(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Medford grazing management program"

BLM LIBRARY 




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 



Medford District Office 



Draft 



September 1983 



Medford 

Grazing Management 

Program 



Environmental 
Impact Statement 





n^vzyo 



United States Department of the Interior 



BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

MEDFORD DISTRICT OFFICE 

3040 Biddle Road 

Med ford. Oregon H7. r >(l4 






ELM Library 
D-553A, Building 60 
Denver Federal Center 
P. 0. Box 25047 
Denver, CO 30225-0047 



Enclosed for your review and comment is the Medford Grazing Management Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The statement analyzes the impacts that would 
result from four alternative livestock grazing management programs. The purpose of the 
statement is to present environmental, technical, economic and social information for use 
in the decisionmaking process. 

Comments concerning the adequacy of this statement will be considered in preparing the 
final environmental impact statement. The comment period will end December 30, 1983. 
An informal meeting to answer questions on the draft EIS will be held at 7:30 p.m., 
November 16, 1983, in Medford, Oregon, at the Bureau of Land Management, Medford 
District Office. Bureau of Land Management personnel will be available to answer 
questions regarding the draft EIS analysis. 

The draft EIS may be incorporated into the final EIS by reference only. The final EIS then 
would consist of public comments and responses and any needed changes of the draft. 
Therefore, please retain this draft EIS for use with the final. 

Comments received after the close of the comment period will be considered in the 
decision process, even though they may be too late to be specifically addressed in the 
final environmental impact statement. Your comments on the draft EIS should be sent to: 



District Manager 
Bureau of Land Management 
3040 Biddle Road 
Medford, Oregon 97504 



Sincerely yours, 
District Manager 



I 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 



Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 



Medford Grazing Management 
Program 



Prepared by 

Bureau of Land Management 
U.S. Department of the Interior 
1983 

State Director, Oregon State Office 



MEDFORD PROPOSED GRAZING MANAGEMENT 



Oregon 



VICINITY MAP 
MEDFORD EIS 





Draft (x) Final ( ) Environmental Impact Statement 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

• Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( ) 

• Abstract: The Bureau of Land Management proposes to implement a livestock grazing management 
program on approximately 397,000 acres (109 allotments) of public land in southern Oregon. Unallotted status 
would continue on approximately 516,000 acres. Proposed alternatives include allocation of forage to livestock, 
wild horses, wildlife and nonconsumptive uses; establishment of grazing systems; and construction of range 
improvements. 

• Alternatives analyzed: 

• Alternative 1, No Action 

• Alternative 2, Emphasize Livestock Grazing 

• Alternative 3, Preferred Alternative 

• Alternative 4, Emphasize Non-Livestock Values 

Range condition would be maintained or improved under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Water quality would be 
improved under Alternatives 3 and 4. Deer, elk and upland game bird populations would be expected to 
increase under Alternatives 3 and 4. Long term increases in personal income and employment would occur 
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. 

The Draft statement would be made available to EPA and the public in late September 1983. The comment 
period will be 90 days, ending December 30, 1983. 



For further information contact: 



Joseph Ross, EIS Team Leader 
Bureau of Land Management 
Medford District Office 
3040 Biddle Road 
Medford, Oregon 97504 
Telephone: (503) 776-4174 



Ill 



Contents 



Page 

Summary vii 

Purpose and Need ix 

Chapter 1 Description of the Alternatives 1 

Alternative 1 - No Action 2 

Alternative 2 - Emphasize Livestock Grazing 5 

Alternative 3 - Preferred Alternative 5 

Alternative 4 - Emphasize Non-Livestock Values 5 

Comparison of Impacts 6 

Components of the Alternatives 6 

Interrelationships 8 

BLM Planning 8 

Federal Agencies 8 

State and Local Governments 8 

Chapter 2 Affected Environment 13 

Introduction 13 

Vegetation 14 

Soils 14 

Water Resources 21 

Wildlife 21 

Habitat Diversity 21 

Threatened, Endangered and Protected Animals 22 

Riparian Areas 22 

Fish 22 

Black-tailed and Mule Deer 25 

Elk 25 

Upland Game Birds 25 



IV 

Page 

Waterfowl 25 

Cavity Dependent Species 26 

Other Mammals, Other Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians 26 

Wild Horses 26 

Recreation 26 

Cultural Resources 26 

Visual Resources 27 

Wildnerness Values 27 

Special Areas 27 

Timber Resources 27 

Socioeconomic Conditions 28 

Population and Income 28 

Economic Activity 28 

Dependence of Livestock Producers on Public Forage 28 

BLM Grazing Privileges and Ranch Property Values 29 

Local Income and Employment Effects 29 

Other Land Use Activities 29 

Social Conditions 29 

Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences 31 

Introduction 31 

Impacts on Vegetation 32 

Plant Species Composition 32 

Forage Allocation and Grazing Systems 33 

Range Improvements 35 

Range and Forage Condition and Trend 36 

Forage Production 37 

Residual Ground Cover 37 

Riparian Vegetation 37 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants 37 

Impacts on Soils 37 

Impacts on Water Resources 37 

Water Quantity 37 

Water Quality 38 

Impacts on Wildlife 38 

Threatened and Endangered Animals 39 

Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas 39 

Fish 40 

Black-tailed and Mule Deer 42 

Elk 43 

Cavity Dependent Species 43 

Other Mammals, Upland Game Birds, Other Birds, Amphibians 

and Reptiles 43 

Habitat Diversity 44 

Conclusion 44 

Impacts to Wild Horses 44 

Impacts on Recreation 45 

Impacts on Cultural Resources 45 

Impacts on Visual Resources 45 

Impacts on Wilderness Values 45 

Impacts on Special Areas 

Impacts on Timber Resources 46 

Impacts on Human Health 47 

Impacts on Socioeconomic Conditions 48 

Effect on Dependence on Public Forage 48 

Effect on Ranch Property Values 48 

Effects on Local Income and Employment 48 



V 



Tables p age 

1 -1 Summary of Components 2 

1-2 Summary Comparison of Long-Term Impacts of the Alternatives 7 

1 -3 Approximate Growth State Dates for Key Species 8 

1-4 Relationship of the Alternatives to LCDC Goals 10 

2-1 Vegetation Zones and Sites 15 

2-2 Condition Summary 18 

2-3 Plant Species Under Review for Nomination for Threatened or Endangered 

Status 18 

2-4 Known Existing Conditions of Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas 21 

2-5 Summary of Stream Fisheries Habitat Condition on Public Land 23 

2-6 Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment, 1982 28 

3-1 Long Term Vegetation Impacts 32 

3-2 Acres of Vegetative Disturbance Due to Proposed Range Improvements 35 

3-3 Riparian Habitat on Class 1 and 2 Streams - Condition and Trend 40 

3-4 Fish Habitat - Expected Long-Term Condition and Trend 41 

3-5 Impacts to Wildlife Populations 42 

3-6 Number of Lessees by Size of Change in Public Forage 48 

3-7 Number of Lessees by Size of Change in Ranch Value 49 

3-8 Effects on Personal Income and Employment Due to Long-Term Changes in 

Public Forage 49 

3-9 Short Term Effects on Local Income and Employment Due to Range 

Improvements 50 

Figures 

Vicinity Map ii 

1-1 Land Status and Allotments 3 

1 -2 Examples of Typical Grazing Systems 11 

2-1 Vegetation Zones 19 

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement 
are Sent 51 

List of Preparers 53 

Appendices 55 

Glossary 80 

References Cited 85 

Index 91 



Summary 



VII 



This environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes 
the impacts of implementing a livestock grazing 
management program in the Medford EIS area of the 
Medford District in southwest Oregon. Four 
alternatives developed through the Bureau planning 
system and the public scoping process are 
described and analyzed. The purpose of the 
proposed alternatives is to present and evaluate 
options for managing, protecting and enhancing 
rangeland resources. 



The four alternatives and a summary of 
environmental consequences are described below. 
Table 1-1, in the text, summarizes the components 
of the alternatives. Table 1-2, in the text, presents a 
summary comparison of long-term impacts of the 
alternatives. 



• Alternative 1, No action - Alternative 1 would be a 
continuation of the present grazing management 
program. Grazing permits would be issued at the 
1982 active preference level of 22,496 AUMs. In 
addition, forage would be allocated in the short term 
to wildlife (53,182 AUMs), wild horses (250 AUMs), 
and nonconsumptive uses (56,615 AUMs). No 
additional range improvements would be developed. 

• Alternative 2, Emphasize Livestock Grazing - 

Forage would be allocated in the short term to 



livestock (41,140 AUMs), wildlife (56,248 AUMs), 
wild horses (250 AUMs), and nonconsumptive uses 
(56,615 AUMs). Livestock grazing would be allowed 
throughout the 397,000-acres presently allotted, 
except where currently excluded (100 acres). 
Proposed range improvements include seedings 
(41,845 acres), brush control and hardwood removal 
(24,259 acres), fences (193 miles) and water 
developments (126 developments). 



As a result of the proposed range improvements, 
forage production is expected to increase by 23,005 
AUMs. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that 
the long-term increase in forage production would 
be allocated to livestock (19,173 AUMs) and wildlife 
(3,832 AUMs). 



• Alternative 3, Preferred Alternative - Grazing 
systems under Alternative 3 are designed to 
maintain or improve range and forage conditions to 
benefit wildlife, wild horses and livestock. Forage 
would be allocated in the short term to livestock 
(30,272 AUMs), wildlife (59,214 AUMs) and wild 
horses (250 AUMs). Nonconsumptive uses would 
have 56,615 AUMs allocated. Livestock would be 
excluded from the 100 acres of existing exclusion. 
Proposed range improvements include seedings 
(22,030 acres), brush control and hardwood removal 
(11,468 acres), fences (112.5 miles) and water 
developments (81 developments). 



VIII 



As a result of the proposed range improvements, 
forage production is expected to increase by 14,964 
AUMs. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that 
the increase would be allocated to livestock (8,239 
AUMs) and wildlife (6,725 AUMs). 



• Alternative 4, Emphasize Non-Livestock Grazing 
Values - Alternative 4 would emphasize non- 
livestock values where conflicts with livestock 
grazing have been identified. Forage would be 
allocated in the short term to livestock (15,646 
AUMs), wildlife (71,635 AUMS), wild horses (250 
AUMs), and nonconsumptive uses (57,802 AUMs). 
This alternative would exclude livestock from 73,227 
acres in addition to the 100 acres of existing 
exclusion. Proposed range improvements include 
106.4 miles of fences, 116 water developments, 
20,474 acres of seeding, and 13,018 acres of brush 
control and hardwood removal, all to benefit non- 
livestock values. 



As a result of the proposed range improvements and 
exclusion of livestock from 73,227 acres, forage 
production for wildlife and nonconsumptive uses is 
expected to increase by 18,368 AUMs. The long term 
allocation to livestock is expected to decrease by 
6,789 AUMs. 



Increases in riparian vegetation would help stabilize 
streambanks and decrease erosion under 
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to varying degrees on the 19 
percent of streambank miles identified as having 
significant livestock damage. This erosion decrease 
would be most significant under Alternative 4. 

Water 

No significant change in water yield would occur 
under any of the alternatives. Water quality 
(sediment yield, water temperatures, fecal coliform 
levels) would improve under Alternative 4, and to a 
lesser extent under Alternative 3. 



Wildlife 

• The number of small mammals, birds and fish 
dependent on riparian areas would increase as key 
riparian plant species and population increase. 
Conversely, a decrease in populations would be 
expected as key plant species decrease. Riparian- 
dependent species would increase most under 
Alternative 4, and under Alternatives 2 and 3 (to a 
lesser extent) primarily due to proposed exclusions. 
These species would decrease under Alternative 1. 
No appreciable change in these riparian-dependent 
populations would occur over the long term under 
Alternative 2. 



Environmental Consequences 
Vegetation 

Range and forage conditions would improve under 
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 but would continue to decline 
under Alternative 1. Total residual ground cover 
would show a slight decrease under Alternative 1, 
but would remain the same under Alternatives 2, 3 
and 4. The proportion of residual ground cover 
composed of perennial vegetation would increase 
under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Alternative 4, and to a 
lesser extent, Alternatives 2 and 3, would result in 
increases in key woody species on streamside 
riparian areas with medium and high improvement 
potential. Alternative 1, and to a lesser extent, 
Alternative 2, would result in decreases in key 
woody species in some riparian areas where funding 
contraints precluded development of improvements 
and systems. The standard procedures and design 
features for range improvements would prevent 
impacts to threatened, endangered and sensitive 
plants. Impacts from other aspects of the grazing 
management program on these species are 
unknown. 



• Additional livestock exclusions under Alternatives 
3 and 4 would increase upland game bird 
production. 



• Deer and elk populations would slightly decline 
impacted under Alternatives 1 and 2 and increase 
under Alternatives 3 and 4. 



• Populations of cavity dependent species would be 
reduced or eliminated on 30 percent (Alternative 2); 
17 percent (Alternative 3); and 13 percent 
(Alternative 4) of existing oak-woodlands. 

• Under Alternative 1 a decrease in residual ground 
cover in the upland zones would decrease available 
cover resulting in a lower population of small 
animals. Conversely, Alternative 4 would allow 
increased accumulations of herbaceous litter with 
resultant increases of small birds, mammals and 
reptiles. 



Soils 

The development of range improvements under 
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would temporarily disturb the 
soil surface. Tractor scarification and burning would 
temporarily increase soil erosion. These areas would 
become revegetated within 1 to 2 years following 
scarification and burning. 



IX 



Wild Horses 

Temporary disturbances to wild horses would occur 
during the period of construction of range 
improvements under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Wild 
horses would be allocated sufficient forage to 
provide for a maximum total population of 50 head 
under all Alternatives. 



Recreation 

Projected visitor use to 1990 would not be 
significantly impacted under any alternative. 
Localized visitor use reductions would be offset by 
localized increases in visitor use. Under all 
alternatives, area-wide 1990 visitor use for public 
lands in the EIS area is projected to increase an 
estimated 4 percent by 1990. Over the long term, 
impacts to visitor use would be slightly beneficial 
under Alternatives 3 and 4 and slightly adverse 
under Alternatives 1 and 2. 



Cultural Resources 

Appropriate measures would be taken to 
identify and protect cultural sites prior to ground- 
disturbing activities. 



Visual Resources 

Certain portions of the EIS area may 
experience slight degradation of visual quality due to 
contrast created by range improvements. Project 
design features, as well as visual resource 
management program procedures and constraints, 
would mitigate land form and vegetative contrast 
under all alternatives. 

Special Areas 

Under Alternative 4, habitat for sensitive 
plant species would be enhanced within the Eight 
Dollar Mountain and Table Rocks potential ACECs. 
Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 there would be no 
impact in these areas. Grazing under all alternatives 
would not impact any other identified special area. 

Timber Resources 

Under all alternatives, with cooperative 
livestock operators; proper season of use; proper 
stocking levels and distribution of animals; and 
proper allocation of forage between user groups, 
seeding and livestock grazing on moderate sites 
would not conflict with forestry objectives. 



Human Health 

The possibility of human health being 
impacted by the use of herbicides is related to the 
toxicity of the herbicide, the likelihood of exposure, 
and resulting dosage received. Based on current 
knowledge and the low risk of exposure on BLM- 
treated acres, an unreasonable risk to human health 
from continued, careful use of herbicides is unlikely. 

Socioeconomics 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, personal 
income and employment in Jackson and Klamath 
Counties would be increased over the long term. A 
long-term reduction in income and employment 
would be experienced under Alternative 4. 
Temporary increases in income and employment 
due to range improvements would be experienced 
under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 



Under Alternative 4, two lessees would experience a 
long-term loss of forage amounting to more than 10 
percent of their annual forage requirements. Under 
Alternatives 1 and 4 several lessees might 
experience a reduction in ranch value due to 
reduced grazing privileges. 



Purpose and Need 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes 
the impacts of implementing a livestock grazing 
management program on public lands administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the 
Medford District in southwestern Oregon. This area 
is referred to as the Medford EIS area. 



The BLM is responsible for managing livestock 
grazing on public lands in a manner that would 
maintain or improve public land resources, including 
timber, soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. 
The BLM's principal authority and direction to 
manage lands are found in the O&C Act of 1937, 
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and Public 
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. 



The purpose of the proposed alternatives is to 
present and evaluate options for managing, 
protecting and enhancing rangeland resources. Four 
alternative livestock grazing programs are analyzed: 
No Action, Emphasize Livestock Grazing, the 
Preferred Alternative, and Emphasize Non-Livestock 
Values. 



The alternatives and issues addressed in this EIS 
were defined through the BLM's planning system 



and a public scoping meeting in Medford, Oregon. 
See Appendix A for a summary and results of EIS 
scoping. 

The District Manager will review the public 
comments on both draft and final EISs and prepare 
a draft Record of Decision within five months after 
release of the final EIS. The decision may be to 
select one of the EIS alternatives intact, or to blend 
features from several alternatives that fall within the 
range of actions analyzed in the EIS. Significant 
impacts, alternatives, environmental preferences, 
economic, and technical considerations will be 
addressed in the Record of Decision. The Oregon 
State Director will provide quality control, 
supervisory review and approval of the final EIS and 
associated plan. 



Chapter 1 Description of the 
Alternatives 




The proposed alternatives prescribe grazing 
management for 109 allotments on approximately 
397,000 acres of public land in the Medford EIS area. 
Approximately 7,492 acres of State land and 285,536 
acres of private land are located within the 
allotments (Figure 1-1). 



Unallotted status (see Glossary) would continue on 
approximately 516,000 acres of public lands under 
all alternatives. While some of these areas have been 
grazed in the past, there is currently no active 
interest in grazing them as most are unsuitable for 
grazing. No range improvements, forage allocations 
or grazing systems are planned on unallotted lands. 
Because no change from the existing situation is 
expected on the unallotted areas, they are not 
discussed further. 



The following alternatives are analyzed in this 
document: 



1 



• Alternative 1 No Action 

• Alternative 2 Emphasize Livestock Grazing 

• Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative 

• Alternative 4 Emphasize Non-Livestock Values 



The alternatives differ in three components: (1) the 
allocation of livestock forage (2) the types of grazing 
systems to be applied and (3) the kind and amount 
of range improvements to be constructed. 
Appendices B, C and D contain allotment-specific 
proposed allocations, grazing systems and range 
improvements respectively. Table 1-1 summarizes 
the components of the alternatives. 

In forested areas, an objective of all alternatives is 
coordination of grazing management with timber 
management objectives. Grazing in forest stands 
would be planned, controlled and coordinated so 
that use of the forage resource would not impair the 
productivity of the land. 



Alternative 1 - No Action 

Under Alternative 1 a continuation of 
present grazing management is proposed. No 
change from present management actions would 
occur. Grazing leases would continue to be issued at 
1982 active preference levels, which are below 
grazing capacity on 98 allotments (350,506 acres) 
and above grazing capacity on 11 allotments (46,549 
acres). As shown in Table 1-1, the forage allocation 
would continue at the 1982 level of 22,496 AUMs for 
livestock, 250 AUMs for wild horses, 53,182 AUMs 
for wildlife, and 56,615 AUMs for nonconsumptive 
uses (see Glossary). Allocations by allotment are 
listed in Appendix B, Table B-1. It is assumed that 
no additional range improvement projects or 
intensive grazing management would be 















Table 1-1 Summary of Components 
















Alt.1 


Alt.2 


Alt. 3 


Alt. 4 






1982 




Emphasize 


Preferred 


Emphasize 






Level 


No Action 


Livestock 


Alternative 


Non-livestock 


Existing Forage Production 




132,543 


132,543 


132,543 


132,543 


132,543 


(AUMs) 1 














Short Term Allocation (AUMs) 2 














Wildlife 




53,182 


53,182 


56,248 


59,214 


71,635 


Wild Horses 




250 


250 


250 


250 


250 


Nonconsumptive 




56,615 


56,615 


56,615 


56,615 


56,615 


Livestock 




22,496 


22,496 


41,140 


30,272 


15,646 


Long Term Allocation (AUMs) 3 














Wildlife 






52,867 


57,014 


59,907 


71,550 


Wild Horses 






250 


250 


250 


250 


Nonconsumptive 






56,615 


56,615 


56,615 


57,802 


Livestock 






22,266 


41,669 


30,735 


15,707 


Long Term Forage Production 






131,998 


155,548 


147,507 


145,309 


(AUMs) 














Grazing Systems (acres) 4 














Winter 






387 


387 


387 


95 


Spring 






91,953 


9,933 


15,957 


34,516 


Summer 






64,237 


49,577 


49,577 


46,624 


Spring/Summer 






125,538 


82,434 


82,434 


77,368 


Deferred Rotation 






54,600 


156,356 


150,769 


68,738 


Rest Rotation 






58,964 


96,992 


96,555 


95,211 


Non-use 5 






1,276 


1,276 


1,276 


1,276 


Exclusion 






100 


100 


100 


73,227 


TOTAL ACRES 






397,055 


397,055 


397,055 


397,055 


Additional Range Improvements 














Fences (miles) 




196 





193 


112.5 


106.4 


Springs (each) 




33 





68 


44 


65 


Ponds (each) 




86 





58 


37 


51 


Corrals (each) 




12 





18 


12 


6 


Hardwood removal/seed (acres) 










12,577 


6,999 


5,124 


Brush control/seed (acres) 










11,682 


4,469 


7,894 


Meadow seeding (acres) 










3,615 


2,474 


1,987 


Seeding cut-over forested 














areas (acres) 










6,199 


4,789 


3,053 


Other seeding (acres) 










7,772 


3,299 


2,416 


Total Construction Costs ($000) 








1,803 


1,004 


1,289 


' Existing forage production is the total 


amount of f 


orage which could be 


consumed by livestock on a sustainable basis. 




2 Short term allocation indicates AUMs 


which are expected to be credited due to implementat 


ion. 






3 Long term forage production shows AUMs expected to be produced by 


end of 15 years following implementation. Long term allocation is an 


assumption tor analytical purposes as to how those 


AUMs would be allocated. 








4 Existing grazing systems are the same as Alternati 


ve 1, No Action. 










5 Includes four allotments (#10, 11. 209, 


221) which 


are currently inactive 











U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
MEDFORD DISTRICT 

MEDFORD GRAZING MANAGEMENT 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1983 

LEGEND 
J Bureau of Land Management 

J U. S. Forest Service 

State 

] Private 

J EIS Boundary 

J Allotment Boundary 




T 36 S 



T 37S 




001 LOST CREEK 

002 FLAT CREEK 

003 TRAIL CREEK 

004 LONG BRANCH 

005 ANTIOCH ROAD 

006 ROUND TOP EVANS 

007 STROVE RANCH 

008 NEIL-TAR8ELL 

009 N SAMS VALLEY 

010 WEST PERRY ROAD 

011 EAST PERRY ROAD 

012 UPPER TABLE ROCK 

013 CLEAR CREEK 

014 OBENCHAIN 

015 LICK CREEK 

016 BROWNSBORO PARK 

017 KANUTCHEN FIELD 

018 NICHOLS GAP 



SUGAR LOAF 
EAGLE PT CANAL 
SECTION 9 
SECTION 7 
BULL RUN 
BIG BUTTE 
SHADY BRANCH 
TOUVELLE 
REESE CREEK 
DERBY RD SAWMILL 
DERBY STATION 
SUMMIT PRAIRIE 
PATCO RANCH 
LICK CREEK 80 
WEST DERBY 
VESTAL BUTTE 
CROWFOOT 
CROWFOOT CREEK 



040 COBLEIGH RD 80 

041 MOSER MOUNTAIN 

043 DEVON SOUTH 

044 SALT CREEK 2 

045 SALT CREEK 3 

046 SALT CREEK 1 

101 CHASE MOUNTAIN 

102 EDGE CREEK 

103 BUCK MOUNTAIN 

104 BUCK LAKE 

105 JOHNSON PRAIRIE 

106 DEADWOOD 

107 DIXIE 

108 JENNY CREEK 

109 AGATE 

110 SODA MOUNTAIN 

111 EMIGRANT CREEK 

112 COVE CREEK 



113 POOLE HILL 

114 BUCK POINT 

115 KEANE CREEK 

116 HOWARD PRAIRIE 

117 CONDE CREEK 
116 SISKIYOU 

119 GRIZZLY 

120 BALDY 

121 CASCADE RANCH 

122 LAKE CR SUMMER 

123 LOST CREEK 

124 DEER CREEK 

125 SOUTH HEPPSIE 

126 HEPPSIE MTN 

127 CARTWRIGHT 
129 HUNGERFLAT 

132 ANTELOPE ROAD 

133 BROWNSBORO 



DRY LAKE 

CHICKEN HILLS 

LONG LAKE 

COVE RANCH 

BYBEE PEAK 

BOX D RANCH 

GRUBB SPRINGS 

NORTH COVE CREEK 

TUNNEL RIDGE 

SILLY & SUGARLOAF MTN 

TIMBER MTN. 

LOWER BIG APPLEGATE 

STERLING CREEK 

SPENCER GULCH 



209 QUARTZ GULCH 

210 STIEHL 

211 FIELDER CREEK 
213 CHAPMAN CREEK 

216 DEL RIO 
207 ECKER 

218 STAGE ROAD 

217 FOOTS CREEK 

221 ROCK GULCH 

222 LOMAS ROAD 

223 STAR 

302 PICKETT MTN 

303 JUMP OFF JOE 

308 DEER CREEK 

309 REAVES CREEK 

310 Q BAR X 

312 EASTERLY LAKE 

315 GLADE CREEK 

316 CHERRY GULCH 



FIGURE 1-1 
LAND STATUS AND ALLOTMENTS 



implemented. Existing livestock exclusions on 100 
acres would be maintained. Table 1-1 summarizes 
acres under each existing grazing system. Grazing 
systems by allotment are listed in Appendix C, Table 
C-1. Wild horses would be managed under the 
existing Wild Horse Herd Management Plan. 



Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative 

The objective of Alternative 3 is to 
implement intensive grazing management to 
improve and maintain range and forage conditions 
to benefit wildlife, wild horses, nonconsumptive 
uses, and livestock. 



Over the long term, forage production would be 
expected to decline under Alternative 1. As a result, 
the long term allocation to livestock and wildlife 
would be expected to be 3 percent lower and 2 
percent lower, respectively, than at present. 



Alternative 2 - Emphasize Livestock 
Grazing 

The objective of Alternative 2 is to 

allocate a high level of forage to livestock while 

maintaining or improving range and forage 

conditions. 



Forage would be allocated in the short term (during 
the 10-year implementation period) to livestock 
(41,140 AUMs), wildlife (56,248 AUMs), wild horses 
(250 AUMs), and nonconsumptive uses (56,615 
AUMs). The short term livestock allocation under 
this alternative represents an 80 percent increase 
over 1982 active use levels. The allocations under 
this alternative would provide sufficient forage for 
big game populations (deer and elk), and would 
allow a total maxiumum wild horse population of 
approximately 50 horses. 



Grazing systems would be designed to maximize 
livestock benefits (see Table 1-1). Livestock grazing 
would be allowed throughout 109 allotments within 
the EIS area, except where currently excluded (100 
acres) and within new exclusions (approximately 25 
acres) surrounding 4.75 miles of streams that have 
potential for significant improvement. 

Proposed range improvements include seedings, 
hardwood removal, brush control, fences, corrals, 
and water developments and are summarized in 
Table 1-1. Proposed range improvements are listed 
by allotment in Appendix D, Table D-1. This 
alternative requires a total investment that is 
approximately double the range improvement 
funding level, as shown under the preferred 
alternative. 



Forage would be allocated in the short term (during 
the 10-year implementation period) to livestock 
(30,272 AUMs), wildlife (59,214 AUMs), and wild 
horses (250 AUMs). Nonconsumptive uses would 
have 56,615 AUMs allocated. The short term 
livestock allocation under this alternative represents 
a 32 percent increase over 1982 active preference 
levels. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the 
predicted long term increase in forage production 
(14,964 AUMs) would be allocated to livestock (8,239 
AUMs) and wildlife (6,725 AUMs) while the long 
term allocation to wild horses and nonconsumptive 
uses would remain unchanged. Allocations would 
provide sufficient forage to provide a potential 
increase of 10% in big game (deer and elk) 
populations. 

Grazing systems would be designed to maintain or 
improve range and forage conditions and to improve 
108 miles of streamside riparian habitat. No livestock 
grazing would be permitted within existing 
exclosures (100 acres) or on new exclusions 
(approximately 25 acres) surrounding 4.75 miles of 
streams that have potential for significant 
improvement (see Appendix G, Table G-1). 



Proposed range improvements include seedings, 
hardwood removal, brush control, fences, corrals, 
and water developments. Only improvements which 
are cost efficient would be implemented under the 
preferred alternative. Further, this alternative was 
designed assuming a 10-year funding ceiling of 
approximately $1,000,000.00. Appendix D, Table 
D-1, presents the number and type of range 
improvement by allotment. 

Alternative 4 - Emphasize Non- 
Livestock Values 

The objective of this alternative is to 

emphasize non-livestock values where conflicts with 

livestock grazing have been identified. 



As a result of the range improvements, forage 
production is expected to increase by 23,005 AUMs. 
For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the 
predicted long term increase in forage production 
would be allocated to livestock (19,173 AUMs) and 
wildlife (3,832 AUMs). 



6 



Forage would be allocated in the short term to 
livestock (15,646 AUMs), wildlife (71,635 AUMs), and 
wild horses (250 AUMs). Nonconsumptive uses 
would have 57,802 AUMs allocated. The short term 
livestock allocation under this alternative represents 
a 31 percent decrease over 1982 active preference 
levels. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the 
predicted long term increase in forage production 
(19,555 AUMs) would be allocated to wildlife (18,368 
AUMs) and nonconsumptive uses (1,187 AUMs). 
Allocations for wildlife would allow a potential 30 
percent increase in big game populations. The 
allocation to wild horses would be sufficient to 
maintain a maximum population of 50 horses. The 
long term allocation to livestock would decrease by 
6,789 AUMs. 



No livestock grazing would be authorized in existing 
exclusions (100 acres) the majority of which entails 
exclusion from whole existing pastures. This 
alternative would exclude livestock from 73,227 
additional acres to enhance timber and recreation 
values, protect streamside riparian areas and 
semi-wet meadows which have significant potential 
for improvement and to protect two potential ACECs 
(Eight Dollar Mountain and Table Rocks). See 
Appendix C, Table C-1, for proposed grazing 
systems by pasture. 

Proposed range improvements (intended for the 
primary benefit of non-livestock values) include 
riparian area protective fences, corrals, seeding, 
brush control and hardwood removal, and water 
developments. No herbicides would be used for 
livestock grazing management under Alternative 4, 
but some would be used to improve meadows for 
benefit of wildlife. This alternative includes some 
range improvements that may not be cost efficient 
and require a total investment that would be higher 
than the preferred alternative. 

Comparison of Impacts 

A summary of the comparison of long term impacts 
is displayed in Table 1-2. Detailed explanations of 
the impacts are given by resource in Chapter 3. 

Components of the Alternatives 

The proposed grazing management is composed of 
three interdependent elements: vegetation 
allocation, grazing systems, and range 
improvements. These elements are described in 
detail in Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D. 



The vegetation allocation proposed for each 
alternative would allocate the existing and future 
vegetation production to various uses including 
wildlife, wild horses, livestock, and nonconsumptive 
uses. By implementing grazing management and 
range improvements, the existing level of forage 
production would increase under Alternatives 2, 3, 
and 4. Appendix B describes the methodology used 
to determine the proposed allocations. 



Appendix B, Table B-1 shows the short term and 
assumed long term vegetation allocation by 
alternative. Short term allocations indicate AUMs 
which would result due to implementation. Long 
term allocations are for analysis purpose only and 
are based on predicted AUM change during the 
15-year period following implementation. 



A grazing system consists of one or more scheduled 
livestock grazing treatments designed to change or 
maintain the composition of key species. Key 
species are plants that indicate whether 
management objectives are being reached. Grazing 
systems that allow plants to complete critical growth 
stages generally result in increases in, or 
maintenance of, key species. In the Medford EIS 
area, the critical part of the growing season normally 
occurs from April 15 to July 15, depending on 
elevation. See Table 1-3 for approximate growth 
stage dates for upland and riparian key species. 



Appendix C, Table C-1, shows proposed grazing 
systems by allotment and pasture for each 
alternative. Grazing systems are defined in the 
glossary. Figure 1-2 shows typical examples of 
proposed systems. 



Range improvements are proposed for several 
reasons: to implement intensive grazing systems, to 
allow deferment of grazing use on native range 
during the spring, to improve livestock distribution, 
to improve riparian areas, to increase forage 
production and to coordinate grazing and timber 
management. Brush would be removed prior to 
seeding on areas proposed for vegetation 
manipulation. Brush control would employ either 
mechanical methods, burning, or herbicide spraying; 
however, the treatment method has not been 
determined for individual projects. 



Standard procedures and design elements for range 
improvements are described in Appendix D. These 
design elements have been standardized over time 
to mitigate adverse effects encountered during 
range improvement development. Range 
improvement proposals for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, 
are listed for each allotment in Appendix D, Table D- 
1. The results of a preliminary benefit cost analysis 
for Alternative 3 are also shown. 



Table 1-2 Summary Comparison of Long-Term Impacts of the Alternatives 



Significant Resource 

Water 

Runoff 

Fecal conforms 

Sediment yield 

Vegetation 

Ecological Condition 
(68,041 Acres) 

Late 

Middle 

Early 

Forage Condition 
Coniferous Forest 
(329,014 Acres) 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Unknown 

Range Trend 
(68,041 Acres) 

Up 

Static 

Down 

Unknown 
Long Term Forage 
Production (AUMs) 

Streamside Riparian 
Vegetation Trend 
(104.25 Miles Total) ' 

Increasing 

Static 

Decreasing 

Wildlife Populations 

Deer 

Elk 

Small mammals 

Cavity dependent species 

Upland game birds 

Other birds 

Reptiles 

Amphibians 

Fish 



Existing 
Situation 



132,543 



Att.1 
No Action 



NC 

NC 
NC 



131,998 



Alt.2 
Emphasize 
Livestock 



NC 
NC 
NC 



155,548 



Alt.3 

Preferred 

Alternative 



NC 

+ L 
+ L 



147,507 



Alt.4 
Emphasize 

Non-livestock 



NC 
+ L 
+ L 



2% 


2% 


5% 


8% 


5% 


28% 


28% 


59% 


43% 


45% 


70% 


70% 


36% 


49% 


50% 



1% 


1% 


2% 


2% 


1% 


9% 


13% 


20% 


16% 


22% 


42% 


38% 


32% 


34% 


29% 


48% 


48% 


48% 


48% 


48% 


14% 


14% 


66% 


68% 


67% 


70% 


70% 


23% 


20% 


22% 


8% 


8% 


1% 


1% 


1% 


8% 


8% 


8% 


8% 


8% 



145,309 



24% 


24% 


30% 


58% 


78% 


62% 


62% 


64% 


37% 


22% 


14% 


14% 


6% 


5% 


0% 




-L 


-L 


+ L 


+M 




-L 


-M 


+ L 


+ M 




-L 


NC 


NC 


+ M 




NC 


-M 


-L 


-L 




NC 


-L 


+ L 


+M 




-L 


NC 


+ L 


+ M 




-L 


NC 


NC 


+ M 




-L 


NC 


+L 


+M 




-L 


NC 


+L 


+L 



Soils 

Streambank Erosion 
(104 Stream Miles) 

Decreasing 

Static 

Increasing 

Wild Horses (Numbers) 

Recreation 

Long term visitor use 

Visual Resources (Contrast) 
Special Areas 

Socioeconomics 2 

Local personal income($000) 
Local employment (jobs) 
Leasees with loss over 10 
percent of requirements 
(number) 



35 



105 



24% 


30% 


58% 


78% 


62% 


64% 


37% 


22% 


14% 


6% 


5% 


0% 



50 



50 



50 



Note: NC = no change, + = beneficial. - = adverse. L = low, M = medium, H - high 

1 Species composition based on key woody and herbaceous species 

2 Socioeconomic impacts are shown as changes from the existing situation in Jackson and Klamath Counties 



50 





-L 


-L 


+L 


+ L 




NC 


-L 


-L 


-L 




NC 


NC 


NC 


+ L 


344 
10 


+97 

+3 


+488 

+ 14 


+266 
+8 


-30 
-1 



8 



Table 1-3 Approximate Growth Stage Dates for Key Species 1 






Species 2 




2500' Elevation 






5000' Elevation 




Start 

of 

Growth 


Peak 

of 

Flowering 


Seed 
Ripe 


Dormancy 


Start 

of 

Growth 


Peak 

of 

Flowering 


Seed 
Ripe 


Dormancy 


Idaho fescue 


3/1 


6/1 


7/1 


8/1 


4/15 


6/20 


7/20 


8/20 


California oatgrass 


3/15 


6/15 


7/15 


8/15 


5/1 


7/1 


8/1 


9/1 


Pine bluegrass 


3/25 


5/25 


6/25 


7/25 


4/15 


6/1 


7/1 


8/1 


Wedgeleaf ceanothus 3 


4/1 


4/20 


6/10 


7/15 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


Mountain brome 


4/1 


5/25 


6/25 


7/25 


4/15 


7/1 


8/1 


9/1 


Redstem ceanothus 


4/15 


6/15 


7/15 


8/15 


5/1 


7/1 


8/1 


9/1 


Deer brush 


4/15 


6/15 


7/15 


8/15 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


Bluebunch wheatgrass 


3/1 


6/1 


7/1 


8/1 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


' Average year at the 2500 and 5000 foot elevations. 

