(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 "Proposed Three Rivers resource management plan : final"

BLM LIBRARY 





U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

Burns District Office 
HC 74-12533 
Highway 20 W. 
Hines, Oregon 97738 



September 1991 



Proposed 

Three Rivers 

Resource Management Plan 

and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Volume I - Text 







•• ■-■'-■- ^^-iTii?^; :r ffli^ifi§iiia" 



"rffirtftmai 



As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and 
natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the 
environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 
The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. 
The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under 
U.S. administration. 



BLM-OR-ES-91-29-1792 












79" H 



Cover Photo — Federal Land Office - Temporary Headquarters 
in the Burns Hotel building from 1889-1891. Predecessor to 
the Taylor Grazing Service and Bureau of Land Management. 



U.S. Department of the Interior ,d 7 

Bureau of Land Management rs 7 3 



Proposed 

Three Rivers 

Resource Management Plan 



Final 

Environmental Impact 
Statement 



Prepared by 
Burns District Office 



State Director, Oregon/Washington District Manager, Burns 






do, 







?55 




United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT OFFICE 

HC 74-12533 Hwy 20 West 

Hines, Oregon 97738 




IN REPLY REFER TO: 



September 20, 1991 



Dear Public Land User: 

Enclosed for your review and comment is the Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Three Rivers Planning Area, Burns District, Oregon. The Bureau of Land 
Management has prepared this document in partial fulfillment of its responsibilities underthe Federal Land Management 
and Policy Act of 1976 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

The Proposed RMP Final EIS is designed to stand atone from the Draft RMP/EIS which was published in October 1989. 
However, the interested reader may find it useful to refer to the Draft RMP/EIS when using this document. 

The public devoted a tremendous amount of effort in providing in- depth input on the Draft RM P/EIS. The Burns District 
received 225 individual comment letters containing over 1 ,200 specific comments. The Planning Team has assessed 
these comments and utilized the input in making substantive changes in the Proposed RMP. We sincerely appreciate 
the efforts of those who took the time to provide us with these comments. We feel that your efforts have resulted in a 
stronger and clearer RMP. 

This Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains a summary comparison of the alternatives considered (including the Proposed 
Plan), an introduction, the Proposed Plan, the environmental consequences of the Proposed Plan, revisions to the Draft 
RMP/EIS, public comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS, and the Bureau's response to those comments. The 
Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP has been revised as a result of public comment and internal review. The Proposed 
Plan reflects these changes in the refinement of management objectives and in management actions. 

If you desire assistance with this document you may contact the Area Manager, Craig M. Hansen, (503) 573-5241 . 

If you would like to have your interests/concerns considered by the District Manageras he makes thefinal decisions which 
will guide the management of the public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area for the next 10-15 years, please do 
so in writing prior to the close of the public comment period on October 21 ,1991 . Comments should be sent to: 

District Manager 
Bureau of Land Management 

Burns District Office 

HC 74-12533 Hwy 20 West 

Hines, Oregon 97738 

The final decisions will be based on the analysis contained in the EIS, any additional data available, public input, 
management feasibility, policy and legal constraints. Approval of the plan will be documented in a record of decision 
which will be made available to the public. 

The resource management planning process includes an opportunity for administrative review via a plan protest to the 
BLMDirectorif you believe the approval of a proposed RMP would be in error. (See 43 CFR 161 0.5-2.) careful adherence 
to these guidelines will assist in preparing a protest that will assure the greatest consideration to your point of view. 



Only those persons or organizations who participated in our planning process leading to this RMP may protest. If our 
records do not indicate that you had any involvement in any stage in the preparation of a proposed RM P or amendment, 
your protest will be dismissed without further review. 

A protesting party may raise only those issues which he or she submitted forthe record during the planning process. New 
issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the Burns District of Three Rivers Area Managerforconsideration 
in plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as otherwise appropriate. 

The period for filing a plan protest begins when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes in the Federal Register 
its Notice of Availability of the final environmental impact statement concerning the proposed RM or amendment. The 
protest period extendsfor30 days. There is no provisionfor any extensionof time. To be considered "timely, "your protest 
must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. Also, although not a requirement, we suggest that 
you send your protest by certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Protests must be filed in writing to: 

Director (760) 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 "C" Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

In order to be considered complete, your protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information: 

1 . The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. 

2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 

3. A statement of the part or parts of the proposed RMP being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done 
by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc. included in the document. 

4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted during the planning process or a reference 
to the date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the record. 

5. A concise statement explaining why the BLM State Director's decision is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical 
part of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning 
documents, environmental analysis documents, available planning records (i.e., meeting minutes or summaries, 
correspondence, etc.). A protest which merely expresses disagreement with the Oregon/Washington State Director's 
proposed decision, without any data will not provide us with the benefit of your information and insight. In this case, the 
Director's review will be based on the existing analysis and supporting data. 

The Proposed RMP cannot be approved until the Governor of Oregon has had an opportunity to review it. Any person 
who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval of 
this RMP may protest such approval. Complete instructions on filing a protest are presented in Chapter 5. The deadline 
for filing a protest is October 21 , 1991 . 

Thank you for your continued interest in the multiple use management of your public lands. 

Sincerely, 





Mike Green 
District Manager 



iv 



Three Rivers 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Draft () Final (X) RMP/EIS 
Department of the Interior 
Bureau of Land Management 

1 . Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

2. Abstract: This Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, in 
combination with the Draft addresses management on 1 ,709,918 acres of public land administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management in the Burns District, Oregon. Implementation of the Proposed 
Plan would result in improvement of water quality on 98 miles of stream; decadal timber harvest would 
be approximately 5.4 million board feet from 7,722 acres of commercial forestland; forage allocations 
of 1 50,472 AUMs for livestock, 5,808 AUMs for wild horses and burros, and 7,836 AUMs competitive 
forage for big game, improvement in wetland, aquatic and playa habitats; aggressive management of 
special status species and their habitats; administration of 17,056 acres as a Special Recreation 
Management Area; recommendation of 5.4 miles of river for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System; retention of 17,456 acres, and addition of 77,593 acres as ACECs; approximately 
25,335 acres of public land would be considered for sale under various authorities over the life of the 
plan; provision for mineral exploration and development would be maintained; soil, air quality and 
recreation resources would be protected. 

3. Five alternatives for management of public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area were 
analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS: 

Alternative A Emphasize Natural Values 

Alternative B Emphasize Natural Values with Commodity Production 

Alternative C The Preferred Alternative 

Alternative D Emphasize Commodity Production with Natural Values (No Action) 

Alternative E Emphasize Commodity Production 

4. The comment/protest period will end October 21 , 1 991 . 

5. For further information contact: 

Craig M. Hansen 

Three Rivers Resource Area Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Burns District Office 

HC 74-1 2533 

Highway 20 W. 

Hines, Oregon 97738 

Telephone (503) 573-5241 



V! 



'»■<"■■■"-;■■. ■■■■■■■ "■>■■■■ 



Table of Contents 



Page 

Chapter 1 . Purpose and Need 

Introduction, The Planning Area 1-3 

Purpose and Need 1-3 

Planning Process 1-3 

Planning Issues and Their Resolution 1-3 

Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study 1-7 

Analysis of Public Comment on the DRMP/DEIS 1-7 

Planning Criteria 1-11 

Chapter 2. The Proposed Plan 

Introduction 2-2 

Management Objectives 2-2 

Rationale 2-2 

Allocations 2-2 

Management Actions 2-2 

Procedures to Implement 2-2 

Monitoring Needs 2-2 

Index to Program Packages 2-3 

Air Quality 2-3 

Water Quality 2-4 

Soil Management 2-15 

Forestry and Woodlands 2-21 

Grazing Management 2-33 

Wild Horses and Burros 2-43 

Vegetation 2-51 

Special Status Species 2-56 

Wildlife Habitat 2-66 

Aquatic Habitat 2-96 

Fire Management 2-101 

Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers 2-107 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2-137 

Visual Resource Management 2-148 

Cultural Resources 2-152 

Energy and Minerals 2-156 

Lands and Realty 2-177 

Hazardous Materials 2-199 

Biological Diversity 2-200 

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan 

Introduction 3-2 

Analysis 3-2 

Assumptions 3-2 

Air Quality 3-2 

Water Quality 3-2 

Soil Management 3-3 

Forestry and Woodlands 3-3 

Grazing Management 3-4 

Wild Horses and Burros 3-6 

Vegetation 3-7 



VII 



Special Status Species 3-9 

Wildlife Habitat 3-9 

Aquatic Habitat 3-12 

Fire Management 3-15 

Recreation 3-15 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-17 

Visual Resources 3-17 

Cultural Resources 3-21 

Energy and Minerals 3-22 

Lands and Realty 3-23 

Economic Conditions 3-25 

Chapter 4. Revisions to the DRMP/DEIS 

Introduction 4-2 

Text Revisions 4-2 

Chapter 5. Consultation and Distribution 

Introduction 5-2 

Public Involvement 5-2 

Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted 5-2 

Agencies and Organizations to Whom Copies of 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS Have Been Sent 5-2 

Consistency Review 5-4 

Protest Procedures 5-4 

Chapter 6. List of Preparers, Glossary, and References 

List of Preparers 6-2 

Glossary. 6-4 

References 6-13 



List of Tables 



Table 
Number 



Title 



Page 



51 Comparison of Management Objectives xiii 

52 Comparison of the Alternatives xxii 

Chapter 1 

1.1 Resource Management Planning Process 1-6 

Chapter 2 



2.1 

2.2 
2.3 
2.4 



2.5 



Surface Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend 

in the Resource Area 2-11 

Headcut and Gully Control Methods 2-20 

Typical 10-Yr Timber Sale Plan 2-32 

Part 1 . Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection, 

Location and Justification 2-32 

Part 2. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Locations and Sizes 2-33 

Part 3. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests Stand Justification 2-33 

Grazing Management Manual Guidance 2-42 



vm 



2.6 Private Water Sources Selected for Acquisition of Permanent Access 

(Listed in Priority) 2-48 

2.7 Representative Characteristics by Wild Horse and Burro Herd 2.49 

2.8 Rangeland Improvements For Wild Horses and Burros 2-50 

2.9 Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions 2-54 

2.10 Recommended Management/Use Constraints in Old Growth Management Areas 2-55 

2.11 Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) 2-61 

2.12 Grazing Management Adjustments for Special Status Species 2-63 

2.13 Proposed Big Game Allocations 2-83 

2.14 Wetland Habitat Condition 2-87 

2.15 Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment 2-92 

2.16 Diamond Craters Management Actions 2-125 

2.17 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory 2-127 

2.18 Eligibility Assessment and Potential Classification 

- Wild and Scenic River Inventory 2-128 

2.19 Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

- Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory 2-129 

2.20 Suitability Determination For Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, 

Segment A, Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek 2-130 

2.21 Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, Oregon/Washington 2-134 

2.22 Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations 2-168 

2.23 Geothermal Lease Stipulations 2-168 

2.24 Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals 2-169 

2.25 Mineral Material Sites 2-175 

2.26 Summary of Acreage Closed to the Operation of the Mining Laws 2-176 

2.27 Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements 2-191 

2.28 Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal 2-193 

2.29 Withdrawal, Classification and Review Actions 2-197 

Chapter 3 

3.1 Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Streams and Lake/Reservoir 

Water Quality From Implementation of the Selected Alternative 3-4 

3.2 Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality Condition 

Trend from Implementation of the Proposed Plan 3-4 

3.3 Impacts to Range Condition 3-6 

3.4 Impacts to Stocking Levels with and without Range Improvements 3-6 

3.5 Impacts to Range Condition in Herd Management Areas 3-8 

3.6 Wild Horse and Burro Management Levels and Forage Allocation 3-8 

3.7 Vegetation Type in the Three Rivers RA 3-10 

3.8 Degree of Impacts to Special Status Species of the Proposed Plan 3-1 1 

3.9 Impacts to Big Game Habitat Conditions (acres) 3-13 

3.10 Impacts to Riparian Habitat Conditions 3-13 

3.11 Impacts to Wetland Habitat Condition 3-13 

3.12 Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend 3-14 

3.13 Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat 3-14 

3.14 Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 

-Three Rivers RA 3-18 

3.15 Projected Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Chickahominy Reservoir 3-18 

3.16 Projected Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Diamond Craters 3-18 

3.17 Impacts to Off-Road Vehicle Designations 3-19 

3.18 Proposed Off-Road Vehicle Designations Areas and Acres 3-20 

3.19 Impacts to Recreation 3-20 

3.20 Current VRM Classification 3-21 

3.21 Proposed VRM Classification 3-21 

3.22 Impacts to Oil and Gas Leasing Categories 3-23 

ix 



3.23 Impacts to Geothermal Leasing Categories 3-23 

3.24 Impacts to Lands, Realty, Withdrawals and Classifications 3-25 

3.25 Timber Harvest 1980-1987 3-26 

3.26 Impacts To Livestock Grazing Operations, Proposed Plan 3-27 

Chapter 4 

4.1 Timber Harvest 1980/1987 4-3 

4.2 Impacts to Ranching Operations by Alternative 4-4 

Chapter 6 

6.1 List of Preparers 6-2 

Appendix 1 

1 General Best Forest Management Practices I-3 

2 Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protection I-7 

3 Stream Segments Proposed for Livestock Removal 1-11 

4 Riparian Area Grazing Systems and Inventory 1-13 

5 Stream Segments Proposed for Immediate Grazing System Implementation 1-15 

6 Stream Segments Proposed for Case-by-Case Grazing System Implementation 1-17 

7 Stream Segments Which Lack Sufficient Data for Grazing System 

Implementation 1-19 

8 Actions Proposed in Three Rivers Portion of the Burns District 

Wetlands HMP 1-21 

9 Allotment Management Summaries - Introduction I-23 

-171 
-177 
-179 
-181 
-183 
-187 
-195 
-197 
-199 



10 Allotment Categories 

1 1 Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation 

12 Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range Improvements 

13 Range Improvement Costs 

14 Potential Range Improvements by Allotment 

15 Description of Existing and Proposed ACECs 

16 Recommended Management/Use Constraints in ACECs 

17 Off-Road Vehicle Designations - Federal Register Notice 

18 Calculation of Three Rivers Average Annual Recreation Growth 

19 Projected Recreation Visits To BLM-Administered Lands in the 
Three Rivers Resource Area for the years 2000 and 2010 

20 Gold Development Scenario 



■201 
■203 



Appendix 2 

Comment Letters and Responses 



List of Maps 

Map Title 
Map 

Number Page 

Gen-1 General Location 1-2 

Gen-2 Land Status 1-4 

WQ-1 Watery Quality 2-8 

S-1 General Soils : 2-16 

S-2 Erosion Condition Classes 2-18 

F-1 Existing Commercial Forestlands 2-22 

F-2 Woodlands 2-26 

F-3 Dry Mountain Old Growth Forest Stand 2-28 

F-4 Emigrant Old Growth Forest Stand 2-29 

F-5 Craft Old Growth Forest Stand 2-30 

F-6 Bluebucket Old Growth Forest Stand 2-31 

RM-1 Livestock Grazing Allotments 2-34 

RM-2 Areas Excluded From Livestock Grazing 2-38 

RM-3 Potential Vegetation Manipulation and Seeding 2-40 

WH-1 Active Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas 2-46 

SS-1 Special Status Species 2-64 

WL-1 Mule Deer Range 2-88 

WL-2 Elk Range and Wetland/Playa Habitats 2-90 

FM-1 Resource Values at Risk 2-102 

FM-2 Fire Management Zones 2-104 

R-1 Recreation Use Areas 2-108 

R-2 Recreation Off-Road Vehicle Designation 2-112 

R-3 Recreational Minerals 2-118 

WSR-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory 2-122 

WSR-2 Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek 2-124 

ACEC-1 Special Management Areas 2-138 

ACEC-2 South Narrows .2-142 

ACEC-3 Diamond Craters 2-143 

ACEC-4 Silver Creek/Dry Mountain 2-144 

ACEC-5 Foster Flat 2-145 

ACEC-6 Kiger Mustang 2-146 

ACEC-7 Biscuitroot 2-147 

VRM-1 Visual Resource Management Classes 2-150 

M-1 Coal, Oil and Gas Potential 2-158 

M-2 Geothermal Resources Potential 2-160 

M-3 Major Locatable Minerals Potential 2-164 

M-4 Mineral Materials Sites 2-166 

LR-1 Land Tenure Zones 2-178 

LR-2 Right-of-Way Corridors, Exclusion, Avoidance Areas 2-184 

LR-3 Critical Access Needs 2-186 



XI 



XII 



Summary 



Five multiple-use alternatives for the management of 
public lands in the Three Rivers Planning Area were 
developed and analyzed in the Three Rivers Draft 
Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DRMP/DFEIS) in accordance with 
the BLM's planning regulations issued under the 
authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976. 

The alternatives responded to major issues identified 
through the planning process. These include manage- 
ment of livestock grazing, adjustment of land tenure, 
meeting wildlife forage demands and improving habitat 
condition, fire management and special management 
areas. 



Each alternative was a complete land use plan that 
provided a framework for the multiple-use manage- 
ment of the full spectrum of resources present in the 
Planning Area. The resource management objectives 
which guided the analysis in each alternative are 
summarized by program below. The reader should 
note that the objectives were the same for all alterna- 
tives. However, the means for meeting each objective 
and the degree to which each objective would be met 
varied considerably between alternatives. Through 
public comment on the DRMP/DEIS, management 
objectives for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/ 
FEIS) have been modified, refined or expanded. Table 
S1 provides a program-by-program comparison of 
objectives between the Draft and Proposed Plan. 



Table S1 . Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Air Quality 



Prevent deterioration of air quality by 
BLM-authorized actions within the 
Resource Area (RA). 



Prevent significant deterioration of 
air quality by BLM-authorized 
actions within the Resource Area 
(RA). 



Water Quality 



Protect or enhance ground water 
quality and improve water quality of 
streams on public lands to meet or 
exceed quality standards for all 
beneficial uses as established (per 
stream) by Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality (DEQ). 



Improve surface water quality on 
public lands to meet or exceed 
quality requirements for all beneficial 
uses consistent with DEQ Nonpoint 
Source Assessment and Manage- 
ment Plan, where BLM authorized 
actions are having a negative effect 
on water quality. 



Protect or enhance groundwater 
quality on public lands to meet or 
exceed quality standards for all 
beneficial uses as established by 
DEQ. 



Soils 



Improve and/or maintain soil erosion 
conditions at moderate erosion 
condition class or better. 



Prevent deterioration of soil re- 
sources by ensuring that BLM- 
administered lands are in stable or 
upward observed apparent trend 
categories as outlined in "Rangeland 



XIII 



Table S1 . Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Monitoring in Oregon and Washing- 
ton" BLM Handbook H 1734-2. 

Rehabilitate areas with specific 
localized soil erosion problems and 
reduce accelerated (human influ- 
enced) sediment delivery to fluvial 
systems. 



Forestry and Woodlands 



Manage the identified commercial 
forestland timber base for a 
nondeclining sustained yield. 

Manage approximately 235,000 
acres of noncommercial forestlands 
and woodlands for the enhancement 
of habitat diversity, watershed 
protection and rangeland productiv- 
ity. 

Meet public demands for minor 
forest products such as fuelwood, 
posts, poles, Christmas trees, 
vegetal material, etc., consistent with 
other resource objectives. 



Manage the 7,722 acres of identified 
commercial forestland timber base 
for a nondeclining sustained yield. 

Manage approximately 50,000 acres 
of available productive noncommer- 
cial forestlands and woodlands for 
the enhancement of habitat diver- 
sity, minor forest products, water- 
shed protection and rangeland 
productivity. 

Meet public demands for minor 
forest products such as fuelwood, 
posts, poles, Christmas trees, 
vegetal materials, etc., consistent 
with other resource objectives. 



Livestock Grazing 



Implement long-term rangeland 
management designed to resolve 
identified resource conflicts/con- 
cerns and achieve management 
objectives delineated for each 
allotment. 



Resolve resource conflicts and 
concerns and achieve management 
objectives as identified, for each 
allotment in Appendix 1, Table 9. 



Wild Horses and Burros 



Maintain viable wild horse and burro 
herds in the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, 
Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain and 
Warm Springs active Herd Manage- 
ment Areas (HMAs) within estab- 
lished maximum and minimum 
numbers. 



Maintain healthy populations of wild 
horses within the Kiger, Palomino 
Buttes, Stinkingwater, and Riddle 
Mountain HMAs, and wild horses 
and burros in the Warm Springs 
HMA. 

Enhance the management and 
protection of herd areas and herds 
in the following HMAs: Kiger, 



xiv 



Table S1 . Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain, 
Palomino Buttes and Warm Springs. 

Enhance and perpetuate the special 
or rare and unique characteristics 
that distinguish the respective herds 
in the RA. 



Vegetation 



Protect, restore and enhance the 
variety of plant species and commu- 
nities in abundances and distribu- 
tions that provide for their continued 
existence and normal functioning. 

Control the proliferation of noxious 
weeds on public lands where 
concentrations pose a serious 
menace to human health and safety, 
domestic livestock or wildlife habitat. 



Maintain, restore or enhance the 
diversity of plant communities and 
plant species in abundances and 
distributions which prevent the loss 
of specific native plant community 
types or indigenous plant species 
within the RA. 



Special Status Species (see Glos- 
sary) 



Prevent significant risk to the well- 
being of special status species or 
their habitat by BLM-authorized 
actions. 

Restore or enhance habitat of 
special status species. 



Maintain and improve critical or 
essential habitatof species listed as 
threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, to prevent deterioration 
and provide recovery. 

Maintain, restore or enhance the 
habitat of candidate, State listed and 
other sensitive species to maintain 
the populations at a level which will 
avoid endangering the species and 
the need to list the species by either 
State or Federal governments. 

Ensure that BLM-authorized actions 
within the RA do not result in the 



xv 



- 







Table S1. Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



need to list special status species or 
jeopardize the continued existence 
of listed species. 

SSS 4: Increase the state of BLM's 
knowledge and information concern- 
ing the status and distribution of 
special status species. 



Wildlife Habitat Management 



Maintain or improve 334,910 acres 
of deer winter range, 376,670 acres 
of deer summer range, 234,21 1 
acres of elk winter range, and 
1 05,380 acres of elk summer range 
currently in satisfactory condition. 

Improve approximately 170,500 
acres of deer winter range; 293,000 
acres of deer summer range; 21 ,300 
acres of elk winter range; 43,100 
acres of elk summer range currently 
in unsatisfactory condition to satis- 
factory condition by the year 2000. 

Manage livestock forage production 
to support wildlife population levels 
identified by Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 



Maintain 335,000 acres of deer 
winter range, 375,000 acres of deer 
summer range, 235,000 acres of elk 
winter range and 105,000 acres of 
elk summer range currently in 
satisfactory condition as described 
in the glossary. 

Improve approximately 170,000 
acres of deer winter range; 295,000 
acres of deer summer range; 20,000 
acres of elk winter range; 45,000 
acres of elk summer range, currently 
in unsatisfactory condition to satis- 
factory condition by the year 2000. 

Manage forage production to 
support big game population levels 
identified by ODFW. 

Maintain good quality wetland, playa 
and meadow habitat where it 
currently exists. 

Improve component deficient 
wetland habitat to good condition 
and provide for wetland and 
meadow habitat expansion, by the 
year 1997 (see Table 2.14). 



xvi 



: — : ' " 



Table S1. Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Ensure that 75 percent or more of 
riparian habitat is in good or better 
habitat condition (proper functioning 
condition) by the year 1997. 

Restore, maintain or enhance the 
diversity of plant communities and 
wildlife habitat in abundances and 
distributions which prevent the loss 
of specific native plant community 
types or indigenous wildlife species 
habitat within the RA. 



Wetland, Reservoir and Meadow 
Habitat 



Improve wetland habitat in lower 
than good habitat condition, by the 
year 1997. 

Provide for wetlands and meadow 
habitat expansion. 



Riparian Habitat 

Raptors 
Aquatic Habitat 



Ensure that 75 percent or more of 
riparian habitat is in good or better 
habitat condition by the year 1997. 



Maintain or enhance raptor habitat. 



Ensure that 75 percent or more of 
aquatic habitat is in good or better 
condition and that none is in poor 
condition by the year 2000. 

Enhance existing warmwater fish 
habitat to good or better condition 
and provide for increased 
warmwater game fish production by 
the year 2000. Expand warmwater 
fish habitat consistent with no 
conflict with existing fish populations 
as opportunities arise. 



Ensure that a minimum of 75 
percent of aquatic habitat is in good 
or better condition, and none is in 
poor condition, by the year 1997. 



Ensure that 75 percent or more of 
aquatic habitat is in good or better 
condition and that none is in poor 
condition by the year 2000. 

Improve existing warmwater fish 
habitat to good or better condition and 
provide for increased warmwater 
game fish production by the year 
2000. Expand warmwater fish habitat, 
as opportunities arise, and when no 
conflicts occur with existing game fish 
populations. 



XVII 



Table S1 . Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Hazardous Materials 



Eliminate the introduction of hazard- 
ous materials on public land and 
remove any discovered deposits. 



Eliminate the introduction of hazard- 
ous materials on public lands and 
remove any discovered hazardous 
waste. 



Fire 



As determined through values at risk 
analysis, maximize the protection of 
life, property and high value sensi- 
tive resources from the detrimental 
effects of wildfire. 



As determined through values at risk 
analysis, maximize the protection of 
life, property and high value sensi- 
tive resources from the detrimental 
effects of wildfire. 



Consistent with values at risk 
analysis, maximize the beneficial 
uses of prescribed fire and wildfire to 
achieve other resource management 
objectives. 



Consistent with values at risk 
analysis, maximize the beneficial 
use of prescribed fire and wildfire to 
achieve other resource management 
objectives. 



Recreation 



During the 10-year period from 1990 
to 2000, establish Special Recre- 
ation Management Areas (SRMAs) 
where the presence of high quality 
natural resources and current or 
potential demand warrants intensive 
use practices to protect the area for 
its scientific, educational and/or 
recreational values. 

During the 10-year period from 1990 
to 2000, provide opportunities for 
unstructured outdoor recreation 
activities with the necessary facilities 
and services to accommodate a 
projected increase in dispersed 
recreation-related visits within the 
planning unit. 



During the 1 0-year period from 1990 
to 2000 establish and manage 
intensive-use areas, where the 
presence of high quality natural 
resources and the current or poten- 
tial demand warrants intensive use 
practices to protect the areas for 
their scientific, educational and/or 
recreational values while accommo- 
dating the projected increase in use 
for recreation activities specific to 
the areas. 

During the 10-year period from 1990 
to 2000, provide opportunities for 
unstructured outdoor recreation 
activities with the necessary facilities 
and services to accommodate a 
projected 24.5 percent increase in 
dispersed recreation use within the 
Three Rivers RA from an estimated 
84,000 visits in 1989 to an estimated 
104,500 visits by the year 2000. 



XVII 



Table S1 . Comparison of Management Objectives 



■HMM^HHHB^HHH^^^^ 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern (ACEC) 



Retain existing ACECs, if relevance 
and importance are still valid. 

Designate additional ACECs, 
including extensions to existing 
ACECs, where relevance and 
importance criteria are clearly met. 

Manage ACECs in accord with the 
basis for each designation. 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Provide special management 
attention to protect important natural, 
cultural or scenic resources on 
approximately 95,049 acres. 



Visual Resources 



Protect, maintain, enhance or 
rehabilitate the visual resource 
values as inventoried and evaluated 
by managing all public lands in 
accordance with the Visual Re- 
source Management (VRM) System. 



Protect, maintain, enhance or 
rehabilitate the visual resource 
values as inventoried and evaluated 
by managing all public lands in 
accordance with the VRM System. 



Cultural Resources 



Protect the cultural/paleontological 
values in the RA from accidental or 
intentional loss and provide special 
emphasis to high value sites. 

Increase the opportunity for the 
public's sociocultural, educational 
and recreational uses of the area's 
cultural/ paleontological resources. 

Provide for the conservation of 
cultural/paleontological resources of 
overriding scientific or historic 
importance. 



Protect the cultural and paleontologi- 
cal values in the RA from accidental 
or intentional loss, while providing 
special emphasis to high value sites 
and conserving those resources of 
overriding scientific or historic 
importance. 

Increase the opportunity for the 
public's sociocultural, educational 
and recreational uses of the area's 
cultural and paleontological re- 
sources. 



Energy and Minerals 



Provide maximum leasing opportu- 
nity for oil, gas and geothermal 
exploration and development by 
utilizing the least restrictive leasing 
categories necessary to protect 
sensitive resources. 

Continue to meet public demand for 
mineral materials from public lands 
in the RA, on a case-by-case basis. 



Provide maximum leasing opportu- 
nity for oil, gas and geoihermal 
exploration and development by 
utilizing the least restrictive leasing 
categories necessary to protect 
sensitive resources. 

Continue to meet public demand for 
mineral materials from public lands 
in the Planning Area on a case-by- 
case basis except for 64,315 acres 



xix 



Table S1. Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



Provide maximum opportunity in 
areas identified as open to the 
operation of mining laws for explora- 
tion and location of locatable 
minerals on public lands mineral 
estate in the RA. 

Provide maximum opportunity for 
the leasing and development of solid 
leasable minerals. 



in ACECs, WSAs and scenic 
corridors. 

Provide maximum opportunity in 
areas identified as open to the 
operation of mining laws for explora- 
tion and location of locatable 
minerals on public lands mineral 
estate in the planning area. 

Provide maximum opportunity for 
the leasing and development of solid 
leasable minerals other than coal. 

Public lands will remain open and 
available for coal exploration and 
development, unless withdrawal or 
other administrative action is clearly 
justified in the national interest. 



Lands and Realty 



Consolidate public landholdings and 
acquire lands with significant 
resource values to ensure effective 
administration and improve resource 
management. Retain in public 
ownership landholdings with signifi- 
cant resource values. 

Meet public needs for use authoriza- 
tions, such as rights-of-way, leases 
and permits. 

Eliminate unauthorized use of public 
lands. 



Consolidate public landholdings and 
acquire lands with high public 
resource values to ensure effective 
administration and improve resource 
management. Retain in public 
ownership landholdings with high 
public resource values. 

Meet public needs for use authoriza- 
tions such as rights-of-way, leases 
and permits. 

Eliminate unauthorized use of public 
lands. 



Acquire public and administrative 
access to public land where it does 
not currently exist. 

Utilize withdrawal actions with the 
least restrictive measures necessary 
to accomplish the required purpose. 



Acquire and maintain legal public 
and administrative access to public 
land consistent with other resource 
values. 

Utilize withdrawal actions with the 
least restrictive measures necessary 
to accomplish the required purpose. 



xx 



Table S1 . Comparison of Management Objectives 



Management Objectives, 
DRMP/DEIS 



Management Objectives, 
PRMP/FEIS 



The anticipated effects of the 
management actions contained in 
each of the alternatives and the 
Proposed Resource Management 
Plan are summarized by major 
program. 



Biological Diversity 



Maintain viable populations of native 
plants and animals well distributed 
throughout their geographic range. 

Maintain natural genetic variability 
within and among populations of 
native species. 

Maintain representative examples of 
the full spectrum of ecosystems, 
biological communities, habitats and 
their ecological processes. Provide 
for the increase of the scientific 
understanding of biological diversity 
and conservation. 



XX] 



The anticipated effects of the management actions contained in each of the alternatives, including the Proposed 
Plan, are summarized by major resource program in Tabie S2. 



Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives 


BASELINE 


ALT. A 


ALT. B 


ALT.C 


PROPOSED 


ALT. D 


ALT. E 


PROGRAM LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


PLAN 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


WATER QUALITY 














WATER QUALITY (STREAM MILES) 














EXCELLENT 0.00 


2.90 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


GOOD 0.00 


114.75 


117.65 


116.00 


37.65 


5.15 


5.70 


FAIR 20.65 


3.75 


3.75 


3.75 


60.70 


35.70 


111.60 


POOR 84.25 


6.15 


6.15 


7.80 


29.20 


72.55 


10.25 


UNKNOWN 22.65 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


14.15 


0.00 


TOTAL 127.55 


127.55 


127.55 


127.55 


127.55 


127.55 


127.55 


WATER QUALITY (SURFACE ACRES) 














EXCELLENT 


1351 

















GOOD 45 


3090 


4441 


1301 


1301 


876 


825 


FAIR 4001 








3140 


3140 


3560 


411 


POOR 445 


50 


50 


50 


50 


55 


3255 


TOTAL 4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 



FOREST MANAGEMENT 



TIMBER BASE 
ACRES 



8605 



4868 



8263 



8263 



7722 



8700 



9291 



DECADAL HARVEST 
(MMBF) 



6.02 



3.41 



5.78 



5.78 



5.40 



6.09 



6.50 



GRAZING MANAGEMENT 



LIVESTOCK FORAGE CONDITION (ACRES) 



EXCELLENT 

GOOD 

FAIR 

POOR 

UNKNOWN 

TOTAL 



38402 
562683 
823683 
251516 

33634 



45732 
671073 
731704 
206930 

54479 



39078 
573434 
831031 
211896 

54479 



42563 
624579 
809510 
178787 

54479 



1709918 1709918 1709918 1709918 



39056 
651217 
812302 
173658 

33685 
1709918 



50379 
739265 
705217 
160578 

54479 



43937 
644729 
796266 
170510 

54476 



1709918 1709918 



INITIAL STOCKING LEVELS (AUMs) 



STOCKING LEVELS 



150472 54891 107283 133208 



150472 



161222 164622 



WILD HORSES AND BURROS 



FORAGE CONDITION (ACRES) 
















STINKINGWATER 
















GOOD 


36778 


62078 


51269 


51269 


51269 


51269 


51269 


FAIR 


42853 


17553 


28362 


28362 


28362 


28362 


28362 


POOR 























TOTAL 


79631 


79631 


79631 


79631 


79631 


79631 


79631 



XXII 



I • ■ 

Table S2. Comparison 


of the Alternatives (continued) 












BASELINE 


ALT. A 


ALT. B 


ALT. C 


PROPOSED 


ALT. D 


ALT.E 


PROGRAM 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


PLAN 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


KIGER 
















GOOD 


12985 


22693 


15225 


15225 


15225 


15225 


15225 


FAIR 


23831 


14123 


21591 


21591 


21591 


21591 


21591 


POOR 























TOTAL 


36816 


36816 


36816 


36816 


36816 


36816 


36816 


RIDDLE MTN. 
















GOOD 


6000 


6000 


7223 


7223 


7223 


7223 


7223 


FAIR 


22021 


22021 


20797 


20797 


20797 


20797 


20797 


POOR 























TOTAL 


28021 


28021 


28020 


28020 


28020 


28020 


28020 


WARM SPRINGS 
















GOOD 


133064 


138064 


225525 


195525 


195525 


195525 


225525 


FAIR 


199926 


195926 


137465 


137465 


137465 


137465 


137465 


POOR 


123824 


122824 


93824 


123824 


123824 


1 23824 


93824 


TOTAL 


456814 


456814 


456814 


456814 


456814 


456814 


456814 


PALOMINO BUTTES 
















GOOD 


22068 


30068 


45368 


50368 


50368 


45368 


50368 


FAIR 


35300 


39981 


12000 


12000 


12000 


12000 


12000 


POOR 


12681 





12681 


7681 


7681 


12681 


7681 


TOTAL 


70049 


70049 


70049 


70049 


70049 


70049 


70049 



WILDLIFE HABITAT 



DEER WINTER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) 
SATISFACTORY 334910 505396 481298 

UNSATISFACTORY 195571 25085 49183 

TOTAL 530481 530481 530481 

DEER SUMMER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) 
SATISFACTORY 376670 669808 616371 

UNSATISFACTORY 325293 32155 85592 

TOTAL 701963 701963 701963 

ELK WINTER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) 

SATISFACTORY 234211 255551 245631 

UNSATISFACTORY 21340 9920 

TOTAL 255551 255551 255551 

ELK SUMMER RANGE (HABITAT CONDITION ACRES) 

SATISFACTORY 105380 148480 127680 

UNSATISFACTORY 43100 20800 

TOTAL 148480 148480 148480 



482951 


480000 


478238 


372961 


47530 


50000 


52243 


157520 


530481 


530000 


530481 


530481 


611371 


610000 


564784 


472257 


90592 


90000 


137179 


229706 


701963 


700000 


701963 


701963 


245631 


245000 


234211 


234211 


9920 


10000 


21340 


21340 


255551 


255000 


255551 


255551 


127680 


130000 


105380 


105380 


20800 


20000 


43100 


43100 


148480 


150000 


148480 


148480 



XXIII 



^^^^^^H 



Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) 




BASELINE 


ALT. A 


ALT. B 


ALT.C 


PROPOSED 


ALT. D 


ALT. E 


PROGRAM 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


PLAN 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN HABITAT (ACRES) 














GOOD 


116.7 


515.0 


515.0 


515.0 


515.0 


118.8 


515.0 


FAIR 


255.8 


37.0 


37.0 


37.0 


37.0 


234.2 


37.0 


POOR 


207.5 


28.0 


28.0 


28.0 


28.0 


227.0 


28.0 


UNKNOWN 


102.0 


102.0 


102.0 


102.0 


102.0 


102.0 


102.0 


TOTAL 


682.0 


682.0 


682.0 


682.0 


682.0 


682.0 


682.0 


AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITION (STREAM MILES) 












EXCELLENT 


0.00 


0.60 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 




GOOD 


8.10 


73.90 


74.50 


73.50 


73.50 


14.75 


12.90 


FAIR 


26.40 


6.95 


6.95 


7.45 


7.45 


47.90 


67.75 


POOR 


41.70 


2.20 


2.20 


2.70 


2.70 


21.00 


3.00 


UNKNOWN 


7.45 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


TOTAL 


83.65 


83.65 


83.65 


83.65 


83.65 


83.65 


83.65 


WETLAND HABITAT (ACRES) 














GOOD 


50 


956 


956 


956 


956 


956 


956 


FAIR 


911 


395 


395 


395 


395 


395 


395 


POOR 


390 




















UNCONTROLLABLE 


3140 


3140 


3140 


3140 


3140 


3140 


3140 


TOTAL 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


4491 


EXPANSION 


200 


670 


300 


490 


490 


200 


200 


PLAYA HABITAT TREND 


(ACRES) 














UPWARD 





8655 


8350 


7155 


8655 








STATIC 


8655 














8155 





DOWNWARD 








300 


1500 





500 


8655 



FIRE MANAGEMENT 



FIRE SUPPRESSION CLASSES (ACRES) 
FULL.W/O PRESC. 

FULL, W/ PRESC. 1709918 

COND., W/ PRESC. 



67724 


67724 


67724 


63600 





67724 


1180114 


1180114 


1180114 


1184230 


1709918 


1180114 


462080 


462080 


462080 


462080 





462080 



RECREATION 



SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS 
ACRES 16656 17176 

OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) 
OPEN 1599764 911704 

LIMITED 100064 788434 

CLOSED 10090 10090 

TOTAL 1709918 1710228 



17176 


17176 


17656 


16656 


16696 


1570994 


1556825 


1592633 


1599764 


1584384 


124834 


143003 


113205 


100064 


115444 


14090 


10090 


4080 


10090 


10090 


1709918 


1709918 


1709918 


1709918 


1709918 



XXIV 



_ 



Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued) 












BASELINE 


ALT. A 


ALT. B 


ALT. C 


PROPOSED 


ALT. D 


ALT.E 


PROGRAM 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


PLAN 


LEVEL 


LEVEL 


WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 
















DESIGNATIONS (STREAM h 


IILES) 














WILD 


0.0 


5.4 


0.0 


5.4 


5.4 


0.0 


0.0 


SCENIC 


0.0 


0.0 


5.4 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


TOTAL 


0.0 


5.4 


5.4 


5.4 


5.4 


0.0 


0.0 


DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) 
















WILD 





1730 





1730 


1804 








SCENIC 








1730 














TOTAL 





1730 


1730 


1730 


1804 








AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACRES) 










DIAMOND CRATERS ONA/ACEC 1 6656 


17136 


17136 


17136 


17056 


16656 


16656 


SOUTH NARROWS ACEC 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


160 


SILVER CR. RNA/ACEC 


640 


640 


640 


640 


640 


640 


640 


SILVER CR. EXT. RNA/ACEC 





960 


960 


960 


1280 








FOSTER FLAT RNA/ACEC 





1870 


1870 


720 


2690 








DRY MTN. EXT. RNA/ACEC 





2240 


2240 


2240 


2084 








KIGER MUSTANG ACEC 





66244 


36619 


36619 


64639 








BISCUITROOT ACEC 





6000 


6000 


6000 


6500 





6000 


TOTAL 


17456 


95250 


65625 


64475 


95049 


17456 


23456 



VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



CLASS DESIGNATIONS (ACRES) 
CLASS I 8610 

CLASS II 120621 

CLASS III 425600 

CLASS IV 1155087 



8580 


8580 


8580 


2290 


8610 


8580 


131131 


131131 


126581 


139535 


120621 


122061 


419550 


419550 


421770 


419431 


425600 


424190 


1150657 


1150657 


1152987 


1148662 


1155087 


1155087 



CULTURAL RESOURCES 



ACTIVELY MANAGED SITES 
LITHIC SCATTERS 
OCCUPATION/CAMP 
QUARRY 
ROCK SHELTER 
ROCK ART 
TRASH DUMP 
STRUCTURE 
OTHER 
TOTAL 



51 


371 


51 


51 


77 


86 


77 


77 


29 


37 


29 


29 


27 


31 


27 


27 


18 


19 


18 


18 


2 


11 


2 


2 


4 


6 


4 


4 


6 


11 


6 


6 


214 


572 


214 


214 



51 


51 


6 


77 


77 


28 


29 


2S 


6 


27 


27 


2 


18 


18 





2 


2 





4 


4 





6 


6 


2 


214 


214 


44 



XXV 



Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continuec 



PROGRAM 



BASELINE ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C PROPOSED ALT. D ALT. E 
LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL PLAN LEVEL LEVEL 



ENERGY AND MINERALS 



FLUID ENERGY MINERALS (OIL AND GAS LEASE ACRES) 



CATEGORY 1 
CATEGORY 2 
CATEGORY 3 
CATEGORY 4 
TOTAL 



1328111 1134069 

787517 890588 

98075 184046 

113331 113331 

2327034 2322034 



1442231 1499029 1499000 1328111 2166464 

644735 602987 603000 787517 

126737 111687 111700 98075 47239 

113331 113331 113300 113331 113331 

2327034 2327034 2327000 2327034 2327034 



SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS (ACRES) 
AVAIL. TO LEASE 2198267 2175887 2171331 2192467 2192467 

NOT AVAILABLE 17936 40316 44872 23736 23736 



2198267 2183451 
17936 32752 



MINERAL MATERIALS 
AVAIL. SITES 
ACRES AVAILABLE 



24 24 24 24 24 

2114337 2114337 2114337 2114337 2114337 



24 24 

2114337 2114337 



LOCATABLE MINERALS (ACRES) 
WITHDRAWN 44912 59532 57902 45162 

AVAILABLE 1670921 1656301 1657931 1670671 



49652 
1666181 
1715833 



44912 44912 
1670921 1670921 



LANDS AND REALTY 



LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT (ACRES) 
ZONE 1 1577559 

ZONE 2 121559 

ZONE 3 10800 

TOTAL 1709918 



1469864 


1575597 


1478091 


1484899 


1577559 


1081509 


199220 


93599 


193304 


188325 


121559 


531764 


40834 


40722 


38523 


36694 


10800 


96646 


1709918 


1709918 


1709918 


1709918 


1709918 


1709919 



CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS 
LINEAR MILES 



123 



185 



185 



185 



185 



123 



185 



EXCLUSION/ AVOIDANCE AREAS (ACRES) 

EXCLUSION AREAS 114710 

AVOIDANCE AREAS 

TOTAL 114710 



20385 


20385 


17885 





20385 


79525 


64475 


95530 








99910 


84860 


113415 





20385 



XXVI 



Chapter 1 
Purpose and Need 




1-1 




Portland 



▼ Sale 



rn 



▼ Eugene 



Coos Bay 

▼ Roseburg 



▼ Medford 



Prineville 




_-_'.? 



▼ Lakeview 



OREGON 



LEGEND 

® BLM State Office 
▼ BLM District Office 



Burns District Boundary 
Three Rivers Planning Area 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

April 1991 

MAP GEN-1 
GENERAL LOCATION 



1-2 



Introduction. The Planning 
Area 



The Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan/ 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) is a 
comprehensive framework for managing public lands and for 
guiding the allocation of resources in the Three Rivers 
Planning Area (PA) over the next 1 to 1 5 years. The 
impacts associated with managing public land (Map GEN-1) 
in the high desert area of Eastern Oregon are analyzed in 
this document. 

The Three Rivers PA contains 1,709,918 acres of public land 
that lie within portions of Harney (1,587,073 acres), Grant 
(8,484 acres), Lake (91,505 acres) and Malheur Counties 
(22,856 acres) (Map GEN-2). The PA contains approxi- 
mately 51 ,501 acres which are within the Lakeview District 
(31 ,444 acres Federal, 1 8,562 acres State, 1 ,495 acres 
private), but that are administered by the Three Rivers 
Resource Area (RA). Surface management prescriptions 
have been developed for these areas by the Interdisciplinary 
(ID) Team. 

The Ochoco and Malheur National Forests and the Malheur 
National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are 
the other major Federal land management agencies in the 
planning area. 

The PA is situated in the northern half of the Burns District 
on the northern extreme of the Great Basin and the southern 
end of the Blue Mountains. The PA is generally character- 
ized as high desert with large expanses dominated by 
sagebrush typical of the Great Basin. The Great Basin 
influence gives way in the northern and eastern portions of 
the PA where stands of pine and fir are found. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need for the RMP/EIS is to guide the future 
management of public land resources in the Three Rivers 
PA. To accomplish this it is necessary to identify and resolve 
multiple-use conflicts (issues) related to the management of 
public lands in the PA. The plan is intended to fulfill require- 
ments of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), which requires the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) to prepare comprehensive land use plans that are 
consistent with the principles of multiple-use and sustained 
yield. FLPMA also requires public participation and close 
coordination with other agencies. The RMP/EIS process 
results in decisions determining how the various resources 
will be managed to best meet present and future public 
needs. This plan establishes parameters for all resources on 
BLM-administered land in the Three Rivers PA, with the 
exception of the potential recommendations on the designa- 
tion of Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek and Stonehouse 
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The wilderness study 
process has been ongoing since 1979 and is beyond the 
scope of this RMP effort. Recommendations as to whether 
or not the areas are suitable for wilderness designation have 
been analyzed in a final statewide wilderness EIS. 

It is also the purpose and need of this planning process to 
provide for and encourage direct public involvement in the 
decision-making process affecting the management of public 
lands in the PA. Toward this goal, the planning process is 
open to public involvement at every step. 



Planning Process 

The BLM planning process is conducted in nine stages. 
Table 1 .1 summarizes these stages and displays the status 
of each. 

Planning Issues and Their 
Resolution 



Five planning issues have been identified and carried into 
the process of developing the Draft RMP/EIS (DRMP/DEIS). 
Public input was received in response to an initial scoping 
brochure issued by the BLM in September of 1987. Public 
meetings were conducted in Burns on October 1 9, 1 987, 
and in Bend on October\22, 1987. The five planning issues 
were confirmed, through public comment, as being signifi- 
cant and timely. 

1 . Grazing Management Issue 

Grazing management practices prescribed in preceding land 
use plans (the Riley and Drewsey Grazing EISs and 
Management Framework Plans (MFPs)) have not been fully 
implemented and it now appears that they cannot be 
implemented within a reasonable timeframe. This leads to a 
condition in which there is potential for (a) conflict with 
legally established resource values and (b) conflict over the 
use of resources. 

Considerations in Resolving the Issue 

Are changes needed in the grazing management program 
identified in the Drewsey and Riley Grazing EISs/MFPs? If 
so, what kinds of changes are needed? Where are they 
needed? Should there be a priority of some areas over 
others? If so, what area(s) should receive highest priority 
and how should priorities be established? 

Resolution of the Issue 

Changes in the grazing management program which have 
been identified concern establishing multiple-use manage- 
ment objectives and implementing grazing systems to meet 
these objectives. 

All allotments have gone through the selective management 
categorization process to assign a category to each allot- 
ment. Areas with a high level of conflicts and concerns are a 
higher priority to implement management in than areas with 
few conflicts. Allotments in the Improve (I) category are 
generally higher priority than Maintain (M) or Custodial (C) 
allotments. 

2. Land Tenure Issue 

Land ownership patterns within the RA contain some areas 
of scattered tracts and/or intermingled ownerships. Such 
patterns present problems for the efficient management and 
utilization of the public's resources. The means to relieve 
such problems are through exchanges with other landown- 
ers, transfers to other agencies and the public sale of 
identified tracts. Such actions can lead to the potential for (a) 
conflict with legally established resource values, (b) loss of a 

1-3 





OREGON 



LEGEND 

BLM Lands 

USFS Lands 

Other Federal Lands 

State Lands 

Private Lands 

District Boundary 

Planning Area Boundary 

Planning Unit Boundary 



^y 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP GEN-2 
LAND STATUS 



1-5 



Table 1.1. Resource Management Planning Process 



1 . Identification of Issues 

2. Development of Planning Criteria 

3. Data Collection/Consolidation 

4. Analysis of the Management Situation 

5. Formulation of Alternatives 

6. Estimation of Effects 

7. Selection of Preferred Alternative and 
Public Review and Comment Periods 

A. Draft RMP/EIS 

B. Final RMP/EIS 

8. Approved Resource Management Plan 

9. Monitoring and Evaluation of RMP/EIS 



Completed Oct. '87 
Ongoing 

Completed July '88 
Completed Nov. '88 
Completed Jan. '89 
Completed March '89 



Completed March '90 
August-September '91 
Scheduled Dec. '91 
Ongoing Upon Approval 



resource or environmental value, (c) conflict over the use of 
resources, and (d) high public concern relating to the use or 
preservation of a resource. 

Considerations in Resolving the Issue 

Is there a need to consolidate public landholdings? If so, 
what lands would be most important? Are there lands that 
should be identified for disposal through sale, exchange or 
transfer from public ownership? If so, which lands? Are there 
privately held lands which should be acquired to enhance 
public values? If so, which lands? Are there lands which 
should be retained in public ownership and not made 
available for any form of disposal, including exchange? If so, 
which lands? 

Resolution of the Issue 

The Proposed Plan identifies three zones where various land 
tenure management actions may take place. Zone 1 lands 
will generally be retained in Federal ownership. These are 
also areas where acquisition of lands with important public 
values will be emphasized. Thus, public landholdings will be 
consolidated in Zone 1. 

Zone 2 lands have been identified for sale under the R&PP 
Act and exchange for other lands with more important public 
values. 

Zone 3 lands are generally isolated unmanageable tracts 
and have been identified for disposal by sale or exchange. 

The management direction outlined in the Proposed Plan will 
provide much more opportunity for land tenure adjustment 
actions over that which currently exists. 

This will help meet the primary objectives identified in the 
plan of consolidating landownership (both public and private) 
retention and acquisition of lands with important public 
values and disposal of isolated unmanageable tracts. 



3. Wildlife Forage Demands and 
Habitat Condition Issue 

Existing management decision documents do not ad- 
equately address recent shifts in elk populations or concerns 
over deer winter range conditions. To accommodate these 
concerns it may be necessary to revise some forage and 
land use allocations. Such allocations have the potential for 
(a) conflict with legally established resource values, (b) 
conflict over the uses of resources, and (c) high public 
concern over the use or preservation of a resource value. 

Considerations in Resolving the Issue 

Should BLM allocate forage for elk from public land? If so, 
for what target population levels? Are there management 
actions that BLM should undertake to improve the condition 
of deer winter range? If so, what and where? How much 
should other resource uses such as livestock grazing be 
changed to accommodate such modifications? 

Resolution of the Issue 

The Proposed Plan allocates levels of competitive forage to 
meet the demands of benchmark numbers of big game in 
the Planning Area. These amounts may be adjusted during 
the allotment evaluation process. 

Management actions in the Proposed Plan would improve 
deer winter range by providing needed browse and improved 
vigor of available browse. 

4. Fire Management Issue 

BLM's fire management strategy has been primarily one of 
full suppression. This practice is both expensive and 
neglects the beneficial uses of fire as a management tool in 
certain applications. Changes in current fire management 
strategies could involve the establishment of three zones: full 
suppression, conditional suppression, and prescribed fire. 
Establishing these strategies could cause concern over the 



1-6 



i^::^ ■ -:.l:.: :.,:> ::■ :: 



potential for (a) conflict with legally established resource 
values, (b) a serious loss of a resource or environmental 
value, and (c) high public concern relating to the preserva- 
tion of a resource value. 

Considerations in Resolving the Issue 

With the understanding that the BLM will continue to meet its 
responsibility to protect life and property, are there areas 
where conditional suppressions of wildfire would be appro- 
priate? If so, where? Are there areas where either natural or 
prescribed fire would be a beneficial management tool? If so, 
where? Should the use of prescribed fire place more 
emphasis on the improvement of air quality than on the 
maintenance of plant communities? Are there areas where 
full fire suppression should be retained to protect important 
public/private values? If so, where? 

Resolution of the Issue 

The RMP established 462,080 acres identified for conditional 
fire use, these lands are shown as Zone B on Fire Manage- 
ment Map 2 (Map FM-2). 

Prescribed fire has been identified as a possible beneficial 
management tool on 1 ,646,31 acres or approximately 96 
per cent of the resource area. These lands are listed as 
Zones B and C on Map FM-2. 

Due to the specifications identified through the Oregon State 
Smoke Management Plan and the Clean Air Act, placing 
emphasis on prescribed fire rather than air quality was not 
possible. Working to balance the prescribed fire program 
and air quality standards was the only solution. 

Based on values at risk of both public and private values, 
63,608 acres were established as a full suppression only 
zone, shown as Zone A on FM-Map 2. 

5. Special Management Areas Issue 

Special management designations are in place on three 
sites in the RA - Diamond Craters Outstanding Natural Area 
(ONA), South Narrows Area of Critical Environmental 
Concern (ACEC), and Silver Creek Research Natural Area 
(RNA). Special designations and/or the absence of them can 
lead to the potential for (a) conflict with legally established 
resource values, (b) major conflict over the use of resources, 
and (c) high public concern relating to the use or preserva- 
tion of a resource value. 

Considerations in Resolving the Issue 

Should the three existing areas be retained under their 
current special designations? Which, if any, of the proposed 
nine additional ACECs should be designated? Which, if any, 
segments of free-flowing and eligible river segments should 
be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 
River System? Are there other areas or sites in the RA for 
which special designation is needed to further protect or 
enhance the habitat of listed threatened, endangered or 
sensitive species; to provide scientific and educational study 
opportunities; or to preserve outstanding or unique scenic, 
botanical, geologic, cultural or other resource values? If so, 
where? What are the values? 



Resolution of the Issue 

The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team examined the three areas 
with existing special management designations in terms of 
the Bureau's relevance and importance criteria. This 
analysis resulted in the recommendation to retain the special 
management designations for all three areas. Of the nine 
additional areas nominated for special management 
designation consideration, the ID team analysis resulted in a 
recommendation that five of the nine areas be given a 
special management designation. Further review of the 
values of the RA indicates that existing or proposed man- 
agement adequately protects other areas with important 
resource values, and, therefore, there were no other areas 
which require a special management designation at this 
time. 

Issues Eliminated from 
Detailed Study 

Ongoing Statewide Wilderness Study. The wilderness study 
process has continued since 1979 and has progressed 
beyond the level of detail contained in this RMP/EIS 
process. Two areas, Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek (5,560 
acres) and Stonehouse WSA, (12,325 acres in the planning 
unit, the remaining 9,000 acres in Andrews Resource Area) 
are being considered for designation as wilderness (Map 
ACEC-1). No further analysis of these areas for wilderness 
will be included in this document; however, portions of some 
WSAs are considered for designation as ACECs. 

Noxious Weed Control. Control of noxious weeds is ad- 
dressed in detail in the Northwest Area Noxious Weed 
Control Program EIS (BLM, 1987). As such, noxious weed 
control needs in the RA were not considered to be a 
planning issue. 

Grasshopper Control. Periodic outbreaks of grasshoppers do 
occur in the RA and can be a significant problem. BLM has 
entered into a memorandum of understanding (which can be 
renewed annually as needed) with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) for the control of grasshoppers on public lands in 
the RA. An environmental assessment of the local effects of 
the APHIS control was completed in 1986. As such, grass- 
hopper control in the RA was not considered to be a 
planning issue. 

Analysis of Public Comment 
on the DRMP/DEIS 

A number of concerns emerged from public input on the 
DRMP/DEIS with significant divergences of views about 
management strategies that BLM should pursue in the Three 
Rivers RA. Because of this divergence of views, the planning 
team undertook an expanded public contact process. A 
brochure detailing the major concerns was distributed to 549 
individuals, organizations and agencies in August of 1 990. 
Nine individuals responded to the brochure by returning a 
clip-out contact form. Personal contact was made with all 
nine individuals by either the planning team leader or an 
appropriate team member to address their concerns. The 
following is a summary of the major concerns raised through 



1-7 



the full public involvement process on the DRMP/DEIS as 
well as the general direction that has been taken to address 
those concerns. 

Accuracy and Sufficiency of BLM 
Data and Analysis Methods 

Commenters were concerned about the accuracy and the 
sufficiency of BLM's data collection and analysis methods in 
a number of topic areas. Primary among these are range- 
land, water quality, riparian habitat and soils monitoring and 
evaluation: 

Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation - Commenters were 
concerned that BLM rangeland monitoring and evaluation 
techniques are flawed and that BLM applied them beyond 
what can be scientifically supported. 

