible with the purposes of this special designation. Demand IS also low in this area. 3-24 The impact of corridor designation to the industry is also expected to be limited. First, there is generally low demand for large scale right-of-way projects in the RA. Second, encourag- ino rather than requiring afacilitv be placed in a corridor allows some flexibilit while &II providing guidance for project plan- nina. And fina Iv. there are several corridor ootions identified inY the-proposed Pjan. Constraints placed on waste disposal by the Proposed Plan are not viewed as a major negative impact. Generally, private lands are available for private waste disposal sites and public landfills are located within a reasonable distance of most rural resi- dences. Existing public disposal sites operated bv the countv have adequate capacity to iast well into the foreseeable future. Should a bonafide oublic need arise for a new site. BLM would consider a sale oi exchange of land for this purpose. The primary positive impacts of management actidns’related to waste diswsal would be limitina the oossibilitv of hazardous materials occurring on public land and’the proliferation of small dump sites. Limitation of unauthorized uses will have the positive affect of reducing damage to public land by such uses and increasing revenue to the United States. Unauthorized users would be negatively impacted by the Proposed Plan. Access There is a significant amount of public land within the RA which lacks legal access. Existing planning identifiesveryfew access needs which include those roads needed to access intensive recreation use areas. Generally, most landowners allow some access across their lands. However, as they become better informed as to their rights and to the value of recreation on R4 ublic and private land, more and more access is bein lost. ost access acquisition that has occurred in the R w has generally been in support of commodity production, primarily timber. Map LR-3 in the Proposed Plan identifies several key locations where legal access is needed. The Proposed Plan also pro- vides emphasis on acquiring and maintaining public access, particularly to areas containing high public resource values. Management actions in the Proposed Plan which would restrict road location or use would limit options available for securing access. Emphasis on acquiring and maintaining access would rovide several positive impacts to many resource programs. t would P serve to dilute human pressures on resource bases by dispers- ing this pressure to other public lands. It would limit access to those areas with high resource sensitivity, and provide better relations between landowners, the BLM and the public. Land- owners, who gain financially by limiting access to public and private lands, would be negatively impacted by implementation of the Proposed Plan. The negative impacts of public access across private land can be mitigated by including measures in negotiated easements or agreements to limit these impacts. For example, if a landowner was concerned about gates being left open by the public, cattleguards may be provided in these areas. Withdrawals and Classifications There are currently 49,652.22 acres under withdrawal or clas- sification in the RA (Table 3.24 and 3.271. The Prooosed Plan identifies 2,715 acres for new withdrawals and classifications, and recommends 7,398.49 acres for restoration to the public land laws. These figures show that there will be less acreage withdrawn or classified after implementation of the plan than before. This is probably not an accurate assumption, however, because the bulk of the acreage recommended for restoration is made up of a single withdrawal covering 7,031 acres. Most of this withdrawal overlaps another withdrawal which would still remain effective. If the 7,031-acre withdrawal is terminated, these overlapping withdrawals would be eliminated and not actually result in restorationof allofthelandstooperationof the public land laws. Any proposal to terminate this withdrawal would require evaluation by the State Office Waterpower Specialist during the review process. Outside influences which affect the program include holding agency concurrences and requests for terminations and re- quests for new withdrawals not considered in the Proposed Plan. These would increase and decrease the acreage within the RA withdrawn or classified. The impacts of terminating withdrawals and classifications is both positive and negative. On the positive side, more lands would be open to the public land laws. Negative impacts to resources from commodity-producing activitiessuch as mining could occur when this happens. The converse of this will occur when new withdrawals are implemented, i.e., lands and re- sources would be protected but generally not available for commodity production. Clarifying management responsibilities through MOUs, new withdrawals and restorations will have mostly positive effects. Lands and resources, which are more suitable for management by one agency will be turned over to that agency resulting in better management efficiency. Boundary adjustments result- ing from these transfers would allow for cost-effective fencing and better boundary identification by the public. Economic Conditions The sectors of the local economy that are most likeiy to be directly or indirectly affected through implementation of the Pro osed Plan are forestry and wood products, agriculture, tra B e and service, and mining. Impacts to these sectors would result from management actions affecting forestlandwood- lands, livestock grazing, and energy and minerals, respec- tively. Each of these is detailed indivrdually below. Forests and Woodlands Within the Three Rivers RA the lumber and wood products indust currently employs approximately 670 persons (Or- egon r mployment Divisron, 1989). The industry relies on harvests in Crook, Lake, Grant and Harne counties. As Table 3.25displays harvestsfrom BLM lands in t iT e RAandsurround- ing counties are not a significant portion of the total harvest. It is likely that BLM timber sales in the RA substitute for timber sales on nearby national forest lands. The benefits of this substitution are negligible. The Proposed Plan would have no measurable effect on employment or income in the wood products industry. The BLM currently meets the demand for all woodland products (firewood, posts and poles) with four designated cutting areas totaling 1,282 acres. These designated areas represent .7 F ercent of woodland acres available under the Proposed Plan. uture demands for woodland products can be met under the Proposed Plan. Table 3.24. Impacts to Lands, Realty, Withdrawals and Classifications Current Proposed Plan Change Current 123 0 Prooosed Plan 185 Total Change 17,885 62 17,885 Land Tenure Adjustment Acres z-1 z-2 Z-3 1,577,559 121,559 10,800 1,484,899 188,325 36,694 -92,660 +66,766 +25,894 Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas Avoidance Areas Corridors (Miles) (Acres) (Acres) Right-of-Way Corridors, Exclusion and Avoidance Areas Withdrawals, Classifications 0 95,530 95,530 Acres Under Existing Withdrawals and Classifications Proposed Plan, Acres Recommended for Restoration Proposed Plan, Acres Recommended for New Withdrawals and Classifications Total Acreage, Under Full Implementation of Proposed Plan Total Change from Existing Situation 49,652.22 7,398.49 2,715 44,968.73 -4,683.49 3-25 Table 3.25. Timber Harvest 1980-87 (Mbf - Scribner Log Scale) County Harney Crook Lake Grant Total Harvest BLM 546,717 794 607,994 1,899 1,410,800 0 1,668,590 17,021 BLM (Percent of Total) 0.15 0.31 0 1.02 Source: Oregon Timber Harvest Report 1980-87 - OSDF Livestock Grazing Theestimationof impactstolivestockgrazingisbased uponthe assessment of changes that would be incurred on an “operator number” (operator) basis. Administratively, the BLM bills and tracks permittees by operator number. Cften several permits can be held under a single operator number. Each operator number represents an independent operation to BLM. How- ever, in practice a single person, family, company or corpora- tion may be assigned several operator numbers. The size of each operation (represented by asingle operator number) was determined to be the total cattle numbers currently permitted to use BLM allotments. For analysis purposes, impacts to the livestock industry were separated on the basis of scale of operation with operations of less than 300 head denoted as small and operations of 300 or more as large. In addition, impacts to direct and total income in the county were estimated using MICRO-IMPLAN (USDA, 1982) With implementation of the potential treatments and structures identified in the Proposed Plan, long-term forage availability is expected to increase above current levels. The Proposed Plan would impact 35 smaller operations and 29 larger operations. Two operations, one large and one small, would experience increases while the remaining impacts would be reductions. Cattle and calf sales are estimated to increase by $42,000, or less than 1 percent of average sales (1985-l 989) in the county. Estimated impactsto personal income and employment are not meaningful. Implementation of the Proposed Plan without the potential improvements would decrease forage available to livestock. The same number of operations would be impacted as with the improvements, but to a greater degree. Six opera- tions, three large and three small would experience increases. Estimated cattle and calf sales would decline by $511,000, approximately 2 percent of average sales in the county. Direct income is estimated to decrease by $46,700, and total income by $139,400. An estimated nine jobs would be lost. With the reductions that are possible under the Proposed Plan, ranchers would be required to make permanent changes in their operations. In addition, the ability of some ranch opera- tions to service long-term debt would be reduced. Potential business responses to reductions could include: - Reduce herd size, absorb income loss. - Change seasons of use on base property. - Cease ranching operations, early retirement is an option for some. - Lease alternative forage on private lands. - Redistribute herds, capital and other factors of production 3-26 to maintain viable operations is an option for operators with multiple operations. Expand and diversify ranching operations with new crops and/or livestock types. Capital expenditures on base property to increase produc- tive capacity. Combine operations with other individuals, family mem- bers, companies or corporations to maintain viable size of operation. Seek full or part-time employment in a non-agricultural sector. The exact allocation of increased forage under the Proposed Plan is unknown. Some operations may be able to expand. Financing these expansions would commit operations to long- term debt servicing based on the availability of the additional forage. Table 3.26 shows the potential affects of forage availability number of operations potentially losing specific percentages of forage under the Proposed Plan. Operations were grouped by size for information only. A given percentage adjustment in BLM forage made available would not necessarily change COW- calf or cattle production by the same percentage. Sources of forage used by area ranchers include USDA-FS, State, private and other Federal lands in addition to BLM lands. Any BLM reductions will increase scarcity of forage, most likely causing a slight increase in the costsof private forage. (BLM and USDA- FS prices are administratively set and do not changedirectly or proportionately with market conditions.) The Proposed Plan describes aspecific level of range improve- ment and enhancement. BLM expenditures to build all such fences, pipelines, reservoirs, wells, and big game guzzlers and to provide brush control, juniper burning and seedings are estimated at approximately $3.9 million. The major portion of the materials usedforthese improvements will be purchased outside the RA. Temporary labor require- ments and equipment rentals will likely be provided by the local economy. Mining Twenty-four pits are designated on BLM lands for the removal of mineral materials. Two are commercial pits while the remain- der are for use by local communities. Thirteen