! Scientific names for plants listed are shown in Appendix F, 

' Key species on deer winter range. 














N/A - Plant does not occur in significant numbers at this elevat 


on 













Interrelationships 
BLM Planning 



The BLM planning system is essentially a 
decisionmaking process that uses public input and 
resource information. 



Land use objectives and rationale for each resource 
use category relating to the grazing management 
program were developed and incorporated into a 
proposed amendment to the Josephine and 
Jackson-Klamath Management Framework Plans 
(MFP). Specific MFP recommendations relating to 
the grazing program, with some modification to 
reflect public input, were used as a basis for 
developing the alternatives. The EIS scoping 
summary set forth in Appendix A more fully explains 
the relationship between the MFP alternatives and 
the EIS alternatives. 



After the decision, the existing Allotment 
Management Plans (AMPs) will be revised to 
correspond with the allocations and grazing 
management described in the Record of Decision. 



Federal Agencies 

The Medford Grazing EIS Area shares, in 
part, common boundaries with lands administered 
by the U.S. Forest Service. Coordination between 
the BLM District Manager and Forest Supervisors is 



routine. Specific project and program coordination 
takes place as needed at all management levels. 
Lands under the jurisdiction of other Federal 
agencies are occasionally administered for grazing 
by the BLM. 



In addition, the Soil Conservation Service initiates 
development of coordinated resource management 
plans (CRMPs) when requested by ranchers who 
utilize land managed by more than one government 
agency. Coordinated planning involving the 
ranchers and concerned Federal agencies ensures 
that conflicts are resolved and management goals 
are met. 

State and Local Governments 

The Intergovernmental Relations Division for 
the State of Oregon acts as a clearinghouse for the 
various State agencies. All BLM planning and major 
actions are coordinated through this State 
Clearinghouse. Planning is also coordinated with 
county commissioners and/or county planning 
commissions. 



Under Oregon Senate Bill 100, all counties and cities 
in Oregon are required to develop and adopt 
comprehensive plans and land use controls 
consistent with statewide planning goals and 
guidelines developed by the Land Conservation and 
Development Commission (LCDC). The Douglas 
County and Jackson County Comprehensive Land 
Use Plans have been accepted by LCDC. Plans for 
Coos, Curry, Josephine, and Klamath counties have 



not yet been acknowledged (accepted) by LCDC. 
The relationship of the alternatives to LCDC goals is 
displayed in Table 1-4. All the alternatives are 
consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans 
and LCDC goals. 

Private Landowners 

The large amount of intermingled private 
lands within the Medford EIS area necessitates 
coordinated planning which provides a high level of 
cooperation between the BLM and adjacent 
landowners. Following the EIS and decisionmaking, 
allotment management plans (AMPs) or coordinated 
resource management plans (CRMPs) would be 
prepared in consultation and coordination with the 
affected rancher, other interested parties, and other 
landowners in accordance with BLM policy and 
Federal grazing regulations (43 CFR 4100). 
Generally, the preferred arrangement for including 
private and state lands in AMPs or CRMPs is under 
an exchange-of-use agreement (43 CFR 4130.4-1). 
At present, about 14,600 AUMs are allotted on 
approximately 300,000 acres through adjacent 
private exchange-for-use agreements. These 
agreements benefit the District's grazing 
management program by consolidating grazed 
areas, establishing BLM administration of them and 
implementing management for the allotments in 
which the grazing use is made. 



10 



Table 1-4 Relationship of the Alternatives to LCDC Goals 1 


LCDC Statewide Goal 
Number and Description 


Discussion 


1. To ensure citizen 
involvement in all phases of 
the planning process. 


BLM's land-use planning is a process providing 
for public input at various stages. Public 
input was specifically requested in developing 
the preferred alternative and other alterna- 
tives described in the EIS. Public input will 
continue to be utilized in the environmental 
decision processes. 


2. To establish a land-use 
process and policy framework 
as a basis for all decisions 
and actions. 


The alternatives have been developed in 
accordance with the land-use planning process 
authorized by the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 which provides a policy 
framework for all decisions and actions. 


4. To conserve forest lands 
for forest uses. 


All alternatives provide for retention of 
inventoried forest lands for forest uses. In 
forested areas, an objective of all alterna- 
tives is coordination of grazing management 
with timber management objectives. 


5. To conserve open space 
and protect natural and 
scenic resources. 


The Bureau planning system considered natural 
and scenic resources in the development of the 
alternatives. Fencing and vegetation manipula- 
tion projects in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would 
slightly impact natural and scenic resources. 


6. To maintain and improve 
the quality of the air, 
water and land resources. 


Water quality would be maintained and/or 
improved under Alternatives 3 and 4 and would 
be maintained and/or degraded under 
Alternatives 1 and 2. Air quality would not be 
significantly impacted. 


8. To satisfy the 
recreational needs of the 
citizens of the State and 
visitors. 


The BLM actively coordinates its outdoor 
recreation and land-use planning efforts with 
those of other agencies to establish integrated 
management objectives on a regional basis. 
Under all the alternatives, opportunities would 
be provided to meet recreational needs. 


9. To diversify and improve 
the economy of the State. 


Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would induce economic 
gains in the long term due to increased forage 
production, resulting in improved local and 
State economies. 


' Goals 3. 7, 10. 11, 12, 13 and 14 developed by the LCDC are not 


generally applicable to the alternatives. 



SPRING GRAZING; 

Every 
Year 



4/15 




FIGURE 1-2 EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL GRAZING SYSTEMS 



6/15 



Graze during the 
grow i ng pe r i od 



1 0/31 



SUMMER GRAZING 



Every 
Year 



4/15 6/15 



Graze during the 
gr ow i ng pe r i od 



0/31 



SPRING-SUMMER GRAZING; 



LEGEND 



Rest 



Graze 



Every 
Year 




Graze during the 
gr ow i ng pe r i od 


4/15 
WINTER GRAZING; 




10/31 


Every 
Year 






Graze dur ing dor 


DEFERRED ROTATION; 




11/1 


2/28 


Year 1 






Graze during the 
growing season 


Year 2 






Graze after seed 



6/15 8/1 

REST ROTATION; 

Two Pa s t mr e System (Spring range)!/ 
Year 1 



Year 2 



4/15 
Three Pasture System (Spring range)!/ 
Year 1 



Year 2 



Year 3 



4/15 



5/15 



10/31 



Graze during the 
gr «w ing pe r i od 

Rest 



6/15 



Res t 

Graze during the 
grow ing per i ed 

Graze during the 
grow ing per i ed 



6/15 



]_/ These systems would be similar on summer range but with grazing 
occurring between 6/15 - 10/31 



13 



Chapter 2 Affected 
Environment 




Introduction 

This chapter briefly describes the resources within 
the Medford Grazing EIS area as they existed when 
primary data and inventory sources (Bureau 
planning system documents) were compiled. These 
planning documents, including the Unit Resource 
Analyses, Planning Area Analyses, and Management 
Framework Plans, are available for review in the 
Medford District Office in Medford, Oregon. Most 
were completed in 1977-78, although sections 
directly applicable to the land use plan amendments 
have been updated. 








nxr-w T M » 

\ 1 ' ' 



Emphasis in this chapter is on those resource 
components most likely to be significantly impacted 
if one of the alternatives were implemented. Much of 
the discussion in this chapter focuses on the eastern 
portion of the EIS area where intensive grazing 
management is proposed. Analysis and public 
involvement through the scoping process indicated 
that air quality, minerals, and energy consumption 
would not be affected and, therefore, these subjects 
are not discussed. 



In addition to the planning documents listed above, 
additional information concerning resources in the 
EIS area can be found in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statements for the Josephine and Jackson- 
Klamath Sustained Yield Units (USDI, BLM 1978a 



14 



and 1979a, respectively). Reading copies of these 
EISs are available at BLM offices in Portland and 
Medford, Oregon, and Washington, DC. Copies were 
also sent to 4 university and 10 public libraries in 
western Oregon. 



The Medford Grazing EIS area, located in 
southwestern Oregon, has a climate characterized 
by cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The area 
has a winter precipitation pattern, with about half of 
the annual total occuring during the months of 
November through February. 



Vegetation 



The grazed portion of EIS area has 12 major 
vegetative zones (potential ecological communities) 
and 17 different forest and range sites within these 
zones (See Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1). The 
coniferous forest sites are the dominant vegetation 
types, covering approximately 70 percent of the 
area. The remaining 30 percent of the area is 
oak-woodland and grassland vegetation (See Table 
2-1). 



Existing forage production for the EIS area is 
132,543 AUMs. Livestock forage production is that 
portion of the total vegetation production which is 
available and suitable for sustained use by livestock. 
Livestock forage production is dependent upon 
climate, soil characteristics and species 
composition. Yearly variation in timing, temperature 
and amount of precipitation may result in fluctuation 
of vegetation production. Soil characteristics which 
influence production are primarily those which 
influence water holding capacity. Species 
composition of the plant community is the third 
major factor affecting forage production, season of 
use, and duration of grazing. 

Vegetative condition for the EIS area is summarized 
in Table 2-2. Condition is expressed by two methods 
(ecological condition or forage condition). 
Ecological condition was determined for non-forest 
sites, and livestock forage condition was used in the 
coniferous forest sites. Ecological condition 
classification, as used in this document, is based on 
the degree a range site deviates from the potential 
for the site. Forage condition classification is based 
on the percentage of desirable and intermediate 
forage species available for livestock and/or big 
game on a forest site. Both methods for determining 
condition are described in Appendix E. Appendix C, 
Table C-1, shows the condition for each proposed 
pasture in the EIS area. 



An intensive inventory was completed for the 
riparian areas in the eastern portion of the EIS area. 
A document (Culbertson and Montgomery 1982) is 
on file in the Medford District Office which contains 
specific information for any given stream or portion 
thereof. Table 2-4 shows the percentage of the 
surveyed riparian areas in the different condition 
classes. The effects of road development, timber 
harvesting, and grazing produced the described 
condition of the riparian area. 

The vegetative communities of the riparian 
ecosystems are described in terms of the dominant 
vegetation present in or overhanging the riparian 
zone. Thirty-six communities are identified. Within 
each community type described, there may be a 
wide range of foliar cover and density of vegetation. 
Riparian ecosystems are very diverse and each mile 
of stream can be different due to many influencing 
factors. These influences may include: hydrologic 
characteristics such as frequency of flooding, water 
volume, and flow rate and duration; aspect; slope; 
sub-surface flows; topography; geomorphology; soil 
accumulation; present vegetation; and past 
management. 

The condition of the riparian communities has been 
described in the Wildlife Section of this chapter (See 
Table 2-4). Areas in fair and poor condition 
generally are dominated by even-aged red alder or 
willow because these communities lack structure 
and species diversity. 

None of the plants found in the grazed portion of the 
EIS area are presently listed as threatened or 
endangered under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act. However, there are 18 plant species (on 
14 allotments) identified in the EIS area that are 
under review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
for possible listing as endangered or threatened 
status (45 FR 82480) (See Table 2-3). 



In addition, 40 plant species considered by BLM as 
sensitive occur in the EIS area. A complete listing of 
these sensitive plant species along with habitat 
information is on file at the Medford District Office. 

Soils 

Soils in the EIS area have been surveyed and are 
described in de Moulin et al. (1975). The soils on the 
east side of the area have been mapped in more 
detail by the Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A. 
since the soil inventory was published. The detailed 
soil mapping was used to produce updated soil 
association overlay maps of the east side. The 
overlay maps and accompanying soil interpretations 
can be reviewed at the Medford District Office. 



15 



Table 2-1, Vegetation Zones And Sites 



Vegetation Zone and 
Sites 

1) Dry Upland Zone 

A. Steep foothill 
grassland 

B. Shrubby scabland 



C. Oak-pine-oatgrass 



D. Oak-pine-fescue 



E. Dry meadow 



F. Semi-wet meadow 



G. Mahogany-oak-fescue 



H. Douglas-fir forest 



Public 


Percent 


Land 


of EIS 


Acres 


Area 



113,387 



28.5 



Common Plant Species 




Annual grasses, bluebunch 
wheatgrass, Idaho fescue 

Wedgeleaf ceanothus, 
annual grasses, bluebunch 
wheat grass, needlegrass 

White oak, ponderosa 
pine, California 
oatgrass, Idaho fescue, 
annual grasses 

White oak, ponderosa 
pine, Idaho fescue, 
annual grasses 

California oatgrass, 
buttercut, Junegrass, 
annual grasses and forbs 

California oatgrass, 
tufted hairgrass, 
bluegrass, cinquefoil 

Birchleaf mahogany, white 
oak, Idaho fescue 

Douglas-fir, pine, 
California fescue, poison 
oak 




I. Douglas Fir/mixed 
pine 

J. Pine-oak-fescue 



Douglas-fir, sugar pine, 
ponderosa pine, 
deerbrush, blue wild rye 

Ponderosa pine-whiteoak- 
Idaho fescue 



2) Shale City Zone 
A. Mixed fir-Ocean- 
spray forest 



B. Semi-wet meadows 

C. Steep Mountain 
grassland 



14,733 



3.7 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, sugar 
pine, blue wild rye 

See 1f above 

Idaho fescue, Junegrass, 
needlegrass, rabbitbrush, 
birchleaf mahogany, 
annual grasses 



16 



■ a *';'' 6ji iixsKSmt 






Table 2-1, Vegetation Zones And Sites (continued) 



Vegetation Zone and 
Sites 

3) Parker Mtn-Fish Lake 

Zone 

A. White fir forest 



Public 
Land 
Acres 

15,769 



Percent 

of EIS 

Area 



B. Semi-wet meadow 




Common Plant Species 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, sugar 
pine, sedge, blue wild 
rye, mountain brome, 
strawberry, Oregon grape, 
prince's pine 

Tufted hairgrass, sedge, 
clover, bluegrass, 
velvetgrass, willow weed, 
spirea, hellebore 






4) Soda Mtn-Table Mtn. 
High Country Zone 
A. White fir forest 



13,409 



3.4 



B. Semi-wet meadow 

C. High mountain 
grassland 

5) Shasta Fir Zone 
A. Shasta fir forest 



6) Klamath White Fir 
Zone 

A. Klamath white fir 
forest 

B. Semi-wet meadow 

7) Butte Falls Dogwood 
Zone 

A. Mixed fir forest 



13,617 



3.4 



23,174 



5.8 



22,069 



5.6 



B. Semi-wet meadow 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, sugar 
pine, incense cedar, 
waterleaf, vetch, Solomon 
plume, pathfinder 

See 1f above 

Idaho fescue, stipa 



Shasta fir, white fir, 
sugar pine, ponderosa 
pine, white pine, Ross 
sedge, Pacific brome, 
boxwood, snowbrush 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, snowbrush 

See 1f, 3b above 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
pines, cedar, madrone, 
black oak, deerbrush, 
reostem, hazel, 
Oceanspray, ninebark, 
blue wild rye, bluegrass, 
cheatgrass 

See 1f, 3b above 



able 2-1, Vegetation Zones And Sites (continued) 



17 





Public 


Percent 


Vegetation Zone and 


Land 


of EIS 


Sites 


Acres 


Area 



8) Prospect White Fir 
Hemlock Zone 
A. White fir 



7,920 



2.0 



Common Plant Species 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
sugar pine, ponderosa 
pine, incense cedar, 
western hemlock, redstem, 
snowbrush, mountain 
brome, blue wild rye 



B. Semi-wet meadow 



See 1f, 3b above 



9) Applegate Dry Upland 

Zone 1 

A. Mixed forest forest 



B. Oak-pine-fescue 



99,750 



25.1 



White fir, Douglas-fir, 
pines 

White oak, ponderosa 
pine, Idaho fescue, 
annual grasses 



C. Grassland 




Idaho fescue, annual 
grasses 


10) Rogue-Umpqua Zone ' 71,076 


17.9 




A. Mixed fir forest 




White fir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, sugar 
pine, deerbrush, sedge, 
beargrass, blue rye 


B.White fir 




Whitefir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, sugar 
pine, cedar, prince's 
pine, beargrass, mountain 
brome, oceanspray, Oregon 
grape 


C. Semi-wet meadows 




See 1f, 3b above 


11) Interior Valley 1,401 


.4 


White oak, wedgeleaf 


Zone 2 




ceanothus, Idaho fescue, 
oatgrass, annual grasses 


12) High Siskiyou Zone 2 750 


.2 


White fir, Douglas-fir, 
ponderosa pine, sugar 
pine, blue wild rye, 


Total 397,055 




greyleaf manzanita 


These zones were not inventoried due to the low livestock grazing demand on BLM-adi 


ninistered land and inventory funding level. 


This zone was not inventoried due to the minor amount of BLM-administered land. 





18 



Table 2-2 Condition Summary 






Ecological 
Condition 


Acres of 1 

Public Land 

Non-forested 

and Hardwoods 


Percent Comparison of 
Non-Forested Areas 


Percent of 2 
Public Land EIS Area 


Late 
Middle 
Early 
Total 


1,376 
19,052 
47,613 
68,041 


2 

28 
70 


i 


Forage 
Condition 


Acres Public 
Land Forested 


Percent Comparison 
of Forested Land 


Percent of Public 
Land EIS Area 


Good 
Fair 
Poor 
Total 


329 

28,725 

138,462 

167,516 


1 
17 
82 


i 


Unknown 2 


161,498 






1 Includes oak woodlands and is based on deviation from ecological potential 

2 Condition of 161,498 acres (about 40 percent of the grazed public land in the EIS area) has not been 


,„„„««. 



Table 2-3 Plant Species Under Review For Nomination For Threatened Or 
Endangered Status 1 



Notice of 






Review 


Habitat 




Category % 


Information 


Allotments 3 


2 


Serpentine 


309; 312 


1 


Dry, grassy hillsides 
in clay soil 


110; 118; 108 


1 


Serpentine 


308; 312 


1 


Dry, grassy hillside 


107; 110 


2 


Bogs and wet area 


6; 308 


2 


Timbered areas 


110; 117;121; 
205; 206 


2 


Bogs and wet areas 


308 


1 


Bogs and wet areas 


308 


1 


Rock outcrops 


31 


1 


Serpentine 


309; 312 


1 


Bogs and wet areas 


308 


1 


Scab land 


110; 115; 31 


2 


Dry, grassy hillsides 
in clay soil 


110; 118 


2 


Damp sites in open 
woods 


115 


1 


Serpentine 


6 


1 


Bogs and wet areas 


308 


2 


Serpentine on rocky 
slopes 


308 


2 


Bogs and wet areas 


308 



Scientific Plant Species Name 

Arabis aculeolata 
Calochortus greenei 



Calochortus howellii 
Cirsium ciliolatum 
Cypripedium californicum 
Cypripedium montanum 

Darlingtonia californica 

Gentiana bisetaea 

Lewisia cotyledon var. Howellii 

Lewisia oppositifolia 

Lilium vollmeri 

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

bellingeriana 

Microseris detlingii sp. novumined. 



Mimulus pygmaeus 

Phacelia capitata 

Schoenolirion bracteosum 

Thlaspi montanum var. siskiyouense 

Viola lanceolata ssp. occidentalis 



1 As published in "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review of Plant Taxa for listing as Endangered or Threatened Species" 
Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 24 12/15/80. 

2 Category 1 = Sufficient biological justification exists for listing as endangered or threatened status; Category 2 = Further study is needed to 
determine if biological justification for listing exists. Categories are subject to change as new information becomes available. 

3 Allotments are listed in which the subject plant has been sighted on public land. 



R IOW R.9W R8W. R. 7 W. R 6W R.5W 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
MEDFORD DISTRICT 

MEDFORD GRAZING MANAGEMENT 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1983 

LEGEND 

J Applegate Dry Upland \_ J Parker Mtn. - Fish Lake 

UJ *»«* Falls ^wood □ J33 *"*■ Fir - 

J ] Dry Upland ] Rogue-Umpqua 

j) High Siskiyous \^] Shale City 

34 s | | Interior Valley ! ] Shasta Rr Forest 

n — l ~i ■ ..<■ . - l 1 Soda Mln./Table Mln 

LU Klama * wh* i* | | High Counhy 

Sm Tabl* 2-1. 



T 36 S 




T 37S 



FIGURE 2-1 
VEGETATION ZONES 



21 



Table 2-4 Known Existing 
Conditions of Wildlife Habitat In 
Riparian Areas 





Class 1 and 2 


Class 3-5 




Condition ' 


Streams 2 


Streams 3 


Total 


Excellent 


13 Miles (2%) 


68 Miles (10%) 


81 Miles ( 12%) 


Good 


62 Miles (9%) 


291 Miles (44%) 


353 Miles ( 53%) 


Fair 


26 Miles (4%) 


154 Miles (23%) 


180 Miles ( 27%) 


Poor 


4 Miles (Less 
than 1%) 


47 Miles (7 %) 


51 Miles ( 8%) 






Total 


665 Miles (100%) 



Riparian inventory methodology is shown in Appendix G 
Based upon 100 percent survey of Class 1 and 2 streams in the 
Butte Falls and Klamath portion of the EIS area. 
Based upon a random sampling of Class 3-5 streams in the 
Butte Falls and Klamath portion of the EIS area. 



Present non-point source pollution problems in the 
EIS area include those of elevated water 
temperatures, nuisance algae and aquatic plant 
growth, excessive debris, sedimentation, streambank 
erosion, and water withdrawals causing stream- 
quality problems (ODEQ 1978). Streams in the EIS 
area considered to have major non-point source 
pollution problems include South Fork Little Butte 
Creek, Evans Creek, Bear Creek, the Applegate 
River, and Deer Creek. 



BLM water quality inventories were conducted 
during 1981 and 1982 on eight streams in the grazed 
portion of the EIS area. The water quality of these 
streams generally met the water quality standards 
established by the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality. Fecal coliforms and turbidity 
were occasionally above state standards on Jackass 
Creek, North Fork of Big Butte Creek, and Dead 
Indian Creek. 



The soils have formed from several major rock units 
in the Siskiyou Mountains and Cascade Range. The 
soils in the Cascade Range in the southeastern 
portion of the EIS area have weathered to loamy and 
light clayey textured soils that occupy plateaus and 
gently sloping high terraces. The western flank of 
the Cascade Range is dominated by moderately 
deep and deep soils with heavy clayey textures and 
gravelly, loamy soils. Land forms range from nearly 
level terraces to very steep mountain slopes. 



The soils in the Siskiyou Mountains in the western 
portion of the EIS area have formed from altered 
bedrock. The soils have sandy to clayey textures and 
occur on moderately steep to very steep mountain 
slopes. 



Erosion caused by livestock and wildlife in upland 
areas (areas other than along streams) is generally 
low. Streambank erosion is occurring on isolated 
portions of approximately 19 percent of the 216 
miles of streambank inventoried in the eastern 
portion of the EIS area. 



Water Resources 

The southeastern portion of the EIS area lies within 
the Klamath Basin, the northwestern portion of the 
EIS area lies within the Umpqua Basin, and the 
remainder of the EIS area lies within the Rogue 
Basin. 



Streamflows in the EIS area are extremely variable. 
Highest stream flows occur during winter and spring 
months from rainstorms augmented by snow melt. 
Low flows occur in the late summer and fall. 



Refer to the Josephine and Jackson-Klamath FEISs 
(USDI, BLM 1978a and 1979a) for additional 
information on water quantity and water quality 
within the EIS area. 

Wildlife 

This section deals primarily with the eastern portion 
of the EIS area where intensive livestock grazing is 
currently occurring. Animals emphasized are those 
whose habitat could be significantly changed by the 
alternatives. Mountain lion, black-bear, bobcat, and 
coyotes are not discussed because those 
populations are not expected to significantly change 
as a result of the alternatives. 

A complete species list of the district with specific 
habitat relationships is available at the Medford 
District Office (Culbertson and Montgomery 1983). 
Also available at the Medford District Office are 
copies of the site specific habitat inventories and 
accompanying specific discussions of those 
habitats. 

Habitat Diversity 

Habitat diversity refers to the mixture or 
variety of land forms, vegetation, and water. 
Vegetation provides habitat diversity in three ways: 

(1) interspersion of vegetation types, i.e., edge effect, 

(2) variety of plant species, i.e., species composition, 
and (3) structure or the physical aspects of 
vegetation. Examples of structure are grazed versus 
ungrazed dry or wet meadow habitats. Grazing 
affects habitat diversity; however, within the Medford 
District, forestry practices such as timber harvesting, 
firewood sales, or stand conversions (i.e., oak- 
woodlands to pine savanna) have had and will 
continue to have the greatest effect on habitat 
diversity. 



22 



Habitat diversity can be correlated with the forage 
condition described in the vegetation section. 
Generally, vegetation communities in the EIS area 
with good forage condition would have greater 
habitat diversity than similar areas in poor or fair 
condition. Seedings are an exception since they 
have low habitat diversity, although they are usually 
rated in good forage condition. Wildlife habitat in 
riparian areas rated as good has greater habitat 
diversity than areas rated poor. In general, the 
greatest numbers and kinds of wildlife are found in 
areas with the greatest habitat diversity. 



Not all upland semi-wet meadow habitats were 
quantified in acres or mapped due to their small size. 
Meadow habitats less than 5 acres were not mapped. 
The following is a breakdown of condition class for 
the 1,580 acres of semi-wet meadow habitats that 
were examined: excellent (0 acres), good (4 percent 
- 63 acres), fair (12 percent - 190 acres), poor (84 
percent - 1,327 acres). Habitat for wildlife is far 
below potential in most semi-wet meadow habitat 
primarily because of past heavy livestock use, and 
the subsequent invasion of annual weed species 
such as medusahead. 



Threatened and Endangered Animals 

The American peregrine falcon is classified 
as endangered and the bald eagle as threatened in 
Oregon under the Endangered Species Act, 1973. 
Although peregrines migrate through the EIS area, 
observations are rare and no active nests have been 
found. Bald eagles are known to nest in the EIS 
area, and one of the largest winter concentrations of 
bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest occurs in the 
extreme southeastern portion of the EIS area; 
however, the alternatives should not have any 
significant impacts on the winter eagle roost. The 
Jenny Creek sucker is under consideration for 
placement on the federal list of threatened and 
endangered speices because of its unique 
taxonomic status and limited distribution. The specie 
inhabits 24 miles of 5 streams in the Jenny Creek 
watershed (Table 2-5). Of the 8 miles of its habitat 
on public land, there are significant adverse impacts 
from livestock grazing to 3.4 stream miles in 
allotments 107, 108, 110, and 115. BLM manages 43 
percent of the Jenny Creek watershed. 

Riparian Areas 

Due to its relative scarcity (less than 5 
percent of the total land base), water-associated and 
riparian vegetation are very important to wildlife as 
habitat for feeding and reproducing. For impact 
analysis, these areas are described in three 
categories: Class 1 and 2 streams, Class 3-5 streams, 
and semi-wet meadow habitat. The designation of a 
stream as Class 1-5 is based primarily on fisheries 
values with Class 1 and 2 being most important. 
Class 1 streams are usually larger and have the 
potential for more extensive adjacent riparian areas. 
In this document, riparian areas are the linear strips 
of water-associated vegetation occurring along the 
streams. 



A site specific listing of streamside riparian areas is 
shown in Appendix G, Table G-1. 



Fish 

Thirty-three native and introduced fish species 
inhabit 550 miles of stream and three major 
reservoirs in the eastern portion of the EIS area. One 
hundred eight of the stream miles occur on public 
land. Thirty-four percent of the public stream miles 
provide spawning and rearing habitats for Chinook 
and coho salmon and steelhead trout. Resident 
cutthroat or rainbow trout are found in all fish- 
bearing streams. 

A stream habitat inventory by BLM during the 
summers of 1980-82 evaluated stream habitat 
condition for salmonids on 108 miles of Class 1 and 
2 stream in the eastern portion of the EIS area, the 
area where most livestock grazing in the district 
occurs. Habitat condition and species occurrence 
for each stream is shown in Table 2-5. No stream 
miles are rated in excellent or poor condition. Forty- 
four percent are in good condition and 56 percent 
are in good to fair or fair condition. 



Methodology for determining the condition rating 
for salmonid habitat is described in Appendix G. A 
single habitat quality rating was determined for both 
rainbow trout and the Jenny Creek sucker in Jenny 
Creek and its tributaries (Table 2-5), since habitat 
requirements for both species are quite similar. The 
primary exception is the sucker's need for slightly 
higher water temperature than is optimum for trout. 
Water temperatures in the Jenny Creek Drainage 
favor the Jenny Creek sucker. 



Livestock currently adversely affect 20.4 miles of 
fishery habitat on 33 streams (Table 2-5) that are 
approximately 51 miles in length. Eighty-eight miles 
(81 percent) of the 108 Class 1 and 2 stream miles 
have insignificant on-site impacts from livestock 
grazing. Streams with negligible livestock grazing 
impacts are generally characterized by one or more 
of the following situations: (1) riparian vegetation or 
woody debris on the ground is dense and acts as a 
barrier to livestock, (2) stream banks are well 
constituted with rock or dense root systems, (3) the 
stream is located in steep, rocky terrain that 
discourages or prevents use by livestock, and (4) the 
canopy of streamside vegetation, including conifers, 



23 



Table 2-5 Summary Of Stream Fisheries Habitat Condition on Public Land 1 






Miles 






Stream Miles 
Affected 












Stream (Drainage) 


Good 


Good/Fair 


Fair 


Allotment 


By Grazing 


Fist 


i Species 


Butte Falls Resource Area 
















Beaverdam 






1 20 


31 


_ 


CT, 


COT 


Parsnip 




1.20 




31 


0.25 


CT, 


COT 


Round Mountain 


0.30 






31 


— 


CT, 


COT 


Vine Maple 


025 


1.20 


0.15 


31 


— 


CT, 


COT 


S. Fk. Vine Maple 


0.65 








— 


CT, 


COT 


Big Butte (mainstem) 


0.30 


1.60 




31 


0.70 


CHS. COS, ST, CT, RT, KSS, PL. COT 


Box 


0.60 






31 


— 


ST. 


RT. CT, COT 


Clark 


2.70 






31 


— 


ST, 


RT, CT, COT 


Clark Cr. Tributary 




.75 




31 


— 


CT, 


COT 


N. Fork Clark 


0.70 






31 


— 


CT. 


COT 


S. Fork Clark 




.50 




31 


— 


CT, 


COT 


Dog 


1.35 






31 


— 


ST, 


RT, CT, COT 


McNeil 






0.50 


31 


— 


ST, 


CO, RT, CT, COT, KSS, BG 


Big Butte (north fork) 


2.50 


3.70 




24,31 


0.35 


ST. 


RT. CT, COT 


Camp 


0.25 


1.90 




24 


— 


ST. 


RT, CT, COT 


Eighty Acre 




0.50 


0.25 


31 


0.25 


ST. 


RT. CT, COT 


Jackass 


70 


1.00 




31 


1.05 


ST, 


RT, CT. COT 


Mule 


0.40 


0.30 




31 


— 


CT, 


COT 


Horseshoe 


0.25 


0.50 




31 


0.35 


CT. 


COT 


Big Butte (south fork) 




0.90 




31 


— 


ST, 


RT. CT, COT, KO, LB 


Clarks Fork 




0.40 




24 


— 


CT. 


COT 


Rancheria 


0.30 


1.40 




24 


0.25 


CT, 


COT 


Titanic 


1.30 






24 


— 


CT, 


COT 


Twincheria 


0.60 


1.00 




24 


— 


CT. 


COT 


S.Fork Twincheria 






0.60 


24 


0.55 


CT, 


COT 


Brush 






0.75 


UNA 


- 


ST. 


CT 


Elk 


0.60 


0.45 


0.60 


1 


0.25 


CHS, COS, ST, RT, CT, KSS. PL, RS, COT 


Alco 


025 






2 


— 


ST. 


RT, CT, COT 


Flat 




0.95 




2 


— 


ST, 


COS, RT, CT, COT 


Sugarpine 




1.25 




2 


— 


ST. 


COS. RT, CT, COT 


Hawk 




1.00 




2 


— 


ST, 


COS, RT, CT, COT 


Timber 




1.10 




2 


— 


ST, 


COS, RT. CT. COT 


Elkhorn 


1.20 






2 


— 


ST. 


COS, RT, CT, COT 


West Branch Elk 


1.35 


1.00 


0.50 


2 


0.45 


ST, 


COS, RT, CT, COT 


E. Fk W. Br. Elk 


0.90 


0.20 




2 


0.25 


CT, 


COT 


Moraine 


1 10 






UNA 


— 


ST, 


RT, CT, COT 


Hungry 


0.25 






UNA 


— 


CT 




South Boundary 


1.10 






13 


— 


CT, 


COT 


Indian 


1.00 


0.25 




35 


- 


ST, 


COS, RT, CT. COT, MOS, BB 


Lewis 






0.80 


UNA 


- 


ST 




Lick 


1.70 


050 


0.25 


24 


0.75 


ST, 


RB, COT 


Lost 


0.30 


0.30 




31 


- 


CT, 


COT 


Lost 






050 


1 


0.50 


RT, 


CT, COT 


Reese 


1.30 






20,27.29 


- 


ST, 


RT, COS. COT. KSS 


Salt 


1.30 


0.50 




24 


025 


ST, 


RT, CT, COT 


Salt Creek Tributary 


0.80 






24 


— 


CT, 


COT 


East Fork Trail 


0.50 






3 





ST, 


RT, CT, COT. PL, COS 


Wall 


1.90 






3 


— 


CT, 


COT 


Wasson 


0.50 






24 




CT, 


COT 



24 



Table 2-5 Summary Of Stream Fisheries Habitat Condition on Public Land 1 


(continued) 






Miles 






Stream Mi 


les 














Affected 


I 


Stream (Drainage) 




Good 


Good/Fai 


r Fair 


Allotment 


By Grazir 


ig Fish Species 


Klamath Resource Area 
















Antelope Cr. 








1.00 


UNA 


0.20 


ST 


Camp 






1.10 


1.70 


110 


1.70 


RT 


Dutch Oven 




0.40 


0.80 




110 


0.25 


RT 


Emigrant 




0.50 


0.25 




110 





CT 


Baldy 




0.30 


0.20 




110 


— 


CT 


Cove 








0.35 


143 


0.35 


ST, RT. CT 


Green Mt. 