This concern has been addressed by adding an explanation 
of the monitoring and evaluation process. It was reiterated 
that the methods and process used to evaluate grazing are 
within Bureau procedures. 

Water Quality - Commenters expressed concern about BLM 
definitions of water quality. Commenters were concerned 
about whether or not it is necessary for BLM to comply with 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water 
quality standards for nonpoint source pollution, especially 
where water courses typically cross several ownerships, 
commenters were also concerned about the capability of 
BLM to define and measure the parameters necessary to 
adequately address water quality. 

Water quality standards were developed by Federal action 
under the Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. Responsibility 
for reviewing and revising water quality standards was 
relegated to appropriate State agencies. Under FLPMA, the 
BLM is required to coordinate land use planning and 
management activities with Federal and State agencies, and 
comply with all applicable State laws (see FLPMA, Sec. 
202(c)(8) and (9)). 

The DEQ has established levels of nonpoint source pollution 
of waters in the State of Oregon. Additionally, BLM and DEQ 
developed an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and 
Action Plan in April 1 990, that would implement these 
standards on public lands under Bureau jurisdiction. BLM 
biologists have the necessary equipment and expertise to 
measure these water quality parameters, assess condition 
and trend of sensitive aquatic habitats, and make recom- 
mendations to management concerning these sensitive 
ecosystems. 

Riparian Habitat - Commenters expressed concern about 
adequate definition of riparian habitat condition classes, 
especially as related to both water quality and aquatic 
habitat condition classes. Commenters were also concerned 
that BLM had classified some areas as riparian habitat that 
do not meet the definition. 

The Bureau definition of riparian habitat was used to classify 
areas as riparian. Stream segments with no data have not, 
as yet, been classified and a determination as to whether or 
not these segments contain riparian habitat will be made as 
data are collected. 



Riparian habitat condition, aquatic habitat condition and 
water quality are interrelated. However, the condition of one 
is not entirely dependent upon the condition of the other two. 
Factors used to rate these conditions are discussed in 
Appendix 1, Table 4. 

Water 

Commenters expressed concerns about management of 
various resources either directly or indirectly associated with 
water. Primary among these are water quality, fisheries and 
riparian habitat, and uplands management; also related to 
this topic is BLM consideration of Wild and Scenic Rivers: 

Water Quality Management - Commenters expressed 
concerns about BLM's management proposals to address 
water quality problems. Some commenters were concerned 
that BLM was not proposing sufficiently stringent manage- 
ment to resolve identified water quality problems while other 
commenters were concerned that BLM was "going too far." 

Severity of management objectives assure that BLM- 
managed waters meet requirements established by DEQ for 
nonpoint sources of pollution in Oregon. Management 
actions are based upon an MOU and Action Plan developed 
between BLM and DEQ in April 1990, and BLM Best 
Management Practices. 

Application of these prescriptions are expected to improve 
poor water quality on 55 miles of streams and establish good 
conditions on approximately 38 miles of streams. 

Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management - Commenters 
expressed concern that BLM fisheries and riparian manage- 
ment proposals were either too vaguely written to adequately 
assess their potential effectiveness or they provided 
"loopholes" that might reduce their effectiveness. Other 
commenters expressed concern that the management 
prescriptions that were presented would be excessively 
disruptive of established livestock operations. 

Management prescriptions have been rewritten to be more 
clear and precise. Prescriptions allow for interaction with 
affected interests, including permittees, in development of 
management activities that will meet water quality and other 
multiple-use objectives. The Proposed Plan focuses on the 
protection, restoration and enhancement of aquatic and 
riparian habitat to the extent possible under guidelines 
promulgated by FLPMA. 

Uplands - Commenters expressed concern that manage- 
ment prescriptions for riparian habitat management would 
impose excessively restrictive limitations on livestock grazing 
on associated uplands. 

This concern was addressed by an explanation of the 
riparian utilization levels and deleting the upland utilization 
level in riparian pastures. Upland utilization levels will be 
established at the activity plan level. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Commenters expressed concern 
that BLM had not proposed more rivers, streams and 
reaches for designation as Wild or Scenic. 

Three Rivers RA conducted a river inventory and evaluation 
following the process outlined in the Guidelines for Fulfilling 
Requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 



1-8 



After completion of the process, one river segment, the 
Middle Fork of the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek, met 
all the requirements to be recommended for designation 
under the Act. 

Portions of the river inventory and evaluation have been 
included to illustrate the required steps which were followed 
(see Tables 2.17 through 2.20). 

Ancient Forests 

Commenters expressed concern that BLM had neither 
identified any forest stands as ancient forest nor proposed 
any management prescriptions for ancient forest stands. 

This concern has been addressed by the identification of 
four separate stands which either currently meet old growth 
ponderosa pine stand criteria or will grow into these old 
growth characteristics in a relatively short period of time. 
Stand management guidelines will be developed for each 
stand to guide long-term maintenance or enhancement of 
old growth characteristics of the stands. 

Economic Assessment 

Commenters presented a variety of concerns about the 
"Economics" of the RMP. Primary among these concerns 
were economic impacts, performing Takings Implications 
Assessments (TIA), project costs and performing Benefit/ 
Cost Analysis (B/C): 

Economic Impacts - Commenters expressed concern that 
BLM had not adequately assessed the potential economic 
impacts that implementing the RMP would have on the local/ 
regional economy. 

This concern has been addressed by reevaluating the 
economic impacts of the implementation of each of the 
alternatives presented in the draft as well as the impacts of 
the Proposed Plan. This analysis includes both the direct 
and the indirect (frequently referred to as the multiplier 
effect) impacts to both income and employment. 

TIA - Commenters expressed a concern that BLM is not 
complying with requirements laid out in Executive Order 
12630, by not performing a TIA prior to any reduction of 
authorized livestock grazing. 

The provisions of Executive Order 12630 do not apply to 
adjustments of BLM livestock grazing permits. As such, TIAs 
are not performed in the RMP/EIS. 

Project Costs - Commenters expressed concern that BLM 
had not adequately displayed what the various project types 
would cost. 

This concern has been addressed by presenting generalized 
project cost estimates. Refer to Appendix 1 , Tables 1 3 and 
14. 

B/C - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not 
provided detailed B/C analysis on the investments that would 
be required under the various alternatives and, as a result, 
there was insufficient information with which to adequately 
choose between alternatives. 



BLM planning is a tiered system with the most generalized 
land use planning performed at the RMP level. Increased 
detail and site specificity is considered at successive tiers in 
the system, activity planning and project planning. The 
information needed to appropriately conduct B/C analysis is 
usually only available at these more detailed tiers of the 
planning system. As such, B/C analysis is deferred to activity 
and project planning. 



Follow-Through 

Commenters expressed concern that BLM would not have 
the funds or the staff to actually follow through with the 
management prescriptions that have been proposed in the 
RMP. 

The composition of this RMP has been based on three 
primary guidelines: (1) Management prescriptions should be 
realistic, both in terms of accomplishing stated objectives 
and being reasonably achievable. (2) Management prescrip- 
tions should not be strictly funding dependent. That is, 
progress toward accomplishing management objectives 
should not depend upon substantial increases in base 
funding. (3) Management prescriptions should be derived 
interdisciplinarily to assure the maximum support base for 
their eventual implementation. Based on these guidelines, 
BLM feels confident that we will be able to follow through 
with the commitments made through the RMP. 

Forage Allocation Priorities 

Commenters expressed concern that BLM had not provided 
a sufficient basis for establishing forage allocation priorities 
which favored wildlife and wild horses over livestock. 

This concern was addressed by an explanation in how 
forage will be allocated. The forage allocation process was 
modified from the DRMP/DEIS so that forage will be 
allocated to wildlife in accordance with the agreements 
between BLM and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW) and forage will be allocated between livestock and 
wild horses on the basis of the results of monitoring and 
evaluation procedures. 

Land Tenure Adjustment 

Commenters expressed concern that BLM should not 
reduce the private lands tax base in Harney County through 
any land tenure adjustments authorized under the RMP. 

This concern has been addressed by clarifying the intent of 
the RMP as to land tenure adjustment. Most commenters felt 
that the DRMP/DEIS heavily emphasized acquisition of 
private land through direct purchase. Although direct 
purchase remains a limited option in the Proposed Plan the 
management actions have been modified and responses to 
the commenters developed which provide more emphasis 
and clarification of acquisition by exchange whereby no 
significant loss of the private land base in the county would 
be expected. 

Off-Road Vehicle Use (ORV) 

Commenters expressed concern that the RMP too heavily 
promoted open ORV use and that sensitive resource values 
would be threatened. 

1-9 



The actions addressing ORV use have been rewritten to 
address specific ORV use areas and the use of cross- 
country routes on designated and approved roads and trails. 
The actions also incorporate the directions established in 
Executive Order 1 1 644 for the Bureau to manage this valid 
and accepted use on Bureau-administered lands, but also to 
ensure the protection of areas where ORV use would cause 
or is causing considerable adverse impacts on natural, 
cultural or historical resources. References to maximizing 
ORV use have been dropped from the land management 
proposals. 

Vegetation Conversions 

Commenters expressed a variety of concerns about Vegeta- 
tion Conversions. Primary among these were seedings, the 
use of crested wheatgrass, juniper control and fire manage- 
ment policy: 

Seedings - Commenters expressed concern that BLM had 
"proposed" too many acres to be seeded and that such 
seedings would result in declines in habitat and species 
diversity. 

This concern was addressed by revising the overall ap- 
proach that is being taken to seedings. First, no specific 
seedings are being "proposed" through the RMP. Where 
seedings would help in meeting overall multiple-use objec- 
tives in a given area, they may be considered. Second, 
multiple-use constraints will be applied to all seeding (and 
other vegetation conversion) proposals to ensure that the 
diversity of plant species and communities is not adversely 
affected and that special habitat features such as big game 
winter range browse are retained. Third, as with other 
rangeland management prescriptions, seedings will be 
undertaken only after substantial consultation, coordination 
and cooperation with affected interests. 

Crested Wheatgrass - Commenters expressed concern 
that where seedings are implemented, only native grass, 
forbs and browse species should be utilized and that no 
more crested wheatgrass should be planted. 

The selection of species to be seeded is dependent on the 
multiple-use objectives of the proposed seeding and site 
characteristics (rainfall, soil types, etc.). Seeding mixtures 
will be determined with interdisciplinary interaction and will 
undergo multiple-use and environmental consideration 
through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
documentation process. 

Juniper Control - Commenters expressed concern that in 
some sections of the RA juniper encroachment has become 
a serious resource problem. Concern was expressed that 
BLM fire management policy has contributed to the juniper 
encroachment problem through suppression of wildfires and 
that a more extensive use of prescribed burning should be 
proposed. 

This concern has been addressed through the identification 
of 462,080 acres for conditional fire use and 1 ,1 84,230 acres 
(96 percent of the RA) identified for prescribed fire use as a 
management tool to assist in the meeting of resource 
objectives. 

Fire Management - Commenters expressed concern that 
not enough acreage was proposed by BLM for conditional 



fire suppression and that more acreage should be proposed 
for prescribed fire. An associated concern was that the 3,000 
acres per year limitation on prescribed fire should be relaxed 
(that is, more acres per year should be allowed). 

The concern relating to the desire to see more acreage 
identified under conditional suppression was reevaluated by 
the ID team. Due to the values at risk involved, including life, 
property and fire-sensitive resource values, the acreage 
identified was not changed. 

Concerns relating to prescribed fire were also reevaluated. 
Additional areas for possible prescribed fire use were 
identified; however, acreage burned per year limitations are 
based on Oregon's Smoke Management Plan and air quality 
constraints and, therefore, cannot be increased. 

Wild Horses and Burros 

Commenters presented a variety of concerns relative to Wild 
Horses and Burros. Primary among these were interactions 
between wild horses and riparian management, designation 
of a Kiger Horse ACEC, and Burro Management: 

Wild Horses and Riparian Management - Commenters 
expressed concern that riparian management objectives 
would be impaired in wild horse herd management areas if 
horses could not be excluded from seasonlong use of 
riparian areas. Yet to exclude them from such areas 
appeared to conflict with the goal of maintaining the ".... wild 
and free-roaming nature " of the wild horses. 

This concern has been addressed in the overall objectives of 
the RMP, which direct all management to be based on 
multiple-use and sustained yield. The Wild and Free- 
Roaming Horse and Burro Act also requires that a thriving 
natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationships 
exist in each Herd Management Area (HMA). Allotment 
evaluations will address specific objectives and management 
actions in each HMA, including objectives and actions for 
riparian areas. To meet the overall objectives of each area 
may require that horses be excluded from some portions of 
riparian areas. 

Kiger ACEC - Commenters expressed concern that the 
establishment of an ACEC for the Kiger horses would result 
in an unacceptable impact on existing long-term ranching 
operations within the immediate area of the ACEC. 

This concern has been addressed through the response to 
comments section. Here it is explained that there is no 
proposed increase in herd area size, horse herd numbers or 
increases in forage allocated to wild horses. Impacts to 
ranching operations would be minimal at most. Such impacts 
may be increased traffic and visitation of the area. No 
significant changes in the.manner in which the Kiger and 
Riddle Mountain HMAs are proposed. 

Burros - Commenters expressed concern that no active 
management of the burro herd, a portion of the overall Warm 
Springs HMA, was being proposed. 

This program was reevaluated during the response to 
comments process and the direction of burro management 
was changed as such. Burros will be actively managed in the 
Warm Springs HMA to reflect their unique presence in the 
Three Rivers RA. 



1-10 



Biological Diversity 



In recent years, biological diversity has emerged as an issue 
of considerable interest to the multiple-use management of 
public lands. While a commonly agreed upon definition of 
"biological diversity" has not yet been developed, it is 
generally acknowledged that such diversity occurs on at 
least three levels: 

- the diversity of genetic characteristics within a species; 

- the diversity of species within a community; and, 

- the diversity of communities within an ecosystem. 

Within this context, maintenance of biological diversity under 
the concepts of multiple-use management requires mainte- 
nance of viable populations including appropriate genetic 
variability for individual species as well as the maintenance 
of communities and ecosystems with their full range of 
functions. The depletion and fragmentation of ecosystems 
and their components are major concerns. So too, are the 
recovery of endangered species and degraded habitats, and 
the inventory and monitoring of biological resources. 

Certain aspects of the interest in biological diversity are 
addressed by existing and potential "preserves" such as 
parks, refuges, wilderness areas and other similar protected 
areas. However, such areas are considered to be insufficient 
to fully encompass the issue because of their limited size 
and distribution. In addition, it is not reasonable to expect to 
be able to fully address the issue by simply creating addi- 
tional "preserves". As such, public lands managed under 
multiple-use must provide the continuity between these 
protected areas for biological diversity. Recognizing this, 
BLM has begun to incorporate biological diversity into its 
land use planning as one of the many multiple-uses for 
which the Bureau manages. It is believed that public lands 
managed by BLM can best continue to produce a full array 
of goods and services from lands that sustain biologically 
diverse ecosystems. 

A considerable body of law and regulation exists which 
addresses various aspects of biological diversity. However, 
no federal legislation has been passed into law which 
provides a single comprehensive base for the management 
of biological diversity. Important acts which guide BLM in the 
maintenance of diversity include FLPMA (1976), the 
Endangered Species Act, as amended, (1973), the Public 
Rangelands Improvement Act, as amended (1978), the Wild 
and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (1971), Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act (1968), the Wilderness Act (1964), NEPA 
(1969), and the many acts relating to various species of 
wildlife. Within such existing guidance, integration of the 
overall concepts associated with the maintenance of 
biological diversity into the Three Rivers RMP has resulted in 
many management objectives, corresponding management 
actions, use and management constraints, and standard 
operating procedures which have been designed to restore, 
maintain or enhance various elements of biological diversity 
within the Planning Area. 



Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria are utilized to guide the planning process. 
They are derived from law, regulation and policy. BLM has 
utilized three sets of planning criteria for the Three Rivers 



RMP: 1) FLPMA criteria, 2) Identification of Conflicts and 
Opportunities, and 3) Alternative Formulation Criteria. 

Planning Criteria from FLPMA of 1976 

Section 202(c) of the FLPMA provides that, in the develop- 
ment and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall: 

1 . Use and observe the principles of multiple-use and 
sustained yield; 

2. Use an interdisciplinary approach to integrate consider- 
ation of physical, biological, economic and other sci- 
ences; 

3. Give priority to the designation of ACECs ; 

4. Rely on the inventory of public lands, their resources and 
other values; 

5. Consider present and potential uses of the public lands; 

6. Consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and 
the availability of alternative means and sites for realiza- 
tion of those values; 

7. Weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term 
benefits; 

8. Provide for compliance with applicable pollution laws; 

9. To the extent possible, coordinate land use inventory, 
planning, and management of public lands with the land 
use planning and management programs of other Federal 
agencies and State and local governments. 

Section 302(b) of FLPMA requires the Secretary to manage 
the public lands so as to prevent unnecessary or undue 
degradation of the lands. 

Planning Criteria Used in the Identifi- 
cation of Conflicts/Opportunities 

Conflicts - Management practices will be identified as 
management conflicts if any of the following conditions 
prevails: 

1 . Management of one resource significantly constrains or 
diminishes the use of another resource; 

2. Agency guidance requires that land use allocations which 
are not currently in effect be made through the plan; 

3. Existing land use allocations conflict with current agency 
resource management policies or guidance; 

4. Documented public controversy exists regarding the 
management of a resource. 

Opportunities - Management practices will be identified as 
management opportunities if either of the following condi- 
tions prevails: 

1 . Management conflicts identified through the above criteria 
can be resolved in alternative ways with readily available 
management practices; 

1-11 



2. Appreciable public demand exists for resource uses or 
conditions sustainable in the RA, but is currently under- 
represented. 

Management Objectives 

Management objectives for the various resources must: 

1 . Be measurable/quantifiable in terms of location, area 
involved and timeframe; 

2. Be reasonably achievable within an appropriate 
timeframe, normal budgetary limitations and with existing 
technology; 

3. Be purposeful in terms of resolving a significant conflict, 
realizing an identified opportunity, or maintaining a 
currently desirable condition; 

4. Provide relatively clear and complete program guidance; 

5. Be reasonably independent of other management 
objectives. 



Planning Criteria for Alternative 
Formulation 

Each alternative formulated and assessed in the DRMP/ 
DEIS shall: 

1 . Directly assess the degree of accomplishment of the 
identified management objectives; 

2. Be in accordance with the discretionary limits established 
through applicable laws, regulations and agency policies; 

3. Provide for reasonable, feasible and practical guidance for 
management of public lands and resources through a full 
range of options; 

4. Provide a complete land use plan. 

At least one alternative among those assessed in the DRMP/ 
DEIS will provide for each of the following: 

1. Continuation of present management practices; 

2. Emphasizing the use, production or extraction of renew- 
able and nonrenewable resources (although not neces- 
sarily in the same alternative); 

3. Emphasizing the protection and enhancement of natural 
systems and sensitive resources; 

4. Emphasizing a balancing of production and extraction 
interests with protection and enhancement interests. 



1-12 



Chapter 2 
The Proposed Plan 







2-1 



Introduction 



There have been a number of substantial changes that have 
been made to the proposed land use decision format that was 
presented in the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Envi- 
ronmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS). Much of this has 
been done in response to comments that were received on the 
DRMP/DEIS. The planning team has composed the Proposed 
RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS) in such a way that the reader will 
be able to readily track the Management Objectives, Alloca- 
tions, Management Actions, Procedures to Implement and 
Monitoring Needs. Every "decision" proposed through the 
planning process is actually a string of components. Primary 
among these components are Objectives, Allocations and 
Management Actions. Associated with the decision compo- 
nents are support components. Primary among these are the 
Rationale, Geographic Reference, Decision Class, Support 
and Constraint, Proceduresto Implement and Monitoring Needs. 
The following material defines and expands upon these various 
components. 

Management Objectives - The management objective is an 
expression of what we have as the desired end result of our 
management efforts. In expressing an objective, we have 
attempted to describe it so that 1) the expected results are 
clearly stated, 2) the objective is specific, 3) the objective is 
measurable, and 4) the objective is realistic. The measurability 
of the objective is usually expressed in terms of physical units 
(acres, tons, AUMs, etc.) and in terms of quality classes 
(satisfactory, good, fair, late serai, etc.). Where timeframes 
apply, they have been incorporated. 

Rationale - The rationale is an expression of the primary 
reasoning behind why it is important to pursue the stated 
objective. The rationale is usually expressed in terms of law, 
regulation, policy, custom, etc. ; whatever it is that answers the 
question, "Why do we want to achieve this objective?" 

Allocations - For every "decision string" there is usually an 
allocation. Allocations should be one of three types: 1 ) land use 
allocations, 2) resource allocations, and 3) administrative allo- 
cations. 

Land use allocations are expressed in terms of area (acres, 
miles, etc.). They define: allowable uses/activities, restricted 
uses/activities, prohibited uses/activities. 

Resource allocations are expressed in terms of "resource 
units" such as AUMs, MMBF, user days, tons, etc. 

Administrative allocations are commitments of the Bureau 
to perform a procedure or process when a given set of 
conditions or a specified timeframe is met. Administrative 
allocations are expressed in terms of the conditions or 
timeframes that would invoke them and the procedures that 
would be applied. 

Each allocation (except administrative allocations) usually be- 
gins with an expression such as, "Allocate or Designate " 

Each allocation is associated with a specific objective and is 
identified by a unique alpha-numeric reference number such as 
WL2-2. This identifies the allocation asthe second action under 
the second objective in the wildlife program. 

Management Action - Management actions are measures 
that are to be undertaken in orderto attain or achieve the stated 
objective. There are two primary elements to management 
actions. 



Action to be taken is a clear statement of what the manage- 
ment action is. It is framed in appropriate physical units, 
quality index classes, and timeframes and is solidly linked to 
its management objective. Where a management action is 
constrained by specific mitigations or Standard Operating 
Procedures (SOPs), these are referenced as part of the 
management action. 

Geographic Reference is used where a management action 
or an allocation applies to a specific geographic area. The 
most common means of identifying such areas is the use of 
allotment numbers. 

Decision Class designations are utilized to characterize 
decision strings in one of three classes. Class 1 decisions 
are BLM initiated and are those plan decisions that require 
immediate action. Class 2 decisions are BLM initiated and 
are those plan decisions that have been identified for 
implementation, but that do not require immediate action. 
Class 3 decisions are invoked externally and are those 
decisions that require action only when an activity is initiated 
externally. 

Support and Constraint reflect the interactions between 
each proposed decision and all other proposed decisions in 
the Proposed Plan. "Supported By" for a given proposed 
decision indicates that its implementation would be sup- 
ported by other proposed decisions as indicated. Similarly, 
"Constrained By" indicates which other decisions would 
constrain the implementation of a given decision. 

Each management action is associated with a specific man- 
agement objective and is identified by a unique alpha-numeric 
reference number such as GM 1 .5. This identifies the allocation 
as the fifth action under the first objective in the Grazing 
Management program. 

Procedures To Implement - The Procedures to Implement 
section is a support function. This section is used to identify the 
major processes, steps, etc., needed to put a specific manage- 
ment action into effect. There are three primary aspects to the 
Procedures to Implement. 

Additional planning/environmental assessment needed iden- 
tifies whether activity planning is needed to put the "deci- 
sion" into effect. This section also notes if site-specific 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation 
would be required prior to on-the-g round implementation of 
the management action. 

"Manualized" procedures notes where implementation of a 
management action is governed by specific procedures 
defined in the manual or an approved handbook, etc., and 
cites the manual/handbook reference where such proce- 
dures can be located. 

"CCC" requirements identifies consultation, coordination, 
cooperation requirements associated with the allocation or 
management action. 

Monitoring Needs - There are three aspects to monitoring. 
The first is monitoring whether or not the RMP is being imple- 
mented. The second is monitoring the resources to determine 
whether or not the identified management objectives are being 
accomplished. The third aspect is a monitoring of the overall 
RMP to determine whether or not the identified management 



2-2 



objectives and management actions are still appropriate or if 
the RMP needs to be amended. The PRMP/FEIS addresses 
itself to the first two aspects - tracking the implementation of the 
plan and monitoring the effects of the plan on the resources. 
Overall evaluations of an RMP, usually conducted on a 5-year 
timeframe, are directed through Bureau Manual procedures 
and are not detailed here. 

Tracking of the RMP will be accomplished primarily through 
the regular publication of planning updates which will detail 
progress being made in both implementing actions and in 
accomplishment of objectives. Also specif ictracking mecha- 
nisms such as Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) Up- 
dates will be utilized as required for selected programs. 

Monitoring Needs are usually program and decision spe- 
cific. In general the reader will be able to see the type of 
monitoring technique or procedure that would be applied. 
Where appropriate, specific references are cited for moni- 
toring guidance. The normal frequency or intervals under 
which the resource monitoring technique(s) will be applied 
(e.g., annually, monthly, at least three times in any given 5- 
year period, etc.) are also identified for most decisions. Such 
actions are dependent upon funding and staffing levels in 
any given year and are, therefore, provided only as general 
indicators. 



Program Packages- The PRMP/FEIS has been composed on 
a program-by-program basis. Individual program packages 
may be located as follows: 



Program 



Page 



AQ 


Air Quality 


2-3 


WQ 


Water Quality 


2-4 


SM 


Soils 


2-15 


F 


Forestry and Woodlands 


2-21 


GM 


Grazing Management 


2-33 


WHB 


Wild Horses and Burros 


2-43 


V 


Vegetation 


2-51 


SSS 


Special Status Species 


2-56 


WL 


Wildlife Habitat 


2-66 


AQ 


Aquatic Habitat 


2-96 


FM 


Fire Management 


2-101 


R 


Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers 


2-107 


ACEC 


ACECs 


2-137 


VRM 


Visual Resources 


2-148 


CR 


Cultural Resources 


2-152 


EM 


Energy and Minerals 


2-156 


LR 


Lands and Realty 


2-177 


HM 


Hazardous Materials 


2-199 


BD 


Biodiversity 


2-200 



Air Qualify 

Objective and Rationale 



AQ 1 : Prevent significant deterioration of air quality by BLM-authorized actions within the RA. 

Rationale: The BLM, as well as the Burns District, must meet or exceed air quality standards in accordance with the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Federal Clean Air Act. 



Allocation/Management Action 

AQ 1 .1 : Limit prescribed burning in sagebrush-grass areas to 
less than 3,000 acres (or equivalent of 24,000 tons of fuels) per 
year. 

Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1.11, F 1.8, V 1.1, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement 

1 . Estimate fuel loading on each burn site prior to completion 
of plan. 

2. Ensure burn plans are accurate with acreage sizes and 
actual tons per acre. 

3. Ensure through planning process that no more than allow- 
able acreage is planned per year. 

4. Environmental Assessment (EA). 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Review of burn plan, pre- and post-burn calculations of 
acreage and tonnage on site. 

- Annual Work Plan (AWP) identification. 

- Maintain accurate records of both acreage and tonnage 
burned to date. 



2-3 



Allocation/Management Action 

AQ 1 .2: Limit prescribed burning in forested areas to less than 
200 acres (or the equivalent of 6,000 to 7,000 tons of fuels) per 

year. 

Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1. 1 1, F 1.8, V1.1.WL 1.3, WL 2.2, WL 7.10, 
WL7.12, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Estimate fuel loading on each burn site prior to completion 
of burn plan. 

2. Ensure accuracy as to burn size and actual tons per acre. 

3. Ensure through planning process that no more than allow- 
able acreage is planned per year. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Review burn plans, pre- and post-burn calculations of acre- 
age. 

- Identify actual acres burned per site. 

- Identify through AWP process. 

- Maintain accurate records of both acreage and tonnage 
burned to date. 



AQ 1.3: Mitigate projects which have the potential to have a 
significant negative impact on air quality prior to approval of 
such projects. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 1 , SM 1 .1 , V 1 .1 , WL 1 .3, WL 2.2, WL 
7.10, WL 7.12, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Assess potential impacts to airquality from proposed projects 
through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) 
process. 

2. Develop (a) effective and (b) cost-efficient mitigation(s). 

3. Apply and enforce mitigations as a condition of approval. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic review of NEPA documentation. 

- Field review of compliance with mitigating measures. 



Water Quality 

Objective and Rationale 



WQ 1 : Improve surface water quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality requirements for all beneficial uses consistent with 
DEQ Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Plan, where BLM-authorized actions are having a negative effect on water 
quality (see Table 2.1). 

Rationale: The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan states that the Bureau will protect habitat of all sensitive and candidate species 
to maintain or improve population levels. 

DEQ has identified water quality requirements for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters stimulating a joint BLM/DEQ 
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Action Plan of April 1990, to implement these standards on public lands. 

BLM Oregon/Washington Riparian Enhancement Plan requires that the Bureau improve water quality on public lands to good or 
better condition by 1997. 



Allocation/Management Action 

WQ 1.1: On a case-by-case basis and after adequate public 
involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting surface 
water quality and not needed for administration or fire protec- 
tion on public lands. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 1 .1 , SM 2.2, SSS 3.1 , AH 1 .1, R 2.1 , R 2.14, BD 1 .5. 

Constrained By: R 2.1. 

2-4 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 Develop necessary NEPA documentation on proposed clo- 
sures 

2. Coordination with pertinent local, State and Federal agen- 
cies. 

3. Public notification through EA process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Water quality studies on select streams, 1 0-1 2 times/year. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis will coincide with water quality 
studies, two-three times/year. 

- Photo-trend, annually on select streams. 

Streams will be prioritized based on allotment category, special 
management areas, and concerns for sensitive species or their 
habitat. Streams will be studied for 1 year with new streams 
selected annually. 



WQ 1 .2: All timber harvest must meet or exceed Oregon Forest 
Practices Act (OFPA) standards and BLM Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) (see Appendix 1, Table 1 for General Best 
Forest Management Practices). Additionally, any commercial 
timber harvest must meet guidelines for Summary of Recom- 
mended Practices for Stream Protection (see Appendix 1, 
Table 2), while retaining woody vegetation in a strip along each 
side of all perennial streams, and all other stream courses, 
springs, seeps and associated meadows which can signifi- 
cantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as 
follows: 



Slope of Land 
Adjacent to Source 



Width of 
Buffer Strip 
On Each Bank 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . BLM BMPs for watershed protection. 

2. Timber sale review. 

3. Develop NEPA documentation. 

4. Coordination with affected interests, State and Federal 
agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor compliance with OFPA during and after timber cut. 

- Where applicable, monitor impacts on water quality- 10-12 
times/year. 



0-40 percent 
40-50 percent 
50-60 percent 
60-70 percent 

Decision Class: 2 



100 ft. 
125 ft. 
145 ft. 
165 ft. 



Supported By: WQ 1 .9, F 1 .3, SSS 3.1 , WL 6.4, WL 7.20, AH 
1.6, AH 1.7, BD 1.5. 



WQ 1.3: Modify existing BMPs or develop new BMPs, as 
needed, consistent with BLM/DEQ MOA and Action Plan of 
April 1990. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1.1, SSS 3.1, R2.10, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

2. Coordinate on new BMP development with State and Wash- 
ington Office as required. 

3. Compliance with State and Federal laws required under 
FLPMA, Section 202 (c) 8 and 9. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Implement monitoring of water quality on select streams to 
identify effectiveness of management actions and compli- 
ance with DEQ Nonpoint Source Management Plan. 



2-5 



Allocation/Management Action 

WQ 1.4: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in 
Appendix 1, Table 3, with poor water quality, related to BLM- 
administered riparian area conditions. Once riparian areas 
improve to fair condition, or after 5 years, implement grazing 
systems on I and M category allotments that allow a maximum 
of 1 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and 
50 percent on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or are systems 
which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see 
Appendix 1, Table 4). 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 2.1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .2, SSS 2. 1 , SSS 
3.1 , WL 6.1 , WL 7.5, WL 7.1 7, AH 1 .2, R 2.1 0, BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3, 

BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. Allotment evaluations. 

2. Use supervision and adjustment. 

3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 

4. Develop NEPA documentation. 

5. Review of pasture design. 

6. Construct protective facilities where appropriate. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend on riparian - annually in select areas. 

- Use utilization monitoring - continually when used. 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three 
times/year. 

- Water quality sampling on select streams 1 0-1 2 times/year. 



WQ 1.5: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in 
Appendix 1 , Table 5 in fair or good condition, that allow no more 
than 10 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian species 
and no more than 50 percent total utilization on herbaceous 
riparian vegetation annually; or are systems which are de- 
signed to promote speedy riparian recovery and maintenance 
of good conditions (see Appendix 1, Table 4). 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 1.1, SM 2.1 , GM 1.1, GM 1 .3, WHB 1 .3, V 

1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, SSS 3.1 , WL 6.2, WL 7.5, WL 7.1 8, AH 

1.3, R 2.10, R2.12, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 

Constrained By:WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Allotment evaluations. 

2. Use supervision and adjustment. 

3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 

4. Develop NEPA documentation where applicable. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend on riparian - annually in select areas. 

- Use utilization - annually. 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three 
samples/year. 

- Water quality sampling on select streams - 10-12 times/ 
year. 



WQ 1.6: Inventory stream segments listed on Appendix 1, 
Table 7 and determine management actions required to meet 
the water quality and riparian objective. 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 2.1 , SSS 2.1 , SSS 4.1 , WL 6.3, WL 6.7, WL 
7.19, AH 1.4, BD1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Fund through the AWP process. 

2. Collect and compile data. 

3. Develop grazing systems as needed during the Allotment 
Management Plan (AMP) and allotment evaluation process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Where applicable monitor via: 

Photo-trend studies annually on select streams. 

Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams, two-three 
samples/year. 

Water quality sampling on select streams, 10-12 samples/year. 



2-6 



Tummmnmimimiiranni''™ 8 ™'™' 



Allocation/Management Action 

WQ 1.7: Maintain existing livestock exclosures on approxi- 
mately 4 miles of streams (Wickiup Creek, Cottonwood Creek, 
Paul Creek, Silver Creek and Rough Creek), seven reservoirs 
and District wetland developments (Willow, State, Twin Springs, 
Stinkingwater Ponds No. 1 and No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoirs, 
Seiloff Dikes and Lake-on-the-Trail). 

Geographic Reference: See above. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 2.1 , GM 1 .4, V 1 .2, V 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, 
SSS3.1,WL4.1,WL5.1,WL5.2,WL7.16,AH1.5, R2.10.LR 
1.1.BD1.2, BD1.3, BD1.5. 

Constrained By:WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Maintain existing status through allotment evaluation, AMPs 
and Habitat Management Plans (HMPs). 

2. Coordinate with permittees and other interested parties. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect exclosure fences - annually. 

- Repair as needed. 

- Photo trend studies - annually on select streams. 

- Water quality sampling on select streams - 10-12 times/ 
year. 



WQ 1 .8: Exclude livestock from the following reservoirs, lakes, 
springs and ponds except where grazing livestock will benefit 
waterfowlorshorebirdhabitatorotherwildlifevalues: Ryegrass 
Spring, Willow Reservoir, State Reservoir, Greenspot Reser- 
voir, Twin Springs Reservoir, Stinkingwater Ponds No. 1 and 
No. 2, Bigfoot Reservoir, Seiloff Dikes, Lake-on-the-Trail, Charlie 
Smith Butte Reservoir and Silver Lake Pond. 

Geographic Reference: As above. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:GM 1.4, V 1 .2, V 1.3, SSS2.1, SSS3.1, WL4.1, 
WL5.1,WL5.2,WL7.14,WL6.16,AH2.2, R2.10, BD1.2.BD 
1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Ensure alternate adequate sources of water for livestock 
prior to exclusion. 

2. BLM BMPs and water quality/riparian objectives. 

3. FLPMA management guidelines - Section 102(a)7 and 8. 

4. Coordinate with affected interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect exclosures - annually. 

- Repair enclosures as needed. 

- Photo trend studies on predetermined sites to identify im- 
pacts of management actions - annually. 



Constrained By:WL1.5. 



WQ 1.9: Ensure that all newly constructed permanent roads on 
BLM-administered lands meet General Best Forest Manage- 
ment Practices presented in Appendix 1 , Table 1 . 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : WQ 1 .2, SM 2.2, F 1 .2, SSS 3. 1 , WL 6.6, AH 1 .7, 
R2.10, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . BLM/DEQ MOA and Action Plan of April 1 990 for Nonpoint 
Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters. 

2. BLM BMPs and Manual 91 13. 

3. BLM water quality and riparian goals by 1 997. 

4. Coordination with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor contractor compliance. 



WQ 1.10: Actively suppress wildfire and rehabilitate burned 
portions within 1 mile of perennial water, when consistent with 
BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Policy and within available 
funding. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 1 .2, V 1 .1 , WL 1 .1 , WL 1 .3, WL 2.2, WL 7.9, 
7.10, AH 1.10, FM 1.1, FM 2.1, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . NEPA documentation - case-by-case where required. 

2. BLM BMPs. 

3. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

4. Develop and implement District Fire Suppression and Fire 
Rehabilitation Plan. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor rehabilitation plan with water quality monitoring on 
those streams being impacted - 10-12 times/year. 

- Photo trend - annually in select areas. 

2-7 




f p 1/ 

___jC ' ■■ lJ :: '-: " : ' :: 



2-8 





[A] 



Water Quality Segments 

Water Quality Areas 
A-Silver Cr., Rough Cr., Nicoll Cr., 
Sawmill Cr., Wickiup Cr., Claw Cr., 
Dairy Cr., and Tributaries 

B-Silvies River, Poison Cr., Myrtle Cr., 
Hay Cr., Yellowjacket Cr., Emigrant 
Cr., and Tributaries 

C-Prater Cr., Rattlesnake Cr., 

Cow Cr., Pine Cr., and Tributaries 

D-Malheur River, Cottonwood Cr., 
Stinkingwater Cr., and Tributaries 

E-S. Fk. Malheur R., Coleman Cr., 
Stinkingwater Cr., Crane Cr., 
Alder Cr., and Tributaries 

F-Riddle Cr., Deep Cr., Smyth Cr., 
and Tributaries 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP WQ-1 
WATER QUALITY 



2-9 



Allocation/Management Action 

WQ 1.11: Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of 
perennial water, to less than 20 percent of the land area in that 
particular subbasin, in any one year. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 1 .2, V 1 .1 , SSS3.1 , AH 1 .1 1 , R 2.1 0, BD 1 .1 , 
BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop NEPA documentation on prescribed burns. 

2. Implement conditional suppression techniques. 

3. Develop a Fire Rehabilitation Plan on wildfires as needed. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- To be developed on a case-by-case basis. 

- Photo trend - annually in select areas. 



WQ 1.12: Implement streambank stabilization projects on 
streams with less than 90 percent stable streambanks, espe- 
ciallywhere healing has not occurred within5years of achange 
in the grazing system or livestock removal. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WHB 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.6, AH 1 .9, R 2.1 0, BD 
1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Develop necessary NEPA documentation on proposed 
projects. 

2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

3. Project identification and funding through AWP. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend on unstable banks annually after change in 
grazing system or livestock removal. 

- Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- 
tem - 10-1 2 times/year. 



WQ 2: Protect or enhance groundwater quality on public lands to meet or exceed quality standards for all beneficial uses as 
established by DEQ. 

Rationale: The Oregon Legislature passed the Groundwater Protection Act of 1989 which requires State agencies to coordinate 
groundwater protection conservation and restoration practices. DEQ has adopted Statewide Groundwater Quality Protection Rules 
that provide the strategy for dealing with groundwater contamination. The BLM will coordinate and cooperate fully with DEQ 
implementation of these procedures. 



WQ 2.1 : Cooperate with appropriate State agencies in devel- 
opment and implementation of groundwater monitoring and 
protection processes. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .3, SM 2.2, V 1 .3, WL5.2, WL5.3, WL7.17, 
EM2.1.HM1.1.HM1.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Assist DEQ with implementation of the Groundwater Protec- 
tion Act of 1 989. 

2. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and 
Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- To be developed in conjunction with DEQ. 



2-10 



Table 2.1. Surface Water and 


Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area 










WQ 


WQ 


AH 


AH 




Stream Name 


Allotment 


Cat. 


Miles 


Condition 


Trend 


Condition 


Trend 


Comments 


Devine Creek 


Unallotted 


N/A 


3.00 


Fair 


Static 


Good 


Static 


Runoff From Highway 395 


Poison Creek 


Lone Pine 


I 


0.25 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Silvies River 


Silvies 


M 


0.20 


Poor 


Static 


Poor 


Static 


Upstream Impacts 




Silvies River 


M 


1.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Silvies Meadow 


M 


0.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Silvies Canyon 


M 


2.25 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Landing Creek 


Silvies Meadow 


M 


0.25 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, 
Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing 




East Silvies 


M 


0.75 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, 
Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing 




Landing Creek 


M 


3.00 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Intermittent (Subs) with Isolated Pools, 
Temp, Silt, Logging, Grazing 


Hay Creek 


Hay Creek 


I 


2.00 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Logging 


Silver Creek 


Packsaddle 


I 


1.10 


Poor 


Static 


Good 


Static 


Silt, Large Bedload, Upstream Impacts Forest 




Claw Creek 


I 


2.00 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Silt, Livestock 






I 


0.45 


Poor 


Improving 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Excluded 1 987 




Dry Lake 


I 


1.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Upper Valley 


M 


1.10 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Claw Creek 


Upper Valley 


M 


0.25 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Claw Creek 


I 


2.30 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Wickiup Creek 


Packsaddle 


I 


0.25 


Poor 


Static 


Poor 


Improving 


Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest 






I 


1.00 


Fair 


Improving 


Fair 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Grazing System Working 


Mineral Canyon 


Packsaddle 


i 


0.60 


Poor 


Static 


Poor 


Static 


Silt, Temp, Past Logging 


Dairy Creek 


Claw Creek 


I 


1.20 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Silt, Livestock, Upstream Impacts 


Sawmill Creek 


Upper Valley 


M 


0.75 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Rough Creek 


Claw Creek 


I 


0.25 


Poor 


Static 


Poor 


Static 


Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987 






I 


0.75 


Poor 


Improving 


Poor 


Improving 


Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987 


Nicoll Creek 


Dry Lake 


I 


0.75 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Silt, Temp, Watershed Impacts from 
Logging and Grazing 


Skull Creek 


Hotchkiss 


C 


0.50 


Fair 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Skull Creek 


M 


3.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Yellow Jacket Cr. 


Hay Creek 


I 


0.40 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest 


Beaver Dam Cr. 


Sawtooth (MNF) 


M 


0.30 


Fair 


Improving 


Fair 


Improving 


Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest 


Emigrant Creek 


Emigrant Creek 


C 


0.50 


Fair 


Declining 


Good 


Declining 


Silt, Upstream Impacts from Cattle and 
Logging 




Hay Creek 


I 


1.00 


? 


9 


? 


? 






Sawtooth(MNR) 


M 


0.20 


? 


? 


? 


? 




Spring Creek 


Spring Creek 


M 


0.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 




r^> Varien Creek 


Varien Canyon 


C 


0.40 


? 


? 


? 


? 




:£ Alder Creek 


Alder Creek 


I 


4.80 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 



ro 



l\5 



Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) 










WQ 


WQ 


AH 


AH 




Stream Name 


Allotment 


Cat. 


Miles 


Condition 


Trend 


Condition 


Trend 


Comments 


Bluebucket Creek 


Moffet Table 


I 


1'.60 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Static 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 






I 


1.30 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, Logging 


Coleman Creek 


Alder Creek 


I 


3.35 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 






I 


2.35 


Fair 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Coleman Creek 


M 


0.25 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Cottonwood Creek 


Cottonwood Creek 


M 


0.50 


Poor 


Improving 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, Excluded 






M 


1.35 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Lee Creek 


Moffet Table 


I 


0.30 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


M.F. Malheur R. 


River 


I 


0.80 


Poor 


Improving 


Fair 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, TDS, Irrigation, Livestock 
Grazing System Working 




Moffet Table 


I 


2.30 


Fair 


Static 


Fair 


Declining 


Drains Essentially Roadless Area 


Paul Creek 


Riddle Mountain 


I 


0.60 


Fair 


Improving 


Fair 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Excluded in 1981 






I 


0.30 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Deep Creek 


Deep Creek 


M 


1.30 


Poor 


Static 


Good 


Static 


High in Drainage, Poor Cattle Access 


S.F. Malheur R. 


Venator 


I 


1.25 


Poor 


Static 


Poor 


Static 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural 




Stockade 


C 


1.35 


Poor 


Static 


Poor 


Static 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural 


Rattlesnake Creek 


Camp Harney 


M 


1.00 


Poor 


Static 


Fair 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock (Forest), 
Grazing System Working 






M 


1.70 


Fair 


Improving 


Fair 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock (Forest), 
Grazing System Working 


Stinkingwater Cr. 


Dawson Butte 


I 


0.75 


Poor 


Improving 


Fair 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock (Private), 
System Working When Followed 






I 


0.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock (Private), 
System Working When Followed 




Stinkingwater 


I 


1.25 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Mountain 


I 


0.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 






I 


1.00 


Fair 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 






I 


0.60 


Fair 


Declining 


Good 


Static 


Silt, Livestock (Upstream Watershed) 


Smyth Creek 


Smyth Creek 


I 


2.30 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 






I 


1.50 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, 
Partial Livestock Exclusion 






I 


0.40 


Fair 


Static 


Good 


Static 


High in Drainage; Poor Cattle Access 


Warm Springs Cr. 


Buck Mountain 


[VI 


3.00 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Mountain 


I 


3.00 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Texaco Basin 


ivi 


1.00 


Poor 


Declining 


Poor 


Declining 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Coyote Creek 


Riddle Mountain 


I 


2.00 


Poor 


Improving 


Poor 


Improving 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, Riparian 




Riddle Coyote 


I 


2.20 


Poor 




Poor 


Improving 


Pasture 1988 


Coffeepot Creek 


Camp Harney 


M 


0.75 


Fair 


Static 


Fair 


Static 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, 
Upstream Impacts from Forest 


Newell Creek 


Lamb Ranch FFR 


M 


3.50 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Little Pine Creek 


Pine Creek 


I 


3.50 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Warm Springs Creek 


Mill Gulch 


M 


1.25 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 


Mule Creek 


Mule Creek 


I 


2.00 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 



Table 2.1. Surface Water and Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) 










WQ 


WQ 


AH 


AH 






Stream Name 


Allotment 


Cat. 


Miles 


Condition 


Trend 


Condition 


Trend 


Comments 




Crane Creek 


Alder Creek 


I 


5.25 


Fair 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Buzzard Creek 


W. Warm Springs 


I 


1.50 


Poor 


Static 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 








I 


0.50 


Poor 


Declining 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Flat Creek 


Silvies 


M 


0.40 


Fair 


Static 


Fair 


Static 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Mountain Creek 


Silvies 


fvl 


0.50 


Poor 


Static 


Fair 


Static 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, 


Natural 


Poison Creek 


Silvies 


M 


0.25 


Poor 


Static 


1 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, 


Natural 




Poison Creek 


C 


0.25 


Poor 


Static 


? 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock, 


Natural 


East Creek 


East Cr-Pine Hill 


1 


0.75 


Poor 


Declining 


7 


? 


Temp, Silt, Livestock 




Dog Creek 


Silvies 


fvl 


0.75 


? 


? 


? 


? 






Mill Creek 


Camp Harney 


fvl 


2.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 






Cow Creek 


Cow Creek 


1 


0.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 






Little Muddy Cr, 


Little Muddy Cr. 


M 


1.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 






Mahon Creek 


Mahon Creek 


ivl 


1.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 






Swamp Creek 


Kiger 


1 


0.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 








Smyth Creek 


1 


1.50 


? 


? 


9 


? 






Riddle Creek 


Unallotted 




0.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 








Riddle Mountain 


1 


1.20 


Poor 


Static 


Good 


Static 


Rip. pasture 1988 






Happy Valley 


1 


2.00 


Poor 


Declining 


Fair 


Declining 








Riddle Coyote 


1 


3.30 


? 


? 


Fair 


Static 








Hamilton Ind. 


1 


2.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 








Dry Lake 


M 


0.75 


? 


? 


? 


? 






Prather Creek 


Prather Creek 


M 


1.50 


? 


? 


? 


? 








Devine 


M 


4.00 


? 


? 


? 


? 







Notes: Criteria for Evaluating Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat 

Water quality and aquatic habitat data were routinely collected from stations established to identify current conditions, impacts of present management and improvements 
associated with changes in management on waterquality and aquatic habitat condition. All streams were surveyed by experienced biologists using standard physical and biological 
stream survey methodology. 

Water quality data, collected by Bureau biologists, were evaluated in conjunction with DEQ information on nonpoint-source assessment of waters within the Three Rivers RA. 
Standardsforcollection and evaluation of water quality data were developed by Federal action underthe Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. Data were gathered and evaluated 
on water chemistry, temperature, turbidity and discharge. Water quality condition ratings were based on thresholds established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
and DEQ for beneficial uses of waters. Each stream was evaluated against its own potential. The Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution, published 
by DEQ in 1 988, ranked stream condition as severe, moderate or with no problem. For consistency with other BLM data, the Three Rivers planning team converted DEQ rankings 
into poor, fair, good or excellent condition, respectively, when using these data in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Aquatic habitat data were collected from predetermined monitoring stations where management actions to protect or enhance aquatic resources were in place or under 
consideration. Parameters examined included percent stream shaded; vegetation composition, vigor and abundance; intensity of livestock use within the riparian zone; and extent 
of grazing use on riparian species. Additional data were collected on streambank stability, extent of gullying, quality and quantity of spawning gravel, pool quality, pool-riffle ratios, 
instream cover, and aquatic invertebrate and fish population composition, distribution and abundance. 



Table 2.1. Surface Water and Acuatic Habitat Condition and Trend in the Resource Area (continued) 



A good stream reach requires more than 65 percent shading from overstory woody and herbaceous species, and water quality condition exceeding DEQ thresholds for beneficial 
uses of water. Generally, characteristics used in rating aquatic habitat condition were adapted from Bowen, et al., 1 979 and Binns, 1 982. They are: 

Excellent Condition 

Shading streambank cover exceeding 80 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian cover, in that location, both understory and woody shade providing species (if 
appropriate) with a mixture of age classes, more than 90 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures rarely exceeding 70 °F during midday during summer with diurnal 
fluctuations of less than 1 8 °F, pH of 6.5 to 9.0, more than 75 percent of total riffle-rubble area free of siltation less than .03 inch in size, instream cover available over at least 50 
percent of the total stream area (rocks, turbulent water in pools or riffles, debris, tree roots, overhanging banks or aquatic vegetation), and overhanging vegetation no more than 
2 feet above the water surface over more than 50 percent of the streambanks. 

Good Condition 

Shading streambank cover of 65 to 80 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, both understory species and wood shading species reduced from 
Excellent Condition habitat, 80 to 90 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures rarely exceeding 74 °F during midday during summer with diurnal fluctuations of 18 to 
24 °F, pH of 6.5 to 9.0, 65 percent of total riffle-rubble area free of siltation less than 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over 40 to 50 percent of the total stream area, and 
overhanging vegetation over 40 to 50 percent of the streambanks. 

Fair Condition 

Shading streambank cover of 40 to 65 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, with plant species noticeably reduced in diversity, 50 to 80 percent 
of streambanks stable, water temperatures commonly exceed 74 °F during midday during summer but rarely exceed 78 °F with diurnal fluctuations of 24 to 28 °F, pH of 6.0 to 9.0, 
50to 65 percent of total riffle-rubble areafree of siltation lessthan 0.03 inch in size, instream cover availableover 25 to 40 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation 
over 25 to 40 percent of the streambanks. 

Poor Condition 

Shading streambank cover less than 40 percent of the potential for a healthy, mature riparian zone in that location, with typical riparian plant species greatly reduced or missing, 
less than 50 percent of streambanks stable, water temperatures often exceed 78 °F with diurnal fluctuation of 30 to 35 °F, pH of 4.5 to 1 0.0, less than 50 percent of total riffle-rubble 
areafree from siltation less than 0.03 inch in size, instream cover available over less than 25 percent of the total stream area, and overhanging vegetation over less than 25 percent 
of the streambanks. 



^^^^^^—i m^^m 



Soil Management 

Objective and Rationale 



SM 1 : Prevent deterioration of soil resources by ensuring that BLM-administered lands are in stable or upward observed apparent 
trend categories as outlined in "Rangeland Monitoring in Oregon and Washington" BLM Handbook H1 734-2. 

Rationale: Protection of soil resources ensures continued biologic productivity and prevention of Federal land degradation. 



Allocation/Management Action 

SM 1 .1 : Modify surface management practices (livestock graz- 
ing, off-road vehicle use, forest management, etc.) on areas 
with a downward-observed apparent trend or specific soil 
problems such as active headcutting or gullying (Appendix 1, 
Table 9 for areas of currently known specific soil problems). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: AQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .12, WQ 2.1 , SM 2.1 , F 1 .2, F 1 .3, 
F2.1, GM 1.1, GM 1.4, WHB 1.3, V 1.1, V 1.2, SSS 2.1, SSS 
2.4, SSS 3.1 , WL 4.1 , WL 5.1 , WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.6, 
WL7.5,WL7.17,WL7.18,WL7.19,WL7.20,WL7.27,AH1.1, 
AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, AH 1 .7, AH 1 .9, R 2.1 , R 2.12, CR 1 .2, LR 3.1 , 
LR5.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 

Constrained By: R 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory soils and current erosion conditions and establish 
watershed monitoring stations on a priority basis. 

2. Incorporate soil management objectives into rangeland 
monitoring and evaluation procedures. 

3. Adjust off-road vehicle plan to reflect soil management 
objectives. 

4. Follow State of Oregon's General Best Forest Management 
Practices as outlined in Appendix 1 , Table 1 . 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Soil inventory is in progress. 

- Observed apparent trend evaluation will combine soil and 
vegetation elements as outlined in "Rangeland Monitoring in 
Oregon and Washington." 

- Specific soil problems, such as active headcutting or gully- 
ing will be noted, with locations, on the forms. 

- Photographs will be taken of specific soil problems annually 
to facilitate tracking condition through time. 

- Observed apparent trend will be done a minimum of once 
every 5 years on I allotments and a minimum of once very 
1 years on M and C allotments. 



SM 1.2: Rehabilitate burned areas where erosion hazard is 
high and/or natural revegetation potential is low. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: WQ1. 10, WQ 1.1 1,WQ2.1,SM2.2,WL1. 3, WL 
2.2, WL 7.10, AH 1.10, AH 1.11. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Write an EA on each fire when rehabilitation is necessary. 

2. Methods to protect soil resources (seeding, contour furrow- 
ing, etc.) will be designed on a site-specific basis. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Sites should be monitored at least annually until stabilized. 

- Erosion problems such as rilling, headcutting and gullying 
will be noted with location and photographs. 

- Once the site has stabilized, observed apparenttrend will be 
completed a minimum of once every 5 years on I allotments 
and a minimum of once very 10 years on M and C allotments. 



2-15 




2-16 








OREGON 



A-AQUIC FRIGID AND CRY1C SOILS OF 
BASINS AND VALLEYS. 

B-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON FORESTED 
MOUNTAINS AND PLATEAUS. 

C-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON 
GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. 

D-XERIC/ARIDIC MESIC SOILS ON 
TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS. 

E-XERIC/ARIDIC MESIC SOILS ON 
GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. 

F-XERIC/ARIDIC FRIGID SOILS ON 
GRASS-SHRUB UPLANDS. 

G-ARIDIC/XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON 
TERRACES AND IN BASINS. 

H-ARIDIC/XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON 
PLATEAUS AND UPLANDS. 

I-LAVA FLOWS 

J-XERIC FRIGID SOILS ON 

TERRACES AND FLOODPLAINS. 



NOTE: This general soils map is not designed to show the kind of soil on a 
specific site. A site inspection is required to best evaluate specific 
soils and land capabilities. 



COMPILED FROM: USDA-SCS. General Soils Map, State of Oregon, 1986 



10 MILES 

3 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP S-1 
GENERAL SOILS 



2-17 




2-18 



— 





OREGON 





Stable 






: : : : : : >>: : 


Slight 






'/// 


Moderate 






J * y * * r 'rf 


Critical 








Severe 








Unclassified 



<£h 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP S-2 

EROSION CONDITION CLASSES 
(Soil Surface Factors) 



2-19 



Objective and Rationale 



SM 2: Rehabilitate areas with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human influenced) sediment delivery 
to fluvial systems. 

Rationale: Reduction of upland erosion and sediment delivery to fluvial systems can be correlated with improved water quality and 
aquatic habitat. Rehabilitation of localized erosion problems will improve and protect biologic productivity on uplands. 



Allocation/Management Action 

SM 2.1: Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies on watershed up- 
lands where modification of management practices alone do 
not facilitate stabilization of erosion concerns. (See Table 2.2 
for a list of possible methods.) 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .6, WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 . 1 2, 
SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, SSS 2.5, SSS 2.6, AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, AH 1 .4, 
AH 1 .5, AH 1 .7, AH 1 .8, AH 1 .9, R 2. 1 2, EM 2.1 , LR 3.1 , BD 1 .3. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory and map areas of significant accelerated erosion. 

2. Prepare an activity plan for proposed projects. 

3. Watershed improvement projects will be designed on a site- 
specific basis. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photograph stations will be established on selected sites 
and retaken on a regular periodic basis to monitor rehabili- 
tation progress. 

- Watershed improvements will be inspected regularly and 
repairs or modifications made when needed to ensure 
effectiveness. 