free use permits have been granted to local communities. Without free use permits these communities would be required to purchase mineral materials. This BLM program directly assists local communities. The value of materials removed under free-use permit has not been established. No changes in these permits Ex loration and development of oil and gas, geothermal and would be made under the Proposed Plan. Under the Proposed god resources in the planning area is permitted by all alterna-P Plan, mining activities at the Eagle-Pitcher Diatomite mine are tives. The intensity of future exploration and development is uneffected. unknown. Table 3.26. Impacts to Livestock Grazing Operations, Proposed Plan Percent change in Forage Availability 0 Percent Reduction Number of Operations Affected Proposed Plan With Im Smaller a rovements Larger 2 55 13 Proposed Plan Without Improvements Smaller Larger 55 13 O-9.9 Percent Reduction 13 14 3 7 1 O-24.9 Percent Reduction 14 12 12 13 25-49.9 Percent Reduction 6 2 7 4 50-l 00 Percent Reduction 1 0 IO 2 O-l 00 Percent Increases 1 1 3 3 Total Number of Operations 90 42 90 42 ‘Less than 300 head permitted 2Greater than 300 head permitted 3-27 3-28 Chapter 4Revisions to the DRMP/DEIS 4-l Introduction As a result of internal and public review, substantial revision and, in some cases, correction of material presented in the DRMP/DEIS hasoccurred. In most instances, changes simply have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this document or in extensive responses to comment letters (see Appendix 2). The following displays the substantive changes to the Draftthat are not otherwise represented in the PRMPIFEIS. The page numbers that appear in bold print throughout this chapter indicate the page of the DRMP/DEIS on which the correction would appear if the entire Draft were being reprinted. Text Revisions Page xiii. Page numbers for maps should read: VRM-1 3-46 and 47 M-l 3-54 and 55 M-2 3-58 and 59 M-3 3-60 and 61 M-4 3-62 and 63 M-5 3-64 and 65 L-l 3-68 and 69 L-2 3-70 and 71 Page3-3. Soils, third paragraph, secondsentenceshould read: This method evaluates soil movement surface litter, surface rock, pedestalling, flow patterns, rills and gullies to assess erosion conditions. Page 3-11. Table 3.4, footnote 3 should read: The average productivity in this inventory unit is estimated by using a factor of 70 times the commercial forestland acres available for intensive management. Previous planning document volume divided by total acres in timber base (3,400,OOO /48,818 = 70). Page 3-11. Second column, end of first paragraph add: For detailed information about silvicuitural practices see BLM Manual 5600. Also, for detailed information on how silvicultural prac- tices affect wildlife, see “Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests.” USDA-FS Agricultural Handbook No. 553. September, 1979. Economic Conditions The sectors of the local economy that are most likely to be directly or indirectly affected through implementation of any of the alternatives are forestry and wood products, agriculture, trade and service, and mining. Impacts to these sectors would result from management actions affecting forestland/wood- lands, livestockgrazing, recreation, and energy and minerals, respectively. Each of these is detailed individually below. Forests and Woodlands Within the Three Rivers Resource Area the lumber and wood products industry currently employs approximately 670 per- sons (Oregon Employment Division, 1988). The industry relies on harvests in Crook, Lake, Grant and Harney Counties. As Table displays, harvests from BLM lands in the RA and surrounding counties are not a significant portion of the total harvest. It is likely that BLM timber sales in the resource area substitute for timber sales on nearby national forest lands. The benefits of this substitution are negligible. None of the alterna- tives would have a measurable effect on employment or income in the wood products industry. IThe BLM currently meets the demand for all woodland prod- ucts (firewood, posts and poles) with four designated cutting areas totaling 1,282 acres. These designated areas represent .7 percent of woodland acres available under Alternatives A-C and .5 percent of maximum available woodland acres under Alternatives D and E. Future demands for woodland products can be met under all alternatives. Livestock Grazing Theestimationof impactstolivestockgrazing isbased uponthe assessment of changes that would be incurred on an “operator number” (operator) basis. Administratively the BLM bills and tracks permittees by operator number. Often several permits are held under a single operator number. Each operator num- ber represents to BLM an independent operation. However, in practice a single person, family, company or corporation may be assigned several operator numbers. The size of each operation (represented by a single operator number) was determined to be the total number of cows currently permitted to use BLM allotments. For analysis purposes, impacts to the livestock industry were separated on the basis of scale of operation with operations of less than 300 head denoted as small and operations of 300 or more as large. In addition, impacts to direct and total income in the county were estimated for each alternative using MICRO-IMPLAN (USDA, 1982) Under Alternative A, direct long-term reductions would be made to 42 operations with 300 or more head permitted on BLM lands. The remaining reductions would be borne by 90 smaller operations. With less available forage, herd sizes would be reduced, thus fewer calves produced. Sales of cattle and calves would likely fall by $2.21 million (1989 dollars). This is approximately 9 percent of the average value of cattle and calvessold in Harney County. The Three Rivers Resource Area is located in northern Harney County, thus, foregone sales will be concentrated in that area. Estimates of foregone cattle and calf sales are based on the average (1985-89) prices for cattle and calves in Oregon. Direct income foregone at this reduced sale level is estimated to be $202,100 (1989 dollars). An estimated total of $610,600 of income will be lost within Harney County under Alternative A. An estimated total of 37 local jobs will be lost under this alternative. Impacts under Alternative B are distributed among operations as in Alternative A. Foregone cattle and calf sales under Alternative B are estimated at $1.39 million (1989 dollars), approximately 6 percent of average cattle and calf sales in Harney County. Foregone direct income under Alternative B is estimated at $127,000. Total income losses of $383,800 could be expected. Twenty-three local job lossesare estimated under this alternative. W ith the reductions that are possible under Alternatives A and B, ranchers would be required to make permanent changes in their operations. In addition, the ability of some ranch opera- tions to service long-term debt would be reduced. Potential business responses to the reductions could include: - Reduce herd size, absorb income loss. - Change seasons of use on base property. - Cease ranching operations, early retirement is an option for some. 4-2 Table 4.1. Timber Harvest 1980-l 987. Timber Harvest 1980-1987 (Mbf - Scribner Log Scale) County Total Harvest BLM BLM (Percent of Total) Harney 546,717 794 0.15 Crook 607,994 1,899 0.31 Lake 1,410,800 17,02: 0 Grant 1,668,590 1.02 Source: Oregon State Dept. of Forestry - Lease alternative forage on private lands. - Redistribute herds, capital and otherfactors of production to maintain viable operations is an option for operators with multiple operations. - Expand and diversify ranching operations with new crops and/or livestock types. - Capital expenditures on base property to increase produc- tive capacity. - Combineoperationswith other individuals,family members, companies or corporations to maintain viable size of opera- tion. - Seek full or part-time employment in a non-agricultural sector. With implementation of the potential treatments and structures identified in the Proposed Plan, long-term forage availability is expected to increase above current levels. The Proposed Plan would impact 35 smaller operations and 29 larger operations. Two operations, one large and one small, would experience increases while the remaining impacts would be reductions. Cattle and calf sales are estimated to increase by $42,000 thousand, or less than 1 percent of average sales (1985-l 989) in the county. Estimated impacts to personal income and employment are not meaningful. Implementation of the Pro- posed Plan without the potential improvements would de- crease forage available to livestock. The same number of operations would be impacted as in with the improvements, but to agreaterdegree. Sixoperations, three large and threesmall, would experience increases. Estimated cattle and calf sales would decline by $511,000, approximately2 percent of average sales in the county. Direct income is estimated to decrease by $46,700, and total income by $139,400. An estimated nine jobs would be lost. Business responses under the Proposed Plan without improvements would be the same as in Alternatives A and 6, but to a lesser degree. Alternative D (the Continue Present Management Alternative) would increase forage availability with implementation of treat- ments and structures. Five operations, three large and two small, would be positively impacted. The remaining operations would remain unchanged. The expected level of increase could increase cattle and calf sales by $279,000 (1989 dollars). This represents a 1 percent increase in the average sale of cattle and calves in Harney County. A direct income increase of $25,500 and total income increase of $71,900 is estimated under this alternative. A total employment increase of four jobs is esti- mated. Alternative E proposes improvementsthatwould increase BLM forage availability. Thirty-two operations with 3000r more cattle permitted on BLM lands and 41 smaller operations would be impacted. Fourteen operations, seven large and seven small, would experience increased forage availability under Alterna- tive E. The remaining operations would experience forage reductions. With the expected net increase in forage availabil- ity, estimated cattle and calf sales increase by $255,000. This is approximately 1 percent of average sales (1985-89) of cattle and calves in Harney County. A direct income increase of $23,000 and total income increase of $65,900 is estimated for this alternative. An increase of four jobs could be expected. The exact allocation of increased forage under the Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and E is unknown. Some operations may be able to expand. Financing these expansions would commit operations to long-term debt servicing based on the availability of the additional forage. Table 4.50 shows the number of operations losing specific percentagesof forage under each alternative. Operations were grouped by size for information only. A given percentage reduction in BLM forage made available will not reduce cow-calf orcattle production by the same percentage. Sources of forage used by area ranchers include Forest Service, State, private and other Federal lands in addition to BLM lands. Any BLM reductions will increase scarcity of forage, most likely causing aslight increase in the costs of private forage. (BLM and USDA- FS prices are administratively set and do not change directly or proportionately with market conditions.) Each alternative describes a specific level of range improve- ment and enhancement. BLM expenditures to build fences, pipelines, reservoirs, wells, and big game guzzlers and to provide brush control, juniper burning and seedings are esti- mated as follows: Alternative A = $432,000 Alternative B = $2.1 million Proposed Plan = $3.9 million Alternative D = $2,8 million Alternative E = $5.3 million The major portion of the materials usedforthese improvements will be purchased outside the Resource Area. Temporary labor requirements and equipment rentals will likely be provided by the local economy. 