0.30 




110 


— 


CT 


Porcupine 




0.50 


0.50 




110 


— 


CT 


Tyler 




0.35 


1.00 




110 


020 


CT 


Fall 






0.30 


0.60 


107 


0.35 


RT 


Shoat Spring Cr. 






0.25 


0.25 


107 





RT 


Spring 






0.25 


0.45 


107 


0.60 


RT 


Spring Cr.Trib. #1 






0.10 




107 


— 


RT 


Spring Cr. Trib. #2 




0.25 






107 


— 


RT 


Jenny 




2.05 


2.55 


1.40 


107,108 
110,115 


1.90 
0.60 


RT, JCS. SD. BB, PK, GS, COT 


Corral 








0.60 


110 




RT, JCS. SD 


Beaver 




1.50 


0.55 


0.40 


110,115 


— 


RT, JCS, SD 


Grizzly 




0.30 


0.30 


0.60 


115,106 


0.50 


RT, SD, BB, PK, GS, COT 


Willow 






0.30 




115 


0.10 


RT 


Johnson 




1.70 


0.30 


1.35 


103,104 


— 


RT, JCS, SD 


Cold 




0.30 






103 


— 


RT 


Keene 




220 


1.10 


0.25 


110.115 


2.00 


RT. BT, SD, BB. JCS 


Lincoln 




0.50 






110 


0.40 


RT 


Mill 






0.50 




110 


0.50 


RT 


South Fork Keene 






0.30 




110 


— 


RT 


Soda 




0.75 






115 


— 


RT 


Lake Cr. 








1.10 


121,129 


- 


CT 


Little Butte Cr. 




0.50 






126 





ST, RT, CT, BT, COT 


(North Fork) 
















Little Butte Cr. 




0.80 




025 


113,127 





ST, RT, CT, COT 


(South Fork) 
















Dead Indian 








1.15 


115,117 


1.15 


RT, SD 


Conde 




0.20 


0.30 


0.50 


117 


1.00 


RT, SD 


Deer 




0.80 






124 


— 


CT, COT 


Lost 






2.40 


1.05 


122,124 


0.55 


ST, RT, BT, COT 


Soda 




3.90 






113,117, 
124 


— 


ST, RT, CT, COT 


Soda Cr. 






0.40 




113,124 


— 


CT 


Tributary 
















Long Prairie 








050 


108 


— 


SD 


Spencer 




0.75 


1.10 




147 


1.35 


RT, BT. KSS, SD 


Spencer Cr. Trib. 




0.50 


0.50 




147 


— 


BT 


Clover 








0.50 


147 


0.50 


RT 




Totals 


48.25 


40.00 


20.10 




20.40 




Key To Symbols 
















CHS Chinook Salmon 






PL 


Pacific lamprey 




JCS Jenny Creek sucker 


COS Coho Salmon 






LB 


Largemouth bass 




SD Speckled dace 


ST Steelhead trout 






BG 


Bluegill sunfish 




KO Kokanee 


FIT Rainbow trout 






RS 


Redside shiner 




PK Pumpkinseed sunfish 


CT Cutthroat trout 






COT 


Cottid (sp.) 






GS Golden shiner 


BT Brook trout 






MOS 


Mosquitofish 






UNA Unallotted Area 


KSS Klamath smallscale sucker 




BB 


Brown bullhead 






' Refer to Appendix G for cr 


iteria for 


evaluating 


stream habitat condition. 









25 



inhibits growth of suitable livestock forage, a 
situation that will continue under the district's 
current timber management policy which precludes 
timber harvest within 100 feet of each side of Class 1 
and 2 streams unless it is to the benefit of wildlife. 

Streams in the EIS area are considered to be 
producing fish at 50 percent of potential levels 
because of water diversions, roads constructed too 
near to streams, erosion of unsurfaced roads, and a 
variety of timber harvest practices that historically 
have provided less than optimum consideration for 
salmonid habitat needs. Trampling of streambanks 
and associated riparian vegetation is a significant 
problem in the eastern portion of the EIS area, but 
overall is of minor consequence in the entire EIS 
area. 



Other adverse conditions include habitat conditions 
that are naturally limiting, and trampling of 
streambanks and associated riparian vegetation by 
livestock. 



Black-tailed and Mule Deer 

Almost all of the EIS area is inhabited by significant 
numbers of either black-tailed or mule deer. The 
break-off between the mule deer range and the 
black-tailed deer range is mostly administrative in as 
much as deer found east of the western Klamath 
County line are classified as mule deer and deer 
west of that line are managed as black-tailed deer. 



Deer populations have been calculated for a majority 
of the allotments with population levels of between 
50 to 140 deer per square mile being noted. The 
average deer population levels are between 70 to 90 
deer per square mile for an estimated six-month 
period of time which was generally used due to 
distinct movements between summer and winter 
ranges. Specific population estimates and forage 
demands have been calculated and are on file in the 
Medford District Office. 



Approximately 210,347 BLM-administered acres of 
crucial deer winter range have been identified within 
the eastern portion of the EIS area. Deer winter 
ranges are generally located below 3,000 feet 
elevations where the dominant habitats are shrubby 
scabland, oak-woodlands, and small conifer patches 
which serve as thermal cover. Food-habit studies in 
the EIS area show that wedgeleaf ceanothus 
constitutes over 70 percent of the deer's winter diet. 
Most of the deer winter range is in poor ecological 
condition. This is due primarily to wildfire 
suppression and past heavy use by deer and 
livestock. 



Deer summer range is comprised mainly of 
timberlands ranging in elevation from 3,000 to 6,000 
feet. The quantity and quality of the majority of deer 
summer range is dictated by past and present timber 
harvesting with clearcutting usually producing more 
and higher quality forage than any other harvest 
system. Important summer deer use areas also 
include the numerous riparian areas and wet 
meadow habitats. 



Elk 

Elk populations have shown a steady increase for 
the last 10 years. To date 42,880 acres of elk winter 
range have been identified and mapped on public 
lands in the eastern portion of the EIS area. 
Presently elk habitat is thought to be in fair to good 
condition. The intensity of future timber 
management in combination with cattle grazing, 
road development, etc. will dictate future elk habitat 
and hence population trends. 



Unlike deer, elk in the EIS area tend to winter at 
slightly higher elevations on predominantly cut-over 
timberlands or along major streams such as Jackass, 
Rancheria, Twincheria, and Big Butte creeks. The 
amount of forage removed by cattle during the 
summer months on the elk winter range could play a 
significant role in winter elk survival due to dietary 
overlap. 

Upland Game Birds 

Both species of forest grouse, the blue and ruffed 
grouse, as well as two species of quail, the California 
and Mountain quail, inhabit the EIS area in fairly 
large numbers. The riparian and upland wet 
meadows provide a large supply of insects and 
succulent forbs for young birds making them crucial 
habitat for both grouse and quail brood rearing. 



Recent transplants of wild turkeys have resulted in 
fair numbers of turkeys being established in the 
Lake Creek (Allotments 121,124), Pokegama Flat 
(Allotment 102), and Obenchain (Allotment 24) 
areas. High turkey use is associated with the dry 
meadow, pine-oak and oak-woodland habitats. 
Mourning doves are spring through fall breeding 
residents. Most nesting occurs in the oak-woodland 
habitat. 

Waterfowl 

Hyatt and Howard Prairie Lakes are the two main 
areas of significant waterfowl production on public 
lands in the EIS area. Approximately 75 geese per 
year are produced at these two locations. The 
numerous small ponds and low gradient streams 
with their associated riparian vegetation also 
produce numerous broods of mallards, teal, and 
wood ducks; however, exact production figures on 
these species are not known. 



26 

Cavity Dependent Species 

Cavity dependent species are those species that use 
cavities, either natural or created, in conifer or 
hardwood trees to reproduce in or escape into. 
These species are usually classified further as 
primary excavators or secondary users. Primary 
excavators are those species that actually dig out or 
chip out (i.e., woodpeckers) the cavity to nest or 
roost in. Primary excavators in the EIS area include 
the pileated, white-headed, and hairy woodpeckers. 
Secondary users are those species that also use 
created or natural cavities for reproduction or 
escape purposes but do not actually do much 
excavating. Screech owls, wood ducks, and western 
bluebirds are examples of secondary users. 



The amount of cavity dependent species habitat is 
limited to the conifer and hardwood dominated 
vegetative types which are declining annually in the 
EIS area due in large part to timber harvesting that 
removes most or all of the habitat components (large 
trees). The need to retain conifer and hardwood 
communities on certain sites has been recognized 
by land managers as necessary to meet future 
habitat needs of cavity dependent species. 

Other Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and 
Amphibians 

Approximately 336 species of wildlife inhabit the EIS 
area, some of which have been discussed. 
Representative species of the non-game group 
include the black-tailed jack rabbit, California 
ground squirrel, scrub jay, raven, spotted frog, and 
western rattlesnake. Some species such as the 
beaver are found only in specific habitats; others 
such as the deer mouse are widespread. High 
species diversity is directly correlated to high habitat 
diversity for animals in this group. 



Wild Horses 

All unbranded and unclaimed horses in the EIS area 
as of December 15, 1971, are considered wild and 
free roaming as defined in The Wild Horse and 
Burro Act (Public Law 92-195). The Pokegama Herd 
Management Area (within Allotment 102 - Edge 
Creek and 107 - Dixie) contains 11,450 acres of 
public land and has 35 wild horses in the EIS area 
identified during the base year 1982. Although land 
administered by the BLM accounts for only 8 
percent of the total herd management area, many of 
the heavy use areas are on public land and are used 
by portions of the herd for most of the year. 
Generally, condition of the horses is good, although 
reproduction appears low. The population has 
remained stable for a number of years, and there has 
been no need to gather horses from the herd for 
population control. 



Approximately 14 miles of existing interior fences 
are located within the herd management area. These 
include the California-Oregon boundary fence and 
the Pokegama, Edge Creek, and Long Prairie 
Fences. Overall range condition within the area is 
poor. A herd management plan for the entire 145,000 
acre area (of private and BLM-administered land) 
was approved in 1978 and is available for review in 
the Medford District Office. This plan provides for a 
maximum herd of 50 wild horses. 

Recreation 

There are 10 developed recreation sites on public 
land in the EIS area, and a number of other primitive 
sites offer opportunities for camping and picnicking. 
The Rogue Wild and Scenic River provides 
outstanding recreational opportunities. Forty miles 
of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail enhance 
hiking and backpacking opportunities in the EIS 
area. 



Examples of high quality opportunities in the EIS 
area include fishing (Klamath River, Rogue River, 
Jenny, Vine Maple, Rancheria, and Twincheria 
Creeks), floatboating (Klamath River, Rogue River), 
sightseeing (Upper and Lower Table Rocks), boating 
(Hyatt Lake), hiking (Pacific Crest Trail), and ORV 
use (Johns Peak-Timber Mountain, Mount Isabelle). 
Good opportunities are also available for big game 
hunting throughout the area. 

About 1 ,1 49,000 recreation visits occur annually on 
public land in the EIS area. This level of visitor use 
attributable to public land is about 11 percent of the 
total recreational visitor use in the area. 

Cultural Resources 

The BLM has a cultural resource inventory 
comprised of three classes of inventory (BLM 
Manual 8111). These classes include survey of 
existing cultural resource information (Follansbee 
1978), field sampling inventories (180,000 acres) and 
intensive field inventories (18,000 acres). These 
inventories are consistent with requirements of the 
Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement between 
the BLM, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
and National Conference on State Historic 
Preservation Officers, dated January 14, 1980. 



There are 116 archeologic sites and numerous 
isolated finds on or near public land within the EIS 
area. There are 60 inventoried historic sites on or 
near BLM-administered land within the area, many 
of which remain unverified in the field. The Rogue 
River Ranch, Whiskey Creek Cabin and Obenchain 
Military Wagon Road are currently on the National 
Register of Historic Places. Most paleontologic sites 
are on private land, and there are few data dealing 
with site locations, significance, and conditions. 



27 



Visual Resources 

Visual resources are the land, water, vegetation, 
animals, and the other features (as described in this 
chapter) that are visible on public lands and 
comprise the scenic quality of the area. Visual 
resource management (VRM) objectives have been 
developed based on an inventory and evaluation of 
scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zone 
(see Glossary). Examples of highly scenic and 
sensitive areas include public lands seen from the 
Rogue and Klamath Rivers, Howard Prairie and 
Hyatt Lakes, Lake Selmac, and major travel routes 
within the EIS area. 



VRM classes specify management objectives and 
allow for differing degrees of modification (BLM 
Manual 841 1 ). Class I provides the highest level of 
protection for scenic values, and Class IV the lowest 
level. Public lands in the EIS area are VRM Class I (2 
percent), Class II (8 percent), Class III (22 percent), 
and Class IV (68 percent). VRM class delineations 
for the EIS area are available in the Medford District 
Office or Josephine and Jackson-Klamath FEISs 
(USDI, BLM 1978 and 1979). 

Wilderness Values 

Under the terms of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), roadless areas of 
5,000 acres or more that have wilderness 
characteristics are to be reviewed within 15 years for 
possible wilderness designation. 



In the EIS area, the 5,410-acre Soda Mountain area 
has been identified as a Wilderness Study Area (see 
Glossary). 



In the current phase of the wilderness review, the 
values, resources, and uses within the study areas 
are analyzed. Public comment has been received 
which will help formulate a preferred alternative and 
other alternatives for analysis in an environmental 
impact statement on wilderness designation of 
BLM's Oregon Wilderness Study Areas. The draft 
EIS will be distributed for public review in 1984. 



Special Areas 



Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 
are areas on the public lands where special 
management attention is required to protect and 
prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 
cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, 
or other natural systems or processes, or to protect 
life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA Section 
103(a)). Of the areas nominated for ACEC 
consideration during the District's planning process, 
five have potential for designation. Potential ACECs 
include Foots Creek Drainage - south portion (1,630 
acres), King Mountain Rock Garden (155 acres), 



Woodcock Bog (120 acres), Eight Dollar Mountain 
(1,240 acres), and Upper and Lower Table Rocks 
(1,240 acres). 



The 396-acre Brewer Spruce and 120-acre 
Woodcock Bog areas are currently designated as 
Research Natural Areas (see Glossary). These areas 
were designated and are managed primarily for 
research and educational purposes. The 150-acre 
Surveyor and 390-acre Lost Lake areas have been 
identified a potential Research Natural Areas. 



The Lower Table Rock, Eight Dollar Mountain, 
Woodcock Bog, and Brewer Spruce areas have been 
identified by the National Park Service (NPS) as 
potential National Natural Landmarks (Chilcote et al. 
1976). Designation of a site as a National Natural 
Landmark (see Glossary), a program administered 
by the NPS, would not affect BLM jurisdiction to 
manage the area. 



The Hollenbeck Natural Area is currently utilized as 
an environmental education area (see Glossary), but 
no formal designation is expected. 

An 84-mile segment of the Rogue River was 
designated a component of the National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System in 1968. The designated 
section administered by BLM extends 47 miles from 
the mouth of the Applegate River downstream to the 
eastern boundary of the Siskiyou National Forest. 
The Rogue River is also a designated Oregon State 
Scenic Waterway. 



The Klamath River has potential for Oregon State 
Scenic Waterway designation. 

Timber Resources 

The current Josephine and Jackson-Klamath 
10-Year Timber Management Plans were 
implemented in 1979 and 1980, respectively. The 
annual allowable cut provides for the harvest of 213 
million board feet (Scribner) within the Medford 
District. Management objectives have been 
established for commercial forest lands having high 
intensity, low intensity, or limited management 
potential. There are about 708,000 acres of 
commercial forest land in the district of which about 
227,000 acres are excluded from the timber 
production base due to reforestation difficulty. 



28 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

For the purpose of analyzing the socioeconomic 
impacts of the alternatives, the EIS area is defined as 
Jackson and Klamath Counties. The small amount 
(438 AUMs) of grazing activity on BLM lands which 
occurs outside these two counties would not be 
affected by any of the alternative actions. 



The value of agricultural production in 1982 was 
$114.6 million including $54.7 million in sales of 
livestock and livestock products and $60.0 million in 
crops sold. The value of cattle and calves sold was 
$39.4 million. There were 72,000 beef cows and a 
total of 170,000 cattle and calves in the two counties 
on January 1, 1982. (Oregon State University, 
Extension Service, 1983a, 1983b.) 



Data on existing conditions are for the year 1983 
except where otherwise indicated. 

Population and Income 

The population of the EIS area in 1982 was 
estimated to be 192,925 persons, a small increase 
from the 1980 population of 191,573. Population 
growth during the 1970's averaged about 2.9 percent 
per year, however, the growth between 1980 and 
1982 was 0.4 percent per year (Oregon Center for 
Population Research, 1982). Total personal income 
in 1981 was $1,671 million. Income per capita was 
$7,807 as compared with a statewide average of 
$10,009. The portion of income attributable to the 
work force (i.e., labor and proprietors income) 
amounted to $1,078 million of which $201 million 
was farm income (U.S. Department of Commerce, 
1983). 



The business of livestock production creates 
additional local sales activity through the purchases 
by ranchers and by their suppliers. A portion of 
these gross sales are earned by individuals as 
personal income. The relationship of ranchers' sales 
to personal income generated has been estimated 
for this area from an inter-industry model developed 
by the Forest Service (USDA, FS 1983). (See 
Appendix H.) Applying this estimate to 1982 
livestock sales figures, the total personal income 
generated locally by livestock producers in 1982 was 
$39.6 million. 



The following section describes several measures of 
the value of BLM grazing privileges to the livestock 
industry, and estimates the amount of local income 
and employment generated by the existing level of 
activities arising from public land use. 



Economic Activity 

The labor force, people working or looking for work, 
averaged 89,960 in 1982. Unemployment was 14.3 
percent of the labor force. Agricultural employment 
in 1981 totalled 5,202 workers including 2,854 farm 
and ranch proprietors and 2,348 wage and salary 
workers (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1983). The 
industrial composition of non-agricultural wage and 
salary employment in 1982 is shown in Table 2-6. 



Table 2-6 Non-agricultural Wage 


and Salary Employment, 1982 


(Average number of workers) 




Industry 


Employment Percent 


All industries 


57,250 


100.0 


Manufacturing 


10,320 


18.0 


Lumber and wood products 


7,300 


12.8 


Food products 


460 


0.8 


Other manufacturing 


2,560 


4.5 


Construction 


1,320 


2.3 


Transp., commun. & util. 


3,150 


5.5 


Trade 


15,490 


27.1 


Finance, insurance, real estate 


2,910 


5.1 


Services 


11,100 


19.4 


Government 


12,960 


22.6 


Source: Oregon Department of Human 


Resources, 1983b. 





Dependence of Livestock Products 
on Public Forage 

During the 1982 grazing year (3/1/82-2/28/83) 105 
lessees held grazing privileges on public lands in the 
EIS area. Their active preference (see Glossary) 
totaled 22,496 AUMs, and their active (paid) use in 
1982 was 17,246 AUMs. They reported total herds of 
22,377 cattle which is about 31 percent of the beef 
cattle in Jackson and Klamath counties in 1982. 
Assuming 12 AUMs of forage for each animal per 
year, use of BLM forage provided 6 percent of 
lessees' forage requirements. 



Four lessees were dependent on BLM forage for 
more than 40 percent of their annual requirements. 
The use of BLM forage is heaviest during spring and 
summer and comprises 90 to 100 percent of the 
forage requirements for a month or more during that 
season for 16 of the lessees. 



29 



BLM Grazing Privileges and Ranch 
Property Values 

The Bureau of Land Management does not treat 
grazing leases as vested property rights; however, 
effects on private asset valuation may occur. Based 
on BLM file data and contract appraisal studies, the 
asset value of public forage is estimated to be $40- 
$45 per AUM. Estimates of the capitalization values 
placed on grazing privileges associated with the 
selling of ranch properties have varied widely from 
this estimate. Grazing privileges have sold at prices 
ranging from $22 to $55 per AUM in southern Idaho 
according to the Owyhee Grazing Management FEIS 
(USDI, BLM 1980c), and an average price of $65 per 
AUM was indicated in interviews with parties to the 
sale of several ranch properties in eastern Oregon 
during the years 1977 to 1979 (USDI, BLM 1980d). 



Local Income and Employment 
Effects 

Based on public forage use in 1982, the portion of 
forage derived from public lands in Jackson and 
Klamath Counties accounted for about $344,000 in 
local personal income and 10 jobs. Appendix H 
shows how these estimates were made. 

Other Land Use Activities 

Timber production, mining, hunting, fishing and 
other recreational activities are other uses of the 
public lands in the EIS area. 

Social Conditions 

Social conditions that might be affected by any of 
the alternatives are primarily those relating to the 
residents and communities of Jackson and Klamath 
Counties. Groups interested in these public lands 
include ranching, timber and mining industries, and 
conservation, wild horse, historical, archaeological, 
hunting, fishing or other recreation-oriented groups 
and organizations. 

The group most likely to be affected is the ranching 
industry. The ranchers' livelihood and style of life is 
tied to the land and to the ranch operation. 



31 



Chapter 3 Environmental 
Consequences 







Introduction 

This chapter describes the significant environmental 
consequences that would result from implementing 
each of the alternatives. These environmental 
consequences (impacts) are compared to the 
existing situation, as described in Chapter 2. If a 
resource is not affected or if the impacts are 
considered insignificant, no discussion is included. 
Analysis, including the scoping process, indicates 
that there would be no significant impacts upon air 
quality, minerals, climate, or energy consumption. 



Major actions that cause impacts are (1) allocation 
of existing and future forage production, (2) 
implementation of grazing systems which include 
changes in period of use, and (3) development and 
maintenance of range improvement projects. 
Because no change is expected from the existing 
situation on the unallotted areas (516,000 acres), 
these areas are not discussed further. 



The following assumptions have been made as a 
basis for the impact analysis: 



• No impact would occur if resource conditions 
would remain the same as the existing situation. 



32 



• Short term impacts would occur during the 
10-year period needed to complete range 
improvement projects and implement grazing 
systems. Short term impacts would normally occur 
within 1 to 2 years after development of 
improvements and implementation of systems. Until 
implementation, the impacts of grazing management 
would be the same as under the No Action 
Alternative (Alternative 1). 



• Long term impacts describe conditions that would 
occur during the 15 years following implementation 
of the decision. 



• Each alternative selected would be fully 
implemented as described in Chapter 1. the period 
of implementation would be 10 years. 



• Standard procedures and design elements would 
be effectively carried out for development of range 
improvement projects in each alternative (see 
Appendix D). 



• Regular maintenance would be carried out to 
maintain the functional capability of all range 
improvements. 

Impacts on Vegetation 

Changes in vegetative characteristics such as forage 
production, ecological or forage condition, riparian 
vegetation and threatened or endangered plants are 
dependent upon changes in plant species 
composition. A summary of the long-term impacts to 
vegetation is shown in Table 3-1. 



• Vegetation is the primary resource that would be 
directly impacted. Changes in vegetation production 
or composition would affect other resources. 



Grazing systems would be followed. 



The majority of habitat work proposed would occur 
in the Dry upland zone (see Figure 2-1 and Table 
2-1). Brush control, hardwood removal, meadow 
seeding and other seeding would generally be 
accomplished on the following sites: 



• Monitoring studies would be conducted as 
described in Appendix D, and adjustments in 
management would be made as needed. 



Table 3-1 Long-Term Vegetation Impacts 



Vegetative 
Characteristics 



Existing 
Situation 



Alt. 1 

No 

Action 




Alt. 2 
Emphasize 
Livestock 



Alt. 3 
Preferred 
Alternative 



Alt. 4 

Emphasize 

Non-Livestock 



Ecological Condition 

(68.041 Acres) 
Late 
Middle 
Early 

Forage Condition 

Coniferous Forest 

(329,014 acres) 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Unknown 

Range Trend 

(68,041 Acres) 

Up 

Static 

Down 

Unknown 



1,361 
19,051 
47,629 



1,361 
19,051 
47,629 



3,402 
40,145 
24,494 



5,443 
29,258 
33,340 



3,402 
30,618 
34,021 



3,290 




3,290 




6.580 




6,580 




3,290 




29,611 




42,772 




65.803 




52,643 




72,383 




138,186 




125,025 




98,704 




1 1 1 ,864 




95,414 




157,927 




157,927 




157,927 




157,927 




157,927 




9,526 


(14%) 


9,526 


(14%) 


44,907 


(66%) 


46,268 


(68%) 


45.588 


(67%) 


47,629 


(70%) 


47.629 


(70%) 


15,650 


(23%) 


14,289 


(20%) 


14,969 


(22%) 


5,443 


(8%) 


5.443 


(8%) 


2,041 


(1%) 


2,041 


(1%) 


2.041 


(1%) 


5,443 


(8%) 


5.443 


(8%) 


5,443 


(8%) 


5,443 


(8%) 


5.443 


(8%) 



Long Term Forage 
Production (AUMs) 

Streamside Riparian 
Vegetation Trend 

(104.25 Miles) 

Up 

Static 

Down 



132,543 



24% 
62% 
14% 



131.998 



24% 
62% 
14% 



155,548 



30% 

64% 

6% 



147,507 



58% 

37% 

8% 



145,309 



78% 

22% 

0% 



33 



A. Brush Control: Shrubby scabland 

B. Hardwood Removal: Oak-pine-oatgrass, oak- 
pine-fescue, mahogany-oak-fescue, pine-oak-fescue 

C. Meadow Seeding: Dry meadow, semi-wet 
meadow 

D. Other Seedings: Steep foothill grassland 

In the remaining 11 zones, vegetative impacts would 
result from seeding cut-over coniferous forest sites 
and rehabilitation of semi-wet, wet, and grassland 
sites. 

Expected changes in key species would occur in 
nearly every vegetation type, although in somewhat 
different proportions depending upon the present 
composition and potential of the site and the actions 
being proposed. 



Plant Species Composition 

The following analysis identifies the general changes 
in composition of key species that are expected to 
result from the components of each alternative, i.e., 
forage allocations, grazing systems and range 
improvements. (See Table 1-1 for components by 
alternatives.) 



For the purposes of analysis, light utilization is 
defined as up to 40 percent, moderate utilization is 
defined as from 41 to 60 percent, and heavy 
utilization is defined as 61 percent and over. 
Generally, light and moderate utilization levels 
increase or sustain the vigor of key species, while 
heavy utilization reduces leaf surface below levels 
needed to maintain root reserves, diminishing the 
vigor of key species (Heady 1975). However, under 
most grazing systems, the timing of grazing use is 
the most important factor affecting key species 
composition. For example, during the critical part of 
the growing season (normally April 15 to July 15, 
depending on elevation, shown in Table 1-3) plants 
are drawing on stored carbohydrates to develop 
flower stalks and vegetative growth. In most native 
key species, carbohydrate reserves are replenished 
during the later stages of this period after seedripe. 
The critical period of growth ends when the plant 
has replenished its carbohydrate reserves and has 
produced seed. Moderate utilization during the 
period of critical growth may result in reduced vigor, 
evidenced by fewer seedstalks, lower vegetative 
production and a smaller crown size. Heavy grazing 
during this period can completely deplete plant 
reserves, eventually killing the key species and 
allowing a corresponding increase in less palatable 
plants. 



In the oak-woodland sites, species composition of 
white oak would change under the alternatives as a 
result of woodland thinning and hardwood removal 
from an average of 45 percent to no less than 10 
percent canopy cover, and increased ground cover 
of natives and seeded species to a minimum of 50 
percent cover in the treated areas. 



In treated brushland sites, species composition 
would change as wedgeleaf ceanothus brushfields 
are burned to rejuvenate decadent stands and 
seeded with a grass-legume mixture. Projects are 
designed so that no more than 25 percent of the 
wedgeleaf sites would be treated in a 10-year period 
in a given deer winter range. 



Estimates of changes in composition of key species 
were based upon observation, professional 
judgement, analysis of present grazing systems in 
the EIS area, studies, and a recent vegetation 
inventory. 

Forage Allocation and Grazing Systems 

Proposed utilization levels (see Glossary) would be 
60 percent or less in an allotment under all 
alternatives. This section discusses the effect of 
proposed utilization levels and grazing systems on 
key species composition. 



Winter Grazing System - Decreases in herbaceous 
key species are expected under this system due to 
high rainfall, soil compaction and trampling of 
vegetation. Winter grazing on woody species 
reduces carbohydrate reserves, because shrubs 
store carbohydrates in the above ground stems. 
Moderate utilization of shrubs is expected to result 
in production of fewer flowers in the spring and 
eventually decadent stands of shrubs. 



The composition of key herbaceous and woody 
riparian vegetation would increase under winter 
grazing. In cool weather, livestock are less inclined 
to seek out the forage, shade, and water provided by 
riparian areas, thus, light or no utilization in these 
areas would occur. 



Spring Grazing - Under this system, grazing occurs 
for one to two months during the growing season. 
Although the proposed stocking rates are designed 
to achieve moderate levels of utilization, heavy 
grazing inevitably would occur on some portions of 
an allotment and light use on others. In the early 
part of the spring grazing season, livestock make 
extensive use of annual and other less palatable 
species. By the middle of May, preference shifts 
from annuals to perennial grasses. In general, most 
cattle would be removed on spring range allotments 
before the soil moisture necessary for perennial 
plant growth is depleted. 



34 



Light utilization on key upland woody species is 
expected under early spring grazing. Consequently, 
a long term increase in composition of these species 
would occur in areas where a potential for increase 
exists because plant vigor and reproduction would 
be maintained. 



Key woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation 
would increase in composition under this system. 
Better distribution of livestock because of cool 
weather, abundant green upland forage and more 
water sources would decrease use on riparian 
vegetation. Regrowth after grazing would occur 
because of adequate soil moisture in the riparian 
areas. 



Spring/Summer Grazing System - Grazing occurs 
every year during the critical part of the growing 
season under this system. Although the proposed 
stocking rates are designed to achieve moderate 
levels of utilization on most areas, factors such as 
terrain, location of fences and water, and the type of 
vegetation found in the Medford EIS area often 
prevent uniform patterns of grazing. Heavy grazing 
inevitably would occur on some portions of an 
allotment and light use would occur in other areas. A 
decrease in composition of key native, upland 
herbaceous and woody species is expected on those 
areas within an allotment that receive heavy 
utilization — primarily areas adjacent to water 
developments, riparian areas, and flat valley 
bottoms. 



Deferred Rotation Grazing System - Under this 
system grazing would take place during the growing 
season until seed ripe of grass key species 
(approximately 1-1/2 - 2 months grazing) and then 
cattle would be rotated to another pasture. Under 
this system pastures would be allowed to rest 
through the growing cycle every other year. In the 
alternate year, grazing would take place after seed 
ripens. 



At moderate utilization levels, this system would 
allow adequate root storage and an increase in key 
herbaceous species would occur. Under heavy 
utilization levels, root storage during the year of 
deferment would only be adequate to offset 
depletion that would occur during the year of 
grazing use, and herbaceous key species 
composition would not be expected to change. 
Woody key species composition in upland areas 
would not change under moderate utilization and 
would decrease at heavy utilization levels. Because 
of the short duration of the season, the composition 
of woody species would not decrease under this 
system. Concentration of livestock in riparian zones 
is expected to decrease. Fecal analysis data 
indicates that cattle prefer grasses in the early part 
of the summer season and decreases progressively 
with an increase in forb and shrub intake. By 
rotating cattle to green feed for the remaining part of 
the season (1-1/2 to 2 months) experience has 
shown a reduction in livestock concentrations in 
riparian zones. 



Decreases in key woody and herbaceous species are 
expected in riparian areas accessible to livestock 
under spring/summer grazing. Livestock prefer 
green forage. Consequently, as upland herbaceous 
species become dry in late summer, livestock begin 
grazing green herbaceous and woody species in 
accessible riparian areas, and heavy utilization 
generally occurs. 



Summer Grazing - This system allows livestock 
grazing through the plant's growing season. The 
majority of summer grazing takes place in the 
forested zone (see Figure 2-1) on logged areas. 
Forage is temporary in nature and is generally 
shaded out due to increased canopy of conifers 
within 20-25 years. Stocking rates are designed to 
achieve moderate levels of utilization. Preference is 
high in the early part of the summer for grasses and 
decreases progressively with plant maturity, and 
increases in preference respectively for forbs and 
shrubs. Consequently, as herbaceous upland 
species become dry in late summer livestock begin 
grazing green herbaceous and shrubby species in 
riparian areas, and heavy utilization may occur. 



Rest Rotation Grazing System - Rest rotation 
grazing alternates one or more years of complete 
rest with other grazing treatments. The length of the 
rotation cycle and number of grazing treatments 
depend on the number of pastures in the grazing 
system. 



The first type of rest rotation (RR2) alternates 1-1/2 
to 2 months of spring or summer use grazing with 
one complete year of rest. Herbaceous and woody 
upland species would not change in composition at 
heavy use levels because the year of rest provides a 
recovery period from the previous year's grazing. At 
light or moderate utilization levels, these species 
would increase in composition. Riparian key species 
composition would be maintained at existing levels 
because the heavy utilization made on these plants 
during partial season grazing would be offset by the 
year of rest. 



The second type of rest rotation (RR3 and RR4) 
alternates one, 2 or 3 years of grazing during the 
growing season with 1 year rest. Because cattle are 
only in pastures for 1 or 2 months, adequate soil 
moisture remains in pastures to allow plants to 
complete their growth cycle. This system would 
increase the composition of all upland and riparian 



35 



key species because early spring grazing allows 
plants to complete regrowth and replenish 
carbohydrate reserves. The year of rest further 
ensures reproductive success and seedling survival 
of key species. 



Exclusion - No authorized livestock grazing is 
permitted in exclusion areas. An initial improvement 
in the vigor of key species would occur because the 
absence of grazing during the growing season 
would allow plants to complete vegetative growth 
and reproduction. Where the potential exists, a rapid 
increase in riparian woody species is expected 
during the first 5 years of exclusion. Observations of 
woody streamside riparian vegetation in the Medford 
District indicate that during the first few years of 
protection from grazing, rapid shoot growth and 
establishment of seedlings occur. 



Under these alternatives, about 10 percent or less of 
the manzanita brushfields would be treated. No 
vegetation manipulation is proposed under 
Alternative 1. 



The proposed methods of brush control are burning, 
mechanical, and chemical. Burning would 
rejuvenate the decadent stands of wedgeleaf 
ceanothus which are important deer browse during 
the winter months. Mechanical treatment would be 
more effective on manzanita brushfields. The effect 
of burning on perennial grasses would be minimal 
because there are few at this stage. 

All areas proposed for brush control would be 
seeded with a grass-legume mixture on 11,682 acres 
under Alternative 2; 4,469 acres under Alternative 3; 
and 7,894 acres under Alternative 4. 



Range Improvements 

The development of range improvements (Appendix 
D, Table D-1) would cause a short term and long 
term disturbance of vegetation as shown in Table 3- 
2. In addition, a decrease in the composition of key 
species would occur on 5 acres around each new 
water development as a result of heavy utilization. 
The largest change in species composition would be 
caused by the proposed vegetation manipulation. 



On the shrubby scabland sites and manzanita 
brushfields serai stage, wedgeleaf ceanothus shrubs 
cannot be improved with grazing systems as this 
species requires fire to perpetuate healthy stands. 
Therefore, brush control by burning and seeding is 
proposed to rejuvenate these decadent stands. The 
acres of the shrubby scabland site being treated (see 
Table 1-1) represent approximately 25 percent of the 
sites under Alternative 2, 16 percent under 
Alternative 3, and 27 percent under Alternative 4. 



The proposed methods of hardwood treatments 
would be mechanical and hand removal. For the 
most part, past wild fires have caused sprouting of 
white oaks resulting in increased canopy cover and 
reduced ground cover. Improvement in range 
condition cannot be solely accomplished through 
use of grazing systems. Forage production and 
range condition would improve as a result of 
hardwood thinning. 