- Once rehabilitation has been achieved, observed apparent 
trend will be used to monitor erosion condition. 



SM 2.2: Minimize erosion from roads, mines and other human 
activities by controlling runoff concentration and velocity. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : WQ 1 .1 , WQ 1 .9, SM 1 .2, WL 6.6, AH 1 .1 , AH 
1 .7, AH 1 .9, AH 1 .1 0, AH 1 .1 1 , R 2.1 , CR 1 .2, EM 2.1 . 

Constrained By: R 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Mitigations and stipulations in EA and approval document. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Regular inspections and maintenance of mining activities to 
assure compliance with stipulations. Periodic inspection of 
other surface disturbing activities. 



Table 2.2. Headcut and Gully Control 
Methods 

Check dams 

Erosion barriers in headcuts 

- Mulch 

- Straw bales 

- Erosion blankets 

- Sandbags 
-Rock 

- Establishment of vegetation in gully 

Riprap 
-Rock 

-Juniper 

-Dispersion of runoff above headcut or gully 

- Contour furrows 

- Log contouring 

- Vegetation 

- Filling gullies and establishing vegetation 



2-20 



Forestry and Woodlands Program 

Objective and Rationale 

F 1 : Manage the 7,722 acres of identified commercial forestland timber base for a nondeclining sustained yield. 

Rationale: This type of management will allow harvesting of timber products while ensuring their perpetuity within the principles of 
multiple-use management (FLPMA-1976). Timber stand improvement projects as well as advertised and negotiated sales of forest 
products will continue to contribute to local demand for forest products. 



Allocation/Management Action 

F 1.1: Allocate 7,722 acres of forestland to the commercial 
forestland timber base (see Map F-1 ). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By:GM 1.1. 

Constrained By: WQ 1.9, LR 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . In effect upon approval of the RMP. 
Monitoring Needs: 
- N/A. 



F 1 .2: Allocate timber harvests for a long-term 1 0-year decadal 
harvest of 5.40 million board feet (MMBF) subject to Oregon 
Forest Practices Standards (Appendix 1 , Tables 1 and 2. See 
also Table 2.3, 1 0-year Timber Sale Plan). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .9, SM 2.2, WL 6.6, AH 1 .7, VRM 1 .4, LR 
2.6, LR 4.1. 

Constrained By: WQ 1.2, SM 1.1, SSS 3.1, AH 1.6, VRM 1.2, 
VRM 1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Plan for and offer an advertised timber sale once every 2-4 
years. 

2. Conduct site-specific EAs prior to approval of individual 
harvest actions. 

3. Design harvest blocks to conform to Visual Resource Man- 
agement (VRM) class standards. 

4. Follow General Best Forest Management Practices, Appen- 
dix 1, Table 1. 

5. Precommercial thin an average of 53 acres of commercial 
forestland annually. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As prescribed through Best Forest Management Practices. 

- Prepare a report of progress annually. 




2-21 





OREGON 

LEGEND 



IrjTl Commercial Forest Base acreage 
±?Z*J as of 1989 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURN DISTRICT 

April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP F-1 
EXISTING COMMERCIAL FOREST LANDS 



OT io I Timber Management Units as identified in the 1985 
1 approved John Day Resource Management Plan 



2-22 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



F 1 .3: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines for 
stream protection in logging operations (Appendix 1 , Table 2), 
while retaining woody vegetation in a strip along each side of all 
perennial streams and all other stream courses, springs, seeps 
and associated meadows, which can significantly affect water 
quality. Buffer strips would be established as follows: 



Slope of Land 
Adjacent to Source 



- 40 percent 
40 - 50 percent 
50 - 60 percent 
60 - 70 percent 



Width of 
Buffer Strip 
On Each Bank 

100 ft. 
125 ft. 
145 ft. 
165 ft. 



Geographic Reference: Commercial forestland, see Map F-1 . 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .3, SM 1 .1 , WL 6.4, WL 7.20, AH 1 .6, R 
2.10. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Timber sales shall be designed to conform to these stan- 
dards. The design will be documented In the timber sale 
NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Stan- 
dards will be enforced through contract administration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post activity on-site reviews. 



F 1.4: In an effort to support biodiverse resource management, 
maintain 30 to 60-acre blocks of big game cover so that 
approximately 40 percent of the forest treatment area remains 
suitable for big game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 1 5 
percent of which shall be thermal cover) as defined in "Wildlife 
Habitats in Managed Forests" (USDA-FS, Agriculture Hand- 
book 553. 1 979). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: V 1.1, WL 1.1, WL 7.9, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to 
conform to these standards. The design will be documented 
in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale 
contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- 
ministration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post activity on-site reviews. 



F 1.5: Exclude forest management activities within 660 feet of 
raptor nests, from March 1 through August 15, depending on 
specific needs of the species and the site. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WL 7.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to 
conform to these standards. The design will be documented 
in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale 
contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- 
ministration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post activity on-site reviews. 



F 1 .6: Retain nest trees and provide for perch trees within 660 
feet of nest trees. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:WL7.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Timber sales shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to 
conform to these standards. The design will be documented 
in the timber sale NEPA documentation and the timber sale 
contract. Standards will be enforced through contract ad- 
ministration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post activity on-site reviews. 



2-23 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



F 1.7: Allocate 482 acres of commercial forestland as pon- 
derosa pine old growth forest management areas (see Table 
2.4 and Maps F-3 through F-6). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: V 1 .4, V 1 .5, WL 7.21 , WL 7.26, R 2.12, ACEC 
1.5, BD 3.5, BD3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Remove four identified old growth forest areas (see Table 
2.4, Part 2) from the commercial forestland timber base 
acreage. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Publish the approved ROD for this RMP. 



F 1.8: Develop fuel treatment plan for each timber sale in 
consultation and coordination with the District Fire Manage- 
ment Officer to: 

1 ) Treat slash accumulations in excess of 1 0-1 2 tons per acre; 

and 

2) Selectively treat slash accumulations of less than 1 tons per 

acre. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: FM 1 .1 , FM 2.1 , FM 2.2 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .1 , AQ 1 .2. 



Objective and Rationale 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Timber sales shall be designed to conform to these stan- 
dards. The design will be documented in the timber sale 
NEPA documentation and the timber sale contract. Stan- 
dards will be enforced through contract administration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post activity on-site reviews. 




F 2: Manage approximately 50,000* acres of available productive noncommercial forestlands and woodlands forthe enhancement 
of habitat diversity, minor forest products, watershed protection and rangeland productivity. 

Rationale: Woodland species (primarily juniper woodlands) provide critical wildlife cover on winter ranges and minor woodlands 
products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, and ornamental foliage. However, heavy concentrations of juniper types have adverse 
effects on range condition, watershed condition and overall habitat diversity. Woodland management is required to ensure 
maintenance of beneficial woodland values while reducing the adverse effects of juniper concentrations. 

* Until an intensive woodland inventory is completed, this figure, derived from District vegetation records, will be used for planning 
purposes. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



F 2.1: Remove or thin selected concentrations of western 
juniper which adversely affect rangeland, watershed, wildlife 
habitat or other management objectives. Allocate the potential 
for woodland product harvests for a long-term 10-year decadal 
harvest of up to approximately 3.13 MMBF of firewood, post 
and pole material (625 cords). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 1 . 1 , GM 1 .3, WHB 1 .3, WL 7.1 2, FM 1 .1 , FM 

2.1. 

Constrained By: V 1.1, SSS 3.1, AH 1.11, BD 1.1, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required prior 
to on-the-ground implementation of juniper control activi- 
ties. 

2. Establish woodland harvest areas within areas identified for 
prescribed burning. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring of juniper control activities will occur for each 
activity in order to ensure adherence to RMP management 
objectives. 

- Annual monitoring of vegetal material (post, pole and fire- 
wood) permits. 



2-24 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



F 2.2: Prohibit harvest of juniper foliage, fuelwood and posts 
and poles from big game winter range in the area south of U.S. 
Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WL 1.4, WL 2.3, WL 7.11, FM1.1, FM2.1. 

Constrained By: F 3.3, V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Protect this geographic area by avoiding juniper control 
activity proposals. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- None required. 



Objective and Rationale 

F 3: Meet public demands for minor forest products such as fuelwood, posts, poles, Christmas trees, vegetal materials, etc 
consistent with other resource objectives. 

Rationale: Occasionally, natural disasters (insects, disease, wildfire, etc.) may require the need for a forest management activity 
to dispose of or curtail the spread of the specific problem. 

Allocation/Management Action 

F 3.1 : Dispose of some heavy concentrations of standing dead 
material by use of sale permits. Leave some for the enhance- 
ment of other diverse resource values. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: FM 1 .1 , FM 2.1 . 

Constrained By: F 2.2, V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. Site-specific analysis or NEPA documentation would be 
required to determine the need for individual or commercial 
sale permits. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring will occur for each activity in order to ensure 
adherence to NEPA documentation mitigations. 



F 3.2: Dispose of selected dead and down material by use of 
sale permits and free use permits. Leave most for enhance- 
ment of other diverse resource values. 

Decision Class: 2 

Constrained By: SM 1.1, F 2.2, V 1.1, SSS 3.1, WL 1.4, WL 
7.10, BD1.1, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory /site exam. 

2. Issue vegetal sale permits and/or free use permits before 
the threat of a disaster becomes apparent. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor all forestland conditions in order to identify the 
potential disaster areas. 



F 3.3: Dispose of live vegetal materials by use of permits for 
selected areas only. 

Decision Class: 2 

Constrained By: SM 1 .1 , F 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory, site identification. 

2. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be required prior 
to the issuance of sale permits for these products. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring will occur at each permit area in order to ensure 
adherence to NEPA documentation mitigations. 



2-25 




2-26 



— IM — ft— .1 I O 



N A I ...°\ n - | /: f n raif q t 





OREGON 



7ZL 



Fuelwood Harvest Prohibited 



Designated Fuelwood Harvest Areas 

1. Squaw Creek Area 

2. Mill Creek Area 

3. Crow Camp Area 

4. Alder Creek Area 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP F-2 
WOODLANDS 



2-27 



25 E. 



-NF-p-ARALLEL wf 



R. 26 E. 



R. 27 E. 






"~-£re3T'\ 




j: > 
( s 






\ Pi'. , 



U 






g- \\\ , ■ ■-, — ■■■ 



^ ) \£ 



■ "?i - '. - — 



/*!> 



W 






Vt 



p . 



» 



iV IX 



,? ; 



upper V s "-" --m'^OJP' "">■ 

VAUEY^ \ ,.-" s-f i ^ > X' 






^ 27 ,j 



" r 

■ K V 1 



-* 



--?> 









oK, 



:l LP c~ 



T. 
21 



T. 
22 
S. 



4' 

v_ J. . ;V 



LEGEND 

Proposed Dry 
Mountain RNA/ACEC 

////A Proposed Old Growth 
////A Forest Stand 

BLM Land 

National Forest Land 

j 

Other Land 




DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP F-3 

DRY MOUNTAIN 
OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND 

MI-HI I I 



OREGON 







2 Miles 



2-28 




?. 28 E 



LEGEND 



Proposed Old Growth 
Management Area 



Proposed Old Growth 
^ Forest Stand 



BLM Land 

National Forest Land 

Other Land 







R. 29 E. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP F-4 
EMIGRANT CREEK 

OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND 



i=^ 



1 Mile 



2-29 




LEGEND 



i ^ — ^_ Proposed Old Growth 
Management Area 

VV/VI Proposed Old Growth 



Forest Stand 
BLM Land 

National Forest Land 

Other Land 




DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP F-5 

CRAFT POINT 
OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND 



OREGON 



-; Mote 



2-30 



R. 33 1/2 E. 



R. 34 E. 




7. 
■1 8 

S. 



T. 

19 

S. 



LEGEND 



Proposed Malheur River - 
Bluebucket Creek Wild River 





w 


Proposed Old Growth 
Forest Stand 


II 














BLM Land 


v~ \^ -_.~ ~ -- 






National Forest Land 








Orewaffy P. A. ■/ 












Other Land / 








BURNS J 
DIST. U ~ 




OREGON 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP F-6 

BLUEBUCKET CREEK 
OLD GROWTH FOREST STAND 



1 Mile 



I 1 r- 



2-31 



Table 2.3. 


Typical 10- Year Timber Sale Plan 










Fiscal Year 


Sale Name 


Tract No. 


Legal 
T. 


Description 1 
R. Sec. 


Quarter 
Sold 


Estimated 

Volume 

(MMBF) 


Approximate 

No. 

Acres 


1991 


Pine Springs 
Salvage 


91-4 


22S 
23S 
23S 


29E 
28E 
29E 


5,6,7,20 

1 

6 


1st 


1.510 


388 sold 


1993 


South Silvies 


93-1 


20S 


32E 


10,21 


3rd 


.400 


116 proposed 


1995 


Gus's Well 


95-1 


21S 


27E 


9,10 


3rd 


2.124 


500 proposed 


1999 


Dry Mountain 


99-1 


22S 


26E 


22,23 


3rd 


.666 


222 proposed 


2001 


Negotiated 




Undetermined 




4th 


.700 


200 proposed 












TOTALS 




5.400 


1,426 


'Actual sites volumes and acreages may differ based on revised inventories, timber markets, legal access, catastrophic events, etc. 





Table 2.4. Part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection, Location 
and Justification 

Part 1. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Selection Criteria (for Three Rivers Planning Area) 

1 . Stand size should generally be not less than 40 contiguous acres. 

2. Stand should consist of mature and overmature trees in the overstory and well into the mature growth stage. At least 15 trees 
per acre should exceed 20 inches DBH. 

3. Stands usually contain a multilayered canopy and trees of two or more age classes. Total crown closure should exceed 50 percent. 

4. Standing dead trees (snags) and a high level of down woody material should be present. Snags should average two or more per 
acre. 

5. Evidence of herbaceous plants composed of grasses, sedges and forbs should be present. 



Table 2.4. Part 2. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Locations and Sizes 

Name Legal Description 



Acres 



1. Dry Mountain 

2. Emigrant Creek 

3. Craft 

4. Bluebucket 

Total: 



T. 22 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 3, 10 
T. 20 S., R. 29 E„ Sec. 31 
T. 21 S., R. 33 E, Sec. 18 
T. 18 S., R. 34 E., Sec. 33, 34 



180 

70 

126 

106 

482 



Table 2.4. Part 3. Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stand Justification 

Due to this designation, forest management activities in these areas would not occur. Secondary management activities may be 
necessary if natural fuels accumulate to dangerous levels, thus threatening the existence of the old growth stand, or where vegetation 
manipulation is needed to maintain stand structure and species composition. 

These stands are intended to provide habitat for a number of dependent wildlife species, such as the pileated woodpecker, flying 
squirrel, white headed woodpecker, as well as other nondependent species, both large and small. In addition, these stands are 
intended to provide for the enhancement of other diverse resources including water, fisheries, recreation, etc. 

A multilayered canopy with shaded conditions and a large number of dead snags per acre are considered optimum for old growth 
habitat. Not all of these designated acres are currently in a suitable old growth condition. In time, these stands will become suitable 
and meet the definition of old growth ponderosa pine forest as defined in 
Table 2.4, Parti. 



2-32 



Grazing Management Program 

Objective and Rationale 

GM 1 : Resolve resource conflicts and concerns and achieve management objectives as identified, for each allotment in Appendix 
1 , Table 9. 

Rationale: The BLM is instructed to manage the public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield by the FLPMA and the Public 
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1 978 (PRIA). Livestockgrazing is identified as a major use of the public land and is to be conducted 
in a manner which will meet multiple-use and sustained yield objectives. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



GM 1 .1 : Implement management practices to resolve conflicts 
and concerns and meet multiple-use objectives identified in 
Appendix 1 , Table 9, within 5 years of approval of the plan, on 
57 I category allotments and within 1 years on 53 M category 
allotments (see Appendix 1 , Table 1 for allotment categoriza- 
tion). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .3, SM 1 .1 , WHB 1 .3, V 1 .1 , V 1 .2, V 1 .3, 
SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.2, SSS 2.4, SSS 4.1, FM 2.1 , WL 1 .2, WL 2.1 , 
WL 5.2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.4, WL 7.5, WL 
7.6, WL7.8, WL7.1 5, WL7.1 6, WL7.1 7, WL7.1 8, WL7.1 9, WL 
7.27, LR1.1.LR1 .2, LR 1 .3, AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, R 2.1 2, ACEC 1 .1 , 
CR 2.1, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD3.1. 




Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop, modify or revise AMPs or Coordinated Resource 
Management Plans (CRMPs) which identify allotment spe- 
cific multiple-use management objectives and grazing sys- 
tems. Prioritize allotments on the basis of the following 
criteria: 

Wildlife Habitat — Considers the number of wildlife habi- 
tats present and potentials for improvement. 
Riparian/Wetlands — Considers the amount of riparian/ 
wteland habitat present, current conditiona nd manage- 
ment effectiveness in meeting aquatic habitat objectives. 
Fisheries — Considers the amount of aquatic habitat 
present, habitat condition, water quality, and manage- 
ment effectiveness in meeting aquatic habitat objectives. 
Recreation — Considers the amount and type (extensive or 
intensive) recreation use(s) present and management 
effectiveness for meeting recreation objectives. 
Wilderness Study Areas — Considers presence or ab- 
sence of WSA and management effectiveness in meet- 
ing IMP objectives. 
Wild and Scenic Rivers — Considers presence or absence 
of nominated/designated river, riverclassification(s) (Wild, 
Scenic, Recreational or combination) and management 
effectiveness in meeting objectives for classification(s). 
WaterQuality/Watersheds — Considers the degree to 
DEQ water quality thresholds for established beneficial 
uses are being met. 
Wild Horses and Burros — Considers the presence or 
absence of an active herd management area, condition 
of wild horse and burro habitat and management effec- 
tiveness for meeting wild horse and burro objectives. 
Listed Threatened or Endangered Species — Considers 
presence or absence of T & E species habitat, stability of 
the species and management effectiveness for meeting 
listed species recovery or other management objectives. 
Special Status Species — Considers presence or absence 
of Federal Candidate, Bureau sensitive or Assessment 
species; stability of species/habitat and management 
effectiveness in meeting special status species objec- 
tives. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including 
RNAs and ON As) — Considers presence or absence of 
ACEC and management effectiveness in meeting ACEC 
objectives 



^ 






2-33 




2-34 



N A I I BIN A L'V 



'ilfi 



/ f n Bi\|F s t l^i! -p-|U- 





Allotment Boundary and Number 



10 MILES 
9 



^ 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP RM-1 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 
ALLOTMENTS 



2-35 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



2. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- 
ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level 
of grazing use, which may be necessary to meet manage- 
ment objectives. 

3. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements may be 
required to implement changes in grazing systems or level 
of grazing use. 

4. CCC with permittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, 
USFWS. 

Specific manual guidance for implementing this management 
action are located in Table 2.5. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Range monitoring and evaluation will be done in accordance 
with the Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitor- 
ing Plan. See Appendix 1 , Table 1 1 . 



GM1.2: Establish an initial stocking level in the RAof 150,472 
AUMs. Stocking levels will be reviewed and adjusted, if neces- 
sary and in accordance with the results of monitoring studies 
and allotment evaluations every 5 years for I category and 
every 10 years for M category allotments. See Appendix 1, 
Table 9 for allotment specific initial stocking levels. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: SSS 2.1 , WL 3.1 , BD 1 .3. 

Constrained By:WQ1.4, SM 1.1, WHB1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- 
ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level 
of grazing use which may be necessary to meet multiple-use 
management objectives. 

2. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements may be 
required to implement changes in grazing systems or level 
of grazing use. 

3. Consultation, cooperation and coordination (CCC) with per- 
mittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, USFWS. 

Specific manual guidance for implementing this management 
action are located in Table 2.5. 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Range monitoring and evaluation will be done in accordance 
with Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitoring 
Plan. See Appendix 1 , Table 1 1 . 



GM 1.3: Utilize rangeland improvements, as needed, to sup- 
port achievement of multiple-use management objectives for 
each allotment as shown in Appendix 1 , Table 9 and Map RM- 
3. Range improvements will be constrained by the Standard 
Procedures and Design Elements shown in Appendix 1 , Table 
12. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1.4, WQ 1.5, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , FM 2.1 , FM 
2.2, F2.1 , WHB 1 .3, WHB 2.4, SSS 4.1 , V 1 .2, WL4.1 , WL5.1 , 
WL 5.2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, WL 7.9, WL 
7.1 4, WL 7.1 5, WL 7.1 6, WL 7.1 7, WL 7.1 8, WL 7.1 9, AH 1 .2, 
AH 1 .3, AH 2.1 , R 2.1 2, VRM 1 .4, BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3. 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .1 , AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , 
SSS 3.2, WL 1 .3, WL 1 .5, WL 2.2, WL 7.7, WL 7.1 0, WQ 1 . 1 1 , 
V 1 .1 , AH 1 .1 1 , VRM 1.1, VRM 1 .2, VRM 1 .3, CR 2.2, BD 1 .1 , 
BD1.3, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Projects will be designed to sustain or enhance overall 
multiple-use values within the project area. 

2. Site-specific NEPA documentation will be prepared for each 
project or group of projects. 

3. Site examinations will be performed to identify and protect or 
enhance sensitive resource values within potential project 
areas. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in NEPA documentation on individual projects. 



2-36 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



GM 1 .4: Designate approximately 1 ,683,500 acres as available 
for livestock grazing. 

Excludegrazingfrom approximately 26,400 acres except where 
grazing livestock will benefit waterfowl or shorebird habitat or 
other wildlife values. See Map RM-2. These are: 



Hatt Butte 

Windy Point 

Silver Creek RNA/AC EC 

Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 

Devine Canyon 

South Narrows ACEC 

Chickahominy Recreation Site 

Radar Hill ORV Area 

Hines Field 

Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Extn. 

Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 

Ryegrass Spring 

Willow Reservoir 

State Reservoir 

Twin Springs Reservoir 

Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 

Stinkingwater Pond No. 2 

Big Foot Reservoir 

Seiloff Dikes 

Lake-on-the-Trail 

Dry Lake 

Silver Creek Exclosure 

Rough Creek Exclosure 

Paul Creek Exclosure 

Cottonwood Creek Exclosure 

Greenspot Reservoir 

Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir 

Silver Lake Pond 

Total 



80 ac. 1 

520 ac. 

640 ac. 

17,136 ac. 

480 ac. 

1 60 ac. 

400 ac. 

240 ac. 

455 ac. 

1 ,280 ac. 2 

2,690 ac. 3 

320 ac. 

7 ac. 

6ac. 

18ac. 

5 ac. 

5 ac. 

35 ac. 

50 ac. 

320 ac. 

780 ac. 

1 00 ac. 

450 ac. 

60 ac. 

90 ac. 

5ac. 4 

1 5 ac. 4 

60 ac. 4 

26,407 ac. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Grazing authorizations affected by exclusions may be can- 
celled, modified or suspended according to regulations and 
manual procedures. 

2. Grazing authorizations may be issued to qualified appli- 
cants, in accordance with regulations and manual proce- 
dures, where site examinations determine that a grazing 
treatment would be beneficial. 

3. CCC with permittees and other affected interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance checks and use supervision will be necessary 
to prevent unauthorized use. 



1 This exclusion included only the top of Hatt Butte. 

2 Excluded upon designation as an RNA/ACEC and completion 
of land exchange to acquire a 640-acre inholding. 

3 Excluded upon designation as an RNA/ACEC and completion 
of a perimeter fence. 

"Excluded upon completion of exclosure fence. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, SM 1 .1 , V 1 .3, V 1 .4, SSS 2.4, 
WL4.1,WL4.2,WL7.14,WL7.15,WL7.16,WL7.22,WL7.23, 
WL7.24, WL7.25, WL7.28, AH 1 .5, AH 1 .7, R 1 .1 , R 1 .2, R 1 .4, 
R2.1 0, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1 .2, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, BD3.1 , BD 
3.2, BD3.3, BD3.4. 

Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



2-37 




2-38 



^■Bl^HBn 



■■» IN A I I 



ftl A L'Y j / 





OREGON 



s 



Excluded 



(Locations are Approximate) 



<5> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP RM-2 

AREAS EXCLUDED FROM 
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 



2-39 




2-40 



iwimmn 



N A I I 01 N A L"' 



Jl -:r^'i/1 I 'T^- 





/// Vegetation Manipulation 
'X\\4 Seeding 

■ ■■■■■ 



( Locations are approximate ) 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP RM-3 

POTENTIAL VEGETATION 
MANIPULATION & SEEDING 



2-41 



Table 2.5. Grazing Management Manual Guidance 



Manual Sections 



Manual Handbooks 



4100 - Grazing Administration 

(Excl. of Alaska) 
41 00 - Grazing Administration 

(Excl. of Alaska), Oregon 

Supplement 
41 1 - Qualifications and 

Preference 
4120 - Grazing Management 
4130 - Authorizing Grazing Use 
4150 - Unauthorized Grazing Use 
4160 - Administrative Remedies 
4400 - Rangeland Inventory, 

Monitoring, and Evaluation 
4410 - Ecological Site Inventory 



1740 - Renewable Resource 

Improvements and 

1741 - Renewable Resource 

Improvements and 
Treatments 

1742 - Emergency Fire 

Rehabilitation 

1743 - Renewable Resource 

Investment Analysis 



Technical References 



H-4010-1 - Range Management Records 



H-41 10-1 - Qualifications and Preference 

H-4120-1 - Grazing Management 
H-41 30-1 - Authorizing Grazing Use 
H-41 50-1 - Unauthorized Grazing Use 
H-41 60-1 - Administrative Remedies 
H-4400-1 - Rangeland Monitoring and 

Evaluation 
H-4410-1 - National Range Handbook 
H-1 734-2 - Rangeland Monitoring Handbook 

Oregon Supplement 

H-1 740-1 -Renewable Resource Improvement 
and Treatment Guidelines and 
Treatments Procedures 

H-1 741-1 - Fencing 

H-1 741 -2 - Water Developments 

H-1 742-1 - Emergency Fire Rehabilitation 

H-1 743-1 -Resource Investment Analysis User 

Handbook for the SageRam Computer 
Program 



TR-4400-1 - Rangeland Monitoring: Planning for Monitoring 

TR-4400-2 - Rangeland Monitoring: Actual Use Studies 

TR-4400-3 - Rangeland Monitoring: Utilization Studies 

TR-4400-4 - Rangeland Monitoring: Trend Studies 

TR-4400-7 - Rangeland Monitoring: Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation 

TR-4400-9 -Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring: Selected Bibliography of Remote Sensing Applications 

TR-1 737-3 -Riparian Area Management: Inventory and Monitoring of Riparian Areas 

TR-1 737-4 - Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management in Riparian Areas 



2-42 



Wild Horse and Burro Program 

Objective and Rationale 



WHB 1 : Maintain healthy populations of wild horses within the Kiger, Palomino Buttes, Stinkingwater, and Riddle Mountain Herd 
Management Areas (HMAs), and wild horses and burros in the Warm Springs HMA (see Map WH-1). 

Rationale: Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1 971 requires BLM to manage wild free-roaming horses and burros under 
multiple-use in a manner that is designed to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands. 



Allocation/Management Action 

WHB 1 .1 : Continue to allocate the following acres and AUMs 
in active HMAs: 



Kiger HMA 
Stinkingwater HMA 
Riddle Mountain HMA 
Warm Springs HMA 
Palomino Buttes HMA 
Total 

Decision Class: 1 



36,618 ac. 

79,631 ac. 

28,021 ac. 
456,855 ac. 

71,544 ac. 
672,669 ac. 



984 AUMs 
960 AUMs 
672 AUMs 

2,424 AUMs 
768 AUMs 

5,808 AUMs 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Continued upon approval of the RMP. 

2. Horses will be removed in a timely manner from all areas 
outside of these designated areas. 

3. Horses will be removed using approved methods. 

4. Develop interpretive signs for all of the HMAs. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual herd population inventories. 



Supported By: GM 1 .1 , WHB 2.4, WL 1 .4, WL 3.1 , R 2.1 6. 
Constrained By: WQ 1 .4, ACEC 1 .4, BD 3.4. 



WHB 1.2: Retain inactive status on the following herd areas 
(HAs): 



Second Flat HA 
Diamond Craters HA 
Middle Fork HA 
East Wagontire HA 
Miller Canyon HA 
State owned portion 
of Riddle Mountain HA 



8,281 ac. 
48,077 ac. 
37,885 ac. 
158,048 ac. 
6,572 ac. 

47,015 ac. 



Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL7.1 8, R 1 .1 , R 2. 1 6. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Continued on approval of the RMP. 

2. Remove horses with approved methods if they are identified 
in these areas. 

3. Place "horse wires" at all gates surrounding HMA bound- 
aries. 

4. Ensure that permittees close gates after gathering cattie in 
the fall. 

5. Place "Keep Gate Closed" signs at all boundary gates of the 
HMAs. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Conduct annual or biannual inventories to assess if there 
are horses in these areas. 




2-43 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WHB 1 .3: Adjust wild horse and burro herd population levels in 
accordance with the results of monitoring studies and allotment 
evaluations, where such adjustments are needed in order to 
achieve and maintain objectivesforathriving natural ecological 
balance and multiple-use relationships in each HA (Appendix 
1 , Table 9). 

Permanent adjustments would not be lower than the estab- 
lished minimum numbers in order to maintain viability. The 
appropriate management level would be based on the analysis 
of trend in range condition, utilization, actual use and other 
factors which provide for the protection of the public range from 
deterioration. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 . 1 , GM 1 .3, WHB 
2.3, V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , WL 3.1 , WL 7.27, BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3. 

Constrained By: GM 1 .2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, 
AH 1.2, AH 1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Use currently approved methods for control of herd popula- 
tion levels. 

2. Prepare allotment evaluations priorto any permanent change 
in the appropriate management level. 

3. Prepare NEPA documentation priorto any adjustments in 
population levels. 

4. Formal evaluations would be conducted about every 5 years 
with annual updates thereafter. ODFW would be consulted 
during the evaluation process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual collection of utilization, actual use and climate re- 
ports. 

- Long and short-term trend in range condition studies con- 
ducted every 3-5 years. 

- Wild horse and burro use area mapping and reporting. 



Objective and Rationale 

WHB 2: Enhance the management and protection of HAs and herds in the following HMAs: Kiger, Stinkingwater, Riddle Mountain, 
Palomino Buttes and Warm Springs. 

Rationale: The Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1 971 directs the BLM to manage and protect wild horses and burros. 

Section 1 03(a) of FLPMA provides for areas to be designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) when this area 
will protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or other natural systems. 



Allocation/Management Action 

WHB 2.1 : Acquire legal access to specific sources of private 
land and water upon which horses depend. Table 2.6 describes 
the location and priority for acquisition. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:LR1.1, LR4.1. 



sedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Refer to LR 1 .1 for procedures in the process of acquisition 
through easements, exchanges or fee acquisition. 



WHB 2.2: Designate 64,639 acres of the Kiger and Riddle 
Mountain HMAs as an ACEC for the Kiger mustang. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: R 2.1 6, ACEC 1 .7, LR 1 .5, BD 2.4, BD 3.7. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop specific objectives for the management of these 
areas. 

2. Prepare a specific management plan for this ACEC. 

3. Update affected Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs)/ 
AMPsto reflect any special management considerations. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Assess objectives through the accepted allotment evalua- 
tion process. 



2-44 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WHB 2.3: Select for high quality horses when gathered horses 
are returned to the range (see Table 2.7 for characteristics). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WHB 1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Initiate gatherings based on monitoring and other data. 

2. Select studs and mares for return to the range based on 
color and conformation standards established in HMAPs. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Track adoption records to determine trends in adoption 
rates. 



WHB 2.4: Provide facilities and water sources necessary to 
ensure the integrity of the individual herds (see Table 2.8). 

Geographic Reference: Warm Springs, Kiger, Palomino Buttes 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .3, WHB 1.1, WHB 3.I, LR 1 .1 . 

Constrained By : WL 1 .4, WL 5.2, WL 7. 1 5, WL 7. 1 6. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Submit projects to AWP. 

2. Develop site-specific NEPA documentation. 

3. Coordinate with affected parties. 

4. Contract work or Force Account development. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- AWP tracking. 

- Project development inspections. 



Objective and Rationale 

WHB 3: Enhance and perpetuate the special or rare and unique characteristics that distinguish the respective herds in the RA. 

Rationale: Color, type, distinctive markings, size and weight of members of the various herds are characteristic of the historic 
background of those herds. It is highly desirable to retain this cultural/historical linkage. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WHB 3.1 : Limit any releases of wild horses or burros into an 
HMA to individuals which exhibit the characteristics designated 
for that HMA (see Table 2.7). 

Geographic Reference: HMAs. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WHB 2.4. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Select horses with special, rare or unique qualities for return 
to the range based on the established criteria. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Age and sex ratios. 



WHB 3.2: Manageburrosforamaximumof24head in the west 
side of the Warm Springs HMA. The allocation of forage for 
burros is within the total allocation for the Warm Springs HMA. 

Geographic Reference: Warm Springs HMA. 

Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . The current inventory of burros is seven animals. When the 
population has increased to 15 or more animals, the mini- 
mum management number will be maintained at 15. 

2. The gathering and return procedures will be conducted 
using the currently approved method. 

3. Determine why burros have remained stable, at only seven 
animals, by either blood testing or genetic testing if they are 
captured during a gathering. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Regular periodic inventory to aid in determining population 
dynamics - early summer. 

- Use area mapping. 

- Habitat Trend Studies - Initiate. 

2-45 




2-46 



~ !N A I I 



I .'i i ■ -4i til \ [jyy 





OREGON 



HERD MANAGEMENT AREA (HMA) 

1. Palomino Buttes HMA 

2. Warm Springs HMA 

3. Stinkingwater HMA 

4. Kiger HMA 

5. Riddle Mtn. HMA 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP WH-1 

ACTIVE WILD HORSE AND 

BURRO HERD MANAGEMENT 

AREAS 



2-47 



Table 2.6. Private Water Sources Selected for Acquisition of Permanent Access (Listed in 
Priority Order) 



Herd Management Area 



Parcel Name 



Size 



Location 



Kiger 



Yank Springs 



480 acres T. 20 S., R. 34 E., 

sec. 33, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, 

W1/2SE1/4 and SE1/4SW1/4; 

sec. 32, W1/2NE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4. 



Poison Creek 



1 60 acres 



T. 30 S., R. 33 E., 
sec. 13, SE1/4. 



Stinkingwater 



Jones/Ausmus Flat 1 20 acres 



T. 23 S., R. 34 E., 

sec. 25, W1/2SW1/4and 

SW1/4NW1/4. 



Stinkingwater Cr. #1 840 acres 



Stinkingwater Cr. #2 640 acres 



T. 23 S., R. 35 E., 
sec. 30, W1/2NE1/4, 
E1/2NW1/4, and 
NW1/4NW1/4; 
sec. 19, All. 

T. 23 S., R. 35 E., 

sec. 7, All. 



Little Stinkingwater #1 80 acres 



T. 23 S. R. 35 E. 

sec. 13,NW1/4NW1/4; 
sec. 12, SW1/4SW1/4. 



Little Stinkingwater #2 80 acres 



T. 23 S., R. 35 E., 
sec. 12, W1/2NW1/4. 



Little Stinkingwater #3 440 acres 



Kiger 



Swamp Creek 



400 acres 



T. 23 S., R. 35 E., 
sec. 1,W1/2NW1/4and 
NW1/4SW1/4. 
T. 22 S., R. 35 E., 
sec. 36, W1/2. 

T. 29 S., R. 33 E., 

sec. 36, S1/2 and S1/2NW1/4. 



2-48 



Table 2.7. Representative Characteristics by Wild Horse 
and Burro Herd 



Herd 



Color/Type 



Markings 



Size 



Weight 



Kiger/Riddle Mountain 



Palomino Buttes 



Warm Springs Horses 



Warm Springs Burros 



Stinkingwater 



Dun, red dun, 
grulla, buckskin 
(claybank) and 
variations; 
Spanish mustang 
type. 

Light-colored, 
palominos, buck- 
skins, duns, red 
duns and sorrels; 
saddle type. 

Any color, 
especially 
Appaloosa; saddle 
type. 

Dark brown-grey 
color phase type 
burros. 

Any color, 
especially red 
and blue roan, 
no palominos; 
saddle type. 



Dorsal stripes 



13-15 hands 



N/A 



N/A 



N/A 



14-16 hands 



14-16 hands 



8-10 hands 



14-16 hands 



750-1 ,000 lbs. 



950-1 ,300 lbs. 



950-1 ,300 lbs. 



450-750 lbs. 



950-1 ,300 lbs. 



2-49 



Table 2.8. Rangeland Improvements for Wild Horses and Burros 


Herd Management 


Type of 








Area 


Improvement 


Name 


Location 




Kiger 


Waterhole Cleanout 


Lambing Basin 


T. 29 S., R. 34 E. 


sec. 32, SW1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Lambing Basin 


T. 30 S., R. 34 E. 


sec. 9, NE1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Rex Reservoir 


T. 30 S., R. 34 E. 


sec. 16, SW1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Yank Spr. Rim 


T. 30 S., R. 33 E. 


sec. 24, SE1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


S. Swamp Cr. 


T. 30 S„ R. 33 E. 


sec. 1, NW1/4 




Cattleguard 


Swamp Spr. 


T. 30 S„ R. 34 E. 


sec. 36, SE1/4 


Warm Springs 


Waterhole Cleanout 


Tadpole 


T. 27 S., R. 26 E. 


sec. 35, NE1/ 


4NE1/4 












Waterhole Cleanout 


Glenns 


T. 27 S., R. 26 E. 


sec. 36, NW1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Horse Head 


T. 28 S., R. 27 E. 


sec. 15, SW1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Durbin WH 


T. 30 S., R. 29 E. 


sec. 23, SE1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Buckskin Lake WH 


T. 30S., R. 291/2E. 


sec. 30, NW1/4 




Cattleguard 


Wilson 


T. 29 S., R. 27 E. 


sec. 7 




Cattleguard 


Paradise 


T. 29 S., R. 27 E. 


sec. 8 




Cattleguard 


Jack Smart 


T. 27 S., R. 26 E. 


sec. 6 


Stinkingwater 


Cattleguard 


Crow Camp 


T. 23 S., R. 35 E. 


sec. 29, SE1/4 


Palomino Buttes 


Waterhole Cleanout 


Upper Fay Canyon 


T. 24 S., R. 28 E. 


sec. 1, NE1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


W. Palomino Bt. 


T. 24 S., R. 28 E. 


sec. 11.SW1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


N. Grassy Bt.WH 


T. 24 S., R. 28 E. 


sec. 28, SE1/4 




Waterhole Cleanout 


Ruly's WH 


T. 24 S., R. 29 E. 


sec. 19, SW1/4 




Well and Pipeline 


Palomino Bt.Well 


T. 25 S., R. 28 E. 


sec. 22, NE1/4 



2-50 



Vegetation Program 

Objective and Rationale 

V 1 : Maintain, restore or enhance the diversity of plant comm unities and plant species in abu ndances and distributions, which prevent 
the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous plant species within the RA. 

Rationale: FLPMA mandates that public lands be managed in a mannerthat will protect the quality of the ecological resources among 
others. The BLM is committed to maintaining and enhancing the vegetation of the RA in terms of diversity and abundance of species 
and diversity of plant communities. Such diversity is necessary to sustain the variety of uses that BLM managed lands receive. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



V 1.1: Evaluate and mitigate significant anticipated adverse 
impacts of BLM-authorized land tenure adjustments, surface 
disturbing or vegetation conversion activities, prior to their 
occurrence, to the vegetation diversity of the RA. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: AQ 1 .1 , AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 
1 .9, WQ 1 .1 0, WQ 1 .1 1 , SM 1 .1 , F 1 .4, GM 1 .1 , V 1 .2, V 1 .3, V 
1 .6, SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3., WL 1 .1 , WL 1 .3, WL 
1 .4, WL 2.2, WL 5.1 , WL 5.2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.6, 
WL7.4,WL7.5,WL7.7,WL7.8,WL7.9,WL7.10,WL7.11,WL 
7.15, WL 7.16, WL 7.17, WL 7.18, WL 7.19, WL 7.27, AH 1.2, 
AH 1 .3, AH 1 .1 0, AH 1 .1 1 , R 1 .1 , CR 2.1 , CR 2.2, LR 1 .1 , LR 
2.3, LR 2.5, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3, BD 1 .5. 

Constrained By: LR 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1. Conduct records examination and/or site examination for 
special status species. 

2. Analyze the impacts to vegetation diversity on the species 
and ecosystem level of the RA in all NEPA documents. 

3. Design and apply measures to mitigate significant adverse 
impacts to vegetation diversity. 

4. Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial 
water, to less than 20 percent of land area in that particular 
subbasin in any one year. 

5. Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 
percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big 
game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of 
which shall be thermal cover) as defined in "Wildlife Habitats 
in Managed Forests." 

6. Consider the high public value of vegetation diversity in land 
exchanges, purchases or disposals in which public owner- 
ship of vegetation communities contributing to such diver- 
sity could be affected. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic and systematic updates of the existing vegetation 
inventory of the RA including distributions, extent and eco- 
logical status. 



V 1 .2: Adjust overall grazing management practices within the 
RA so that no more than 10 percent of the native vegetation 
condition determined by Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) is in 
early serai status and so that at least 40 percent is in late serai 
or Potential Natural Community (PNC) by 2009. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, SM 1 .1 , GM 
1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 2.1, SSS 2.4, SSS 
3.1 , WL 1 .2, WL 1 .3, WL 2.1 , WL 2.2, WL 4.1 , WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, 
WL6.3,WL7.5,WL7.14,WL 7.17, WL 7.18, WL 7.19, WL 7.27, 
WL 7.28, AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 1.5, R 2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 
1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Complete ESI inventory of RA by 1 994 to provide baseline 
information on the plant communities and ecological status 
of the RA. 

2. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all 
allotments in RA within 2 years of ESI completion. 

3. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all 
wild horse HMAPs within 2 years of ESI completion. 

4. Implement and maintain databases for integration of ESI 
data with other resource data within the RA. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- AMP monitoring: actual use/utilization/trend/cover. 

- HMAP monitoring: utilization. 

- Reinventory of ESI within 20 years. 



2-51 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



V 1.3: Implement identified actions from the Three Rivers RA 
portion of the Burns District Wetlands HMP to restore and 
enhance specified wetlands by no later than the year 2000, 
including but not limited to those actions shown in Appendix 1 , 
Table 8. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .4, V 1 .4, WL4.1 , 
WL 5.1, WL 5.2, WL 5.3, WL 7.14, WL 7.1 5, WL 7.16, WL 7.27, 
WL7.28, AH1.5, LR1.1.LR1.3. 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , WL 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Survey and design. 

2. NEPA document and AWP funding. 

3. Collect playa baseline information. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robel pole 
readings and brood counts on a regular periodic basis. 

- Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years. 



V 1.4: Designate three areas (6,054 acres) and retain one 
existing area (640 acres) meeting Oregon Natural Heritage 
Plan cell needs as RNA/ACECs. (See Appendix 1, Table 15 
and Table 16 for specific acreages, allowable uses and use 
restrictions.) 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, WL 5.1 , WL 5.2, WL 7.15, WL 7. 1 6, WL 
7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, WL 7.28, R 2.1, R 2.16, 
ACEC 1.1 , ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, VRM 1 .2, LR 1 .1 , 
LR1.5, LR2.3.LR5.1, BD3.1, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD3.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop ACEC Management Plans which address specific 
management objectives and actions and clearly delineate 
use restrictions. 

2. Implement on-the-ground actions defined in ACEC plans. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Ensure ACEC plans are completed within 3 years of the 
approval of the RMP. 

- Periodic systematic on-the-ground assessments. 



V 1.5: Manage a total of 786 acres in four major areas as 
described in Table 2.9 and shown on Maps F-3 through F-6for 
maintenance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine 
old growth forest. (Note: This acreage includes 482 acres from 
the commercial forestland base, 304 acres are forthe establish- 
ment of administrative boundaries.) 

Geographic Reference: 5503, 551 1 , 701 0, 7030, 7051 . 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .7, V 1 .4, WL 7.21 , WL 7.26, FM 2.1 , R 2.1 , 
R 2.12, R 2.1 6, ACEC 1 .5, LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, BD 3.5, BD 
3.8. 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3. 



Procedures to Implement: 




f fw 



1. 



a. 



Develop stand management guides which address the 
following: 

Management actions to maintain existing old growth char- 
acteristics (see note below) of the stand. 
Management actions to promote continued succession to- 
ward old growth conditions (see note below) of the stand. 
Fuels treatment. 
Insect infestation. 
Management/use restrictions (see Table 2.10). 



Note: Examples of such management actions include: stand 
manipulation for tree age, tree size and species composition; 
maintenance of desired snag density; maintenance of canopy 
closure and appropriate canopy layers; maintenance of down 
woody materials; maintenance of the native shrub/herb compo- 
nent; and creation or maintenance of gaps/openings and the 
overall stand configuration. 

2. Coordinate and integrate these guides with overlapping 
designations. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in stand management guides or overlapping 
designation's activity plan. 



2-52 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



V 1 .6 : Apply approved weed control methods including manual, 
biological and chemical control methods as identified in the 
Weed Control EIS and Burns District Weed Control EA in an 
integrated pest management program to prevent the invasion 
of noxious weeds into areas presently free of such weeds and 
to improve the ecological status of sites which have been 
invaded by weeds. Weed control activities will be prioritized and 
funded based on the following criteria, as identified in Burns 
District's Weed Control EA: 

Priority I: Potential New Invaders - Emphasizes education and 
awareness; 

Priority II: Eradication of New Invaders - Emphasizes eradica- 
tion, priority funding; 

Priority III: Established Infestations - Emphasizes contain- 
ment and control. 

(See glossary for definition of noxious weeds.) 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: V 1.1, BD 1.1. 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory. 

2. Prioritize infestations. 

3. Apply manual or biological control procedures if appropri- 
ate. 

4. Where chemical control is required, evaluate site for im- 
pacts, complete and submit pesticide use proposal (PUP) to 
Oregon State Office for approval. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring to determine effectiveness of applied treatments 
will be done at least annually for the 5 years following 
treatment. 

- NEPA documents compliance monitoring, if appropriate. 



Table 2.9. Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions 

Tract 1 - Dry Mountain 

The old growth management area on Dry Mountain consists of two parcels totaling 1 80 acres. These are located in Harney County 
approximately 28 miles west of Burns, Oregon, and 1 miles north of Highway 20 adjacent to the Ochoco National Forest boundary 
on the southwest side of Dry Mountain. These tracts are in the Claw Creek Allotment (No. 701 0). These tracts are also entirely within 
the boundary of the proposed Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC. If the RNA/ACEC is designated, these old growth areas will be managed 
in conjunction with the RNA/ACEC. 

The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of old and large ponderosa pine trees with a 40-70 percent crown closure. 
The understory contains smaller ponderosa pine trees, many species of shrubs and other herbaceous species. 

The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth 
characteristics and to promote continued succession toward old growth. After designation, a management plan specific to the Dry 
Mountain RNA/ACEC will be written. This management plan will include a stand management guide which incorporates the allowable 
uses/use constraints shown in Table 2. 1 0forthe Dry Mountain old growth tracts and identifies possible management actions required 
to meet the goals. 

Description of Site: 

Willamette Meridian: 



T. 22 S., R. 26 E. 



Sec. 3, portions of SE1/4; 
Sec. 10, portions of the NE1/4. 



Tract 2 - Emigrant Creek 



The old growth management area on Emigrant Creek consists of two parcels of old growth which total 70 acres. However, a buffer 
zone will be managed in conjunction with these 70 acres to create a management unit totaling 230 acres. This management unit is 
located approximately 20 miles northwest of Burns adjacent to the Malheur National Forest boundary along Emigrant Creek. This 
area is within the Skull Creek Allotment (No. 7030) and the Sawtooth MNF Allotment (No. 7051 ). 

The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with a 40-70 percent crown closure. 
These trees are very old and large exceeding 2 feet in diameter and over 100 feet in height. The understory consists of younger 
ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. In some stands, the understory is very dense, limiting other species. Other portions of the stand 



2-53 



Table 2.9. Ponderosa Pine Old Growth Management Areas - Descriptions (continued) 

contain a moderate ground cover of Idaho fescue and antelope bitterbrush with some mountain mahogany, wax currant and other shrub 
species. Scattered rotting logs are present. 

In addition to the old growth stands, this area also contains outstanding scenic, recreational, wildlife and fishery resource values. Current 
utilization of the area is extensive in nature. 

The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth 
characteristics and to promote continued succession toward old growth. After the ROD for the Proposed Plan , a stand management guide 
will be written. A single guide incorporating both the Emigrant Creek Old Growth Management Area and the Craft Point Area (Tract 3) may 
be developed or separate guides for each may be required. The stand management guide will incorporate the allowable uses/use 
constraints shown in Table 2.1 and identify possible management actions required to meet the goals. It will also contain any management 
actions needed to control or enhance other values of the area. 

Description of Site: 

Willamette Meridian: 

T. 20 S„ R, 29 E., Sec. 31 , Lot 1, NE1/4NW1/4, N1/2NE1/4 and 

those portions of Lot 2, SE1/4NW1/4 and S1/2NE1/4 
which lie north of Culp Ranch Road. 

Tract 3 - Craft Point 

The old growth management area near Craft Point consists of one parcel of old growth which totals 126 acres. However, a buffer zone 
will be managed in conjunction with these 1 26 acres to create a management unit totaling 270 acres. This management unit is located 
approximately 25 miles northeast of Burns, and 1 miles north of Highway 20 adjacent to the Malheur National Forest boundary near Craft 
Point. This area is within the Pine Creek Allotment (No. 5503). 

The old growth stand overstory consists of ponderosa pine trees which are quite scattered. These trees are very old and exceed 21 inches 
in diameter. In some areas the understory of ponderosa pine trees is very dense. These are much smaller trees. Mountain mahogany 
occurs in some patches. 

Other resource values of this area include outstanding wildlife habitat, particularly for deer and elk, and recreational and scenic values. 
Access to this area is quite limited and current recreational use is slight. 

The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth 
characteristics and to promote continued succession toward old growth. After the ROD for the Proposed Plan, a stand management guide 
will be written. A single guide incorporating both the Craft Point Old Growth Management Area and the Emigrant Creek Area (Tract 2) may 
be developed or separate guides for each may be required. The stand management guide will incorporate the allowable uses/use 
constraints shown in Table 2.1 and identify possible management actions required to meet the goals. It will also contain any management 
actions needed to control or enhance other values of the area. 

Description of Site: 

Willamette Meridian: 

T. 21 S„ R. 33 E, Sec. 18, Lot 2, E1/2NW1/4 and NE1/4. 

Tract 4 - Bluebucket Creek 

The old growth management area on Bluebucket Creek consists of four parcels totaling 1 06 acres. These are located in Harney County 
approximately 45 miles northeast of Burns, along Bluebucket Creek and the Middle Fork of the Malheur River. These tracts are located 
in the Moffet Table Allotment (No. 551 1 ). These tracts are also within the boundary of the proposed Middle Fork of the Malheur River and 
Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River. If this river is designated as a Wild and Scenic River, these old growth areas will be managed 
in conjunction with this designation. This area is also within the Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA; however, this WSA has not been 
proposed for wilderness designation. 

The old growth stands contain an overstory consisting of old and large ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with a 40-70 percent crown 
closure. The understory contains ponderosa pine and Douglas firtrees of varying ages and densities. In some areas, the understory canopy 
cover exceeds 70 percent and in other areas it is much less dense. 

The primary management goal of this proposed old growth management area is to manage the area to enhance existing old growth 
characteristics and to promote continued succession toward old growth. After designation, a management plan specific to the Malheur 
River/Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River will be written. This management plan will include a stand management guide which 
incorporates the allowable uses/use constraints shown in Table 2.10 for the Bluebucket Creek old growth tracts and identifies possible 
management actions required to meet the goals. These management actions will have to conform to the restrictions imposed by the 
overlapping Wild and Scenic River designation. 

Description of Site: 

Willamette Meridian: 

T, 18 S., R. 34 E., Sec. 33, portions thereof 
Sec. 34, portions thereof. 

2-54 



ttVMHmWMMVBWMBBI 



Table 2.10. Recommended Management/Use Constraints in Old Growth Management Areas 



Old Management Land Major Commercial Fire 

Old Growth Growth Unit Tenure Rights- Timber ORV Wild Livestock Suppression 

Management Areas Acres Acres Adjustment Of-Way Harvest Use Horses Grazing Activities 



1. Dry Mountain 


180 


1 


Z1 


R 


P 


L 


N/A 


R* 


R 


R 


2. Emigrant Creek 


70 


230 


21 


R 


P 


O 


N/A 


O 


R 


O 


3. Craft Point 


126 


270 


Z1 


R 


P 


O 


N/A 


O 


R 


O 


4. Bluebucket Crk 


106 


2 


Z1 


P 


P 


L 


N/A 


R* 


R 


P 



Prescribed Vegetation 
Burning Treatment 



R 
R 
R 
P 



^Tracts to be managed in conjunction with the overlapping Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC designation. 

^Tracts to be managed in conjunction with the overlapping Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek Wild and Scenic River designation. 





Fluid 

Energy 

Minerals 


Solid 

Leasable 

Minerals 


Mineral 
Materials 


Locatable 
Minerals 


Camping 


Organized 

Public Wood 

Activities Gathering 


Plant 
Collection 


Education 
(Repeated 
Consumptive) 


Rock 
Hounding 


1. Dry Mountain 


NSO 


NL 


P 


R 


P 


R P 


R 


R 


R 


2. Emigrant Creek 


NSO 


O 


O 


O 


O 


O P 


R 


O 


O 


3. Craft Point 


NSO 


o 


O 


O 





O P 


R 


O 


O 


4. Bluebucket Crk 


NSO 


NL 


p 


R 





O P 


R 


O 


R 


Z1 = Zone 1, retention and acquisition 
R* = Restricted to provisions of AMP 
L = Limited to existing roads and trails 
W = Withdraw from mineral entry. 




P = Prohibited use or action. 
O = Open to use or activity. 
NSO = No surface occupancy 




R = Restricted use or action. 

N/A = Not applicable 
NL = No leasing. 









Ol 
O'l 



Special Status Species 

Objective and Rationale 

SSS 1 : Maintain and improve critical or essential habitat (see Map SS-1 ) of species listed as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1 973, as amended, to prevent deterioration and provide recovery. (See Table 2.1 1 for current list of 
threatened or endangered species.) 

Rationale: Protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species is required by the Endangered Species Act of 1 973, as 
amended. 



Allocation/Management Action 

SSS 1.1: Evaluate the Burns District Bald Eagle Communal 
Winter Roost HMPon a yearly basis and implement any newly 
developed management actions in applicable timeframes set 
forth intheHMP. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5536, 7009, 
7010. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .6, SSS 3.1 , SSS 4.1 , SSS 4.2, WL 7.1 , WL 
7.3, FM1.1,LR1.1,BD1.5, BD2.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. Current management actions in the existing HMP have 
been implemented, but new management actions identified 
through coordination and consultation with ODFW, USFWS 
- Bald Eagle Recovery Team and USDA-FS will be imple- 
mented in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. 

2. Update HMP if needed. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Conduct coordinated bald eagle winter roost counts on an 
annual basis. 



SSS 1.2: Implement any actions in the Peregrine Falcon 
Recovery Plan for which BLM is responsible in the RA, to 
provide for the recovery of the peregrine falcon. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .6, GM 1 .4, SSS 3.1 , SSS 4.1 , SSS 4.2, WL 
7.1 , WL 7.3, WL 7.4, WL 7.28, R 2.1 , LR 1 .1 , BD 1 .5, BD 2.2. 




Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific actions, when identified, will be funded through the 
AWP process. 

2. NEPA documentation will be written on a case-by-case 

3. CCC with USFWS. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Needs will be identified when specific actions are devel- 
oped. 




2-56 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



SSS 1.3: Implement the BLM responsible management actions 
listed in the Stephanomeria malheurensis, Malheur wirelettuce, 
Draft Recovery Plan until the final recovery plan is approved. 
Upon approval of the final recovery plan, implement all appro- 
priate actions from it. Actions in the draft recovery plan include 
but are not limited to the following: 

- Maintain and enhance existing habitat. 

- Conduct systematic searches for new populations and 

habitat. 

- Secure new colonies. 

- Determine population trends. 

- Establish additional plantings/populations. 

- Develop a management program to protect newly estab- 

lished populations of plants. 

- EnforcelawsandregulationsthatprotectMalheurwirelettuce. 

- Maintain viable off-site seed bank. 

Geographic Reference: 7001, 7058. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1.4, SSS 3.1, SSS 4.2, WL 7.28, R 2.1, 
ACEC1.1, LR 1.1, LR2.3, BD 1.5, BD 2.3, BD 3.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Write an HMP or other appropriate activity plan incorporat- 
ing the Recovery Plan. 

2. Continueongoing studies underexisting BLM/USFWS Con- 
servation Agreement until this plan is terminated. 

3. Develop and implement studies and actions identified in 
Recovery Plan or other activity plan. 

4. Implement management recommendations from studies 
which will lead to recovery of species. 

5. CCCwithUSFWS. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in Recovery Plan and BLM/USFWS Conserva- 
tion Agreement, HMP or other activity plans. 



Objective and Rationale 

SSS 2: Maintain, restore or enhance the habitat (see Map SS-1 ) of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species to maintain 
the populations at a level which will avoid endangering the species and the need to list the species by either State or Federal 
governments. (See Table 2.11. for current lists of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species.) 