4-3 Recreation All alternatives propose varying acreages open to ORV use, rockhounding and camping. Acreage available for these dis- persed use activities will remain plentiful under all alternatives. No economic effect is foreseen due to changing patterns of recreation use under any alternative. Mining Recreational mineral collection is one activity that makes the Resource Area a visitor destination. Alternatives A, B and D slightly reduce areas available to recreational mineral collec- tion. The reductions proposed in these alternatives will not reduce the desirability of the area to collectors. Numerous sites are designated on BLM lands for the removal of mineral materials. Two are commercial pits while the remain- der are for use by local communities. Thirteen free use permits have been granted to local communities. Without free use permits these communities would be required to purchase mineral materials. This BLM program directly assists local communities. The value of materials removed under free-use permit has not been established. No changes in these permits would be made under any of the proposed alternatives. Under all alternatives, mining activities at the Eagle-Pitcher Diatomite mine are uneffected. Exploration and development of oil and gas, geothermal and gold resources in the planning area is permitted by all alterna- tives. The intensity of future exploration and development is unknown. Three scenarios have been developed in conjunc- tion with the proposed RMP. Employment estimates in these scenarios range from 25-l 62 depending on the type of explo- ration or development hypothesized. See Appendix 1, Table 20. 4-4 Table 4.2. Impacts to Ranching Operations by Alternative Alternative A Smaller1 Larger* Proposed Plan Proposed Plan Alternative B with Improvements w/o Improvements Alternative D Alternative E Smaller Larger Smaller Larger Smaller Larger Smaller Larger Smaller Larger 0 Percent Reduction 0 0 0 0 55 13 55 13 88 39 49 IO O-9.9 Percent Reduction 0 0 0 0 13 14 3 7 0 0 19 19 1 O-24.9 Percent Reduction 0 0 2 2 14 12 12 13 0 0 12 5 25-49.9 Percent Reduction 60 19 79 37 6 2 7 4 0 0 3 I 50-l 00 Percent Reduction 30 23 9 2 1 0 IO 2 0 0 0 0 O-l 00 Percent Increases 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 7 7 Total Number of Operations 90 42 90 42 90 42 90 42 90 42 90 42 ‘Less than 300 head permitted. ‘Greater than 300 head permitted 4-6 Chapter 5Consultation and Distribution Introduction State and Local Agencies Harney County Court Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Forestry Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Water Resources State Historic Preservation Officer Oregon State University OSU Extension Service Intergovernmental Relations Division Honorable Dale White The Tnree Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) has been pre- pared by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists from the BLM Burns District Office. Compilation of the DRMP/DEIS began in the winter of 1988; however, a complex process that began in September of 1987 preceded the writing phase. The DRMP/DEIS process has included consolidation of resource data, public participation, interagency coordination and analy- sis of the management situation. Consultation and coordination with various agencies, organizations and individuals occurred throughout the planning process. Public Involvement A notice was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 52, No. 187) on September 28, 1987, and in the local news media announcing the formal start of the planning process. At that time, a planning brochure was sent to the public requesting comment on planning issues, goals and objectives for the Three Rivers Resource Area (RA). In February of 1989, nearly 500 copies of an information brochure were mailed to interested agencies, organizations and individuals. This brochure presented the final planning issues, the alternatives to be analyzed in the DRMP/DEIS, and the planning criteria guiding the overall process. In October of 1989, a notice of document availability was published in the Federal Register and in local news media for the Draft Three Rivers Resource Management Plan/Environ- mental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS). The DRMPIDEIS was sent to a list of 528 individuals, organizations and agen- cies. Public meetings for the purpose of receiving oral and written comments were held on December4,1989 in Burnsand December 6, 1989 in Bend, Oregon. A total of 22 individuals attended the meetings. The initial go-day comment period was to end on February 1, 1990, however, upon direction by the State Director the period was extended for an additional 30 days. A total of 227 comment letters were received before the end of the extended comment period. Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted The RMP/EIS team contacted or received input from the following agencies or organizations during the development of the RMP/EIS: Federal Agencies Burns Paiute Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Sarah Greene, PNW-RNA Committee Honorable Robert F. Smith USDA, Forest Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs Organizations Harney County Cowbelles Harney County Farm Bureau Harney County Sheep and Wool Growers Association Harney County Stockgrowers National Wildlife Federation Native Plant Society The Nature Conservancy Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Trout Agencies and organizations to whom copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent. Federal Agencies Advisory Council - Historic Preservation Burns Paiute Tribe Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fort Baldwin Indian Community Fort McDermitt Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Dr. Sarah Greene, PNW-RNA Committee National Marine Fisheries Service Nez Perce Tribe Small Business Administration Assistant Secretary of the Air Force U.S. Air Force Bolling Air Force Base U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers, Portland District Office USDA, Forest Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy USDI, Bureau of Reclamation USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs USDI, Bureau of Mines USDI, Bureau of Reclamation USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service USI, U.S. Geological Survey USDI, Minerals Management Service 5-2 USDI, National Park Service Department of Transportation Yakima Indian Nation State and Local Agencies Ms. Dee Swisher, Harney County Clerk Harney County Court Harney County Planning Department Harney County SWCD Ida-Ore Regional Planning and Development Intergovernmental Council Lake County SWCD Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Economic Development Oregon Department of Energy Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Forestry Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Water Resources Oregon Division of State Lands State Historic Preservation Officer Oregon State Library Oregon State University OSU Extension Service Intergovernmental Relations Division Governor Barbara Roberts University of Oregon Interest Groups and Organizations 1000 Friends of Oregon Agri-Business Council of Oregon The American Alpine Club American Fisheries Society American Forest Council American Horse Protection Association, Inc. American Humane Association American Mustang and Burro Association American Mustang Association American Rivers Animal Protection Institute Associated Oregon Industries Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc. Association of NW Steelheaders Association of O&C Counties Association of Oregon Archaeologists Association of Oregon Counties Central Oregon Audubon National Audubon society Audubon society of Portland Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants The Cultural Heritage Foundation Defenders of Wildlife Desert Trail Association Eastern Oregon Mining Association First Interstate Bank of Oregon Friends of Earth Georgia Pacific Corporation Grand Ronde Resource Council Harney County Chamber of Commerce Harney County Cowbelles Harney County Farm Bureau Harney County Library Harney County Sheep and Wool Growers Association Harney County Stockgrowers The High Desert Museum Idaho wildlife Federation lzaak Walton League of America Kiger Mesteno League of Cities Malheur Field Station Mazamas Mineral Exploration Coalition NW Federation of Mineralogical Societies National Association of Conservation Districts National Association of Revisionary Property Owners National Marine fisheries Service National Mustang Association National Wildlife Federation Native Plant society Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Nature Conservancy NW Coalition for Alter. to Pesticides NW Environmental Defense Center NW Federation of Mineralogical Societies NW Mineral Prospectors Club NW Mining Association NW Timber Association NW Petroleum Association OPLAC - Southeast Oregon Cattlemen’s Association Oregon Cattlewomen’s Association Oregon Council of Rock and Minerals Clubs Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Equestrian Trails Oregon Farm Bureau Federation Oregon Forest Industries Council Oregon Horseman’s Association Oregon Hunters Association Oregon League of Women Voters Oregon Natural Desert Association Oregon Natural Heritage Program Oregon Natural Resources Council Oregon Rivers Council The Oregon Rivers Council Oregon Sheep Growers Association, Inc. Oregon Small Woodlands Association Oregon Sportsmen and Conservationists Oregon Trout Oregon Watershed Improvement Coalition Oregon Wild Horse Association Oregon Wildlife Federation Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation Pacific Logging Congress Pacific NW 4-Wheel Drive Association Pacific Power and Light Inc. Pacific Wild Horse Club Public Lands Action Network Public Lands Institute Range Ecology Group Sagecountry Alliance for Good Environment Sheepshead Protection Group Sierra club society of American Foresters Southeastern Oregon Sportsmen, Inc. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 5-3 Consistency Review Prior to approval of the RblP, the State Director will submit the plantotheGovernoroftheStateofOregonandrequestthatshe identify any known inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies or programs. TheGovernor will have 60 days in which to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing tothe State Director. The consistency of the plan with the resource related plans, pngrams and policies of other Federal agencies, State and local government and Indian tribes will be reevaluated in the future 3s part of the formal monitoring and periodic evaluations of the plan. EZmmentson the Proposed RMPIFinal If you wish to make conments for the District Manager’s consideration in the deveopment of the decision, please sub- mit your comments by October 21, 1991, to: District Manager Burns BLM District Office HC 74-l 2533 Highway 20 W. Hines, Oregon 97738 Protest Procedures The resource management planning process includes an op- portunityfor administrative review via a plan protest to the BLM Director if you believe theapproval of a proposed RMP would be in error. (See43 CFR 1610.52.) careful adherence to these guidelines will assist in preparing a protest that will assure the greatest consideration to your point of view. Only those persons or organizations who participated in our planning process leading to this RMP may protest. If our records do not indicate that you had any involvement in any stage in the preparation of a proposed RMP or amendment, your protest will be dismissed without further review. A protesting party may raise only those issues which he or she submitted for the record during the planning process. New issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the Burns District of Three Rivers Area Manager for consideration in plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as otherwise appropriate. The period for filing a plan protest begins when the Environ- mental Protection Agency publishes in the Federal Register its Notice of Availability of the final environmental impact state- ment concerning the proposed RM or amendment. The protest period extends for 30 days. There is no provision for any extension of time. To be considered “timely,” your protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. Also, although not a requirement, we suggest that you send your protest by certified mail, return receipt requested. Protests must be filed in writing to: Director (760) Bureau of Land Management 1849 “C” Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 In order to be considered complete, your protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information: 1. The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. 