The acreage of vegetation manipulation shown in 
Table 1-1 represents approximately 30 percent of the 
hardwood sites under Alternative 2; 17 percent 
under Alternative 3; and 13 percent under Alternative 
4. No vegetation manipulation is proposed under 
Alternative 1. All areas being proposed will be 
seeded with a grass-legume mixture on 12,577 acres 
under Alternative 2; 6,999 acres under Alternative 3; 
and 5,124 acres under Alternative 4. 



Table 3-2 Acres of Vegetation Disturbance Due to Proposed Range 
Improvements 1 






Range 




Alternative 2 






Alternative 3 






Alternative 4 




lm| 


movements 


Emphasize Livestock 


Preferred Alternative 


Emph 


asize Non-Liv< 
(Acres) 


;stock 






(Acres) 






(Acres) 














Heavily 






Heavily 






Heavily 






Temp. 


Perm. 


Grazed 


Temp. 


Perm. 


Grazed 


Temp. 


Perm. 


Grazed 


Fences 




167 








109 








103 








Corrals 




9 


9 





6 


6 





3 


3 





Ponds 




29 


29 


290 


19 


19 


185 


26 


26 


225 


Springs 




14 





340 


9 





220 


13 





325 


Hardwood Removal/seed 


12,577 








6.999 








5,124 








Brush Control/seed 


1 1 .682 








4,469 








7,894 








Meadow Seeding 


3,615 








2,474 








1.987 









Total 28,093 38 630 14,085 25 405 15,150 29 550 

' See Table 1-1 for proposed range improvements by alternative There would be no range improvements constructed under Alternative 1. 



36 



Meadow improvement would be by discing and/or 
use of herbicides to control noxious and competing 
weeds (i.e., Tarweed, medusa head, cucumber, etc.) 



Approximately 77 percent of the meadow sites 
would be treated under Alternative 2; 53 percent 
under Alternative 3; and 43 percent under Alternative 
4. No vegetation manipulation is proposed under 
Alternative 1. All areas being proposed will be 
seeded with a grass-legume mixture on 3,615 acres 
under Alternative 2; 2,474 acres under Alternative 3; 
and 1 ,987 acres under Alternative 4. 



The proposed method for seeding cut-over forest 
areas with a grass-legume mixture would be 
accomplished aerially by helicopter or with hand 
seeders. By seeding cut-over forest areas with a 
palatable grass-legume mixture, vegetation 
competition with trees can be controlled with 
livestock. Beneficial impacts of nitrogen fixation 
from legumes would also occur. Krueger et al. 
(1983) indicate that the introduction of grass forage 
species through seeding in the Wallowa Mountains 
of northeast Oregon, combined with grazing in 
Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine plantations provided a 
high level of brush control. Grazing was not 
detrimental to plantation development, and conifer 
trees in the grazed pastures showed greater height 
growth than the pasture protected from cattle 
grazing. For further information, see the section in 
this chapter dealing with impacts on timber 
resources. 



The acreage of forest seedings is shown in Table 
1-1, and represents approximately 2 percent of the 
coniferous forest sites under Alternative 2; 1-1/2 
percent under Alternative 3; and less than 1 percent 
under Alternative 4. 



Additional grass-legume seedings on foothill, 
mountain, and high mountain grassland sites 
represent approximately 42 percent under 
Alternative 2; 18 percent under Alternative 3; and 13 
percent under Alternative 4. No seedings are 
proposed under Alternative 1 . Seeding will be done 
by manual broadcast or aerial methods. The acreage 
of grass-legume seeding is shown in Table 1-1. 



New spring developments would cause a permanent 
decrease in upland key species composition on 220 
to 340 acres surrounding the new water source due 
to heavy utilization and trampling by livestock 
concentrating in the area. As these springs are 
developed, water would be diverted to livestock 
water troughs and fencing would protect riparian 
vegetation where significant overflow occurs. 
Consequently, a net increase would occur over the 
long term in both woody and herbaceous riparian 
key species near springs. 



Range Condition and Trend 

The future range condition of the area is dependent 
upon the changes in species composition described 
in the previous section. In the dry upland zone (see 
Figure 2-1) range condition classification is based 
on ecological potential. In the remaining zones, 
forage condition is dependent on logging activity 
and is based on forage value of plants that increase 
from logging activity. Expected long term condition 
changes (shown in Table 3-1) are based on several 
assumptions derived from inventory data, 
observation, study data, pertinent literature and 
professional judgment. Appendix E discusses the 
methodologies used to predict condition and trend. 
The assumptions used to predict future range 
condition include the following: 



• Grazing systems and use levels that satisfy the 
physiological requirements of key species for 
growth, reproduction and carbohydrate storage (see 
Plant Species Composition section) would improve 
range condition from a middle to late condition 
class. Conversely, systems and use levels which do 
not allow plants the opportunity to make and store 
carbohydrates would result in the deterioration of 
range condition from late to middle and middle to 
early. Cook (1971) states that" Carbohydrate reserve 
exhaustion can be the primary cause of changes in 
range condition. The more palatable species are 
grazed more intensively and frequently than 
unpalatable plants. The carbohydrate reserves in the 
heavily grazed plant are gradually reduced while the 
less palatable species have optimum reserves." 
Numerous other studies support this. The "range 
condition" described in this study correlates with the 
definition of range condition used in the dry upland 
zone for this EIS. 



• It is assumed that of the 47,613 acres of early 
condition range there will be improvement from 
early to mid condition on 13,000 to 23,000 acres 
depending on the alternative selected. This 
prediction is based on a recent range inventory 
which indicated many acres in early condition were 
borderline with mid condition class and would 
respond to grazing systems and treatments. It is 
assumed that the remaining acreage in early 
condition class would not respond to grazing 
management over the long term without some type 
of land treatment. 



• Available nutrients and soil moisture are fully 
utilized by the present vegetation. Consequently, 
any increase in the amount of key species would 
result in a similar but opposite change in the amount 
of some other species. 



37 



• Brush control and seeding in non-timber types 
would be implemented on sites in early or low mid 
condition class which would be rated as excellent 
forage condition 10 years after completion of the 
project. Brush control would be implemented only 
on early range condition sites which would be in 
excellent forage condition after 15 years. 



• Seedings in partial and final conifer overstory 
removals would be rated in excellent forage 
condition after 5 years, but would be transitory with 
a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. 



Forage Production 

Forage production is expected to increase 
significantly under all alternatives except Alternative 
1. The future forage production presented in Table 
3-1 and Appendix B, Table B-1 was predicted using 
the methodology outlined in Appendix C. The future 
forage production of both seeded and native range 
was based upon present production and potential 
production based on similar treatments, such as the 
Big Butte allotment (#24) and others in the EIS area. 

Residual Ground Cover 

The long term total residual ground cover shown in 
Appendix B, Table B-1 would not change, unless it 
is allocated for other uses, or lost on timbered sites 
that have been harvested, planted with trees, and 
ground cover is lost due to an increase in canopy 
cover. Approximately 40 percent of herbaceous 
ground cover would remain in allotments as residual 
ground cover. 

Threatened, Endangered, and 
Sensitive Plants 

Site specific information concerning the impact of 
existing livestock grazing management is lacking for 
the 18 plant species under review for Federal listing 
as threatened or endangered status and the 40 
plants considered as sensitive by BLM (shown in 
Table 2-3). For example, under Alternative 4, 
beneficial impacts could occur to plants which are 
palatable to livestock and are located within the 
proposed exclusion areas. The removal of livestock 
could allow these plants to expand into adjacent 
suitable habitat. On the other hand, livestock 
exclusion could favor plants which are preferred by 
livestock and which may be in competition with the 
sensitive plants. Without information about the 
response to grazing, the impact of proposed 
changes in grazing management cannot be 
predicted. Adverse impacts due to vegetation 
manipulation and range improvement construction 
would be avoided by conducting intensive plant 
inventories of the project area and modifying the 
design as needed in accordance with Bureau policy 
(Appendix D). 



Impacts on Soils 



The development of range improvements under 
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would temporarily disturb 
the soil surface. The disturbance would subject 
those areas to water erosion. The surface erosion 
would be minimal and the impacts would lessen as 
the areas became revegetated in 1 to 2 years. No 
range improvements would be developed under 
Alternative 1. 



Livestock would concentrate around the proposed 
water developments. Approximately five acres would 
be heavily grazed around each spring and pond (see 
Table 3-2). Residual ground cover would thus 
decrease and erosion would slightly increase. 
Upland erosion would also increase along some new 
fence lines under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 due to 
trailing by livestock. Tractor scarification and 
burning would temporarily increase soil erosion. 

Streambank erosion would be affected by changes 
in riparian vegetation (see Table 3-1) and would 
coincide with changes in streamside riparian 
vegetation trend. Increases in riparian vegetation, 
especially woody plants, would help stabilize 
streambanks and decrease erosion. Increases in 
riparian vegetation would occur under Alternatives 2, 
3, and 4 on portions of the streambanks identified as 
having significant livestock damage (see Table 2-5). 
This would be primarily the result of decreases in 
livestock concentrations in riparian areas. 



Impacts on Water Resources 
Water Quantity 

A number of studies (Rauzi and Hanson 1966; 
Alderfer and Robinson 1974; Hanson et al. 1972) 
have shown that heavily grazed upland areas in poor 
condition produce more runoff than lightly and 
moderately grazed areas and areas in good 
condition. Soil compaction may increase runoff by 
decreasing the rate of infiltration of water into the 
soil. The expected improvement in range condition 
under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in a slight 
decrease in total runoff. However, no significant 
change in water quantity is expected under all 
alternatives. 



Peak flows may moderate slightly, and the 
implementation of deferred and rest rotation grazing 
systems along streams may lead to perennial flows 
along reaches of streams that were intermittent. 
Winegar (1980) found that a previously intermittent 
stream began to flow year long after several years of 
protection from livestock grazing. Stream sections 
outside the exclosure continued to go dry during the 
summer. He attributed the additional duration of 
water yield to dense riparian vegetation inside the 
exclosure that trapped silt and built up the water 



38 



table by several feet. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the 
water table may be lowered in some stream sections 
because of soil compaction and vegetation removal 
by livestock. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in 
raised water tables and increased summer flows in 
some localized streams. 



The total impoundment of water due to the 
construction of ponds under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 
would not significantly decrease the water reaching 
downstream users. The ponds would each hold 
approximately .25 acre-feet and the total 
impoundment under any alternative would be much 
less than 0.1 percent of the annual runoff from 
public lands in the EIS area. 

Water Quality 

Chemical constituents are not likely to change 
because the chemical composition depends on the 
source of the water and the geological substrate. 
Most fecal coliform increases come from livestock 
use in or directly adjacent to streams (Johnson et al. 
1978; Robbins 1978). Managing livestock along 
streams in riparian areas under Alternatives 3 and 4 
would reduce or remove livestock concentration 
along perennial streams and thus decrease fecal 
coliforms from livestock. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, 
fecal coliform levels would remain the same as the 
present situation. 



Chemical methods of controlling unwanted 
vegetation can affect water quality. No significant 
impacts to water quality would be expected due to 
the use of buffer strips 100 feet wide on both sides of 
perennial streams and around other water sources 
(see Appendix D, Standard Procedures and Design 
Elements for Range Improvements). 

Some herbicides could also enter streams in surface 
runoff or through erosion of soil previously treated 
with herbicides. Leaching of herbicides through the 
soil to the water table and to nearby streams is 
unlikely. 



Improvement of riparian vegetation and increased 
streambank stability resulting from exclosures and 
grazing management under Alternative 4 and to a 
lesser extent under Alternative 3 would decrease 
sediment yields. Also, as woody riparian vegetation 
increases, shading of the streams would occur, 
resulting in lower water temperatures. 



Impacts on Wildlife 

Wildlife would experience both primary and 
secondary impacts. Primary impacts affect wildlife 
populations directly. Some examples of adverse 
primary impacts are: avoidance of livestock use 
areas by deer and elk; nest disturbance or 
destruction from livestock trampling; temporary 
animal displacement from prescription burning and 
removal of oaks containing animal nests. 



Secondary impacts affect wildlife populations 
indirectly by changing the vegetation or wildlife 
habitat and can be beneficial or adverse. Two 
adverse examples are loss of feeding and 
reproducing habitat for certain cavity dependent 
species when oak-woodlands are thinned and loss 
of some vegetative structure and hence inherent 
diversity within the stand under intensive grazing 
systems. Beneficial examples include increased 
forage quality especially on deer winter ranges 
through cutting, burning, and seeding on "wooded" 
sites and increased vegetative structure and diversity 
in improved riparian zones. 

Wildlife populations in the EIS area have had only 
limited monitoring to determine the impact of 
grazing systems and range improvements. 
Therefore, impact analysis was based on less direct 
methods which focus on wildlfie habitat. Some 
considerations in predicting impacts were: 

1) Condition of habitat as based on visual 
observation by district personnel and existing 
habitat inventory. 



BLM monitors water quality in conjunction with 
many spray operations. Water samples are collected 
at times when detection of herbicides is most likely, 
i.e., in the first 24 hours following herbicide 
application (to measure concentrations from 
accidental drift) and during the first major post- 
spray rainfall event (to measure concentrations 
carried by surface runoff or soil erosion). 

The development of range improvements would 
temporarily increase the existing sediment yield in 
local stream reaches. The disturbed acres are 
expected to become revegetated within 1 to 2 years. 
After revegetation, sediment yields would return to 
the previous levels or lower. 



2) Potential of wildife habitat to respond to a specific 
grazing system, livestock exclusion, or range 
improvement. 



3) Predicted impacts to vegetation as they affect 
wildlife. 



4) Research applicable to the EIS area (Culbertson 
and Montgomery 1982a and b). 

5) Research applicable to similar habitat types 
(Thomas et al. 1979). 



39 



6) Field observations of past impacts to wildlife 
populations and their habitat. 



All predicted impacts to populations are based upon 
anticipated habitat changes. Weather, hunting, 
disease, and predation were assumed to be 
constant. Actions which increase habitat diversity 
were assumed to also increase the numbers and 
kinds of wildlife although improved habitat does not 
always result in immediate increases in populations. 
Predation or adverse weather may reduce 
population levels. 

Exposure to acute toxic levels of herbicide by 
wildlife is not anticipated as none of the herbicides 
proposed for use have been reported to be highly 
toxic to animals when used in accordance with 
manufactures' labels. Animals are unlikely to ingest 
toxic amounts of herbicides at levels applied in 
range management since herbicide spray is very 
unlikely to contact all forage in animals home range. 
With a maximum herbicide deposition rate of 4 
lbs/acre, an animal consuming 3 percent of its body 
weight in food/day would be unable to approach 
toxic levels of consumption. Some animals are 
repelled by herbicide residues on their natural food 
and will forage elsewhere following a spray project. 



Chronic (long-term) effects of herbicides on wildlife 
are not anticipated. Animals are not likely to be 
exposed to repeated treatments, and herbicide 
residues ingested by them are readily excreted, 
tending not to concentrate in body tissues (Newton 
and Norris 1968). 



Diesel oil is often used as a carrier for herbicides, 
reducing the amount of herbicide required. Diesel oil 
can coat eggs, reducing hatching success 
(Kopischke 1972), and can coat birds, increasing 
their vulnerability to other environmental stresses 
such a predation and hypothermia. Spring 
application of herbicides in diesel oil carriers may 
reduce nesting success of some birds. 



Threatened and Endangered Animals 

None of the proposed alternatives would have an 
affect on peregrine falcons or bald eagles. Changes 
in bird and small mammal populations would not be 
great enough to significantly affect food for bald 
eagles or peregrine falcons. Active nesting or roost 
sites will not be impacted by any rangeland 
improvement practices. 



Trend in habitat quality for the Jenny Creek sucker 
would continue downward on portions of Jenny 
Creek and Corral Creek (allotments 107 and 110) 
under Alternative 1, primarily because of streambank 
trampling and loss of riparian vegetation (Appendix 
G, Table G-2). Trend on other portions of the 



species' habitat would remain static. Under 
Alternative 2 habitat trend due to livestock grazing 
would stablize on 8.1 miles of Jenny Creek, Corral 
Creek and Keene Creek in allotments 107, 108, 110 
and 115. Habitat condition would not change 
between Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 due to the slow 
recovery of streambank vegetation, but would 
markedly improve under Alternative 4 due to the 
expected accelerated rate of recovery of riparian 
vegetation within exclosures. 

Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas 

Impacts in riparian areas are significant because 
these areas are limited in distribution and acreage 
(less than 5 percent of the total land base) and 
contain the greatest habitat diversity and hence the 
greatest densities and varieties of terrestrial wildlife 
species. Of the 336 species known to inhabit the 
public lands in the EIS area, approximately 70 
percent feed or reproduce in the riparian areas. See 
Appendix G, Table G-1 for location of major Class 1 
and 2 stream riparian areas. 



Impact predictions were made by comparing 
existing grazing systems and present condition and 
trend with proposed grazing systems on Class 1 and 
Class 2 streams only. Class 1 and 2 stream miles 
shown on Table 3-3 represent only approximately 
one-fifth of the significant riparian areas in the EIS 
area. A 5 percent sample of the riparian areas on the 
other Class 3-5 streams showed approximately the 
same types of and amounts of problems, conditions, 
and trends as did the Class 1 and 2 streams. 
Therefore, the riparian areas in the Class 1 and 2 
streams are used as being representative of a much 
larger (5x) area. Impact predictions were also made 
from the grazing system narratives (see the impacts 
on vegetation section and Table 3-3). For example, 
an increase in key riparian species would result in 
additional structure and would result in an upward 
wildlife habitat trend. 



Livestock exclusion would improve riparian habitat 
to good or excellent condition where livestock 
grazing has been identified as the limiting factor for 
riparian habitat. Most of the improvement would 
occur during the first 5 to 10 years. Successful 
streambank fencing projects have been documented 
in Oregon (Winegar 1977), Utah (Duff 1978), and 
Nevada (Crispin 1981). 



Livestock exclusion along sections of Long Prairie 
and Beaverdam Creeks in the EIS area have allowed 
both woody and herbaceous plants to increase, 
resulting in increased habitat diversity. Similar 
riparian areas that would improve significantly under 
Alternatives 3 and 4 are Jenny and Clover Creeks, 
sections of Dead Indian and Jackass Creeks, and 
others. Decreases in riparian plant species would 
result in poor wildlife habitat where watergaps in 
fences are constructed. 



40 

Other than exclusion, proposed grazing systems 
would improve riparian habitat for wildlife at a very 
slow rate over 15 to 20 years. Some grazing systems 
(e.g. 2-pasture deferred rotation) would not result in 
any appreciable improvement in riparian habitat but 
may stop the present downward trend. 



Under Alternative 1, the present downward trend in 
riparian areas would continue. Under Alternative 2, 
significant improvement of riparian habitat would be 
very slow because of: (1) funding constraints would 
not allow for new grazing systems and/or range 
improvements, i.e., fences, seeding, etc., on some 
allotments (e.g. 108,207) that are experiencing 
downward trends in the riparian habitats and (2) 
increased cattle numbers under deferred rotation 
grazing and/or present grazing systems on some 
allotments (e.g. 31,106) would not improve existing 
conditions in riparian areas at a very appreciable 
rate. 



Under Alternative 3, which employs both some 
livestock exclusions and grazing systems keying in 
on managing for habitat diversity, there would be 
significant changes in trends, and although slow, the 
overall condition of the riparian areas would 
improve. 

Alternative 4 proposes complete exclusions of 
livestock after June 15 either by fencing or removing 
livestock on those riparian areas presently impacted 
by livestock. Under Alternative 4 the improvement of 
the riparian areas would be much faster than under 
Alternatives 2 or 3. 



The increases in plant diversity and structure under 
Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in an upward trend 
in habitat values. 



Development of springs would temporarily destroy 
some wildlife habitat at each spring site; however, 
the long term impacts would not be significant as 
adequate water for wildlife and fencing of overflow 
areas is expected under all alternatives. 

Fish 

The analysis of impacts to fish habitat is based on 
expected impacts to riparian vegetation, water 
quality, streambank stability and erosion in uplands. 
Grazing systems and range improvements that 
would increase or decrease riparian vegetation 
would also generally improve or deteriorate fish 
habitat. Increased amounts of riparian vegetation 
can reduce water temperatures, trap sediment in 
root systems and decrease channel width, increase 
summer flows and increase the availability of 
terrestrial insects. Dense riparian vegetation 
stabilizes streambanks and provides hiding cover for 
fish. Pool quantity and quality can be improved by 
decreased stream width, increased stream depth and 
by beaver dams, provided abundant woody 
vegetation is available and beaver populations are 
controlled. 



Table 3-3 Riparian Habitat on Class 1 and 2 Streams -Condition 
and Trend 1 










Condition 










Existing 


Alternative 1 Alternative 2 


Alternative 3 
Miles Percent 


Altern 
Miles 


lative 4 




Miles Percent 


Miles Percent Miles Percent 


Percent 


Poor 


4.35 4 


8.85 8 5.75 5 


3.50 3 


0.00 





Fair 


25.75 25 


22.45 22 25.55 25 


28.00 27 


13.10 


13 


Good 


61.25 59 


58.35 56 57.75 55 


57.55 55 


72.55 


70 


Excellent 


12.90 12 


15.60 14 15.20 15 


15.20 15 


18.60 


17 


Total 


104.25 100 


104.25 100 104.25 100 


104.25 100 


104.25 


100 



Trend 



Down 


14.60 


14 


14.60 


14 


5.85 


6 


5.00 


5 


0.50 





Static 


64.55 


62 


64.55 


62 


67.00 


64 


38.15 


37 


23.05 


22 


Up 


25.10 


24 


25.10 


24 


31.40 


30 


61.10 


58 


80.70 


78 


Total 


104.25 


100 


104.25 


100 


104.25 


100 


104.25 


100 


104.25 


100 



Total Butte Falls and Klamath Resources Areas 



41 



Quantitative impact predictions were made by 
comparing existing fish habitat conditions and 
improvement potential with grazing systems and 
forage allocation proposed for each alternative on 
20.4 miles of fishery stream identified as having 
significant problems associated with livestock 
grazing (see Table 2-5). Predicted habitat trends and 
conditions under each alternative appear in 
Appendix G, Table G-2 and are summarized in Table 
3-4. 



Riparian zone condition and streambank integrity 
were the two criteria used to determine the extent of 
livestock influence on stream habitat quality. 
Streambank erosion caused by or aggravated by 
livestock was considered "significant" when it 
amounted to at least 5 percent of streambank length 
over a stream survey transect, generally one-quarter 
mile. Riparian zones in fair or poor condition were 
considered "significantly" impacted by livestock 
grazing when at least 50 percent of the damage was 
judged as being related to livestock grazing. 

The 88 miles of Class 1 and 2 stream that were 
identified in Chapter 2 as having negligible livestock 
grazing impacts are not expected to be appreciably 
affected by any of the alternatives for the same 
reasons that they are currently unaffected. In 
addition better control of livestock distribution in 
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will help ensure that livestock 
concentrate in riparian zones less than they do at 
present. 



Under Alternative 1 removal and trampling of 
riparian vegetation and continued accelerated bank 
erosion would continue for the short and long term 
on 20.4 miles of stream (see Table 2-5 and Appendix 
G, Table G-2), where livestock currently adversely 
affect the quality of fishery habitat to varying 
degrees. Major stream systems which would be 
affected under this alternative include Big Butte 
Creek and tributaries which are important 
anadromous fish-producing streams and Jenny 
Creek and tributaries, habitat for the Jenny Creek 
sucker. 



Alternatives 2 and 3 would generally maintain or 
improve fishery habitat trend and condition on 
streams that are significantly influenced by livestock 
grazing. Riparian exclosures that are proposed for 
portions of 12 streams (see Appendix G, Table G-2) 
under both alternatives would substantially improve 
4.75 miles of habitat. With the exception of Parsnip, 
Mill and Tyler Creeks, the quality of fishery habitat 
on other streams with significant livestock-related 
impacts would stabilize or improve only slightly 
under the proposed grazing systems and forage 
allocations. Fishery habitat quality would continue to 
decline on Parsnip, Mill, and Tyler Creeks where 
factors other than livestock grazing would cause a 
further decline in habitat quality. 



Table 3-4 Expected Long-Term Condition and Trend of Fishery Habitat 
(Miles) 






Condition 








Alt. 1 

No 

Action 


Alt. 2 

Emphasize 

Livestock 


Alt. 3 

Preferred 

Alternative 


Alt. 4 
Emphasize 
Non-Lvst. 


Excellent 
Good 

Good to Fair 
Fair 
Poor 



16.35 
23.05 
11.95 





18.65 
21.00 
11.70 





19.15 
20.75 
11.45 






23.10 

21.30 

6.95 




Total 


51.35 


51.35 

Trend 


51.35 


51.35 


Up 

Static 

Down 


14.70 

27.60 

9.05 


17.30 

31.00 

3.05 


26.30 

22.00 

3.05 


28.45 

19.85 

3.05 


Total 


51.35 


51.35 


51.35 


51.35 



42 



Habitat quality on 20.4 miles of fishery stream is 
expected to improve under Alternative 4 due to 
riparian exclosures and elimination of grazing on 
allotments or pastures that include Class 1 or 2 
streams. An upward change in condition class 
(Appendix G, Table G-2) would be apparent for only 
11 stream miles because of other human-related 
factors that have a greater influence on habitat 
quality than livestock grazing. For example a 
downward trend in habitat quality on Fall Creek 
under a continuation of the existing situation 
(Alternative 1) would stabilize under Alternative 2 
and improve under Alternative 3, but miles of stream 
in each condition class would not change among 
alternatives. Water diversions and road erosion 
would continue to have more of an influence on 
habitat quality than livestock-related damage to the 
riparian zone and streambanks under Alternatives 2 
and 3. The riparian zone would fully recover only 
under Alternative 4 and the benefits of this recovery 
would then override effects of off-site impacts. 



Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, forage for present 
populations of deer are met with a 5 percent, 10 
percent and 30 percent increase in forage for wildlife 
being proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, 
respectively. This could lead to a corresponding 
potential increase in game populations under 
Alternatives 3 and 4. 



Alternative 1 would cause a slight decline (see Table 
3-5) in deer populations for the next 10 to 20 years 
because it would not check present downward 
trends on the majority of deer winter ranges. The 
downward trend and poor condition of the deer 
winter range is a cumulative effect of past improper 
grazing practices and control of fire. 



Black-tailed and Mule Deer 

Future trends of deer ranges were predicted by 
comparing existing conditions and trends with 
proposed grazing systems and rangeland 
improvements. 



Table 3-5 Impacts to Wildlife Populations 






Species or Group 


Alternative 1 
No Action 


Alternative 2 
Emphasize 
Livestock 


Alternative 3 

Preferred 

Alternative 


Alternative 4 

Emphasize 

Non-Livestock 


Deer(Black-tailed 
and Mule) 


-L 


-L 


+ L 


+ M 


Elk 


-L 


-M 


+ L 


+ M 


Upland Game 
Birds 


NC 


-L 


+ L 


+ M 


Cavity Dependent 
Species 


NC 


-M 


-L 


-L 


Other Birds 


-L 


NC 


+ L 


+ M 


Small Mammals 


-L 


NC 


NC 


+ M 


Reptiles 


-L 


NC 


NC 


+ M 


Amphibians 


-L 


NC 


+ L 


+ M 


Fish 


-L 


NC 


+ L 


+ L 


Key: 










NC = no change 
+ beneficial 
= adverse 
L = low 
M = medium 
H = high 











43 



Despite a small amount of additional forage for big 
game, slight declines in populations would also 
occur under Alternative 2. Predicted low negative 
impacts on deer populations under Alternative 2 are 
due to: (1) the amount of oak-woodland thinning 
with the ensuing temporary roads would cause loss 
of cover and increased access (at least temporarily) 
in the deer winter ranges; (2) loss of structure in 
some riparian areas would impact key fawning 
areas; (3) high use by cattle under intensive grazing 
systems would result in less usable deer habitat; and 
(4) the amount of the lost acorn mast crop which the 
deer in the EIS area actively seek in the fall could be 
significant. 



Under Alternative 3, beneficial impacts to deer 
habitat and hence deer populations include: (1) 
complete protection of some riparian habitats that 
are key fawning areas; (2) the development of rest 
rotation systems that insure non-grazed areas being 
available; (3) the creation of early serai stage 
wedgeleaf ceanothus communities (wedgeleaf 
ceanothus is the most important winter browse 
species in the EIS area and constitutes over 70 
percent of the deer diet in some periods of the 
winter); (4) retention of hiding cover and mast crops; 
(5) better distribution of livestock and fewer high 
livestock use areas; and (6) a significant increase in 
additional forage both in the short and long term. 



the impacted areas are then grazed beyond the point 
where they can maintain their vigor for future growth 
or seedling establishment. 

Cavity Dependent Species 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have adverse impacts 
on this group of species because of the proposal to 
thin some oak-woodlands (see Appendix D, 
Standard Design Features). Research conducted on 
the oak-dominated habitats showed that the highest 
species numbers and the greatest number of avian 
individuals occurred in oak-woodlands that contain 
approximately 45 percent foliar canopy coverage. 
Below 20 percent foliar canopy, avian species and 
total individuals dropped off sharply. 



Oak-woodland thinning would eliminate some 
species use and create habitat for other species (i.e. 
loss of habitat for acorn woodpeckers but create 
habitat for horned larks). Data generated in 
Culbertson and Montgomery (1983) shows that 
converting oak habitats to grasslands impacts 55 
terrestrial species, 43 adversely, 12 favorably. 



The amount of impacts to cavity-dependent species 
varies under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 only by the 
amount or percentage of the oak-woodlands 
proposed for rangeland improvement. 



All proposed actions under Alternative 4 would be 
for the benefit of wildlife and wildlife habitat and 
therefore a moderately beneficial impact is predicted 
for the deer populations in the EIS area. The reason 
for a medium versus a high beneficial impact on 
deer populations (see Table 3-5) is because habitat 
quality and quantity is not the sole limiting factor. 
Rural homesite development in critical deer winter 
range, weather, and predators are some of the other 
limiting factors, and these factors will not change 
under any of the alternatives. 

Elk 

Predicted impacts on elk populations and habitat are 
very similar to those described under deer. A slightly 
higher negative impact (see Table 3-5) is predicted 
under Alternative 2 because elk require more cover 
than deer, are more intolerant to human disturbance, 
and compete more directly for forage and space 
with livestock. 



Removal of forage by livestock on elk winter range 
could be significant if combined with any intensive 
reforestation efforts (plowing, discing or spraying) in 
the same area which almost totally removes 
available forage. When this occurs short and long 
term impacts would occur. Short term impacts are 
due to an immediate reduction in available forage. 
Long term impacts result when plants adjacent to 



Under Alternative 2, 12,577 acres or about 30 
percent of the existing oak-woodlands would be 
treated. Under Alternative 3, about 17 percent would 
be treated. Under Alternative 4, about 13 percent 
would be treated. These are the percentages of the 
total oak-woodlands. In some individual allotments 
(e.g. 24,31) up to 60 percent may be treated under 
Alternatives 2 and 3. 



Other Mammals, Upland Game Birds, 
Other Birds, Amphibians, and 
Reptiles 

These animals are grouped to avoid repetition. 
Impacts are described in general terms. Detailed 
analysis is not possible because site specific or 
species specific impacts from existing or proposed 
livestock management are largely unknown and 
because their habitat requirements are so diverse. 
Livestock grazing affects these species primarily 
through changes in condition of riparian habitat, 
amount of dried herbaceous vegetation in upland 
areas (residual ground cover) and plant species 
composition. Riparian areas in good condition 
support more kinds and number of wildlife than 
areas in poor condition (see Riparian Habitat 
Section). Residual ground cover that persists 
through winter and spring, which would vary as a 
result of proposed utilization levels, is very important 
for nesting, escape from predators, and maintenance 



44 



of body temperatures. Long term changes in plant 
species composition (see Vegetation section) would 
improve habitat for some species and have adverse 
impacts on others. See Table 3-5 for summary of 
impacts to small animal populations. 



Livestock exclusion and certain grazing systems that 
significantly increase woody riparian key species 
would provide improved winter cover, nesting cover, 
and food for wildlife. Increased shrub and tree 
growth in riparian areas would allow birds to nest in 
previously unoccupied areas. Species such as 
mountain quail, black-tailed deer, and beaver, which 
are strongly associated with riparian areas, would be 
greatly benefited. Studies in Oregon have shown 
more kinds and total numbers of wildlife in protected 
riparian habitat as compared to adjacent grazed 
riparian habitat (Winegar 1977). 



Grazing systems that increase upland herbaceous 
key species composition would improve nesting 
cover for ground nesters such as blue grouse. 
Rested pastures in rest rotation systems would have 
the greatest amount of dried herbaceous vegetation 
for thermal cover and nesting. Grazing treatments 
during the following 1 or 2 years after rest would 
result in decreased cover. Spring/summer grazing 
would provide the least amount of residual 
vegetation for wildlife because of the long duration 
of grazing. 



Vegetation manipulation has immediate and often 
adverse impacts to wildlife populations that inhabit 
the affected sites because of dramatic changes in 
plant species composition. Reduction of oak- 
woodland habitats would affect turkeys and other 
wildlife dependent on acorn mast crops. 



In the short term, burning would moderately reduce 
some local populations of small animals. Some 
animals would be killed during the fire; others would 
be displaced to areas where they could not compete 
with the existing populations. In the long term, 
burning would benefit certain wildlife species such 
as deer, elk, ground squirrels and meadow larks by 
creating early serai communities. 



Proposed spring and pond developments would 
increase wildlife distribution because ground level 
water would be available. Occasional drownings of 
small birds and mammals would occur in troughs 
despite escape ramps. Increased sources of water 
provided by new ponds and springs would increase 
distribution and numbers of species such as the 
mountain cottontail, Brewer's wren, and mountain 
quail. 



Increases in grasses and other herbaceous species 
on cut-over forest sites would result in an increase in 
gopher populations on those sites. 



Habitat Diversity 

Changes in plant species composition and the 
amount of structure in the community have been 
discussed in the above sections as either adverse or 
beneficial. As plant composition and structure in any 
given habitat increases there is an increase in 
diversity which would increase wildlife species and 
individuals accordingly. 

Conclusion 

The analysis of impacts to wildlife as summarized in 
Table 3-5 and Appendix G leads to the following 
major conclusions: 



• Populations of small mammals, birds, and fish 
dependent on riparian areas would increase as key 
riparian plant species composition increases. 
Conversely, a decrease in local populations would 
be expected as key plant species decrease. Riparian- 
dependent species would increase most under 
Alternative 4 and to lesser extent under Alternatives 
2 and 3, primarily due to proposed exclusions. These 
species would decrease under Alternative 1. Under 
Alternative 2, no appreciable change in these 
riparian dependent populations would occur over 
the long term. 



• Additional livestock exclusions under Alternatives 
3 and 4 would increase upland game bird 
production. 



• Deer and elk populations would slightly decline 
under Alternatives 1 and 2 and increase under 
Alternatives 3 and 4. 



• Cavity dependent species populations would be 
reduced or eliminated on 30 percent (Alternative 2), 
17 percent (Alternative 3), and 13 percent 
(Alternative 4) of existing oak-woodlands. 

Under Alternative 1, a decrease in residual ground 
cover in the upland zones would decrease available 
cover resulting in lessened populations of small 
animals. Conversely, Alternative 4 would allow 
increased accumulations of herbaceous litter with 
resultant increases of small birds, mammals, and 
reptiles. 

Impacts on Wild Horses 

Each alternative provides a forage allocation (250 
AUMs) for a maximum of 50 horses in the Pokegama 
Herd Management Area. The development and 
maintenance of range improvements in allotment 
107 under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would temporarily 
disturb the wild horses with increased activity and 
noise. The five water developments proposed under 
these alternatives would be available to horses year 



45 



long and thus open up areas of forage previously 
unavailable to horses due to lack of water. The 
construction of proposed fences could cause 
injuries to horses until the horses become 
accustomed to fence locations. No range 
improvements would be constructed in the herd 
management area under Alternative 1. 