Rationale: Protection of candidate and sensitive species is provided for by BLM policy. BLM Manual 6840 directs that BLM shall 
carry out management activities consistent with the principles of multiple-use for the conservation of candidate and sensitive species 
and their habitat. It also directs that BLM shall ensure that any activities authorized, funded or carried out do not contribute to the 
need to list any species. BLM policy, as expressed in Fish and Wildlife 2000, commits BLM to maintain sensitive species populations 
at stable or improving levels. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



SSS 2.1: Adjust overall grazing management practices as 
necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or 
enhance their habitat. (See Table 2.1 2 for current list of actions 
and allotments which they may affect.) 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .6, WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, WQ 
1 .1 2, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .2, GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, WHB 

1 .3, V 1 . 1 , V 1 .2, V 1 .3, SSS 2.4, SSS 2.6, SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, 
SSS3.3,SSS4.2,WL5.1,WL5.2,WL6.1,WL6.2,WL6.3,WL 
6.5, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, WL 7.7, WL 7.1 5, WL 7.1 6, WL 7.17, WL 
7.1 8, WL 7.1 9, WL 7.24, Wl 7.27, WL 7.28, AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 

1 .4, AH 1 .5, AH 1 .9, R 2.12, ACEC 1 .3, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3, 
BD 1.5, BD3.3. 

Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Consultation with permittees and other affected interests. 

2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- 
commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- 
cial status species. 

3. Adjust AMPs, HMPs and other activity plans as needed. 

4. Incorporate special status species management objectives 
into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- 
propriate. 

5. Develop NEPA documentation and AWP funding where 
project developments (fences) are required. 

6. Establish monitoring as appropriate. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As identified in AMPs, HMPs or other activity plans. 



2-57 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



i 2.2: Allocate the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountain area 
for the long-term enhancement of California bighorn sheep 
habitat. (NOTE: This is a management action for specific 
management emphasis and does not indicate a reduction in 
AUMs in these allotments based on bighorn sheep AUMs.) 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5530, 5531, 5560, 
5565. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1.1, WL 7.27, LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Prohibit a livestock class change that would result in a 
domestic sheep permit in grazing allotments 5530, 5531, 
5560 and 5565. 

2. Update Burns Dist. Bighorn Sheep HMP to reflect this decision. 

3. Coordinate this change with ODFW, affected permittees 
and other affected interests. 

4. Include this as a management objective in appropriate 
AMPs. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual utilization monitoring for forage. 

- Sheep population numbers will be monitored annually by 
ODFW. 



SSS 2.3: Determine habitat deficiencies within 2 miles of nest 
sites for ferruginous hawks and correct identified deficiencies. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5303, 5306, 5309, 
5313,7019,7021. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .6, SSS 4.1 , SSS 4.2, WL 7.1 , WL 7.3, WL 

7.4, WL 7.6. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory and evaluate ferruginous hawk habitat to identify 
habitat deficiencies. 

2. Provide nest platforms in areas identified as nest-site defi- 
cient. 

3. Improve habitat for prey species within 2 miles of nest sites. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic assessments to determine effectiveness of steps 
taken. 

- Assessment of utilization of nest sites. 



SSS 2.4: Maintain existing livestock exclosures along about 4 
miles of streams to enhance habitat for Malheur mottled sculpin 
or redband trout. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5522, 5310, 7010, 
7012. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .7, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 
1 .4, SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 6.2, WL 7.1 8, WL7.27, WL7.28, AH 
1.3, AH 1.5, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- 
tion and maintenance of fences which are the responsibility 
of District to maintain. 

2. Coordination with affected permittees. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspection prior to livestock turnout; inspection during graz- 
ing season. 



SSS 2.5: Implement fish habitat enhancement work on those 
portions of the Middle Fork of the Malheur River and its 
tributaries which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin 
habitat, as proposed in the Columbia River Basin Fish and 
Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power Planning Council. 
These actions include but are not limited to the following: bank 
shaping and revegetation, instream boulderplacement, protec- 
tive fencing, spawning gravel, placement, etc. 

Geographic Reference: Middle Fork Malheur River and tribu- 
taries. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : SM 2. 1 , AH 1 .8. 

Constrained By: R 2.12, VRM 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Wait until wilderness status is determined. 

2. Coordinate activities through the WSA and WSR IMP. 

3. Ensure activities in WSA or WSR are consistent with IMP 
and proposed future management. 

4. Develop NEPA documentation and compliance report. 

5. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Establish several permanent sample stations for fisheries 
and water quality monitoring. 

- Water quality to identify project impact -three to five times/year. 

- Conduct the following on a regular periodic basis: 

Macroinvertebrate analysis 
Fish inventory 
Photo trend 



2-58 



IIIIIIIIIIIIHIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIill Hill IHMIIIIIINIHIIIMII llllllllllWWHIIIIlllllllllimilMillllllMl 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



SSS 2.6: Implement streambank stabilization projects on 
streams which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin 
habitat and which have less than 90 percent stable streambanks. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1.12, SM 2.1, AH 1.9. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Develop NEPA compliance on proposed projects. 

2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend - annually. 

- Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- 
tem - three times/year. 



SSS 2.7: Acquire lands necessary to protect special status 
species and their habitat. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SSS 1.1, WL5.3, WL6.5, R2.13, LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .3, 
LR1.5, BD1.4, BD2.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory to identify if lands are needed. 

2. Pursue acquisition through exchange or purchase. 

3. Adjust activities to accommodate additions or deletions in 
official listings of special status species. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



Objective and Rationale 

SSS 3: Ensure that BLM-authorized actions within the RA do not result in the need to list special status species or jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species. (See Table 2.11 for current lists of special status species.) 

Rationale: BLM is directed by the Endangered Species Act of 1 973, as amended, to ensure that any Federal action authorized, 
funded or carried out does not jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction of critical 
habitat. BLM is directed by policy (6840 Manual) to ensure that Federal actions do not contribute to the need to list species as 
threatened or endangered. 



Allocation/Management Action 

SSS 3. 1: Protect special status species and their habitat from 
BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities and land tenure 
adjustments. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 , WQ 1 .2, WQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .7, WQ 
1.8,WQ1.9,WQ1.11,SM1.1,F1.3,V1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS 
2.4, SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3, WL 1 .3, WL2.2, WL5.2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, 
WL 6.3, WL 6.4, WL 6.6, WL 7.5, WL 7.7, WL 7.8, WL 7. 1 0, WL 
7.1 6, WL 7.1 7, WL 7.1 8, WL 7. 1 9, WL 7.20, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, 
WL 7.25, AH 1 . 1 , AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, AH 1 .5, AH 1 .6, AH 1 .7, AH 
1 .1 1 , R 2.1 , R 2.1 2, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, LR 2.5, 
LR 5.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3, BD 1 .5, BD 3. 1 , BD 3.3, BD 3.4. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Conduct a records examination and a site examination for 
special status species prior to BLM-authorized actions oc- 
curring. 

2. Conduct site examinations during appropriate season. 

3. Examine impacts and develop mitigation measures through 
NEPA process. 

4. Apply necessary mitigation measures. 

5. Consult with USFWS on "may affect" situations. 

6. Enhance habitat for special status species where opportu- 
nities arise. 

7. Establish and apply lease stipulations priorto issuance of oil 
and gas or geothermal leases. 

8. Apply contract stipulations to allow work to be stopped if 
special status species are discovered to be present in or 
adjacent to a project area. 

9. Adjust clearance and mitigation activities to accommodate 
additions or deletions in official listings of special status 
species. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- NEPA document compliance. 



2-59 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



SSS 3.2: Allow no sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage 
grouse strutting grounds when determined by a wildlife biolo- 
gist to be detrimental to sage grouse habitat requirements. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SSS 3.1 , WL 7.7, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory all sage grouse habitat for strutting grounds. 

2. Ensure that sufficient sagebrush is retained on a case-by- 
case basis via the NEPA process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance and effectiveness monitoring of NEPA docu- 
ment. 



SSS 3.3: Fence overflow areas at all spring developments to 
provide meadow habitat for sage grouse. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 7.18, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- 
tion and maintenance of fences which are the responsibility 
of District to maintain. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance of NEPA document. 

- Fence maintenance/inspections. 



Objective and Rationale 

SSS 4: Increase the state of BLM's knowledge and information concerning the status and distribution of special status species. (See 
Table 2.1 1 for current lists of special status species.) 

Rationale: FLPMA directs BLM to prepare and maintain, on a continuing basis, an inventory of all public lands and their resource 
values. BLM Policy (6600 Manual) is to ensure special status species inventory and monitoring priorities are consistent with legal 
mandates, BLM priorities and applicable activity plans. BLM policy, as expressed in Fish and Wildlife 2000, places an emphasis on 
developing data bases to identify distributions and habitat of special status species and on implementing a monitoring system to track 
population trends and habitat conditions. 



Allocation/Management Action 

SSS 4.1 : Conduct and record systematic inventories of popu- 
lations and distributions of special status species. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .6, SSS 1.1, SSS 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.3, 
WL 6.7, WL 7.5, AH 1.4, BD 1.3, BD 2.1, BD 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. Adjust inventory activities to accommodate additions or 
deletions in official listings of special status species. 

2. Develop and maintain data bases. 

3. Coordinate with Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) 
and ODFW. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



2-60 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



SSS4.2: Conduct monitoring and evaluation studies on special 
status species on a regular periodic basis. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .1 , SSS 1.1, SSS 1 .2, SSS 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , 
SSS 2.3, WL 7.5, WL 7.27, BD1.3, BD2.1, BD 2.2, BD 2.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Develop monitoring plans for special status species as 
needed. 

2. Develop HMPs, species management guides or other activ- 
ity plans where BLM activities have a significant effect on 
special status species. 

3. Adjust monitoring activities to accommodate additions or 
deletions in official listings of special status species. 

4. Develop and maintain data bases. 

5. Coordinate with ODA and ODFW. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



Table 2.11. Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) 



Common Name 



Scientific Name 



Status 



Fish 

Malheur mottled sculpin 
Redband trout 

Birds 



Cottus bairdi ssp. 
Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi 



C 

c 



American peregrine falcon 
Bald eagle 
Ferruginous hawk 
Western snowy plover 
Long-billed curlew 
Western sage grouse 
Columbian sharptailed grouse 
Western yellow-billed cuckoo 
White faced ibis 
(Great Basin population) 

Mammals 

Gray Wolf 
California wolverine 
California bighorn sheep 
North American lynx 
Preble's shrew (Malheur shrew) 
Spotted bat 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Spotted frog 
Plants 



Falco peregrinus anatum 
Haliaeetus leucocephalus 
Buteo regalis 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 
Numenius americanus 
Centrocercus urophasianus phaios 
Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus 
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis 

Plegadis chihi 



Canis lupus 

Gulo gulo luteus 

Ovis canadensis califomiana 

Felis lynx canadensis 

Sorex preblei 

Euderma maculatum 



LE&S 

LT&S 

C&S 

C&S 

C 

C 

C 

c 



LE&S 

C&S 

C 

c 

C 
C 



Rana pretiosa 



Deschutes milkvetch 
Barren valley collomia 
Cusick's buckwheat 
Prostrate buckwheat 
Bogg's Lake Hedge Hyssop 
Shelly's ivesia 



Astragalus tegetarioides 
Collomia renacta 
Eriogonum cusickii 
Eriogonum prociduum 
Gratiola heterosepala 
Ivesia rhypara v. shellyi 



C 

C 

c 

B 
C 

c 



2-61 



Table 2.11. Special Status Species (March 1, 1991) 



Common Name 



Scientific Name 



Status 



Biddle's lupine 
Cusick's lupine 
Oregon semaphoregrass 
Columbia cress 
Malheur wirelettuce 
Leiberg's clover 

Assessment Species (Three Rivers RA) 

Common Name 

Birds 

Northern goshawk 

Northern saw-whet owl 

Burrowing owl 

Lesser scaup (breeding pop) 

Upland sandpiper 

Bufflehead (breeding pop) 

Swainson's hawk 

Bobolink 

Snowy egret (breeding pop) 

Greater sandhill crane 

Franklin's gull (breeding pop) 

Black rosy finch (Steens Mtn) 

Flammulated owl 

American white pelican (breeding pop) 

White-headed woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker 

Three-toed woodpecker 

Horned grebe (breeding pop) 

Western bluebird 

Forster's tern 

Mammals 

White-tailed jackrabbit 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Common kingsnake 
California mountain kingsnake 
Desert horned lizard 
Northern leopard frog 

Plants 

Iodine Bush 
Brandegee's onion 
Sierra onion 
Rock melic 



Lupinus biddlei 
Lupin us cusickii 
Pleuropogon oreganus 
Rorippa columbiae 
Stephanomeria malheurensis 
Trifolium leibergii 



Scientific Name 



Accipter gentilis 
Aegolius acadicus 
Athene cunicularia 
Aythya affinis 
Bartramia longicauda 
Bucephala albeola 
Buteo swainsoni 
Dolichonyx orzyivorus 
Egretta inula 
Grus canadensis tabida 
Larus pipixcan 
Leucosticte arctoa atrata 
Otus flammeolus 
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 
Picoides albolarvatus 
Picoides articus 
Picoides tridactylus 
Podiceps auritus 
Sialia mexicana 
Sterna forsteri 



Lepus townsendii 



Lampropeitis getulus 
Lamprepeltis zonata 
Phrynosoma platyrhinos 
Rana pipiens 



Allenrolfea occidentalis 
Allium brandegei 
Allium campanulatum 
Melica stricta 



C 

c 

c&s 

c 

LE&S 
C 



Status 



A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 



A 
A 
A 
A 



A 
A 
A 
A 



Note: Known populations of only plant assessment species are shown on Map SS-1 . 
A = Assessment Species (see Glossary) 



B = Bureau Sensitive; 

LE = Listed Endangered (Federal); 

S = State Listed 



C = Federal Candidate 1 & 2; 
LT = Listed Threatened (Federal); 



2-62 



.".■'.■■. .■',.■.■, ■ . . „':■/'. . ■ :■'.. ■ ■■.'■ ■. 



Table 2.12. Grazing Management Adjustments for Special Status Species 



Actions 



Allotments Potentially Affected 



Implement grazing systems on long-billed curlew nesting habi- 
tat so that at least one-third of the habitat will be undisturbed 
through the critical nesting period of May 1 -July 15. 



5001 ; 5301 ; 5302; 5303; 5305; 5306; 5309; 7001 ; 7056. 



Implement grazing systems on all sage grouse ranges to 
improve forb production and availability. 



5101; 
5313; 
5505; 
5517; 
5535; 
7004; 
7017; 
7038; 



5102; 
5317; 
5506; 
5521; 
5536; 
7005; 
7018; 
7040; 



5104; 
5321; 
5507; 
5522; 
5537; 
7006; 
7019; 
7042; 



5105; 
5327; 
5508; 
5524; 
5546; 
7008; 
7020; 
7043 



5106; 
5329; 
5509; 
5528; 
5565; 
7009; 
7021; 
7049. 



5201; 
5330; 
5510; 
5529; 
5566; 
7010; 
7023; 



5213; 
5501; 
5511; 
5530; 
5571; 
7011; 
7024; 



5307; 
5502; 
5513, 
5531; 
7001; 
7012; 
7025; 



5308; 
5503; 
5514; 
5532; 
7002; 
7015; 
7036; 



5310 
5504 
5515 
5533 
7003 
7016 
7037 



Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in Appendix 
1 , Table 3 which have redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin 
habitat in poor condition related to BLM-administered riparian 
area conditions. When riparian conditions have improved to 
fair, or at the end of 5 years, implement grazing systemson I and 
M category allotments which allow no more than 10 percent 
livestock utilization, on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 
50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or 
systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- 
ery. 



5307; 551 1 ; 5524, 5531 ; 5532; 5536; 5566; 701 0; 7030. 



Implement grazing systems on streams listed in Appendix 1, 
Table 5 with redband trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat 
which allow no more than 10 percent utilization on woody 
riparian shrubs and no more than 50 percent utilization on 
herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are de- 
signed to promote speedy riparian recovery or maintenance of 
good conditions. 



51 05; 5205; 5206; 5307; 5309; 531 0; 5327; 5329; 5330; 551 1 ; 
5522; 5524; 5530; 5532; 5536; 5537; 7009; 701 0; 701 1 ; 701 2; 
7027; 7031 ; 7032; 7033; 7035; 7040; 7041 ; 7053; 7080. 



Develop grazing systems designed to improve riparian habitat 
along streams listed in Appendix, Table 6, which have redband 
trout or Malheur mottled sculpin habitat, on a case-by-case 
basis as funding becomes available. 



4143; 5201 ; 5310; 551 1 ; 701 1 ; 7035; 7043; 7051 . 



Continue to monitor grazing impacts on habitat of snowy 
plovers and develop appropriate grazing management strate- 
gies if necessary. 



7001; 7002; 701 8. 



Establish monitoring to evaluate grazing impacts on special 
status plant species and develop appropriate grazing manage- 
ment strategies if necessary. 



4143; 5001 ; 5301 ; 5313; 5503; 5528; 5530; 5537; 5538; 5566; 
7001; 701 6; 701 9; 7023; 7024. 



2-63 




2-64 



- -■ 



hfl --HtS ' i ^-Fr 





OREGON 



WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Snowy Plover Nesting Habitat 



Hg Long-billed Curlew Nesting Habitat 
California Bighorn Sheep Habitat 



<0> Bald Eagle Winter Roost Areas 

□ Ferruginous Hawk Nests 

A Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds 

— Redband Trout or Malheur 
Mottled Sculpin Habitat 



PLANT SPECIES 

1. Allium brandegei 

2. Allium campanulatum 

3. Eriogonum cusickii 

4. Lupinus biddlei 

5. Lupinus cusickii 

6. Melica stricta 

7. Rorippa columbiae 

8. Stephanomeria malheurensis 

9. Trifolium leibergii 

O IOM 



<£> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP SS-1 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Known Populations or Habitat 



2-65 



Wildlife Habitat 

Objective and Rationale 

WL 1: Maintain 335,000 acres of deer winter range, 375,000 acres of deer summer range, 235,000 acres of elk winter range and 
1 05,000 acres of elk summer range (see Maps WL-1 and WL-2) currently in satisfactory condition as described in the glossary. 

Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The 
BLM is committed to provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions of big 
game animals to the American people. 



Allocation/Management Action 

WL 1 .1 : Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 
40 percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big 
game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 15 percent of 
which shall be thermal cover) as defined in "Wildlife Habitats in 
Managed Forests." 

Geographic Reference: Commercial Timberlands. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1.4, V 1.1, WL7.8, WL7.9, AH 1.11, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Will be implemented on a case-by-case basis during timber 
sale design and NEPA documentation and contract prepa- 
ration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Timber sale contract administration and post timber sale 
visual monitoring to ensure that NEPA documentation and 
contract specifications have been followed. 



WL 1 .2: Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems on all 
allotments within big game ranges with priority given to I and M 
category allotments. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5510, 5507, 5533, 
7006, 7009, 701 0, 701 1 , 701 5, 701 6, 7022, 7025, 7051 . 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1.1, WL 2.1, WL 7.27. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Implement grazing systems during AMP, CRMP and allot- 
ment evaluation processes. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Utilization, actual use, climate in accordance with Oregon 
and Washington monitoring standards. 




*w 



2-66 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 1 .3: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage 
in deer and elk winter range currently supporting browse. 

Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter ranges. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1.10, SM 1.2, V 1.1, SSS3.1, WL2.2, WL 
7.10, WL7.26, AH 1.11, ACEC 1.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.5, BD 3.5. 

Constrained By:WHB 1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter 
ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 
acres per burn site. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Escaped Fire Analysis, Fire Year Report. 



WL 1.4: Prohibit harvest of woodland products such as fuel 
wood, posts, poles and juniper foliage from big game winter 
range in the area south of U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon 
Highway 205 (see Map F-2). 

Geographic Reference: See above. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: F 2.2, WL 7.1 1 , BD 1 .1 , V 1 .1 . 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Issue no woodland products permits for this area. 
Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance checks within this area. 



WL 1.5: Minimize barriers to wildlife movement. 
Geographic Reference: Areawide. 
Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . This will be implemented during NEPA documentation and 
contracts will be written to reflect the fence desig n on a case- 
by-case basis. 

2. Construct all new fences to BLM standards for the wildlife 
species present. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring will be done as part of the contract inspection. 



Objective and Rationale 

WL 2: Improve approximately 1 70,000 acres of deer winter range; 295,000 acres of deer summer range; 20,000 acres of elk winter 
range; 45,000 acres of elk summer range (see Maps WL-1 and WL-2), currently in unsatisfactory condition to satisfactory condition 
by the year 2000. 

Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The 
BLM is committed to provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain identifiable economic and social contributions of big 
game animals to the American people. 



Allocation/Management Action 

WL 2.1 : Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems on all 
allotments within big game ranges with priority given to I and M 
category allotments. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5510, 5507, 5533, 
7006,7009,7010,7011,7015, 7016, 7022, 7025,7051. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .1 , V 1 .2, WL 1 .2, WL 1 .3, WL2.2, WL 7.27, 
BD1.2. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Implement grazing systems during AMP, CRMP and allot- 
ment evaluation processes. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Utilization, actual use, climate in accordance with Oregon 
and Washington monitoring standards. 



2-67 




Allocation/Management Action 

WL 2.2: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage 
in deer and elk winter range currently supporting browse. 

Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter range. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 0, SM 1 .2, GM 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 
7.1 0, WL 7.26, ACEC 1 .5, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5, BD 3.5. 

Constrained By: WHB 1.3. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter 
ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 
acres per burn site. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Escaped Fire Analysis. 

- Fire Year Report. 



WL: 2.3: Continue the individual juniper tree burning or cutting 
program in units of less than 100 acres. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5307, 5308, 
5309, 531 0, 5503, 551 1 , 551 7, 5532, 5535, 5536, 7009, 701 0, 
7030, 7043. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 2.1 , WL 7.12, FM 2.1 , FM 2.2. 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 

1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Layout, survey, design, AWP, Memorandums of Under- 
standing (MOUs). 

2. NEPA documentation. 
Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor plant responses for 3 years after implementation, 
then every 5 years. 

- Monitoring will be accomplished by photo plots. 



WL 2.4: Provide water in mule deer summer range where that 
habitat component is deficient. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7010, 7014, 
7015,7024. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SSS 3.1, WL 7.13, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Install at least 8 guzzlers of 2,000 to 3,000 gallon capacity in 
deer summer range. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect guzzlers on an annual basis to determine use and 
maintenance needs. 



2-68 



Objective and Rationale 

WL 3: Manage forage production to support big game population levels identified by ODFW. 

Rationale: By MOU with ODFW, the BLM has agreed to recognize the Department as the agency responsible for management of 
the fish and wildlife resources of the State of Oregon and to practice those forms of land and resource management that will benefit 
fish and wildlife, consistent with a sound multiple-use program. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is a citizens' commission 
whose members are appointed by the Governor. In 1982, the Commission adopted population levels for mule deer and Rocky 
Mountain elk. These numbers, by management unit, were arrived at through an exhaustive, statewide public participation process. 

The approximate 7,800 AUM figure was arrived at by using recent census data provided by ODFW, season of use, percent of the 
allotment administered by BLM, the numbers of a particular animal that will consume 800 pounds of air dry forage in a month, and 
the dietary overlap of the big game species with cattle. 

FLPMA directs the BLM to manage for sustained yield. To prevent over-utilization of forage in an allotment, which could affect the 
sustainable yield, AUMs for big game have been allocated on an allotment-by-allotment basis. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 3.1 : Allocate competitive forage to big game as follows: 



Antelope 


512 AUMs 


Deer 


4,706 AUMs 


Elk 


2,618 AUMs 



These figures are delineated by allotment in Table 2.13. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .2, WHB 1.1, WHB 1 .3, BD 1 .2, V 1 .2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Allotment monitoring, evaluations, and decisions or agree- 
ments. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actual use, utilization, climate and cole browsetransects. To 
be evaluated during allotment evaluations. 

- Census data from ODFW yearly. 



Objective and Rationale 

WL 4: Maintain good quality wetland, playa and meadow habitat where it currently exists (see Table 2.14 and Map WL-2). 

Rationale: A major goal of Fish and Wildlife 2000 is to perpetuate a diversity of waterfowl for the Nation by managing wetlands for 
this resource. The habitats are also of key importance for many species other than waterfowl and a healthy diversity of these species 
is dependent upon good quality wetlands. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 4.1: Maintain the project developments at Bigfoot Reser- 
voirs, Rye Grass, Lake-on-the-Trail, North Stinkingwater Pond, 
South Stinkingwater Pond, Dry Lake, Seiloff Dike and all spring 
developments. Allow livestock grazing in these areas only to 
remove matted vegetation which is inhibiting waterfowl nesting. 

Geographic Reference: See above. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, V 1 .2, 
V1.3, WL7.8, WL7.14, AH 1.5, BD 1.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Make all fenced wetland areas pastures within particular 
allotments so that licensing of use or nonuse takes place on 
an annual basis. 

2. Perform needed fence maintenance identified during use 
supervision visits. 

3. AWP funding of maintenance needs. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Continue wetland photo trend monitoring annually. 

- Check spring overflow enclosure fences at least every 5 
years for maintenance needs. 



2-69 



Objective and Rationale 

WL 5: Improve component deficient wetland habitat to good condition and provide for wetland and meadow habitat expansion, by 
the year 1 997 (see Table 2.14). 

Rationale: A major goal of Fish and Wildlife 2000 is to perpetuate a diversity of waterfowl for the Nation by managing wetlands for 
this resource. The habitats are also of key importance for many species other than waterfowl and a healthy diversity of these species 
is dependent upon good quality wetlands. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 5.1 : Provide good quality nest cover and late season brood 
water atthe locations listed on Appendix 1 , Table 8 as proposed 
in the Burns District Wetlands HMP. 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1 , Table 8. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, V 1 .1 , 
V 1.3, SSS 2.1, WL 5.3, WL 7.15, BD 1.1, BD1.3. 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , WL 1 .5, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Project survey and design. 

2. NEPA documentation; AWP funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robel pole 
readings and brood counts on an annual basis. 



WL 5.2: Determine and implement needed actions on playa 
lakebeds to provide good quality seasonal and permanent 
(where feasible) wetland habitat. 

Geographic Reference: Sheep Lake, Nordell Lake, Dry Lake, 
Rimrock Lake, Foster Lake, Munsey Lake, Silver Lake, Chain 
Lake, Weaver Lake, Palomino Lake and Lake-on-the-Trail. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, V 1 .1 , 
V 1 .4, SSS 2.1 , WL 1 .5, WL 7.1 6, WL 7.25, R 2.1 , ACEC 1 .4, 
BD1.1.BD1.3, BD3.4. 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Collect baseline data on these and other playas to deter- 
mine condition and feasibility for improvement. 

2. Design improvement strategies. 

3. NEPA documentation for proposed improvements. 

4. AWP funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years after baseline 
data collection. 

- Monitor results of improvements yearly for the first 5 years, 
then in conjunction with allotment monitoring and evaluation 
schedules. 




2-70 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 5.3: Place high emphasis on land exchanges and acquisi- 
tions which increase the acreage or manageability of wetlands 
in public ownership. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide (see Table 2.14), especially 
Silvies Valley and Silver Lake Pond. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: V 1 .3, SSS2.7, WL5.1 , WL7.15, R2.15, LR1.1, 
LR1.3, LR1.5, BD1.4. 

Constrained By: V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 




Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific processing requirements for exchanges, purchases, 
and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM 
Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. 
Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: 

- Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure 
proposals with affected landowners or proponents. 

- Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers 
RMP and other planning documents. 

- Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, 
botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to 
determine if the proposal is in the public interest. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and 
solicit public review. 

- Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance 
actions and issuing patents and deeds. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres 
transferred within the various land tenure zones. 

- Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robel pole 
readings and brood counts on an annual basis. 



Objective and Rationale 



WL 6: Ensure that 75 percent or more of riparian habitat listed in Table 2.1 5 is in good or better habitat condition (proper functioning 
condition) by the year 1 997. 

Rationale: FLPMA directs that the public lands be managed in a mannerthat will provide food and habitat forfish and wildlife. Riparian 
areas provide food and other habitat requirements for more wildlife species than any other habitat type in the RA. This objective is 
consistent with the overall BLM objective for riparian areas and reflects the current Oregon-Washington riparian policy. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 6.1 : Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in 
Appendix 1, Table 3, which have poor water quality related to 
BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian 
conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, 
implement grazing systems on I and M category allotments 
which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on 
woody riparian shrubs, and no more than 50 percent utilization 
on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are 
designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 
1 , Table 4). 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1 , Table 3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no 
data. 

2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 

3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Trend photos. 

- Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 
years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. 



Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .1 , V 1 .2, 
SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 7.5, WL 7.17, AH 1 .2, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .2, 
BD1.3, BD1.5. 



Constrained By: WL1.5. 



2-71 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 6.2: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in 
Appendix 1, Table 5, which allow no more than 10 percent 
livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 
50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or 
systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- 
ery or maintenance of good condition (see Appendix 1 , Table 
4). 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1 , Table 5. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, WHB 1 .2, V 
1.1,V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS2.4,SSS3.1,WL7.5,WL7.18,AH1.3, 
R2.12, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no 
data. 

2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 

3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Trend photos. 

- Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 
years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. 



Constrained By:WL1.5. 



WL 6.3: Develop grazing systems designed to improve riparian 
habitat along streams listed in Appendix 1 , Table 6 on a case- 
by-case basis as funding becomes available. 

Geographic Reference: Appendix 1 , Table 6. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .6, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, WHB 1 .2, V 
1 .1 , V 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 7.5, WL 7.1 9, AH 1 .4, BD 1 .1 , 
BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory and condition classification on stream with no 
data. 

2. NEPA documentation and annual work plan funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Utilization monitoring every fifth year until specific system is 
designed and implemented. 



Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



WL 6.4: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines 
for stream protection in logging operations (see Appendix 1, 
Tables 1 and 2, General Best Forest Management Practices 
and Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protec- 
tion, respectively) while retaining woody vegetation strips along 
each side of all perennial streams and all other stream courses, 
springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can signifi- 
cantly affect waterquality. Buffer strips would be established as 
follows: 



Slope 

0-40 percent 
40-50 percent 
50-60 percent 
60-70 percent 



Width of Buffer 
on Each Bank 

100 ft. 
125 ft. 
145 ft. 
165 ft. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Will be implemented during timber sale design, documented 
in the timber sale EA, reflected in the timber sale contract 
and enforced during contract administration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- On-the-ground timber sale unit boundary inspection priorto 
the actual sale. 

- Contract administration during timber harvest. 



Geographic Reference: Commercial timberlands. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1.2, F 1.3, WL 7.20, AH 1.6. 



2-72 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 6.5: Place high emphasis on land exchanges and acquisi- 
tions which increase the acreage or manageability of riparian in 
public ownership. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide (see Table 2.15). 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: SSS 2.1, SSS 2.7, Ft 2.13, R 2.15, LR 1.1, LR 
1.3, LR 1.5, BD1.3, BD1.4. 

Constrained By: V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific processing requirements for exchanges, purchases, 
and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM 
Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. 
Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: 

- Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure 
proposals with affected landowners or proponents. 

- Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers 
RMP and other planning documents. 

- Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, 
botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. 

- Prepare NEPAdocumentation, appraisal and title reports to 
determine if the proposal is in the public interest. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and 
solicit public review. 

- Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance 
actions and issuing patents and deeds. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres 
transferred within the various land tenure zones. 



WL 6.6: Ensure that all newly constructed permanent roads on 
BLM-administered lands meet Oregon General Best Forest 
Practices standards presented in Appendix 1, Table 1 and 
Table 2. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .9, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.2, F 1 .2, SSS 3.1 , AH 1 .6, 
BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Survey and design specifications for roads will be consistent 
with BLM standards and will be analyzed during NEPA 
documentation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Construction activities will be monitored as they occur. 



WL 6.7: Inventory stream segments listed in Appendix 1 , Table 
7, and determine management actions required to meet the 
riparian objective. 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1 , Table 7. 

Decision Class: 2 

SupportedBy:WQ1.6,GM1.1,GM1.3,V1.1,SSS2.1,AH1.4, 
BD1.1.BD1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Fund through the AWP process. 

2. Collect and compile data. 

3. Develop grazing systems as needed using the AMP and 
allotment evaluation process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Utilization monitoring annually to every fifth year until spe- 
cific system is implemented and operational. 



2-73 



Objective and Rationale 

WL 7: Restore, maintain or enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distributions which 
prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife species habitat within the RA. 

Rationale: FLPMA mandates that public lands be managed in a mannerthat will protect the quality of the ecological resources among 
others. The BLM is committed to maintaining and enhancing the wildlife habitat of the RA in terms of diversity and abundance of 
habitat. Such diversity is necessary to sustain the variety of uses received by land BLM manages. 



Allocation/Management Action 

WL 7.1: Prohibit destruction of raptor nests or nest sites and 
provide for perch sites within one-eighth mile of nest sites 
through BLM authorized actions. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .5, F 1 .6, SSS 1.1, SSS 1 .2, SSS 2.3, WL 7.4, 
WL7.6, BD2.1.BD2.2. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Continue to update and maintain the RA raptor database as 
new data become available. 

2. Cross reference all proposed actions in EA with the data- 
base to determine nest occurrence. 

3. Perform on-the-ground inspections of potential locations 
where actions could be detrimental to nests or nest sites. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Check current nest site locations at 5 to 1 year intervals to 
determine activity and update database on a continuing 
basis. 



WL7.2: Require that all power poles and transformers erected 
on public lands be installed using design features which will 
prevent electrocution of raptors. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 3 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Initiate under terms and conditions of applicable right-of- 
way grants. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect new powerlines and poles, between 6 months and 
2 years of construction, to determine if any problem poles 
exist and take corrective action where applicable. 



WL 7.3: Prohibit application of pesticides for rodent control on 
public land within 2 miles of active raptor nests. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: SSS 1 .1 , SSS 1 .2, SSS 2.3, WL7.6, BD 2.1 , BD 
2.2. 




Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Review all Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) NEPA documen- 
tation to ensure compliance with the management action. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Through NEPA document review and all PUPs. 



2-74 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 7.4: Identify component deficient raptor habitat and take 
management actions to correct the deficiencies. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:GM 1. 1,V 1.1, SSS 2.3, WL 7.1, WL 7.6, BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Cross reference the raptor database with ESI data to deter- 
mine suitable areas which are not currently used. 

2. Inventory these areas to determine if a habitat deficiency 
exists. 

3. Take appropriate corrective actions. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- After corrective actions have been implemented, monitor 
raptor use of the area for at least 3 consecutive years 
following the action. 



WL 7.5: Adjust overall grazing management practices as 
necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or 
enhance their habitat. (See Table 2. 1 2 for current list of actions 
and allotments which they may affect.) 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .2, V 1 .1 , 
V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , WL 6.1 , WL 7.17, WL 7.1 8, WL 7.1 9, WL 7.27, 
AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, BD 1 .1 BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Consultation with permittees and affected interests. 

2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- 
commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- 
cial status species. 

3. Adjust AMPs and HMPs as needed. 

4. Incorporate special status species management objectives 
into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- 
propriate. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



WL 7.6: Determine habitat deficiencies within 2 miles of nest 
sites for ferruginous hawks and correct identified deficiencies. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5303, 5306, 5309, 
5313,7019,7021. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : GM 1 .1 , V 1 .1 , SSS 2.3, WL6.2, WL 7. 1 , WL7.3, 
BD1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory and evaluation of ferruginous hawk habitat to 
identify habitat deficiencies. 

2. Provide nest platforms in areas identified as nest-site defi- 
cient. 

3. Improve habitat for prey species within 2 miles of nest sites. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic assessments to determine effectiveness of steps 
taken. 

- Assessment of utilization of nest sites. 



WL 7.7: Allow no big sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage 
grouse strutting grounds when determined by a wildlife biolo- 
gist to be detrimental to sage grouse habitat requirements. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: V 1 .1 , SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, WL 6.3, WL 
7.4, BD1.1.BD1.3, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory all sage grouse habitat for strutting grounds. 

2. Ensure that sufficient sagebrush is retained on a case-by- 
case basis via the NEPA process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance monitoring of EA. 



2-75 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 7.8: Fence overflow areas at all spring developments to 
provide meadow habitat. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.3, WL 
1.1, WL4.1.WL 7.14, BD1.1, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop District program for regular inspection and mainte- 
nance of fences which are the responsibility of District to 
maintain. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance - EA. 

- Fence maintenance/inspections. 



WL 7.9: Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of wildlife cover so that 40 
percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable wildlife 
thermal and hiding cover (no less than 1 5 percent of which shall 
be thermal cover). 

Geographic Reference: Commercial Timberlands (see Map F- 

1)- 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 1 , F 1 .4, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, WL 1 .1 , AH 1 .1 1 , 
BD 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Will be implemented on a case-by-case basis during timber 
sale design and EA and contract preparation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Timber sale contract administration and post timber sale 
visual monitoring to ensure that EA and contract specifica- 
tions have been followed. 



WL 7.10: Maintain browse on at least 85 percent of the acreage 
in winter range areas currently supporting browse. 

Geographic Reference: Deer and elk winter ranges. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 0, WQ 1 .1 1 , SM 1 .2, GM 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 
3.1 , WL 1 .3, WL 2.2, WL 7.26, AH 1 . 1 1 , ACEC 1 .5, BD 1 .1 , BD 
1.5, BD3.5. 

Constrained By:WHB1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Actively suppress wildfires in mule deer and elk winter 
ranges and restrict prescribed burns to no greater than 400 
acres per burn site. 

2. NEPA documentation and site examination procedures for 
all vegetation conversion proposals in these areas. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Escaped Fire Analysis, Fire Year Report. 



WL 7.11: Prohibit harvest of woodland products such as fuel 
wood, posts, poles and juniper foliage from the area south of 
U.S. Highway 20, west of Oregon Highway 205 (see Map F-2). 

Geographic Reference: See Map F-2. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: F 2.2, WL 1 .4, BD 1 .1 , BD 3.5, V 1 .1 1 , ACEC 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Issue no woodland products permits for this area. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Compliance checks within this area. 




2-76 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL: 7.1 2: Continue the individual junipertree burning or cutting 
program in units of less than 1 00 acres. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5307, 5308, 
5309, 531 0, 5503, 551 1 , 551 7, 5532, 5535, 5536, 7009, 701 0, 
7030, 7043. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 2.1. 

Constrained By: AQ 1.2, AQ 1.3, V 1.1, SSS 3.1, BD 1.1, BD 
1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Layout, survey, design, AWP, MOUs. 

2. NEPA documentation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor plant responses for 3 years after implementation, 
then every 5 years. 

- Monitoring will be accomplished by photo plots. 



WL7.13: Provide water for wildlife species in areas where that 
habitat component has been specifically identified as deficient. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7010, 7014, 
7015,7024. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WL 2.4. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Install at least 8 guzzlers of 2,000 to 3,000 gallon capacity in 
deer summer range. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect guzzlers on an annual basis to determine use and 
maintenance needs. 



WL 7.1 4: Maintain the project developments at Bigfoot Reser- 
voirs, Rye Grass, Lake-on-the-Trail, North Stinkingwater Pond, 
South Stinkingwater Pond, Dry Lake, Seiioff Dike and all spring 
developments. Allow livestock grazing in these areas only to 
remove matted vegetation. 

Geographic Reference: See above. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : WQ 1 .8, GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, V 1 .3, WL 4. 1 , WL 7.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Make all fenced wetland areas pastures within particular 
allotments so that licensing of use or nonuse takes place on 
an annual basis. 

2. Perform needed fence maintenance identified during use 
supervision visits. 

3. AWP funding of maintenance needs. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Continue wetland photo trend monitoring annually. 

- Check spring overflow enclosure fences at least every 5 
years for maintenance needs. 



WL 7.15: Provide good quality nest cover and late season 
brood water at the locations listed on Appendix 1 , Table 8 as 
proposed in the Burns District Wetlands HMP. 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1 , Table 8. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, V 1 . 1 , V 1 .3, V 1 .4, SSS 
2.1 , WL 5.1 , WL 5.3, WL 7.25, ACEC 1 .4, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .3, BD 
3.4. 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , WL 1 .5, BD 1 .4, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Project survey and design. 

2. NEPA document preparation; AWP funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor wetland developments with photo plots, robel pole 
readings and brood counts on an annual basis. 



2-77 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 7.16: Determine and implement needed actions on playa 
lakebeds to provide good quality seasonal and permanent 
(where feasible) wetland habitat. 

Geographic Reference: Sheep Lake, Nordell Lake, Dry Lake, 
Rimrock Lake, Foster Lake, Munsey Lake, Silver Lake, Chain 
Lake, Weaver Lake, Palomino Lake and Lake-on-the-Trail (see 
also Map WL-2). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 
2.1, WL 5.2, BD1.1.BD1.3. 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , WL 1 .5, BD 1 .4, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Collect baseline data on these and other playas to deter- 
mine condition and feasibility for improvement. 

2. Design improvement strategies. 

3. EA process for proposed improvements. 

4. AWP funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor playa habitat at least every 5 years after baseline 
data collection. 

- Monitor results of improvements yearly for the first 5 years, 
then in conjunction with allotment monitoring and evaluation 
schedules. 



WL 7.1 7: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in 
Appendix 1, Table 3, which have poor water quality related to 
BLM-administered riparian area conditions. When riparian 
conditions have improved to fair, or at the end of 5 years, 
implement grazing system on I and M category allotments 
which allow no more than 10 percent livestock utilization on 
woody riparian shrubs, and no more than 50 percent utilization 
on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or systems which are 
designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see Appendix 
1 , Table 4). 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory and condition classification on streams with no 
data. 

2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 

3. Enclosure or pasture fence design. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Trend photos. 

- Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for first 5 
years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. 



Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, V 1 .1 , 
V1.2,SSS2.1,SSS3.1,WL6.1,WL7.5,AQ1.2,R2.1,BD1.1, 
BD1.2, BD1.3, BD1.5. 

Constrained By: WL 1 .5. 



WL 7.18: Implement grazing systems on streams listed in 
Appendix 1, Table 5, which allow no more than 10 percent 
livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and no more than 
50 percent utilization on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or 
systems which are designed to promote speedy riparian recov- 
ery or maintenance of good condition (see Appendix 1 , Table 
4). 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1 , Table 5. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .5, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, WHB 1 .2, V 
1 .1 , V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, SSS 3.1 , WL 6.2, WL 7.5, AH 1 .3, 
R 2.12, BD 1.1, BD1.2, BD1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no 
data. 

2. NEPA documentation and AWP funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Trend photos. 

- Utilization monitoring where applicable. Yearly for the first 
five years after implementation, then every 3 to 5 years. 



Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



2-78 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL7.19: Develop grazing systems designed to improve ripar- 
ian habitat along streams listed in Appendix 1, Table 6 on a 
case-by-case basis as funding becomes available. 

Geographic Reference: Appendix 1, Table 6. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .6, SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .1 , 
V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 6.3, WL 7.5, AH 1 .4, BD 1 .1 , BD 
1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 

Constrained By:WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Inventory and condition classification on streams with no 
data. 

2. EA preparation and annual work plan funding. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Trend photos. 

- Utilization monitoring where applicble, every 3 to 5 years 
after implementation. 



WL 7.20: Allow commercial timber harvest meeting guidelines 
for stream protection in logging operations (see Appendix 1, 
Tables 1 and 2), while retaining woody vegetation strips along 
each side of all perennial streams and all other stream courses, 
springs, seeps and associated meadows, which can signifi- 
cantly affect water quality. Buffer strips would be established as 
follows: 



Slope 


Width of Buffer 




On Each Bank 


0-40 percent 


100 ft. 


40-50 percent 


125 ft. 


50-60 percent 


145 ft. 


60-70 percent 


165 ft. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Will be implemented during timber sale design, documented 
in the timber sale EA, reflected in the timber sale contract 
and enforced during contract administration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- On-the-ground timber sale unit boundary inspection prior to 
the actual sale. 

- Contract administration during timber harvest. 



Geographic Reference: Commercial timberlands. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .2, SM 1 .1 , F 1 .3, V 1 .1 , WL 6.4, AH 1 .6, 
ACEC 1 .5, LR 2.3, BD 1 .1 , BD 3.5. 



WL 7.21: Manage 780 acres in four major areas for mainte- 
nance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine old 
growth and the wildlife species dependent upon old growth 
characteristics. 

Geographic Reference: Allotments No. 5503, 5511, 7010, 
7030, 7051 (see Maps F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .7, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, V 1 .5, WL7.26, R 2.1 , R 2.12, 
BD 1 .1 , BD 3.5, BD 3.8, ACEC 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Develop management prescriptions with wildlife habitat 
objectives included. 

2. Design and implement management actions for promotion 
of areas to old growth. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- To be developed in the old growth management plan. 



2-79 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 7.22: Retain designation and approved management of 
the: 



South Narrows ACEC 
Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 
Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 



1 60 acres 

16,656 acres 

640 acres 



Geographic Reference: See Maps ACEC-2, ACEC-3, ACEC- 

4. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1.4, V 1.1, V 1.4, SSS 3.1, R1.1, R2.1, R 
2.2, ACEC 1 . 1 , VRM 1 .2, LR 1 . 1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .3, 
BD1.5, BD3.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Revise existing ACEC plans as necessary. 
Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the existing plans. 



WL 7.23: Designate an additional 400 acres as part of the 
Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC. 

Geographic Reference: See Map ACEC-3. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1.4, R 1.1, R2.1, R 2.16, ACEC 1.2, VRM 
1 .2, EM 3.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, LR 5.1 , BD 3.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Revise Diamond Craters Management Plan to reflect clo- 
sure to grazing except for limited 1 day trailing permits. 

2. Make other revisions if necessary. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the Diamond Craters Management Plan. 

- Compliance monitoring of livestock trailing permits. 



WL 7.24: Designate an additional 1,280 acres as part of the 
Silver Creek RNA/ACEC following the acquisition of a 640-acre 
private inholding (see Appendix 1 , Table 1 5, Silver Creek RNA/ 
ACEC Addition). 

Geographic Reference: 7010 (see Map ACEC-4). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, SSS 2., SSS 3.1 , R 2.1 , R 
2.16, ACEC 1.3, VRM 1.2, LR 1.1, LR 1.5, LR2.3, BD 1.1, BD 
1.3, BD1.5.BD3.3. 

Constrained By: WL 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Acquire 640 acres private inholding through land exchange. 

2. Revise/update existing RNA/ACEC management plan within 
2 years of establishment to reflect constraints in Appendix 1 , 
Table 1 6. 

3. Prepare NEPA documentation and construct fence addition 
within 2 years of establishment. 

4. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from graz- 
ing allotment base and update AMP to reflect this change 
(43 CFR). 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in management plan. 

- Fence maintenance inspection prior to livestock turn out. 



2-80 



—■——-"-« ■IIMIHMliamMBMPB^BptFT' ' ■ 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 7.25: Designate 2,690 acres as Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 
(see Appendix 1, Table 15, Foster Flat RNA/ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: 7002 (see Map ACEC-5). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, SSS 3.1 , WL5.2, WL 7.15, 
R 2.1 , R 2.1 6, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, VRM 1 .2, LR 1 .1 , LR 2.3, 
BD1.1.BD1.5, BD3.4, BD3.5. 

Constrained By:WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints 
in Appendix 1, Table 16 and to address specific manage- 
ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval 
of RMP. 

2. Prepare NEPA documentation and fence RNA within 2 
years of approval of RMP. 

3. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- 
tion and maintenance of fences which are the District's 
responsibility to maintain. 

4. Coordinate with affected permittees. 

5. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from allot- 
ment base and update AMP to reflect this change. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Fence maintenance inspection on a quarterly basis, except 
during grazing season, May through August, when it will be 
done monthly. 

- Establish baseline monitoring, including periodic on-the- 
ground assessments, general photo plots, and a species list 
within 3 years of approval of RMP. 



WL 7.26: Designate 2,084 acres as Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC 
(See Appendix 1, Table 15, Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: 701 1 (see Map ACEC-4). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By : F 1 .7, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, V 1 .5, WL 7.21 , R 2.1 , R 2.1 6, 
ACEC 1 .5, VRM 1 .2, LR 1 . 1 , LR 2.3, BD 1 .1 , BD 3.5, BD 3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints 
in Appendix 1, Table 16 and to address specific manage- 
ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval 
of RMP. 

2. Coordinate with USDA-FS in plan preparation and monitor- 
ing establishment. 

3. Coordinate with affected permittees. 

4. Incorporate management actions and constraints from Table 
2.10 for ponderosa pine old growth areas into the RNA/ 
ACEC plan. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Establish baseline monitoring within 3 years of approval of 
RMP to involve periodic systematic on-the-g round assess- 
ments. 



WL 7.27: Implement management practices to resolve con- 
flicts and concerns and meet multiple-use objectives identified 
in Appendix 1 , Table 9, within 5 years of approval of the plan on 
57 I category allotments and within 1 years of approval of the 
plan on 53 M category allotments (see Appendix 1 , Table 1 0for 
allotment categorization). 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .1 , WHB 1 .3, V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , WL 
1.2, WL2.1, WL7.9, R2.12, BD 1.2, BD 1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop, modify or revise AMPs or CRMPs which identify 
allotment specific multiple-use management objectives and 
grazing systems. 

2. Evaluate monitoring data to identify the need for adjust- 
ments in management practices and/or adjustments in level 
of grazing use which may be necessary to meet manage- 
ment objectives. 

3. NEPA documentation or decisions/agreements 

may be required to implement changes in grazing systems or 
level of grazing use. 

4. CCC with permittees, affected interests, ODFW, USDA-FS, 
USFWS. 

Specific manual guidance for implementing this management 
action are located in Table 2.5. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Range monitoring and evaluation will be done in accordance 
with Oregon Monitoring Handbook and District Monitoring 
Plan. See Appendix 1 , Table 1 1 . 



2-81 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



WL 7.28: Exclude grazing from approximately 26,400 acres 
except where grazing livestock will benefit waterfowl or shore- 
bird habitat or other wildlife values. See Map RM-2. These are: 

Hatt Butte 80 ac. 1 

Windy Point 520 ac. 

Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 640 ac. 

Diamond Craters ON A/ACEC 17,136 ac. 

Devine Canyon 480 ac. 

South Narrows ACEC 1 60 ac. 

Chickahominy Recreation Site 400 ac. 

Radar Hill ORV Area 240 ac. 

Hines Field 455 ac. 

Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Extn. 1 ,280 ac. 2 

Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 2,690 ac. 3 

Ryegrass Spring 320 ac. 

Willow Reservoir 7 ac. 

State Reservoir 6 ac. 

Twin Springs Reservoir 1 8 ac. 

Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 5 ac. 

Stinkingwater Pond No. 2 5 ac. 

Big Foot Reservoir 35 ac. 

Seiloff Dikes 50 ac. 

Lake-on-the-Trail 320 ac. 

Dry Lake 780 ac. 

Silver Creek Exclosure 1 00 ac. 

Rough Creek Exclosure 450 ac. 

Paul Creek Exclosure 60 ac. 

Cottonwood Creek Exclosure 90 ac. 

Greenspot Reservoir 5 ac. 4 

Charlie Smith Butte Reservoir 15 ac. " 

Silver Lake Pond 60 ac. 4 

Total 26,407 ac. 

'This exclusion includes only the top of Hatt Butte. 

'Excluded upon designation as an RNA/ACEC and completion of land exchange to acquire 
a640-acre inholding. 

'Excluded upon designation as an RNA/ACEC and completion of a perimeter fence. 

^Excluded upon completion of exclosure fence. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: SM 1 .1 , GM 1 .4, V 1 .2, V 1 .4, SSS 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , 
SSS 2.4, AH 1 .5, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, BD 1 .2, BD 
1 .3, BD 2.3, BD 3.1 , BD 3.3, BD 3.4. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Grazing authorizations affected by exclusions may be 
cancelled, modified or suspended according to regulations and 
manual procedures. 

2. Grazing authorizations may be issued to qualified 
applicants in accordance with regulations and manual proce- 
dures where site examinations determine that a grazing treat- 
ment would be beneficial. 

3. CCC with permittees. 

Monitoring Needs: 

Compliance checks and use supervision will be nec- 
essary to prevent unauthorized use. 



2-82 



Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations 



Allotment 
Number 



Allotment 
Name 



Total Public Land Needs 1 
Antelope Deer Elk 

(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) 



Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage 2 
Antelope Deer Elk Wildlife 

(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) Total 



5001 


Harney-Crane 




5002 


Catterson Sec. 13 




5003 


Malheur Slough 




5005 


Withers FFR 




5101 


Devine Ridge 


9 


5102 


Prather Creek 


9 


5103 


Lime Kiln/Sec. 30 


9 


5104 


Soldier Creek 


9 


5105 


Camp Harney • 


15 


5106 


Cow Creek 


10 


5107 


Manning Field 




5109 


Purdy FFR 




5110 


Reed FFR 




5111 


Temple FFR 




5112 


Smith FFR 




5113 


Rattlesnake FFR 




5201 


Coleman Creek 


9 


5202 


Hunter 


9 


5203 


Catterson 


9 


5204 


S locum 


9 


5205 


Venator 


9 


5206 


Stockade FFR 




5207 


Coyote Creek 


9 


5208 


Emmerson 




5209 


Crane 


25 


5211 


Beckley Home 


25 


5212 


Mahon Ranch 


25 


5213 


Beaver Creek 


25 


5214 


Hamilton 


25 


5215 


Davies 


25 


5216 


Quier FFR 




5217 


Thompson FFR 




5218 


Bennett FFR 




5219 


Hamilton FFR 




5301 


Princeton 


44 


5302 


Big Bird 


44 


5303 


Dry Lake 


44 


5305 


Crow's Nest 


44 


5306 


Rocky Ford 


44 


5307 


Smyth Creek 


48 


5308 


Kiger 


20 


5309 


Happy Valley 


44 


5310 


Riddle Mountain 


56 


5311 


Virginia Valley FFR 


12 


5313 


Burnt Flat 


152 


5316 


Virginia Valley 


84 


5317 


Hart Butte 




5318 


Black Butte 




5319 


Driveway 




5321 


Hamilton Ind. 




5322 


Briggs FFR 




5323 


Clemens' FFR 




5324 


Riddle FFR 




5325 


Marshall Diamond FFR 




5326 


Jenkins' N. Lake FFR 




5327 


Jenkins' B. FFR 




5328 


Fisher FFR 




5329 


Riddle-Coyote 




5330 


Deep Creek 





236 
41 
18 
78 

392 
45 
12 



149 
52 

16 
16 
16 

27 
89 
27 
16 
16 
50 
11 
11 



22 



11 

73 
17 



17 

17 
17 
17 



33 




14 




207 




7 




7 




340 


146 


143 


50 


139 


123 


981 


263 


462 


90 


113 





1 
1 
1 

1 

2 
1 



3 
2 
3 
3 

3 
3 



5 
4 
5 

4 
4 
5 
2 
4 
6 
1 
15 
8 



43 

8 
4 
15 
71 
8 
2 



9 
10 
3 
3 
3 

5 
17 
5 
3 
3 
9 
2 
2 



6 
3 

37 

2 

1 

61 

26 

25 

177 

83 
20 























16 


60 




9 




5 


8 


24 


52 


125 


12 


21 





2 



























12 


22 


12 


23 


12 


16 


12 


16 




4 









6 




17 




3 




5 




6 




12 




5 




5 
























11 




7 




42 




6 




5 


104 


170 


36 


64 


88 


117 


188 


371 




1 


64 


162 




28 




































































2-83 



Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued) 






Total Public Land Needs 1 


Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage 2 


Allotment 


Allotment 


Antelope 


Deer 


Elk 


Antelope 


Deer 


Elk 


Wildlife 


Number 


Name 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


Total 


5501 


East Cow Creek 


16 


52 


17 


2 


10 


12 


24 


5502 


Rock Creek 


12 


41 




1 


8 




9 


5503 


Pine Creek 


72 


466 


95 


7 


8-1 


68 


159 


5504 


State Field 




5 






1 




1 


5505 


Little Muddy Creek 




490 


56 




88 


40 


128 


5506 


Muddy Creek 




210 


28 




38 


20 


58 


5507 


Wolf Creek 


32 


112 


17 


3 


20 


12 


35 


5508 


Baker-Knowles 




39 


11 




7 


8 


15 


5509 


Williams' Dripp Spr. 