2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 3. Astatement of the part or parts of the proposed RMP being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc. included in the document. 4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted during the planning process or a reference to the date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the record. 5. Aconcisestatement explaining whythe BLM State Director’s decision is believed to be incorrect. This is acritical partof your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents, environ- mental analysis documents, available planning records (i.e., meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). A protest which merely expresses disagreement with the Or- egon/Washington State Director’s proposed decision, without any data will not provide us with the benefit of your information and insight. In this case, the Director’s review will be based on the existing analysis and supporting data. 5-4 Chapter 6List of Preparers, Glossary, and References 6-l List of Preparers. Although individuals have primary responsibility for preparing sections of an environmental impact statement or a resource management plan, the document itself is an interdisciplinary team effort. An internal review of the document was conducted at each stage of its preparation. Specialists at the district level and the state level of the Bureau of Land Management reviewed the analysis and supplied nformation. Contributions by individuals in the preparation of the document may be subject to revision by other BLM specialists and by management staff members during the internal review process. Name Craig M. Hansen Bill Andersen Liz Appelman Mark Armstrong John Barber Rob Burns Jay K. Carlsor Doris Cooper Bruce Crespin Leslie Frewing Mike Hartwell Nancy Ketrenos Janis Reimers Skip Renchler Lucie Roberts Primary Responsibility Policy Guidance, Decision Making Wild Horses and Burros EditoriaVWord Processing Discipline Area Manager, Three Rivers Resource Area Range Conservationist- ?/ild Horse Coordinator for the Three Rivers Resource Area Editorial Assistant Editorial, Nongame Species Public Affairs Officer/ Soils Planning and Environmental Coordinator Soil Scientist Water Quality/ Aquatic Habitat Planning Team Leader Word Processing Cultural Resources, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Economics Fire Management Energy and Minerals Vegetation, Special Status Species (Botany), ACEC Lands and Realty Word Processing Fish Biologist Project Manager, Technical Coordinator, Public Affairs Clerk/Typist Archaeology/Anthropology Economist District Fire Management officer, District Aviation Officer, District Prescribed Fire Manager Geologist EcologistfBotonist Realty Specialist ClerkTypist Related Professional Experience 7 years, Management, BLM, 7 years, Mineral Management Service, USGS Conservation Division in Mineral Development 6 years, Water Resource Division Water Resource Monitoring/Studies, USGS 2 years, Geology/Engineering, Bureau Reclamation 2 years, Private Engineering/Oil Gas Companies 8 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 4 years, Editorial Assistant, BLM 3 years, Clerk-Typist, BLM 5 years, Public Affairs/Planning and Environmental Coordinator, BLM 13 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 3 years, Soil Scientist, BLM 2 years, Hydrologist Coop Ed. Student, BLM l/2 year, Chemistry Lab Tech. Lebanon, OR University of Nevada, Reno 2-i/2 years, Hydrologic Research Technician, 1 -l/2 years, Fish Biologist, BLM 1 -l/2 years, Biologist, COE 8 years, Fish Biologist in Private Sector, Aquaculture 1 year, Biological Technician, USFWS 10 years, Planning & Environmental Coordination 4 years, Regional Economist, BLM 2 years, Remote Sensing, Forest Inventory, State of Idaho 3 years, Clerk/Typist, BLM 3 years, VA Medical Center, Secretary, Chief, Psychiatry Service 15 years, Archaeologist, BLM 3 years, Economist, BLM 17 years, Fire Program-13 years in Management IO years, Aviation Program 7 years, Fluid Minerals/Geology, BLM 1 year, District Ecologist/Botanist, BLM 3 years, Natural Resource Specialist (GIS), BLM 5 years, Ecological Site Inventory, BLM 1 year, Range Technician, BLM 8 years, Realty Specialist, BLM 3 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 6 months, Clermypist, BLM 26 years, Various secretarial, purchasing and customer service positions in the private sector 6-2 Name Fred Taylor Primary Responsibility Wildlife, Riparian, Wetlands, Special Status Species (Animals) Nora Taylor Dave Vickstrom Bob Vidourek Ron Wiley Livestock Grazing Range Conservationist 12 years, Range Conservationist, BLM Recreation, Wild and Outdoor Recreation Planner 19 years, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM Scenic Rivers, Visual 5 years, Outdoor Recreation Planner, National Resource Management Park Service Forestry Forester 16 years, Forester, BLM Water Quality/Aquatic Water Quality 8 years, Fisheries Biologist, BLM Habitat 3 years Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USFWS Discipline Wildlife Biologist Related Professional Experience 12 years, Wildlife Biologist, BLM 2 years, Biological Technician and Range Technician, BLM Related Professional 6-3 Glossary of Terms Aquatic - Living or growing in or on the water. Accelerated Erosion - Erosion processes increased by the activities of humans. See “Erosion.” ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern Active Preference -That portion ofthetotalgrazingpreference for which grazing use may be authorized. Activity Planning - Site-specific planning which precedes actual development. This is the most detailed level of BLM planning. Actual Use - The amount of AUMs consumed by livestock based on the numbers of livestock and grazing dates submitted bythe livestockoperator and confirmed by periodicfieldchecks by the BLM. Adjustments - Changes in animal numbers, periods of use, kinds or class of animals or management practices as war- ranted by specific conditions. Adverse Location (TPCC) - A subclass of problem sites which, because of its physical isolation, isdiff icult or impossible to manage forsustained yield timber production. Allotment - An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may also includeotherfederally managed, state owned and private lands. An allotment may includeoneormore separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. Allotment Categorization -Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing are assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar groups for purposes of developing multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts and determin- ing trade offs. Allotment Management Plan (AMP) - A written program of livestockgrazing management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific management goals in a grazing allotment. AMP: Allotment Management Plan AMS: Analysis Of Management Situation Animal Unit Month (AUM) - A standardized measurement of the amount of lorage necessary for the sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for 1 month (approximately 800 pounds of forage). Anadromous - Fish which migrate from the ocean to breed in fresh water. Their offspring return to the ocean. APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Appropriate Management Level - The optimum number of wild horses and burros that contributes to a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands and protects the range from deterioration. Archaeological Quarry Sites - Places where minerals occur which were a source of raw material for prehistoric/historic peoples. Archaeological Site - Geographic locale containing struc- tures, artifacts, material remains and/or other evidence of past human activity. Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - Places within the public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to impor- tant historical, cultural or visual values, fish and wildlife re- sources, other natural systems or processes or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Assessment Species - See Special Status Species. ATV: All Terrain Vehicle AU: Animal Unit AUM: Animal Unit Month Avoidance Areas - Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and Section 302 permits, leases and easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not be other- wise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. AWP: Annual Work Plan Back Country Byways - Vehicle routes that traverse scenic corridors utilizing secondary or back country road systems. National Back Country Byways are designated by the type of road and vehicle needed to travel the byway. Best Forest Management Practices - General forest man- agement practices which are consistent for all timber harvest and treatment activities. Big Game Animals - Elk, mule deer, antelope and bighorn sheep. BFMP: Best Forest Management Practices BLM: Bureau of Land Management BMPs: Best Management Practices Board Feet -A unit of solid wood, one foot square and one inch thick. BOR: Bureau of Reclamation BPA: Bonneville Power Administration Browse - To browse (verb) is to graze a plant; also, browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs and leaves of trees and shrubs often used as food by livestock and wildlife. Buffer Strip - A protective area adjacent to an area of concern requiring special attention or protection. In contrast to riparian zones which are ecological units, buffer strips can be designed to meet varying management concerns. 6-4 C Category - Custodial Management (see Selective Manage- ment Categories). Camp Site - Area utilized by Native Americansforone or more tasks, which also shows evidence of occupation by the pres- ence of housepits, midden deposits and/or hearths. Carrying Capacity - The maximum stocking rate possible without damaging vegetation or related resources. Catchment - A structure built to collect and retain water. CCC-Consultation, cooperation and coordination - an interac- tive process for seeking advice, agreement, or interchange of opinions on issues, plans or management actions from other agencies and affected permittee or lessee(s), landowners involved, the district grazing advisory boards where estab- lished, any state having lands within the area to be covered by an allotment management plan and other affected interests. CEQ: Council of Environmental Quality CFL: Commercial Forest Land CFR: Code of Federal Regulations Channel -Anopen conduit either naturallyorartificiallycreated which periodically or continuously contains moving water or forms a connecting link between two bodies of water. Channel Stability - A relative term describing erosion or movement of the channel walls or bottom due to waterflow. Characteristic Landscape - The visual characteristics of existing landscape features (including man-made) within a physiographic province. The term does not necessarily mean naturalisticcharacter but rathercould referto landscapes which exhibit both physiographic and land use similarities. Class I Cultural Inventory - An inventory of the existing literature and a profile of the current data base for cultural resources, frequently utilized to guide field inventories. Class II Cultural Inventory - Asample-oriented field inventory which is representative of the range of cultural resources within a finite study area. Class Ill Cultural Inventory - An intensive field inventory designed to locate and record, from surface and exposed profile, all cultural resources within a specified area. Climax -The culminating stage in plant succession for a given site where vegetation has reached a highly stable condition. CMA: Cooperative Management Agreement Commercial Forestland (TPCC) - Forestland which is ca- pable of producing 20\cubic feet per acre of wood per year of commercial tree species. Commercial Tree Species (TPCC) - Tree species whose yields are reflected in the allowable cut: pines, firs, spruce, Douglas-fir and larch. Competitive Forage - Those forage species utilized by two or more animal