Impacts on Recreation 

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, additional fencing 
would impede access for some recreation ists (e.g. 
Big Butte Creek, Beaverdam Drainage, Anderson 
Butte Area). The result would be an annoyance to 
recreationists, causing slight localized reductions or 
relocations of visitor use for activities such as 
off-road vehicle use, fishing and hunting. Although 
fencing would impede access, fishery habitat would 
improve under Alternatives 3 and 4, resulting in long 
term improvements in fishing opportunities. 
Additional water developments under Alternatives 2, 
3, and 4 would attract wildlife and enhance localized 
hunting and sightseeing opportunities. Alternative 1 
would result in no impacts because no new range 
improvements are proposed. 



Long-term increases in big game populations under 
Alternatives 3 and 4 could lead to slight 
corresponding increases in hunter use. 



Projected visitor use to 1990 would not be 
significantly impacted under any alternative. 
Localized visitor use reductions would be offset by 
localized increases in visitor use. Due to increasing 
recreation demand on public lands, projected use 
for public lands in the Medford EIS area would 
increase about 4 percent over existing levels (see 
Chapter 2) for a total of approximately 1,195,000 
visits in 1990. Over the long term, impacts to visitor 
use would be slightly beneficial under Alternatives 3 
and 4 and slightly adverse under Alternatives 1 
and 2. 



Impacts on Cultural Resources 

In accordance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Executive 
Order 11593 and Bureau policy, appropriate 
measures would be taken to identify and protect 
cultural sites prior to ground disturbing activities 
(see Appendix D, Standard Procedures and Design 
Elements for Range Improvements). 

Impacts on Visual Resources 

No significant impacts to visual resources would 
result due to vegetation allocation or grazing 
systems. 



Each type of range improvement was examined to 
determine the degree of contrast it would create 
within the typical landscapes of the EIS area. 
Changes in the characteristic landscape (see 
Glossary) caused by range improvements vary in 
their potential to create contrast. Some 
improvements and vegetation manipulation projects 
would add visually acceptable variety in an 
otherwise monotonous landscape. Alternative 2 has 
the greatest potential to create visual impacts in 
areas within the foreground of major transportation 
routes or use areas (e.g. allotments 4, 24, 31, 35, 38, 
106, 110, 115, 203, 206, 207, 213). Land ownership 
patterns, terrain, and small size of land treatments 
would result in most projects having insignificant 
visual impacts. Alternative 1 would create no 
impacts because there would be no new 
construction of range improvements. 



Project design features, as well as VRM program 
procedures and constraints, would mitigate 
landform and vegetative contrast under all 
alternatives (see Appendix D). 

Impacts on Special Areas 



Under Alternative 4, habitat for sensitive plant 
species would be enhanced within the Eight Dollar 
Mountain and Table Rocks potential ACECs. Under 
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 there would be no impact in 
the areas. Grazing under all alternatives would not 
impact any other identified special area. 

Impacts on Wilderness Values 

All rangeland management activities in the 
designated Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area 
(see Glossary) would be consistent with the Interim 
Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under 
Wilderness Review (USDI, BLM 1979). Generally, 
these guidelines state that changes in forage 
allocation, grazing systems or range improvements 
may be implemented as long as such changes would 
not impair the area's wilderness suitability. New 
permanent range improvements must also enhance 
wilderness values by better protecting the rangeland 
in a natural condition. 

The Soda Mountain WSA is located in allotment 110. 
Appendix D, Table D-1 identifies the proposed 
rangeland improvements in allotment 110 under 
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Improvements that comply 
with interim management policy guidelines could be 
constructed prior to a final decision regarding 
wilderness designation. Improvements (e.g., 
vegetative manipulations) not in compliance with 
policy guidelines would be delayed pending a 
decision regarding the area's wilderness designation 
and would only be implemented if the area is not 
designated wilderness. Site specific environmental 
assessments will identify which improvements have 
the potential to impair the area's suitability for 
wilderness designation. 



46 

Impacts on Timber Resources 

Researchers have historically concluded that use of 
livestock in forested areas causes extensive damage 
to timber reproduction (Chapline 1933, Den Uyl 
1945, Diller 1935; 1937, Kaufman 1948, Steinbrenner 
1951, Trenk 1954). In these early studies, little or no 
research was done to determine the amount of 
forage that can be consumed without damage to 
tree seedlings and/or to relate season of use to 
timber damage during the growing season. More 
recent research is not so conclusive, however, 
reporting mixed results relative to grazing impacts 
on timber production (Black et al. 1963, Hedrick et 
al. 1966, Erickson 1974, Windward et al. 1980, 
Wheeler et al. 1980, Krueger et al. 1980; 1983, 
Krueger 1983, Leininger et al. 1983). 



seedling losses (about 56 percent mortality) to 
trampling by livestock, and over half of the seedling 
mortality to drought. This study also found that 18 
percent of total seedling mortality was due to big 
game and rodent populations. Wheeler (1980) 
reported similar results with most seedling losses 
(about 68 percent mortality) caused by drought and 
rodent activity. Drought is especially important in 
southwestern Oregon where available moisture is 
the most limiting factor inhibiting seedling survival 
and growth. About 64 percent of the Medford 
District's commercial forest land is classified as 
Skeletal-xeric and having potential drought 
problems (de Moulin 1975). For droughty sites, near 
complete control of competing vegetation is 
necessary during the first 5 to 7 years of plantation 
development. 



Other recent studies (Brodie et al. 1979) revealed 
that animals cause losses of over 60 million dollars 
in timber productivity each year in Oregon and 
Washington. Most losses result from damage to 
planted Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine seedlings 
during the first 3 to 5 years after reforestation. An 
extensive survey of BLM-administered lands in 
western Oregon reported that feeding, trampling and 
rubbing injuries were the most common type of 
damage to seedlings (Evans 1981). Animal species 
thriving on improved habitat and causing the most 
damage were big game, livestock, rodents, and small 
mammals. In Josephine and Jackson counties, deer, 
pocket gophers and cattle were the species that 
caused the major damage while in Curry, Coos, and 
Douglas counties deer, elk, and mountain beavers 
were the major problem species. 



The interaction and competition between livestock 
and wildlife for forage use are also important. 
Hermann (1965) and Minore (1978) reported a high 
incidence of seedling mortality from combinations of 
animal damage and adverse climatic conditions. 
Evans (1981) reported that the most serious 
reforestation problems occurred where 
deer/elk/mountain beaver, and/or 
deer/cattle/gophers, and/or other such interactions 
occurred. Consumption of Douglas-fir by deer 
during the winter has been reported to be inversely 
related to the amount of other suitable forage, 
available (Roy 1960, Mitchell 1964). Consequently, 
the allocation of available forage between user 
groups is important. 

The site factors that limit productivity are also 
important in evaluating grazing impacts. Most of the 
research dealing with grazing impacts has been 
conducted in more moderate environments where 
moisture and temperature extremes are not as great 
as found in southwest Oregon. For example, in the 
Wallowa Mountains of northeast Oregon, Krueger 
(1983) attributed only 8 percent of the total tree 



Research by the Forestry Intensified Research 
Program (FIR) in southwestern Oregon has 
demonstrated that, on droughty sites, almost 
complete vegetation control early in the growing 
season is necessary if target stocking levels are to 
be achieved on newly established plantations 
(Hobbs1982). 



Defoliation of ground vegetation by sheep 
apparently reduced soil moisture withdrawal by 
deeply-rooted brush species. However, where 
stimulated by grazing, regrowth by herbaceous 
plants increased soil moisture losses during the 
early growing season. Spring-grazed plantations had 
slightly less or similar soil moisture in the upper two 
feet of soil, but more soil moisture below two feet 
than did the control plots in August (Sharrow 1983). 
Regardless of slight moisture benefits, on 
southwestern Oregon droughty sites where moisture 
has been recognized as the critical limiting factor 
inhibiting reforestation success, seedling mortality 
has been excessive during the early growing season 
due to moisture stress. These impacts would be 
mitigated by deferring reseeding efforts and/or the 
invasion of residual vegetation for grazing until after 
successful reforestation. 



Under all alternatives, field trials would be 
undertaken to determine what combination of 
treatments are possible to make livestock grazing 
compatible with timber production on moisture 
limiting sites. Proper livestock grazing itself is not 
the major cause for seedling mortality; rather, 
seedling mortality is attributed to moisture stress 
and damage from rodents associated with lush, 
improved vegetative growth. 



47 



Studies that reported significant increases in 
seedling height and diameter growth when 
competing vegetation was grazed by livestock, 
emphasized proper stocking rates, dispersal, forage 
utilization, and proper season of grazing as key 
elements of success (Hall 1959, Leininger 1983, 
Wheeler et al. 1980, Krueger 1983). Spring grazing 
(before July 15) resulted in significant damage to 
seedlings in most studies. In most cases, grazing 
during the summer and fall caused insignificant 
seedling damage. Heavy utilization of forage by 
livestock during the summer and fall seasons 
increased wildlife damage to seedlings during the 
winter and spring months. Seedling mortality and 
damage resulting from grazing pressure became 
severe when forage utilization exceeded 35 to 50 
percent for sheep (Hedrick et al. 1966, Sharrow et al. 
1983) and 80 percent for cattle (Wheeler et al. 1980). 



Significant increases in forage availability can be 
achieved by seeding high yielding, palatable forage 
species subsequent to timber harvest (Vavra et al. 
1980). Grass species can also retard the 
successional development of residual shrubs and 
less palatable herbaceous species (Krueger et al. 
1980). This could result in more complete vegetation 
utilization by livestock and thus increase soil 
moisture reserves. Although more forage is available 
on areas seeded with grass, two studies reported no 
significant difference in tree seedling survival and 
height growth between grazed seeded and unseeded 
areas (Krueger 1983, Krueger et al. 1983). It is 
obvious that on certain sites, properly managed 
livestock grazing does not conflict with timber 
management. The following is a discussion of 
specific impacts of proposed Alternatives 1-4. 



Under all alternatives, on droughty sites where 
moisture is a critical limiting factor and/or where 
resident gopher populations exist (estimated to be 
65 percent of the EIS area), seedling mortality is 
expected to be 40 to 60 percent due to the effects of 
competing vegetation. Of this mortality, 
approximately 70 percent would be due to drought; 
20 percent due to big game and rodents; and 10 
percent due to livestock. These losses would be 
mitigated by the near complete chemical and/or 
manual control of competing vegetation during the 
first 5 to 7 years of plantation establishment. 



On moderate sites where moisture is not limiting 
and/or where resident gopher populations do not 
exist (about 35 percent of the EIS area), seedling 
mortality is expected to be 10 to 20 percent. Of this 
mortality, approximately 70 percent would be due to 
drought, poor planting, etc.; 20 percent due to big 
game and rodents; and 10 percent due to livestock. 
Alternative 4 would slightly increase overall conifer 
survival (about 2 percent) on lands withdrawn from 
livestock grazing. The above survival projections are 
based on little or no grazing during the winter and 



spring months, and 60 percent and 35 percent 
utilization of palatable forage by cattle and sheep 
respectively. 

Under all alternatives, where proper grazing is 
accomplished, increased height and diameter 
growth of seedlings may occur, improving potential 
yields. Alternatives 2 and 3 would facilitate better 
livestock dispersal and more forage utilization, thus 
possibly increasing seedling survival and growth. 

Under all alternatives (to a lesser degree for 
Alternative 4), on those units where grazing 
interaction occurs between species (wild horses, 
deer, livestock, etc.) decreased seedling survival and 
growth can be expected. However, when proper 
allocation of forage between user groups is 
achieved, seedling mortality due to animal grazing is 
expected to be less than 30 percent of total 
mortality. In certain areas where heavy deer use 
exists, the use of tree seedling protection devices 
(bud caps, tubing) may be necessary to keep deer 
damage at acceptable levels. 

Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, with cooperative livestock 
operators; proper season of use; proper stocking 
levels and distribution of animals; and proper 
allocation of forage between user groups, seeding 
and livestock grazing on moderate sites would not 
conflict with forestry objectives. 

Impacts on Human Health 

Exposure to herbicides used in range management 
is most likely to occur to handlers, applicators, crew 
supervisors and observers at or adjacent to spray 
units. Mixer/loaders have been found to receive the 
greatest exposure due to handling of concentrated 
chemicals (Lavy et al. 1980). 



The probability of the general public being exposed 
to herbicides used on rangeland would be very low. 
This is due in large part to remoteness of location 
from population centers and human use. 



The laboratory dosages at which potential 
reproductive effects have been detected, or at which 
carcinogenic and mutagenic effects have been 
tested for and not found, are much greater in 
concentration and duration than any exposure that 
would occur in the field as a result of vegetation 
management. Because of the limited toxicity of the 
herbicide proposed for use and the low potential for 
exposure, the likelihood of an adverse impact on 
human health is negligible. 



48 



Impacts on Socioeconomic 
Conditions 

The economic impacts are expressed in terms of the 
effects on dependence on public forage, on ranch 
property values, and on local income and 
employment from grazing activity and from the 
construction of range improvements. The impacts 
are valued in 1982 dollars. Impacts on hunting and 
fishing activity are not significant in terms of local 
income and employment. Social impacts not 
primarily economic in nature are discussed as 
appropriate. 

Effect On Dependence On 
Public Forage 

In determining the effect on dependence, active 
(paid) use in 1982 was subtracted from future long- 
term allocations in each allotment. (Short-term 
allocations were disregarded as virtually the same as 
the long-term allocations.) For analysis purposes, 
the allocations were divided among the lessees in 
proportion to 1982 active preference. 



Table 3-6 shows how annual forage requirements of 
individual lessees would be affected by the 
alternatives. Losses experienced by individual 
lessees would be less than 10 percent of their forage 
needs except under Alternative 4 where two lessees 
would lose more than 10 percent of their annual 
requirements. The average change in forage as a 
percent of annual requirements is also shown in the 
table. The seasonal distribution of public forage use 
is not expected to change significantly from current 
patterns. 



Effect On Ranch Property 
Values 

The effect on ranch values as collateral for loans or 
in the sale of the enterprise has been calculated by 
valuing public forage licenses at $45 per AUM. The 
effect on ranch value is related to the change in 
licensed forage from the existing (1982) active 
preference level rather than from the existing use 
level. As shown in Table 3-7, a loss of more than 
$10,000 in ranch value would be experienced by one 
lessee under Alternative 1, and by 7 lessees under 
Alternative 4. The total loss on the part of lessees 
experiencing losses, the total gain for those gaining 
and the net change in ranch values is also shown in 
the table. 

Effects On Local Income And 
Employment 

The effects of the alternatives on local personal 
income and employment resulting from changes in 
forage are shown in Table 3-8. These effects were 
estimated on the assumption that livestock sales 
would vary in direct proportion to forage availability. 
They would differ if lessees were unable to utilize 
public forage when it was available. 



Within the local livestock industry, personal income 
and employment would be increased under all 
alternatives except Alternative 4 which would have a 
small reduction in income. The local economy of 
Jackson and Klamath Counties would also 
experience gains in income and employment under 
Alternatives 1 , 2 or 3, but losses under Alternative 4. 



Table 3-6 Number of Lessees By Size Of Long- 
Forage 


■term Change In Public 


Change in Forage as 

Percent of annual 

Requirements Alt. 1 


Alt. 2 


Alt. 3 


Alt. 4 


Loss over -10.0% 

-0.1 to -9.9% 17 

No change 64 

+0.1 to 9.9% 20 

+10.0 to 19.9% 1 

+20.0 to 29.9% 2 

+30.0 to 49.9% 

+50.0% or more 1 


5 
59 
21 
10 

5 
5 


6 
63 
20 

7 
4 
3 
2 


2 

22 

65 

12 

2 

1 

1 


Average change +1.8% 


+9.1% 


+4.8% 


-0.6% 



49 



Range improvements to be made under each of the 
alternatives except Alternative 1, would generate 
temporary increases in local income and 
employment during the period of their construction. 
These effects would be distributed over the 
construction period and would not be sustained 
afterward. The total effects are shown in Table 3-9. 



Table 3-7 Number of Lessees by Size of Long-term Change in 
(Based on active preference valued at $45 per AUM) 


Ranch Value 


Change in 
Ranch Value 


Alt. 1 


Alt. 2 


Alt. 3 


Alt. 4 


Gain over $20,000 
+$10,000 to $19,900 
+$1 ,000 to $9,900 
Change less 

than ±$1,000 
-$1,000 to -$9,900 
Loss over -$10,000 


102 
2 

1 


14 
10 
10 

71 


5 

10 

13 

76 


1 
1 
2 

78 
16 

7 


Total loss 
Total gain 


-$18,990 


-$ 180 
+ 757,440 


-$ 450 
+ 362,385 


-$373,950 
+ 91 ,890 


Net change 1 


-$18,990 


+ $757,260 


+ $361,935 


-$282,060 


' Omits unassigned grazing preference 









Table 3-8 Effects on Local Personal Income and Employment Due to 
Long-term Changes in Public Forage 1 


Action 


Livestock Industry 


EIS Area 2 


Personal 

Income Employment 


Personal 

Income Employment 


Alternative 1 
Alternative 2 
Alternative 3 
Alternative 4 


+$ 21,000 +1 
+ 105,000 +3 
+ 57,000 +2 
- 6,000 


+$ 97,000 + 3 
+ 488,000 +14 
+ 266,000 + 8 
- 30,000 - 1 


1 Estimates based on forage change from 1982 active use level. Effects estimated by factors derived from interindustry model as shown in Appendix H 

2 Jackson and Klamath Counties. 



50 



Table 3-9 Short-term Effects on 
Local Income and Employment 
Due to Range Improvements 1 
(Total effects over entire 
construction period.) 



Action 



Construction 

Costs Of 
Improvements 



Personal 
Income 



Employment 



Alternative 2 
Alternative 3 
Alternative 4 



$1,803,300 
$1,004,500 
$1,289,100 



$1 ,401 ,000 
$ 780,400 
$1,001,500 



47 
26 
34 



Effects estimated by factors derived from interindustry model as 
shown in Appendix H, 

' Approximates job-years. Were construction to occur over a 5-year 
period, the number of workers employed during the period would 
average one-fifth of the amount shown. 



51 



List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the 
Statement are Sent (in addition to approximately 250 individuals and 
other organizations): 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Soil Conservation Service 
Department of Defense 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

Bureau of Mines 

Bureau of Reclamation 
Environmental Protection Agency 



State and Local Government 

Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine and Klamath County Planning Commissions 
Oregon State Clearinghouse 
Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer 

Interest Groups 

All Grazing Lessees in the Medford EIS Area 

American Fisheries Society 

American Horse Protection Association 

Audobon Society 

Natural Resources Defense Council Izaak Walton League 

Jackson County Cattlemen's Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Nature Conservancy 

Oregon Cattlemen's Association 

Oregon Environmental Council 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

Oregon Natural Resources Council 

Oregon State University, Dept. of Range Management 

Oregon Sheepgrowers 

Public Lands Council 

Sierra Club 

Society for Range Management 

Southern Oregon Resource Alliance (SORA) 

Threatened and Endangered Little Applegate Valley (TELAV) 

Wilderness Society 

Wild Horse Organized Assistance 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Wildlife Society, Oregon Chapter 

Approximately 250 other individuals and organizations. 



52 

Copies of this draft environmental impact statement will be available for public inspection at the 
following BLM offices: 

Washington Office of Public Affairs 

18th and C Streets 
Washington, DC 20240 
Phone (202) 343-5717 

Oregon State Public Affairs Office 

825 N.E. Multnomah 
P.O. Box 2965 
Portland, Oregon 97208 
Phone (503)231-6277 

Medford District Office 

3040 Biddle Road 
Medford, Oregon 97504 
Phone (503) 776-4174 
FTS 424-4174 

Reading copies will be placed in the following libraries: Portland State University, Portland; Oregon 
State University, Corvallis; University of Oregon, Eugene; Southern Oregon State College, Ashland; 
Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls; Rogue Community College, Grants Pass; and the 
Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine and Klamath County libraries. 



53 



LIST OF PREPARERS 



While individuals have primary responsibility for preparing sections of an EIS, the document is an 
interdisciplinary team effort. In addition, internal review of the document occurs throughout preparation. 
Specialists at the District and State Office levels of the Bureau both review the analysis and supply information. 
Contributions by individual preparers may be subject to revision by other BLM specialists and by management 
during the internal review process. 



Name 



Albert Abee 



Robert Bessey 



Dick Bonn 



John T. Booth 



Ralph Culbertson 
Bill Drewien 
Laurie Lindell 
Joseph Ross 



Primary Responsibility 



Timber Resources 



Discipline 

Ecology 



Fisheries 



Human Health 



Socioeconomics 



Fishery Biology 



Biologist 



Economics 



Steven Shade 



Wildlife 

Vegetation 

Water Resources 

Team Leader, Wild Horses, 
Recreation, Cultural 
Resources, Visual 
Resources, Wilderness, 
Special Areas 



Soils 



Wildlife 

Range Mgmt. 

Hydrology 

Planning and 

Environmental 

Coordination 



Soil Science 



Related Professional Experience 

1 year, U.S. Forest Service (Forester) 

2 years, ACTION (Ecologist) 

I year, Asia Development Bank 
(Ecologist) 

1Vz years, Forest Service (Research 
Forester) 

3 years, BIA (Range Conservationist) 
2V2 years, BLM (Forest Ecologist) 

4 years, Texas Instruments, Inc. 
(Fishery Biologist) 

772 years, BLM (Fishery Biologist) 

5 1 /2 years, BLM (Environmental 
Specialist) 

II years, SCS (Biologist, Soil 
Conservationist) 

3 years, Washington Tax Commission 

(Tax Analyst) 
6 1 /2 years, Washington Dept. of 

Commerce (Economic Analyst) 
2 1 /2 years, Federal Reserve Bank 

(Economist) 
Vh years, Corps of Engineers 

(Regional Economist) 
4Vz years, BLM (Regional Economist) 

12 years, BLM (Wildlife Biologist) 

11 years, BLM (Range Conservationist) 

3 years, BLM (Hydrologist) 

3 years, U.S. Forest Service (Forestry 
Technician, Biological Information 
Specialist) 

5 years, BLM (Outdoor Recreation 
Planner) 

1 year, BLM (Environmental 
Protection Specialist) 

3 years, U.S. Forest Service (Soil 
Scientist) 

2 years, Jackson County (Soil 
Scientist) 

3'/2 years, Soil Conservation Service 

(Soil Scientist) 
8 years, BLM (Soil Scientist) 



55 



Appendices 




A. Summary and Results of EIS Scoping. 



B. Determination of Forage Production and 
Vegetation Allocations, Table B-1, Initial and 
Long-Term Vegetation Allocations. 



C. Pasture - Specific Data. 
Table C-1, Existing Condition, Proposed Grazing 
Systems, Predicted Long-Term Condition and Trend 
and Periods of Use. 



D. Standard Procedures and Design Elements for 
the Construction of Range Improvements. 
Table D-1, Proposed Range Improvements by 
Allotment. 



E. Determination of Existing and Predicted Range 
Condition and Trend. 



F. Scientific Names of Plants Mentioned in the EIS. 



G. Riparian and Stream Habitat Inventory 

Methodologies. 

Table G-1, Streamside Riparian Habitat - Predicted 

Condition and Trend. 

Table G-2, Fishery Habitat - Predicted Condition and 

Trend. 



H. Estimates of Gross Sales, Personal Income and 

Employment. 

Table H-1, Economic Effects per Unit Measure. 

Table H-2, Value of Cattle and Calves Sold per AUM. 



56 

Appendix A 

Summary and Results of EIS Scoping 

A public meeting for scoping the Medford Grazing 
Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
was combined with a meeting to discuss the 
development of the preferred alternative for the 
Josephine and Jackson-Klamath Management 
Framework Plan (MFP) amendments. At that stage, 
four land use allocation alternatives had been 
developed from criteria established with earlier 
public input. The four alternatives called for various 
allocations of forage, different amounts of protection 
for riparian areas, and various proposals for range 
investments. 



The MFP Alternatives were discussed in a public 
meeting in Medford, Oregon, on April 19, 1983. 



Oral and written comments were used in developing 
the alternatives to be analyzed in the Medford 
Grazing EIS. These comments led to the 
development of four alternatives: 



• Alternative 1, No Action (continue existing level of 
livestock grazing). This alternative is required by law. 

• Alternative 2, Emphasize Livestock Grazing. 

• Alternative 3, Preferred Alternative. 

• Alternative 4, Emphasize Non-Livestock Grazing 
Values. 



The preferred alternative contains elements adopted 
primarily from MFP Alternatives B and C as modified 
by a preliminary benefit-cost analysis and public 
comments. 



Comments received during scoping focused on 
several issues: riparian area management, wildlife 
habitat diversity, forage allocation, range 
investments, intermingled land, threatened and 
endangered and sensitive plant species, and 
economic costs and benefits. 



As wild horses were not identified as an issue, all 
EIS alternatives call for the management of the wild 
horse herd population under the existing wild horse 
herd management plan. Public comment generally 
opposed increasing wild horses in any alternative. 

Comments were received which suggested the 
following as elements of alternatives to be analyzed 
in the EIS: no chemical use, and seeding grass in 
cut-over timberlands. No herbicides would be used 
for the benefit of livestock grazing under the 
Emphasize Non-livestock Values Alternative. The 
Emphasize Livestock, Preferred and Emphasize 
Non-livestock Values Alternatives have incorporated 
varying degrees of seeding on cut-over lands. 
Seeding in forested areas would be coordinated with 
timber management objectives. 



Public comment supported analysis in the EIS of 
either a "reduced grazing" or "no grazing" 
alternative. The No Grazing Alternative was 
eliminated from detailed study because it has 
entirely different goals from any of the land use 
alternatives and, at earlier steps in the planning 
process, no EIS area-wide livestock grazing conflicts 
were identified by the public or Bureau specialists. 
The Preferred and Emphasize Non-Livestock Values 
Alternatives address identified site-specific conflicts 
between livestock grazing and other values and 
include an analysis of no grazing on selected areas. 
Significant reductions would occur as a result of 
livestock exclusions under the Emphasize Non- 
livestock Values Alternative. 



The emphasize livestock grazing alternative consists 
primarily of elements of MFP Alternatives A and B. 
Under this alternative, much support was noted for 
increased forage production as well as for riparian 
zone and water quality protection. 



The emphasize non-livestock values alternative 
would exclude livestock grazing in Class 1 and 2 
riparian zones and semi-wet meadows. Within Class 
3 to 5 riparian zones, livestock use would be 
excluded on summer range in allotments where 
Class 1 and 2 conflicts with livestock have been 
identified. Two potential Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs) would be excluded 
from grazing under this alternative. 



57 



Appendix B 

Determination of Present Forage 
Production 



Forage production for the EIS area was determined 
by using the Soil Conservation Service Range and 
Forest Site guides, stocking rates and recent range 
survey. In addition, this information was compared 
with allotment actual use data and estimated 
ecological and forage condition with recent levels of 
use by cattle, horses, and wildlife. 

Determination of Short Term 
Allocation 

The existing livestock forage production is 
proposed for allocation among livestock, wildlife, 
wild horses and nonconsumptive uses. Proposed 
allocations were designed to be consistent with the 
goals and objectives of each of the alternatives. 
Short term allocation indicates AUMs which would 
be credited during period of implementation. These 
allocations would be made within 1 to 2 years 
following the development of range improvements 
and implementation of systems. 

Wild horse forage allocations are based on 
population objectives set forth in the existing wild 
horse herd management plan. 

BLM, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife, determined present and future big 
game numbers and seasons of use. Only 
competitive livestock AUMs were allocated to big 
game. Thus, allocation for big game's total diet was 
allocated for BLM-administered lands. A 
competitive AUM is forage composed of palatable 
shrubs, forbs and grasses eaten by both livestock 
and wildlife. The portion of total big game forage 
which is competitive is based on the dietary overlap 
or percentage of competition by deer or elk. 



The same formula with the 3:1 AUM conversion 
factor was used for elk. 

Determination of Future Forage 
Production 

The analysis of predicted changes in grazing 
capacity is based on the expected change in key 
species composition and vegetative production. 
These changes would occur as a result of changes 
in livestock distribution, season of use, fencing, 
timing and intensity of livestock grazing, and the 
partial conversion of shrub and oak woodland 
communities to perennial grasses and shrubs; oak 
trees and grasses. 

In Allotment 001 for example, the implementation of 
a deferred rotation grazing system on 
approximately 9,630 acres, the construction of 16 
miles of fence, and the development of 3 springs 
would result in improved livestock distribution and 
periodic rest for key forage species. Brush control 
on 173 acres and oak thinning and removal on 1,575 
acres, plus seeding on 1,905 acres, is predicted to 
increase short term livestock and wildlife forage 
production by 876 AUMs. An additional 165 AUMs 
of long term forage production is also expected. 

Fifteen years following implementation, the forage 
production of the allotment is thus expected to 
increase by an estimated 1,041 AUMs. Added to the 
current production of 4,261 AUMs, the future forage 
production of the allotment would be approximately 
5,302 AUMs. 

Determination of Long-Term 
Allocations 

The long-term allocation is for analysis purposes 
only. The actual allocation would occur only after 
evaluation determines that the forage is available 
and would depend upon the multiple use objectives 
of future resource management plans. 



Big game unit months were converted to AUMs 
using the following conversion rates: 

6 Deer Unit Months = 1 AUM 
3 Elk Unit Month = 1 AUM 

Big game was allocated forage based on public land 
in the allotment and the area of use. Big game herd 
size was based on pellet group studies conducted 
on range and forest sites and then correlated with 
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for 
comparison of data. A mathematical equation 
illustrates the method used to derive wildlife AUMs: 



Deer 
Nos. 



Months 
Use 



1 AUM 
x 6.0 Deer 



Wildlife 

AUM 

Allocation 



58 



inmooooicococo 

r)c\im»-i-ooo)(N 
a) (*» a) cm r^. tj 
*-** •-' cm cm' 



o r- co co »- co ^ r- 

CO CM N CO O O 



oitDtiDinoitfCs 

ID S COO) r- CO *T t- 

CD CM r-- CD O O 



cocococo*?oococo 

cm o t- a) i— 01 m 

CM CO t- i- 



COCOCOCOTOOCOCO 

w o i- en *- o) in 

CM CO i~ i- 



CMOCT>COOCOCMOO)COCOCO 
C0cOCM<DCD<DCMO>O)tO J ~ 4 

*- co ■* m 



u^NOcno^^incgr-ooKDcnt^wmcocMinfcooiooooNOco 

'-OCOOICOi-'-Cn'-TrTjTtOCOCO CO T Tj- CM TT ID CM COCOCOttOCDOCMCO 

Ol r*- If) CM CO 0) CM N- CM f- O) CO C3 »~ CO U0 

r^ *"-" l— " CM" t-" in ^T i- 



CM CO 



ot^iDcou)si-nojNU)cC'-'ico(j)^iocDooonoor , '/i^Ninwcor)cvj(D 
co*-'-cocD'^-co^ m cm cocotj-cm ococmt-*- co r--'-'-or~-CMcoo 

- M r- O) CM i- cm co cn t- r- m 



rocvjsmcoT-iofOcnr-ncooonnno^^ifitmcvjcoocvjcD 

lO CM CO CM TT CM SSCMt- CO Ni-CfiOSWCVJO 

cd O) to i- co t- r- o cm r- i- n n »- n in 



i- CM t- CM f- 



OOOOin^OCD 

cd m o m •- co m 
co cm t- •- m m 



i-inipc\iONincococovir)Oin<3)sconi/)oomifiTrOc\i'-mocj)C\isinsoo 
i- o cn cm Tj-cocococMrrcMr^to cO'-'^coaimocO'-i— 1-cm ▼- r- cm in 

CD i— i— CO ^cOCM^CO'T'- 1 ^ *~ 

icDojosincocDcoTrinocomscnncnooinin'iOCNiOinooiiNKinsooooooincooco 
Ococm tnnnc\ic\sio ni-TtwoimocO'-Si-co ■- n c\j in co in o in »- co m 

o r- i— co T-cocMCMi s -.TT»-in *- co w "-i- m in 



(A 

5 



(A 

C 

o 

"co 
o 
o 



c 
o 

s 

0) 

> 



comoooo)cococo 



u 

z 


o 
op 


CXI 


0) 


CM 

cm" 




O 

cm" 


o 


CD 


Cm 


_l 

s 


T 


CD 


CO 


cn 


in 


o 


CO 

T 

CM 


CO 


r* 


CM 


CM 




CNJ 




CO 








-1 


O) 

CM 


O) 
CNJ 


CO 


cn 


m 


CD 

o 


CO 

CM 


(0 


t 


CM 


CM 




CM 




CO 








> 
1- 


CO 

CO 

o 


■X) 

o 

CO 


CO 


CO 

o> 


T 


o 


O 


CO 

in 


CO 



CMOO^cootocMOo^cococoi-coOLnootDa)cocMr^o^O)0^inincM 
comcMcD<otocMa)a)cD o co --ooi'-'iT-ocooirir-r-ai^^ 
t-co -*r in co t- cm *- t- cm co 

co" ■* t-" 

CMomssocDm^cofinsDinrj'-co'j^iococos^ 

CO'- t N f O CO (O CM (DcO CDiOCO^^cOtO^J'cO'- 



>j ^j-cMincocMinc^coocoooor^oco 

i- ^r ^ cn cn co co Tt ^j cm 't ihm 



■ CO O) CO O- CO 



ch r^-' If) CM CO O) CM 



COOCD^^CDOCMn 

O) co O) *— co m 



cn t- co^-i— id en co s r- cn cm n m co <- ■*— cn ctj c- to o*) o o *- 
(DincOi-i-cniDTnr- m cm co co ^ cm o n cm -- t- 

COi— t- CO ID s CD ^ h-O'— r*- 



CMOifis^oioiO'jco^inNnmcn'-co 

CO-- TT CD <t o cn CD CM (DtO CD m CO 



--cDcncos^cncMs 
r- cn co 't cn r- in 

T- CO 



cooc'OLncDin-^-cO'-CMCD 

CO V--SOOCMCOO 

cm i^ »- cn cm t- ^j- m 
tj-' t-" t-' 



O) cm co <- •* in 



CMcococo^rootoco 
cn o r- O) i— a> m 
o cn r- t- 



comoooo)cococo 

OC\liO'-i-000)OJ 

co r^ a) cm r^- tj- 

r-" i-" CM." Cm" 



cooitoiinaicocDs 
or-com i-Tj-^-r- 

CM CM N r- O CM 



ncococttoocdco 

CM O t- CM t- ai m 

CD CO *- CM i- 



ooocncM^toococo 

in o r- t- <- O) m 
in cn r- cm i- 



coinoooaioocnoo 



icDtMcofmoc\io)Noninooinm^cMCMCD'too)iOMnNONoo)ocomcooco 

CO^COCM^J-CMCDcD CO <— ^ CI O) ID O ^ ^ f^t^-CM r-> NCMifiOcOCOON'-NiO 

O) t— r- t-cncM^ Nr^'- n i— cococmcoi— n-in 



wooicoocDWOoicococnT- cooinootDO)CDc\Noiroo"tininc\'-coo)CDoco^^r\iif)cocMinorootDooosoco 
cnmcMcocDcocMOcDcD o co '-ocn'-'j'-ocoocoi-r-cni-^Tj-^cncnco co ^ ^ cm i m cm ocnco^'jcoocMcn 
t-co -*t m co r- cm r- r- cm cn rj)Mi)c\i inoiw n n n o)nO)--com 



CMomNNOComTfcof^Ncnmcn'-cO'Tt-tDcncosr-cncM 
cot- tj n rf o cn id cm men comOT-Y-cncoTcnT- m 

CnCMCM O COt-t-O) 



cnincn«-co^^iDcni- 
i coinOT-T-cocDo 

CO T- T- O) 



i co t- t- cn cn r- ^cooosnno 

i co co tj- oj t-cocmt-cd cn 

tor-cD'- cod) r- co cm 

T-" T-' T-" CM" T-' h-' 



T- T- T- CM 



oincoinT-cococM 

"Jt-COOO)CMCOO 

r*- a) co cm t- r- m 



CM O CD CM ^r o 



mmcMincMcomcoinT-mo)cMO 

CD T -- ^ O ^ t- CM r- f cn CM 



u 

z 


a 
oo 


r-. 