40 


11 




7 


8 


15 


5510 


Jones Dripp Spring 




40 


11 




7 


8 


15 


5511 


Moffet Table 


30 


1,120 


241 


3 


202 


172 


377 


5512 


Clark's River 


10 


92 




1 


18 




19 


5513 


Shelley 


10 


92 


6 


1 


15 


4 


20 


5514 


Coal Mine Creek 


10 


92 




1 


19 




20 


5515 


Mule Creek 


10 


116 


39 


2 


42 


28 


72 


5516 


Birch Creek 




182 


28 




31 


20 


51 


5517 


Otis Mountain 




46 


101 




100 


72 


172 


5518 


Newell Field 




14 






3 




3 


5519 


Big Upson Field 

















5520 


Little Upson 

















5521 


Rocky Basin 




42 


17 




8 


12 


20 


5522 


Cottonwood Creek 




231 


50 




42 


36 


78 


5523 


Tub Springs/Hart 

















5524 


Dawson Butte 


60 






6 






6 


5525 


Mill Gulch 

















5526 


Chalk Hills 




301 






54 




54 


5527 


Riverside FFR 




29 






6 




6 


5528 


Cooler 


10 


63 




1 


11 




12 


5529 


House Butte 


60 


595 




6 


107 




113 


5530 


River 




187 






33 




33 


5531 


Stinkingwater 


132 


126 


39 


15 


23 


28 


66 


5532 


Mountain 


96 


921 


493 


10 


166 


352 


528 


5533 


Buchanan 


24 


12 




2 


2 




4 


5534 


Mahon Creek 




125 


17 




22 


12 


34 


5535 


Miller Canyon 




280 


17 




51 


12 


63 


5536 


Alder Creek 


132 


1,246 


274 


13 


225 


196 


434 


5537 


Buck Mountain 


200 


139 


230 


20 


25 


164 


209 


5538 


Riverside 


108 


75 




11 


27 




38 


5539 


W & C Blaylock FFR 




72 






25 




26 


5540 


Luce Field 

















5541 


Home Ranch Exclosure 


28 






3 






3 


5542 


Marshall FFR 

















5543 


Devine Flat Field 

















5544 


Brooks Field 


10 


115 




1 


42 




43 


5545 


Sunshine Field 

















5546 


Druitt Field & FFR 


10 


92 




1 


15 




16 


5547 


Lake Field 

















5548 


Griffin FFR 

















5549 


Howard's FFR 

















5550 


Jordan's FFR 

















5551 


Lillard's FFR 

















5552 


Miller FFR A 

















5553 


Miller FFR B 

















5554 


J.Fran. Miller FFR 

















5555 


Ott FFR 

















5556 


Pine Creek FFR 

















5557 


J &G Kane FFR 

















5558 


J&GFFR 

















5559 


Sword's FFR 


















2-84 



j^^m^BuvoBaBatE;. . - 



Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued) 







Total Public Land Needs 1 


Proposed Allocations of 


Competitive Forage 2 


Allotment 


Allotment 


Antelope 


Deer 


Elk 


Antelope 


Deer 


Elk 


Wildlife 


Number 


Name 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


(AUMs) 


Total 


5560 


Vicker's FFR 

















5561 


Wilber FFR 

















5562 


Williams' FFR 

















5563 


Arnold's FFR 

















5564 


Wheeler Basin 




80 






14 




14 


5565 


Upton Mountain 




35 






6 




6 


5566 


Texaco Basin 


100 






9 






9 


5567 


MilerFFR 

















5568 


Byron's FFR 

















5569 


Floyd's FFR 

















5570 


River FFR 

















5571 


Lamb Ranch 

















5572 


Krueger FFR 



















Subtotal 


2,073 


12,279 


2,661 


212 


2,271 


1,900 


4,383 


7001 


East Warm Springs 


988 


442 




99 


80 




179 


7002 


West Warm Springs 


380 


644 




38 


116 




154 


7003 


East Wagontire 


72 


477 




7 


86 




93 


7004 


West Wagontire 


84 


420 




9 


73 




82 


7005 


Glass Butte 


56 


64 




5 


12 




17 


7006 


Rim rock Lake 


44 


139 




4 


25 




29 


7007 


Hat Butte 


48 


153 




5 


27 




32 


7008 


Sheep Lake - Shields 


36 


225 


29 





46 


21 


67 


7009 


Dry Lake 


80 


411 


35 


8 


74 


25 


107 


7010 


Claw Creek 


30 


886 


134 


3 


160 


96 


259 


7011 


Upper Valley 


30 


14 


4 


3 


3 


3 


9 


7012 


Packsaddle 


22 


56 


31 


3 


10 


22 


35 


7013 


Zoglmann 




56 


17 




10 


12 


22 


7014 


Badger Spring 




379 


129 




68 


92 


160 


7015 


Second Flat 


104 


249 


49 


11 


45 


35 


91 


7016 


Juniper Ridge 


40 


193 




4 


34 




38 


7017 


Cluster 


8 


26 




1 


5 




6 


7018 


Silver Lake 


20 


24 




2 


5 




7 


7019 


Palomino Butte 


280 


1,465 




28 


264 




292 


7020 


Sand Hollow 


92 


182 




9 


33 




42 


7021 


Weaver Lake 


168 


374 




17 


68 




85 


7022 


Dog Mountain 




146 






27 




27 


7023 


West Sagehen 


68 


351 


45 


7 


64 


32 


103 


7024 


East Sagehen 


40 


582 


31 


4 


105 


22 


131 


7025 


Gouldin 




243 






43 




43 


7026 


Horton Mill 


8 


84 




1 


15 




16 


7027 


Emigrant Creek 




7 






1 




1 


7028 


Stinger Creek 




7 






1 




1 


7029 


Spring Creek 




70 






13 




13 


7030 


Skull Creek 


80 


1,962 


34 


8 


354 


24 


386 


7031 


Hay Creek 




155 


28 




29 


20 


49 


7032 


Hotchkiss 


20 


17 




2 


3 




5 


7033 


Silvies River 


20 


21 


34 


2 


4 


24 


30 


7034 


Scat Field 


10 


19 


11 


1 


4 


8 


13 


7035 


Silvies Meadows 




58 


11 




10 


8 


18 


7036 


Hayes 




379 






68 




68 


7037 


Coal Pit Springs 




157 






29 




29 


7038 


Curry Gordon 




57 






10 




10 


7039 


Cave Gulch 




168 






30 




30 


7040 


Landing Creek 




243 


45 




43 


32 


75 


7041 


East Silvies 




246 


45 




50 


32 


82 


7042 


Dole Smith 




14 


8 




3 


6 


9 


7043 


Lone Pine 


62 


751 


28 


8 


135 


20 


163 



2-85 



Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued) 



Allotment 


Allotment 


Number 


Name 


7044 


Cowing 


7045 


Whiting 


7046 


Baker Field 


7047 


Peabody 


7048 


Varien Canyon 


7049 


Forks of Poison Creek 


7050 


Clemens 


7051 


Sawtooth MNF 


7052 


Lone Pine Fields 


7053 


Silvies Canyon 


7054 


Cricket Creek 


7055 


Hoover Fields 


7056 


Double O 


7057 


Wright's Point 


7058 


Narrows 


7059 


Carp 


7060 


Castle 


7080 


Devine Canyon 


7081 


Harney Basin 


7082 


Hines Field 


7084 


The Odd 320 


7085 


Rainbow Creek 


7087 


Silver Creek Valley 


7088 


Sunset Valley 



Total Public Land Needs 1 
Antelope Deer Elk 

(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) 



Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage 2 
Antelope Deer Elk Wildlife 

(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) Total 



12 



7 


6 


14 


1 


7 


1 


7 


3 


29 


7 


173 


18 


22 




5 




46 




35 





24 

5 

14 

7 

26 



10 



1 


4 


5 


3 


1 


4 


1 


1 


2 


1 


2 


4 


6 


4 


10 


31 


13 


44 


4 




4 



1 




1 


10 




10 


6 




6 







5 




5 


5 




5 


1 




1 


3 


7 


10 



1 




1 




5 




6 



Subtotal 



2,910 



13,067 



794 



291 



2,364 



566 



3,220 



4040 


Poison Creek 


8 


21 


22 


1 


4 


16 


21 


4096 


Hi Desert 


8 


14 


7 


1 


3 


4 


8 


4097 


Trout Creek 


32 


105 


90 


3 


19 


64 


86 


4098 


East Creek-Pine Hill 


8 


35 


34 


1 


6 


24 


31 


4126 


Abrahams Draw 























4138 


White 


1 


7 


7 


1 


1 


4 


6 


4143 


Silvies 


24 


210 


56 


2 


38 


40 


80 




Subtotal 


81 


392 


216 


9 


71 


152 


232 




Total 


5,064 


25,738 


3,671 


512 


4,706 


2,618 


7,835 



'Total public land forage needs for big game species have been developed in cooperation with ODFW. Thefigures presented have been computed on the basis of the amount of forage (in pounds, 
air dried) needed to sustain a big game animal for one month times the number of months the big game animal typically spends on public land within the respective allotments times the target 
number of animals of each species prorated to each allotment. The resulting big game forage need in pounds is then converted to AUMs by dividing by 800 (pounds, air dried per standard AUM). 

? The diets of big game species vary from those of livestock (cattle in this case). The port ions of the respectivedietsthat overlap between big game species and livestock is referred to as competitive 
forage. Allocations of forage to big game in this RMP/EIS are of competitive forage only. The remainder of the big game forage needs are accommodated by "unallocated" forage which is not 
a normal component of livestock diets. Therefore, the competitive allocations would provide the forage needed for benchmark numbers of big game. 



2-86 



Table 2.14. Wetland Habitat Condition 



Wetland Area 

Spring/Reservoir Name 

Ryegrass Spring 
Willow Reservoir 

State Reservoir 
Greenspot Reservoir 

Twin Springs Reservoir 

Dry Lake 

Stinkingwater Pond #1 

Stinkingwater Pond #2 
Bigfoot Reservoir 
Seiloff Dikes 

Lake-on-the-Trail 

Charlie Smith Butte 
Reservoir 

Warm Springs Reservoir 

Moon Reservoir 

Chickahominy Reservoir 
Silver Lake Pond 



Playa Name 

Foster Lake 
Lamb Lake 
Sheep Lake 
Cecil Lake 
Nordel Lake 
Dry Lake 

West Chain Lake 
East Chain Lake 
Chain Lake 
Munsey Lake 
Weaver Lake 
Rim rock Lake 
Squaw Lake 
Burnt Flat 
Comegys Lake 
Mary's Lake 



Allotment 



Dry Lake 
Skull Creek 

Skull Creek 
Skull Creek 

Alder Creek 

Dry Lake 

House Butte 

House Butte 

East Warm Springs 

West Warm Springs 

West Warm Springs 
Si I vies 



BLM 
Acres 1 



45 

7 

6 
5 

18 

780 

5 

5 

35 

50 

320 

15 



Condition Trend 



Poor 
Poor 

Fair 
Poor 

Poor 

Fair 

Good 

Good 
Good 
Good 

Poor 
Fair 



Upward 
Upward 

Upward 
Downward 

Upward 

Upward 

Static 

Static 
Static 
Static 

Upward 
Static 



Allotment 
Number 



7009 
7030 



7030 
7030 

5536 

5303 

5529 

5529 

7001 
7002 

7002 
4143 



Texaco Basin 

River 

Riverside 


1,840 

800 

350 


Poor 
Poor 
Poor 


Static 
Static 
Static 


5566 
5530 
5538 


Silver Lake 


100 


Poor-Fair 


Static 


7018 


Silver Creek Valley 
Sunset Valley 


50 
60 


Poor 
Fair 


Static 
Static 


7078 
7088 



East Warm Spring 


2700 


? 


? 


7001 


Hat Butte 


60 


? 


? 


7007 


Sheep Lake-Shields 


130 


? 


? 


7008 


Sheep Lake-Shields 


150 


? 


? 


7008 


Sheep Lake-Shields 


110 


? 


? 


7008 


Dry Lake 


130 


? 


? 


7009 


Palomino Buttes 


100 


7 


? 


7019 


Weaver Lakes 


250 


? 


9 


7021 


Palomino Buttes 


170 


? 


? 


7019 


East Warm Springs 


400 


? 


? 


7001 


Weaver Lake 


300 


? 


? 


7021 


Rimrock Lake 


95 


? 


? 


7006 


Burnt Flat 


80 


9 


? 


5213 


Burnt Flat 


450 


? 


? 


5313 


Burnt Flat 


30 


? 


? 


5313 


Burnt Flat 


100 


? 


? 


5313 



Comments 



Livestock excluded 1987; brood pond construction planned. 

The area is being excluded in summer of 1988; will take many years to 

recover. 

Excluded in 1986. 

Heavy sediment from surrounding area. Needs exclusion to establish a 

filtering strip. 

Excluded 1988; filter strip establishment should be quick; some waterfowl 

use. 

Fenced into its own pasture 1980, grazed once 80-87, dry 88, fair nest 

cover; heavy waterfowl migration use. 

Excluded 1 981 ; good nesting cover and brood water, heavy migration use 

in fall. 

Same as No. 1 and sandhill cranes present at nesting time. 

Excluded 1978; good nesting cover and brood water, fair migration use. 

Built in 1976 and excluded in 1981 , good nesting cover, brood water and 

migration use. 

Excluded 1986, playa, good waterfowl and shorebird habitat in most years, 

dry some years. 

BLM ownership of Dam and 1/2 of reservoir, good brood water and 
migration use. Fair nest cover. 
Large fluctuations make vegetation establishment 
very difficult. Winter graze in River Allotment. 

Deferred in Texaco Basin for heavy migration use by waterfowl, recreation 
use, heavy fishing use in good water years, 1977 and 1988. 
Large fluctuations; portions accessible to livestock; heavy use by migrat- 
ing waterfowl and shorebirds. 
Heavy recreation use; mostly fishing. 

Good vegetative growth each year, grazed-no residual cover for next 
season nesting. Heavy migration use. 



Nominated as RNA. Important for sage grouse and antelope, playa. 

Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. 

Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. 

Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. 

Playa, condition and trend unknown, spring waterfowl use. 

Playa, seasonlong livestock use, moderate antelope use, heavy spring 

waterfowl use. 

Playa, heavy spring waterfowl use. 

Playa, heavy spring waterfowl use. 

Playa, proposed for wetland development. 

Heavy sage grouse use late summer. 

Heavy spring waterfowl use. 

Heavy spring migration use by waterfowl. 

Moderate spring waterfowl use. 

Antelope and sage grouse use in summer and fall. 

Moderate waterfowl use spring; sandhill crane nest 1 986. 

Antelope use in summer. 



I\} Acres include surface water acres at capacity or high water mark plus associated vegetation. 



CO 




X 



N A I I 01 N A f 



iU --yftyj |J7"'^ 





OREGON 



Mule Deer Summer Range 



/// Mule Deer Winter Range 



10 MILES 



4£t 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP WL-1 
MULE DEER RANGE 



2-89 




2-90 



^-^ : : 








OREGON 



O f= 



Wetland/Reservoir Habitat 
Major Playas 



\\\^ Elk Winter Range 
Elk Summer Range 



^> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP WL-2 

ELK RANGE and 
WETLAND/PLAYA HABITAT 



2-91 



Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment 


Stream Name 


Allot. 


Miles 


Acres 


Cond. 


Trend 


Allot. 

No. 


Comment 


Devine Creek 


Unallotted 


3.00 


12.0 


Good 


Static 


— 


Excluded from livestock -Highway 
395 impacts. 


Poison Creek 


Lone Pine 


0.25 


1.0 


Poor 


Static 


7043 


Heavy livestock use. 


Silvies River 


Silvies River 
Silvies Meadow 
Silvies Canyon 


1.50 
0.50 
2.25 


17.4 

4.0 

26.2 


Fair 
Fair 
Fair 


Static 
Static 
Static 


7033 
7035 
7053 


Grazing system not beingfollowed. 
Grazing system not beingfollowed. 
Grazing system not beingfollowed. 


Landing Creek 


Silvies Meadow 
East Silvies 
Landing Creek 


0.25 
0.75 
3.00 


5.0 

10.0 

24.0 


Poor 

Fair 

Fair 


Static 
Down 
Down 


7035 
7041 
7040 


Heavily impacted by livestock. 
Grazing system not being followed. 
Grazing system not beingfollowed. 



Hay Creek Hay Creek 2.00 35.0 Fair Up 7031 Need to formalize grazing season. 

Beaver dams. 



Silver Creek Packsaddle 



1.10 7.0 



Good 



Static 



7012 



Claw Creek 


0.45 


32.0 


Poor 


Upward 


7010 


Dry Lake 


2.00 
1.50 


15.2 
17.5 


Good 
Good 


Static 
Down 


7010 
7009 


Upper Valley 


1.10 


7.0 


Good 


Static 


7011 



Claw Creek Upper Valley 0.25 4.0 Poor Down 701 1 

Claw Creek 2.30 12.0 Poor Static 7010 



Wickiup Creek Packsaddle 1.25 18.0 



Mineral Canyon Packsaddle 0.60 1.0 



Dairy Creek Claw Creek 



Rough Creek Claw Creek 



1.20 8.2 



Sawmill Creek Upper Valley 0.75 3.0 



0.25 2.0 



0.75 15.0 



Good 



Poor 



Fair 

Good 
Good 
Poor 



Upward 7012 



Static 



Down 



Static 



Static 



7012 



7010 



7011 



7010 



Upward 7010 



Silver Creek RNA, heavy bedload 
movement from upstream, ex- 
cluded 1986. 

Excluded 1 987, cutbanks, lack of 
willows. 

Narrow cyn., little livestock use. 
Livestock season of use highly 
variable from year to year. 

Cutbanks, sagebrush moving in 
due to lower water table. 

Extreme cutting. 

Upper 2 mi. has little riparian veg- 
etation, high fast runoff. Lower 
portion extreme cutting heavy live- 
stock use. 

Heavily impacted by logging and 
livestockgrazing in past. Excluded 
1978, heavy bedload movement 
from upstream. 

Heavily impacted by logging and 
livestockgrazing in past. Excluded 
1978, heavy bedload movement 
from upstream and currently has 
low potential due to soil loss to 
bedrock. 

Seaso n of livestock use h ig h ly vari- 
able, late summer removal of her- 
baceous riparian vegetation. 

Livestock season of use may be 
problem, cutbanks. 

Excluded 1987. Steep Narrow 
Rocky Canyon, inaccessibleto live- 
stock. 

Excluded 1987. Lacking woody ri- 
parian vegetation some small 
cutbanks. 



2-92 



Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment (continued) 



Stream Name Allot. 



Miles Acres 



Cond. 



Trend 



Allot. 
No. 



Comment 



Nicoll Creek Dry Lake 



0.75 3.0 



Skull Creek 


Skull Creek 


3.50 


23.5 




Hotchkiss 


0.5 


2.0 


Emigrant Creek 


Emigrant Creek 
Hay Creek 
Sawtooth (MNF) 


0.50 
1.00 
0.20 


3.0 
4.0 
1.0 


Yellowjacket 
Creek 


Hay Creek 


0.40 


0.5 


Spring Creek 


Spring Creek 


0.50 


3.0 


Varien Creek 


Varien Canyon 


0.40 


1.0 


Beaver Dam Cr. 


Sawtooth (MNF) 


0.30 


1.0 


Buzzard Creek 


W. Warm Springs 


1.50 


14.0 



W. Warm Springs 0.50 5.0 



Alder Creek Alder Creek 



4.80 15.0 



Bluebucket Cr. Moffet Table 1.85 4.0 

1.05 3.0 



Coleman Creek 


Alder Creek 


4.35 


24.0 






1.35 


4.0 




Coleman Creek 


0.25 


1.0 


Cottonwood Cr. 


Cottonwood Cr 


0.50 


2.0 






1.35 


6.0 


Lee Creek 


Moffet Table 


0.30 


1.0 


M.F. Malheur 


Moffet Table 


2.30 


8.0 


River 









River 



0.80 



Paul Creek 



5.0 



Riddle Mountain 0.60 4.0 
0.30 2.0 



Deep Creek Deep Creek 1.30 6.0 



Good Static 7009 Narrow rough canyon inaccessible 

to livestock. Road impacts. 



Poor 
? 


Static 

? 


7030 
7032 


Lack of woody riparian vegetation, 

cutbanks. 

Grazing system not designed for 

riparian improvement. 


Good 

? 

? 


Static 
? 

? 


7027 
7031 
7051 


FFR 

FFR 


? 


? 


7031 


Condition unknown. 


? 


? 


7029 


FFR 


Good 


Static 


7048 


FFR 


Fair 


Static 


7051 


FFR 


Poor 
Poor 


Static 
Upward 


7002 
7002 


Creek area below fenced spring, 
probably can become perennial 
with meadow improvement. 
Meadow and creek area near 



Poor 

Fair 
Poor 

Poor 

Fair 

Poor 

Fair 
Fair 

Poor 

Fair 

Fair 



Fair 
Poor 

Good 



spring. Metal gully plugs installed 
and area excluded in 1986. 

Static 5536 3 mi. acquired in PXin 1985, traded 

out of 1 .5 miles. 

Static 5511 Areaproposedforexclusion.WSA, 

grazing system maintaining fair. 

Static 5511 Heavy logging, grazing and road 

impacts. 

Static 5536 Heavy livestock use, season of 

use conflict. 
Static 5536 Heavy livestock use, season of 

use conflict. 
Static 5201 Heavy livestock use, season of 

use conflict. 

Upward 5522 Excluded 1981. 
Static 5522 



Static 551 1 

Downward 5511 

Upward 5530 



Upward 531 
Static 531 



Heavy livestock use. 

Heavy livestock use, grazing 
system implementation 
delayed; WSA. 

Fenced grazing system 1981 ; early 
use every other year (1 month). 

Excluded 1981. 
Grazing season conflict. 



Static 5330 Poor livestock access. 

Acquired in 1 984 State exchange. 



2-93 



Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment (continued) 














Allot. 




Stream Name 


Allot. 


Miles 


Acres 


Cond. 


Trend 


No. 


Comment 


Ltl Muddy Cr. 


Little Muddy Cr. 


1.50 


6.0 


? 


? 


5505 


Data needed. 


Mahon Creek 


Mahon Creek 


1.50 


6.0 


? 


? 


5534 


Data needed. 


Warm Sprgs.Cr. 


Mill Gulch 


1.25 


5.0 


? 


? 


5525 


Data needed. (Poor is my guess.) 


Mule Creek 


Mule Creek 


1.25 


8.0 


? 


? 


5515 


Data needed. (Poor?) 


S.Fk. Malheur 


Venator 


1.25 


6.0 


Fair 


Static 


5205 


Good herbaceous, no woody. 


River 


Stockade 


1.35 


4.0 


Fair 


Static 


5206 


Good herbaceous, no woody. 


Rattlesnake Cr. 


Camp Harney 


2.70 


16.0 


Good 


Upward 


5105 


Grazing system implemented 
1981; rest 4 years. Graze each 
spring during April. 


Stinkingwater 


Dawson Butte 


0.75 


5.0 


Fair 


Upward 


5524 


Grazing system implemented 


Creek 














1980; early graze 
improvement in herbaceous. 






0.50 


3.0 


Poor 


Static 


5524 


No system with riparian emphasis. 




Stinkingwater 


1.25 


5.0 


Poor 


Static 


5531 


No system with riparian emphasis. 




Mountain 


1.00 


5.0 


Fair 


Downward 


5532 


Herbaceous okay, woody bad, 
some cutbanks. 






0.50 


3.0 


Poor 


Static 


5532 


Heavy use by livestock. 






0.60 


4.0 


Good 


Static 


5532 


Poor livestock access. 


Smyth Creek 


Smyth Creek 


0.40 


2.0 


Good 


Static 


5307 


Poor livestock access. 






1.50 


5.0 


Fair 


Downward 


5307 


Gap fencing needed. 






2.30 


10.0 


Poor 


Static 


5307 


Heavy livestock use; evidence of 
prior perennial flow - old beaver 
dams. 


Riddle Creek 


Happy Valley 


2.00 


8.0 


Fair 


Static 


5309 


Good herbaceous;fairwoody;look 
at system. 




Riddle Mountain 


1.20 


5.0 


Fair 


Downward 


5310 


System being implemented 1988. 
Early season grazing use. 




Unallotted 


0.50 


2.0 


? 


? 








Riddle Coyote 


3.30 


12.0 


Fair 


Downward 


5329 


Acquired in 1989 




Hamilton Ind. 


2.50 


10.0 


Fair 


Downward 


5327 






Dry Lake 


0.75 


2.0 


? 


? 


5303 





Warm Sprgs Cr. Buck Mountain 3.00 12.0 



Poor 



Mountain 3.00 

Texaco Basin 1.00 

Coffeepot Creek Camp Harney 0.75 

Coyote Creek Riddle Mountain 2.00 

Riddle Coyote 2.20 



Little Pine Cr. 



Pine Creek 



2.00 



Newell Creek Lamb Ranch FFR 1.25 



12.0 

4.0 

3.0 

6.0 
7.0 

8.0 
6.0 



Poor 


Downward 


5532 


Poor 


Static 


5566 


Fair 


Static 


5105 


Fair 
Fair 


Improving 
Static 


5310 
5329 


Fair 


Improving 


5503 



Cow Creek 



Cow Creek 



0.50 2.0 



5537 Headwaters many spring, may be 
opportunity with new fire rehabili- 
tation seeding. 

May have opportunity for early use 
pasture. 
Good livestock access. 

Good herbaceous, fair woody. 

Riparian pasture 1988. 
Acquired in 1989. 

Being grazed early has shown im- 
provement. Need to formalize early 
grazing system. 

5571 Obtained in State exchange 1 984. 
No data. 

5106 No condition data. 



2-94 



Table 2.15. Current Riparian Habitat Condition and Trend by Allotment (continued) 



Stream Name Allot. 



Miles Acres 



Cond. 



Trend 



Allot. 
No. 



Comment 



Mill Creek Camp Harney 2.50 10.0 

Crane Creek Alder Creek 

Silvies River Silvies 

Flat Creek Silvies 

Mountain Creek Silvies 

Poison Creek Silvies 0.25 2.0 

Poison Creek 0.25 3.0 



Dog Creek 


Silvies 


0.75 


3.0 


East Creek 


East Creek- 
Pine Hill 


0.75 


3.0 


Prather Creek 


Prather Creek 
Devine 


1.50 
2.25 


5.0 
7.0 


Swamp Creek 


Kiger 
Smyth Creek 


0.5 
1.5 


2.0 
5.0 



Fair 



Fair 



5105 Condition and trend not known. 
Need inventory. 



5.00 


20.0 


? 


? 


5536 


Condition and trend unknown 
Need inventory data. 


0.20 


1.0 


Fair 


? 


4143 


Small parcel within private. 


0.40 


2.0 


Fair 


? 


4143 




0.50 


5.0 


Fair 


Static 


4143 


Good herbaceous, good opportu 



Static 



Static 



nity for wetland enhancement. 

4143 Good opportunity for wetland en- 
hancement or large fishery reser- 
voir; fair herbaceous. 

4040 Good opportunity for wetland en- 
hancement or large fishery reser- 
voir; fair herbaceous. 

41 43 Good herbaceous in lower portion, 
fair opportunity for wetland en- 
hancement. 

4098 Need inventory data. 



5102 Need inventory data. 
5101 

5308 
5307 



2-95 



Aquatic Habitat 

Objective and Rationale 



AH 1: Ensure that a minimum of 75 percent of aquatic habitat is in good or better condition, and none is in poor condition, by the year 
2000. 

Rationale: The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan states that the Bureau will protect habitat of all sensitive and candidate species 
to maintain or improve population levels. 

DEQ has identified water quality requirements for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Oregon waters stimulating a joint BLM/DEQ MOU 
and Action Plan of April 1 990, to implement these standards on public lands. 

BLM Oregon/Washington Riparian Enhancement Plan requires that the Bureau improve water quality on public lands to good or 
better condition by 1997. 



Allocation/Management Action 

AH 1.1: On a case-by-case basis and after adequate public 
involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting aquatic 
habitat and not needed for administration or fire protection on 
public lands. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ1.1.SM 1.1.SM 2.2, SSS3.1, R2.1, R2.10, 

BD1.5. 

Constrained By: R2.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop NEPA documentation on proposed closures. 

2. Coordinate with pertinent local, State and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend - annually on select streams. 

- Water quality studies on select streams - 1 0-1 2 times/year. 



AH 1.2: Remove livestock for 5 years from streams listed in 
Appendix 1, Table 3 with poor water quality related to BLM- 
administered riparian area conditions. Once aquatic habitat 
improves to fair condition, or after 5 years, implement grazing 
systems on I and M category allotments that allow a maximum 
of 1 percent livestock utilization on woody riparian shrubs and 
50 percent on herbaceous riparian vegetation; or are systems 
which are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery (see 
Appendix 1, Table 4). 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .2, 
SSS 2.1, SSS 3.1, WL 6.1, WL 7.5, WL7.17, R 2.10, BD 1.2, 
BD1.3, BD1.5. 

Constrained By: WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Allotment evaluations, AMPs, HMPs. 

2. Use supervision. 

3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 

4. Develop NEPA documentation. 

5. Review of pasture design. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend - annually on select streams. 

- Use utilization monitoring continually when used. 

- Water quality on select streams - 1 0-1 2 times/year. 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three 
times/year. 




2-96 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



AH 1.3: Implement grazing systems, on aquatic habitats listed 
in Appendix 1 , Table 5, that are in fair or good condition, that 
allow no more than 1 percent livestock utilization on woody 
riparian species and no more than 50 percent total utilization on 
herbaceous riparian vegetation annually; or are systems which 
are designed to promote speedy riparian recovery and mainte- 
nance of good conditions (see Appendix 1 , Table 4). 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .5, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .2, 
SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, SSS 3.1 , WL 6.2, WL 7.5, WL 7.1 8, R 2.1 0, 
R2.12, BD1.2, BD1.3, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Allotment evaluations, AMPs, HMPs. 

2. Use supervision. 

3. Coordination with permittees and other affected interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend - annually on select streams. 

- Use-utilization monitoring - continually when used. 

- Water quality sampling on select streams - 10-12 times/ 
year. 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis on select streams - two-three 
times/year. 



Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



AH 1 .4: Inventory stream segments listed on Appendix 1 , Table 
7, and determine management actions required to meet water 
quality and riparian objective. 

Geographic Reference: See Appendix 1, Table 7. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .6, SM 2.1 , SSS 2.1 , SSS 4.1 , WL 6.3, WL 
6.7, WL 7.1 9, BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Fund through the AWP process. 

2. Collect and compile data. 

3. Develop grazing systems as needed during the AWP and 
allotment evaluatiion process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo-trend - annually on select streams. 

- Water quality analysis 1 0-1 2 times/year. 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis - two-three times/year. 



AH 1.5: Maintain existing livestock exclosures on approxi- 
mately 4 miles of fish habitat and three reservoirs (Wickiup 
Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Paul Creek, Silver Creek and Rough 
Creek), seven reservoirs and District wetland developments 
(Willow, State, Twin Springs, Stinkingwater Pond No. 1 and No. 
2, Bigfoot Reservoirs, Seiloff Dikes and Lake-on-the-Trail). 

Geographic Reference: See above. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .7, SM 2.1 , GM 1 .4, V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 
2.4, SSS 3.1, WL 4.1, WL 7.28, BD1.1, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 

Constrained By:WL 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Maintain existing status through allotment evaluation, AMPs 
and HMPs. 

2. Coordinate with permittees and other affected interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect exclosure fences - annually. 

- Repair as needed. 

- Photo trend studies - annually on select streams. 

- Water quality on select streams - 10-12 times/year. 



2-97 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



AH 1 .6: All timber harvest must meet or exceed Oregon Forest 
Practices Act Standards and BLM Best Management Practices 
(see Appendix 1, Table 1 for Oregon General Best Forest 
Management Practices). Additionally, any commercial timber 
harvest must meet guidelines for stream protection in logging 
operations (Appendix 1, Table 2), while retaining woody veg- 
etation in a strip along each side of all perennial streams, and 
all other stream courses, springs, seeps and associated mead- 
ows which can significantly affect aquatic habitat. 

Buffer strips would be established as follows: 



Slope of Land 
Adjacent to Source 



0-40 percent 
40-50 percent 
50-60 percent 
60-70 percent 



Width of 

Buffer Strip 

On Each Bank 

100 ft. 
125 ft. 
145 ft. 
165 ft. 



Geographic Reference: Commercial forestland, see Map F-1. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1.2, F 1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 6.4, WL 7.20, R 
2.10, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Apply BLM BMPs for watershed protection. 

2. NEPA review of impacts associated with each project. 

3. Coordinate with Division of State Lands and ODFW if 
instream activities would occur. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor compliance with site inspections. 

- Where applicable, monitor impacts on water quality- 10-12 
times/year. 



AH 1.7: In drainages containing fish habitat, ensure that all 
newly constructed, permanent roads on BLM-administered 
lands, meet Oregon forest practices standards presented in 
Appendix 1, Table 1 (Oregon General Best Forest Manage- 
ment Practices). 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .9, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, F 1 .2, GM 1 .4, 
SSS 3.1, WL 6.6, R 2.10, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. BLM BMPs and Manual 91 13. 

2. BLM water quality and riparian goals by 1 997. 

3. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate State 
and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 



Monitor contractor compliance. 

Water quality studies on select stream reaches 

times/year. 



10-12 



AH 1.8: Implement fish habitat enhancement work on the 
Middle Fork of the Malheur River as identified in the Columbia 
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power 
Planning Council Proposal. These actions include, but are not 
limited to bank shaping and revegetation, instream boulder 
placement, protective fencing, spawning gravel placement, 
etc. 

Geographic Reference: Middle Fork Malheur River. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 2.1 , SSS 2.5, R 2.1 , R 2.10. 

Constrained By: R 2.12, VRM 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Wait until wilderness status is determined. 

2. Coordinate activities through the River IMP. 

3. Any activity in WSA or WSR would be consistent with IMP 
and proposed future management. 

4. Develop NEPA documentation. 

5. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate local, 
State and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Establish several permanent sample stations for fisheries 
and water quality monitoring. 

- Water quality to identify project impact - 10-12 times/year 
during monitoring years. 

- Macroinvertebrate analysis - two-three times/year during 
monitoring years. 

- Fish inventory - annually, where applicable. 

- Photo trend - during monitoring years. 



2-98 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



AH 1.9: Implement streambank stabilization projects on streams 
with less than 90 percent stable streambanks, especially where 
healing has not occurred within 5 years of a change in the 
grazing system or livestock removal. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 2, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM2.2, SSS2.1 , SSS 
2.6, R 2.10, BD 1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop NEPA documentation on proposed projects. 

2. Coordinate with affected interests and appropriate local, 
State and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend - annually on select streams. 

- Water quality to identify project impacts on aquatic ecosys- 
tem - 10-12 times/year during monitoring years. 



AH 1.10: Actively suppress wildfire and rehabilitate burned 
portions within 1 mile of perennial water, when consistent with 
BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Policy and within available 
funding. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 0, SM 1 .2, SM 2.2, V 1 .1 , FM 1 .1 , FM 2.1 , 
R2.10, BD1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Develop and implement District Fire Suppression and Re- 
habilitation Plan. 

2. BLM BMPs. 

3. NEPA documentation. 

4. Coordinated with affected interests and appropriate local, 
State and Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor Rehabilitation Plan with waterquality -10-12times/ 
year. 

- Photo trend - annually in select areas. 



AH 1 .1 1 : Restrict vegetation conversion by mechanical and/or 
prescribed fire treatment in any subbasin to less than 20 
percent of that land area within 1 mile of aquatic habitat, in that 
particular subbasin, in any 1 year. This would exclude wildfire 
rehabilitation activities. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ1.11.SM1. 2, SM2.2.F2.1, V1.1.SSS3.1, 
WL1.1.WL1.3, WL7.9, WL7.10, R2.10, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. 

Constrained By:FM2.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Development of project design including prescribed burn 
plan (where applicable). 

2. NEPA documentation on all treatment proposals. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Photo trend - annually in select areas. 



2-99 



Objective and Rationale 

AH 2: Improve existing warmwaterfish habitat to good or better condition and provide for increased warmwater game fish production 
by the year 2000. Expand warmwater fish habitat, as opportunities arise, and when no conflicts occur with existing game fish 
populations. 

Rationale: The FLPMA of 1976 directs that public lands be managed in a mannerthat will providefood and habitatforfish and wildlife. 
The BLM Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan directs the Bureau to improve habitats for high value fish species. 



Allocation/Management Action 

AH 2.1 : Where feasible, include design criteria in new reservoir 
construction on BLM-administered land to allow warmwater 
game fish production. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1.3, R2.10. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Implementation would be as new reservoir construction 
opportunities develop. 

2. NEPA review of each proposed project. 

3. Coordinate with pertinent State and Federal agencies to 
secure necessary permits and clearances. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor warmwater fish populations via fish population 
assessment techniques once every 3 years. 



AH 2.2: Evaluate all existing BLM reservoirs now supporting 
coldwater game fish for quality of fishery. Where coldwater 
game fish production is poor and the reservoir would be better 
suited for warmwater game fish production, recommend to 
ODFWthat management be changed accordingly. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .8, R 2.1 0, LR 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Implement over life of planning document. 

2. Coordinate with ODFW and other affected interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitor fish population introductions via fish population 
assessment techniques in conjunction with ODFW, once 
every 3 years. 



AH 2.3: Construct new reservoirs suitable for warmwater game 
fish production as opportunities arise and funding is available. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 2.10. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Implement over life of planning document as opportunity 
arises. 

2. NEPA documentation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- None. 



AH 2.4: Implement projects designed to increase warmwater 
fish spawning and rearing habitat, specifically in Moon Reser- 
voir, Warm Springs Reservoir and other warmwater sites, as 

appropriate. 

Geographic Reference: Moon Reservoir, Warm Springs Res- 
ervoir. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 2.10, LR 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Project design and NEPA documentation. 

2. BLM BMPs. 

3. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and 
Federal agencies. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Conduct fish population assessment once every 3 years 
following implementation of projects. 



2-100 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



AH 2.5: Expand warmwater fish habitat, where evaluations 
indicate suitability for warmwater game fish production. 

Recommend to ODFW that all reservoirs found to be suitable, 
be stocked with warmwater game fish. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 2.10. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . NEPA review where appropriate. 

2. BLM BMPs. 

3. Coordinate with affected interests and pertinent State and 
Federal agencies. 

4. Work in conjunction with ODFW developing fish population 
assessment information. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Fish population assessment and water quality analysis prior 
to stocking and annually, thereafter. 



Fire Management 

Objective and Rationale 



FM 1 : As determined through values at risk analysis (Map FM-1 ), maximize the protection of life, property and high value sensitive 
resources from the detrimental effects of wildfire. 

Rationale: The 9200 Fire Management Manual identifies fire suppression as a high priority activity within the BLM. Life, property 
and resources are the three major priorities in all fire suppression tactics. Areas identified as full suppression only are areas where 
threat to life, property and high resource values exist. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



FM 1.1: Provide initial attack, full suppression of natural and 
human-caused fires in areas identified as Zone A on Map FM- 
2 (approximately 63,600 acres). Allow no prescribed fire in 
Zone A. 

Geographic Reference: Harney Basin, Blue Bucket WSA, 
Devine Canyon. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: WQ 1. 10, F 1.8, F 2.1, F3.1, F3.2. 

Constrained By: WQ 1.1, AH 1.1, AH 1.10. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Identify full suppression only areas. 

2. Continuefull suppression actions within thiszone, nochanges 
from current management. 

3. Ensure coordination with Area Resource Specialist (advi- 
sor) is completed prior to the use of any mechanical equip- 
ment in or near special use areas and or special status 
species habitats. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post fire monitoring of suppression effects. 

- Post fire critique with Fire Management and RA personnel. 

- Pre- and post fire season review with Fire staff and RA 
personnel. 



2-101 




2-102 



: N A I I U 



IN A L 





RESOURCE VALUES AT RISK 
Class 1 (Low Vaue) 
Class 2 
Class 3 



^\\\l Class 4 
Class 5 



None Class 6 (High Value) 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP FM-1 
RESOURCE VALUES AT RISK 



2-103 




2-104 



ijti j jyvrsr^ 





Zone A 

Full Suppression Only 

Zone B 

Conditional Fire Use 

Zone C 

Full Suppression & Prescribed 

Burning 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP FM-2 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 
ZONES 



2-105 



Objective and Rationale 



FM 2: Consistent with values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial use of prescribed fire and wildfire to achieve other resource 
management objectives. 

Rationale: The BLM recognizes only two types of fire, that being wildfire and prescribed fire. When properly managed, both can be 
of beneficial use to the resources the BLM manages. In areas of low values at risk and under predetermined conditions, natural 
caused fires can be managed to assist the District in meeting resource objectives (as identified in Appendix 1 , Table 9). Within areas 
of high resource value, prescribed burning, with adequate planning, can also be used to meet identified resource objectives. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



FM 2.1 : Provide initial attack, full supression of natural and 
human-caused fires, and utilize prescribed fire to achieve land 
and habitat management objectives on 1 ,1 84,230 acres iden- 
tified as Zone C on Map FM-2. 

Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. 

Decision Class: 2 or 3 

Supported By: F 1 .8, F 2.1 , F 3.1 , F 3.2, GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, V 1 .5, 
WL2.3, BD3.8. 

Constrained By: WQ 1 .1 , WQ 1 .1 1 , V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, 
WL1.1,WL1.3,WL2.2,WL7.7,WL7.9,WL7.10,AH1.1,AH 
1.10, AH 1.11, BD 1.1, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Continue current management. 
Monitoring Needs: 

- Post-season fire critique. 

- Pre- and post-field season meetings between Fire Manage- 
ment and RA. 

- Photograph and study areas established for all prescribed 
fires. 

- Burn Boss and Cost Analysis Reports after each project. 



FM 2.2: Provide conditional suppression of natural fires and 
utilize prescribed fire to achieve land and habitat management 
objectives in areas identified as Zone B on Map FM-2, approxi- 
mately 462,080 acres, (see Appendix 1 , Table 9 for site-specific 
resource objectives). General fire suppression parameters are 
shown below; specific parameters may be re-examined as 
necessary by the Authorized Officer (District Manager) in 
consultation with the District Fire Management Officer. 



Wildfires burning simultaneously 

(depending on complexity) 

Fire Size 

Air Temperature 

Wind Speed at 20' 

Fine Fuel Moisture 

Flame Length 

Rate of Forward Spread 

Suppression Forces 

Available 



£2 

< 2,500 acres 

<86°F 

<7MPH 

> 9 percent 

< 7 feet 

< 1,300 ft. hr. 
> 50 percent 

of crews/equip. 



Geographic Reference: Three Rivers RA. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: F 1 .8, GM 1 .3, WL 2.3. 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .1 , AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3, V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , SSS 
3.2, WL1.3, WL2.2, WL7.7, WL7.10, AH 1.1, AH 1.10, AH 
1.11, BD 1.1, BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Complete activity planning for all areas identified for condi- 
tional burning. Identify all limiting factors, equipment types 
and use, allowable acreages and site-specific EAs where 
necessary. 

2. Conduct yearly preseason meetings with Fire staff and RA 
staff to identify possible conflicts and/or needs for the field 
seasons. 

3. Design site-specificfuel treatment plans in coordination and 
consultation with the District Fire Management Officerthrough 
the N EPA process. 

4. Establish criteria for monitoring actual resource changes to 
determine if resource objectives are being met. 

5. Thorough coordination between District Fire Management 
Officer and Area Resource Specialists will ensure both 
conditional and prescribed fire actions will meet site-specific 
resource values. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Post fire critiques. 

- Pre- and post-season reviews. 

- Photograph plots or study plots established within identified 
areas. 

- Burn Boss and Cost Analysis Reports after each project. 

- Real time fire monitoring including fire behavior, fire effects, 
weather, etc. 



2-106 



Recreation 

Objective and Rationale 

R 1 : During the 1 0-year period from 1 990 to 2000, establish and manage intensive-use areas, where the presence of high quality 
natural resources and the current or potential demand warrants intensive use practices to protect the areas for their scientific, 
educational and/or recreational values while accommodating the projected increase in use for recreation activities specific to the 
areas (see Map R-1). 

Rationale: 

1. Federal regulations authorize the BLM to designate recreation sites (relatively small tracts of land which have value for 
concentrated and intensive recreation use that usually require construction and maintenance of public facilities), 43 CFR 2070; to 
establish and manage ONAs (to providefor protection of the outstanding naturalfeatures thro ugh management of recreation activities 
in the area) - 43 CFR 8352; and FLPMA provides that BLM give priority to the identification of ACEC. 



Allocation/Management Action 

R1.1: Continue implementation of the Diamond Craters Rec- 
reation Management Plan as approved (1985), to accommo- 
date a projected 33 percent increase in recreation use from 
1 2,450 visits in 1 989 to 1 6,550 visits by the year 2000. This is 
considering a moderate model scenario for recreation activity 
consumption projections. Specific actions are noted in the plan 
to accomplish management of Diamond Craters as an ONA. A 
total land use allocation proposed for this special area is an 
estimated 17,656 acres. See Table 2.16 for specific actions. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .2, V 1 .1 , WL 7.22, WL 7.23, R 
2.1 6, ACEC 1 .1 , ACEC 1 .2, VRM 1 .2, CR 2.5, LR 1 .4, LR 5.1 , 
BD1.1,BD3.1,BD3.2. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific procedures, as defined in BLM Manuals 21 00 and 
2200 (Lands) which govern the actionsfor acquisition of 600 
additional acres and the withdrawal of a total of 1 ,000 acres. 

Note: Since approval of the recreation management plan, 400 
acres recommended for acquisition have been acquired but 
not withdrawn from mineral entry. 

2. Preparation of an Interpretive Prospectus. 

3. Preparation of a Development Concept Plan (DCP). 

4. Preparation of a Site Development Plan (SDP). 

5. Coordination with USFWS (Malheur Refuge), Harney County 
and numerous scientists and educators from various col- 
leges, universities and organizations. 

6. Cadastral survey of boundaries. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



R 1.2: Manage 400 acres (see Map R-1) at Chickahominy 
Reservoir as a high use recreation area. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, AH 1 .1 , AH 2.2, R 1 .3, R 2.1 , R 2. 1 0, R 
2.16, CR2.4, EM 3.1, EM 4.1, LR 5.1. 



.'■ ■'->«--- '"Si "-■* 




Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Process to withdraw from mineral entry. 

2. Process to eliminate grazing use, including fencing of BLM 
acres (400 acres). 

3. Coordination with private landowners, ODFW, Harney 
County. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual recreation site maintenance and safety inspection. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 

- Periodic inspection of larger area, fenced in cooperation 
with ODFW, to eliminate livestock grazing on the majority of 
the area surrounding Chickahominy Reservoir. 



2-107 




2-108 



-W -A I I OfN A LV I 



— / /T 



_Q_BlliE_S-X- 







3 7 c"\ 





^ 





OREGON 



RECREATION USE AREAS 

1. Snowmobile Use 

2. Snowmobile Use 

3. Chickahominy Recreation Site 

4. Burns to Bend ORV Race Route 

5. Cross-Country Skiing, Sledding, 
Tubing, Snowmobiling 

6. Radar Hill ORV Area 

7. Sagehen Hill Nature Trail 

8. Wild Horse Viewing Area 

9. Moon Reservoir Recreation Site 

10. Wrights Point Geologic Area 

1 1. Diamond Craters ON A 

1 2. Desert Trail Route 

1 3. Wild Horse Viewing Area 

14. Warm Springs Recreation Area 

15. Diamond Loop Backcounty 

Byway Route 

16. Silvies River Fishing 

Access Trail 

17. Clear Creek Rockhounding Area 



I0 MILES 
3 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP R-1 
RECREATION USE AREAS 



2-109 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



R 1.3: Upgrade Chickahominy Recreation Site to accommo- 
date a projected 26 percent increase in recreation use from 
27,000 visits in 1 989 to 34,000 visits by the year 2000. This is 
considered a moderate model scenario for recreation activity 
consumption projections. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 1.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1. BLM Manual 8300, Subparts 8320, 8322, 8323: 

2. Preparation of a DCP. 

3. Preparation of a SDP. 

4. NEPA documentation for additional facilities development. 

5. Set priorities to develop specific features in SDP as funding 
(including Challenge Grants) becomes available over a 3 to 
5 year period. 

Program to fund maintenance personnel, equipment and 
supplies to manage and operate a high standard camp- 
ground development on a long-term basis. 
Program to fund visitor services including campground 
host(s) and provisions for information and interpretation 
services pertaining to the site and its resources. 



6. 



7. 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual recreation site maintenance and safety inspection. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 

- Continuing visitor use analysis. 

- Continuing evaluation of information, interpretation and 
facility needs. 



R 1 .4: Allocate approximately 240 acres near Radar Hill, in the 
foothills above Bums and Hines, as an ORV area to accommo- 
date the needs of the local population (T. 23 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 
20, 21, 28). See Map R-1 for location of the proposed area. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1.4, AH 1.1, R 2.1. 

Constrained By: V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Publicoutreach to notify public of management decision and 
direction. 

2. Actively pursue the issuance of a lease with a local organi- 
zation with capability, expertise and willingness to operate 
the area on a day-to-day basis. If no potential leasee is found 
within a5-year period following the approval of this manage- 
ment plan, the District will continue to manage the facility as 
part of the Recreation Resources Management Program. 

3. Development of site plan. 

4. Construction and installation of facilities such as fencing, 
signing, gates, rest rooms, parking and staging area, access 
off paved county road. 

5. Cooperation requirements: 

- Local ORV organization or other group willing to operate the 
area. 

- Harney County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement 
needs. 

- Allotment users (Gouldin Allotment) for livestock grazing 
management. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual on-site inspection to evaluate (1) performance of 
lessee in meeting permit stipulations, (2) need to replace or 
repair facilities, and, (3) impacts of motorized vehicle use on 
natural environment. 



2-110 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



R 1.5: Allocate approximately 280 acres for the development 
and operation of the Burns Butte Public Shooting Range (T. 23 
S., R. 30 E., Sec. 21, N1/2SE1/4). 

Decision Class: 2 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement 

1 . Public outreach to notify public of management decision. 

2. Construction and development of facilities including signing 
and fencing to establish safety zone and warn public of 
shooting range. 

3. CCC with Harney County Sheriffs Department, local youth 
organizations, local civic groups, Harney County Chamber 
of Commerce. 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic patrols to check boundaries, signing and fencing to 
ensure public is protected from any dangers created by 
establishing a shooting range. 



Objective and Rationale 



R 2: During the 10-year period from 1990 to 2000, provide opportunities for unstructured outdoor recreation activities with the 
necessary facilities and services to accommodate a projected 24.5 percent increase in dispersed recreation use within the Three 
Rivers RA from an estimated 84,000 visits in 1 989 to an estimated 1 04,500 visits by the year 2000. 

Rationale: FLPMA provides for recreation on public lands as an integral component of multiple-use management. Unstructured, 
dispersed activity is a predominent feature of recreational usage in the Three Rivers RA. 

E.0. 1 1 644 and 1 1 989 direct Federal agencies to define zones of use (and nonuse) for off-road vehicles on public lands to provide 
for ORV usage while protecting sensitive resource values. 

It is BLM policy that, as expressed through Recreation 2000: A Strategic Plan, "The BLM will ensure the continued availability of public 
land for a diversity of resource-dependent outdoor recreation opportunities..." Such diverse opportunities in the Three Rivers RA 
include fishing, rockhounding, hiking and trails, driving for pleasure, etc. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1975, as amended, directs the Secretary of Interior to study and make recommendations to 
Congress on the suitability or nonsuitability of rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 



Allocation/Management Action 

R 2.1: Implement and manage ORV areas (see Map R-2) 
designated in the Federal Register on February 20, 1987, as 
well as a prior designation for South Narrows. Exceptions are 
Warm Springs Reservoir area (23,811 acres), Squaw Lake 
area(6,500 acres) and Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek (2, 080 
acres). The open areas now free of ORV use, but susceptible 
to ORV damage, will be closed or limited in future designations 
when a determination is made that the use of ORVs will cause, 
or is causing, significant adverse impacts on natural, cultural or 
historical resources of particular areas or trails on public lands. 
Specific designations are: 

Continue Closed Designation On 

Acres 

Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek 2,040 
(part of Malheur River-Bluebucket Cr. WSA) 

Hatt Butte 30 

Windy Point 280 

Devine Canyon 1 ,040 

S. Narrows 160 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Public notification of management decisions. 

2. Establishment of each area's boundary on the ground. 

3. Signing of area's boundary to note limitation or closure, 
particularly in high use areas. 

4. Mapping of closed or limited areas. 

5. Brochures noting ORV designations and ORV recreational 
opportunities in the RA. Consultation and coordination (by 
specific areas): grazing allotment users, private landown- 
ers, USFWS, Harney County, various interested organiza- 
tions and individuals. 

6. Prepare and implement emergency closures where moni- 
toring data indicates that unacceptable resource damage is, 
or will be occurring from ORV usage. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic patrols to check boundaries, signing and vehicle 
use within areas. 

- Establishment of baseline data and photo points to deter- 
mine impacts of future resource damage. 

- Rehabilitation of specific sites if necessary. 

2-111 




2-112 




^ 




s§ 



OREGON 

CLOSED TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE 

1. Devine Canyon 

2. Malheur River - Bluebucket Creek 

3. Windy Point 

4. Hat Butte 

5. South Narrows ACEC 

6. Burns Butte Shooting Range 

LIMITED OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE 

7. Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 

8. Malheur River - Bluebucket Creek WSA 

9. Stonehouse WSA 

10. Warm Springs Reservoir 

11. Silver Creek RNA (Includes addition) 

12. Foster Flat RNA 

13. Dry Mountain RNA Addition 

14. Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 

15. Kiger Mustang ACEC 

16. Chickahominy Reservoir 



The remainder of the Resource Area 
is open to ORV travel. 



^N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP R-2 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE 
DESIGNATIONS 



2-113 



Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



Implement Closed Designations On 

M.Fk. Malheur River Wild River 250 

The proposed closed acres will be redesignated from current 
limited designation acres. Excluding private parcels included in 
the proposed river designation, 2,080 closed acres (which is 
recommended to be reduced to 2,040 acres) already encompass 
the river corridor, except for an estimated 250 BLM acres. 

Burns Butte Public Shooting Range (including safety zone) 

280 
Continue Limited Designation On 

Malheur River-Bluebucket Cr.WSA 3,270 

(interim designation) 

Stonehouse WSA 5,825 

(interim designation-acres are in Three Rivers RA portion not 

designated closed) 

Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 640 

Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 1 6,656 

Warm Springs Reservoir 2,961 

Designated in Reservoir Pasture No. 5566, which is 4,121 acres 

less 1 ,1 60 acres of Bureau of Reclamation lands for a total of 2,961 

acres. 

Implement Limited Designation On Acres 

Chickahominy Recreation Site 400 

Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 400 

Silver Creek RNA/ACEC addition 640 

Foster Flat RNA 2,690 

Dry Mountain RNA addition 2,084 

Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 6,500 

Kiger Herd ACEC 64,639 

Squaw Lake 6,500 
(revocation of prior designation) 

Malheur River-Bluebucket Cr. WSA 40 
(partial revocation of prior 2,080-acre closed designation) 

All RA acres were designated as either open, closed or limited 
under the ORV designation of February 20, 1987. Therefore, all 
proposed limited acres will be redesignated from current open 
designated acres, with the exception of Squaw Lake and Malheur 
River-Bluebucket Creek WSA which will be redesignated from 
current closed designated acres. The proposed closed acres will 
be redesignated from current open designated acres. 

Implement Open Designations On 
(Revocation of Prior Designation) 

Warm Springs Reservoir 20,850 

The proposed open acres will be redesignated from current limited 
designated acres in old River Pasture No. 5530 which is Carey 
Tables Pasture, River Pasture and Lake Pasture totaling 18,449 
acres and North Slope Pasture No. 5538 totaling 2,401 acres. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 , SM 1 .1 , SM 2.2, V 1 .4, V 1 .5, SSS 1 .3, WL 
7.21 , WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, AH 1 .1 , AH 
1 .8, R 1 .1 , R 1 .4, R 2.2, R 2.3, R 2.4, ACEC 1 .1 , ACEC 1 .2, ACEC 
1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, ACEC 1 .6, CR 2.1 , BD 2.3, BD 3.1 , BD 
3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.8. 

Constrained By: SM 1.1. 
2-114 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



R 2.2: Revoke the current limited ORV designation of 23,81 1 
acres for Warm Springs Reservoirwith the exception of the land 
within Reservoir Pasture between the reservoir water level and 
the county access road on the west side of the reservoir (2,961 
BLM acres). The area includes lands administered by the BOR 
(1,160 acres). If an MOU is established with BOR, BLM will 
manage the total land surface area from the reservoir water 
level to the other established ORV management boundaries. 



Note: ORV use has not occurred within this area as expected 
since the limited designation was imposed in 1987. It is not 
necessary to manage such a large area for limited vehicle use. 
Rather, the area near Warm Springs Reservoir is being im- 
pacted by vehicle use and limitations need to be continued to 
protect the fragile soils on the points and surrounding low hills. 

Decision Class: 1 



Supported By: R2.1, LR 5.4. 
Constrained By: WQ 1.1, SM 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Public notification of management decisions. 

2. Establishment of each area's boundary on the ground. 

3. Signing of each area's boundary to note limitation orclosure, 
particularly in high use areas. 

4. Mapping of closed or limited areas. 

5. Brochures noting ORV designations and ORV recreational 
opportunities in the RA. CCC (by specific areas): grazing 
allotment users, private landowners, USFWS, Harney 
County, various interested organizations and individuals. 

6. Prepare and implement emergency closures where moni- 
toring data indicates that unacceptable resource damage is, 
or will be occurring from ORV usage. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic patrols to check boundaries, signing and vehicle 
use within areas. 

- Establishment of baseline data and photo points to deter- 
mine impacts of future resource damage. 



R 2.3: Replace the current closed ORV designation of 6,500 
acres in the Squaw Lake area with adesignation limiting vehicle 
use to existing designated roads to be consistent with the 
limited designation on lands surrounding the parcel. 

Note: Protection of this 6,500-acre area by closing it to vehicle 
use is not warranted. Area is part of Stonehouse WSA which 
has been designated for vehicle use limited to existing, desig- 
nated roads. This limited designation could also be madeforthe 
6,500-acre closed portion to provide access on the several 
dead-end roads and still provide protection for the natural 
features in the Squaw Lake area. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: R 2.1 , EM 4.1 , LR 2.4. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . RMP planning process as part of the published notice in the 
Federal Register. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Regular periodic surveillance. 