species. Conditional Suppression - Suppression actions based on predetermined, stringent conditions, i.e., fire location, weather condition, forces available and fire size. Monitoring must be done throughout the fire’s duration and direct suppression will be taken if any one condition is exceeded. Critical Growth Period - A specified period of time in which plants need to develop sufficient carbohydrate reserves and produceseed, e.g., approximatelythe monthsof May and June for bluebunch wheatgrass. Critical Habitat-The areaof land, water and airspace required for the normal needs and survival of a federally listed threat- ened or endangered species. CRMP: Coordinated Resource Management Plan CT: Commercial Thinning Cultural Resources - Fragile and nonrenewable elements of the environment including archaeological remains (evidenceof prehistoricor historic human activities) and socioculturalvalues traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally utilized raw materials, etc.). Cultural Site - Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use, orthat has important sociocul- tural value. DCP: Development Concept Plan Deferment-The withholding of livestockgrazing until acertain stage of plant growth is reached. Deferred Grazing - Discontinuance of livestock grazing on an area for specified period of time during the growing season to promote plant reproduction, establishment of new plants or restoration of the vigor by old plants. Deferred Rotation Grazing - Discontinuance of livestock grazing on various parts of a range in succeeding years, allowing each part to rest successively during the growing season. This permits seed production, establishment of new seedlings or restoration of plant vigor. Two, but more commonly three or more, separate pastures are required. DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Depth of Slash - The vertical distance from the litter surface to the highest slash particle in a sampling plot. A fuels inventory measures the fuel loading of dead and downed woody materi- als. DEQ: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality DietOverlap-Thepresenceofthesameforageplantinthediet of several herbivores. Discretionary Closures - Areas where the BLM has deter- mined that energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or disposal, even with the most restrictive stipulations or conditions would not be in the public interest. Dispersed/Extensive Recreation - Recreation activities of an unstructured type which are not confined to specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking and sightseeing. 6-5 Mimmal management actions related to the Bylaws’ steward- ship responsibilities are considered adequate in the areas where extensive recreation takes place and explicit recreation management is not required. Disposal-Any BLM authority which transfers title out of public ownership. Distribution -The uniformity of livestockgrazing over a range area. Distribution is affected by the availability of water, topog- raphy and type and palatability of vegetation as well as other factors. DM: Departmental Manual DOGAMI: Department of Geology and Mineral Industry Drainage(InternalSoil)-Thepropertyofasoilthatpermitsthe downward flow of excess water. Drainage is reflected in the number of times and in the length of time water stays in the soil. DRMP: Draft Resource Management Plan EA: Environmental Assessment Ecological Site Inventory-The basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands. Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of significant differences in kind, proportion or amount of plant species present in the plant community. Ecological site inventory utilizes soils, the existing plant community and ecological site data to determine the appropriate ecological site for a specific area of rangeland and to assign the appropriate ecological status. Ecological Status - Ecological status is the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential natural communityforthat site. It is an expression of the relativedegree to which the kinds, proportions and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the potential natural plant commu- nityforthe site. Four classes are used to express the degree to which the production or composition of the present plant community reflects that of the potential natural community (climax). Departures from climax can enhance or depreciate the value of the resultant plant community for various uses. Ecological Status (Seral stage) Percentage of Present Plant community that is Climax for the Range Site Potential Natural Community 76-100 Late Seral 51-75 Mid Seral 26-50 Early Seral O-25 EIS: Environmental Impact Statement Endangered Species - A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeop- ardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and as is further defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. EPA: Environmental Protection Agency Ephemeral Stream - A stream that flows only after rains or during snowmelt. Epithermal - Aterm applied to those ore deposits “...formed in and along fissures or other openings in rocks by deposition at 6-6 shallow depths from ascending hot solutions. They are distin- guished from musothermal and hypothermal lodes by the minerals they contain, by their textures and by the character of thealterationoftheirwallrocks.“(StokesandVarnesp.481955 after Emmons) Epithermal Deposit - Deposit formed in and along fissures or other openings in rocks by deposition at shallow depths from ascending hot solutions. Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or other geological agents. ESI: Ecological Site Inventory Excavate -The act of removing soils and forming a recess in the ground, particularly in the process of looking for artifactual materials as in “archaeological excavation”or’test excavation.” Exchange of Use -Grazing authorization issued to apermittee freeofchargefor unfenced, intermingled private landswithin an allotment. Exclusion Area -Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and 302 permits, leases and easements would not be authorized. Extensive Recreation Management Area - Areas where significant recreation opportunities and problems are limited and explicit recreation management is not required. Minimal management actions related to the Bureau’s stewardship re- sponsibilities are adequate in these area. Federal Candidate Species - See Special Status Species Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) - Public Law 94-579. October 21,1976, often referred to as the BLM’s “Organic Act”, which provides the majority of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction, policy and basic management guidance. FFR - Fenced Federal Range - generally a small amount of public land fenced with a large amount of private land. Fire Hazard Reduction - Any management action, including treatment of fuels, that reduces the threat of ignition intensity and spread of fire. Fire Use Zone Zone A - Full Suppression Area with NO Prescribed Fire - Because of resource values and special considerations, all fires will have aggressive suppression action taken regardless of causeor location. No prescribed or conditional burning will be allowed within this zone. Zone B - Conditional Suppression Area - Natural ignition fires within this zone that occurwithin the predetermined conditional parameters would be allowed to burn but would be constantly monitored. All human-caused fires and fires that do not meet the designated conditions will be suppressed. Zone C - Full Suppression with Prescribed Fire -All unplanned fire ignitions will be aggressively suppressed. However, to achieve identified resource habitat treatment objectives, ap- proved prescribed burning projects will be allowed as need and funding occur. Flat Water - Surface water of lakes and reservoirs. Floodplain - The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining a Historic - Refers to period wherein non-native cultural activities body of standing or flowing water which has been or might be took place, based primarily upon European roots, having no covered by floodwater. origin in the traditional Native American culture(s). FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act Fluid Energy Minerals - Oil, gas and geothermal energy. Forb - A broad-leafed herb that is not grass, sedge or rush. HMA: Herd Management Area HMAP: Herd Management Area Plan HMP: Habitat Management Plan Horse Wire - A single strand of wire placed about 4 feet above the ground at a gate opening. This wire allows the passage of cattle while preventing the passage of horses. Forestland - Land which is now, or is capable of being, at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees, and is not currently devel- oped for nontimber use. Forest Treatment Area - The immediate and surrounding terrain of an area to be harvested, commercial thinned, precommercial thinned, etc. The treatment area generally consists of the immediate drainage within which a treatment occurs. Formation - A sequence of rock strata which are recognizable over a large area. Fossil - Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living things. FragileSite(TPCC)-Asubclassofproblemsiteswhosetimber growing potential is easily reduced or destroyed, loss of timber growing potential results from soil erosion. FS: Forest Service FUP: Free Use Permit FY: Fiscal Year - October 1 to September 30 GEM: Geology-Energy-Minerals Geomorphic - Pertaining to the form of the earth or its surface features. Grazing System - The manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result. Ground Cover - Vegetation, mulch, litter, rock, etc. Groundwater - Water contained in pore spaces of consoli- dated and unconsolidated surface material. HA: Herd Area Habitat - A specific set of physical conditions that surround a species, group of species or a large community. In wildlife management, the major constituents of habitat are considered to be food, water, cover and living space. Habitat Management Plan (HMP) -A plan for management of habitat. Herd Area - The geographic area identified as having been used by wild horse or burro herds as their habitat in 1971. Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP) - An action plan that prescribes measures for the protection, management and control of wild horses and burros and their habitat on one or more herd management areas, in conformance with decisions made in approved management framework or resource man- agement plans. I Category - Improve Management (see Selective Manage- ment Categories). IMP: (Wilderness) Interim Management Policy IM-OR: Instruction Memorandum - Oregon (BLM) IM-WO: Instruction Memorandum-Washington, D.C. (BLM) IntermittentStream-Astreamwhichflowsmostofthetimebut occasionally is dry or reduced to pool stage. Interseeding - The practice of seeding native or introduced plant species into native range in combination with various mechanical treatments. Interseeding differs from range seed- ing in that only part of the native vegetation is removed to provide a seedbed for the seeded species. Issue - A subject or question of widespread public discussion or interest regarding Resource Area management, identified through public participation. Key Species - Major forage species on which range manage- ment should be based. kV: Kilovolt Land Classification -A process required by law for determin- ing the suitability of public lands for certain types of disposal or lease under the public land laws or for retention under multiple use management. Land Treatment - All methods of range improvement and soil stabilization such as reseeding, brush control (burning and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water spreading, etc. Land Use Authorizations - Those realty related authoriza- tions such as leases, permits and easements authorized under Section 302(b) of FLPMA and the R&PP Act. LCDC: mission Land Conservation and Development Com- LCDC Goals - Oregon’s statewide planning goals for the coordination of land use planning the the state. Administered by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Leasable Minerals - Minerals subject to lease by the Federal government including oil, gas and coal. Lithic - A stone or rock that may be either abraded into the proper form for use as a tool or shaped by knocking pieces (flakes) off. A cluster of flakes is called a “lithic scatter.” 