C\j 


T " 


O 

r- 


c 

T 


cn 


C\J 


*" 


*~ 




CM 




CM 








-J 
5 
-j 


co 
en 

CD 


03 


CO 

r- 


O) 

CO 


m 


o 


CO 
CM 


CD 


N 


*" 


CM 




CJ 




CO 








c/) 


CO 

o 


O) 
CM 




03 


m 


o 


CO 

t 

CM 


CO 


r- 


CM 


CM 




CM 




en 








> 

-i 


CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 

o 

CO 


CO 


CO 

0) 


T 


o 


o 
cn 


CO 

in 


CO 



cMoa)tDOtocMoo)cococn*-cooino 

COmCMCDtDCDCMO)CJ)CD O CO t-OCJ) 

t- cn -* in co t- cm 



■^■incooo)r— cocoinooininTa-ocMT-oocT)Trr-inr--ooomocomT-ocD 

' CM *J N N co COt- rj co (J) in O CO r- CM CM CM r*- NOJiOOlCDNOiO'-COm 

CM r- t- CO CM CM O) t— t— T t-O) t-CMCT)*— f-.m 



comoominTfOCM'jcDOCDcor^mh-ooocMOiOLnTroco 
coT~T4-coo)inocoT-cDT-cM -^r f^cMinocDinocoT-Tj-in 

i- cn cm cm co cn r- to t-co r- cm cn >- sm 

T-" T-" CD" CO" •-" 

ococjxDCMNaioiOfinmcM'-tnoico^cnTrTj'CMincocMinr-cnocDOOOsoco 
T-TrT-ocoo)coT-T-cj)T-T3-rrrrc7)cocD co t ^r cm Tf in cm cocnco'j'jcDocMcn 

CM r r- CM cn O) N lO CM CDCDCM r- CM h- 0)COO)T-C0in 



CMomsmocomrfco'rr-Ncoincn - 
co r- tj m i o cn co cm o cn com 



cnO)o 0)\rooNcocoop^mcoint'cO'-wcD 
co cn cm >- o co mT-inoocMcoo 



Tf CO •- 



co co cm r- tj m 



incor-T-cocxc^CD^joor^cocooc-'Tincoin^rcoT-cM 1 

f\i mrr-iTffM OTi tT) CM t— O CO UOt— OOOCMCOO 

it- a) cm ^r co cn cm r- t m 



to co ^ cm 



Ocococo^j-oococo 
in o t- a) t- ai in 

CO CO t- T- 



t- co cm cm 



t- CO CM CM 



O CO t- o 



inr-ocDocMocoincoocD 

NCMlOcniDCJlON'-Nin 

T-r- incMcoT-Tj-m 



ooco^o<DO)CDoinoor^OT-coooinocooTroooT-o^oooincDcDOOinooocoouoT-OT-ocDr^cooooocMOcDm 

COinCDCDTfCO^CMCMNTj'iDinCMCM^CO^IO'JS^NCMn^CM'JcncOCOTjr-^scO^COCOOCOCMCDr-NCMOC^ 

co cm co t- o r-. in r- in r- t- co t- cm co ^t co co r- cn in m n to t n o in ■«* cm cm co cq cm O) t- cn co cn r- co r- s ai ^ cn s co m o en to 
O) V cm" t-* r—" ■—" r-" cm T-" o in t— " co* co" co' a>" *— co ^ »— co" *— " t- m" ^' r- m' t- V ^r" 

*-t-t-CM CMCM i-cnCM 



CD 
O 

JQ 
(0 

H 
CD 



a> cu 

E E 

= Z 

< 



' _ oi o 



3 ra — CO 0- Qu 



<rro5zz3ujDO 



■i 


"O 
















E 












j-- o c 


c 


0. 

o 

■i ° 
1% 


LL 

C 
JZ 


Cl 
CQ 

CD 
cn 


CO 

o 

O »- 
-1 0. 




r- 

c 


c 
3 


o 

c 

CO 

J3 CD 
CO td 

cn_2 


« 


«S w .2 

£ -ci 2 
U rr co 


£5 

CL 


u 
c 

TO 
cc 


o 

O 


p 
a 




3 

CD 


oot 

oot Cree 

igh Rd 8 
Mountai 
South 

reek 2 

reek 3 

reek 1 


a 2 

£ S 

III 

f O 5 




"5 

C 


o 
o 


CO ® 
O) O) 

3 c 


o 

u 

Cu 


o 

u 

0) 


DC 

3 


CD 
> 

o 


y ^3 .o 

0) i^ ^ 

(u a> a> 


E 

3 


o 

TO 


6 

u 


(U 


rowf 
rowf 
oble 
loser 
evor 
altC 
altC 
altC 


cu 

cn cd j* 

CD O) CJ 


O CD 


^' 


2 


C7) LU 


CO 


CO 


m 


CD C/) 


r- 


rr O Q 


CO 


a 


3 


g 


> 


00020(0 0)0) 


O LJJ CD 



2U 



in O 



aj — 
I 



lo'u 



.vJtL'c* jtu| J luJ -=-- Jt >->r3L. t-i u 
' " v r O t; ■: >OO0)> c - i<: yi:CO 

>QQ i 5<cy)UJUQ.C0^XOcy)OC0O 



i_ CD 
CD — 



c 

Q. 
Q. 
< 



E-Q T-cMcn^tincor-coooT-cMco^j-cDi 
C OOOOOOOOOt-T— T— T— T— T— '. 

O £ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO' 



CMnTlOCONOO 



om^fiiocjocMn*- c s cDr--p-p-x-j-c--inc-p-OP---- co p- c- p- r-. p" p*- p- p-- c- p- p-- p- p- p- p- p-- c- p- c-i 

(DfOm ON'-tOCO'- tNtM T CD O CO ID CO Q 

m »- xt CM CO CO CO *«fr CM CO » 

cm" cm' r- 



59 



cd cm *- co in cnj co co r- oo c- in t- p- ■ c* cm p- o p- p- o p- o •— p- c- p- co c* p- p- p*- p-- p-- p-- p-- p" c- p> p- p- p- o 

TfT-CD^-'^ , CMC0*-'-CO COm CD CM CO co «n 

in *- xt .- CD CO xT CM CM T l/> 

CD CM r- CM if) CM o co r-- O P- in i- p- p- cm p- o c* P- - t- P- CO CD P- P- P- IT) P- P- P- P- P- - P- P- P- P- ■ p- c ■ c- p- p- m 

xT^c£>r-TT»-CMrocsj'-co com to co xt cm (O 

if) i- t* r- CD CD^Tt-i- xT <£> 



5 o 
o ^ 

°I 

■d E 
o -x 



OOtOxTxtOOinxTCOin'-OOCOOcOOOOxTxTOOCOO 00 m -— in tD xT CM OTOCOCMinCOCMr^CO ? 

CO CO CD CM CO i— CM in CM*— CO'— CM CO •- COCM'— CO N CO CU m -— CO ■"* CNJ CM CO Psl CD LT)'— P-„ 



if) 0)0 



£ o 

*- O) > 



om^^cDCMOojcO'-^cnNC'C' -<t p- in p- p- o p- »- co o 

(D CO in CO t-» -— CO CO >- CMCM XT O CD CO (O 

in -— xT CM CO CD CO "-T CM 

cm' cm" 



p- --- p- p- p-- p-- p- p- p- p- p- p- p- p- p- p- 



CD CM r- CO If) CM CO CO f** CO C" LO r~ P- ■ P* CM P- O P* ■ P- CO P* -I— LO P- 

'J i- CO h- xT CM CO "- r-CO CO If) CO O r- 

U") -— xT --- CD CO O CM CD 

T-* co' CM* 



P- P" CO P" P" P- P" P- P" P- P- C" P- P- P- P- P- 



COCOxTxTOOlf)xTcOif)'-OOCOOCDOOOxTCOOxTcOO 
CO CO CD CM CO -— CM U") CM-— CO'-CMCO'-COCM'-xTr--'-— r--.in 

COCMCM t- O) in xt *- 



p- p- m p- p* ■ c- p- p- p- p- p- p- p* P" c- c* p- 



a 





3 


* 


S 


(0 

5 


09 


D 


^ 


< 




n 




K> 


g 


CM 



COCDxTxTOOinxTCOini— oocoocooooxToomcoo 
co co cd cm co »- cm in cM'-cO'-cmcO'-cocM'— cor-coh-m 

COCMCM i- Ol ^ T t- 



o ™ 



P- P-- h- P- P-- P- P- C^ P-- C" P- P- P- C" P- P- c^ 



E ™ 



cncMi— coincMooooh-coc^in'-p- c cm r- o p-- o f- p- in cd p- 

xT'-CO r~-xT CMCO'- *- CO co in r- xjcD 

in t- xt i- CD cococoo 

cm' co" 



CDCM'-PvJinCMOCOh-OP-in'-P-P-CMC^OP-P-'-P-OCDi 
xTr-tO S T i- CM CO CM t- CO CO in O CDCO 

in'-xT'- cd cocor^o 

cm" co" 



OOtOxTxTOOinxTCOinT-OOCOOCDOOOxT'-O'-COO 
tDCOCD CMCO'-CMin CM'-CO'-CMCO'-COCM'-tDr--xTCMin 

COCMCM T-cor^-COi- 



t- CM CM 



COCDxTxTOOinxTCOin'-OOCOOCDOOOxTxTOCOCOO 
COCOCD CMCO'-CMin CM'-COT-CMCO'-COCM'-COr^COCMin 

COCMPO '-COCOCOt- 

'-" cm' cm" 



P-- CO P- P" P- P-' C»" C" o p- P- P- P- P- P- 



p- m c^ p-- p- p-- p- p-' p- p* p- p- p" p- p- 



r 


D 


re 


<n 


S 


0) 


o 


3 




a 

















E 


m 


3 






fl 


C 







re 


u 



E o 



p- m p- p" o p- ■ i- co p-' p- p- ■ r*- p-- p- p- p- p- p- p*- c- c- p- p- p- p*- p- 

O CD CO CO CO 

CO CO xT CM CO 



CDCM'-coincMcocor-~cop-Ln'-p-p-cMP* op* p- t- p-- o in p*- p- p-cO 1 
xr---cor--xTCMco*--'-co com o o t- co 

m-— xt--- cd cocor-.cD xt 



p- c- p- ■ o- p- p* p- p- ■ P- P- P* 



CDCM-— CMmcMocor-o p-m>--p-p- cmp-op- p- i- p- o m p- p-p-mp* p-- p- p- p- p- p- p-- c-' p- p-- c- r* p* 
XJ---CO r- t -- cm to cm <-co co m o cd-— cm 

in «f- x-j- --- 0- <OCOr~CD xt 

CM." pJ 

cotoxTxroomxTcom-— oocoocooooxTxTooaoo com'-mcoxTCM CfOtosmrocMsic 

COCOCD CM CO •— CM m CM-— CO-— CMCO'-COCM'— CO S O N lO r- CO r- CM CM CO r— CD m»— 

•— m CD x-j- •— i- 



co py p«j 



CX <D 

I ■ 

*- CO 



cotoxTxrooinxTcom-— ooooocooooxtxtoocoo com'-mcoxTCM oiocoMnrowM 
co n cd cm co •— cm m cM'-co-—cmcO'— COCM-— n s n n m «— oo -— cm cm to i-^cd m »- 

•- m CD xT i- -r- 



CO CM CM 



^.^^2^2SS22P^ ro -^9^Q3^Q^ ooc ^^^ l ^oo^ooocooocooomcMmr-.oo 

wo)N-rnotoo5cos'f--totowococoocorvjN--ro-js^O't^'j--cvjto--CNj^tON--intD-j 

Of- CM CO T t- CM T --r-tOCO--COCMCOCMCMtDNCMCM01tO-- co -—m ---co *-co xrm 

xT CO f- CO --'cm" r-~" ■-—* h-* CD' >—' CO' r-" r-* xt" 

CO CM 



1 E 

"O CD 

QJ crt 

u QJ 

CD £ 



5 o 



2 "^ 



25 a> 



OJ D o. tr c _ 

01 O <D ra D C 



X <B " 



encj ai ^ 
ai re ,- 
■d ai h 



)= 0) 



< ai 3 y <y o 



' .9 DC 



> 0) o c J _ ~- 

2 o« 4i n 1 






Dcoiui<cd>uh) 



±J * J w 

>v--i-0 l -'>-0 k -03— ^ 

QO_iOCQcriOzi-ccii- 



•- E ° 



cc o 



CC ^crarao.ccc/)(j_ 

S56«^£go-§.S2oi=i|sS.'5SlJ?---„ 

o) « O in u. U Q m ») ll 



CD 



u 

a 


O 




= u u 








01 Q. . 





b 




TO 




LL 




l/J 


a. -> a 



'J 



„1- 

in >- ^n c 
ctOujoo 



?^SP^^ c ^ r 23^^ OT 0^ c ^^^^^ ( X3CMCOxT-Or-~tX)0^0--CO<O^CC 
CMCMCvJCMCMCOOCOCOCOCOxTxTxr*--t---T---T--TxTOOOOOOO'-'-'— '-*-♦-- 

^^^^^^^^^^^'-'-^^--------CMCMCMCMCMCMCMWCMCMtMrMtMCMCMCM 



CMCOCMCOCOCDOCMmtO 

CMCMOOOO'-'-'--- 

"'COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 



11 o 

w _ 

5 E .9? 

< ~ Q 



ra — >- 

UT) - 
? CO CD 

- c E 

oil 

- CO CO 

- = CO 
" TO Ji 

£ 1 $ 

r 0) (D 

o aoi 
j= p -o 
CO E UJ 



$825? 
^ > ac ~ *3 

^5§ q. 

E E E E I 

OJ m a> q3 5^ — 
r ait en o -g 

° <= ° c 5 ~ 
-n o -c o o o 

CO jco jZZ 



hr-r-PO 
CO -I W -l Z c- 



60 



■o 

C 

■o 
c 

(0 

c 
o 

■o 
c 
o 

o 



a> 



C CL Li- LL 



N * 





O) 




c 




o 




-I 




■o 




a> 








o 




•^™ 




■D 




a> 




k- 




Q. 




■N 




(A 


(0 


E 




0) 


(0 




a 


(A 


oc/) 


^ 


G) 


u 


C 


a> 




a 


N 
(0 


<D 


o 


h- 




3 


•o 




0) 


</> 


(0 


(0 


o 


CL 


a 


T- 


o 



a> c 
S.2 

c c-o 

0)'-i=O 

9-.S2C 

<LUQ. 



c u. u_ u_ 



cnj cnj cr 
CT CC Q 

cc cr 



•r UJ LU UJ 



S« CO CO CO 

^ -5 cococo 
3 </J 



!! 



« c' 



■* ? » o S • 
C 5 HI o o ■ 
O I UJ O 



S S a, g 1 

S £ » 2 5 o. 
5 <rt S o g u." 

"■ " Olj 



o a> 

Z E 



o o o o o 



irj <j t cd m 
o o o o o 



LU C- LU C* o 



(f) c- (f) c- c 



E E 

°z 



Iff 

<E = 



LU c* lu o- c* 



o o 

o o o 



■£ <v c cc a. 

f \ O n u -D 
O _ o) o c 



I CO t£> to CO 



o o o o o 



CO CO CO c- CO 



LU LL UJ C- LLJ 



CO CO CO o D 



CO CO CO c- D 



CO CO CO C- CO 



LU Li- UJ C- UJ 



£2 = ^ 

^ cu n: -> 

CO Z CO % LU 



N coa>o ■- 
o So o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



O O O O o 



■ CO ! - 

-) to r^ 
poo 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



CO CO CO 3 3 



3 3 3 3 3 



■ O *~ T- 



CO CO CO CO 



CL CL Q_ CM CNJ 

CO CO CO cc cc 
oc cc 



3 3 c CO CO 



55° lu. 5 

U_" U." ^ CL 



CO CO CO 3 D 



2 ^ ^. 5 5 

a." "- u_" i 



CNJ CNI CNJ CNJ CNJ 

oc cc cc cc cc 
cc cr cr cc cc 



3 3 3 3 3 



U_" UL LL U_" 



CL CL CL CM CM 
CO CO CO CC QC 
CC CC 



CNJ CNJ CNJ CM CNJ 

cc cc cc cc oc 

CC LX CC CC CC 



CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ Ql 

CC CC CC QC CO 

oc cc cc cr 



55^ w 2 

U_' U- "- CL 



S UJ UJ 5 2 
CL "- U." L 



Q. CL CL CNJ CNJ 

CO tO CO CC LT 

or tr 



m cnj _j cni 

cc cc cc £ cc 
cc CC CC ft oc 



CNJ CM CNJ CNI Q. 

CC CC CC CC CO 

cc cc cc cc 



CO CO o- CO CO COC0C033 



a> cu ~ cu 2 
D O O _i m 



o o o o o 



> oa. 



z en lu 



D D D 3 D 



a. o_ a. cn cn 

if) if) (/> cc cc 

cc cc 



C C 3 3 



■- CNJ CO Tj- 
CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ 

O O O O 



CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ 

cc cc cc cc cc 
cc cc cc cr cc 



UJ UJ LL) UJ LLJ 



co -*r u"> to r~ 



CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ CL 
CC OC CC CC CO 

cc cc cc cc 



UJ LU LU UJ O 



o o o o p 
o o o o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



3 3 3 3C0 



CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO 



LL LL LL CL 



3 333C0 



LL LL LL LL LL' 



^cjtr^co 

d a> >- S i- 
o o <u ni tu 
I- CC Q CO O 



3 3 3 3 CO 



^ 5 2 s L 

Li.~ LL U.* u." l 



CNJ CNJ CNJ CNI 3 

oc oc oc tr to 

LT cc OC QC 



LU LU LU LU UJ 



o o o o o 
to CO CO to CO 
o o o o o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



m IS ■= ¥ *" 



LU LU LU LU LU 



cnj co ■*)■ tn co 



o o o o o 



in ^ m m en 



o o o o o 



CO O CO CO 3 



5W.5 



CO C- CO CO 3 



LU C- 2 LU ^ 

0- U." CL LL 



CO P- CO CO 3 



CO o CO CO CO 



LU C- 2 UJ UJ 
CL ljl CL a 



a) 



■1- 



cc £ S id 8 



cnj co ^3- m co 

CO CO CO CO CO 

o o o o o 



61 



o c 



m r- o o o 



o o o o p 



I t- O O O 



. - .J^ VJ_J T— 1^/ I^J 

t C ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ 

I o ■*». — *^. *«*. -•. 

1 5 TT tJ- -j Tf ^j- 

* o o o o o 



5 LU< 
Ll'O- 



? S-q: 



SLLI< 
U.0- 



■5 S 


CO CO Q. (X CL 


Q_ Q_ CO CM CM 

co co to cc cr 


c 

0> 






00 CO c- ■ c CO 


M^-WDD 



5 w c 



01 M _ 

— -o _ <o c 

o S » o t5 

U. -o 



O I 111 O _f 



Ol „ o .- 

! — »r ° 
i '5 ° £ it 



2uJ< 



0. CL ev. 



Z | 

3 2 



01 0> 

E E 



111 

< E 3 



6S 



Poog = 
UUSDco 



o o o o o 



npo--'- 



o o o o o 
in in in in in 

o o o o o 



O O r- o o 



o o o o o 



WMODD 



CL CL CO CM CM 

co co co cr cc 

cr cc 



CO c* CO D D 



0- u_"u.' 



0. 0. CO CM CM 

CO CO CO cc cc 

cc cc 



CL O CL CL CL CL CL Cl 0_ 



s>p 



to to -£ "u 

00 00 O LU 



o o o o o 



.- *- in r- o 

O O r- O CO 



to co m c£> to 
o o o o o 



D Z) COCO 00 



D D CO CO CO 



2 5 uj i UJ i lu 

u_' u_' a.' cl cl 



D D CO 00 00 



5 3 tu hi uj 

n.* u_" Cl Cl CL 



UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 



Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 



mminmi 



r» CD CO CO CO 
O O O O O 



O O O O O 



O O O O O 



C0D3DD 



Cl u." ll ll ll 



WDDDD 



CO CM CM CM CM 

co cr ac dc cr 

cr cc cc cr 



wdjdd 



CO CM CM CM CM 

co cc cc cr cc 
cr cr oc cr 



W3DDD 



0- ll u_" u." u.' 



CO CM CM CM CM 

co cr cc cc cr 
cr cc cc cc 



UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 



CL 0. CL CL CL 



"- o o « 

£ |0< 



TO TJ 
O) O 
< CO 



o o o o o 



D D CO CO CO 



D D CO 00 CO 



LL LL C* UJ UJ 



D D CO CO CO 



D D CO CO CO 



TO O 
O) c 

E -i 

UJ CD 



o o i- •- o 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 



CO D D 3 00 



5 2 5uj 

LL LL LL °- 



C0 D D D 00 



CO Q Q Q CO 



S6i 


r^ 


a. 


S)CJ ^ 




TO 






E o o 




o 


LU O 0_ 


CD * 


X 


»- c\j n 


t m 


CD 



COOM31S 



t- t- O W~ 1- 



5 5 o uj uj 

Lu Ll 0-0. 



2 5^'iuuj 
uj u_* a Cl 



D D c- CO CO 



r- y- CM 

o o o 



O P o o p 



o o o o o 



o o o o o 

r- r- r^ r^ o 

P O O P T^- 

p o o o o 



'0 '■ 



> X 



o o o o o 



LL 0." LL LL CL 



cr cr cr cr co 
cr cr cr cr 



CO CO CO CO CO 



D 3 3 DC0 



5 2 2 5 uj 

LL Ol LL LL 0- 



cr cr cc cc en 
cr cr cr cc 



CO CO CO CO CO 



UJ UJ LU LU UJ 



CL Cl a Cl CL 



OOO-^O 

o o o o o 



o o o o o 
in in ^ in in 
o o o o o 



CO CO CO to CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO Q CO 



CO CO CO CO CO 



UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 



a 0. CL CL CL 



LL CL CL CL CL 



> X ° 
i a w 



a S 
a t 
a) ca 

T O 



a; o 

=1 c 

I < 



111 

P £ 



CM CM CM CM ( 

o o o o < 



o o o o o 



CL CL CL CL o- 



3 t- p m m 

") ro m — - 



t- i- tn m co 






o m o o 

CM ro .- <n r~> 

01 2 r-- i£> (O 

p p p p p 



O O C) o o 



in T T -<t T 
o o o o o 



CO CO CO CO CO 



5 co co co co 

-* /n ^/-i m m 



CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CL CO CM CM 

co co co cr cr 
cr cr 



o- co co to r- 



c- LU CL CL c^ 



co cr co cm cm 
co o co cr cc 
cr cr 



c/) co co co co 



co co co co co 



co cr co cm cm 
co q co cr cc 
cr cr 



c- c c- CO CO 



o- LU CL CL c~ 



SCO CO CO CO 
i-A CA CA CA 



f 0_ Q. 0. f> 



J o ? 
o in ^ ■£■ Z 
miQUj 



c) n 'j •? ' 
o o o o < 



co ^ 



S2° 



cc o)2 

— 3 *_ 

0) CO 0) 

c . n 
%= £ 



H < 



o o o o 

CM CM CM CM 
O O O O 



62 



^r ^r -^ ^T ^J 
o o o o o 

m m m m m 



t ^ ^f ^ ^ 
o o o o o 



o Q c- c- c^ 



?f. 



C in HI Q .9 * 



■= 2 -E w = ° 

m r « 2 ^ Q- 



4) 4> 


_^ 


jC i 


E E 

< 


0) 

O 


D O 




c 


c £^ 










o <S tu 
o>Ocn 


of? 


^ 


co ai o 


o 


O O r- 


— » E 


CM 


CM CM CM 


<E = 


o 


o o o 



SO T3 

9 x: o "5 S 
nOQlUtfl 

i- fO(ON CO 



^ in ^ 

o o o 



co ctj to cl a. a. a. > 
co CO co co co to to ^ 



cy — o = 

- 5 8 1 
Ills! 

u. CC _j CO CL 



Ot-CMPICM 
•- CM CM CM O 
(M CM CM CM C) 

o o o o o 



m 


f- 


r- 


in 


m 


_ 


CO 


_ 


_ 


o 




Cj 


cn 






O 




co 


w 


m 






















Ifl 


m 


in 


■X 






CM 






in 


9 


O 


O 


5 




o 


a 


p 


9 


p 


(0 








CC 








a 




o 


o 


p 


o 


^ 


cm 


o 


p 


CM 


o 


5 


3 


"T 


m 


o 


in 




~i 


T 


<* 


o 


a 


o 


O 


"~ 


O 


^ 


a 


a 


o 


in 


,_ 


,_ 


m 


m 


o 


CO 


n 


,_ 


a 




ro 


m 






CM 


CM 


o 


CO 
























m 


in 


m 


U0 


CM 


in 


eg 






m 


oooo 




p 


a 


o 


o 


9> 


cc 








CD 


in 










o 


o 


o 






p 


o 


CN 


o 
























T 


^T 




O 


T 




-7 




^ 


o 


O 


O 


o 


*~ 


O 


*~ 


o 


a 


o 



o. a a. a. > 

/n rr\ m m -* 



O O 
co co 
O O 



r- o- o c^ 



QC 5 CO CO 0. 

^ -* frt frt frt 



a: > co en o. 

/-. -* rf\ rfi tf\ 



t> c- c* c c- 







re 

0) 


a 






>^ 


CD 






-C 


^ 






o 


-C 






TO 


u 






a' 


re 




TO 

ai 


CO 

CD 


0) 

5 




>^ 


JZ 


o 












a) 








-C 


o 


o 












o 


D 


D 




>. 


O 


o 












cc 


0) 


CD 




> 


c 


C 




0) 


o 


o 












yi 


to 


CO 




0! 


(1) 


CD 




fc_ 


fc " 






(0 


(0 


(0 




£ 


0) 


OJ 












3 


D 


D 












to 


<f> 


a) 




a 


ro 


TO 


c 


CL 


CL 


CL 


o 


CM 


m 


>» 










2 


C 


c 


c 


o 


o 


o 


o 


en 










It 


ro 


TO 


-o 








0) 


o 


o 


o 




cc 


cc 


cc 


5 


*-" 


*-" 


~- 



o> o c\j in to 
o •- t- *- r- 
ton on o 
o o o o o 



a> 



OJ ~^ CO 

BfljoijiajacO 

Q0CCCQC(/)tOC/)§Z 



S CM CO T 

2 OCOCIXCCCLDOT^O 
O QGCOCCCCOWOTSZ 



■o E 



o — 

O M 

Q- _i 



(0 O 



LL 5 I" 

-D "2 "O 
O TO ra 

or > 
v-o I 

™ ° 

-D -D 

"> 5i II 

S£ D . 

^ § s 

£ cw 

, o ■ - 

in 

o S^ 

a> o> ■ • 

01 O "CI 

"5 o c 

i- O a) 

O u ii 

LL ILI I- 



63 



Appendix D 

Standard Procedures and Design 
Elements for Range Improvements 



The following standard procedures and design 
elements will be adhered to under all alternatives in 
administering the grazing management program and 
constructing range improvements in the EIS area. 
Design elements have been standardized over time 
to mitigate adverse effects encountered during 
range improvement installations. 



• Site-specific environmental analysis prior to 
implementation of range improvements is required. 
Proposed range improvements may be modified or 
abandoned if this analysis indicates significant 
adverse environmental impacts cannot be mitigated 
or avoided. 



• A wilderness inventory, required by the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act, has been 
completed in the EIS area. All rangeland 
management activities in the wilderness study area 
will be consistent with the interim Management 
Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness 
Review unless and until the area is removed from 
this category. Impacts will be assessed before 
implementing management activities to ensure they 
meet guidelines. 



identifies procedures for compliance with Section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) 
and Executive Order 11593, as implemented by 36 
CFR Part 800. 



• Prio to vegetation manipulation and development 
of range improvements, BLM requires a survey of 
the project site for plants and animals listed or under 
review for listing on Federal or offical State lists of 
threatened and endangered species. If a project 
might affect any such species or its critical habitat, 
every effort will be made to modify, relocate or 
abandon the project in order to obtain a no effect 
determination. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service will be initiated (50 CFR 402; 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) when 
BLM determines that a proposed action may affect 
Federally-listed plant or animal species. In addition, 
some plants in the Medford EIS area are considered 
by BLM as sensitive and are managed under the 
same procedures as plants under review for Federal 
listing. 



• Surface disturbance at all project sites will be held 
to a minimum. Disturbed soil will be rehabilitated to 
blend into the surrounding soil surface and reseeded 
as needed with a mixture of grasses, forbs and 
browse as applicable to replace ground cover and 
reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion. 



• All State of Oregon water quality regulations will 
be adhered to. 



• Visual values will be considered during the design 
and development of the project. Visual resource 
contrast ratings will be completed as part of the site- 
specific environmental assessment for projects in 
visually sensitive areas or with high potential for 
adverse visual impacts. As appropriate, mitigating 
measures will be developed (BLM Manual 8400). 

• Every effort will be made to avoid adverse impacts 
to cultural resources. An appropriate cultural 
resources inventory is required on all areas prior to 
any ground-disturbing activities. This will be part of 
the preplanning stage of a project and the results 
would be analyzed in the environmental assessment 
addressing the action (BLM Manual 8100, Cultural 
Resources Management). If significant cultural 
values are discovered, the project could be 
relocated, redesigned or abandoned. However, 
where that is not possible, the BLM will consult with 
the State Historic Preservation Officer and the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 
accordance with the Programmatic Memorandum of 
Agreement (PMOA) by and between the Bureau, the 
Council and the National Conference of State 
Historic Preservation Officers, dated January 14, 
1980, which sets forth a procedure for developing 
appropriate mitigative measures. This PMOA 



• All water developments will provide standing 
water for wildlife outside of troughs where a need is 
identified by BLM. Significant spring sources and 
associated trough overflow areas will be fenced. 
Wildlife watering ramps, rocks, or floatboard will be 
provided in all water troughs for small birds and 
mammals to gain access to and/or escape from the 
water. 



• All fences will be constructed in accordance with 
Bureau standards. Gates or cattleguards will be 
installed where fences cross existing roads with 
significant use. 

• Vegetation manipulation projects will be designed 
using irregular patterns, untreated patches, etc., to 
provide for optimum edge effect for visual and 
wildlife. Layout and design will be coordinated with 
local Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
biologists. No vegetation manipulation will be done 
in riparian zones that contain significant riparian 
vegetation. A vegetative screen will be retained 
between permanent roads and created forage areas. 



64 



• Prescribed burning will be designed in 
accordance with the guidelines contained in the 
Oregon Department of Forestry's Smoke 
Management Plan (Oregon Department of Forestry, 
1981 and 1982), which would prevent smoke from 
intruding into smoke-sensitive areas. 



• Preparation for seeding (brush control) will be by 
mechanical, burning or chemical means. Burning 
will use one or more of the following types of fire 
breaks: natural barriers, retardant lines, existing 
roads and/or bladed lines. Each fire will have its own 
prescription, to be based on the conditions needed 
(wind speed, air temperature, etc.) to burn the plant 
material within the project boundary to be burned. 
All herbicide applications will be in accordance with 
the manufacturer's label, State regulations, and BLM 
Manual 9220. A more thorough description of design 
features applicable to herbicide use may be found in 
BLM's final environmental impact statement, 
Vegetative Management with Herbicides — Western 
Oregon (USDI, BLM I978d). Herbicides most 
commonly proposed for use include 2,4-D, Picloram, 
Amitrole-T, Asulam, Dalapon, Atrazine, Glyphosate, 
and Hexazinone. Season of use would be at any time 
of the year, and diesel oil would be used as a carrier. 



Seeding of cut-over forest areas with a grass-legume 
mixture will be coordinated with timber management 
objectives. Seeding will be accomplished by use of 
the rangeland drill, aerial or broadcast seeding. 
Broadcast or aerial seeding will occur on small 
disturbed areas, rough terrain and rocky areas. BLM 
will determine seeding mixtures on a site specific 
basis, using past experience and recommendations 
of the Oregon State University Extension Service 
and Experiment Stations and/or Oregon Department 
of Fish and Wildlife. Anticipated increases in 
production through vegetation manipulation projects 
will not be allocated until seedings are established 
and ready for use. Usually, seedings on non- 
commercial forest lands will be deferred from 
grazing for at least two growing seasons to allow 
seeding establishment. 



• Most individual units for vegetative manipulation 
and/or seeding will be 150 acres or less. 

• No permanent roads will be created for range 
improvement construction. Temporary roads will be 
closed to off-road vehicle use, blocked, camoflaged 
and seeded after completion of range improvement 
construction. Some areas will be formally 
designated as closed to off-road vehicle use in 
accordance with 43 CFR 8342. 



• Hardwood removal on oak woodlands will attempt 
to maintain a forage to cover ratio of 60 to 40. 
Forage areas created will not be so large that any 
area is over 660 feet from cover. Oak canopy cover 
will not be reduced to less than 10 percent. Oak or 
hardwood leave trees will be approximately 12 to 14 
inches or greater in diameter breast height (dbh). 



• Normal maintenance such as replacement of 
fence posts and retreatment of vegetation 
manipulations will occur. 



• A monitoring program will be developed to 
measure whether resource objectives were being 
met. Water quality monitoring will continue in 
accordance with Executive Orders 11991 and 12088, 
BLM Manual 7240, and Sections 208 and 313 of the 
Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217, P.L. 92-500 as 
amended). 



Studies will be established in representative riparian 
zones and other wildlife habitat areas to determine 
changes in the habitat conditions and populations of 
fish and wildlife resulting from implementation. Such 
monitoring will comply with Executive Orders 11514 
and 1 1990 and BLM Manual 6602 and 6740. 



Climate, actual use, utilization and trend studies will 
be continued in accordance with BLM Manuals 4412 
and 4413 to evaluate vegetation changes. 



• If an evaluation supports an increase in livestock 
grazing use, the additional use will first be granted 
on a temporary basis. An evaluation of forage 
production and the temporary use granted must 
confirm the availability of additional forage before an 
increase in use would become permanent. Grazing 
management will be revised if the evaluation 
determines that the specific objectives established 
for the allotments are not being achieved. Other 
revisions may include changes in the amount of 
livestock use permitted, grazing system, period of 
use, or any combination of these. Prior to these 
changes, further environmental analysis will be 
completed. 



• Each operator will be issued leases which specify 
allotment, period of use, and numbers and kind of 
livestock. If unauthorized use should occur, action 
will be taken by BLM to eliminate it in accordance 
with regulations in 43 CFR 4150. 



65 
Benefit Cost Analysis (Alternative 3) 

A preliminary benefit cost analysis was conducted 
for Alternative 3, Preferred Alternative. Benefits were 
discounted at 7.875 percent. A final benefit/cost 
analysis will be conducted prior to the decision and 
the results published in the Rangeland Program 
Summary. The results of the preliminary B/C 
analysis for Alternative 3 are shown below, by 
allotment. 