R 2.4: Redesignate 40 acres of the current closed ORV 
designation of 2,080 acres for the Middle Fork Malheur River- 
Bluebucket Creek with a designation limiting vehicle use to 
existing designated roads to be consistent with the limited 
designation on WSA lands adjacent to the parcel on the west. 

Note: A low standard road in the northwest corner of the current 
closed area was inadvertently closed to vehicle use by the 
original designation in 1987. By allowing limited use, the road 
will provide access for monitoring needs and maintenance of 
range improvements such as spring developments, reservoirs 
and fences. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . RMP planning process as part of the published notice in the 
Federal Register. 

Monitoring Needs: 

Regular periodic surveillance. 



Decision Class: 1 
Supported By: R 2.1, LR 2.4. 



2-115 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



R 2.5: Identify usable cross-country route(s) on designated 
roads and trails to accommodate the needs of the public for 
organized cross-country events. Approval of applications for 
such events would be considered on a case-by-case basis, 
subject to specific permit stipulations. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: R 2.1. 

Constrained By: SM 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Establishment of specific user needs. 

2. Layout of proposed routes. 

3. Issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits (SRUP) with 
stipulations, bonding, fee payments and accompanying 
NEPA documentation including analysis of environmental 
impacts and measures for mitigation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Case-by-case. 



R 2.6: Provide and maintain minimal facilities (rest rooms, boat 
ramp, parking area and periodic maintenance of the access 
road) to enhance the fishing opportunities during the high 
spring and summer use season at Moon Reservoir. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: AH 2.4, AH 2.5, R 2.10, LR 4.1 , LR 4.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Preparation of Site Development Plan (SDP). 

2. Obtaining of funds utilizing Facility Grants (State Marine 
Board) and Challenge Grants. 

3. Construction of on-site facilities. 

4. Annual maintenance and upkeep through Recreation Main- 
tenance Program (4712). 

5. CCC/partnership with private landowners. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual recreation maintenance inspection of site. 

- Annual access road maintenance inspection. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 



R 2.7: Provide minimum sanitation, picnicking and boat launch- 
ing facilities and their maintenance at Warm Springs Reservoir 
to enhance water sports and fishing opportunities. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: AH 2.4, AH 2.5, R 2.1 0, LR 4.1 , LR 5.1 , LR 5.2, 
LR 5.4. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Preparation of SDP. 

2. Obtaining funds for construction utilizing Facility Grants 
(State Marine Board) and Challenge Grants. 

3. Construction of on-site facilities. 

4. MOU with BOR; Cooperative Management Agreements 
(CMAs) with other groups. 

5. Annual maintenance and upkeep through Recreation Main- 
tenance Program (4712). 

6. CCC with BOR; Harney County, Oregon State Marine 
Board, possible local organizations as volunteers and coop- 
erative sponsors. (BOR administers the reservoir and im- 
mediate surrounding area). 

Interagency Agreement; CMAs with organizations if no transfer 
of Federal funds is involved. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual recreation maintenance inspection of site. 

- Annual access road maintenance inspection. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 



2-116 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



R 2.8: Continue to provide for incidental recreational use of the 
Clear Creek area (T. 22 S., R. 35 E., Sec. 18) for collection of 
semi-precious stones, utilizing hand tools for excavation. No 
mechanized equipment such as backhoes, bulldozers, tren- 
chers, etc. will be allowed for removal of overburden or the 
resource. 

Decision Class: 1 and 2 

Supported By: SM 1.1, SM2.1, CR 2.7. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Reinventory of petrified wood resource. 

2. Delineation and signing of boundaries of specific area. 

3. Development of activity plan. 

4. Development of information signs and rock hounding bro- 
chure. Area will be managed for safe use by visitors. 

5. CCC with Harney County Sheriff's Department; local 
rockhounders. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic patrols of area to monitor use. 

- Annual inspection to evaluate impacts on the resource and 
the natural environment. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 

- Annual safety inspection. 



R 2.9: Develop and manage trails to provide access for utiliza- 
tion of resources and to accommodate recreation activities 
such as hiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, 
snowshoeing and bicycling. Current priorities for trail marking 
or developments are: 

1. Sign the portion of the Desert Trail from U.S. Highway 78 to 
Diamond Craters which crosses the RA for approximately 
35 miles. 

2. Develop approximately one-half mile of trail with minimal 
facilities to provide fishing access to a portion of the Silvies 
River administered by the BLM (T. 21 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 14, 
23). 

Note: There may be add itionalmilesof the Desert Trail in the RA 
if the proposed route north of U.S. Highway 78 reenters the 
Burns District from the Vale District. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: AH 1 .1 , AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, AH 1 .6, AH 1 .7, AH 1 .8, 
AH 1 .9, AH 1 .1 0, AH 1 .1 1 , AH 2.1 , AH 2.2, AH 2.3, AH 2.4, AH 
2.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1 . Identification of additional trails to satisfy visitor needs and 
demands as ongoing process (including Desert Trail). 

2. Preparation of Trail Development Plan for fishing access. 

3. Development of trail and facilities (includes grading of 
access road, signing, turn-around/parking area. 

4. Public notification in local newspaper, location of feature on 
District Recreation Map (N1/2), and publication in Chamber 
of Commerce revisions of their recreation publications. 

5. CCC with Desert Trail Association, Harney County Cham- 
ber of Commerce, Isaac Walton League, private landown- 
ers, other resource users. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual access road maintenance inspection. 

- Annual trail maintenance inspection. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 

- Visitor use analysis to determine usage. 

- Review CMA with Oregon Trail Association to ensure ad- 
equacy for trail management. 



R 2.10: Manage the waters in the RA to expand and enhance 
fishing opportunities. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, WQ 
1 .9, WQ 1 .1 1 , WQ 1 .1 2, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, F 1 .3, GM 1 .4, 
V 1 .2, V 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, SSS 2.5, SSS 2.6, WL 4.1 , WL 
6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.4, WL 7.5, WL 7.14, WL 7.1 7, WL 
7.1 8, WL 7.19, WL 7.20, WL 7.27, WL 7.28, AH 1 .7, AH 1 .8, R 
2.6, R2.9, BD1.2, BD1.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Development of specific project designs. 

2. Develop NEPA documentation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



2-117 




2-118 



- NAM UlN -fr-f 



w 



ri \|f q t 








OREGON 



''.••'; : . : :--;/. : J Petrified Wood 



Thunder Egg 



Obsidian 



m A9ate 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP R-3 
RECREATIONAL MINERALS 



2-119 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



R 2.11: Manage the Diamond Loop (comprised of the county 
road from Princeton through Diamond Craters ONA, the Happy 
Valley Road, Diamond Lane and portions of State Highway 
205) as a Back Country Byway connecting to the Steens 
Mountain Loop (also a Back Country Byway) at the town of 
Frenchglen. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: R 2.16. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Agreements and partnerships with principal cooperators. 

2. Rehabilitation of visual resources. 

3. Signing and interpretation. 

4. Public Outreach- Harney County Chamber of Commerce, 
State Highway Department, local citizens, USFWS. 

5. Development of interpretive facilities. 

6. Dedication process. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement inspection. 

- Review of various brochures and maps of specific areas 
along proposed byway for accuracy and need for changes/ 
revisions. 

- Review of agreements with various entities to ensure ad- 
equacy of byway management. 



R 2.12: Recommend, through a legislative EIS, the inclusion of 
a 5.4-mile section of the Middle Fork Malheur River and 
Bluebucket Creek, adjacent to the Malheur National Forest, as 
a Wild River included in the National Wild and Scenic River 
System (see Tables 2.1 7, 2.1 8, 2.1 9 and 2.20 and Maps WSR- 
1 and WSR-2). 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .5, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , F 1 .7, GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .3, 
V 1 .5, SSS 2.1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 6.2, WL 7.1 8, WL 7.21 , WL 7.27, 
AH 1 .3, FM 1 .1 , R 2.1 , R 2.1 5, R 2.1 6, VRM 1.1, VRM 1 .2, EM 
3.1, LR2.4, LR5.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5, BD 3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1 . Identify action as a "preliminary administrative recommen- 
dation." 

2. Prepare a Wild and Scenic River Study Report possibly as 
a statewide consolidated effort. 

3. Prepare legislative EIS. 

4. Prepare Record of Decision. 

5. Initiate interim management protection (see Table 2.21). 

6. Initiate interim boundary determination. 

7. Initiate public land order for a 3-year period. 

8. CCC with USDA-FS (Malheur National Forest) Harney 
County. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- On-the-ground interim management surveillance. 

- Completion of implementation procedures. 



R 2.13: Acquire by exchange or purchase on a "willing buyer/ 
seller" basis approximately 400 private acres within a one-half 
mile corridor on the segment of the Middle Fork of the Malheur 
River recommended for designation as a Wild River. Actual 
river frontage would be in Section 1 6 and in Section 21 , T. 1 8 
S., R. 34 E. and would include approximately 1 .3 river miles. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SSS 2.7, WL6.5,R2.15,LR1.1, LR5.1.LR5.4, 

BD1.4. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specificprocessing requirementsfor exchanges, purchases, 
and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM 
Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. 
Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: 

- Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure 
proposals with affected landowners or proponents. 

- Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers 
PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. 

- Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, 
botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to 
determine if the proposal is in the public interest. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and 
solicit public review. 

- Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance 
actions and issuing patents and deeds. 



2-120 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres 
transferred within the various land tenure zones. 



R 2.14: Coordinate with the Ochoco National Forest to conduct 
a Wild and Scenic River study process for Silver Creek. This 
study follows a three-step assessment process (determination 
of eligibility, classification and determination of suitability) to 
determine Silver Creek's potential for inclusion in the National 
Wild and Scenic River System. 

Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Formation of joint inventory team and utilize data/informa- 
tion from both agencies. 

2. Develop a resource assessments identify any "outstanding 
remarkable values." 

3. Proceed with interim management. 

4. Develop a River Management Plan if assessment process 
indicates the creek is suitable for a recommended designation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



R 2.15: Acquire legal and physical access to specific areas to 
enhance hunting, fishing, rockhounding and other dispersal 
recreation activities. Specific areas are located on Map LR-1 . 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WL 5.3, WL 6.5, R 2.13, ACEC 1 .1, ACEC 1 .2, 
ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, ACEC 1 .6, ACEC 1 .7, CR 2.7, 
LR1.1.LR1.3, LR1 .5, LR 4.1 , LR 4.2, LR 4.3, LR 5.2, BD 2.4, 
BD 3.1, BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6. BD 3.7. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. BLM manuals 2100, 2100-1, H2101-1 and other pertinent 
guidance provide specific direction for access acquisition. 
Briefly, this guidance includes: 

- Review access acquisition needs to determine specific priorities. 

- Determine feasibility and options for each access need. 

- Determine the potential for landowner interest and potential. 

- Negotiate and process easements or fee acquisitions with land- 
owners in accordance with the authority applicable to the specific 
acquisition. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- AWP process. 



R 2.16: Provide informational and educational opportunities to en- 
hance experiences and increase knowledge of the use or protection 
of natural resources, the BLM's land management role and the 
responsibility of the recreating public in using the public lands. 
Specific opportunities by priority are: 

1 . Development of geologic interpretive site at Wright's Point as part 
of the Steens Initiative. 

2. Interpretation of designated special management areas (Silver 
Creek RNA, Diamond Craters ONA, Chickahominy Recreation 
Site, Middle Fork Malheur Wild and Scenic River, Biscuitroot 
Cultural ACEC, Kiger Mustang ACEC and others) as delineated in 
their respective management plans. 

3. Continued maintenance and enhancement of Sagehen Hill Nature 
Trail. 

4. Location and development of interpretive sites along travel routes 
to support the Watchable Wildlife program which includes wild 
horses (Palomino Buttes, Warm Spring Reservoir area and other 
sites). 

Decision Class: 2 

SupportedBy:WHB1.1,WHB1.2,WHB2.2,V1.3,V1.4,V1.5,R1.1, 
R 2.1 1, CR 2.1 , CR 2.4, CR 2.5, CR 2.6, CR 2.7, BD 2.4, BD 3.1 , BD 
3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Identification of specific sites for development. 

2. Preparation of activity/interpretive plan(s). 

3. Development of brochure(s) and on-site signing/interpretive 
features. 

4. Public Outreach - notification in local newspaper, revision of 
current Bureau maps and other publications. 

5. CCC with Harney County Chamber of Commerce, private 
landowners, ODFW, USFWS, wild horse interest groups, 
environmental groups such as Audubon, Native Plant Soci- 
ety. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic patrols to monitor use. 

- Annual sign maintenance/replacement and facility mainte- 
nance inspection. 

- Annual inspection to evaluate impacts on resource and 
natural environment. 

- Review of brochures to revise/update. 



2-121 




2-122 




Riley P. A.-*. 


BURNS S / "- 




LAKEV1EW 


DISTJ 




*"> DIST. 







OREGON 



H 



WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SEGMENTS 
Silvies River - SEGMENTS A,B 



• Middle Fork Malheur River - 
SEGMENTS A,B,C,D 

• South Fork Malheur River - SEGMENT A 



<£> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP WSR-1 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

INVENTORY 



2-123 



R 34 E 



R 33 1/2 E 




m 



^ 



LEGEND 



Recommended 
Wild River Area 

Designated Closed to 
Off-Road Vehicle Use 

Proposed Additional Closed 
to Off-Road Vehicle Use 



Proposed Change from Closed 
to Limited Off-Road Vehicle Use 




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP WSR-2 
MALHEUR RIVER AND BLUEBUCKET CREEK 
PROPOSED WILD RIVER DESIGNATION 

1 1 Mile 

F =j I 1 I 1 



2-124 



Table 2.16. Diamond Craters Management Actions 1 



The management plan involves 1 6 separate actions to resolve the issue and accomplish the management objective. The 
identified issue discussed in Part I is listed along with the planned management actions which need to be 
implemented. 

1 . Acquire the following parcels of private land adjacent to the present boundaries of Diamond Craters ONA, if they 
become available. Adjustments can be through land exchanges or by purchase. 

a. E1/2, Sec. 16, T. 28 S., R. 32 E. 

b. W1/2NE1/4.NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 32 E. 

c. SE1/4SE1/4, Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 31 E. 

2. Acquire mineral estate to W1/2, Sec. 16, T. 28 S., R. 32 E., and SE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 
3IE. 

3. Protect cultural sites and, where feasible, interpret for public information and education. 

4. Continue the cooperative law enforcement and search and rescue agreement with the Harney County Sheriff's 
Department to enforce regulations and provide visitor protection. The Department patrols the area to deter 
vandalism and guard against removal of slab lava and the destruction of other natural resources. The agreement 
outlines the responsibilities of both agencies and the amount and type of assistance each will provide in law 
enforcement situations. It should remain in force as long as it is economically feasible and acts as a viable 
management tool. 

5. Monitor the resource impacts of recreation use through: 

a. Periodic patrols by vehicle and foot. 

b. Locating traffic counters at strategic locations to record visitors entering and leaving the area and using 
specific sites. 

c. Recordation of group numbers and purposes for using the ONA. 

d. Issuance of special recreation use permits for specific recreation, scientific study and education uses. 

e. Periodic visit use analysis as visitor numbers and/or recreation uses change from the present pattern. 

f. Photograph points for caves and other sensitive features to establish a visual base-line to determine 
physical changes and impacts. 

6. Visitor Use Allocation System - Action Reserved. The current use level does not yet warrant this. 

7. Develop an interpretive program for users which focuses on: 

a. Visitor awareness of outstanding natural, scenic and cultural resources. 

b. Environmentally acceptable visitor behavior which will protect cultural resources, wildlife habitat and 
populations, the natural character of the Craters and the enjoyment of the area by recreationists. 

c. ORV use. 

8. Allow motorized vehicle use only on designated roads by initiating an ORV designation and posting of the area. 

9. Require special recreation use permits for individuals and groups in those cases involving specific recreation, 
scientific study and education activities which affect the recreational use of the other visitors or have an impact 
on the area's resource values. Fees may or may not be charged depending on the Bureau's determination of 
use. Determination will be made on a case-by-case basis with specific stipulations regulating use. 

1 0. Rehabilitate areas where cinders and slab lava have been removed and review all future leasing and material 
disposal operations causing surface disturbance under the most stringent interpretation of applicable regulations. 

1 1 . Adopt a policy of letting natural fire burn within the ONA. 

1 2. Develop a central information center. 

13. Provide interpretation using trailguides and brochures with small on-site location markers rather than installing 
interpretive signs. 

1 4. Develop parking areas or pull-outs near points of observation where vehicular parking space is needed. 



2-125 



Table 2.16. Diamond Craters Management Actions 1 (continued) 

15. Maintain natural conditions at points of interest where visitor use and recreational developments could destroy or 
significantly alter resource values. 

1 6. Provide minimum signing for essential services only, including traffic management, facility and recreation use 
management, and the signing of the boundary around the edge of the withdrawal. 

1 7. Maintain the road to Oliver Springs to allow safe travel of passenger cars. 

1 8. Do not maintain the road to Little Red Cone but keep it at a low standard of construction to allow passage of high 
clearance vehicles. 

1 9. Close roads or trails that are not necessary for management of the area. 

20. Develop no additional roads to allow motorized vehicle use in Diamond Craters. 

21 . Allow the proposed High Desert Trail to go through Diamond Craters. Also develop other trails to accommodate 
and enhance the recreation experience offered by the area, while using the trails as a tool to provide protection 
of fragile resources. 

'As Noted in Diamond Craters Recreation Management Plan, November 1985 



2-126 



Table 2.17. Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory 



River Name 



Current Status 

State of Oregon 
NRI 1 Designated 23 SCORP 2b 



District 3 Segment Description 



Silvies River 
(Segment A) 

Silvies River 
(Segment B) 



Middle Fork 
X 5 

Malheur River 
(Segment A) 



Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment B) 

Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment C) 

Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment D) 



Total 

Segment Total Free-Flowing 

Length BLM Values 

(miles) Acreage 4 Yes No 



Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values 

a b c d e f g 



Malheur Forest boundary 24 
to 5-mile Dam 

5-mile Dam to Malheur 68 

Lake (Includes both 

forks) 

Malheur Forest boundary 5.4 

to WSA S. boundary 
(OR-2-14)T.18S.,R.34E., 
Sec. 32 (includes 
Bluebucket Creek) 

WSA boundary in 29 

Sec. 32, T.18S., 
R.34E., to U.S. 
Highway 20 

U.S. Highway 20 to 12 

slack water, Sec. 1 1 
T.22S., R.36E. 

Slack water, Sec. 1 1 12 

T.22S., R.36E., to 
confluence with S. 
Fork Malheur River 



3,000(41%) X 



30 (.14%) 



1 ,275 (78.5%) X 



435 (5%) X 



1,270(3.5%) X 



1,425(15.5%) 



S. Fk Malheur 
River 
(Segment A) 



Vale District boundary 
Sec. 8, T.26S., R.36E. 
to confluence with 
Middle Fork Malheur 
River 



'Nationwide Rivers Inventor/ 

"Designated State Scenic Waterway or other special State designation 

"Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan - Rivers Inventory 

'Three Rivers Resource Area - Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory 

'Shoreline and adjacent lands within one-quarter mile of the river mean high water level 

s Solitude and Primitive Types o( Recreation; Ecological Values 



a - Scenic 

b - Recreational 

c - Geological 

d - Fish and Wildlife 



24 



2,085 (29%) X 



e - Historical 

f - Cultural 

g - Other (including Ecological) 



■^1 



Table 2.18. Eligibility Assessment and Potential Classification - 
Wild and Scenic River Inventory 



River Name 



Free-Flowing 
Values 
Yes No 



Outstandingly 1 

Remarkable 

Values 

a b c d e f 



Eligibility 
Potential Classification Determination 
Wild Scenic Recreational Eligible Noneligible 



Silvies River 
(Segment A) 

Silvies River 
(Segment B) 

Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment A) 

Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment B) 

Middle Fork 
Malhuer River 
(Segment C) 

Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment D) 

S. Fork Malheur 
River 
(Segment A) 



X 2 X 



a- Scenic 

b- Recreational 

c* Geological 

d - Fish and Wildlife 

e - Historical 

f- Cultural 

g - Other (including Ecological) 

2 

Solitude and primitive types of recreation 



2-128 



Table 2.19. Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory 



River Name 



Silvies River 
(Segment A) 



Silvies River 
(Segment B) 



Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment A) 



Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment B) 



Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment C) 



Middle Fork 
Malheur River 
(Segment D) 

S. Fork Malheur 
River (Segment A) 



Description of Values - Either Outstandingly Remarkable or Lack 
Thereof and Evaluation Statement of Free-flowing Character 



- free-flowing 

- low rainbow trout populations; moderate smallmouth bass 
populations 

- limited rafting in springtime 

- lacks outstandingly remarkable values 

-non-free-flowing, due to irrigation diversions and 
channelization; 

- low populations of smallmouth bass; 

- lacks outstandingly remarkable values 

- free-flowing 

- outstanding scenery throughout corridor 

- outstanding solitude and opportunities for 
primitive recreation 

- variety of vegetation 

- free-flowing 

- low rainbow trout populations 

- limited rafting in springtime 

- lacks outstandingly remarkable values 

- free-flowing 

- low rainbow trout; moderate smallmouth bass populations 

- limited rafting in springtime 

- lacks outstandingly remarkable values 

- non-free-flowing due to irrigation diversions; values 
associated with reservoir waters 

- lacks outstandingly remarkable values 

- free-flowing 

- low rainbow trout populations 

- limited jump shooting of waterfowl 

- lacks outstandingly remarkable values 



2-129 



Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, 
Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek 

1 . Characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

This river section is in a natural condition and possesses outstanding primitive values and opportunities for solitude. 
Outside sights and sounds do not have a major adverse effect on the river section, because of vegetative and topographic 
screening. The Malheur and Bluebucket Creek Canyons, coupled with their intermittent drainages and the steep canyon 
walls, serve to provide a feeling of solitude and help to preserve the primitive values. 

The landform of the canyons and flat plateaus with the addition of the clear, flowing streams; a large variety of vegetation; 
numerous combinations and contrast of colors; and, few cultural modifications, create a corridor of outstanding scenic 
quality. The river area has a scenic quality rating of "A" as defined in the BLM Visual Resource Inventory Handbook, H- 
841 0-1 . The biological diversity is relatively rare within the Lake-Harney-Malheur County region and represents an 
unusually well-preserved and representative ecosystem. 

2. Current status of landownership, use in the area, including the amount of private land involved and associated or 
conflicting uses. 

a. Total acres within the corridor: 1 ,840 
BLM-administered: 1,425 

Private ownership: 400 

State ownership: 15 

Approximately 24 percent of the river length and 22 percent of the corridor area is in private ownership. The majority 
of the private land is located between the designated USDA-FS segment and the portion of the river administered 
by the BLM. 

b. Associated or conflicting uses: 

1) Current Management 

The area is located within the 5,560-acre Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA which is managed under 
Wilderness IMP. It is also within a VRM Class I area established by previous planning decisions which also 
established an area administered (but not designated) for primitive values. The reach of the Middle Fork of 
the Malheur River, including a portion of Bluebucket Creek is within the 2,080-acre primitive management 
area. The primitive management area is within the current WSA boundaries. 

2) Energy and Minerals 

There are no mining claims in the river corridor. Potential for beatable minerals is low. The area has moder- 
ate potential for the occurrence of oil and gas based on favorable source and host rocks present beneath the 
thick cover of tertiary basalts and sediments. However, no oil and gas or geothermal leases existed at the 
time of preparation of this report. 

3) Water Resource Development 

The river corridor has a power site reserve for water power and storage development. This "reserve" is 
scheduled for review in the next few years which may lead to revocation. The potential for power site 
development is considered very low. There are no existing water resource developments within the study 
corridor. 

4) Transportation, Facilities and Developments 

The river and creek are accessed via primitive roads on the flatter terrain above and considerably beyond the 
river corridor. There are no developed recreation trails within this segment, but a primitive trail accessed from 
a jeep trail on private land enters Bluebucket Canyon corridor via the northern rim in Section 34. The private 
land in Sections 1 6 and 21 has a very primitive road that accesses the river from the east. There is no 
structural development associated with the private land, other than livestock fencing. 

5) Recreation Activities 

The river corridor provides outstandingly remarkable opportunities for solitude and primitive types of recre- 
ation. The principle recreation activities are fishing and hunting. Additional activities include hiking, dispersed 
camping, horseback riding, sightseeing and photography. 



2-130 



Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, 
Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek (continued) 

Recreation use of the area is light due to ruggedness of terrain, access and distance from population centers. 
The current use for the segment is estimated at less than 1 00 recreation visitor days per year, mostly local 
(Harney County) residents. There is little current or potential recreation use by residents outside the Lake- 
Harney-Malheur County region. Recreational use is anticipated to increase at a modest rate as a function of 
the increasing value of semi-primitive recreational opportunities. 

6) Wildlife and Fisheries 

The combination of nearby cover and riparian ecosystems in the river corridor support Rocky Mountain elk 
(winter range), mule deer, black bear, mountain lion and a variety of other game and nongame animals. The 
rimrock and rocky bluffs add to the diversity and habitats available along the river. 

The area outside the corridor contains a sage grouse strutting ground and some nesting sites may be within 
the river corridor. The sage grouse is a candidate for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended. Other game birds in the area include: ruffed grouse, blue grouse, valley quail and mourning dove. 

The Malheur River supports an inland trout fishery. The river segment contains native rainbow/redband trout 
as well as mountain whitefish in the larger, deeper pools. 1/ The segment also has the possibility of containing 
the Malheur mottled sculpin. 

The rainbow/redband trout and the Malheur mottled sculpin are listed as category 2 species by the USFWS. 
This designation implies that the species will be further studied and may, as a result, be added to the Federal 
Threatened and Endangered Species List. 

7) Streamflow 

The south side of the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness is the origin of the waters of the Malheur River. The 
headwaters of the watershed are at high elevation with higher than average precipitation. Consequently, the 
Malheur River maintains late summer streamflow that supports a high quality fishery. 

8) Geology 

The Middle Fork Malheur River Canyon is rugged and steep, with a depth of 600 feet in the north and 800 
feet in the south. The canyon's width varies from 0.5 to 1 mile. Bluebucket Creek, also a perennial stream, 
flows east to west, joining the Malheur River near the center of the WSA. Basalt rimrock form the upper edges 
of the Bluebucket Creek Canyon walls which slope sharply to the bottom of the drainage. 

Surface rocks above the river are mostly Tertiary basalt flows, overlain by tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, 
which in turn are capped by the younger basalt flows from Moffet Table and Battle Mountain. Very little is 
known about the underlying pre-tertiary rocks. 

9) Cultural Resources 

The rivers of the area provided a prehistoric travelway between the Great Basin cultural area and the 
Columbia Plateau cultural area. The Malheur River provided fishing, hunting and gathering opportunities as 
well as a camping area. Historically, as the horse culture expanded, this area continued to be an overlap 
between the Columbia Plateau and Great Basin bands. Logan Valley, located at the headwaters of the 
Malheur, was a principle congregating and trading area. While systematic cultural resource inventories are 
incomplete for the area, significant cultural resource sites are likely to be located within the river corridor. 

Historically, there is evidence of logging in the river canyon and the river may have been used by early 
settlers to transport logs to a downstream mill. 

10) Timber Harvest 

The river segment contains limited land classified as commercial timberland. The small commercial sites (22 
acres) are generally fragile, rocky or otherwise constrained. 

1 1 ) Livestock Grazing 

The river corridor is within two grazing allotments. The operations are cow/calf with a deferred rotation grazing 
system and a seasonlong use season. Water developments in the form of developed springs and reservoirs 
service the allotments and help keep the cattle on the tablelands above the river. Livestock access to the river 
is limited due to the steep sidehills and rocky cliffs which form natural barriers. Existing drift fencing also 
serves to keep cattle off the river, thus protecting the riparian area. 



2-131 



Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, 
Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek (continued) 

12) Botanical 

Steep hillsides occur along the Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek. The north-facing slopes are a pon- 
derosa pine/wheatgrass community. There is also a small amount of Douglas fir along Bluebucket Creek. The 
south-facing slopes are dominated by bunchgrass. The species occurring here are bluebunch wheatgrass, 
Idaho fescue, Sandberg's bluegrass and some forbs. The potential natural community species in the pon- 
derosa pine community include ponderosa pine, big sagebrush, bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, bluebunch 
wheatgrass and Sandberg's bluegrass. The potential natural community species in the bunchgrass commu- 
nity are probably bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg's bluegrass and some forbs. 

Western juniper, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, quaking aspen and cottonwood form the overstory in the 
riparian areas. Shrubs include red osier dogwood, wax currant, mountain alder, Wood's rose, Lewis' mock 
orange, chokecherry and several species of willow. Grasses and forbs include redtop, Kentucky bluegrass, 
sagewort and many others. Riparian habitat is in a relatively early ecological status due to heavy livestock 
pressure during the growing season. 

No Federal candidate plants are known to exist in the river corridor. 

13) Wilderness 

The river corridor is within the Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA and contains many of the features which 
give the study area its wilderness character. The river and Bluebucket Creek are the major attractions in the 
WSA and provide the opportunity for the recreation activities previously mentioned. The canyons also provide 
opportunities for solitude because of topographic and vegetative screening. One of the two special features 
found in the WSA and within the river corridor is native redband trout which is a candidate for Federal listing 
under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. 

3. Affected potential uses if designated or not designated. 

a. Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and related waters which would be enhanced, foreclosed or 
curtailed if the area were included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: 

1 ) Enhanced - scenic values, primitive values including primitive recreation activities. 

2) Foreclosed - potential timber harvest on 22 acres commercial forestland 

- potential mining claims and beatable mineral development if designated and classified Wild. 

3) Diminished - livestock grazing improvements and access for mineral leases. 

b. The values which could be foreclosed or diminished if the area is not protected as part of the System. 

1 ) Foreclosed - expansion of the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

2) Diminished - scenic and primitive values; primitive recreation 

4. Public, State, local or Federal interest in designation of the river, including the extent to which the administration of the 
river, including the costs thereof, may be shared by State, local, or other agencies and individuals. 

Interest is shown by State and Federal agencies and other than local publics for designation. The BLM river segment 
could be cooperatively administered with the contiguous USDA-FS sections already designated Wild or Scenic in the 
Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. The BLM section, including private lands and a portion of 
Bluebucket Creek, is 5.4 miles in length. The USDA-FS sections total 13.7 miles in length and, when the BLM section is 
added, the combined reaches total 19.1 miles. 

Approximately 400 private acres could be acquired by exchange or purchase on a "willing buyer/seller" basis within the 
corridor. Actual river frontage would be in the private acres in Section 16 and Section 21, T, 18 S., R. 34 E., and would 
include approximately 1.3 river miles. 

Local public interest is low except for specific livestock operators/private landowners who would be affected by possible 
reduced grazing use and by acquisition of certain parcels within the generally rim-to-rim corridor. 

5. Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands and interests in lands and of administering the area if it is added to the 
System. 

a. The following are expected funding requirements for the Malheur River for the next 5 years: 

Expenses Expected Additional 

Independentof Expenses Expected 

Designation 2 wiffi Designation 

General Administration $ 4,000 $ 2,500 

Costs of Implementation $ 5^000 

Development of Management Plan $17,000 

Developments Costs $6,000 $15,250 

Operation and Maintenance Costs 

Total - First 5 Years $10,000 $39,750 

2-132 



Table 2.20. Suitability Determination for Eligible and Free-Flowing Rivers, Segment A, 
Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek (continued) 

General administration and operation and maintenance costs are estimated to continue at $2,500 annually. 

Definitions of funding categories: 

General Administration: Recurring activities such as river patrol, cleanup, easement administration. 

Development of Management Plan: District and State Office workmonth costs, document printing. 

Cost of Implementation: One time only costs such as boundary posting, map development, development of 
individual property plans. 

Development Costs: Capital investment, i.e., development of facilities 

O&M: Recurring costs associated with maintenance of facilities 

b. Potential exchanges for private lands and purchase of scenic easements 

1) Exchanges = $12,000 for administrative process. 

2) Recreation Trail Easements = $1 ,500 for easement purchases and $1 0,000 for administrative process. 

3) Land and Water Conservation Funds (L&WCF) acquisition = $32,000, but contingent upon Congressional approval to 
purchase private lands within corridor. 

Acquisition of approximately 31 acres in the northern portion of the corridor would be the first priority. Other private 
parcels are near the rim and some boundary adjustments could be made and still adequately protect the river values. 

6. Ability of the agency to manage the river area or segment as a Wild and Scenic River. 

The BLM Burns District has the ability to manage the river segment. The river does not have high visitor use attributable 
to intensive water recreational activities; rafting is limited to a short season during the spring runoff. The main uses are 
sightseeing, hiking, backpacking and some fishing and hunting using the present primitive trails along the river for access. 

Developments needed to provide these continued uses with the addition of some interpretation; mapping and trail 
improvements is minimal and low key. 

It should be noted that the BLM-administered portion of the river and creek (4.1 miles) is not contiguous with the USDA- 
FS designated segment, some private land containing approximately 1.3 river miles, needs to be acquired or easements 
or cooperative agreements negotiated to provide cooperative river management with the USDA-FS. 

7. Historical or existing rights which would be adversely affected as to foreclose, extinguish, curtail, infringe or constitute 
a taking which would entitle the owner to just compensation if the area were included in the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. 

Adequate consideration will be given to rights held by owners, applicants, lessees or claimants. No known historical or 
existing rights are present, but trail easements would be necessary to compensate the owners for trail development and 
public use along the river or exchange or purchase of private parcels to acquire administration of the corridor. 

8. Other issues and concerns identified in the land use planning process. 

a. No new road construction would be allowed into drainage. The primitive road in Sections 16, 21 and 22, providing 
access down to river from the east side, could be closed to motor vehicle use if the river was designated as Wild 
but could be left open under a Scenic designation. 

b. Methods of fire fighting would be limited. Use of heavy equipment would be prohibited under a Wild designation but 
might only be restricted under a Scenic designation. 

c. Additional drift fencing would be allowed along rims, but any cross-fencing of the river and creek would be 
prohibited. 

d. Fisheries rehabilitation for instream structure development and bank rehabilitation would be prohibited unless 
mitigation of impacts would allow it. 

'The taxonomy of inland rainbow trout and redband trout, in this geographic area, is not clearly defined. 

'The river segment is within the Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek WSA. No improvements are allowed that would change the wilderness character for which the study area was established. 
A stream habitat improvement project costing $41 ,000 would be foregone. The construction of 2 miles of fence to control livestock use and improve riparian habitat and enhance redband 
trout habitat would be allowed. About 0.5 mile would be within the river corridor, mostly near the top of the rims. 



2-133 



Table 2.21. Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 
Oregon/Washington 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542 as amended) established a method for providing Federal protection for 
certain of our remaining free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of 
present and future generations. Rivers are included in the system so that they may benefit from the protective management and 
control of development for which the Act provides. The following guidelines and standards are summarized from the February 3, 
1 970 and August 26, 1 982, joint Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture guidelines. They are intended to apply 
to formally designated rivers through incorporation in formal management plans which are normally developed within 3 years of 
designation. The guidelines also apply on an interim basis on designated rivers prior to management plan approval and to rivers 
or river segments which have been found to be eligible for consideration as additions to the national system through the BLM's 
land use planning process. The guidelines have been presented for each classification to enhance clarity. Section 10(a) of the 
Act states that: 

"Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such a manner as to protect and 
enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other 
uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration, primary 
emphasis shall be given to protecting its esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic and scientific features. Management plans 
for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development on the special 
attributes of the area." 

This section is interpreted by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture as stating a nondegradation and enhancement policy for 
all designated river areas, regardless of classification. 

Wild Rivers 

Wild Rivers are defined by the Act to be "...Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 
inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges 
of primitive America." 

Management Objective for Wild Rivers 

Management of Wild River areas should give primary emphasis to protecting the values which make it outstandingly remarkable 
while providing river-related outdoor recreation opportunities in a primitive setting. 

Management Standards for Wild Rivers 

Allowable management practices might include construction of minor structures for such purposes as improvement of fish and 
game habitat; grazing; protection from fire, insects or disease; rehabilitation or stabilization of damaged resources, provided the 
area will remain natural appearing and the practices of structures will harmonize with the environment. Such things as trail 
bridges, an occasional fence, natural-appearing water diversions, ditches, flow measurement or other water management 
devices, and similar facilities may be permitted if they are unobtrusive and do not have a significant direct adverse effect on the 
natural character of the area. The following program management standards apply: 

a. Forest Practices: Cutting of trees will not be permitted except when needed in association with a primitive recreation experi- 
ence (such as clearing for trails and protection of users) or to protect the environment (such as control of fire). Timber outside 
the boundary, but within the visual corridors, should, where feasible, be managed and harvested in a manner to provide special 
emphasis to visual quality. 

b. Water Quality: Water quality will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or Federally approved State standards. 

c. Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be permitted. 
No flood control dams, levees, or other works are allowed in the channel or river corridor. The natural appearance and essen- 
tially primitive character of the river area must be maintained. All water supply dams and major diversions are prohibited. 

d. Mining: New mining claims and mineral leases are prohibited within one-quarter mile of the river. Valid existing claims would 
not be abrogated and, subject to existing regulations (e.g., 43 CFR 3809) and any future regulations that the Secretary of the 
Interior may prescribe to protect the rivers included in the National System, existing mining activity would be allowed to con- 
tinue. All mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation, pollution, and 
visual impairment. Reasonable access will be permitted. 

e. Road Construction: No new roads or other provisions for overland motorized travel would be permitted within a narrow 
incised river valley, or if the river valley is broad, within one-quarter mile of the river bank. A few inconspicuous roads leading to 
the boundary of the river area may be permitted. 

f. Agriculture and Livestock Grazing: Agricultural use is restricted to a limited amount of domestic livestock grazing and hay 
production to the extent currently being practiced. Row crops are prohibited. 

g. Recreation Facilities: Major public-use areas, such as campgrounds, interpretive centers, or administrative headquarters are 
located outside Wild River areas. Simple comfort and convenience facilities, such as fireplaces or shelters may be provided as 
necessary within the river area. These should harmonize with the surroundings. Unobtrusive hiking and horseback riding trail 
bridges could be allowed on tributaries, but would not normally cross the designated river. 

2-134 



Table 2.21. Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 
Oregon/Washington (continued) 

h. Public Use and Access: Recreation use, including, but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting and boating is encouraged in Wild 
River areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river environment. Public use and access may be regulated and 
distributed where necessary to protect and enhance Wild River values. 

i. Rights-of-Way: New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless prohibited by other plans, 
orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. 
Where new rights-of-way are indicated, Wild River values must be fully evaluated in the selection of the site. 

j. Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water could be permitted, but is generally not compatible with this classification. 

Scenic Rivers 

Scenic Rivers are defined by the Act to be "...Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or 
watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads." 

Management Objective for Scenic Rivers 

Management of Scenic River areas should maintain and provide outdoor recreation opportunities in a near natural setting. The 
basic distinctions between a Wild and a Scenic River area are the degree of development, type of land use and road accessibil- 
ity. In general, a wide range of agricultural, water management, silvicultural and other practices could be compatible with Scenic 
River values, providing such practices are carried on in such a way that there is no substantial adverse effect on the river and its 
immediate environment. 

Management Standards for Scenic Rivers 

The same considerations enumerated for Wild River areas should be considered, except that motorized vehicle use may, in 
some cases, be appropriate and that development of large scale public-use facilities within the river area, such as moderate 
size campgrounds, public information centers, and administrative headquarters, would be compatible if such structures were 
screeneafrom the river. The following program management standards apply: 

a. Forest Practices: A wide range of silvicultural practices could be allowed provided that such practices are carried on in such a 
way that there is no substantial adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. The river area should be maintained 
in its near natural environment. Timber outside the boundary but within the visual scene area should be managed and har- 
vested in a manner which provides special emphasis on visual quality. 

b. Water Quality: Water quality will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or Federally approved State standards. 

c. Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be allowed. 
Flood control dams and levees would be prohibited. All water supply dams and major diversions are prohibited. Maintenance of 
existing facilities and construction of some new structures would be permitted provided that the area remains natural in appear- 
ance and the practices or the structures harmonize with the surrounding environment. 

d. Mining: Subject to existing regulations (e.g., 43 CFR 3809) and any future regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may 
prescribe to protect the values of rivers included in the National System, new mining claims and mineral leases could be 
allowed. All mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation, pollution and 
visual impairment. Reasonable access will be permitted. 

e. Road Construction: Existing roads may occasionally bridge the river area and short stretches of conspicuous or long 
stretches of inconspicuous and well-screened roads or screened railroads could be allowed. Maintenance of existing roads and 
any new roads will be based on the type of use for which roads are constructed and the type of use that will occur in the river 
area. 

f. Agriculture and Livestock Grazing: In comparison to Wild River areas, a wider range of agricultural and livestock grazing uses 
is permitted to the extent currently practiced. Row crops are not considered as an intrusion of the "largely primitive" nature of 
Scenic corridors as long as there is not a substantial adverse effect on the natural-like appearance of the river area. 

g. Recreation Facilities: Larger scale public use facilities, such as moderate size campgrounds, public information centers, and 
administrative headquarters are allowed if such structures are screened from the river. 

h. Public Use and Access: Recreation use, including but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting and boating, is encouraged in 
Scenic River areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river environment. Public use and access may be regulated 
and distributed where necessary to protect and enhance Scenic River values. 

i. Rights-of-Way: New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless prohibited by other plans, 
orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. 
Where new rights-of-way are indicated, scenic river values must be fully evaluated in the selection of the site. 



2-135 



Table 2.21. Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 
Oregon/Washington (continued) 



j. Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, prohibited or restricted to protect the river values. 
Recreation Rivers 

Recreational Rivers are defined by the Act to be "...Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 
railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or 
diversion in the past." 

Management Objective for Recreation Rivers 

Management of Recreational River areas should be designed to protect and enhance existing recreational values. The primary 
objective will be to provide opportunities for engaging in recreation activities dependent on or enhanced by the largely free- 
flowing nature of the river. 

Standards for Recreation Rivers 

Recreation facilities may be established in close proximity to the river, although Recreation River classification does not require 
extensive recreation developments. Recreational facilities may still be kept to a minimum, with visitor services provided outside 
the river area. Future construction of impoundments, diversions, straightening, riprapping, and other modification of the water- 
way or adjacent lands would not be permitted except in instances where such developments would not have a direct and 
adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. The following program management standards apply: 

a. Forest Practices: Timber harvesting would be allowed under standard restrictions to protect the immediate river environment, 
water quality, scenic, fish and wildlife, and other values. 

b. Water Quality: Water quality will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or Federally approved State standards. 

c. Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be allowed. 
Existing low dams, diversion works, riprap and other minor structures may be maintained provided the waterway remains 
generally natural in appearance. New structures may be allowed provided that the area remains natural in appearance and the 
practices or structures harmonize with the surrounding environment. 

d. Mining: Subject to existing regulations (e.g., 43 CFR 3809) and any future regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may 
prescribe to protect values of rivers included in the National System, new mining claims and mineral leases are allowed and 
existing operations are allowed to continue. All mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface distur- 
bance, sedimentation, pollution, and visual impairment. Reasonable access will be permitted. 

e. Road Construction: Existing parallel roads or railroads can be maintained on one or both river banks. There can be several 
bridge crossings and numerous river access points. 

f. Agriculture and Livestock Grazing: In comparison to Scenic River areas, lands may be managed for a full range of agriculture 
and livestock grazing uses, consistent with current practices. 

g. Recreation Facilities: Interpretive centers, administrative headquarters, campgrounds and picnic areas may be established in 
close proximity to the river. However, recreational classification does not require extensive recreation development. 

h. Public Use and Access: Recreation use, including but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting and boating, is encouraged in 
Recreation River areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river environment. Public use and access may be 
regulated and distributed where necessary to protect and enhance Recreation River values. 

i. Rights-of-Way: New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless prohibited by other plans, 
orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way 
Where new rights-of-way are indicated, Recreation River values must be fully evaluated in the selection of the site. 

j. Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water will generally be permitted, on existing roads. Controls will usually be 
similar to surrounding lands and waters. 



2-136 



Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Objective and Rationale 

ACEC 1 : Provide special management attention to protect important natural, cultural or scenic resources on approximately 95,049 
acres (see Map ACEC-1). 

Rationale: FLPMA gives priority to the designation and protection of ACECs and to the prevention of irreparable damage to the 
important resources of the ACEC. ACEC designation is the principal BLM designation where special management is required to 
protect important natural, cultural and scenic resources. BLM policy, as expressed in the BLM Manual 1613, directs that managers 
will give precedence to the identification, evaluation and designation of such areas. BLM Native American policy, as expressed in 
BLM Manual 81 60, directs the use of ACEC designations where needed to protect traditional Native American lifeways practiced 
upon public lands. 



Allocation/Management Action 

ACEC 1 .1 : Retain designation and approved management of 
the: South Narrows ACEC, 160 acres, for Critical Habitat of 
officially listed endangered species (see Map ACEC-2); Dia- 
mond Craters ONA/ACEC, 16,656 acres, for unique geologic 
features (see Map ACEC-3); and Silver Creek RNA/ACEC, 640 
acres (see Map ACEC-4), for one Oregon Natural Heritage 
Plan (ONHP) aquatic natural area cell. (See Appendix 1 , Table 
15 for detailed ACEC descriptions. See Appendix 1 , Table 16 
for allowable uses/use constraints.) 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .2, V 1 .4 SSS 1 .3, WL 7.22, WL 
7.28, R 1 .1 , R 2.1 , R 2.1 1 , R 2.1 6, VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , 
LR 1.1, LR1.5, LR2.3, BD 2.3, BD3.1. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Revise existing ACEC plans as necessary. 
Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the existing plans. 



ACEC 1.2: Designate an additional 400 acres as part of the 
Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-3). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By : GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .2, WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.28, 
RI.I,R2.1,R2.11,R2.16,ACEC1.1,VRM1.2,EMI.1,EM1.4, 
LR 1.1, LR2.3, LR5.1, BD3.1, BD 3.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Revise Diamond Craters Management Plan to reflect clo- 
sure to grazing except for limited 1 day trailing permits. 

2. Make other revisions if necessary. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the Diamond Craters Management Plan. 

- Compliance monitoring of livestock trailing permits. 



ACEC 1.3: Designate an additional 1 ,280 acres as part of the 
Silver Creek RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-4) for two ONHP 
natural area cells, following the acquisition of a 640-acre private 
inholding (see Appendix 1 , Table 1 5, Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 
Addition). 

Geographic Reference: 7010. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, V 1 .4, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.28, R 
2.1, R 2.16, ACEC 1.1, VRM 1.2, EM 1.1, EM 4.1, LR 1.1, LR 
1.5, LR 2.3, BD3.1, BD 3.3. 

Constrained By: WL 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Acquire 640 acres private inholding through land exchange. 

2. Revise/updateexistingRNA/ACECmanagementplanwithin 
2 years of establishmentto reflect constraints in Appendix 1 , 
Table 1 6. 

3. Prepare NEPA documentation and construct fence addition 
within 2 years of establishment. 

4. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from graz- 
ing allotment base and update AMP to reflect this change. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in management plan. 

- Fence maintenance inspection prior to livestock turnout. 



2-137 




2-138 



n a i h-e- 



N-ft-t"V 





OREGON 

| A | EXISTING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

A. Malheur River-Bluebucket Creek WSA 

B. Stonehouse WSA 

C. Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 

D. Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 

E. South Narrows ACEC 

F. Dry Mountain RNA (USFS Proposed) 



3 I PROPOSED SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

1 Silver Creek RNA/ACEC Addition 

2 Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 

3 Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC Addition 

4 Kiger Mustang ACEC 

5 Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 



4$> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP ACEC-1 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT 
AREAS 



2-139 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to ImpSement/Monitoring Needs 



ACEC 1.4: Designate 2,690 acres as Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 
(see Map ACEC-5) for one ONHP natural area cell (see 
Appendix 1 , Table 1 5, Foster Flat RNA/ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: 7002. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By :GM 1.4, V1.4, WL7.25, WL7.28.R2.1, R2.16, 
VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 2.3, BD 3.4. 

Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints 
in Appendix 1, Table 16 and to address specific manage- 
ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval 
of RMP. 

2. Prepare NEPA documentation and fence RNA within 2 
years of approval of RMP. 

3. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- 
tion and maintenance of fences which are the District's 
responsibility to maintain. 

4. Coordinate with affected permittees. 

5. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from allot- 
ment base and update AMP to reflect this change. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Fence maintenance inspection on a quarterly basis, except 
during grazing season, May through August, when it will be 
done monthly. 

- Establish baseline monitoring, including periodic on-the- 
ground assessments, general photo plots, and a species list 
within 3 years of approval of RMP. 



ACEC 1.5: Designate 2,084 acres as Dry Mountain RNA/ 
ACEC (see Map ACEC-4), for five ONHP natural area cells 
(See Appendix 1, Table 15, Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: 701 1 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: F 1 .7, V 1 .4, V 1 .5, WL 7.21 , WL 7.26, R 2.1 , R 
2.1 6, VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, BD 3.5, 
BD3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints 
in Appendix 1 , Table 1 6, and to address specific manage- 
ment actions which are required within 3 years of approval 
of RMP. 

2. Coordinate with USDA-FS in plan preparation and monitor- 
ing establishment. 

3. Coordinate with affected permittees. 

4. Incorporate management actions and constraints from Table 
2.10 for ponderosa pine old growth areas into the RNA/ 
ACEC plan. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Establish baseline monitoring within 3 years of approval of 
RMP to involve periodic systematic on-the-g round assess- 
ments. 



ACEC 1.6: Designate 6,500 acres as the Biscuitroot Cultural 
ACEC (see Map ACEC-7) for preservation of Native American 
root-gathering (see Appendix 1 , Table 15, Biscuitroot Cultural 
ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: Allotments Nos. 5503, 5529, 5531, 
5533. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: R2.1, R2.16, VRM 1.2, CR2.1, EM 1 .1 , EM2.1 , 
EM4.1,LR1.1,LR1.5, LR 2.3, BD 3.6. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Coordinate with livestock operators and tribal leaders. 

2. Prepare ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in 
Appendix 1 , Table 1 6, and to address specific management 
actions which are required within 3 years of approval of 
RMP. 

3. Develop MOU with tribal groups. 

4. Develop monitoring to ensure appropriate harvest levels are 
maintained. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the management plan. 



2-140 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



ACEC 1.7: Designate the Kiger and Riddle HMAs of 64,639 
acres as the Kiger Mustang ACEC (see Map ACEC-6) for 
unique characteristics of wild horses (see Appendix 1, Table 
15, Kiger Mustang ACEC). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: WHB 1.1, WHB 2.2, WHB 2.3, WHB 3.1 , R 2.1 , 
R 2.1 6, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, LR 4.1 , LR 4.2, 
BD2.4, BD3.7. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Write a plan incorporating management objectives and use 
constraints for the Kiger ACEC within 3 years of approval of 
RMP (see Appendix 1 , Table 1 6). 

2. Update AMPs as necessary to incorporate ACEC objec- 
tives. 

3. Coordinate with affected permittees and other affected 
interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic on-the-ground assessments of utilization and wild 
horse movements will be conducted. 



2-141 




„--Wg-~ ^■.'.yj-; 



ACEC Boundary 
BLM Land 
Other Land 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP ACEC- 2 
SOUTH NARROWS ACEC 



1/2 



1 Mile 

3 



2-142 



R. 31 E. 



R. 32 E. 



R. 33 E. 




ONA/ACEC Addition 



LEGEND 

ACEC Boundary 
BLM Land 
Other Land 




OREGON 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP ACEC-3 
DIAMOND CRATERS ONA/ACEC 



o 

ZE 



2 Miles 



2-143 




2-144 




DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP ACEC-5 
FOSTER FLAT RNA/ACEC 



-N- 



1/2 



2 Miles 



2-145 



T. 



28-$-4i 



^J 




*J S 






'■■■ 





ajv 





I [,. SOUTH ..1^ , .'-''^^-^ ; l -' „,j"- 



















■-'■ 


'""-'• 'f 








" !•' 



T= «3 



i-'aifH 






5% 




1 u>ii 



I 









R. 32 3/4 E. 



R. 33 E. 



R. 34 E. 



R. 35 E. R. 36 E. 



' '-""'i ,;':'' "jB 



LEGEND 

ACEC Boundary 
BLM Land 
Other Land 



mieyp.A. -.,i;;' : ;; ' A 



OREGON 



-N- 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP ACEC-6 
KIGER MUSTANG ACEC 



10 12 3 

H M I 1 I- 



5 6 7 Miles 



I I 1 ZZE 



2-146 



R. 33 E. 



R. 33 1/2 E. 



R. 34 E. 



-«j.;_ . -:* J-] 




R. 32 1/2 E. 



R. 34 E. 



R. 35 E. 



LEGEND 

Biscuitroot ACEC Boundary 

Additional 
Traditional Use Areas 

BLM Land 

National Forest Land 

Other Land 




N- 



Hiley P A 



DrenSdy P. A.- 



OREGON 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RMP 

MAP ACEC-7 

NATIVE AMERICAN 
TRADITIONAL USE AREAS 

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Miles 



he: 



H r- 



2-147 



Visual Resource Management 

Objective and Rationale 

VRM 1 : Protect, maintain, enhance or rehabilitate the visual resource values as inventoried and evaluated by managing all public 
lands in accordance with the VRM System. 

Rationale: Activities conducted or authorized by the BLM often involve alterations of the landscape. Since one of the major 
components of a quality environment is its appearance and because public lands have scenic value, it is essential to perform 
management activities in a manner that will maintain existing visual resource values and perpetuate an attractive environment. This 
can be accomplished through application of the VRM System. 

The FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands "....in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic values.. .that where 
appropriate will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition..." (Section 102a). 



Allocation/Management Action 

VRM 1 .1 : Manage 8,580 acres as VRM Class I (see Map VRM- 
1) to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: R 2.1 2, EM 1 .1 , EM 3.1 , EM 4.1 , LR 2.4, LR 5.1 . 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class 
I areas through NEPA process. 

2. Allow very limited management activity to ensure the level 
of change to the characteristic landscape is very low and 
does not attract attention. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- NEPA document review on project proposals. 



VRM 1.2: Manage 133,631 acres as VRM Class II (see Map 
VRM-1) to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: FM 1 .1 , R 2.2, EM 1 .1 , EM 1 .2, EM 4.1 , LR 2.4, 

LR5.1. 

Constrained By: EM 2.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class 
II through the NEPA process. 

2. Allow management activities which may be seen, but do not 
attract the attention of the casual observer or can be 
mitigated to not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- NEPA document review on project proposals. 



VRM 1.3: Manage 421,170 acres as VRM Class III (see Map 
VRM-1) to partially retain the existing character of the land- 
scape. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: GM 1.4, R1.2, LR2.1, LR 2.2, LR 2.5. 



r> l< 




5^^S2S 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class 
III through the NEPA process. 

2. Allow management activities which may attract attention but 
should not dominate the view of the casual observer or can 
be mitigated so they do not dominate the view of the casual 
observer. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- NEPA document review on project proposals. 



^-xyr 



2-148 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



VRM 1 .4: Manage 1 ,1 52,987 acres as VRM Class IV (see Map 
VRM-1) to allow modification of the existing character of the 
landscape. 

Decision Class: 3 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Evaluate all proposed management activities in VRM Class 
IV through the NEPA process. 

2. Allow management activities which may dominate the view 
and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- NEPA document review on project proposals. 



VRM 1.5: Identify and rehabilitate unacceptable intrusions on 
public lands within the foreground corridor of travel routes 
through special areas, along designated byways and trails and 
along major travel routes through the RA. 

Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Modify current VRM classes along byway routes to conform 
to the guidelines for managing these travel routes if the 
classes now allow major modifications to the characteristic 
landscape. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



2-149 




2-150 



N A I I 



*H^hM*T^ 





OREGON 



1 CLASS l-Preservation 



CLASS ll-Retention of the Landscape 
Character 



77T~ I CLASS Ill-Partial Retention of the 
Landscape Character 



CLASS IV-Modification of the Landscape 
Character 



^S> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP VRM-1 



VISUAL RESOURCE 
MANAGEMENT CLASSES 



2-151 



Cultural Resources 

Objective and Rationale 

CR 1 : Protect the cultural and paleontological values in the RA from accidental or intentional loss, while providing special emphasis 
to high value sites and conserving those resources of overriding scientific or historic importance. 

Rationale: FLPMA directs the BLM to manage paleontological and cultural resources on the public lands in a mannerthat will protect 
them and provide for their proper use. The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides for the protection of paleontological resources on all 
Federal lands, and requires permits for those who excavate or appropriate these resources. The Archaeological Resources 
Protection Act of 1 979 (ARPA), as amended, defines and protects archaeological resources on Federal lands, establishes a permit 
system for resources over 1 00 years old, and requires agencies to provide for public education and continuing inventory of Federal 
lands. The National Historic Preservation Act of I966 (NHPA), as amended, provides a national policy for historic preservation, 
establishes a National Reg isterof Historic Places (NRHP) designation for important properties, protects sitesfrom destruction without 
appropriate data recovery, and requires that historic properties be utilized in agency missions when warranted. E.0. 1 1 953 directs 
Federal agencies to inventory public lands and to nominate eligible properties to the NRHP. BLM Manual Sections 1 623 and 81 00 
provide management policy and use allocations for the disposition and utilization of agency-managed cultural resources. 