6-7 Livestock Forage Condition - Based on percent of desirable National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A register of forage in the composition for livestock and the existing erosion districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects, significant in condition of a site. Condition of the range must include consid- American history, architecture, archaeology and culture, estab- eration of vegetation quality and quantity and soil erosion lished by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and maintained characteristics. by the Secretary of the Interior. Livestock Operation -The management of a ranch or farm so that a significant portion of the income is derived from the continuing production of livestock. Locatable Minerals - Generally the metallic minerals subject to development specified in the General Mining Law of 1872. LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Funds M Category - Maintain Management (see Selective Manage- ment Categories). Management Situation Analysis (MSA) - A comprehensive display of physical resource data and an analysis of the current use, production, condition and trend of the resources and the potentials and opportunities within a planning unit, including a profile of ecological values. MBF: Thousand Board Feet Memorandum of Understanding -Any written document that constitutesa”handshake”agreementwithotherswho havethe authority to commit themselves. The purpose is to establish working relationships, rather than transfer money or property, by setting forth policy, respective or mutual responsibilities and the manner by which they will be carried out. MFP: Management Framework Plan Mineral Entry -The location of mining claims by an individual to protect his right to a valuable mineral. Mitigation Measures - Methods or procedures committed to by BLM forthe purpose of reducing or lessening the impacts of an action. MNF: Malheur National Forest MOA: Memorandum of Agreement MOU: Memorandum of Understanding MSA: Management Situation Analysis Multiple Use - The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combi- nation that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjust- ments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combina- tion of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renew- able and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and iish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various re- sources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarilytothecombinationof usesthatwillgivethegreatest economic return or the greatest unit output. National Register Potential - Status of a cultural resource which is deemed qualified for the NRHP, prior to formal docu- E;ation and consultation; managed as if it were actually NEPA: NMFS: National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service Noncommercial Forestland (TPCC) - Forestland which is not capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of wood per year of commercial tree species. Noncommercial Tree Species (TPCC) - Species whose yields are not reflected in the allowable cut, regardless of their salability. Includes all hardwoods, juniper and mountain ma- hogany. Nondiscretionary Closures - Areas specifically closed to energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or disposal by law, regu- lation, Secretarial decision or Executive Order. Nonoperable (TPCC) - Forestlands unsuitable for any type of timber harvest activity due to their 1) physical features; for example, extremely rocky, boulder fields, rim rocks, rock out- crops and unsafe for logging operations and/or 2) forestlands on which logging activity will result in the loss of the site’s potential for producing commercial tree species, for example loss of soil through erosion, slope failure and/or the inability to reforest the site within acceptable time limits (usually 5 to 15 years) even with special reforestation techniques. Nonproblem Site (TPCC) - A subclass of commercial forest- land which requires no special harvesting, reforestation or other restrictive measures in order to be managed on a sus- tained yield basis. Nonrestricted Forestland (TPCC) - Nonproblem sites in the timber base on which no special techniques are required for harvest, reforestation and other management practices. Nonuse - Available grazing capacity in AUMs which is not permitted during a given time period. NORA: NORPS: Notice of Realty Action (Pacific) Northwest Outdoor Recreation Con- sumption Projection Study Not Currently Available (TPCC) - Those lands which have been set aside due to other resource management consider- ations (e.g., wildlife, fisheries/riparian, bald eagles, recreation, etc.) Noxious Weed - According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-629) a weed that causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the public health. (From: Supplement to the Northwest Area Nox- ious Weed Control Program from Final Environmental Impact Statement, March 1987.) NRHP: NPS: National Register of Historic Places National Park Service 6-8 iNWR: National Wildlife Refuge ODA: Oregon Department of Agriculture ODF: Oregon Department of Forestry ODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ‘Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) - Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any nonamphibious regis- tered motorboat, (2) emergency vehicles, and (3) vehicles in official use. OFPA: Oregon Forest Practices Act Old Growth- Forestedstands meeting,orwiththecapabilityto meet, the following criteria: - Be at least 40 contiguous acres. - Contain mature trees with at least 15 trees per acre greater than 20 inches in diameter. - Haveamultilayeredcanopywithtwoormoreageclasses. - Contain snags and down woody material. - Contain understory plants. ONA: Outstanding Natural Area ONHP: Oregon Natural Heritage Plan OSR: Overstory Removal Paleontology - A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from fossil remains. PCT: Precommercial Thinning Peak Discharge - The highest stage or channel flow attained by a flood, usually expressed as the volume of water in cubic feet passing a given point in a one second time period, hence, cubic feet per second. Percentage of Use -Grazing use of current vegetation growth, usually expressed as a percentage of volume removed. Perennial (Permanent) Stream - A stream that ordinarily has running water on a year-round basis. Period of Use - The time of livestock grazing on a range area based on type of vegetation or stage of vegetative growth. Permit/Leases (Grazing) - Under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, a permit is a document authorizing use of public lands within grazing districts for the purpose of grazing live- stock. Under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act, a lease is a document authorizing livestock grazing use of public lands outside grazing districts. Permit Value-The market value of a BLM grazing permit which is often included in the overall market value of the ranch. Petroglyph -Afigure, design or indentation carved, abraded or pecked onto a rock. Pictograph - A figure or design painted onto a rock. PL: Public Law PMOA: PNC: Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement Potential Natural Community Potential Natural Community - The biotic community (living organisms) that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without interferences by man un- der the present environmental conditions. Prehistoric - Refers to the period wherein Native American cultural activities took place which were not yet influenced by contact with historic non-native culture(s). Prescribed Fire - A planned burning of live or dead vegetation under favorable conditions which would achieve desired man- agement objectives. Presuppression -All actions involved in the location or alloca- tion of suppression resources in order to be prepared to suppress wildland fires. PRIA: Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1983) Problem Site (TPCC) - A subclass of commercial forestland which consists of adverse location, fragile sites and problem reforestation areas. This subclass of land is either withdrawn from the timber production base or remains in the base subject to restrictions which call for the application or prohibition of certain management practices. Proper Use - The degree and time of use of the current year’s plant growth which, if continued, will either maintain or improve the range condition consistent with conservation of other natu- ral resources. Proper Use Factor -The degreeof use a kind of grazing animal will make of a particular plant when the range is properly grazed. Public Lands - Any land and interest in land (e.g. mineral estate) owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM. May include public domain or acquired lands in any combination. PUP: Pesticide Use Proposal RA: Resource Area R&PP: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Range Betterment Fund - A fund established by Congress in FLPMA comprised of 50 percent of the grazing fees collected by the U.S. Treasury. This fund is to be used for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection, and improvement of the public lands that will arrest rangeland deterioration and improve forage conditions with resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed protec- tion and livestock production. Range Improvement - A structure, excavation, treatment or development to rehabilitate, protect or improve public lands to advance range betterment. “Range Development” is synony- mous with “Range Improvement.” Range Seeding - The process of establishing vegetation by mechanical dissemination of seed. Range Trend -The direction of change in range condition and soil. Raptor - Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks, e.g., hawks, owls, vultures, eagles. Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) -This act authorizedtheSecretaryofthe Interiortoleaseorconveypublic lands for recreational and public purposes under specified 6-9 conditions of states or their political subdivisions, and to non- Satisfactory Big Game Habitat Condition - Big game habitat profit corporations and associations. which does not have any habitat component deficiencies. Recreational Collection (Minerals) - Rockhounding Scenic Quality -The degree of harmony, contrast and variety within a landscape. Recreational Opportunity - Those outdoor recreation activi- ties which offer satisfaction in a particular physical, social and management setting in the EIS areas; these activities are primarily hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, boat- ing and camping. Scenic Byways - Highway routes which have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural or historic value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor may contain outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic fea- tures or other natural elements. Recreational River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Scenic River Areas -Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but ac- cessible in places by roads. Residual Ground Cover - That portion of the total vegetative ground cover that remains after the livestock grazing season. Restricted Forestland (TPCC) - Problem sites in the timber base on which special techniques are required to protect the timber growing potential or to ensure adequate regeneration within a specified time (usually 5 years). SCORP: ation Plans Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recre- Right-of-Way - A permit or an easement which authorizes the useof publiclandsforcertainspecified purposes,commonlyfor pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, etc.; also, the lands covered by such an easement or permit. scs: Soil Conservation Service SDP: Site Development Plan Seasonal (Season Long) Grazing - Grazing use throughout a specific season. Sediment - Soil, rock particles and organic or other debris carried from one place to another by wind, water or gravity. Right-of-way Corridor - A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial Order, through a land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodateonetypeof right-of-wayoroneormore rights-of- way which are similar, identical or compatible. Selective Management Categories -Three categories broadly defining rangeland characteristics, potential, opportunities and needs. The three categories are Maintain, Improve and Custo- dial. The criteria for each category are: Riparian Habitat - Riparian habitat is defined as a specialized form of wetland restricted to areas along, adjacent to, or contiguous withperenniallyand intermittentlyflowing riversand streams, also, periodically, flooded lake and reservoir shore areas, as well as lakes with stable water levels with character- istic vegetation. RMIS: tem Recreation Management Information Sys- Maintain Category Criteria Present range condition is satisfactory. Allotments have moderate or high resource production potential, and are producing near their potential (or trend is moving in that direction). No serious resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investments. Present management appears satisfactory. Other criteria appropriate to EIS area. RMP: Resource Management Plan RNA: Research Natural Area Rock Art Sites - Petroglyphs or pictographs. Rockshelter - Naturally formed recess in a rock formation which provided shelter to prehistoric occupants. ROD: Record of Decision ROS: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Runoff -The water that flows on the land surface from an area in response to rainfall or snowmelt. As used in this RMPIEIS, runoff from an area becomes streamflow when it reaches a channel. RV: Recreational Vehicle Salable Minerals - High volume, low value mineral resources including common varieties of rock, clay, decorative stone, sand and gravel. Salinity - A measure of the mineral substances dissolved in water. Improve Category Criteria - Present range condition is unsatisfactory. - Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential and are producing at low to moderate levels. - Serious resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. - Opportunities exist for positive economic return from public investments. - Present management appears unsatisfactory. - Other criteria appropriate to EIS area. Custodial Category Criteria - Present range condition is not a factor. - Allotments have low resource production potential, and are producing near their potential. - Limited resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. - Opportunities for positive economic return on public investment do not exist or are constrained by technological or economic factors. - Present management appears satisfactory or is the only logical practice under existing resource conditions. - Other criteria appropriate to EIS area. 6-10 Seral Community - A successional plant community that differs in species composition from the climax or potential natural community. Seral Stage - See Ecological Status. SHPO: State Historical Preservation Officer Shrub -A low, woody plant, usually with several stems, that may provide food and/or cover for animals. Silviculture - The science and art of producing and tending a forest. Slash - The branches, bark, tops, cull logs and broken or uprooted trees left on the ground after logging has been completed. Socio-Cultural Use - May be applied to any area or cultural resource that is perceived by a specified social and/or cultural group (e.g., Native Americans) as having attributes which contribute to maintaining the heritage or existence of that group, and signifies that the cultural resource or area is to be managed in a way that takes those attributes into account. so: StateOffice (Oregon and Washington, BLM) Special Recreation Management Area -Areas which require explicit recreation management to achieve the Bureau’s recre- ation objectives and provide specific recreation opportunities. Special management areas are identified in the RMP, which also defines the management objectives for the area. Major Bureau recreation investments are concentrated in these ar- eas. Special Status Species - Includes the following; (1) Threatened/Endangered species are those officially listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior underthe provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Afinal rule for the listing has been published in the Federal Register. (2) Proposed species are species that have been officially proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the Secre- tary of the Interior. A proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register. (3) Candidate species are those species designated as candi- dates (categories 1 and 2) for listing as threatened or endan- gered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS). A list has been published in the Federal Register. (4) State listed species are those proposed for listing or listed by a State in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation. (5) Bureau sensitive species are those designated by a State Director, usually in cooperation with the State agency respon- sible for managing the species, as sensitive. They are those species that are: (1) under status review by the FWSlNMFS; or (2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that Federal listing may become necessary; or (3) with typically small and widely dispersed populations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refu- gia or olher specialized or unique habitats. (6) Assessment species are species which are not presently eligible for official Federal or State status but are of concern in Oregon and may need protection or mitigation in BLM actions. (As defined in IM-OR-91-57, Oregon-Washington Special Sta- tus Species Policy.) SRHA: Stock Raising Homestead Act SRMA: Special Recreation Management Area ST: Seed Tree Stocking Rate-The amount of animal unitson aspecified area at a specific time, usually expressed in acres/AUM. Streambank (and Channel) Erosion - This is the removal, transport, deposition, recutting and bedload movement of material by concentrated flows. Suspended Nonuse - Temporary withholding of a grazing preference from active use. Sustainable Annual Harvest - The yield that a forest can produce continuously from a given level of management. swcc: Soil and Water Conservation Commission Thermal Cover - Vegetation or topography that prevents radiational heat loss, reduces wind chill during cold weather, and intercepts solar radiation during warm weather. Threatened Species - A plant or animal species that the Secretary of the Interior has determined to be likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or most of its range. Thriving Natural Ecological Balance - The condition of the public range that exists when management objectives have been achieved that will: (1) sustain healthy populations of wild horses and burros, wildlife, and livestockon publicland, and (2) protect the desired plant community from deterioration. Timber Base - (TPCC) Commercial forestland judged to be environmentally and economically suitable and available for the continuous production of timber; the land from which the allowable cut is calculated and harvested. Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) -The process of partitioning forestland into major classes indicating relative suitability to produce timber on a sustained yield basis. Total Dissolved Solids -The dry weight of dissolved material, organic and inorganic, contained in water. Total Preference - The total number of animal unit months of livestock grazing on public lands, apportioned and attached to basepropertyownedorcontrolled byapermitteeorlessee.The active preference and suspended preference are combined to make up the total grazing preference. TPCC: Timber Production Capability Classification Tradition - Longstanding, socially conveyed, customary pat- terns of thought, cultural expression and behavior, such as religious beliefs and practices, social customs and land or resource uses (e.g. root gathering). Traditions are shared generallywithin asocial and/orculturalgroup and span genera- tions. Turbidity - An interference to the passage of light through water due to insoluble particles of soil, organics, micro-organ- isms and other materials. Unallotted Lands - Public lands open to grazing which cur- rently have no livestock grazing authorized. 6-11 Unsatisfactory Big Game Habitat Condition - Big game habitat which has a deficiency in one or more of the major habitat colnponents. USC: United States Code USDA-FS: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service USDI: U.S. Department of Interior USFS: U.S. Forest Service USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utilization -The proportion of the current year’sforage produc- tion that is consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. This may refer either to a single species or to a whole vegetative complex. Utilization is expressed as a percent by weight, height, or numbers within reach of the grazing animals. Value-at-Risk Classes - Six value classes (l-6, low-to-high) derived through interdisciplinary team evaluation of resource values for an area. Point values given an area by individual disciplines are combined to determine general values-at-risk classification for an area. Vandalism - Willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property. As used here, this includes damages done for personal gain, particularly unauthorized destructive activities that damage archaeological sites. Vegetation Manipulation -Alteration of present vegetation by using fire, plowing or other means to manipulate natural suc- cessional trends. Visitor Day - Twelve visitor-hours, which may be aggregated continuously, intermittently or simultaneously by one or more persons. Visitor-days may occur either as recreation visitor- days or as nonrecreation visitor-days. Visual Resource(s) -The land, water, vegetation, animals and other features that are visible on all public lands. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) - The degree of alteration that is acceptable within the characteristic land- scape. It is based upon the physical and sociological character- istics of any given homogenous area. VRMClass I areas (preservation) provide for natural ecological changesonly. This class includes primitive areas, some natural areas,somewildandscenicriversandothersimilarsiteswhere landscape modification activities should be restricted. VRM Class II (retention of the landscape character) includes areas where changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color or texture) caused by management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. VRM Class Ill (partial retention of the landscape character) includesareaswherechangesin thebasicelements(form, line, color or texture) caused by management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape. However, the changes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the existing character. VRM Class IV (modification of the landscape character) in- cludes areas where changes may subordinate the original composition and character; however, they should reflect what could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic land- scape. Water Quality -The chemical, physical and biological charac- teristicsof waterwith respectto itssuitabilityforaparticular use. Watershed - All lands which are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lie upslope from a specified point on a stream. Watershed Cover - The material (vegetation, litter, rock) coveringthesoil and providing protectionfrom, orresistanceto, the impact of raindrops and the energy of overland flow, and expressed in percent of the area covered. Wetlands - Permanently wet or intermittently flooded areas where the water table (fresh, saline or brackish) is at, near or above the soil surface for extended intervals, where hydric wet soil conditions are normally exhibited and where water depths generally do not exceed two meters. Wild River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. Wilderness Study Area (WSA) - A roadless area that has been inventoried and found to be wilderness in character, having few human developments and providing opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, as described in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Willing Buyer - Willing Seller - Withdrawal - Withholding of an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location or entry under some or all of the general land laws, forthe purpose of limiting those laws in order to maintain other public values in the areaor reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. Woodland - A forest community occupied primarily by non- commercial species; e.g., juniper, mountain mahogany or aspen groves. WMU: Wildlife Management Unit WSA: Wilderness Study Area WSR: Wild and Scenic River 6-12 References Cited Allen, J.N. 1980. The Ecology and Behavior of the Long-Billed Curlew in Southeastern Washington Wildl. Monographs No. 73. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. Binns, N. Allen. 1982. Habitat Quality Index Procedures Manual. p. 209. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Blockstein, D.E. 1988. Toward a Federal Plan for Biological Diversity. Issues in Science and Technology S(4). pp. 63- 67. Boula, K.M. and P.L. Sharp. 1985. Distribution and Abundance of Small Mammals on Native and Converted Rangelands in Southeastern Oregon. Oregon Dep. of Fish and Wildlife. Final Job Rept. 40 pp. Bowers, Wayne, Bill Hosford, Art Oakley, and Carl Bond. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands -The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon, Native Trout. USDA Forest Ser- vice - USDI Bur. Land Mang. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-84,16 P. Bright, Ruth McGilvra. n.d., Harney Area Cultural Resources Class I Inventory: A Cultural Resources Overview. Bureau of Land Management, Burns District, Oregon. Brown, R.W., and R.S. Johnston. 1976. Revegetation of an Alpine Mine Disturbance: Beartooth Plateau, Montana. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-2206,2 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah. Bryant, Mason D. 1980. Evolution of Large Organic Debris after Timber Harvest: Maybeso Creek, 1949-1978. U.S. Depart- ment of Agricultural Forest Service, General Technical Report PNU-101. Bull, W.B. 1979. Threshold of critical power in streams. Geol. Sot. of Am. Bull. pt.1, 90:453-464. Cole, Gene F. and Walder F. Megahan. 1980. South Fork Salmon River - Future Management. In: Symposium on Watershed Management, Vol. I. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng., New York. Cooperrider, A. 1990. Conservation of Biological Diversity on Western Rangelands. Paper from 55th North American y$$ife and Natural Resources Conference. March 16-21, Couture, Marilyn D. 1988. Personal Communication Couture, Marilyn D. 1978. Recent and Contemporary Foraging Practices of the Harney Valley Paiute. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Portland State University. Couture, Marilyn D., Lucile Housley, and Mary F. Ricks. 1986. Foraging Behaviorof acontemporary Northern Great Basin Population. Journalof Californiaand Great BasinAnthropol- ogy, Volume 8, Number 2. Crawford, J.A. Wildlife Professor, Dep. of Fisheries and Wild- life, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Personal Communications Crawford, J.A. and R.S. Lutz. 1985. Sage Grouse Population Trends in Oregon, 1941-l 983. Murrelet 66:69-74. Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Percep- tions in Management. Rangelands 9:260-265. Enk, M.D. and B.J. Mathis. 1977. Distributionof Cadmium, and Lead in a Stream Ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 52 (2-7): pp. 153-l 88. E.O. 11644.1971. Richard Nixon. Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands. E.O. 11989.1977. Jimmy Carter. Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands. Extension Economic Information Office, Commodity DataSheet, Cattle. August 1986 and August 1990. Oregon State Univer- sity. Gifford, G.F., and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic Impact of Grazing on Infiltration: A Critical Review. Water Resource. Res. 14(2): 305-l 3. Gross, E.; Steinblums, I.; Ralston, C.; Jubas, H. 1989. Emer- gency Watershed Treatments on Burned Lands in South- west Oregon USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Heede, B.H. 1977. Case Study of a Watershed Rehabilitation Project: Alkali Creek Colorado. USDA Forest Service Re- search Paper RM-189. Heede, Burchard H. 1976. Gully Development and Control:The Status of our Knowledge. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM- 169,42 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Helliwell, Richard, 1988. Ecology and Management of Piaxi (Lewisia rediviva), Xaus (Lomatium cous), and Luks (Lomatiumcanbyi). Unpublished report. ConfederatedTribes of Warm Springs, Warm Springs, Oregon. Hewlett, John; Cross and Carr. Enterprise Budget Cow-Calf, Lakeview Area. June 1987. Oregon State University Exten- sion Service. Jackson W.L., Janes E.B., and B.P. Van Haveren. 1985. Managing headwater areas for control of sediment and salt production from western rangelands. In: Perspectives on nonpoint source pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/5-85-001. Krendel, P.A., Ed. 1973. Heavy Metals in the Environment, In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Aquatic Environment, Nashville, Tennessee, 272 p., Perganon Press, New York. Lusby, G.C. 1979. Effects of grazing on runoff and sediment yield from desert rangeland at Badger Wash in Wester Colorado, 1953-73. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Supply Pap. 1532-l. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 1977. Wildlife Output Crite- ria. Unpublished Report, 45 pp. McKee, J.S., and H.W. Wolf. 1971. Water Quality Criteria. 2nd Ed. Publ. 3-A, 548 p., Water Res. Control Board, State of California. 6-13 McKim, J.M., and D.A. Benoit. 1976. Effects of Long Term Exposures to Copper on Survival, Growth, and Reproduc- tion of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). J. Fish. Res. Board Cen. 28(5): pp. 655-662. Meehan, W.R. and W.S. Platts. 1978. Livestock Grazing and the Aquatic Environment. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 33 (6): pp 274-278. Megahan, Wafer F., W.S. Platts, and B. Kuleszay. 1980. Riverbed In-proves Over Time: South Fork Salmon. In: Symposium on Watershed Management, Vol. I. Am. Sot. Civ. Eng., New York. Nature Conservancy. 1988. Recommendations for Proposed Research Natural Areas (letter). Oregon Department of Forestry. 1987. Oregon Timber Harvest Report 1980-l 987. Salem, OR. Oregon Employment Division. 1989. Oregon Resident Labor Force. Salen, OR. Oregon State University. 1989. The Pacific Northwest Outdoor Recreation Consumption Projection Study. Corvallis, Or- egon. Parsons, J.O. 1 360. The Effects of Acid Strip-Mine Effluents on the Ecology of a Stream. Arch. Hydrobiole GS: pp 25-50. Phillips, Willard P. 1980. Spanish Mustangs - Do They Exist. Unpublishec Paper. BLM, Burns District, Hines, Oregon. Platts, W.S., S.D. Martin, and E.R.J. Primbs. 1979. Water Quality in an Idaho Stream Degraded by Acid Mine Wastes. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech., Rep. INT-67, 19 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah. Platts, W.S. 1972. The Effects of Heavy Metalson Anadromous Runs of Salnon and Steelhead in the Panther Creek Drain- age, Idaho. h: West. Proc. 52d Annual Conf. West. Assoc. State Gameand Fish Comm., pp. 582-600. Public Law 90-542 as amended. 1968. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Pyle, W. W ildlifeBiologist, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Personal Com- munication. Rabe, F.W., and C.W. Sappington. 1970. The Acute Toxicity of Zinc to Cutthroat Salmo clarki. In: Biological Productivity of the Coeur d’Alene River as Related to Water Quality, pp. l- 16. Complelion Rep. Water Resources Res. Inst., Univ. Idaho, Moscow. Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton and L.C. Hulbert. 1970. Relationship Between Visual Obstruction Measurements and Weight of Grassland Vegetation. Journal of Range Managemert 23(4); 295-297. Shotwell, J. Arnold. 1970. Pliocene Mammals of Southeast Oregon and Adjacent Idaho. University of Oregon Museum of Natural Hstory, Bulletin 17. Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: A review of our knowledge. p. 1001-l 102. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Nat. Res. Counsel/Nat. Acad. Sci. Westview Press, Boulder, co. Sprague, J.B. 1964. Avoidance of Copper-Zinc Solutions by Young Salmon in the Laboratory. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 36(8): pp. 990-l 104. State of Oregon. 1983. Oregon Outdoor Recreation - Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). State of Oregon. 1984. Park Visitor Survey - Summary Report, Parks and Rec. Division, Salem, Oregon. State of Oregon. 1987. Statewide boating Facilities Plan 1987- 1993. State Marine Board, Salem, Oregon. State of Oregon. 1987. Recreational Values on Oregon Rivers, Parks and Rec. Division, Salem, Oregon. Toepel, Kathryn A., William F. Willingham, and Rick Minor. 1979. Cultural Resource Overview of BLM Lands in North- Central Oregon, Report of the Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, to the Prineville and Burns Districts, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon. United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity. Report OTA-F-330. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. USDA-FS. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. USDA. Portland, Oregon. USDA-FS. MICRO-IMPLAN 1982. Fort Collins, CO. USDI-BLM. 1987. Draft Brothers/LaPine Resource Manage- ment Plan, Environmental Impact Statement. BLM. Prinev- ille District. Prineville, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1978. Drewsey Management Framework Plan (MFP), Burns District, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1980. Diamond Craters ONA and Protertime With- drawal (OR10676)/Environmental Assessment, Burns Dis- trict, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1980. ACEC Plan Element, Burns District, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1980. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Policy and Procedures Guidelines. USDI-BLM. 1981. Paleontological Sites On or Near Bureau of Land Management Administered Lands in Oregon: A Pre- liminary Catalogue. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1982. FederalRegister, Vol. 47, No. 173, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Area. USDI-BLM. 1985. Diamond Craters Recreation Management Plan, Burns District. USDI-BLM. 1985. Draft Oregon Wilderness Impact Statement, Portland, Oregon. 6-14 USDI-BLM. 1986. Proposed Revisions to Guidance for Identi- fication, Evaluation and Designation of ACECs and Changes to BLM Manual Section 1617. USDI-BLM. 1987. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. Update Document H- 8550-l. USDI-BLM. 1987. Riparian Area Management: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography of Riparian Area Management. Prepared by the Denver Service Center; Denver, Colorado. USDI-BLM. 1987. Supplement to Draft Oregon Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement, Portland, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1988. Proposed National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center at Flagstaff Hill, Decision Record and Environmental Assessment. Baker, Oregon. USDI-BLM. 1989. Riparian Area Management: Grazing Man- agement in Riparian Areas. Prepared by the Denver Service Center; Denver, Colorado. USDI-BLM. Recreation Management Information System (RMIS), Burns District, Oregon. USDI-BLM; USDA-FS. 1988. Administration of the Wild Free- Roaming Horse and Burro Act. 7th Reportto Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. USDI-BLM. 1989. Management Guidelines and Standards for National W ildandScenicRivers. Oregon/Washington. (Sum- marization of Joint USDI-DOA guidelines, February 3,197O and August 26, 1982). Vavra, M. and F. Sneva. 1978. Seasonal Diets of Five Ungu- lates Grazing the Cold Desert Biome. Prepared for the First International Rangelands Congress. 17 pp. Wallestad, R. and D.B. Pyrah. 1974. Movements and Nesting Requirements of Sage Grouse Hens in Central Montana. J. Widl. Manage. 38(4); 630-633. Yoakum, J. 1974. Pronghorn Habitat Requirements for Sage- brush-Grasslands. Antelope States Workshop Proc. 6:16- 25. 6-15 ii US GOVERIUMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1991-591-222141.604 REGION NO. 10