Allotment 


B/C Ratio 


001 


3.6 


024 


5.6 


031 


13.5 


038 


20.9 


106 


6.6 


107 


7.3 


110 


3.1 


115 


3.4 


117 


8.9 


203 


4.7 


206 


28.9 



66 



00000000000)00000000 



0) J. <u £ 

<3S3 I • 



r-OOOOiOOOOOCNJOLDOOOOOO 

in in cm o o o> o cd o 

r- tocDT-T-^ro^r cm 



* en 



S to 



oooocor--omoo'-mooooooo 
c\j ^ r- in oo in o 

CNJ CM CO t r- 



CO O O O CO CM O 



mor-cnoooooooo 
r-- CM CNJ o o 

■CO) If) s 



J o <u 



mOOOOOCMOCOOOCDOOOOOOOO 

I s - O) cm -j mo 

m o m ^ cm t- 



COOOO'-COOCDCNJCMinCNJCMOOCOCNJOO 



OOOOCMOOCMCOCO^TrCMOOCO^-OO 



OOOi-OOO'- 



COCOCMOOOOOO 



CO 

c 

E 
a> 
> 
o 

a 

E 



c 

(0 
GC 

■o 
a> 

<A 

o 

Q. 

o 



Q 

Q> 

n 

(0 

I- 



X 

T3 

c 

<D 
Q. 

CL 

< 



c -a 
5 a 



J. a £ 

,„ 3 o ™ 



* 2> 



13 -, 
O > T3 

Sou 

si" 



E E 
= 2 

< 



H E 



h-mooomoo^coaoomcMooooo 
mm mcM o cm a> o o cd cm oo 

i- CM COCO »- CO »" 'T O t CO CM 



r-ooocor-oincoin-Tincooooooo 

to o-t -- ■- cf) m mcM co 

CD CO t- CM ■** *- 



CDOOOmmOCDOOCDOOCMCMOOOO 

^t co f cm cor- 01--000 

co in h- co cmco cd ^ in o m 



CMOOCMSCOOCMOCOCMOO 

co ■<* T oo r>- m <d 

co h- *- r-~ r- co m 



o o o o o 



r- o o o 



COCOCDCMCMinCMCMCMCMCOCMOO 



OOOOCMOOOCOCO-3-tJ-CMCOC\ICOO">00 



T-OOOCOOOO'-'- 



Clr-Qi-OO^O 



O O O O CO CM Tf 



oooooomoooo 



c b £ 
ra ™ to 



TO S 
oj £ "5 ?r 



c c £ £ 



V a> ^ to 2,** 
§ £ £ (r? a 

O q O QJ CO CD 



cd ~ 
oj o 

o 



^rO«0 



re 



l CO ^ co g "O <D co c "° N 

:catn>oaoc/>*ooom 



_ E 

i = a 

; )r CO 

. £ -c 

I CO O 



oooooooo 



< CO 

O "D 

Z c 



aj 



to 



4= co 

< ° 

? o 

W t 

o u 

Q. C 

Q. O 



j2 o 



- 5 

0) o 
cn.c 



% 3 ° 



» w 



5 <n 





r Ou 




5 .fc (D 
Ecu 




1 


m o f) 


<D 


O 


> 












C 


2 ™ 




4) 


O > T3 


< 


J O « 

2 EJS 






B E 



mcoomooocoooooooooooo 

^ o CO CO CT) 

^t m ^- co 



ooooomoo^rooomoooooo 

mcom mcM o cm coo oom 

rr »-i-co t *— cocm 



OOOOOOCMOmOOOOOCMOOOOO 

mmr-ioi i-ooco ocm 

h- t- CM CD r- 



cocDmr~-cocO'-coor^-a)OOOp-oooo 

NCDNCOa>SCM(D CM O ^0)0000 

r-T-CM CMCO l- Tf CM 



m r- o co 



n comcooi >- ^ 

COOOCM^CDin^ 
SS^COOCM'-N 



-^OOCDOOOOOOOO 



-OmOi-CDCOCDCMi 



CMOCMOOCDCMOCO 



OOOOOOOCMCOCO^-OCMOCMCDCnOO *- 



OOOOOOOO-- 



O O O O O O 



moooooo^oooooomoooo 
*- i— r- o t- cd cMCMOom 

y- t- CM t- CNJ •— 



E 


E 




j: -5 il 




A3 






o 


z 


a) 


c c c 
2 (? 2 


< 




OJ 






6 


m <D H 








c o c 






o 


O ^ "5 








Jffli 



TO OJ 



5 £ 



o a 



co 2,< d n 

- « "8 S; c S 
" u x «f J 
^ c — i fTj m 

u k- to — n * ^ 

mcn>UQQcn^(JOomja>0 



co | 



™ J T3 1) (D C 



oooooooo 



CM CM CM CM 



67 



Appendix E 

Determination of Existing and 
Predicted Ecological Range 
Condition and Trend 



Determination of existing range conditions: Two 
methods were used for determination of range 
conditions. In the dry upland zone (see Figure 2-1 
and Table 2-1), ecological condition was based on 
the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, 
and amounts of plants in each plant community 
resemble that of the potential plant community for 
the site utilizing procedures as outlined in USDA, 
SCS (1976). Descriptions of each range site are in 
USDI, BLM (1978b) located in the Medford District. 

Four ecological condition classes were used to 
express the degree to which the composition of the 
present plant community reflects that of climax. 
They are: 



Ecological Condition 

Climax 
Late 
Middle 
Early 



Percent of Present Plant 

Community that is Climax 

for the Range Site 

76-100 

51 - 75 

26- 50 

0- 25 



Forage condition was used as the second method. 
This procedure was used in the forested areas and 
was based on the amount of desirable and 
intermediate grass, forbs and shrubs found on a 
forested site. Forage condition was related to the 
acres of timber harvest and the preference for 
species that increase after logging on a forested site. 

Excellent - 76 - 100% 
Good - 51 - 75 
Fair -26 -50 
Poor - - 25 

Determination of Predicted Range 
Condition 

The determinations of predicted condition are based 
on the discussion of vegetation allocation and 
grazing systems in Chapter 3. Variables such as year 
to year fluctuations in precipitation, timing of 
precipitation, and temperatures during growing 
season make a precise quantification of impacts to 
vegetation impossible. The impact analysis 
methodology, therefore, produces a result which is 
most useful as a relative comparison between 
alternatives rather than as an absolute prediction of 
the impacts of implementing any one alternative. 



The following analysis of impacts to forage 
condition on Allotment 1 1 7 illustrates, for one 
allotment, how the components of the proposed 
action and alternatives would result in changes in 
long-term forage conditions summarized in Table 
3-1. 

Approximately 50 percent of the 4,800 acres of 
public land in Allotment 117 is currently used in the 
spring every year. The remainder is deferred until 
later in the season. Existing ecological conditions on 
non-forested sites are late (50 acres), middle (53 
acres), and early (212 acres). In forested areas, 
forage conditions are fair (983 acres) and poor 
(3,523 acres). The existing level of livestock use is 
within the grazing system. 



Range improvements called for under the proposed 
action include 4 miles of fence, 2 corrals, and 4 
water developments. Seeding would occur on 565 
acres. The grazing system under the proposed 
action would be deferred rotation. Significant 
increases in desirable forage species are expected to 
result from the above proposals for four reasons: 

1. Utilization of forage would be in a more uniform 
pattern due to fencing of pastures in allotments. 
Thus, livestock would not be allowed to selectively 
graze desirable species only. 

2. Storage of carbohydrate reserves by key 
herbaceous species would take place under a 
deferred rotation grazing system. 

3. Forage condition would improve by seeding 565 
acres with compatible site specific grass species. 

Determination of Trend of Range 
Condition 

The present range condition does not indicate 
whether the plant community is improving or 
deteriorating in relation to its potential. Trend is a 
determination in relation to its potential. Trend is a 
determination for assessing what is currently 
happening to the plant community. The present 
range condition is a result of a sustained trend over 
a period of time. 

Trend in the EIS area was determined by observed 
apparent trend and permanent trend study plots 
located throughout the area. Apparent trend is a 
professional judgment rating based on several 
indicators such as plant vigor, reproduction of key 
species and soil loss. This trend rating was 
correlated with permanent trend study plot data to 
give a final trend rating for each pasture. 



68 

Determination of Predicted Trend in 
Range Condition 

Predictions of long term trend in range condition 
were based primarily on proposed grazing systems 
at the pasture level. Systems which allow key forage 
plants the opportunity to complete the stages of 
growth would result in upward trend. Trend was 
predicted to be downward on areas which would be 
grazed under systems which would not allow key 
forage species the opportunity to complete growth. 
Existing condition or trend was not a factor in 
determining long term predicted trend. 



69 



Appendix F - Scientific Names of 
Plants Mentioned in the EIS 



Alder 

Big leaf maple 

Birchleaf mahogany 

Blackberry 

Blackoak 

Bluebunch wheatgrass 

Bluegrass 

Blue wild ryegrass 

Buttercup 

California oatgrass 

Carex 

Cheatgrass 

Cinquefoil 

Clover 

Cottonwood 

Deerbrush 

Douglas-fir 

Hazel 
Hellebore 

Idaho fescue 

Junegrass 

Lemon needlegrass 

Madrone 
Manzanita 
Mountain brome 
Mountain mahogany 

Ninebark 

Oceanspray 
Oregon ash 
Oregon grape 



Alnus spp. 
Acer macrophyllum 
Cercocarpus Betuloides 
Rubus spp. 
Quercus kelloggii 
Agropyron spicatum 
Poa spp. 
Elymus glacus 
Rannunculus spp. 

Danthonia californica 
Carex spp. 
Bromus tectorum 
Pontentilla spp. 
Trifolium spp. 
Populus tricocarpa 
Ceanothus integerrimus 
Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Corylus cornuta 
Veratrum spp. 

Festuca Idahoensis 

Koeleria cristata 

Stipa lemmoni 

Arbutus menziesii 
Arctostaphylos spp. 
Bromus marginatus 
Cercocarpus montanus 

Physocarpus spp. 

Holodiscus discolor 
F rax in us latitolia 
Berberis spp. 



Pachystima 
Pacific brome 
Pathfinder 
Peavine 
Prince's pine 
Ponderosa pine 

Quaking aspen 

Rabbitbrush 
Redstem 

Shasta fir 
Snowbrush 
Spirea 
Strawberry 
Sugar pine 

Tufted hairgrass 

Velvetgrass 
Vetch 
Vine maple 

Wedgeleaf 
White fir 
White oak 
White pine 
Willow 



Pachystima myrsinites 
Bromus laviperis 
Adenocavlon bicolor 
Lathyrus 

Chimaphilia menziesii 
Pinus ponderosa 

Populus tremuloides 

Chrysothamnus spp. 
Ceanothus sanguinia 

Abies magnifica 
Ceanothus velutinus 
Spirea douglasii 
Fragaria spp. 
Pinus lambertiana 

Deschampsia caespitosa 

Hole us lanatus 
Vicia spp. 
Acer circinatum 

Ceanothus cuneatus 
Abies concolor or grand is 
Quercus garryana 
Pinus monticola 
Salix spp. 



70 



Appendix G - Riparian and 
Stream Habitat Iventory 
Methodologies 

Methods and Materials 



The observed apparent trend is a numerical rating of 
the progress of succession of the community. It is 
rated as downward, static, or upward, and is based 
on plant vigor, seedling establishment, age class 
representation, vegetation composition, amount and 
distribution of litter, and the amount and severity of 
pedestalling. 



This riparian zone survey was conducted during the 
1981 and 1982 field seasons in the Butte Falls and 
Klamath Resource Areas, Medford District, Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM). An attempt was made 
to survey 100 percent of the Class 1 and 2 streams in 
both resource areas. Class 3 to 5 streams were 
randomly sampled (6.3 percent in the Butte Falls 
Resource Area and 5.3 percent in the Klamath 
Resource Area). 

Transportation maps of the resource areas were 
utilized to determine the sections of all the streams 
on BLM administered lands. Each stream segment 
was numbered, Class 1 and 2 by mile and Class 3 to 
5 in one-half mile segments. A random number table 
was used to select the Class 3 to 5 streams to be 
sampled. A sufficient number was selected to cover 
the time allotted. These segments of "miles," as they 
will be referred to hereafter, were numbered 
separately for each resource area. 

Each section or mile of stream was surveyed 
separately. For each mile, a map was drawn showing 
significant features within the riparian, stream, and 
upland zones. A species list of the flora and fauna 
was maintained. For each plant species, an ocular 
estimate of percent foliar cover was made. Other 
measurements included aspect, slope, canopy cover, 
bank slopes, stream width and depth, and riparian 
zone width. A mean and range was noted for each 
measurement. Streambed composition and 
character were noted. Terrestrial vertebrate and 
avian species were recorded when observed or 
identified by sign (scat, track) or vocalization (song). 

Three numerical ratings were made for each 
vegetative community of each mile surveys: the 
Habitat Diversity Index (HDI), condition, and trend. 
The HDI is an evaluation of the complexity of the 
vegetation, physical features, and unique features of 
a site. In general, riparian wildlife communities are 
influenced more by structural form of the vegetation 
than by species composition. The type, size, and 
arrangement of canopy, shrubs, and herbaceous 
vegetation are major contributors to the suitability as 
a site for wildlife. 

The riparian zone condition is a numerical rating of 
the overall condition of the community. It is based 
on the vegetation age and composition, bank 
conditions, and the impacts of logging, grazing, 
and/or roads. The total rating is classified as 
excellent, good, fair, or poor. 



Influences upon the trend were observed and ranked 
according to their relative impact upon the riparian 
zone. Logging, grazing, and roads were the principle 
factors influencing the successional state of the 
communities and the amount of influence was a 
subjective interpretation of the examiner based on 
observable influences. 

All Class 1 and 2 streams with a riparian zone were 
classified. Those Class 3 to 5 streams without a 
riparian zone did not have a condition, trend, or HDI 
rating completed. Each riparian community of the 
Class 1 and 2 streams had a step-point transect 
performed. The step-point provides relative percent 
of each plant species and plant forms found in each 
canopy level of the sample. Each transect had a 50 
meter transect parallel to the stream on each side 
and a minimum 5 meter perpendicular transect from 
the stream edge on each bank. Step-points were 
conducted at the most "typical" site in each 
community. 

Horizontal-vertical vegetation structure drawings 
were made at the same location as the step-point. 
One was drawn in a 10 meter by 2 meter strip on the 
left bank, a second was perpendicular from the 
stream edge, which included the topography of the 
stream channel and banks. 

Step-points and horizontal-vertical drawings were 
not done on Class 3 to 5 streams. Photographs were 
taken for each stream at representative sites, step- 
point sites, and any encountered special features. 
For more information, see Culbertson and 
Montgomery (1982) on file in the Medford District 
Office. 



71 



Criteria For Evaluating Stream 
Conditions, Trend and Potential for 
Fishery Habitat 

Present Fishery Habitat Condition 

Stream fishery habitat condition rating for salmonid 
fish, which include Chinook and coho salmon, as 
well as steelhead, cutthroat, rainbow, and brook 
trout were obtained by walking along streams on 
public land and documenting their physical and 
biological characteristics over specific unit lengths, 
generally one-quarter mile. Ten to thirteen 
characteristics were rated for each stream segment 
depending on data availability and flow 
characteristics. These factors included the flow 
difference between winter and summer, approximate 
maximum summer water temperature, bank stability, 
percent shade on stream at midday, pool quality, 
spawning area, rearing area, composition of bottom 
material, pool-riffle ratio, stream gradient, 
conductivity, channel stability and in-stream habitat 
diversity. The sum of rating values for all stream 
characteristics determined the overall rating for that 
particular stream segment. This habitat condition 
rating system resulted in four potential major 
categories: Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. A "Good 
to Fair" subcategory facilitated description of a large 
number (37 percent) of stream miles in marginally 
good condition. 



Some streams had been surveyed in 1974-1976, so 
whenever possible, current trend was determined by 
comparing past and present habitat conditions. On 
these and other streams trend was also estimated by 
considering the extent of erosion of unsurfaced 
roads; the extent of natural, human, or livestock- 
related disturbance to streambanks; reproduction of 
woody riparian species; past and current influence 
of timber harvest on fishery habitat and general 
trends in historical, livestock stocking levels. 
Predicted trend was based on the potential for range 
improvements and grazing systems to appreciably 
affect the habitat trend of a stream, given that off- 
site influences may be more important for limiting 
habitat quality on public land than on-site damage 
from livestock. 

Fishery habitat improvement potential is a measure 
of the difference between potential and present 
fishery habitat condition. More vigorous and diverse 
riparian vegetation and less streambank erosion can 
result in a narrower stream channel and greater pool 
depth, stable undercut banks that provide resting 
and hiding cover, overhanging vegetation that 
provides better water temperature control and a food 
source of terrestrial insects. Increased water velocity 
that results from a narrower stream channel removes 
sediments that have accumulated over spawning 
gravel and over cobbles that are important for 
aquatic insect production. 



Prediction of Habitat Trend and Condition 

The fact that streams function as a continuum 
throughout their watersheds complicates prediction 
of habitat condition, trend, and improvement effects 
since human-related activities (e.g. timber harvest 
along streams and erosion of unsurfaced roads) or 
natural processes (e.g. recovery of stream canopy 
cover following timber harvest) influence the stability 
and quality of fishery habitat in the immediate 
vicinity as well as downstream. With a few 
exceptions, agricultural water diversions and 
impacts associated with timber harvest in the entire 
EIS area have far more influence on stream habitat 
quality than does livestock grazing. These types of 
external influences were considered in the habitat 
trend and condition analyses for Alternatives 2, 3, 
and 4. 



All Class 1 and 2 streams susceptible to significant 
livestock grazing impacts are listed in Appendix G, 
Table G-2. For this reason, the impact analysis does 
not consider possible effects of each alternative on 
streams not in Table G-2. 



72 



Appendix G, Table G-1 Streamside Riparian Habitat - Predicted Trend and 
Condition 













Alt. 1 






Alt. 2 






Alt. 3 






Alt. 4 














No 




Emphasize 




Preferred 




Emphasize 










Exist. 




Action 




Livestock 




Alternative 




Non Livestock 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Streams 


Allot 


Miles 


Cond. 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. Trend 


ELK CREEK 


1 


.45 


E 


SP 


E 


S 


RR 


E 


S 


DR 


E 


S 


DR 


E 


S 


ELK CREEK 


1 


1 00 


F 


SP 


F 


D 


NG 


G 


U 


NG 


G 


U 


NG 


G 


U 


ELK CREEK 


1 


20 


G 


SP 


G 


S 


RR 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


U 


LOST CREEK 


1 


50 


F 


SP 


F 


D 


RR 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


U 


ALCO 


2 


25 


G 


SU 


G 


S 


SU 


G 


S 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


S 


EAST FORK WEST 


2 


30 


F 


SU 


G 


U 


SU 


G 


U 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


EAST FORK WEST 


2 


80 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


U 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


ELK HORN 


2 


1 20 


E 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


U 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


FLAT CREEK 


2 


.40 


F 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


U 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


FLAT CREEK 


2 


30 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


FLAT CREEK TRAIL 


2 


25 


E 


SU 


E 


s 


SU 


E 


s 


SU 


E 


s 


SU 


E 


S 


HAWK CREEK 


2 


50 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


HAWK CREEK 


2 


50 


E 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SUGAR PINE 


2 


1 25 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


S 


TIMBER 


2 


1 10 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


S 


WEST BRANCH ELK CR. 


2 


40 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


S 


WEST BRANCH ELK CR. 


2 


.25 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


WEST BRANCH ELK CR 


2 


50 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


WEST BRANCH ELK CR 


2 


1.30 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


WEST BRANCH ELK CR. 


2 


40 


E 


SU 


E 


s 


SU 


E 


s 


SU 


E 


s 


SU 


E 


s 


TRAIL CREEK 


3 


50 


G 


ss 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


WALL CREEK 


3 


1 20 


G 


ss 


G 


s 


ss 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


WALL CREEK 


3 


70 


E 


ss 


E 


s 


ss 


E 


s 


ss 


E 


s 


SS 


E 


s 


SOUTH BOUNDARY 
































CREEK 


13 


50 


F 


ss 


F 


s 


ss 


F 


s 


ss 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


SOUTH BOUNDARY 
































CREEK 


13 


40 


E 


ss 


E 


s 


ss 


E 


s 


ss 


E 


s 


SS 


E 


s 


SOUTH BOUNDARY 
































CREEK 


13 


.20 


P 


ss 


P 


s 


ss 


P 


s 


ss 


P 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


REESE 


20 


60 


F 


SP 


F 


s 


SP 


F 


s 


SP 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


NORTH FORK BUTTE 
































CREEK 


24 


2 80 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


NORTH FORK BUTTE 
































CREEK 


24 


1 90 


F 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


CAMP CREEK 


24 


1 30 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


CAMP CREEK 


24 


85 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


E 


u 


CLARKS FORK 


24 


40 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


LICK CREEK 


24 


40 


F 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


LICK CREEK 


24 


2 05 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


E 


u 


RANCHERIA 


24 


90 


G 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


RANCHERIA 


24 


.80 


F 


RR 


F 


u 


RR 


F 


u 


RR 


F 


u 


RR 


F 


u 


SALT CREEK 


24 


50 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


SALT CREEK 


24 


80 


E 


RR 


E 


s 


RR 


E 


s 


RR 


E 


s 


RR 


E 


u 


SALT CREEK 


24 


50 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


E 


u 


TITANIC 


24 


90 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


TITANIC 


24 


40 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


TWINCHERIA 


24 


60 


F 


RR 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


TWINCHERIA 


24 


20 


P 


RR 


P 


D 


RR 


P 


D 


RR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


TWINCHERIA 


24 


80 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


WASSON 


24 


50 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


S FORK TWINCHERIA 


24 


35 


F 


RR 


D 


D 


RR 


P 


D 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


u 


S FORK TWINCHERIA 


24 


25 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


SALT CREEK TRB 


24 


25 


G 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


SALT CREEK TRB 


24 


55 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


RR 


9 


9 


REESE 


27 


25 


F 


SS 


F 


D 


SS 


F 


D 


SS 


F 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


REESE 


29 


45 


F 


SS 


F 


D 


SS 


F 


D 


SS 


F 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


BEAVER DAM 


31 


60 


F 


SU 


P 


D 


DR 


F 


S 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


BEAVER DAM 


31 


60 


G 


SU 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


SP 


G 


u 


BIG BUTTE MAIN 


31 


70 


F 


RR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


BIG BUTTE MAIN 


31 


70 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


S 


RR 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


BIG BUTTE MAIN 


31 


50 


E 


RR 


E 


U 


SP 


E 


u 


RR 


E 


u 


SP 


E 


u 


BOX 


31 


60 


G 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


SP 


G 


u 


DOG 


31 


60 


F 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


DOG 


31 


75 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 



73 



Appendix G, Table G-1 Streamside Riparian Habitat - Predicted Trend and 
Condition (Continued) 













Alt. 1 






Alt. 2 






Alt. 3 






Alt. 4 














No 




Emphasize 




Preferred 




Emphasize 










Exist. 




Action 




Livestock 




Alternative 




Non 


Livestock 




Grazing 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Streams 


Allot 


Miles 


Cond. 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


EIGHTY AVE. 


31 


30 


F 


SU 


F 


D 


NG 


F 


U 


NG 


F 


U 


NG 


F 


U 


EIGHTY AVE. 


31 


.45 


G 


SU 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


U 


NG 


G 


U 


HORSE SHOE 


31 


35 


F 


SU 


F 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


U 


SP 


G 


u 


HORSESHOE 


31 


40 


G 


DR 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


U 


NG 


G 


u 


JACKASS 


31 


1.20 


F 


SU 


F 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


JACKASS 


31 


20 


P 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


JACKASS 


31 


30 


G 


SU 


G 


S 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


LOG 


31 


60 


G 


SU 


G 


S 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


MCNEIL 


31 


50 


G 


RR 


G 


S 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


MULE 


31 


.70 


G 


SU 


G 


S 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


MULE 


31 


10 


P 


SU 


P 


D 


DR 


P 


D 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


NORTH FORK BR BT 


31 


90 


F 


SU 


F 


S 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


NORTH FORK BR BT 


31 


50 


G 


RR 


G 


U 


RR 


G 


u 


RR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


PARSNIP 


31 


1.20 


G 


SU 


G 


S 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


ROUND MTN 


31 


.30 


F 


SU 


F 


S 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


S FORK BIG BUTTE 


31 


45 


E 


RR 


E 


S 


RR 


E 


s 


RR 


E 


s 


RR 


E 


s 


S. FORK BIG BUTTE 


31 


.45 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


VINE MAPLE 


31 


1 60 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


S FORK VINE MAPLE 


31 


65 


E 


SU 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


CLARK CREEK 


31 


50 


G 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


RR 


G 


s 


CLARK CREEK 


31 


1 50 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


CLARK CREEK 


31 


70 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


CLARK CREEK TRAIL 


31 


.75 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


N. FORK CLARK CREEK 


31 


10 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


N FORK CLARK CREEK 


31 


40 


E 


SU 


E 


s 


DR 


E 


s 


DR 


E 


s 


NG 


E 


s 


N. FORK CLARK CREEK 


31 


20 


9 


SU 


9 


9 


DR 


9 


9 


DR 


9 


9 


NG 


9 


9 


S. FORK CLARK CREEK 


31 


.50 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


INDIAN CREEK 


35 


1 25 


G 


SP 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


SD 


G 


u 


SP 


G 


u 


HUNGRY 


UNA 


25 


9 


NG 


9 


9 


NG 


? 


9 


NG 


9 


9 


NG 


? 


9 


LEWIS 


UNA 


80 


F 


NG 


P 


D 


NG 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


MORAINE 


UNA 


40 


E 


NG 


E 


s 


NG 


E 


s 


NG 


E 


s 


NG 


E 


s 


MORAINE 


UNA 


30 


F 


NG 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


MORAINE 


UNA 


40 


G 


NG 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


BRUSH 


UNA 


.55 


E 


NG 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


NG 


F 


u 


BRUSH 


UNA 


20 


G 


NG 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


COLD 


103 


.30 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


JOHNSON 


103 


1.10 


E 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


JOHNSON 


104 


2.25 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


GRIZZLY 


106 


10 


G 


SP 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


GRIZZLY 


106 


.50 


F 


SP 


P 


D 


SP 


P 


D 


SP 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


FALL 


107 


30 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


FALL 


107 


60 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


JENNY 


107 


80 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


MG 


F 


s 


LONG PRAIRIE 


107 


.50 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


SHORT SPRING 


107 


50 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


s 


SPRING CREEK 


107 


60 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


SU 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


SPRING CREEK 


107 


10 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


SPRING CREEK TR, #1 


107 


10 


E 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


SPRING CREEK TR. #2 


107 


25 


E 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


JENNY CREEK 


108 


80 


P 


SS 


P 


D 


SS 


P 


D 


SS 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


JENNY CREEK 


108 


80 


G 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


u 


JENNY CREEK 


108 


.20 


F 


SS 


P 


D 


SS 


P 


D 


SS 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


BALDY 


110 


50 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


BEAVER 


110 


.35 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


CAMP 


110 


1.00 


9 


DR 


9 


9 


DR 


9 


9 


DR 


9 


? 


NG 


9 


9 


CAMP 


110 


.40 


F 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


CAMP 


110 


1 40 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


CORRAL CREEK 


110 


30 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


CORRAL CREEK 


110 


30 


F 


DR 


D 


s 


DR 


P 


D 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


DUTCH OVEN 


110 


1.20 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


S 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


EMIGRANT 


110 


.75 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


GREEN MT 


110 


20 


G 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


GREEN MT 


110 


10 


F 


DR 


D 


D 


DR 


P 


D 


DR 


P 


D 


NG 


G 


u 


JENNY 


110 


1 00 


G 


DR 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


KEENE CREEK 


110 


30 


F 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


KEENE CREEK 


110 


.70 


E 


DR 


E 


s 


DR 


E 


s 


DR 


E 


s 


NG 


E 


u 


KEENE CREEK 


110 


1.75 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


LINCOLN CREEK 


110 


50 


P 


DR 


P 


s 


DR 


P 


s 


DR 


P 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


MILL CREEK 


110 


50 


F 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


PURCUPINE 


110 


1 00 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


TYLER CREEK 


110 


90 


G 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


TYLER CREEK 


110 


45 


F 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


S. FORK KEENE CREEK 


110 


30 


7 


DR 


9 


9 


DR 


9 


9 


DR 


9 


9 


NG 


9 


9 


S FORK LT BUTTE 


113 


25 


G 


SS 


G 


u 


SS 


G 


u 


SS 


G 


u 


SS 


G 


u 


S FORK LT. BUTTE 


113 


60 


F 


SS 


F 


s 


SS 


F 


s 


SS 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


SODA(LT BT. CR(N) 


113 


1 00 


E 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SODA (LT BT CR(N) 


113 


1 60 


G 


SS 


G 


u 


SS 


G 


u 


SS 


G 


u 


SS 


G 


u 


SODA CREEK TRAIL 


113 


20 


E 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 



74 



Appendix G, Table G-1 Streamside Riparian Habitat - Predicted Trend and 
Condition (Continued) 













Alt. 1 






Alt. 2 






Alt. 3 






Alt. 4 














No 




Emphasize 




Preterred 




Emphasize 










Exist. 




Action 




Livestock 




Alternative 




Non Livestock 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Grazing 






Streams 


Allot 


Miles 


Cond. 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


System 


Cond. 


Trend 


BEAVER CREEK 


115 


1 70 


G 


SU 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


U 


DR 


G 


U 


NG 


G 


U 


BEAVER CREEK 


115 


20 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


u 


DR 


F 


U 


NG 


F 


U 


BEAVER CREEK 


115 


20 


P 


SU 


P 


s 


DR 


F 


S 


DR 


F 


U 


NG 


F 


u 


DEAD INDIAN 


115 


65 


F 


SU 


p 


D 


DR 


F 


S 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


DEAD INDIAN 


115 


.20 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


GRIZZLY 


115 


60 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


JENNY CREEK 


115 


1 90 


G 


SU 


F 


D 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


JENNY CREEK 


115 


20 


G 


SU 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


DR 


E 


u 


NG 


E 


u 


KEENE CREEK 


115 


80 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


KEENE CREEK 


115 


30 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


SODA CREEK 


115 


75 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


s 


WILLOW CREEK 


115 


10 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


G 


u 


WILLOW CREEK 


115 


20 


G 


SU 


E 


s 


DR 


G 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


CONDE 


117 


25 


P 


SU 


P 


D 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


CONDE 


117 


.25 


F 


SU 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


u 


DR 


F 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


CONDE 


117 


50 


F 


SU 


P 


D 


DR 


F 


s 


DR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


SODA CR LT BT, CR 


117 


80 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


DEAD INDIAN 


117 


30 


G 


SU 


G 


s 


DR 


G 


u 


DR 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


LAKE CREEK 


121 


.10 


P 


SP 


P 


D 


RR 


F 


s 


RR 


F 


s 


NG 


F 


s 


LOST CREEK 


122 


1 60 


G 


SU 


G 


S 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


SU 


G 


s 


LOST CREEK 


122 


.60 


E 


SU 


E 


U 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


SU 


E 


u 


LOST CREEK 


122 


65 


P 


SU 


P 


S 


SU 


P 


s 


SU 


P 


s 


NG 


F 


u 


DEER 


124 


80 


G 


ss 


G 


S 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


SS 


G 


s 


LOST 


124 


60 


E 


ss 


E 


S 


SS 


E 


s 


SS 


E 


s 


SS 


E 


s 


SODA (LT. BT CR ) 


124 


.50 


E 


ss 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SODATR. 


124 


20 


E 


ss 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


N F L BT CR 


126 


.50 


G 


ss 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


SS 


E 


u 


S F L BT CR 


129 


20 


G 


SP 


G 


s 


SR 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


LAKE CREEK 


129 


1.00 


G 


SP 


G 


s 


SR 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


SP 


G 


s 


SPENCER 


147 


1.35 


F 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


G 


u 


SPENCER 


147 


50 


G 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


SPENCER TR. 


147 


1.00 


9 


SU 


7 


9 


SU 


9 


9 


SU 


9 


9 


SU 


9 


9 


CLOVER CREEK 


147 


10 


F 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


CLOVER CREEK 


147 


40 


P 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


COVE 


143 


10 


F 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


COVE 


143 


25 


P 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 


ANTELOPE 


143 


80 


G 


SU 


G 


U 


SU 


G 


u 


SU 


G 


u 


NG 


G 


u 


ANTELOPE 


143 


.20 


F 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


SU 


P 


D 


NG 


F 


u 



KEY: 




Grazing System 


SS = 


Spring/Summer 


DR = 


Deferred Rotation 


RR = 


Rest Rotation 


NG = 


No Grazing 


SU = 


Summer 


SP = 


Spring 


UNA = 


Unalloted 



Trend 


Condition 


U = Up 


E = Excellent 


D = Down 


G = Good 


S = Static 


F = Fair 


? = Unknown 


P = Poor 




? = Unknown 



75 



a> z 

< a 



c 



k. 

I- 

■o 

c 

(Q 

C 

o 

c 
o 
O 

a> 
o 





(0 
(0 



0) 

s: 
il 

CM 

6 

n 

(T3 

I- 

d 



■o 

c 

CD 

a 

a 
< 



« < 

< * 



CM O 



ss -c 
< & 



,- 


£3 


*fc *-» 


O — 


s§ 












»< 








01 z 








< 


2 




o§l, 



u 


| 




ro .* 


i oj 


















qj <D 




3 


U 




feo 








C 0) 








a 


S = 


< 1= 


Ll. 


r: 


u 


u. en 


JZ £ 


^ 


a 


C/J 


(/) 03 


UJ X 



£ £ ^ Cj O U^^U w « 

A ° - m S °> ~ O ° £ So 

= 2 fl 4= cn:^5>2 ajS! 

- a> cu .- o <u o o — a. c 



E £ 



(/) *^ 



(/) +S 



Qi3 



111 

u ra k_ 

C C 0) 
Z 0) 4) 

!2 5 CC 
— ro 

-I? 

I- ™ m 



.2 Q. o 
c/3 O Q 

03 D Q 



■O X3 

O O i_ 

° O ra 

O O u- 



O O u_ 



O £ 

X 9> 

X3 S. 

c 



oi 



3 o>2 

r N Ul 

n 5 ra 

TO c c 

2 2 en 

T3 ra - 

2 P 3 



rati E 

in 

ra § a 

I I E 

aa i 

C/3 C/3 C/3 



mmoiQiz 



76 

Appendix H 

Estimates of Gross Sales, Personal 
Income, and Employment 

These measures of the economic effects of changes 
in program-related activities were estimated by use 
of an input-output model (IMPLAN) developed by 
the U. S. Forest Service, with which BLM developed 
the model representing the economy of Jackson and 
Klamath Counties. 

An interindustry (or input-output) model is a 
summary of all the transactions occurring in an area 
during a 1-year period, showing for each industry or 
economic sector the amount of its purchases from 
every other industry (inputs) and the amount of its 
sales to every other industry (outputs). Purchases of 
goods to be sold by trade industries are treated as 
direct sales by the producing industry, and trade 
industry transactions are limited to their gross 
margin accounts, or the part of their transactions 
over and above the cost of goods sold. This 
information represents the interindustry 
relationships in the area and permits the estimation 
of how a change in one industry would affect other 
industries and the economy as a whole. 



When a specific change occurs in the economy, 
such as an increase in cattle sales due to increased 
forage availability, the cattle industry purchases 
more from its suppliers, ranch families spend more 
and so on. Recipients of these purchases increase 
their purchases. The end result of this process is 
increased activity throughout the economy. The 
effects on the industry in which the initial change 
occurs (e.g., the cattle industry) are termed the 
direct effects of the change. The direct effects plus 
the effects on other industries in the local economy 
make up the total local effects. Estimates of the 
effects per unit measure are shown in Table H-1. 
Table H-2 shows how the value of livestock sales per 
AUM was estimated. 