Allocation/Management Action 

CR 1.1: Evaluate and nominate potentially eligible historic 
properties to the NRHP. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. Evaluate the Lost Dune Site for research potential and 
conservation needs: 

a. Conduct test excavations. 

b. Establish stipulations for research permits. 

c. Specify conditions under which conservation use may 
change to other uses. 

d. Provide for a field school at the site, focusing research on 
portions of the site not considered for conservation. 

2. Prepare and submit nomination for the Lost Dune Site in 
accordance with 30 CFR 60. 

3. Consider other cultural properties for listing on the NRHP: 

a. Evaluate properties against NRHP criteria. 

b. Test excavate selected sites as needed for complete 
evaluation. 

c. Complete nomination formats for the NRHP, in accord 
with 36 CFR 60. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Units of accomplishment. 




2-152 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



CR 1.2: Monitor site conditions and trends. Provide law en- 
forcement to address illicit resource use by patrolling all poten- 
tial NRHP sites, especially in the following subregions with 
identified enforcement problems: 

a. Pine Springs Basin Fire Zone 

b. Double O 

c. Wagontire 

d. Stinkingwater Mountains 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: CR 1 .3, SM 1 .1 , SM 1 .2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Establish schedule (timing/frequency) for monitoring and 
patrol. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Select sites for photo-trend plots for annual monitoring. 

- Develop site-specific actions to alleviate resource degrada- 
tion where indicated through monitoring. 



CR 1.3: Develop cultural resource management plans where 
sample inventory and cultural resource use allocations are 
required to address mandates of the ARPA of 1979. 

a. Pine Springs Basin Fire Zone 

b. Wagontire 

c. Stinkingwater Mountains 

d. Double O 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 
Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Complete activity plans in accord with BLM 8100 Manual. 

2. Complete plan-specific NEPA documentation. 

3. Consult with State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) 
on each plan. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



CR 1.4: Initiate acquisition of private inholdings on a "willing 
seller - willing buyer" basis where known and manageable 
significant resources occur on adjacent Federal and private 
lands. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7002, 7024; Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: LR 1.1, LR1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . CCC with owners. 

2. Pursue acquisition primarily through private exchange. 

3. Facilitate through a third party (e.g. Trust for Public Lands, 
Archaeological Conservancy, etc.) when necessary for land 
exchanges. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



2-153 



Objective and Rationale 



CR 2: Increase the opportunity for the public's sociocultural, educational and recreational uses of the area's cultural and 
paleontological resources. 

Rationale: FLPMA directs the BLMto manage paleontological and cultural resources on public lands in a manner that will protect 
thorn and provide for their proper use. ARPA requires Federal agencies to provide for public education regarding archaeological 
resources. The NHPA requires that historic properties be utilized in agency missions when warranted and that significant cultural 
prope rites can be afforded protection by listing on the National Register. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1 979 (AIRFA) 
protects the rights of American Indians to exercise their traditional religions, and directs Federal agencies to ensure that their policies 
and procedures do not interfere unduly with the free exercise of sacred traditions. BLM Manual Section 8160, entitled "Native 
American Coordination and Consultation," establishes an agency policy toward Native Americans, integrating the management of 
resources of value to American Indians into all programs. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



CR 2.1 : Designate and manage 6,500 acres of Native Ameri- 
can root gathering areas as the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC (see 
Appendix 1, Table 15, Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5503, 5529, 5531, 
5533. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: ACEC 1 .6, BD 3.6, GM 1 .1 , WHB 1 .3, LR 1 .1 , R 
2.1, V 1.1, EM 1.1, EM 2.1, CR 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Prepare ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in 
Appendix 1 , Table 1 6, and to address specific management 
actions which are required within 3 years of approval of 
RMP. 

2. CCC with livestock operators and tribal representatives and 
other interested parties. 

3. Provide for the use of the Pine Creek Community Pit by 
Harney County under the existing permit; do not renew 
county use permit upon expiration in 1992; no additional 
gravel pits will be authorized within this ACEC; do not 
authorize any additional surface disturbance or other uses 
that might be incompatible with ACEC objectives. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



CR 2.2: Manage those Native American traditional-use areas 
found on public lands and identified in the planning process, to 
allow for the continuation of such uses. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5532, 5504, 5501, 
5503,5529,5531,5533. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: BD 1 .1 , V 1 .1 , LR 1 .1 , CR 2.1 , WHB 1 .3, GM 1 .1 . 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop an activity plan. 

2. Map such lands. 

3. CCC with tribes and livestock operators and other interested 
parties. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



CR 2.3: Provide for Native American requests to practice 
traditional cultural activities on specific lands not identified in 
the planning process, on a case-by-case basis where consis- 
tent with other multiple-use prescriptions. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 3 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. CCC with tribes. 

2. NEPA documentation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



2-154 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



CR 2.4: Manage obsidian source/quarry areas for scientific and 
public uses. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 7004, 7005, 7087, 
7017,7030,7025. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:R 1.2, R2.16. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop an activity plan including: 

a. Identification of areas where public and scientific uses 
are encouraged. 

b. Protection of areas with cultural value and lesser distur- 
bance. 

c. Listing of activities suitable for the various use and 
protection areas, and procedures to follow for such uses. 

2. Consult with SHPO. 

3. NEPA documentation. 

4. CCC with livestock operators. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



CR 2.5: Provide interpretation of appropriate sites including, 
but not limited to: 

a. Gap Ranch 

b. Malheur Lake Village Site 

Geographic Reference: 7006, 7001. 
Decision Class: 2 
Supported By:R 1.1, R 2.16. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Design interpretive programs for each site including docu- 
mentary and on-site materials. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Through AWP workload accomplishments. 



CR 2.6: Manage historic Properties on public lands for public 
use where feasible. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 1.1, R2.16. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory potential historic properties. 

2. Evaluate for suitability for public use or interpretation. 

3. Consult with the SHPO. 

4. Develop site management plans. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in site management plans. 



R 2.7: Manage high potential fossil resource areas for scientific 
and hobby uses. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:R 1.1, R 2.8, R2.15, R2.16. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Inventory high potential fossil areas. 

2. Update literature overview for fossil locations and research. 

3. Use BLM-National Park Service (NPS) (John Day Fossil 
Beds National Monument). Agreement to access paleonto- 
logical expertise. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Units of accomplishment. 

- Periodic patrol. 



2-155 



Energy and Minerals 

Objective and Rationale 

EM 1 : Provide maximum leasing opportunity for oil, gas and geothermal exploration and development by utilizing the least restrictive 
leasing categories necessary to protect sensitive resources. 

Rationale: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended, Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 as amended, the Mining and Mineral Policy 
Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the 
development of domestic mineral resources. FLPMA, Sec. 1 02 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1 970 is to be 
implemented and directs that the public lands are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic 
sources of minerals and other resources. The BLM's Mineral Policy (1 984) states that public lands shall remain open and available 
for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. 

The planning area has had past oil, gas and geothermal leases. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



EM 1 .1 : Allocate a total of approximately 1 ,499,000 acres as 
open to oil, gas and geothermal leasing subject to standard 
terms and conditions; 603,000 acres as open to leasing subject 
to special stipulations; 1 1 1 ,700 acres as open to leasing subject 
to no surface occupancy and similar major constraints; 1 1 3,300 
acres as closed to leasing. 

The oil, gas and geothermal leasing stipulations are described 
in Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide Maps M-1 and M-2. 

Decision Class: 1 and 3 

Supported By: WL 7.1 , R 2.2, CR 2.1 , LR 2.6, LR 5.1 . 

Constrained By : SM 1 .1 , SM 2. 1 , SM 2.2, WHB 2.2, V 1 . 1 , V 1 .4, 
V 1 .5, SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, WL 7.7, WL 7.21 , WL 7.22, WL 7.23, 
WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, R 1 .1 , R 1 .2, R 1 .5, R 2. 1 , R 2. 1 2, 
ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1 .2, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, ACEC 
1.6, ACEC 1.7, VRM 1.1, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3, LR 1.2, BD 1.1, 
BD 1.5, BD2.4, BD3.1, BD3.2, BD3.3, BD3.4, BD3.5, BD3.6, 
BD3.7, BD3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Township and range maps showing stipulations appropriate 
to each location developed forthe planning area and will be 
included in the automated data base. In this way, the 
appropriate stipulations will be attached to the lease parcels. 

2. All exploration applications will receive environmental re- 
view and NEPA documentation prior to authorization. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As leases are terminated, descriptions of parcels are sent to 
the District Office, stipulations reviewed for conformance 
with RMP/EIS, T&E, etc.; changes to be noted on the T&R 
Maps, and forwarded to the Oregon State Office to be 
incorporated into the database and attached to leases as 
appropriate. 




2-156 



Objective and Rationale 



EM 2: Continue to meet public demand for mineral materials from public lands in the planning area on a case-by-case basis except 
for 64,315 acres in ACECs, WSAs and scenic corridors. 

Rationale: The Act of July 31 , 1 947 as amended (30 USC 601 ), the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1 970 declares that it is the 
continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral 
resources. FLPMA, Sec. 1 02 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of I970 is to be implemented and directs that the 
public lands are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals and other 
resources. The BLM's Mineral Policy (1984) states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and 
development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. 

Demand for aggregate from Federal mineral estate is projected to increase over the next 1 to 1 5 years. Most of the increase will 
probably occur along the major highway systems and near smaller communities. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



EM 2.1 : Provide for mineral material needs in approved pits as 
shown in Table 2.25. New mineral materials sites will be 
considered on a case-by-case basis where existing sites or 
materials do not adequately provide for needs. The existing 
county material site in the Pine Creek area (T 22 S., R. 34 E., 
Section 7, S1/2NENW; N1/2NENW; S1/2SENE) would be 
closed upon expiration of the existing county permit to meet 
management objectives for the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC. 
Unauthorized mineral materials sites will be closed and reha- 
bilitated on a case-by-case basis. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, R2.2, R 2.4, ACEC 1 .6, 
CR2.1.BD3.6. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Promptly process free use permit applications for approved 
sources. 

2. Develop site-specific mining and reclamation plans on ap- 
proved pits and quarries, determining appraisal values for 
sales, collecting fees and overseeing the reclamation of 
community pits in accordance with plans. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Geologist and other resource specialists to note unautho- 
rized use, make periodic inspections for unauthorized use 
and maintain records in accordance with BLM manuals and 
policy. 



Constrained By: AQ 1 .3, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, 
V 1 .5, SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, WL 7.1 , WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.24, 
WL 7.25, WL 7.26, R 1.1, R 1.2, R 1.5, R2.1, R 2.3, R 2.12, 
ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1 .2, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, ACEC 
1.7,VRM1.1,VRM1.2,VRM1.3, CR2.1,CR2.2, CR2.4, LR 
1 .2, BD 1.1, BD 1.5, BD2.4, BD3.1, BD3.2, BD3.3, BD3.4, BD 
3.5, BD3.7, BD3.8. 



2-157 




2-158 



-pt-ft-4-+-e 



tt-ft-tV-l £ F n RI\J F -S T 





OREGON 



Oil/Gas - Low Potential 



Oil/Gas - Moderate Potential 



Y///// Coal - Moderate Potential (All other 
' <<<'<< * areas not identified are low 

potential ) 

I 1 Areas of Historical Interest 

I 1 (Oil and Gas) 



■if Abandoned Oil or Gas Test Hole 



■& Well with Gas Show 



10 MILES 

S 



^ 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP M-1 

COAL, OIL AND GAS 
POTENTIAL 



2-159 




2-160 



ifTjUjrV'a 




I «/.,«.-* Uu«»sj / >- 




/ rWf 




L«KEV,EW |jQft 




^v DIST. 1 (~ 





OREGON 



[ [ \ High Potential (Direct Use) 



Moderate Potential 



I ■ ■ ■ ■! 

.*.*.*. "J Low Potential 
• ■ • • ' 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP M-2 

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 
POTENTIAL 



2-161 



Objective and Rationale 

EM 3: Provide maximum opportunity in areas identified as open to the operation of mining laws for exploration and location of 
beatable minerals on public lands mineral estate in the planning area (see Map M-3). 

Rationale: 1 872 Mining Law (30 USC 22 et. seq), the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1 970 declares that it is the continuing policy 
of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. The 
FLPMA, Sec. 1 02 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1 970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands 
are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The 
Bureau's Mineral Policy (1984) states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development 
unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. 



Allocation/Management Action 

EM 3.1 : Allocate a total of 1,666,181 acres as open to location 
underthe Mining Law in the planning area. 48,437.33 acres are 
nondiscretionary withdrawals and 1,214.89 acres are discre- 
tionary closures as summarized in Table 2.26. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 1 



Supported By: WL 7.22, WL 7.23, R 1 .1 , 
2.12, LR5.2, BD3.1, BD 3.4. 



R2.2, R2.3, R2.4, R 



Constrained By: SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, WHB 2.2, V 1 .4, SSS 
1.3, SSS 3.1, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, WL 7.26, R 2.1, 
ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1 .2, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, ACEC 
1 .6, ACEC 1 .7, CR 2. 1 , LR 1 .2, BD 1 .5, BD 2.3, BD 2.4, BD 3.1 , 
BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.7. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Ensure operations are in compliance with 43 CFR 3809 and 
3802 regulations. 

2. Act timely on notices and plans of operations. 

3. Make periodic inspections in accordance with BLM manuals 
and policies. 

4. Prepare appropriate NEPA documentation based on scope 
of project, etc. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Regular surveillance to detect and confirm unauthorized 
mining activity, inspection of county records and review of 
pertinent literature. 

- Monitor active mining operations with two or more compli- 
ance inspections per year, contingent on funding. 




&r&k 



2-162 



Objective and Rationale 

EM 4: Provide maximum opportunity for the leasing and development of solid leasable minerals other than coal. 

Rationale: Mineral Leasing Act of 1 920 as amended, the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1 970 declares that it is the continuing 
policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic mineral resources. 
FLPMA, Sec. 1 02 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1 970 is to be implemented and directs that the public lands 
are to be managed in a manner which recognizesthe Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The BLM's 
Mineral Policy (1984) states the public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless 
withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. 

Potential demand exists for sodium and potassium, etc., in the planning area. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



EM 4.1 : Allocate approximately 1 ,499,000 acres as open to solid 
leasable mineral leasing. Although the stipulations on the pros- 
pecting permits would be on a case-by-basis, the constraints will 
be similar to those for oil, gas and geothermal leasing described 
in Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 1 and 3 

Supported By: WL 7.1 , R 2.2, CR 2.1 , LR 2.6, LR 5.1 . 

Constrained By: SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, WHB 2.2, V 1 .1 , V 1 .4, 
V 1 .5, SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, WL 7.21 , WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.24, 
WL 7.25, WL 7.26, R 1 .1 , R 1 .2, R 1 .5, R 2.1 , R 2.1 2, ACEC 1.1, 
ACEC 1 .2, ACEC 1 .3, ACEC 1 .4, ACEC 1 .5, ACEC 1 .6, ACEC 
1 .7, VRM 1 .1 , VRM 1 .2, VRM 1 .3, LR 1 .2, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5, BD 2.4, 
BD 3.1 , BD 3.2, BD 3.3, BD 3.4, BD 3.5, BD 3.6, BD 3.7, BD 3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Timely processing of permit applications. 

2. Prepare appropriate level of environmental analyses based on 
the scope of the project, etc. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As required on a case-by-case basis. 



Objective and Rationale 



EM 5: Public lands will remain open and available for coal exploration and development, unless withdrawal or other administrative action 
is clearly justified in the nationalinterest. 

Rationale: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 
1 970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of 
domestic mineral resources. FLPMA, Sec. 1 02 reiterates that the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of I970 is to be implemented and directs 
that the public lands are to be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals and other 
resources. The BLM's Mineral Policy (1984) states that public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and 
development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interest. 



EM 5.1 : The planning area is not in a coal production area and no 
Federal coal leasing will result from this plan. For coal potential, 
see Map M-1. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: R 2.2, R 2.8. 

Constrained By: R2.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Any potential coal leasing will be guided by the Federal coal 
management regulations (43 CFR 3425). Under these regula- 
tions, interested parties apply for a coal lease to the BLM, 
Oregon State Office in Portland. The application area will be 
studied for acceptability utilizing four planning screens: (1) 
verification of coal development potential; (2) application of 20 
suitability criteria; (3) surface owner consultation for split estate 
lands; and, (4) multiple-use trade-offs involving other resource 
values compared to coal. Application of these screens would 
constitute an amendment to tnis RMP and would be subject to 
gubernatorial and public review. Areas studied would be 
designated as acceptable or nonacceptable for further consid- 
eration for leasing. Assuming that some areas were found to be 
acceptable (with or without additional stipulations on mining 
and reclamation), the applicant maintains interest, and evi- 
dence of surface owner consents were provided, then these 
lands could be offered for competitive lease by the Secretary 
of the Interior. Any resulting operations must comply with all 
Federal and state laws and regulations dealing with coal 
mining and reclamation. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As needed on a case-by-case basis. 



2-163 




2-164 




K , .1 Gold - High Potential 




Mercury Cinnabar, Uranium - High Potential 
Diatomite - High Potential 

Zeolite, Potassium Feldspars, (Known) - 
High Potential 

Zeolite, Potassium Feldspars - Moderate 



[ Gold - Moderate Potential 



Note: All other areas are low potential. 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 

April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP M-3 
MAJOR LOCATABLE MINERALS 
POTENTIAL 



2-165 




2-166 



. . .j i n a i i -e 



P i:ala 



n a r 





Obsidian 



gp Cinders 

Building Stone 



Sand, Gravel (Known) 
(All of the R.A. has potential for 
sand, gravel, rock material.) 



<2> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP M-4 
MINERAL MATERIALS 



2-167 



Table 2.22. Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations 



Leasing Category/ 
Resource Value 



Low 



Oil and Gas Potential (Acres) 1 
Moderate High 



Unknown 



Total 



Category 1 


1,431,481 


67,548 


Category 2 






Sage Grouse 
Golden Eagle 


13,149 


1,948 


6,480 





Raptor Nest Sites 


5,400 


5,280 


Big Game Winter Range 


502,470 


44,080 


Sens. Wildlife Species 


7,920 


16,260 


Total 


535,419 


67,568 


Category 3 






Administrative Site 


150 





Recreation Site 


40 





Critical Habitat (T&E) 





160 


Sens. Wildlife Species 


12,555 


120 


Bald Eagle 
Aquatic/Riparian/Wetlands 


840 





32,307 





Devine Canyon Scenic 


1,040 





ACECs 


82,564 





Total 


129,496 


280 


Category 4 






Malheur NWR 





92,946 


Wilderness Study Areas 


1 8,483 


1,902 


Total 


18,483 


94,848 













1,499,029 






15,097 





6,480 





10,680 





546,550 





24,180 





602,987 





150 





40 





160 





12,675 





840 





32,307 





1,040 





82,564 





129,776 





92,946 





20,385 





113,331 



'Acreages estimated from BLM map sources. Final acreage amounts will vary as inventories are conducted, when species listings change and when stipulations are described by legal 
subdivision. 



Table 2.23. Geothermal Lease Stipulations 



Leasing Category/ 
Resource Value 



Low 



Geothermal Resources Potential (Acres) 1 
Moderate High Unknown 



Total 



Category 1 



1,167,596 



331 ,433 



Category 2 






Sage Grouse 
Golden Eagle 


9,253 


5,844 


2,400 


4,080 


Raptor Nest Sites 


1,680 


9,000 


Big Game Winter Range 


316,353 


230,147 


Sens. Wildlife Species 


18,300 


5,880 


Total 


347,986 


254,951 


Category 3 






Administrative Site 


150 





Recreation Site 


40 





Critical Habitat (T&E) 





160 


Sens. Wildlife Species 


685 


11,990 


Bald Eagle 
Aquatic/Riparian/Wetlands 


840 





6,457 


25,850 


Devine Canyon Scenic 


1,040 





ACECs 


6,694 


75,870 


Total 


15,906 


103,870 


Category 4 






Malheur NWR 





92,946 


Wilderness Study Areas 


5,560 


14,825 


Total 


5,560 


107,771 

































1,499,029 





15,097 





6,480 





10,680 





546,500 





24,180 





602,937 





150 





40 





160 





12,675 





840 





32,307 





1,040 





82,564 





129,776 





92,946 





20,385 





113,331 



Acreages estimated from BLM map sources. Final acreage amounts will vary as inventories are conducted, when species listings change and when stipulations are described by I 
subdivision. 



2-168 



Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals 
Category 2 - Seasonal No Surface Occupancy 

Resource Value Being Protected - Antelope, Deer and Elk Winter Ranges. 

Need For Protection 

The major game animals in the Planning Area are mule deer, pronghorn antelope and Rocky Mountain elk. During the warm seasons, 
deer and elk are widely dispersed throughout the higher elevations of the Planning Area and move to lower winter ranges in late fall. 
These winter ranges are essential to the survival of these animals. Antelope are wide-ranging during the winter and utilize large 
expanses of habitat for winter range. However, in late summer, lactating does become dependent on playa and riparian areas, where 
available, for succulent forbs and grasses. 

Mule deer and elk need a relatively undisturbed habitat in order to survive the harsh winter and early spring months and to perpetuate 
the species. Unnecessary disturbance during this period can cause death due to starvation, stress, abortion or reabsorption of the 
fetus in pregnant females. 

Lactating female antelope require succulent vegetation for milk production during mid- and late summer months. At this time of the 
year, most succulent vegetation is found on playa lakebeds or riparian areas. 

Occupation of deer and elk winter ranges during the winter and spring would be detrimental to these populations as would occupation 
of playas and riparian areas in antelope summer range. Surface clearing operations for drill pads and roads would destroy vegetation 
that provides necessary seasonal forage. Noise and activities of the ON and gas operations would disturb big game and force them 
to move to other areas. This may be particularly critical if other areas are already occupied by other herds and food is in short supply. 
Conditions such as this could lead to the death of large portions of a big game herd. 

Stipulation 

Seasonal no surface occupancy. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the habitat is no longer effective and is not used as winter habitat anywhere within the 
leasehold. 

Exception : A case-by-case exception to this tim ing constraint may be granted if the authorized officer determines that the anticipated 
impacts will be minimal, due to the type of operation and climatic conditions. An exception may be granted for operations conducted 
on existing roads with a high volume of traffic. An exception may also be granted in the event that extension of a project would cause 
less impact than delaying the project to another drilling season. 

Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if the area is no longer effective as habitat and is not 
used as winter range. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if additional crucial habitat areas 
are identified, or if habitat use areas change. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds. 

Need for Protection 

All aspects of the sage grouse's life history, nesting, feeding, etc., are in association with various types of sagebrush. No other upland 
game bird is so highly specialized in its food and cover requirements and so dependent on one plant taxon, (Artemesia), as the sage 
grouse. Since each aspect of the life history and required cover type is essential to the grouse, removal or substantial change in any 
one of these types orsubtypes could be a limiting factor. Meadow areas and alfalfa fields provide essentialforage and insect lifeduring 
the early stages of chick development. Courtship and breeding begin in late February or March, depending on climatic conditions, 
followed by nesting in May and June. Brood rearing continues through the summer. Nesting generally occurs within 2 miles of the 
strutting grounds. The hen and chicks usually remain in the vicinity of the nest for the first few weeks after hatching and then move 
to meadow areas for the summer. Harassment of the grouse during this period (March through June) could cause considerable 
damage to the population. Damage to critical areas such as meadows could also nave lasting effects on sage grouse populations. 

During the mating season, sage grouse strut at a particular site. The males restrict their activities to a radius of less than 1 mile from 
the strutting ground, at this time of year; the hens wander further, but usually nest within a 2 to 4-mile radius of the grounds. 

Stipulation 

Seasonal no surface occupancy within one-half mile of strutting ground (502 acres), no surface occupancy at the strutting ground 
(15 acres). 



2-169 



Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when the available data shows that the portion of the lease under the restriction no longer 
provides suitable habitat and grouse no longer use the area. 

Exception: The authorized officer can grant an exception to a specific activity if field inspection shows that grouse are not using the 
area and the proposed activities would not significantly degrade the habitat. An exception may be granted for operations conducted 
on existing roads with a high volume of traffic. 

Modification: A portion of the leased lands can be open to activity if field inspection shows that grouse are not using the area and 
the proposed activities would not significantly degrade the habitat. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of 
the lease if additional leks, habitat or winter range areas are identified. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Long-Billed Curlew and Western Snowy Plover Habitat. 
Need For Protection 

Nesting habitat for long-billed curlew and western snowy plover would be protected during the nesting season. 

These birds are ground nesters and nest destruction and disturbance of the birds during nesting could result in poor nest success. 
Both these birds are Federal candidate 2 for listing as threatened or endangered. The acres with seasonal restrictions vary through 
alternatives with one-quarter of the known nesting area undisturbed in the preferred alternative. 

Stipulation 

Seasonal no surface occupancy during nesting season. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when the available data shows that the land under the restriction no longer provides suitable 
nesting habitat anywhere within the leasehold. 

Exception: The authorized officer can grant an exception to a specific activity if it is determined, on a case-by-case, basis that curlew 
and plover are not using the area and that the proposed activities would not significantly degrade the habitat. An exception may be 
granted for operations conducted on existing roads that have a high volume of traffic. 

Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if field inspection shows that this area does not contain 
nesting habitat, or that curlews and plovers are not using the area and that the proposed activities would not significantly degrade 
the habitat. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if these areas are found to contain nesting 
habitat. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Perch and Nesting Sites 

Need for Protection 

Bald eagles are officially listed as endangered by the USFWS as provided by the Endangered Species Act, as amended. Golden 
eagles are also provided similar protection but do not have endangered status. Bald eagles migrate to the Planning Area beginning 
in mid-November and remain until early to mid-spring, depending on the weather and available prey. Golden eagles can be found 
yearlong. Both bald and golden eagles have preferred daytime perch trees and nighttime roost trees. Bald eagles usually roost and 
perch in ponderosa pine or cottonwood trees and use fence posts or rocky outcrops when trees are not available. Roost trees are 
usually located near a suitable prey base. The golden eagle locates its nest in rocky cliffs and is especially subject to disturbance 
during the breeding season in the spring. 

The noise, activities and human presence associated with oil and gas operations are disturbing to both bald and golden eagles. These 
species will avoid an area of intense human activity. Disturbance is most critical in areas used as prey or roosting areas and would 
affect golden eagle nesting success if disturbed during the breeding or nesting period. 

Stipulation 

Seasonal no surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of roost/nest sites (1 25 acres) and no surface occupancy at the roost/nest 
site (5 acres). 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when it can be shown that there are no active nests within the leasehold. 



2-170 



Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) 

This stipulation can be waived if the habitat is no longer effective as a winter roost anywhere within the leasehold. 

Exception: This stipulation can be excepted if it can be determined that the site-specific project will not affect occupation of the nest 
within the buffer. A lesser distance can be authorized if it is determined by the authorized officer that the species of concern would 
not be affected. An exception may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads that have a high volume of traffic. 

A case-by-case exception to this timing constraint may be granted if the authorized officer determines that the roost has minimal use 
(e.g., due to weather conditions) and the type of operations will not cause a substantial adverse impact. An exception may be granted 
for operations conducted on existing roads with a high volume of traffic. 

Modification : A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if circumstances change and the nest is not occupied, 
effective as a winter roost or the activity can be modified in a way that will be less disruptive to the species. This stipulation can be 
expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if additional nests are found. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Raptor Habitat 

Need For Protection 

Several species of raptors winter in the Planning Area. Ten species nest in the area and six other species are believed to nest in the 
area. Raptors require a secluded area of high rock cliffs ortrees as a nesting area. Raptors are normally quite wary, especially during 
the nesting season. Human activities can disturb the nesting birds and cause them to move to other areas. 

Rabbits, rodents, insects and small birds provide food for the raptors. 

The noise, activities and human presence associated with the oil and gas operations are disturbing to the various raptors. Raptors 
will normally move out of an area of intense human activity. This disturbance would be critical to raptors during their nesting season. 
These normally wary birds nest in remote areas in high rock cliffs and tall trees. During the nesting season they require quiet and 
solitude to assure the success of mating and reproduction. Increased human activities near the nesting areas cause the raptors to 
move out of their nests, sometimes to not nest at all during that year. The population of several raptor species has declined in recent 
years. The disturbance of nesting raptors will contribute toward the declining populations. 

Stipulation 

Seasonal no surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of roost/nest sites (1 25 acres) and no surface occupancy at the roost/nest 
site (5 acres). 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when it can be shown that there are no active nests within the leasehold. 

Exception: This stipulation can be excepted if it can be determined that the site-specific project will not affect occupation of the nest 
within the 800 meter buffer. A lesser distance can be authorized if it is determined by the authorized off icer that the species of concern 
would not be affected. An exception may be granted for operations conducted on existing roads that have a high volume of traffic. 

Modification: A portion or portions of the leased lands can be opened to activity if circumstances change and the nest is not occupied, 
orthe activity can be modified in a way that will be less disruptive to the species. This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional 
portions of the lease if additional nests are found. 

Category 3 - No Surface Occupancy 

Resource Valued Being Protected - Critical Habitat of Malheur Wirelettuce 

Malheur wirelettuce is a plant species listed as an endangered species. Critical Habitat forthis species has been officially established. 
The Critical Habitat of threatened or endangered species is necessary for the continued existence of the species. 

Need for Protection 

Any surface disturbance within the Critical Habitat of a threatened or endangered species can be considered to jeopardize its 
continued existence either through direct loss of individuals of the species or through reduction in the total available habitat. 

Stipulation 

No surface occupancy. 

Waivers, Exceptions or Modifications 

2-171 



Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived when the species is recovered or when the species is officially recognized as extinct or when 
the habitat in question is no longer considered critical for the survival of the species. 

There will be no exceptions or modifications to this stipulation. 

Conditions Under Which Stipulation Could Be Waived 

When the species is recovered, extinct or when the habitat in question is no longer considered critical for survival of the species. 



Resource Value Being Protected - ACECs including RNAs and ONA 

A OFO resignations h i ghlight areas where special managemen t attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 
important historic, cultural and scenic values, fish or wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes. 

Need For Protection 

i vulnerable to adverse change and are general!, 

i'e basis for the ACEC designation would no longer be valid. 



ACECs are by definition vulnerable to adverse change and are generally irreplaceable. The siting of exploration and/or development 
facilities would adversely affect the resources to such an extent that the ' 



Stipulation 

No surface occupancy. 

Waivers, Exceptions or Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the ACEC designation is removed from these lands. 

There will be no exceptions or modifications to this stipulation for all ACECs, including RNA/ACECs and ONA/ACECs, with the 
exception of Kiger Mustang ACEC. The following modifications may be applied to the Kiger Mustang ACEC. 

Modification: A modification to this stipulation may be granted if it is determined by the authorized officer that the proposed surface 
disturbing activities would not degrade the habitat or otherwise be detrimental to the values for which the Kiger Mustang ACEC has 
been established. A modification of this stipulation to seasonal restrictions on activities may also be granted. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Habita 

Need for Protection 

Riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats in the Three Rivers Planning Area are fairly uniform and are characterized by small, shallow 
streams with narrow riparian zones. Flow patterns are typically lowthroughout much of the yearwith sharp increases during snowmelt 
and storm events. They provide a critical source of habitat diversity in terms of vegetation composition and structure for native flora 
and fauna. There are generally distinct wetland zones surrounded by a more uniform sagebrush, grassland or juniper community. 
In general, they are much more productive than surrounding vegetation types in terms of both plant and animal biomass and species 
diversity. They are also severely limited, comprising less than 1 percent of the total land area. These areas provide food, cover and 
reduced water temperatures necessary for fisheries. 

Current water quality and associated fisheries could be endangered if oil and gas activities are permitted within the direct influence 
zone of a water body. Water quality in the Planning Area is highly susceptible to sediment impact. The normal low flows for much 
of the year allow sediments to rapidly settle out, smothering gravels used for spawning, food production and refuge during winter 
months. Actions during preliminary investigations and exploratory drilling (such as road and trail construction, clearing sites for 
seismic or stratigraphic testing and wildcat drilling) causes surface disturbance and could result in siltation. Removal of vegetation 
near streams would reduce the amount of this valuable zone of plant diversity, as well as increase water temperature and cause 
streambanks to degrade, increasing siltation. The stream and associated riparian vegetation could be degraded during exploratory 
drilling operations if saline water or caustic drilling fluids are released within these areas. Surface disturbances associated with oil 
and gas development would cause impacts similar to those described for preliminary investigation except on a larger scale. 

Stipulation 

No surface occupancy within live water or stream courses which contain live water during runoff periods and contribution would cause 
water quality standards to be exceeded in the receiving water or on slopes greater than 30 percent within 600 feet of such water 
courses. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Where technical consideration would prevent any deterioration of water quality, stipulation could be waived, excepted or modified 
by the authorized officer. 

2-172 



Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) 

Resource Value Being Protected - Special Status Plant Species or Their Habitat 

These plant species are either officially listed as threatened or endangered; proposed for listing; candidates for Federal listing; State 
listed; or designated as sensitive by the BLM State Director. 

Need For Protection 

The known sites where these plants grow are relatively restricted and surface disturbance could result in jeopardy to a particular 
population or to the species. It is Bureau policy to ensure that special status species are not jeopardized by any BLM-authorized 
activities. 

Stipulation 

No surface occupancy. (Note: Due to lack of complete inventory, this stipulation will be applied on a case-by-case basis after field 
inventory of the lease lands.) 

Waivers, Exceptions or Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined by the authorized officer that impacts can be adequately mitigated by 
avoidance, through standard stipulations (relocation of activities up to 200 yards). 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if it is determined by the authorized officer that the adverse impacts will 
not jeopardize the existence of a species. An exception may be granted if the operator submits a plan which avoids or adequately 
mitigates impacts. 

Modification: A modification to this stipulation may be granted if it is determined by the authorized off icerthat a particular plant species 
is more abundant than previously recorded or if a plant species becomes delisted and is no longer recognized to have special status. 
This stipulation can be expanded to cover additional portions of the lease if a particular plant species is found to be less abundant 
than previously recorded or if a plant species previously not listed becomes listed or otherwise recognized to have special status. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Developed Recreation Site 

These lands are needed for public recreation purposes where intensive use requires the development and maintenance of 
campgrounds and other related facilities. 

Need for Protection 

On-site exploration or operation would interfere with the intended recreation purposes and existing capital investments occurring on 
these lands. 

Stipulation 

No surface occupancy. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if recreation facilities are dismantled and the area dropped from intensive recreation 
management. 

Exception and Modification: None. 

Category 4- No Leasing 

Resource Value Being Protected - Devine Canyon and USDA-FS Road 41 Scenic Areas 

These are areas with high scenic values along heavily traveled routes. 

Need For Protection 

Oil exploration or development would detract from the scenic values. An oil or geothermal well would be incompatible with the scenic 
values of the site. 

Stipulation 

No surface occupancy. 

2-173 



Table 2.24. Narrative Description of Stipulations for Fluid Energy Minerals (continued) 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation may not be waived. 

Exception: This stipulation may be excepted where the authorized officer determines lease operations could be conducted or 
mitigated to conform with VRM Class II standards. 

Modification: None. 



Resource Value Being Protected - WSAs/Proposed WSRs 

Need For Protection 

To protect the wilderness values of the WSAs until a decision is made on whether or not to designate the areas as wilderness. Federal 
policy prohibits the issuance of new oil and gas leases within the WSAs. Wild and scenic river values are to be protected pending 
inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

Stipulation 

No leasing. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if an area is released from further wilderness or WSR study and is not designated as 
wilderness or included in the WSR system. 

Exception and Modification: None. 



Resource Value Being Protected - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 

Need for Protection 

Oil exploration or development would interfere with activities of the wildlife refuge. Federal policy also prohibits the issuance of fluid 
energy leases within the refuge. 

Stipulation 

No leasing. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications 

None. 



2-174 



Table 2.25. Mineral Materials Sites 










ID# 


Name 


Material 


Primary Use/ 
Permit Type 


Development 
Plan 


Acres 


Location 


1 


Drewsey 


Sand and Gravel 


FUP 1 /Community 


Yes 


40 


T. 20 S., R. 35 E., 
sec. 26, NW1/4SW1/4. 


2 


Muller 


Stone 


Community 


No 


60 


T. 20 S., R. 35 E., 
sec. 3, lot 3, 
N1/2SE1/4NW1/4. 


3 


Drewsey Grange 


Sand and Gravel 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


80 


T. 20 S„ R. 33 1/2 
E.,sec. 12, 
E1/2NE1/4. 
T. 20 S., R. 34 E., 
sec. 6, Lots 6, 7. 


4 


Kimball Flat 


Sand and Gravel 


Community 


Yes 


60 


T. 20 S., R. 35 E., 

sec. 7, E1/2SE1/4; 
sec. 8, W1/2SW1/4. 


5 


Otis Creek 


Sand and Gravel 


Community 


No 


40 


T. 20 S., R. 36 E. 

sec. 7, NE1/4NE1/4. 


6 


Pine Creek 


Rock 


Community 


No 
and 


60 


T. 22 S., R. 35 E., 

sec. 7, S1/2NW1/4, 

N1/2SW1/4NE1/4, 

SE1/4NE1/4NW1/4 

NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4. 


7 


Laton Point 


Rock 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


400 


T. 23 S., R. 33 E., 
sec. 2, E1/2SW1/4, 
W1/2SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4 
and 
SW1/4NW1/4SE1/4. 


8 


Refuge Road 


Cinders 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


80 


T. 26 S., R. 31 E., 

sec. 31:,SE1/4SE1/4. 


9 


Barton Lake 


Cinders 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


80 


T. 29 S., R. 33 E., 
sec. 19, E1/2SE1/4. 


10 


Saddle Butte 




FUP/Community 


Yes 


40 


T. 28 S., R. 31 E., 

sec. 7, Lots 2, 3, 

SE1/4NW1/4, 

NE1/4SW1/4, 

NW1/4SE1/4and 

SW1/4NE1/4. 


11 


Voltage 


Gravel 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


20 


T. 27 S., R. 32 E., 

sec. 6, W1/2SE1/4NE1/4. 


12 


Standcliff 
Creek 


Stone 


Community 


No 


40 


T. 28 S., R. 34 E., 

sec. 12, SE1/4SW1/4. 


13 


Anderson 
Valley 


Cinders 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


40 


T. 28 S., R. 35 E., 

sec. 5, SW1/4NW1/4. 


14 


Double O 


Stone 


Community 


No 


30 


T. 26 S., R. 29 E., 
sec. 8, 

S1/2SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4 

andSW1/4SW1/4SE1/4. 

sec. 17, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4, 

E1/2NW1/4NE1/4NW1/4 

and 

W1/2NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4. 


15 


5-Mile Dam 


Sand and Gravel 


FUP/Community 


Yes 


40 


T. 22 S., R. 30 E., 
sec. 23, Lot 8 and 
E1/2NE1/4NW1/4. 



2-175 



Table 2.25. Mineral Materials Sites 



ID# Name Material 

16 Juniper Ridge 

17 Radar Hill Pumice 

and 

18 Chickahominy Riprap 



Primary Use/ 
Permit Type 

FUP/Community 
Community 

FUP 



Development 
Plan 

Yes 



Yes 



No 



19 


Fort Curry 


Sand and Gravel 


FUP Yes 


20 


Sagehen 


Sand and Grave! 


Community No 


21 


Virginia 
Vafley 


Cinders 


Community No 


22 


Whiting 


Rock 


Commercial/SRHA 2 Yes 


23 


Choate 


Cinders/ 

Sand and Gravel 


Commercial/SRHA Yes 


24 


Emigrant 
Butte 


Cinders 


FUP Yes 



Free Use Permit 
o 
Slock Raising Homestead Act 



Acres Location 

40 T. 23 S„ R. 25 E., 

sec. 36, NE1/4SE1/4. 

40 T. 23 S., R. 30 E., 

sec. 28, S1/2NE1/4NW1/4 

N1/2SE1/4NW1/4. 

10 T. 23 S., R. 26 E., 

sec. 28, SW1/4NW1/4and 

SW1/4; 

sec. 29, SE1/4NE1/4and 

SE1/4. 

40 T. 22 S., R. 26 E., 

sec. 5, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4. 

20 T. 24 S., R. 29 E., 

sec. 6, Lot2(S1/2)and 
SW1/4NE1/4. 

20 T. 27 S., R. 35 E., 

sec. 1 8, Lot 3. 

40 T. 22 S., R. 31., 

sec. 29, SE1/4SE1/4. 

160 T. 23 S., R. 30 E., 

sec. 22, SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4 
and NE1/4SE1/4. 

40 T. 21 S., R. 27 E, 

sec. 15, NE1/4NE1/4. 



~ 



Table 2.26. Summary of Acreage Closed to the Operation of the Mining Laws 



Discretionary 1 

Closures 

(Classifications) 



Closed, nonmetalliferous 

(acres) 

Closed, only obsidian 916.20 

and chalcedony (acres) 

Closed, except for 298.69 

mineral leasing (acres) 

Closed, all (acres) 

Totals 1,214.89 



Nondiscretionary 

Closures 

(Withdrawals) 



3,720.63 



41,528.29 

3,188.41 
48,437.33 



Total 



3,720.63 


916.20 


41,826.98 


3,188.41 


49,652.22 



See Glossary for definition of discretionary and nondiscretionary. 



2-176 



^^^^I^^IMTl I I .. 



Lands and Realty 

Objective and Rationale 

LR 1 : Consolidate public landholdings and acquire lands with high public resource values to ensure effective administration and 
improve resource management. Retain in public ownership landholdings with high public resource values. 

Rationale: Section 1 02 of FLPMA makes it the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership. 
Consolidated land patterns would provide for better land management and administration for both public and private landowners. 
Retention and acquisition of lands, in public ownership containing significant resource values, would provide for long-term protection 
and management of those values. Disposal of isolated, unmanageable tracts would provide more efficient use of lands better suited 
in private ownership and concentrate management efforts in significant blocks of public land. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



LR 1 .1 : Maintain and increase public landholdings in Zone 1 , as 
identified on Map LR-1 by retaining public lands and acquiring 
non-Federal lands with high public resource values. Public 
lands in Zone 2 may be disposed of only by sale under the 
Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act or by exchange 
for non-Federal lands in Zones 1 or 2. Public lands in Zone 1 
may be exchanged only for non-Federal lands meeting one of 
the following criteria: 

1 . The non-Federal lands must be within or immediately adja- 
cent to an ACEC, SRMA, WSA designated wilderness, or 
proposed and designated WSR; or 

2. The non-Federal lands must contain a critical access need 
as identified in an approved BLM land use plan, riparian or 
wetland values, habitat for listed Threatened and Endan- 
gered (T&E) species or significant cultural or historical 
resources. 

The primary mode of acquisition will be through exchanges. 
Purchases and donations may be utilized to acquire lands if 
exchange is not feasible. All fee acquisitions will be with willing 
landowners. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .2, F 1 .7, SSS 2.7, R 1 .1 , R 1 .2, LR 1 .3, LR 
1.4, LR4.2, BD1.4. 

Constrained By: F 1 .1 , F 1 .2, F 1 .7, GM 1 .4, V 1 .1 , SSS 2.2, SSS 
3.1 , CR 2.1 , CR 2.2, LR 5.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific processing requirements for exchanges, purchases, 
and donations and R&PP sales are contained in BLM 
Manuals 2100, 2200, 2740 and other prevailing guidance. 
Also see Table 2.27. Briefly, these requirements include: 

- Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure 
proposals with affected landowners or proponents. 

- Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers 
PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. 

- Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, 
botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to 
determine if the proposal is in the public interest. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and 
solicit public review. 

- Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance 
actions and issuing patents and deeds. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres 
transferred within the various land tenure zones. 



2-177 




2-1 li 



M—WWI I 



*■.■>— P4- A I 1 U'N A -tft 





Z-1 



Land Tenure Zone 



<^ 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP LR-1 
LAND TENURE ZONES 



2-179 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



LR 1 .2: Make available for FLPMA or R&PP sale, lands in Zone 
3, as shown on Lands Map LR-1 , or as described in Table 2.28, 
where such sale is required to achieve disposal objectives on 
a timely basis and disposal by exchange is infeasible or would 
cause unacceptable delay. Approximately 25,335 acres have 
been identified throug h this land use plan as potentially suitable 
for sale. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: LR 3.2. 

Constrained By: V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , LR 4.2, LR5.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .4, 

BD1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific requirements for processing sales are contained in 
BLM Manuals 271 0, 271 1 , 2740 and Handbook 271 1 -1 and 
other pertinent guidance. Briefly these requirements in- 
clude: 

- Identify and prioritize tracts where an immediate need for 
disposal exists. In the case of an R&PP sale, review propos- 
als to determine if they qualify for an R&PP Act conveyance. 

- Secure funding for processing sales through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearance work including cul- 
tural, botanical and mineral reports. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation for the proposed sale. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action and offer tracts. 

- Accept offer and issue patent or deed. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. 

- Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres trans- 
ferred within the various land tenure zones. 



LR 1.3: Place high emphasis on improving public landholdings 
and blocking patterns in Silvies Valley through land tenure 
adjustment actions. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: V 1 .3, SSS 2.7, WL 5.3, WL 6.5, LR 1 . 1 , LR 4.2, 

BD1.4. 

Constrained By: V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .4, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Specificprocessingrequirementsfor exchanges, purchases 
and donations are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200 
and other prevailing guidance. Briefly, these requirements 
include: 

- Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure 
proposals with affected landowners. 

- Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers 
PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. 

- Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, 
botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to 
determine if the proposal is in the public interest. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and 
solicit public review. 

- Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance 
actions and issuing patents and deeds. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. 

- Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres trans- 
ferred within the various land tenure zones. 



2-180 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



LR 1 .4: Sell, exchange, or otherwise convey to Harney County, 
or other qualified entity, three solid waste disposal sites involv- 
ing 120 acres, currently under R&PP lease to Harney County. 
Terminate R&PP classifications on these lands if exchange or 
conveyance other than R&PP appears feasible. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By : R 1 . 1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .2, LR 5.2, HM 1 -1 , HM 1 .2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific processing requirements for exchanges, purchases 
and donations are contained in BLM Manuals 2100, 2200 
and other prevailing guidance. Briefly, these requirements 
include: 

- Cooperatively develop, review and negotiate land tenure 
proposals with affected landowners. 

- Review proposals for conformance with the Three Rivers 
PRMP/FEIS and other planning documents. 

- Secure funding for processing proposals through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearances including cultural, 
botanical, mineral reports and timber cruises. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation, appraisal and title reports to 
determine if the proposal is in the public interest. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action to segregate public lands and 
solicit public review. 

- Finalize land tenure actions by completing title clearance 
actions and issuing patents and deeds. 

2. Specific requirements for processing land sales are con- 
tained in BLM Manuals 271 0, 271 1 , and Handbook 271 1 -1 
and other pertinent guidance. Briefly these requirements 
include: 

- Identify and prioritize tracts where an immediate need for 
disposal exists. 

- Secure funding for processing sales through the BLM's 
budget process. 

- Conduct necessary resource clearance work including cul- 
tural, botanical and mineral reports. 

- Prepare NEPA documentation for the proposed sale. 

- Issue a Notice of Realty Action and offer tracts. 

- Accept offer and issue patent or deed. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Progress on land tenure adjustment actions will be moni- 
tored through normal BLM accomplishment tracking pro- 
cesses. 

- Periodic reports will be developed identifying acres trans- 
ferred within the various land tenure zones. 



LR 1.5: Newly acquired lands will be managed for the highest 
potential purpose for which they were acquired. Acquired lands 
with unique or fragile resources will be managed to protect 
those resources on an interim basis until the next plan amend- 
ment or revision is completed. Lands acquired without special 
values or management goals will be managed in the same 
manner as comparable or adjacent public lands. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WL 5.3, WL 6.5, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.26, R 
1.1, R 2.13, R2.15. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Interim management actions, specific to each parcel being 
acquired, will be identified in the NEPA documentation 
prepared for each land tenure action. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Newly acquired lands will be incorporated into existing 
resource monitoring procedures ongoing on adjacent or 
comparable lands. 



2-181 



Objective and Rationale 

LR 2: Meet public needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way, leases and permits. 

Rationale: Rights-of-way and other land uses are recognized as major use of public lands and authorized by Section 302 and 501 
of FLPMA. 

Section 503 of FLPMA provides for the designation of right-of-way corridors and encourages utilization of rights-of-way in-common 
to minimize environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way. Bureau policy, as described in BLM Manual 
2801.1 3B1 , is to encourage prospective applicants to locate their proposals within corridors. Designation of avoidance areas would 
provide early notice to potential applicants when they are planning right-of-way or other land use projects. Only facilities and uses 
would be permitted in avoidance areas which are consistent with the special designation associated with that area. Designation of 
exclusion zones will provide protection of lands and resources, which have values which are not compatible with rights-of-way or 
other land uses. 

The United States potential liability, under various hazardous materials statutes, would be limited if disposal of wastes, both 
hazardous and nonhazardous, are prohibited on public lands. Existing disposal sites operated by the county are adequate for most 
rural residents and businesses. Private lands are generally available for private waste disposal. If a bonafide public need for a new 
waste disposal site arises, land could be provided for that use by sale or exchange. 



Allocation/Management Action 

LR 2.1: Designate 185 miles of public land as right-of-way 
corridors as shown on Map LR-2. These corridors include all 
trans-district electrical transmission lines, identified by the 
Western Regional Corridor study, all Federal and State high- 
ways, and all railroads. Nominal corridor width is 1 ,000 feet on 
each side of the center line of the existing facilities, except 
where the alignment forms, or is within the boundary of a special 
management area, where the width will be 2,000 feet on the 
side opposite that boundary. 

Decision Class: 1 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Corridor designation will occur upon approval of the RMP. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Application of this decision will be monitored as large scale 
right-of-way proposals are evaluated though the NEPA 
process. 



LR 2.2: Encourage all applicants for electrical transmission 
lines greater than 69 kV, all mainline fiber optic facilities, and all 
pipelines greater than 10 inches in diameter to locate their 
facilities within designated corridors (Map LR-2). 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By:LR2.1. 

Constrained By: V 1 .1 , SSS 3.1 , WL 7.2, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1 



2. 



Early contact and coordination will be made with proponents 

of projects which appear to meet the criteria for corridor 

placement. 

Use of corridors will be considered as alternatives in the 

NEPA analysis prepared for a project meeting criteria for 

corridor placement. 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring is provided for in the normal BLM accomplish- 
ment reporting process. 



LR 2.3: All special management areas, totaling 95,530 acres, 
are designated right-of-way and realty land use authorization 
avoidance areas as shown on Map LR-2. 

Decision Class: 1 and 3 

Supported By:R 1.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Designation of avoidance areas will occur upon approval of 
the PRMP/FEIS. Upon receipt of a land use proposal within 
a special management area: 

- Encourage proponent to consider alternative routes and 
locations. 

- Analyze the project through the NEPA process. 

- If no alternatives exist, require stringent mitigation to protect 
the special management area and its required purpose. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Application of this decision will be monitored as individual 
proposals are evaluated through the NEPA process. 



2-182 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



LR 2.4: Two WSAs totaling 1 7,885 acres, as shown on Map LR- 
2, are designated right-of-way and land use authorization 
exclusion zones, except for those rights-of-way and land use 
authorizations needed to provide reasonable access to and use 
of non-Federal WSA inholdings, consistent with BLM's IMP. 

Decision Class: 1 and 3 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Designation of exclusion areas occurs upon approval of the 
RMP. 

2. All realty land use proposals will be reviewed for conformity 
with the plan. 

3. Reject all nonconforming proposals. 



LR 2.5: The following activities would not be authorized on 
public lands: 

a. New public waste disposal sites. 

b. New or existing private waste disposal sites. 

c. Storage or disposal of hazardous material. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: HM 1.1, HM 1.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Review all land use proposals to determine if they involve 
one or more of the prohibited activities. 

2. Reject all such proposals based on nonconformance with 
the Three Rivers RMP. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Application of this decision will be monitored as individual 
proposals are received and reviewed. 



LR 2.6: Applications for rights-of-way, permits, leases, and 
other realty actions will be processed in a timely manner, on a 
case-by-case basis, utilizing the NEPA process. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: R 2.2. 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .2, WQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .9, SM 1 .1 , SM 

2.1 , SM 2.2, F 1 .3, F 1 .4, F 1 .5, V 1 .1, SSS 2.2, SSS 3.1, SSS 

3.2, WL 1 .5, WL 6.4, WL 6.6, WL 7.1 , WL 7.2, WL 7.7, WL 7.20, 
AH 1.6, AH 2.1 ,R 1.2, R2.1, VRM 1.1, VRM 1.2, VRM 1.3.CR 
2.4, BD1.1.BD1.5. 




Procedures to Implement: 

1 . BLM Manuals 2801 , 2920, 2740, 2912 and their associated 
handbooks, provide specific guidance for processing realty 
land use authorizations and rights-of-way. Briefly, process- 
ing involves: 

- Enter into pre-application consultation with proponents. 

- Receive application and processing fees. 

- Conduct NEPA review of the proposal. 

- Issue authorizing document with conditions derived from the 
mitigation identified in the NEPA review. 

- Monitor construction and long-term operation of the project. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Individual projects will be monitored to ensure compliance 
with the terms and conditions of the authorizing document. 

- Monitoring of this decision will occur through the normal 
BLM accomplishment tracking processes. 



2-183 




2-184 



N A I I 



N-ft-trY 





OREGON 



Right-of-Way Exclusion Zones 

Right-of-Way Avoidance Zones 
Right-of-Way Corridors 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 

THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP LR-2 
RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDORS, 
EXCLUSION AND 
AVOIDANCE AREAS 



2-185 




2-186 



-N-A-M-e 



N A LV 





OREGON 



Critical Access Needs 



<N> 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

BURNS DISTRICT 
April 1991 
THREE RIVERS RESOURCE AREA 

MAP LR-3 

CRITICAL 

ACCESS NEEDS 



2-187 



Objective and Rationale 



LR 3: Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands. 

Rationale: Trespass activities result in financial loss to the United States and damage to the public land and its resources. Section 
102(a)(9) of FLPMA makes it the policy of the U.S. to collect fair market value for use of the public lands Unless authorized no 

compensation is received. Further, Section 303(g) of the act states that use, occupancy or development of the public lands is contrary 
to any regulation of the Secretary... is unlawful and prohibited. 



Allocation/Management Action 

LR 3.1 : Detect, confirm and abate, either by authorization or 
termination, all unauthorized use on public land. Effect recla- 
mation of lands damaged by unauthorized uses. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: CR 1 .2, LR 2.6, LR 3.2. 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1. See BLM Manual 9232, Handbook H-9232-1, and other 
applicable guidance dealing with realty-related trespass. 
Resolution of trespass by authorization will be accom- 
plished utilizing the various authorities and their guidance 
available to the BLM. See BLM Manuals and Handbooks in 
the 2200, 2300, 2700 and 2900 series and other pertinent 
guidance. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring will include regular surveillance of lands and 
resources where a high probability of unauthorized use 
exists, as well as follow-up on information concerning pos- 
sible trespass provided by the public and staff. 

- Normal BLM accomplishment process will be utilized to 
track implementation of this decision. 



LR 3.2: Agricultural or occupancy trespass will be terminated, 
or may be authorized by long-term lease, sale or exchange, 
where the exchange, sale orlease would serve to meet other 
important public objectives, in addition to resolving the tres- 
pass. Short-term permits may be utilized to authorize occu- 
pancy or agricultural trespass until a lease, sale or exchange 
can be affected. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: LR 1.1, LR 1.2, LR 2.5, LR 2.6, LR3.1. 

Constrained By: SM 1 .1 . 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. See BLM Manual 9232, Handbook H-9232-1, and other 
applicable guidance dealing with realty-related trespass. 

2. Resolution of trespass by authorization will be accom- 
plished utilizing the various authorities and their guidance 
available to the Bureau. 

3. See BLM Manuals and Handbooks in the 2200, 2300, 2700 
and 2900 series and other pertinent guidance. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring will include regular surveillance of lands and 
resources where a high probability of unauthorized use 
exists, as well as follow-up on information concerning pos- 
sible trespass provided by the public and staff. 

- Normal BLM accomplishment processes will be utilized to 
track implementation of this decision. 



Objective and Rationale 

LR 4: Acquire and maintain legal public and administrative access to public land consistent with other resource values. 

Rationale: C 

private lands 

of these lands. This need becomes more acute as public use of these lands increases, and as landowners become more awareof 
the value of public and private land for recreation and other purposes. Land tenure adjustment actions (exchanges orfee purchases 
can be a valuable tool for access acquisitions. However, without careful review, lands actions, particularly exchanges can result in 
lost access. Other tools can also be utilized, such as constructing new roads around lands where access is restricted and the cost 
of acquisition would exceed the cost of construction or where such acquisition is not feasible 



: Due to the generally fragmented nature of public lands in some parts of the RA, several critical access points crossing 
ds, lack legal access. Legal access is needed in these areas to ensure continued effective administration and public use 



LR 4.1 : Acquire legal or administrative access where public 
demand or an administrative need exists (see Map LR-3). 
Emphasis will be placed on providing access to areas contain- 
ing high public resource values. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 2.15, LR 1.1. 

Constrained By: BD 1.5. 

2-188 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. BLM manuals 2100, 2100-1, H21 01-1 and other pertinent 
guidance provide specific direction for access acquisition. 
Briefly, this guidance includes: 

- Review access acquisition needs to determine specific 
priorities. 

- Determine feasibility and options for each access need. 

- Determine the potential for landowner interest and potential. 

- Negotiate and process easements or fee acquisitions with 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



landowners in accordance with the authority applicable to 
the specific acquisition. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Monitoring progress can be accomplished utilizing estab- 
lished AWP reporting procedures. 