Table H-1 Economic Effects Per Unit Measure 1 
(1982 dollars) 



77 



Activity 

Livestock production: 

Livestock industry 2 

EIS Area 
Hunting: 

Big game 

Small game 

Waterfowl 
Freshwater Fishing 
Range Improvements 







Local 






Initial 


Personal 


Local 


Unit 


Sales Value 


Income 


Employment 


AUM 


$27.54 


$ 4.3045 


.0001218 


AUM 


27.54 


19.9607 


.0005645 


HD 


26.59 


8.1989 


.0003664 


HD 


15.94 


7.3351 


.0003663 


HD 


22.70 


6.5809 


.0002884 


AD 


14.30 


5.5616 


.0002485 


DOL 


1.00 


.7769 


.0000262 



' The values for income and employment shown here represent the amounts generated in Jackson and Klamath Counties by a unit change in the activity 
specified. Livestock sales value estimates are derived from Table H-2. Recreational expenditure values are derived from USDI. BLM, 1983c The effects 
estimated by the IMPLAN model have been adjusted to exclude induced effects on the government sector and to inflate income effects to 1982 price levels. 

2 Effects on livestock industry are direct effects only. 

Key to Units: 

AUM = Animal Unit Month 

HD = Hunter Day 

AD = Angler Day 

DOL = Dollars 



Table H-2 Value of Cattle and Calves Sold Per AUM 
(Amounts in thousands except values per AUM) 











(5) 


(6) 


(7) (8) 


(1) 


(2) 
Cattle & 


(3) 
Beef 


(4) 
Dairy 


Total AUM 
For Beef 


Value Of 
Cattle And 


Value Per AUM 




In Current In 1982 


Year 


Calves 


Cows 


Cows 


Cattle 


Calves Sold 


Dollars Dollars 


1976 


148 


56.0 


5.7 


1,258 


$22,472 


$17.86 $26.57 


1977 


140 


43.5 


5.6 


1,135 


22,224 


19.58 29.18 


1978 


137 


57.5 


5.4 


1,199 


23,551 


19.64 23.01 


1979 


148 


58.8 


5.5 


1,274 


46,407 


36.43 36.08 


1980 


156 


66.0 


5.7 


1,366 


35,797 


36.21 26.73 


1981 


160 


68.5 


5.8 


1,406 


33,420 


23.77 24.71 


1982 


170 


72.0 


5.9 


1,487 


39,434 


26.52 26.52 



Average sales per AUM (1982 dollars) 



$27.54 



Note: Columns 2, 3, 4 and 6 obtained from Oregon State University Extension Service, Commodity Data Sheets, 1983 Column 5 derived as 12 times the 
number of beef and dairy cows plus 6 times the number of beef calves: 12 x (col. 2 + col. 4) + 6 x (col. 2 - col. 3 - col. 4). Column 7 derived as col. 6 divided 
by col. 5 Column 8 represents column 7 adjusted to 1982 level of producer price index for livestock: 1976- 173.3: 1977- 173.0 1978-220 1 1979 -260 3 
1980 - 252.7: 1981 - 248.0; 1982 - 257.8. 



78 



Glossary 



Active Preference - That portion of the total grazing 
preference for which grazing use may be authorized. 

Active Use - The total number of AUMs authorized 
for grazing by livestock. Also called paid use. 

Actual Use - See active use. 



Allotment - An area of land where one or more 
operators graze their livestock. Generally consists of 
public land but may include parcels of private or 
state lands. The number of livestock and season of 
use are stipulated for each allotment. An allotment 
may consist of one or several pastures. 



Allotment Management Plan (AMP) - An intensive 
livestock grazing management plan dealing with a 
specific unit of rangeland, based on multiple use 
resource management objectives. The AMP 
considers livestock grazing in relation to the 
renewable resources — soil, water, vegetation and 
wildlife. An AMP establishes the season of use, the 
number of livestock to be permitted on the range 
and the range improvements needed. 



Allowable Cut - The amount of forest products that 
may be harvested annually or periodically from a 
specified area over a stated period in accordance 
with the objectives of management. 

Anadromous Fish - Pertaining to fishes that spend a 
portion of their life in the ocean but enter freshwater 
to spawn and generally exhibit extensive migrations; 
e.g. salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey. 



Animal Unit Month (AUM) - The amount of forage 
required to sustain one cow with one calf, or their 
equivalent, for one month. 



Archeologic Resources - All physical evidence of 
past human activity, other than historical 
documents, which can be used to reconstruct 
lifeways and cultural history of past peoples. These 
include sites, artifacts, environmental data and all 
other relevant information. 



Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - An 

area within the public lands where special 
management attention is required to protect and 
prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 
cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources 
or other natural systems or processes, or to protect 
life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA Sec. 
103(a)). 



79 



Browse - That part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, 
woody vines and trees available for animal 
consumption. 



Carrying Capacity - The maximum number of 
animals an area can sustain without inducing 
damage to vegetation or related resourses, such as 
soil and water. 



Characteristic Landscape - The visual characteristics 
of existing landscape features (including man-made) 
within a physiographic province. The term does not 
necessarily mean naturalistic character but rather 
could refer to landscapes which exhibit both 
physiographic and land use similarities. 



Class 1 Stream - One that provides habitat for 
salmon, steelhead and/or large numbers of trout. It 
almost always has an extensive riparian zone 
associated with it. 



Class 2 Stream - One that provides habitat for 
resident trout but not for anadromous fish. It almost 
always has an extensive riparian zone associated 

with it. 



Class 3 Stream - One that does not support fish but 
which normally flows year long except during 
periods of extreme drought. It usually exhibits a 
significant amount of riparian vegetation but which 
is typically less extensive than on Class 1 and 2 
streams. 



Class 4 Stream - A stream that flows most of the 
year but ceases to flow during summer months. It 
may or may not have a significant riparian zone. 



Critical Growing Period - The portion of a plant's 
growing season, generally between flowering and 
seed dissemination, when carbohydrate reserves are 
being stored and seeds produced. Grazing after the 
start of this date is detrimental due to inadequate 
moisture for supporting further plant growth later in 
the season. 



Crucial Habitat - A relatively small part of an 
animal's range or habitat which is essential for the 
animal's existence because it contains special 
qualities or features (e.g., water holes, winter food 
and cover, nesting trees, strutting ground, upland 
meadow). 



Cultural Resources - A term that includes resources 
of paleontologic, archeologic or historic significance 
which are fragile, limited, and non-renewable 
portions of the human environment. 

Deferred Rotation - As a grazing system, deferred 
rotation will take place 1-1/2 to 2 months through 
the growing season every other year. In the alternate 
year, grazing will take place after seed ripens. 

Environmental Education Area - Areas on the public 
lands used for outdoor education, research, nature 
observation and similar activities. 



Erosion - Detachment and movement of soil or rock 
fragments by water, wind, ice or gravity. 

Exchange-of-Use Agreement - A non-preference 
type of grazing authorization issued to applicants 
owning or controlling unfenced and intermingled 
land within the boundary of an allotment. 



Class 5 Stream - A stream that flows only during and 
immediately after periods of precipitation or the 
melting of snow. 



Exclosure - An area fenced to exclude livestock and 
wild horses. 



Contrast Rating - A method of determining the 
extent of visual impact for an existing or proposed 
activity that would modify any landscape feature. 

Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) - 

As used by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, a 
plan which indicates interrelated conservation 
practices and management techniques to maintain 
or improve soil, water, plant and related resources 
and provide planning assistance to livestock 
operators whose units include privately owned land 
as well as public land administered by the BLM and 
U. S. Forest Service. 



Exclusion - No authorized livestock grazing. 



Fecal Coliform - A group of bacteria used as an 
indicator of sanitary quality in water. 



Forage Condition - As it is used in this document, it 
is a rating given to seedings and coniferous forest 
sites and expresses the amount of palatable species 
for herbivore use. 



80 



Forage Production - The amount of forage that is 
produced within a designated period of time on a 
given area (expressed in AUMs or pounds per acre) 
This is the proportion of total annual vegetation 
production which is consumable by livestock on a 
sustainable basis. 



Forb - Any non-grasslike herbaceous plant. 



Key Species - A plant that is a relatively or 
potentially abundant species. It should be able to 
endure moderately close grazing and serve as an 
indicator of changes occurring in the vegetational 
complex. The key species is an important vegetative 
component that, if overused, will have a significant 
effect on watershed conditions, grazing capacity, or 
other resource values. More than one key species 
may be selected on an allotment. 



Grazing Capacity - The amount of forage (expressed 
in Animal Unit Months) which is consumable by 
livestock on a sustainable basis. 



Grazing Preference - See Total Preference. 

Greenup - Start of plant growth in spring or fall. 

Groundwater - Subsurface water that is in the zone 
of saturation. 



Habitat Diversity - The relative degree or abundance 
of plant species, communities, habitats or habitat 
features (e.g. topography, canopy layers) per unit of 
area. 



For example, a species may be important for 
watershed protection and a different species may be 
important for livestock forage or wildlife forage, etc. 



Limiting Factor - A component of the environment 
which regulates animal populations (e.g., food, 
water, cover) or plant growth (water availability, 
stream channel scour, poor soils). 

Litter - A surface layer of loose, organic debris, 
consisting of freshly fallen or slightly decomposed 
organic materials. 



Livestock Forage Production - See Forage 
Production. 



Herb - A seed-producing plant that does not develop 
persistent woody tissue. 



Long Term - Fifteen years after implementation of 
the decision. 



Herbaceous Plants - Plants having little or no woody 
tissue. 



Indirect Income - Earnings or personal income to 
workers outside a specified industry generated by 
production in that industry. For example, personal 
income to those outside the livestock industry 
generated by the business and personal 
expenditures of the livestock industry as well as 
successive rounds of expenditures which may result 
in the community. 



Infiltration - The flow of water through the soil 
surface. 



Intermittent Stream - A stream or portion of a stream 
that flows most of the year but ceases to flow during 
summer months. 



Management Framework Plan (MFP) - Land use 
plan for public lands which provides a set of goals, 
objectives and constraints for a specific planning 
area to guide the development of detailed plans for 
the management of each resource. 



Multiple Use - Management of the public lands and 
their various resource values so that they are utilized 
in the combination that will best meet the present 
and future needs of the American people. 



National Natural Landmark - Areas designated by 
the Secretary of the Interior which contain 
representative examples of the nation's natural 
history, including terrestrial communities, aquatic 
communities, landforms, geological features or 
habitats of native plant and animal species, 
possessing national significance in illustrating or 
interpreting the nation's natural heritage. 



National Register of Historic Places - Established by 
the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Register is 
a listing maintained by the National Park Service of 
architectural, historical, archeologic and cultural 
sites of local, state or national significance. 



81 



Non-Consumptive Use - A use of vegetation which 
does not consume, alter, or destroy that resource; 
i.e., sightseeing, photography, hiking, soil 
protection. As used in this document, it equates to 
the annual growth of vegetation which is allocated 
for plant health and vigor and watershed needs, 
approximately 40 percent of annual production. 

O&C Lands - Public lands granted to the Oregon 
and California Railroad Company and subsequently 
revested to the United States. 



Paleontology - A science dealing with the life of past 
geological periods as known from fossil remains. 



Pasture - A fenced subdivision of a grazing allotment 
capable of being grazed by livestock independently 
from the rest of the allotment. 



Range Improvement - A structure, action or practice 
that increases forage production, improves 
watershed and range condition or facilitates 
management of the range or the livestock grazing on 
it. 



Range Trend - A measure of the direction of change 
in range condition. 



Research Natural Areas - Areas established and 
maintained for research and education. The general 
public may be excluded or restricted where 
necessary to protect studies or preserve research 
natural areas. Lands may have: (1) Typical or 
unusual faunistic or floristic types, associations, or 
other biotic phenomena, or (2) Characteristic or 
outstanding geologic, pedologic or aquatic features 
or processes. 



Perennial Stream - A stream or portion of a stream 
that flows year long. It receives water from 
precipitation, springs, melting snow and/or 
groundwater. 



Resident Fish - Pertaining to those species that 
spend their entire life in freshwater and generally do 
not migrate far from where they hatch; e.g. resident 
cutthroat trout, sculpins, and shiners. See also 
"Anadromous." 



Planning Area Analysis (PAA) - A planning 
document which analyzes the relationship of social 
and economic data to the physical and biological 
data presented in a Unit Resource Analysis (URA). 

Plant Composition - The proportions of various plant 
species annual production in relation to the total 
annual production of all plants on a given area. 

Plant Maturity - That point in the growing season 
when an individual plant species has set seed, stored 
food reserves and gone into the dormant stage. This 
time is different for various species. 



Plant Vigor - See Vigor. 



Residual Ground Cover - That portion of the total 
vegetative ground cover (including litter) that 
remains after the livestock grazing season. 

Rest - As used in this statement, refers to deferment 
of grazing on a range area (pasture) to allow plants 
to replenish their food reserves. 

Rest Rotation - As a grazing system, rest rotation 
alternates one or more years of rest with other 
grazing treatments. 

Riparian - Related to wet areas associated with 
streams, lakes, reservoirs, and springs. 



Proprietor - One who owns and operates their own 
business; one engaged in economic activity on their 
own account and not as an employee. Farm or ranch 
proprietor need not own the land used. 

Public Land - Formal name for lands administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Range Condition - An expression of the status of a 
plant community based on kinds, proportions, and 
amounts of species as they resemble the potential 
plant community for a given range site. 



Runoff - That portion of the precipitation on a 
drainage area that is discharged from the area in 
stream channels. 



Sediment Yield - The quantity of sediment 
transported through a stream cross-section in a 
given time. 



Serai Stage - The relatively transitory communities 
within a sere. 



Short Term - The 10-year period for implementation 
of the decision. 



82 



Spring/Summer Grazing - As a grazing system, 
allows grazing during the critical growth period 
every year. 



State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) - The 

official within each State, authorized by the State at 
the request of the Secretary of the Interior, to act as 
a liaison for purposes of implementing the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 



Structure - The configuration of elements or parts in 
a forest stand that results in layering or tiering; an 
increase in layering or tiering leads to an increase in 
structural diversity. 



Vegetation Type - A grouping of plant communities 
which have similar dominant plant species. 



Vegetative Ground Cover - The percent of the land 
surface covered by all living and undecomposed 
remnants of vegetation within 20 feet of the ground. 

Vigor - The relative well-being and health of a plant 
as reflected by its ability to manufacture sufficient 
food for growth, maintenance and reproduction. 

Visual Contrast - The effect of a striking difference in 
the form, line, color or texture of the landscape 
features in the area being viewed. 



Thermal Cover - Vegetation or topography that 
prevents radiational heat loss, reduces wind chill 
during cold weather, and intercepts solar radiation 
during warm weather. 



Visual Resource - The land, water, vegetation, 
animals and other features that are visible on al 
public lands. 



Unallotted Lands - Public lands which currently have 
no authorized livestock grazing. 



Unit Resource Analysis (URA) - A BLM planning 
document which contains a comprehensive 
inventory and analysis of the physical resources and 
an analysis of their potential for development, within 
a specified geographic area. 



Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes - The 

degree of alteration that is acceptable within the 
characteristic landscape. It is based upon the 
physical and sociological characteristics of any 
given homogenous area. 



Water Yield 

streams. 



The amount of water discharged in 



Upland - All rangelands and forest land other than 
riparian areas or wetlands. 



Upland meadow - An area characterized by dense 
herbaceous vegetation due to a high water table. 



Wilderness Study Area - A roadless area or island 
that has been inventoried and found to have 
wilderness characteristics as described in Section 
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 
1964. 



Utilization - The proportion of the current year's 
forage production that is consumed or destroyed by 
grazing animals. This may refer either to a single 
species or to the whole vegetative complex. 
Utilization is expressed as a percent by weight, 
height or numbers within reach of the grazing 
animals. Four levels of utilization are used in this 
document: light (21-40 percent), moderate (41-60 
percent), heavy (61 percent and over). 



Work Year - One person working the full-time 
equivalent of one year. 



Vegetation Allocation - In reference to forage, the 
distribution of the available livestock forage 
production to the various resource needs such as 
wildlife, livestock, wild horses and nonconsumptive 
use. 



Vegetation Manipulation - As used in this statement, 
refers to seeding and brush control range 
improvements. 



83 



References Cited 



Alderfer, R.B. and R.R. Robinson 

1974. Runoff from Pastures in Relation to Grazing 
Intensity and Soil Compaction. Journal of the 
American Society of Agronomy 39:948-958. 



Anderson, E. William and Richard J. Scherzinger 

1975. Improving Quality of Winter Forage for Elk by 
Cattle Grazing. Journal of Range Management 28(2): 
120-125. 



Black, H.C. and B.T. Vladimiroff 

1963. Effect of Grazing on Regeneration of Douglas- 
fir in SW Oregon. Proceedings of Soc. Amer. 
Foresters. 1963; p.69-76. 



Black, Hugh C, Edward Dimock II, James Evans and 
James Rochelle 

1979. Animal Damage to Coniferous Plantations in 
Oregon and Washington— Part I. A survey, 1963- 
1975. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State 
University, Corvallis. Research Bulletin 25. 44 p. 



Branson, F.A., G.F. Gilford and S.R. Owen 

1972. Rangeland Hydrology. Society for Range 
Management, Denver, Colo. 



Brodie, D. and Black, H.C. Dimock II, J. Evans, C. 
Kao and J.A. Rochelle 

1979. Animal Damage to Coniferous Plantations in 
Oregon and Washington— Part II. An Economic 
Evaluation. OSU, Corvallis, Research Bulletin 26. 24 
P- 

Brown, William G., Farid H. Nawas and Joe B. 
Stevens 

1973. The Oregon Big Game Resource: An 
Economic Evaluation. Special Report 379. Oregon 
State Univ., Agricultural Experiment Station, 
Corvallis, Oregon. March 1973. 

Chapline, W.R. 

1933. Forest Ranger and a Forest Range Problem. 
From "A National Plan for American Forestry." U.S. 
Congress. Senate Document No. 12. (Separate No. 
27:527-562). 



Chilcote, William W., G.P. Juday, R.W. Fonda, J.O. 
Sawyer and A.M. Wiedemann 

1976. A Survey of the Potential Natural Landmarks. 
Biotic Themes of the North Pacific Border Region. A 
Report prepared for USDI, National Park Service. 



84 



Cook, C. Wayne 

1971. Effects of Season and Intensity of Use on 
Desert Vegetation. Utah State Experiment Station 
Bulletin 483. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 



Duff, D.A. 

1978. Livestock Grazing Impacts on Aquatic Habitat 
in Big Creek, Utah. USDI, BLM, Utah State Office, 
Salt Lake City, Utah. 



Crispin, V.A. 

1981. Livestock-fishery Interaction Studies, Stream 
Rehabilitation of the West Fork, Deer Creek, Nevada. 
USDI, BLM, Elko District, Elko NV. 



Eissenstat, D.M. 

1980. Water Competition and Animal Damage in a 
Grass-Seeded Douglas-fir Plantation. M.S. Thesis. 
Univ. Idaho. Moscow. 65 p. 



Crouse, Michael R. and Robert R. Kindschy 

1981. A Method for Predicting Riparian Vegetation 
Potential in Semiarid Rangelands. Proceedings of a 
Symposium: Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic 
Habitat Inventory Information: 110-116. 



Culbertson, Ralph E. and D. David Montgomery 

1982a. Riparian Zones: A Study of the Riparian 
Zones of the Class 1 and 2 Streams in the Butte Falls 
and Klamath Resource Areas, 1980 - 1982. 
Unpublished report on file, Medford BLM District 
Office, Medford, Oregon. 146 pp. 



1982b. Black-Tailed Deer. Utilization of Summer and 
Winter Ranges in the Grizzly Peak - Soda Mountain 
Areas of Southwestern Oregon 1980 - 1981. 
Unpublished report on file, Medford BLM District 
Office, Medford, Oregon. 93 pp. 



1983. Wildlife Habitat Interrelationships for the 
Medford District, Southwestern Oregon. 
Unpublished report on file, Medford BLM District 
Office, Medford, Oregon. 168 pp. 



Den Uyl, D. 

1945. Farm Woodlots Should Not Be Grazed. Jour. 
Forestry 43:729-732. 



DeMoulin, L. A., J. A. Pomerening and B. R. Thomas 

1975. Soil Inventory of the Medford District. USDI 
Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 



Diller, O.D. 

1935. The Effect of Woodlot Grazing on Certain Site 
Factors in the Oak-Hickory Type. Columbus, Ohio. 
U.S. Dept. Agric. Central States Forest Expt. Sta. 4 
pp. Note No. 24. 



1937. The Forage Cover in Heavily Grazed Farm 
Woods of Northern Indiana. Jour. American Soc. 
Agronomy 29(11 ):924. 



Erickson, L. R. 

1974. Livestock Utilization of a Clear-cut Burn in 
Northeastern Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State 
University, Corvallis. 53 p. 



Evans, James 

1981. Survey of Forest-Animal Damage in Southwest 
Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Job 
Completion Report, 31 pp. 1 1 1 us. Forest-Animal 
Research Project, Olympia, Washington and Bend, 
Oregon. 

Follansbee, Julia A., Nancy Pollock, Mary Duenwald, 
Robert Sutton and William Orr 

1978. Cultural Resources Overview: Jackson- 
Klamath Planning Unit. Prepared for USDI, Bureau 
of Land Management, Medford, Oregon. 



Garrison, George A. 

1953. Effects of Clipping on Some Range Shrubs. 
Journal of Range Management 6:309-317. Cited In 
Stoddard, Smith and Box, 1975 (q.v.). 



Guenther, Keith and Thomas E. Kucera 

1978. Wildlife of the Pacific Northwest: Occurrence 
and Distribution by Habitat, BLM District and 
National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 
Northwest Region. 



Hall, F.C., D.W. Hedrick and R.F. Keniston 

1959. Grazing and Douglas-fir Establishment in the 
Oregon White Oak Type. Journal of Forestry 57:98- 
103. 



Hanson, Clayton L, Armine R. Kuhlman, Carl J. 
Erickson and James K. Lewis 

1972. Range Condition and Runoff in Western South 
Dakota. South Dakota Farm and Home Research 
13:11-13. 



Heady, Harold F. 

1975. Rangeland Management: McGraw-Hill New 
York 



Hedrick, D.W. and R.F. Keniston 

1966. Grazing and Douglas-fir Growth in the Oregon 
White Oak Type. Journal of Forestry 64:735-738. 



85 



Hermann, R.N. 

1965. Survival of Planted Ponderosa Pine in 
Southern Oregon. Research Pap. 2 For. Res. Lab. 
OSU, Corvallis, Oregon. 32 p. 



Lavy, T.L., J.S. Shepard and D.C. Bouchard 

1980. Field Worker Exposure and Helicopter Spray 
Pattern of 2,4,5-T. Bull. Environ. Contain. 
Toxicol. :90-96. 



Hickman, Gene 

1983. Personal communication between Gene 
Hickman, range conservationist, SCS, and Bill 
Drewien, range conservationist, BLM, regarding 
range and forest site interpretation. 

Hobbs, Steve 

1983. Even Researchers Have 20/20 Hindsight. FIR 
Report Spring, 1983, Vol. 5 #1. OSU Extension 
Service, Medford, Oregon. 



Laycock, W.A. and P.W. Conrad 

1981. Responses of Vegetation and Cattle to Various 
Systems of Grazing on Seeded and Native Mountain 
Rangeland in Eastern Utah. Journal of Range 
Management 34(1):52-58 



Leininger, W.C. and S.H. Shannon 

1983. Sheep and Timber: Are They Compatible? In 
Progress Report Research in Rangeland 
Management Special Report 682, June 1983, Agr. 
Exp. Sta., OSU, Corvallis, Oregon. 



Hormay, A.L. 

1970. Principles of Rest Rotation Grazing and 
Multiple-Use Land Management. USDI, Bureau of 
Land Management and USDA, Forest Service, 
Berkeley, Calif. 



Johnson, Steven R., Howard L. Gray and Stanley L. 
Ponce 

1978. Range Cattle Impacts on Stream Water Quality 
in the Colorado Front Range. USDA Forest Service 
Research Note RM-359. Rocky Mountain Forest and 
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo. 



Kaufman, R.D. 

1948. Forest Grazing in the North Carolina 
Piedmont. Proceedings Soc. Amer. Foresters 48:239- 
244. 



Kopischke, E.D. 

1972. The Effect of 2,4-D and Diesel Fuel on Egg 
Hatchability. J. Wildlife Mgmt. 34(4):1353-1356. 



McLean, A. and E.W. Tisdale 

1972. Recovery Rate of Depleted Range Sites under 
Protection from Grazing. Journal of Range 
Management 25:178-184 

McLean, A., and M.B. Clark 

1980. Grass, Trees, and Cattle on Clearcut-Logged 
Areas. J. Range Manage. 33:213-217. 

Minore, D. 

1978. The Dead Indian Plateau: A Historical 
Summary of Forestry Observations and Research in 
a Severe SW Oregon Environment. USFS, PNW Gen. 
Tech. Rep. PNW-72. 23 p. 



Mitchell, John E., David M. Eissenstat and Alex 
J. Irby 

1982. Forest Grazing - an Opportunity for 
Diplomacy. Rangelands - Vol. 4, No. 4, Aug. 1982, p. 
172-174. 



Krueger, W. C. 

1983. Forest Grazing - Growing Trees, Grass and 
Livestock Together (Eastern Oregon) in Proceedings 
of the 1983 Agricultural Conference Days Oregon 
State University, Corvallis, Oregon, Feb. 28 - March 
4, 1983, pages 233-245. 



Krueger, W.C, M. Vavra and W.P. Wheeler 

1980. Plant Succession as Influenced by Habitat 
Type, Grazing Management, and Reseeding on a NE 
Oregon Clearcut. Special Report 586, June 1980, 
Agr. Exp. Sta. OSU, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Krueger, W.C. and M. Vavra 

1983. Responses of Herbaceous Vegetation, Planted 
Trees and Cattle on a Forest Plantation. In Progress 
Report Research on Rangeland Management. 
Special Report 682, June 1983, Agr. Exp. Sta., OSU, 
Corvallis, Oregon. 



Mitchell, K.J. 

1964. Height Growth Losses due to Animal Feeding 
in Douglas-fir Plantations, Vancouver Island, B.C. 
For Chron. 40:298-307. 



Newton, Michael and Logan A. Norris 

1968. Herbicide Residue in Blacktail Deer from 
Forests Treated with 2,4,5-T and Atrazine. Proc. 
West. Soc. of Weed Sci., pp. 32-34. 



Olterman, J.H. and B.J. Verts 

1972. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon IV, 
Mammals. Special Report 364. Agriculture 
Experiment Station, Oregon State University, 
Corvallis, Oreg. 



86 



Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

1978. Oregon's Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint 
Source Problems. Water Quality Program, Portland, 
Oregon. 



Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

1977. Oregon's Threatened or Endangered Wildlife. 
Portland, Oreg. 



1983b. 1982 Oregon County and State Agricultural 
Estimates, Special Report 676. 



Owensby, G.E., E.F. Smith and K.L. Anderson 

1973. Deferred Rotation Grazing with Steers in the 
Kansas Flint Hills. Journal of Range Management 
26:393-395. 



1982. Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. Portland, 
Oreg. 



Oregon Department of Forestry and National 
Weather Service 

1981. Annual Report, 1980 Oregon Smoke 
Management Plan; OSDF, Forest Protection 
Division; and NWS, Fire Weather Office; Salem, 
Oreg. 



Rauzi, Frank and Clayton L. Hanson 

1966. Water Intake and Runoff as Affected by 
Intensity of Grazing. Journal of Range Management 
19:351-356. 



Reynolds, Timothy and Charles H. Trost 

1978. The Response of Native Vertebrate 
Populations to Crested Wheatgrass Planting and 
Grazing by Sheep. Journal of Range Management 
33(2): 122-125. 



Oregon Department of Forestry 

1982. Oregon Smoke Management Annual Report 
1981; Forest Protection Division; Salem, Oreg. 



Oregon Department of Human Resources, 
Employment Division 

1983a. Covered Employment and Payrolls, Salem, 
Oreg. 



1983b. State/County Resident Labor Force, 
Unemployment and Employment, 1982. Salem, 
Oreg. 



Oregon Department of Transportation 

1976a. Oregon Recreation Demand Bulletin 1975. 
Technical Document 1 of the Statewide 
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Parks and 
Recreation Branch. Salem, Oreg. 



1976b. 1975 State Park Visitor Survey: Summary 
Report. 



1978. Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan 1978. Review 
Draft. Photocopy. Salem, Oreg. 



Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the 
State Land Board 

1981. Oregon Natural Heritage Plan. Salem, Oreg. 



Oregon State University, Extension Service 

1983a. Commodity Data Sheets. Oregon State 
University, Corvallis, Oreg. 



Robbins, Jackie W.D. 

1978. Environmental Impact Resulting from 
Unconfined Animal Production. EPA-6001 2-78-046. 
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Okla. 



Roy, D.F. 

1960. Deer Browsing on Douglas-fir Seedling 
Growth in NW California. Journal of Forestry 58:518- 
522. 



Schaller and Rimal 

1981. Paleontological Sites on or Near Bureau of 
Land Management Administered Lands in Oregon. A 
preliminary catalogue. Portland, Oregon State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management. 



Sharrow, S.H. and W.C. Leininger 

1983. Forest Grazing— Growing Trees, Grass and 
Livestock Together (Western Oregon) in 
Proceedings of the 1983 Agricultural Conference 
Days. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 
Feb. 28 — March 4, 1983, pp. 247-257. 



Skovlin, J.M., R.W. Harris, G.S. Strickler and G.A. 
Garrison 

1976. Effects of Cattle Grazing Methods on 
Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass Range in the Pacific 
Northwest. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull. No. 1531. 40 

P- 

Steinbrenner, E.C. 

1951 . Effect of Grazing on Floristic Composition and 
Soil Properties of Farm Woodlands in Southern 
Wisconsin. Jour. Forestry 49:906-909. 



87 



Stoddart, L.A., A. D. Smith and T.W. Box 

1975. Range Management. McGraw-Hill, New York. 



Storm, Robert M. 

1966. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon II, 
Amphibians and Reptiles, Special Report 206. 
Agriculture Experiment Station, Oregon State 
University, Corvallis, Oreg. 



1983. Soil Survey of Jackson County. Unpublished 
report by the SOS, Medford, Oregon in cooperation 
with BLM. 



U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 
Census 

1982. Census of Population: 1980. Population 
Counts. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 



Thomas, J.W., Maser, C. and J.E. Rodiek 

1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands - The 
Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon, Riparian 
Zones. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, 
Oreg. 



Thomson, John and Bill Drewien 

1983. Soil-Vegetation Interpretation in the S.W. 
Cascade Mountains in Jackson and Klamath 
Counties, Oregon. Unpublished report on file in the 
BLM, Medford District Office, Medford, Oregon. 



Trenk, F.B. 

1954. Effect of Grazing on Timber in the Lake States. 
Proceedings Soc. Amer. Foresters 54:201-201. 



U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division 

1983. Regional Economic Information System. 
Washington, D.C. 



U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management 

1977a. Josephine Planning Area Unit Resource 
Analysis (URA) and 1982 Section Updates. Medford 
District, Medford, Oregon. 



1977b. Josephine Planning Area Analysis (PAA) and 
1982 Section Updates. Medford District, Medford, 
Oregon. 



Tueller, Paul and Gerald D. Tower 

1979. Vegetation Stagnation in Three-Phase Big 
Game Exclosures. Journal of Range Management 
32(4):258-263 



1978a. Josephine Sustained Yield Unit Ten-Year 
Timber Management Plan Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oregon. 



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - The 
Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. J.W. 
Thomas, ed. U.S.D.A., Ag. Handbk. # 553. 



1978b. Jackson-Klamath Planning Area Unit 
Resource Analysis (URA) and 1982 Section Updates. 
Medford District, Medford, Oregon. 



1980. An Assessment of the Forest and Range Land 
Situation in the United States. FS-345. Washington, 
D.C. 631 p. 



1978c. Jackson-Klamath Planning Area Analysis 
(PAA) and 1982 Section Updates. Medford District. 
Medford, Oregon. 



1983. IMPLAN: An Input-Output Analysis System for 
Forest Service Planning. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 
Service 

1975. Range and Forest Sites - Jackson County. 
SCS, Medford, Oregon. Unpublished report. 



1976. National Range Handbook. SCS, Washington, 
D.C. 



1978d. Vegetation Management with Herbicides: 
Western Oregon Final Environmental Statement. 
Prepared by the Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oreg. 



1979a. Jackson-Klamath Sustained Yield Unit Ten- 
Year Timber Management Plan Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oregon. 



88 



1979b. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines 
for Lands Under Wilderness Review. Washington, 
D.C. 



Winegar, H. H. 

1977. Camp Creek Channel Fencing— Plant, Wildlife, 
Soil, and Water Response. Rangeman's Journal 
4(1):10-12. 



1980a. Wilderness Inventory, Oregon and 
Washington — Final Intensive Inventory Decisions. 
Prepared by the Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oreg. 



1980b. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
(ACEC's): Policy and Procedures Guidelines. 
Washington, D.C. 



1980c. Owyhee Grazing FEIS. Boise District Office, 
Boise, Idaho. 



1980d. Ironside Grazing DEIS. Oregon State Office, 
Portland, Oregon. 



1983a. Soil and Vegetation Inventory. Unpublished 
report prepared by USDI, BLM, Medford District 
Office, Medford, Oregon. 



1983b. Western Oregon Program - Management of 
Competing Vegetation. Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon. 



1983c. Estimated Net Economic Value and Personal 
Income Attributable to Fish and Wildlife on BLM- 
Managed Lands in Oregon, 1981. Oregon State 
Office, Portland, Oreg. 



Vavra, M., W.C. Krueger and W.P. Wheeler 

1980. Cattle Grazing Potential on Clearcuts. In: 
Research in Rangeland Management. Oregon State 
University Agric. Exp. Sta. Spec. Rep. 586, p. 35-37. 



1980. Riparian Recovery— Water Resource 
Relationships. Unpublished. Prineville, Oreg. 6 pp. 



Windward, A.H., and David P. Rudeen 

1980. Sheep and Deer Grazing on Lodgepole Pine 
Plantations. Special Report 586, June 1980, 
Agricultural Experiment Station, OSU, Corvallis, 
Oregon. 



Zamora, B.A. 

1981. Understory Development in Forest 
Succession: An example from the Inland Northwest. 
In: Proceedings Forest Succession and Stand 
Development Research in the Northwest. March 26, 
1981, Corvallis, Oregon. 



Wheeler, W.P., W.C. Krueger and M. Vavra 

1980. The Effect of Grazing on Survival and Growth 
of Trees Planted in a Northeast Oregon Clearcut. In: 
Research in Rangeland Management. Oregon State 
University Agric. Exp. Sta. Spec. Rep. 586. p. 38-31. 



89 



Index 



Page 



Employment 28 

Erosion 21 

Fecal Coliform 21 

Fishing 26 

Grazing System 1 1 , 33, 34 

Hunting 26 

Income 28, 29, 48, 49 

Dependency 28 

Sediment Yield 21 

Sightseeing 26 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Animals 22 

Plants 14, 20 

Vegetation Types 14, 15, 16, 17 

Forage Condition 14 



48 
37 
38 
45 
35 
45 
50 
48 
38 
45 

39 
37 
18 
20 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1983—676-071/1022 REGION NO. 8 











m 










o 










co 










m H 










CD > 


"0 

m 
Z 




m 




TES 

JREA 
MED 


> 


o 


o 


00 


o c ° 

JD om 


H 

-< 


Tl 


o 


o 


Tl 

o 


O 


JJ 
p 


o 

03 


S-5 


H 


> 




D 
D 

r~ 
m 

03 

O 
> 


°>jj 


TJ 


r~ 


o 


CO Z -I 


J3 

< 
> 

H 

m 

C 
w 


CD 

C 
CO 

z 
m 


JJ 
m 
O 
O 

z 


MENTO 

D MANAG 
TRICTOF 


m 


CD 

co 


CD 


O 


CO 




CJ1 




jj m -n 


o 
o 




o 




THE INTERIOR 

VIENT 
CE 






o 




m 




is 


m 


£2 


3 


3 o a, 


2 


^ > >~ 




O z :* 


z 

o 


■no 2 




i -n > 

m m r 


9 


<~ 


z m 




H 5 




m > 




no 




O 




*