LR 4.2: Ensure that public access is maintained or improved 
through all land tenure adjustment transactions. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: LR 1 .1 , LR 4.1 . 

Constrained By: SSS 3.1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Review all disposal actions to determine if any important 
access to adjacent public lands is being lost. 

2. Reserve public access in patents and deeds where an 
important access loss is identified. 

3. Review all land tenure proposals to determine if important 
access, particularly those identified on Map LR-3, could be 
acquired. This could be accomplished by including the 
parcel that contains the access in the fee acquisition, or 
adding an easement to the proposal as consideration. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- In addition to monitoring progress through normal BLM 
tracking processes, access needs will be reviewed on a 
regular and periodic basis. 



LR 4.3: Where easement acquisition is not feasible, but signifi- 
cant access needs have been identified (see Map LR-3), 
construct new roads around private lands. 

Decision Class: 2 

Constrained By: WQ 1 .9, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , SM 2.2, V 1 .1 , SSS 
3.1 , SSS 3.2, WL6.6, WL 7.1 , WL7.20, AH 1 .6, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Determine if the acquisition is not feasible or desirable 
through the NEPA process and CCC with other landowners. 

2. Secure funding for road construction through BLM budget 
process. 

3. Provide for survey and design, if necessary. 

4. Construct road. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



Objective and Rationale 

LR 5: Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures necessary to accomplish the required purpose. 

Rationale: Section 204 of FLPMA gives the Secretary the authority to make, modify, extend or revoke withdrawals and mandates 
review of withdrawals. 

Interior Departmental Policy (DM 603) further requires that: 

1 . All withdrawals shall be kept to a minimum, consistent with the demonstrated needs of the agency requesting the withdrawals. 

2. Lands shall be available for other public uses to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the purposes of the withdrawal. 

3. A current and continuing review of existing withdrawals shall be instituted. 



2-189 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



LR 5.1: Recommend that 2,715 acres identified in Table 2.9 
(Lands Recommended for Withdrawal) be withdrawn from the 
public land laws including location and entry under the mining 

laws. 

Decision Class: 2 
Supported By: R 1.1, EM 3.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 



An agency requesting a withdrawal contacts BLM and 
enters into pre-application consultation and negotiation. 
Application for a withdrawal is filed by requesting agency. 
For BLM protective withdrawals, the Secretary of Interior is 
petitioned to accept the application prior to its submission. 
A Federal Register Notice is published which segregatesthe 
land for 2 years. 

NEPA analysis, and other required reports are prepared and 
submitted to the BLM State Office (SO). 

6. SOforwardsitsfindings and recommendationstothe Direc- 
tor of BLM and to requesting agency. 

7. Director reviews this information and forwards to the Secre- 
tary of Interior. 

8. Secretary approves and publishes a Public Land Order 
which withdraws the lands. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



LR 5.2: Recommend withdrawal review and classification 
continuations, modifications, revocations and terminations as 
displayed in Table 2.29. In addition, review all withdrawals with 
expiration dates and recommend extension or termination as 
appropriate. 

Decision Class: 2 



Procedures to Implement: 



Holding agency submits rejustification report. 
Notice of proposed withdrawal continuation or extension is 
published in the Federal Register. 
BLM prepares field reports and reviews withdrawal. 
Findings and recommendations of BLM are coordinated 
with holding agency. 

If holding agency concurs with findings and recommenda- 
tions, the Secretary approves and publishes a Public Land 
Order which continues, modifies or revokes the withdrawal. 
Classifications are terminated by decision of the authorized 
officer, BLM. 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



LR 5.3: Consider other agency requests for withdrawal relin- 
quishments and modifications on a case-by-case basis. 

Decision Class: 3 

Supported By: R 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . BLM prepares field reports and reviews withdrawal. 

2. Findings and recommendations of BLM are coordinated 
with holding agency. 

3. If holding agency concurs with findings and recommenda- 
tions, the Secretary approves and publishes a Public Land 
Order which continues, modifiesorrevokesthewwithdrawal. 
Classifications are terminated by decision of the authorized 
officer, BLM. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



2-190 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



LR 5.4: Develop a MOU to clarify resource management 
responsibilities for Federal lands around Warm Springs Reser- 
voir. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: R 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Contact BOR to determine interest and scope of MOU. 

2. Negotiate agreement. 

3. Enter into agreement, approved by BLM State Director and 
Reclamation Regional Director. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



LR 5.5: Develop MOUs with USFWS and consider withdrawals 
and restorations to clarify management responsibilities for 
selected parcels along the boundary of the Malheur National 
Wildlife Refuge. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By:R 1.1, LR 5.3. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Contact USFWS to determine interest and scope of MOU. 

2. Negotiate agreement. 

3. Enter into agreement, approved by BLM State Director and 
Reclamation Regional Director. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BLM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



Table 2.27. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements 



The three zones shown on the Land Tenure Zone Map LR-1 categorize the public lands for potential land tenure adjustments 
(e.g., land exchanges or land sales), consistent with existing regulations and BLM policy. Section 1 02(a)(1 ) of the FLPMA 
provides that "the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided 
for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest." 

Land Tenure Zone Map LR-1 depict three land tenure zones. Management guidelines specific to each zone are as follows: 

- Zone 1 lands have been identified for retention in public ownership. They are also areas where emphasis will be placed on 
acquisition of lands containing high public resource values through exchange, purchase or donation. Zone 1 lands contain 
significant visual, wildlife, watershed, vegetative, cultural and other public resource values and are generally well blocked. 

- Zone 2 lands have generally fragmented landownership patterns or are suspected of having relatively lower resource values 
than found in Zone 1. These lands will not be sold except under the R&PP Act. Zone 2 lands may be exchanged for higher 
resource value lands in Zone 1 or 2. These lands can be used as trading stock for more diverse, higher resource value lands. 

- Zone 3 lands, as shown on Map LR-1 and described in Table 2.28, have been reviewed and based upon available informa- 
tion, all of these parcels have been determined to be difficult or uneconomical areas to manage. They contain lands with 
generally low or unknown resource values. These lands are potentially suitable for sale or exchange if significant recreation, 
wildlife, watershed, special status species or cultural values are not identified. 

FLPMA and other Federal laws, Executive Orders and policies suggest criteria for use in categorizing public land for retention or 
disposal, and for identifying acquisition priorities. This list is not considered all inclusive, but represents the major factors to be 
evaluated. They include: 

-wild horse HMAs 

-threatened or endangered or sensitive plant and animals species habitat; 

-areas containing scientific value, e.g., RNAs; 

-riparian areas; wetlands; designated floodplains; 

-fish habitat; 

-nesting/breeding habitat for game animals; 

-key big game seasonal habitat; 

-developed recreation sites and recreation access; 

-VRM 

-energy and mineral potential 

-significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; 

-wilderness and areas being studied for wilderness; 

-accessibility of the land for public uses; 

2-191 



Table 2.27. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements (continued) 

-amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for recovering those investments; 
-difficulty or cost of administration (manageability); 
-suitability of the land for management by another Federal agency; 

-significance of the decision in stabilizing business, social and economic conditions, and/or lifestyles; 
-whether private sites exist for the proposed use; 

-encumbrances, including but not limited to withdrawals, or existing leases or permits; 
-consistency with cooperative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies; and 

-suitability (need for change in landownership or use) for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or eco- 
nomic development, such as industrial, residential or agricultural (other than grazing development); 
-existing landownership patterns. 

The criteria identified above will be among those considered in land reports and environmental analyses prepared for specific 
land tenure adjustment proposals following plan implementation. Minor adjustments involving sales or exchanges or both may 
be permitted based on site-specific application of this adjustment criteria. Transfer to other public agencies wilfbe considered 
where improved management efficiency would result. 

FLPMA provides that a tract of public land may be disposed of by exchange provided that the public interest will be well served 
by making that exchange. 

In considering public interests, exchanges generally must: 

-facilitate access to public land and resource, or 
-maintain or enhance important public values and uses, or 
-maintain or enhance local social and economic conditions 
-facilitate implementation of other aspects of the Three Rivers RMP. 

Public lands or tracts to be sold must meet the following disposal criteria stated in the FLPMA: 

-"such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and 
is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or 

-such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or 
-disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and eco- 
nomic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other 
public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining 
such tract in Federal ownership." 

Generally, exchanges are the preferred method of disposal but sales will be utilized when: 

-it is required by national policy; or 

-it is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis, and where disposal through exchange would cause unacceptable 

delays; or 

-disposal through exchange is not feasible. 

The preferred method of selling public land will be by competitive bidding at public auction to qualifying purchasers. However, 
modified competitive bidding procedures may be used when there is not legal public access to a tract, when necessary to avoid 
jeopardizing an existing use on adjacent land, or to avoid dislocation of existing public land users. 

Public land may be sold by direct sale at fair market value when: 

-such land is needed by State or local governments; or 

-direct sale is needed to protect equities arising from authorized use; or 

-direct sale is needed to protect equities resulting from inadvertent, unauthorized use that was caused by surveying errors or 

title defects; or 

-there is only one adjacent landowner and no public access. 

Site-specific environmental analysis and documentation (including categorical exclusion where appropriate) will be accom- 
plished for each proposed Lands Program action. Interdisciplinary impact and analysis will be tiered within the framework of this 
and other applicable environmental documents. 

General priorities exist for implementing land disposal actions. These actions include, in priority order, the following: 

1 . BLM and other Federal Jurisdictional Transfers 

2. Transfers to State and Local Agencies 

3. State Exchanges 

4. Private Exchanges 

5. Sales 

6. Agricultural Leases 

7. Desert land Entries 



2-192 



Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal 



Township 


Range 

331 /2E 


Section 


Subdivision 


Acres 


18S 


22 


swsw 


40 






32 


S1/2SW, SWSE 


120 






32 


S1/2NW 


80 


19S 


331 /2E 


14 


SESW 


40 






26 


NWNW 


40 


19S 


34E 


17 


E1/2NW 


40 






20 


SE1/4 


160 






21 


S1/2SW 


80 






28 


NESE.S1/2SE 


120 






29 


NENW,S1/2N1/2,NESW, 
N1/2SE.SESE 


360 






31 


NESE 


40 






32 


S1/2NE.S1/2 


400 






33 


SWNW,W1/2SW,E1/2SE 


120 


19S 


35E 


13 


SE1/4 


160 






14 


S1/2N1/2.S1/2 


480 






15 


S1/2N1/2.S1/2 


480 






16 


NENE 


40 






23 


E1/2E1/2 


160 






24 


N1/2NE 


80 






26 


NE1/4 


160 


19S 


36E 


20 


N1/2S1/2,SWSW,SESE 


240 






28 


NWNW 


40 






34 


E1/2SW1/4 


80 


20S 


30E 


20 


NESW,N1/2SE,SESE 


160 






22 


NESE 


40 






23 


SENE 


40 






27 


S1/2NW,N1/2SW,SE1/4 


320 






28 


W1/2SW,S1/2NESW,SESW, 
E1/2SE,S1/2NWSE,SWSE 


280 






34 


W1/2E1/2 


160 


20S 


331 /2E 


1 


S1/2SW.SWSE 


120 






2 


N1/2SW,NWSE,SESE 


160 






10 


SESE 


40 






13 


S1/2N1/2 


160 


20S 


34E 


3 


Lots 2, 3, 4, 
SENW.SWSW 


201.65 






4 


Lots 3, 4, 
SESW,NESE,S1/2SE 


241.56 






5 


Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, 
SWSW 


203.2 






18 


SENW 


40 






3"! 


Lot 4, E1/2NE 


159.8 


20S 


35E 


1 


S1/2S1/2 


160 






4 


Lot 4, S1/2SW 


118.9 






7 


E1/2SE 


80 






3 


W1/2NE,E1/2NW,NESW, 
W1/2SW 


280 






9 


N1/2NW,SENW,NESW, 
S1/2SW 


240 






17 


NESE 


40 






25 


S1/2SW 


80 






28 


E1/2SW 


80 






35 


SW 


160 


20S 


36E 


6 


Lots I-6, S1/2NE, 
SENW,NESW,N1/2SE 


480.49 






7 


SESW 


40 






17 


W1/2SW 


80 






19 


Lots 1,2, NWNE.NE, 
NW 


160.51 


21S 


30E 


1 


Lots 5-9 


118.93 






2 


Lots 5, 6 


48.67 






3 


Lot 9 


25.86 






10 


Lots I, 2 


78.01 






11 


Lots 1 , 3, 4, 9 


152.93 






14 


NWNE 


80 



FLPMA 

Disposal 

Criteria 



203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 

203(a)(3) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 

203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 
203(a)(1) 



2-193 



Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued) 



Township Range 



21S 



31E 



21S 



34E 



21S 
22S 


35E 
29E 


22S 


31E 


22S 


32E 



22S 
22S 
23S 

23S 
23S 

24S 

24S 
24S 
24S 



24S 
25S 
25S 



321 /2E 



33E 



27E 
34E 

27E 

29E 
30E 
33E 



34E 

29E 
30E 



Section 



Subdivision 



Acres 



5 


Lots 5-1 


180.88 


6 


Lot 8 


37.05 


7 


NENE 


40.0 


8 


Lots 3-5 


109.69 


17 


SWSW 


40 


IS 


Lot 4 


31.79 


19 


Lots I, 2 


63.68 


20 


SENW.NESW 


80 


29 


Lot 2 


40.59 


30 


Lots 19,20 


70.8 


31 


Lots 5, 6, 11, 12, 
13, 14,20 


286.18 


32 


SWSW 


40.0 


4 


Lot 3, E1/2SW 


108.89 


6 


Lot 6 


64.9 


7 


Lot 4, SESW 


80.23 


8 


SESW, S1/2SE 


120 


9 


NESW 


40 


18 


Lot1 


34.44 


28 


W1/2SW 


80 


34 


S1/2SW 


80 


5 


Lot 4 


40.63 


15 


SESW.E1/2SE 


120 


22 


NE.E1/2NW 


240 


1 


Lots 3, 4, S1/2NW 


158.68 


11 


E1/2SE 


80 


12 


N1/2NE,SWNW,NWSW 


160 


14 


SWSW 


40 


7 


Lots 2-4, SWNE.W1/2SE 


202.68 


18 


Lot 7 


44.2 


27 


NESE.S1/2SE 


120 


32 


N1/2NE.W1/2SE 


160 


22 


NWNW.SWSW 


80 


24 


SESE 


40 


26 


E1/2NW,SW 


240 


28 


E1/2 


320 


4 


SESW 


40 


9 


S1/2 


320 


10 


SW 


160 


28 


W1/2SE 


80 


33 


NWNE 


40 


18 


NENW 


40 


32 


S1/2N1/2.S1/2 


480 


8 


SE 


160 


IS 


N1/2NE,SWNE,SENW 
NESW.NWSE 


240 


32 


E1/2SW 


80 


6 


Lots 1 -5, 8-1 0, 
SWNE,S1/2NW,SE 


536.62 


2 


SWSW 


40 


28 


All 


640 


30 


Lots I, 2, E1/2NW.NE 


3I7 


33 


NE 


160 


34 


N1/2NW,SWNW,NWSW 


160 


20 


SWNE,N1/2NW,W1/2SE 


200 


34 


NWSW 


40 


28 


SENW.NESW 


80 


29 


SWSW 


40 


30 


SESE 


40 


31 


E1/2E1/2 


160 


32 


NWNW,S1/2NW,N1/2SW 
NWNE 


240 


33 


NENE 


40 


1 


Lots 1 and 2 


79.79 



FLPMA 

Disposal 

Criteria 



203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a) 

203(a) 

203(a) 

203(a) 

203(a) 

203(a) 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 

203(a)( 
203(a)( 

203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 
203(a)( 

203(a)( 
203(a)( 



2-194 



Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued) 



Township Range 



Section 



Subdivision 



Acres 



FLPMA 

Disposal 

Criteria 



25S 



25S 

25S 
25S 

25S 



26S 
26S 



26S 



31E 



32E 

321 /2E 
33E 

34E 



24E 
29E 



30E 
North of 
Harney Lake 



26S 


30E 




South of 




Harney Lake 


26S 


31E 




North of 




Malheur Lake 



26S 



26S 



31E 

South of 
Malheur Lake 

32E 

North of 
Malheur Lake 



7 

8 

17 

18 

19 

20 

29 

32 

33 

13 

24 

3 

4 

9 

17 

4 

18 

20 

28 

30 

34 

1 

2 

24 

25 

4 

5 



8 
9 

10 
12 
13 
14 
15 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 

24 
27 
28 
30 
25 
35 

1 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

15 

22 

30 

32 

32 

6 



Lots 3,4, SESW.NWSE 


151 


SWSW 


40 


SWNE,N1/2NW,SENW,SESE 


200 


Lot 1, N1/2NE.NENW 


155.52 


N1/2SE 


80 


SWNE,SENW,W1/2SE 


160 


NE 


160 


NE 


160 


NWSW 


40 


W1/2NE 


80 


Lots 2, 3, NWNE 


91.02 


NWSW 


40 


Lot 7 


41.67 


E1/2NE 


80 


SW 


160 


SESW 


40 


E1/2E1/2 


160 


SW 


160 


NENE,SWNW,W1/2SW 


160 


NE,NENW,N1/2SE,SESE 


320 


NWNE 


40 


Lots 1,2, SWNE.SENW 


159.36 


SESE 


40 


NENE,S1/2NE,SE 


280 


N1/2, N1/2S1/2 


480 


SWSW 


40 


NWNW,SENW,E1/2SW, 


280 


SWSW.W1/2SE 




Lots 1-4, N1/2NE.SWNE 


448.48 


E1/2W1/2 




Lots 1,2, E1/2NW, 




S1/2SE 


239.6 


W1/2E1/2.W1/2 


480 


NENW 


40 


SWNE,S1/2NW,NWSW 


160 


SWSW 


40 


W1/2NW.S1/2 


400 


N1/2NW,S1/2N1/2,S1/2 


560 


S1/2SE 


80 


E1/2 


320 


All 


640 


SE 


160 


NWNE,SENE,SWNW,SW, 


400 


N1/2SE.SWSE 




E1/2.E1/2W1/2 


480 


W1/2NE,W1/2,N1/2SE 


480 


N1/2NW 


80 


N1/2N1/2 


160 


Lots 1,2, E1/2NW 


161.2 


SESW,NESW,S1/2SE 


160 


E1/2SE 


80 


NE 


160 


N1/2, SW 


480 


Lot 4, SESW.S1/2SE 


159.65 


E1/2.E1/2NW 


400 


N1/2SE 


80 


NW 


160 


W1/2 


320 


NW 


160 


Lots 3, 6 


75.4 


SWSW 


40 


S1/2SE 


80 


Lot 3, N1/2SE 


120.62 



203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 

203(a)(1 



203(a)(1 
203 a 1 

203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
• 203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 

203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 

203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 
203(a)(1), (3 



203(a)(1 
203(a)(1 



2-195 



Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued) 



Township Range 



Section 



Subdivision 



Acres 



FLPMA 

Disposal 

Criteria 



26S 



26S 



26S 



26S 

27S 
27S 
27S 
27S 



27S 
27S 



27S 



28S 



28S 
29S 



32E 


13 


Lot 12 


11.5 


South of 


23 


S1/2SW 


80 


Malhaur Lake 


24 


SESW 


40 




25 


E1/2NE,W1/2NW,SESW,NESE, 
S1/2SE 


320 




26 


NW.SE 


320 




35 


N1/2.SE 


480 


33E 


3 


Lot 1 


36.96 




17 


Lots 2, 5 


40 




16 


Lot 1 , SWSE 


77 




19 


N1/2NE 


80 




27 


SE1/4 


160 




30 


Lots 1-4, SWNE.SENW, 
E1/2SW.SWSE 


343.16 




31 


W1/2E1/2 


160 


34E 


4 


SWSW 


40 




5 


SESE 


40 




7 


Lots 3, 4, S1/2NE, 
SENW,E1/2SW,SWSE 


295.65 




8 


NENW 


40 




10 


NESE 


40 




15 


W1/2 


320 




17 


SWNW,W1/2SW,N1/2SE,SESE 


240 




18 


Lot 4, S1/2NE.SESW, 
N1/2SE 


229.49 




20 


S1/2NE,SENW,NESE 


160 




21 


NENE,W1/2NE,NW,N1/2SW 


360 




22 


SWNE.NENW 


80 




27 


NENE, N1/2SW 


120 


34E 


28 


NENE.NESE 


80 




29 


NENE.SWNE 


80 


24E 


35 


SENE 


40 


29E 


15 


SWSE 


40 


30E 


2 


Lot 1 


39.76 


31E 


5 


S1/2SW,SWSE 


120 




6 


E1/2SW.SW 


240 




S 


N1/2,SW,N1/2SE 


560 


33E 


1 


SWNW.W1/2SW 


240 




2 


S1/2NE.SE 


240 


34E 


6 


Lots 3-5, SENW 


105.56 




7 


SESE 


40 




8 


S1/2SW 


80 




9 


SWNE,SWSW,W1 /2SE.SESE 


200 




17 


N1/2NW,SENW,E1/2SE, 








W1/2SE, 


320 






SESE 






18 


NENE 


40 




20 


N1/2NE 


80 




21 


N1/2NW,SENW,NESE 


160 




23 


S1/2SW 


80 




26 


N1/2NW 


80 


35E 


7 


Lots 3, 4, NESW 


100.5 




17 


N1/2NE 


80 




IS 


Lots I, 2, 3, 


91.83 




20 


SENE 


40 




21 


SENE.NESE 


80 




22 


E1/2 


320 




23 


SWNW,W1/2SW,SESW 


160 




26 


NW 


160 




27 


N1/2NE 


80 




30 


SESW.SWSE 


80 


24E 


1 


E1/2SE 


80 




9 


SWSW 


40 




12 


N1/2NE.SWNE.SENW, 
N1/2SW.SWSW 


280 


36E 


15 


N1/2NE.NESE 


120 


32E 


15 


SWNE 


40 



203(a) 
203 a 
203(a) 
203(a) 



203 1 
203i 
203i 
203i 
203i 
203i 
203| 
203| 



203(a) 
203 a 
203 a 
203(a) 

203(a) 
203 a 
203a 
203 a 
203 a 



203| 
203 1 
203 1 
203| 
203| 
203| 
203| 
203i 
203| 
203| 
203 1 
203| 
203| 
203| 
203| 
203| 
203l 
203l 



203(a)(1 



203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203. 
203 
203 
203 
203 
203 
203 
203 
203 



203(a)(1 
203 a 3 



The lands described above aggregate 36,693.79 acres, all in Harney County, Oregon, Willamette Meridian. 



2-196 



Table 2.29. Withdrawal, Classification and Withdrawal Review Actions 



Location 



Lands Recommended for Withdrawal 
Acres Legal Description Authority 



Segregative 
Affect 



Surface 

Management 

Agency 



Diamond Craters 
ONA/ACEC 



Squaw Butte 2 

Experiment 

Station 



Chickahominy 
Recreation Area 



Middle Fork Malheur 
- Bluebucket Creek 
Wild River 



400 1 



640 



400 



T.28S..R.31 E., 

sec. 36, SE1/4NE1/4, 

NE1/4SE1/4 

T. 28 S., R. 32 E, 

sec. 16, W1/2 



T. 24 S. 
sec. 16 



R. 25 E. 



1,275 



T. 23 S., R. 26 E., 
sec. 28,SW1/4NW1/4. 
SW1/4, 
sec 29 
SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4 

T. 18 S., R. 34 E., 
sec. 21,28, 33 



Sec. 204, FLPMA 



Sec. 204, FLPMA 



Sec. 204, FLPMA 



Sec. 204, FLPMA 



General Land Laws BLM 

including mining 
but not mineral 
leasing 



General Land Laws Agricultural 

including mining Research Service 
but not mineral USDA 

leasing 



General Land Laws 
including mining 
but not mineral 
leasing 



General Land Laws 
including mining 
but not mineral 
leasing 



BLM 



BLM 



Withdrawal Review Actions 



Withdrawal 



Legal Description 



Authority 



Power Site 4 
Reserve No. 



344 



Reservoir Site" 
Reserve No. 2 
(Warm Springs 
Reservoir and 
other lands) 

In Aid of 
Legislation 
Malheur Natl. 
Wildlife Refuge 

Burns-lzee Road 
Ochoco Natl. 
Forest 



T.30S., R. 33 E. 
sec. 25, 26 



T. 21 -23S. 
R. 36, 37 E., 



T. 26 S., R. 32 E.. 
sec. 21 



T. 23 S., R. 30 E., 
sec. 20,21,28 



Segregative 
Affect 



Surface Preliminary 3 

Management Review 

Agency Recommendation 



Executive Public Land Laws BLM 

Order including mining 

but not minerals 

leasing 

Executive Public Land Laws BLM 

Order including 

3/31/1911 non-metaliferous 

mining but not 

mineral leasing 

Executive Public Land Laws USFWS 

Order 5891 including mining 

7/1 6/1 932 but not mineral 

leasing 

Public Land General Land Laws USFS 

Order 4858 including mining 

7/2/1970 but not mineral 

leasing 



Terminate 
20 acres 



Terminate 
7,031 acres 



Modify 
12.8 acres 



Terminate 
48.8 acres 



2-197 



Table 2.29 Continued 



Classifications 



Number Legal Description Acres Purpose 



Authority 



Surface 
Management Segregative 
Agency Effect 



Preliminary 3 

Review 

Recommendation 



OR-12 



T. 23.24S., 
R. 23 E. 



OR-4189 T. 24 S., R. 37 E 
sec. 31 



OR-17348 T. 20 S., R. 36 E. 
sec. 7 

T. 29 S., R. 32 E. 
sec. 15 



OR-19314 T. 26 S., R. 31 E.. 
sec. 32 



OR-42073 T. 24, 25 S. 
R. 31 E. 



pires without 



916.2 Multiple Use Classification BLM 

Classification and Multiple Use 
Act of 1964 

39.52 Multiple Use Classification BLM 

Classification and Multiple Use 
Act of 1964 



80 R&PP R&PPActof 1926 BLM 

Classification 
Lease for Solid 
Waste Disposal 
Sites 

40 R&PP R&PP Act of 1926 BLM 

Classification 
Lease a/r Solid 
Waste Disposal 
Site 

139.17 R&PP R&PP Act of 1926 BLM 

Classification 
Lease for RV Park 



Location for 
obsidian and 
chalcedony 

General Land Laws 
including mining 
but not mineral 
leasing 

General Land Laws 
including mining 
but not mineral 
leasing 



General Land Laws 
including mining 
but not mineral 
leasing 



General Land Laws 
including mining 



leasing 



Continue 



Terminate 



Terminate if 
exchange or 
sale appears 
feasible 



Terminate if 
exchange or 
sale appears 
feasible 



Terminate 
if lease 

but not mineral ex- 
development of 
RV Park 



'An additional 600 acres could be withdrawn if this acreage is acquired prior to implementation of this decision. 

"This acreage is currently owned by the State of Oregon, but could be acquired by the United States through an exchange which is being negotiated. 

'"Withdrawal and classification review recommendations shown are very preliminary, based on information available at this time. Final recommendations will be made during the withdrawal 
and classification review process which will consider more detailed information. 

^Recommendations on these withdrawals will be made by Waterpower Specialist in the Oregon/Washington State Office, BLM , with review and concurrence by the District Office, 



2-198 



Hazardous Materials 

Objective and Rationale 

HM 1 : Eliminate the introduction of hazardous materials on public lands and remove any discovered hazardous waste. 

Rationale: The Clean Water Act of 1977 provided the EPA with standards for handling and deposition of contaminated material. 
Jurisdiction at the State level has been relegated to the DEQ.DEQ has established requirements for handling and treatment of waste 
materials on all lands within the State of Oregon through the Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Divisions 1 00-1 1 0. 

The BLM complies with these Federal and State guidelines and coordinates extensively with DEQ personnel on all matters dealing 
with hazardous materials. 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



HM 1.1: Inspect landfills and enforce compliance with terms 
and conditions of Bureau authorizations. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: LR 1 .4, LR 2.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Coordination with permitted entity. 

2. Regular inspection and monitoring. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Inspect landfills on a regular, periodic basis. 



HM 1.2: Ensure the cleanup of discovered hazardous materials 
sites. 

Geographic Reference: Areawide. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SM 2.2, LR 1 .4, LR 2.5, LR 3.1 . 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Coordination with affected interests; Federal, State and 
local agencies; and BLM State and Washington Office 
program leads. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Follow-up monitoring to be developed on a case-by-case 
basis. 



2-199 



Biological Diversity 



Objective and Rationale 

BD 1 : Maintain viable populations of native plants and animals well distributed throughout their geographic range. 

Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



BD 1.1: Evaluate and mitigate significant anticipated adverse 
impacts to the vegetation diversity of the RA of BLM-authorized 
land tenure adjustments, surface disturbing or vegetation con- 
version activities prior to their occurrence. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: AQ 1 . 1 , AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 
1 .9, WQ 1 .1 0, WQ 1 .1 1 , SM 1 .1 , F 1 .4, GM 1 .1 , V 1 .1 , V 1 .2, V 
1 .3, V 1 .6, SSS 2. 1 , SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3, WL 1 .1 , WL 
1 .3, WL 1 .4, WL 2.2, WL 5.1 , WL 5.2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, 
WL 6.6, WL 7.4, WL 7.5, WL 7.7, WL 7.8, WL 7.9, WL 7. 1 0, WL 
7.11,WL7.15,WL7.16,WL7.17,WL,7.18,WL7.19,WL7.27, 
AH 1.2, AH 1.3, AH 1.10, AH 1.11, R 1.1, CR 2.1, CR 2.2, LR 
1.1, LR 2.3, LR2.5, BD 1.1, BD 1.2, BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Conduct records examination and/or site examination for 
special status species. 

2. Analyze the impacts to vegetation diversity on the species 
and ecosystem level of the RA in all NEPA documents. 

3. Design and apply measures to mitigate significant adverse 
impacts to vegetation diversity. 

4. Restrict prescribed fire treatment within 1 mile of perennial 
water, to less than 20 percent of land area in that particular 
subbasin in any one year. 

5. Maintain 30 to 60-acre units of big game cover so that 40 
percent of the forest treatment area remains in suitable big 
game thermal and hiding cover (no less than 1 5 percent of 
which shall be thermal cover) as defined in "Wildlife Habitats 
in Managed Forests." 

6. Considerthe high public value of vegetation diversity in land 
exchanges, purchases or disposals in which public owner- 
ship of vegetation communities contributing to such diver- 
sity could be affected. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic and systematic updates of the existing vegetation 
inventory of the RA including distributions, extent and eco- 
logical status. 



BD 1.2: Adjust overall grazing management practices within 
the RA so that no more than 1 percent of the native vegetation 
condition determined by ESI is in early serai status and so that 
at least 40 percent is in late serai or PNC by 2009. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, SM 1 .1 , GM 

1 .1 , GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .3, V 1 .1 , V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, 
SSS 3. 1 , WL 1 .2, WL 1 .3, WL 2.1 , WL 2.2, WL 4.1 , WL 6.1 , WL 

6.2, WL 6.3, WL 7.5, WL 7.1 4, WL 7.1 7, WL 7.1 8, WL 7.1 9, WL 
7.27, WL 7.28, AH 1 .2, AH 1 .3, AH 1 .5, R 2.1 2, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .2, 
BD 1.3, BD 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Complete ESI inventory of RA by 1 994 to provide baseline 
information on the plant communities and ecological status 
of the RA. 

2. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all 
allotments in RA within 2 years of ESI completion. 

3. Develop and implement ecological status objectives for all 
wild horse HMAPs within 2 years of ESI completion. 

4. Implement and maintain databases for integration of ESI 
data with other resource data within the RA. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- AMP monitoring: actual use/utilizationArend/cover. 

- HMAP monitoring: utilization. 

- Reinventory of ESI within 20 years. 



2-200 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



BD 1.3: Adjust overall grazing management practices as 
necessary to protect special status species and to maintain or 
enhance their habitat. (See Table 2. 1 2 for current list of actions 
and allotments which they may affect.) 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .5, WQ 1 .6, WQ 1 .7, WQ 1 .8, WQ 
1 .1 2, SM 1 .1 , SM 2.1 , GM 1 .1 , GM 1 .2, GM 1 .3, GM 1 .4, WHB 
1 .3, V 1 . 1 , V 1 .2, V 1 .3, SSS 2.1 , SSS 2.4, SSS 2.6, SSS 3.1 , 
SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3, SSS 3.4, WL 5. 1 , WL 5.2, WL 6.1 , WL 6.2, 
WL 6.3, WL 6.5, WL 6.7, WL 7.5, WL7.7.WL 7.15, WL 7.16, WL 
7.1 7, WL 7.1 8, WL 7.1 9, WL 7.24, WL 7.27, WL 7.28, AH 1 .2, 
AH 1 .3, AH 1 .4, AH 1 .5, AH 1 .9, R 2.1 2, ACEC 1 .3, BD 1 .1 , BD 
1.2, BD1.3, BD1.5, BD3.3. 

Constrained By:WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement 

1 . Consultation with permittees and other affected interests. 

2. Adjust special status species management actions to ac- 
commodate additions or deletions in official listings of spe- 
cial status species. 

3. Adjust AMPs, HMPs and other activity plans as needed. 

4. Incorporate special status species management objectives 
into allotment monitoring and evaluation processes as ap- 
propriate. 

5. Develop NEPA documentation and AWP funding where 
project developments (fences) are required. 

6. Establish monitoring as appropriate. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As identified in AMPs, HMPs or other activity plans. 



BD 1.4: Acquire lands necessary to protect special status 
species and their habitat. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: SSS 1 .1 , SSS 2.7, WL 5.3, WL 6.5, R 2.13, LR 
1.1, LR 1.3, LR1.5, BD 1.4, BD2.1. 



Procedure to Implement: 



Inventory to identify if lands are needed. 
Pursue acquisition through exchange or purchase. 
Adjust activities to accommodate additions or deletions in 
official listings of special status species. 



Monitoring Needs: 

- Actions will be monitored through normal BM accomplish- 
ment tracking process. 



BD 1.5: Protect special status species and their habitat from 
BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities and land tenure 
adjustments. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: WQ 1 .1 , WQ 1 .2, WQ 1 .3, WQ 1 .4, WQ 1 .7, WQ 
1 .8, WQ 1 .9, WQ 1 .1 1 , SM 1 .1 , F 1 .3, V 1 .1 , V 1 .2, SSS 2.1 , SSS 
2.4, SSS 3.1 , SSS 3.2, SSS 3.3, WL 1 .3, WL 2.2, WL 5.2, WL 
6.1 , WL 6.2, WL 6.3, WL 6.4, WL 6.6, WL 7.5, WL 7.7, WL 7.8, 
WL 7.1 0, WL 7.16, WL 7.1 7, WL 7.1 8, WL 7.19, WL 7.20, WL 
7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.25, BD 1 .1 , BD 1 .2, BD 1 .3, BD 1 .5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Conduct a records examination and a site examination for 
special status species prior to BLM-authorized actions oc- 
curring. 

2. Conduct site examinations during appropriate season. 

3. Examine impacts and develop mitigation measures through 
NEPA process. 

4. Apply necessary mitigation measures. 

5. Consult with USFWS on "may affect" situations. 

6. Enhance habitat for special status species where opportu- 
nities arise. 

7. Establish and apply lease stipulations priorto issuance of oil 
and gas or geothermal leases. 

8. Apply contract stipulations to allow work to be stopped if 
special status species are discovered to be present in or 
adjacent to a project area. 

9. Adjust clearance and mitigation activities to accommodate 
additions or deletions in official listings of special status 
species. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- NEPA document compliance. 



2-201 



Objective and Rationale 

BD 2: Maintain natural genetic variability within and among populations of native species. 

Allocation/Management Action Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



BD 2.1: Evaluate the Burns' District Bald Eagle Communal 
Winter Roost HMP on a yearly basis and implement any newly 
developed management actions in applicable timeframes set 
forth in the HMP. 

Geographic Reference: Allotment Nos. 5105, 5536, 7009, 
7010. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .6, SSS 1.1, SSS 3. 1 , SSS 4.1 , SSS 4.2, WL 
7.1, WL 7.3, FM 1.1, LR 1.1, BD 1.5, BD 2.1. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Current management actions in the existing HMP have 
been implemented, but new management actions identified 
through coordination and consultation with ODFW, USFWS 
- Bald Eagle Recovery Team and USDA-FS will be imple- 
mented in applicable timeframes set forth in the HMP. 

2. Update HMP if needed. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Conduct coordinated bald eagle winter roost counts on an 
annual basis. 



BD 2.2: Implement any actions in the Peregrine Falcon Recov- 
ery Plan for which BLM is responsible in the RA, to provide for 
the recovery of the peregrine falcon. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .6, GM 1 .4, SSS 1 .2, SSS 3.1 , SSS 4. 1 , SSS 
4.2, WL 7.1 , WL 7.3, WL 7.4, WL 7.28, R 2.1 , LR 1 .1 , BD 1 .5, 
BD 2.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Specific actions, when identified, will be funded through the 
AWP process. 

2. NEPA documentation will be written on a case-by-case 

3. CCC with USFWS. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Needs will be identified when specific actions are devel- 
oped. 



BD 2.3: Implement the BLM responsible management actions 
listed in the Stephanomeria malheurensis, Malheur wirelettuce, 
Draft Recovery Plan until the final recovery plan is approved. 
Upon approval of the final recovery plan, implement all appro- 
priate actions from it. Actions in the draft recovery plan include 
but are not limited to the following: 

- Maintain and enhance existing habitat. 

- Conduct systematic searches for new populations and 
habitat. 

- Secure new colonies. 

- Determine population trends. 

- Establish additional plantings/populations. 

- Develop a management program to protect newly estab- 
lished populations of plants. 

- Enforce laws and regulations that protect Malheur wirelettuce. 

- Maintain viable off-site seed bank. 

Geographic Reference: 7001 , 7058. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, SSS 1 .3, SSS 3.1 , SSS 4.2, WL 7.28, 
R 2.1 , ACEC 1 .1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 2.3, BD 1 .5, BD 2.3, BD 3.1 . 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Write an HMP or other appropriate activity plan incorporat- 
ing the recovery plan. 

2. Continueongoing studies underexistingBLM/USFWS Con- 
servation Agreement until this plan is terminated. 

3. Develop and implement studies and actions identified in 
recovery plan or other activity plan. 

4. Implement management recommendations from studies 
which will lead to recovery of species. 

5. CCC with USFWS. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in Recovery Plan and BLM/USFWS Conserva- 
tion Agreement, HMP or other activity plans. 



2-202 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



BD 2.4: Designate 64,639 acres of the Kiger and Riddle 
Mountain HMAs as an ACEC for the Kiger mustang. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: WHB 1 .1 , WHB 2.2, WHB 2.3, WHB 3.1 , R 2.1 , 
R 2.1 6, ACEC 1 .7, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, LR 
4.1, LR 4.2, BD2.4, BD 3.7. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Develop specific objectives for the management of these 
areas. 

2. Prepare a specific management plan for this ACEC. 

3. Update affected HMAPs/AMPs to reflect any special man- 
agement considerations. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Assess objectives through the accepted allotment evalua- 
tion process. 



Objective and Rationale 

BD 3: Maintain representative examples of the full spectrum of ecosystem's biological communities, habitats and their ecological 
processes. Provide for the increase of the scientific understanding of biological diversity and conservation. 



Allocation/Management Action 

BD 3.1 : Retain designation and approved management of the: 
South Narrows ACEC, 1 60 acres, for Critical Habitat of officially 
listed endangered species (see Map ACEC-2); Diamond Cra- 
ters ONA/ACEC, 16,656 acres, for unique geologic features 
(see Map ACEC-3); and Silver Creek RNA/ACEC, 640 acres 
(see Map ACEC-4), for one ONHP aquatic natural area cell. 
(See Appendix 1 , Table 1 5 for detailed ACECdescriptions. See 
Appendix 1 , Table 1 6 for allowable uses/use constraints.) 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .2, V 1 .4, SSS 1 .3, WL7.22, WL 
7.28, R 1 . 1 , R 2.1 , R 2.1 1 , R 2.1 6, ACEC 1.1, VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , 
EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, BD 2.3, BD 3.1 . 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 

Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Revise existing ACEC plans as necessary. 
Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the existing plans. 



BD 3.2: Designate an additional 400 acres as part of the 
Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-3). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By : GM 1 .4, WHB 1 .2, WL 7.22, WL 7.23, WL 7.28, 
R 1.1, R2.1, R2.11, R2.16, ACEC 1.1, ACEC 1.2, VRM 1.2, 
EM 1 .1 , EM 1 .4, LR 1 .1 , LR 2.3, LR 5.1, BD 3.1 , BD 3.2. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1. Revise Diamond Craters Management Plan to reflect clo- 
sure to grazing except for limited 1 day trailing permits. 

2. Make other revisions if necessary. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the Diamond Craters Management Plan. 

- Compliance monitoring of livestock trailing permits. 



2-203 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



BD 3.3: Designate an additional 1,280 acres as part of the 
Silver Creek RNA/ACEC (see Map ACEC-4) for two ONHP 
natural area cells, following the acquisition of a 640-acre private 
inholding (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 

Addition). 

Geographic Reference: 7010. 
Decision Class: 1 



Supported By:GM 1.4, 
2.1, R 2.1 6, ACEC1.1, 
LR 1.1, LR1.5, LR2.3, 



V 1 .4, WL 7.22, WL 7.24, WL 7.28, R 
ACEC 1 .3, VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , 
BD3.1, BD3.3. 



Constrained By: WL1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Acquire 640 acres private inholding through land exchange. 

2. Revise/update existing RNA/ACEC management plan within 
2 years of establishmentto reflect constraints in Appendix 1 , 
Table 1 6. 

3. Prepare NEPA documentation and construct fence addition 
within 2 years of establishment. 

4. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from graz- 
ing allotment base and update AMP to reflect this change. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in management plan. 

- Fence maintenance inspection prior to livestock turnout. 



BD 3.4: Designate 2,690 acres as Foster Flat RNA/ACEC (see 
Map ACEC-5) for one ONHP natural area cell (see Appendix 1, 
Table 15, Foster Flat RNA/ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: 7002. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: GM 1 .4, V 1 .4, WL 7.25, WL7.28, R 2.1 , R 2.1 6, 
ACEC 1 .4, VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 2.3, BD 3.4. 

Constrained By: WL 1.5. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1 . Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints 
in Appendix 1 , Table 1 6, and to address specific manage- 
ment actions which are required within 2 years of approval 
of RMP. 

2. Prepare NEPA documentation and fence RNA within 2 
years of approval of RMP. 

3. Develop and implement District program for regular inspec- 
tion and maintenance of fences which are the District's 
responsibility to maintain. 

4. Coordinate with affected permittees. 

5. Implement procedures to remove RNA acreage from allot- 
ment base and update AMP to reflect this change. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Fence maintenance inspection on a quarterly basis, except 
during grazing season, May through August, when it will be 
done monthly. 

- Establish baseline monitoring, including periodic on-the- 
ground assessments, general photo plots, and a species list 
within 3 years of approval of RMP. 



BD 3.5: Designate 2,084 acres as Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC 
(see Map ACEC-4), for five ONHP natural area cells (See 
Appendix 1, Table 15, Dry Mountain RNA/ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: 701 1 . 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: F 1 .7, V 1 .4, V 1 .5, WL 7.21 , WL 7.26, R 2.1 , R 
2.16, ACEC 1 .5, VRM 1 .2, EM 1 .1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 
2.3, BD3.5, BD3.8. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Prepare RNA/ACEC management plan to reflect constraints 
in Appendix 1 , Table 1 6, and to address specific manage- 
ment actions which are required within 3 years of approval 
of RMP. 

2. Coordinate with USDA-FS in plan preparation and monitor- 
ing establishment. 

3. Coordinate with affected permittees. 

4. Incorporate management actions and constraints from Table 
2.10 for ponderosa pine old growth areas into the RNA/ 
ACEC plan. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Establish baseline monitoring within 3 years of approval of 
RMP to involve periodic systematic on-the-g round assess- 
ments. 



2-204 



Allocation/Management Action 



Procedures to Implement/Monitoring Needs 



BD 3.6: Designate 6,500 acres as the Biscuitroot Cultural 
ACEC (see Map ACEC-7) for preservation of Native American 
root-gathering (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Biscuitroot Cultural 
ACEC). 

Geographic Reference: Allotments Nos. 5503, 5529, 5531, 
5533. 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: R 2.1 , R 2.1 6, ACEC 1 .6, VRM 1 .2, CR 2.1 , EM 
1 .1 , EM 2.1 , EM 4.1 , LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, BD 3.6. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Coordinate with livestock operators and tribal leaders. 

2. Prepare ACEC management plan to reflect constraints in 
Appendix 1 , Table 1 6, and to address specific management 
actions which are required within 3 years of approval of 
RMP. 

3. Develop MOU with tribal groups. 

4. Develop monitoring to ensure appropriate harvest levels are 
maintained. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in the management plan. 



BD 3.7: Designate the Kiger and Riddle HMAs of 64,639 acres 
as the Kiger Mustang ACEC (see Map ACEC-6) for unique 
characteristics of wild horses (see Appendix 1, Table 15, Kiger 
Mustang ACEC). 

Decision Class: 1 

Supported By: WHB 1.1, WHB 2.2, WHB 2.3, WHB 3.1 , R 2.1 , 
R 2.1 6, ACEC 1 .7, EM 1 .1 , EM 1 .4, LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR 2.3, LR 
4.1, LR 4.2, BD2.4, BD3.7. 



Procedures to Implement: 

1 . Write a plan incorporating management objectives and use 
constraints for the Kiger ACEC within 3 years of approval of 
PRMP/FEIS (see Appendix 1, Table 16). 

2. Update AMPs as necessary to incorporate ACEC objec- 
tives. 

3. Coordinate with affected permittees and other affected 
interests. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- Periodic on-the-ground assessments of utilization and wild 
horse movements will be conducted. 



BD 3.8: Manage a total of 786 acres in four major areas as 
described in Table 2.9 and shown on Maps F-3 through F-6 for 
maintenance, enhancement and promotion of ponderosa pine 
old growth. (Note: This acreage includes 482 acres from the 
commercial forestland base, 304 acres are for the establish- 
ment of administrative boundaries.) 

Geographic Reference: 5503, 551 1 , 7010, 7030, 7051. 

Decision Class: 2 

Supported By: F 1 .2, V 1 .4, V 1 .5, WL 7.21 , WL 7.26, FM 2.1 , 
R2.1 , R2.12, R2.1 6, ACEC 1 .5, LR 1 .1 , LR 1 .5, LR2.3, BD3.5, 
BD3.8. 

Constrained By: AQ 1 .2, AQ 1 .3. 



Procedures to Implement: 



1. 



Develop stand management guides which address the 
following: 

Management actions to maintain existing old growth char- 
acteristics (see note below) of the stand. 
Management actions to promote continued succession to- 
ward old growth conditions (see note below) of the stand. 
Fuels treatment. 
Insect infestation. 
Management/use restrictions (see Table 2.10). 



Note: Examples of such management actions include: stand 
manipulation for tree age, tree size and species composition; 
maintenance of desired snag density; maintenance of canopy 
closure and appropriate canopy layers; maintenance of down 
woody materials; maintenance of the native shrub/herb compo- 
nent; and creation or maintenance of gaps/openings and the 
overall stand configuration. 

2. Coordinate and integrate these guides with overlapping 
designations. 

Monitoring Needs: 

- As defined in stand management guides or overlapping 
designations's activity plan. 



2-205 



2-206 



Chapter 3 

Environmental 

Consequences of the 

Proposed Plan 



a. 




3-1 



Introduction 



This chapter identifies and summarizes the anticipated envi- 
ronmental consequences of the implementation of the Pro- 
posed Resource Management Plan (PRMP). A reassessment 
of environmental consequences of the PRMP is not normally a 
part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 
However, both public comment and internal review have led to 
substantive changes in the management prescriptions that 
were presented in Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/Draft 
EIS (DRMP/DEIS). Therefore, it was determined that inclusion 
of such an impact analysis would be appropriate. 

Because the PRMP is a general land use plan, it depends on 
additional, more site-specific analyses being performed at the 
activity and project levels to determine the full extent of the 
impact of a given action. The PRMP also provides a strong 
basis for consultation, coordination and cooperation with af- 
fected interests in on-the-ground decision-making processes 
for the implementation of specific actions. For such interactive 
processes to be effective, there must be some room for 
negotiation on the details of implementing specific manage- 
ment actions. As such, many of the impacts described in this 
chapter are relatively general in nature. 



Analysis 



Analysis of the potential impacts of the PRMP is based upon 
anticipated changes that would occurfrom existing, or baseline, 
conditions or trends. Impacts are presented on a program-by- 
program basis. Within each program a generalized description 
of existing conditions is presented as a base. Next, a descrip- 
tion of the primary change agents, those actions which would 
induce a change in existing conditions or trends, is presented. 
And, finally, the anticipated impacts are presented. 

Impacts are usually discussed in relation to two generalized 
timeframes. The short term is where impacts are expected to 
occur within a period of upto 5-1 Oyearsfrom the approval of the 
RMP. The long term is where impacts are expected to occur 
more than 1 years after the approval of the RMP. 



Assumptions 



The following assumptions have been made in the analyses 
presented in this chapter: 

1 . Funding and staffing levels would be sufficient, overthe long 
term, to implement the Proposed RMP; 

2. Monitoring needs, as described in the Proposed RMP, 
would be performed as indicated and adjustments or revi- 
sions to 

management strategies would be made as determined 
through regular periodic evaluations; 

3. The public would be kept informed of progress in the 
implementation of the RMP through regular planning up- 
dates 

included in the Burns District Update or similar document; 

4. Appropriate NEPA documentation with attendant site ex- 
aminations would be conducted on all significant/surface- 
disturbing actions in the Planning Area; 

5. Standard operating procedures and design features would 
be applied to all developments through the NEPA 
documentation process; 



Appropriate maintenance would be carried out to maintain 
the functional capability of all existing and future 
developments; and, 



7. The RMP would remain in effect for 10-1 5 years and would 
undergo regular periodic plan maintenance throughout that 
time. 

Regional Impacts and 
Critical Elements of the 
Human Environment 

Analysis indicates that no impacts of regional significance 
would result from the implementation of the PRMP. While 
interest in and concern tor many of the resources in the 
Planning Area are regional or national in nature, the environ- 
mental and socioeconomic consequences are signif icantto the 
immediate area of implementation, but not beyond. 

Analysis indicates that there would be no known significant 
adverse impacts to critical elements of the human environment; 
airquality, floodplains, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
(ACECs), cultural/paleontological resources, prime or unique 
farmlands, Native American religious concerns, threatened or 
endangered species, designated or potential Wild and Scenic 
Rivers (WSRs),WildernessorWilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 
These critical elements are considered in site-specific project 
design and implementation processes through the NEPAdocu- 
mentation process. 



Air Quality 



Air quality standards have been and will continue to be an 
important portion of the District's prescribed fire program. 
Currently, the only existing Class I air quality area that could be 
affected is the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area. Any 
prescribed burning projects that may affect that area are 
reviewed for potential impacts by the Malheur National Forest. 
Theonly impacts to visibility that have occurred within the Three 
Rivers Resource Area (RA) were caused by either extreme 
wildfire conditions or by natural weather conditions, i.e., inver- 
sion layers or extreme winds. 

No significant adverse impacts, short or long-term, are ex- 
pected. However, if airquality standards become more restric- 
tive overthe life of the plan, there may be a need to amend the 
established annual acres (or tonnage) limits to remain in 
accordance with those restrictions. 



Water Quality 



Water resources in the Three Rivers RA lie within the Malheur 
Lake and Malheur River drainage basins. Water resource 
conflicts within the RA occur through activities associated with 
timber harvest, road construction, livestock grazing, wild horse 
herd management and other consumptive uses of water. 

There are approximately 127.55 miles of stream and 4,491 
acres of flat-water (lake and reservoir) habitat that will be 
managed under the Proposed Plan. Currently, 84.25 miles of 
streams are in poor and 20.65 miles in fair condition within the 
Planning Area (See Table 3.1). Presently, no streams exhibit 
good water quality within the RA. 

Implementation of the Proposed Plan will require that all future 
timber harvest on BLM lands meet the Oregon Forest Practices 
Standards, BLM Best Management Practices, and Guidelines 



3-2 



for Stream Protection in Logging Operations, with the addition 
of no-cut buffer strips along each side of any affected streams, 
springs or seeps. Additionally, any newly-constructed perma- 
nent roads on BLM-administered lands will require compliance 
with Oregon Forest Practices Standards. 

Livestock will be temporarily removed from streams with poor 
water quality, when due to BLM-administered management, 
until those conditions improve to fair or 5 years have elapsed. 
Grazing systems designed to limit livestock utilization and 
promote speedy riparian recovery will be implemented on 
riparian vegetation once water quality attains fair or good 
condition or 5 years have elapsed. 

Streambank stabilization projects on streams with less than 90 
percent stable streambanks will also improve water quality in 
streams. These projects will reduce streambank erosion, assist 
in streambank revegetation and ultimately increase late sea- 
son streamflow. 

Of the 127.55 miles of streams in the Planning Area, 37.65 
miles, or 30 percent, will improve to good condition, and 60.7 
miles, or 48percent, will improve to fair condition over the life 
of the plan (See Table 3.2). Only 29.2 miles, or 23 percent, will 
remain in poor condition with plan implementation. Under this 
plan, streams in I category allotments will receive first priority for 
funding, followed by M category allotments, with C allotments 
(3milesor2.6percent)continuingunderexisting management. 

Similar improvements to flat-water water quality will be realized 
with plan implementation. The exclusion of livestock from 
specified reservoirs, lakes, springs and ponds will reduce 
siltation and turbidity. Increased vegetative cover around the 
shorelines of these reservoirs will reduce erosion from wave 
action and filter overland flows. Livestock water will continue to 
be provided from these water bodies. Fish habitat projects will 
expand and/or improve fisheries and aquatic habitats in tar- 
geted reservoirs. New reservoir construction, suitable for 
warmwater game fish production, will expand that habitat. 

Flat-water water quality will improve overthe life of the plan with 
1 ,301 acres or 29 percent improving to good condition. Only 50 
acres, or 1 .1 percent, will remain with poor water quality, this 
being Seiloff Dikes, a playa with naturally elevated turbidities 
and alkalinities. 

Effectiveness of these management actions, conservation 
practices and improvement projects will be evaluated primarily 
through water quality monitoring, photo-trend analysis, 
macroinvertebrate analysis and use utilization monitoring. 

Implementation of the Proposed Plan and changes in manage- 
ment of range, forestlands, riparian and aquatic habitats will 
help alleviate adverse impacts to waters from increased sedi- 
mentation, lack of shade and presence of fecal coliform bacte- 
ria. Improvements will bring the BLM into compliance with 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards 
for nonpoint sources of water pollution and fulfill BLM mandates 
to improve water quality to good condition by 1997. 



Soil Management 

Changes in management of range and forestlands which result 
in an increase in ground cover or minimize soil disturbances 
would have a positive effect on soils. Limiting timber harvest 
and controlling off-road vehicle use may decrease sediment 
loss, reduce headcutting, and lower the amount of sediment 
delivered to streams. Proper maintenance and rehabilitation of 
BLM roads would reduce the concentration of storm runoff and 
as a result, reduce soil erosion and gullying. The rehabilitation 
of gullies and headcuts on uplands will decrease soil erosion. 
Treatment projects such as juniper thinning and brush control 
may have short-term negative effects on soil losses, yet can 
have positive or negative effects on soils depending upon the 



condition of the site prior to treatment and the characteristics of 
the specificsite. Closing and rehabilitating known unauthorized 
mineral material sites should have a positive effect on soils on 
the mined sites. 

Mineral activities potentially may have negative effects on soils. 
Localized increases in sediment production and gullying, in- 
creased runoff and increased sediment delivery to streams 
may result from mining activities. 

Under the Proposed Plan, accelerated soil erosion would 
decrease significantly. Headcutting and sediment delivery to 
streams would also decrease. Vegetation management and 
range improvements will determine the condition and trend of 
soil erosion and stability. No significant negative impacts to the 
beneficial functions of floodplains have been identified. 

Forestry and Woodlands 

Current Condition: 

Currently, there are approximately 1 3,307 acres of forestland in 
the Three Rivers RA. Of these acres, 9,291 acres are classified 
as commercial forestland. Approximately 8, 873 acresare within 
the timber base acreage used to derive the sustainable annual 
harvest volume of 621 MBF. 

The commercial forestland acres are primarily managed by 
such practices as overstory removal, commercial thinning, 
precommercial thinning and seed tree cutting. When natural 
regeneration is unsuccessful, manual tree planting is per- 
formed. 

To enhance nutrient replacement into the forest soils, 1 2 tons 
of slash per acre is used as a guideline for fuel loads left on the 
site. If fuel loads exceed approximately 1 2 tons per acre, some 
form of slash treatment is performed. 

There are an estimated 234,942 acres of juniper woodlands 
within the RA. Currently, four harvest areas totaling 1 ,282 acres 
are being used as a source of juniper posts, poles and fuelwood. 
The portion of the RA north of Highway 20 and west of Highway 
395 has been designated as a juniper bough harvesting area. 

Factors within the forestry program which affect forest manage- 
ment practices include 50-foot buffering of all nonperennial 
streams, springs and seeps as well as a 1 00-foot buffering of all 
perennial streams, springs, seeps and associated meadows. 
This resulted in a slightly negative impact on potential produc- 
tion levels. 

Also, the decision to protect four potential old growth ponderosa 
pine forest stands totaling 482 acres came as a result of public 
comment on the Three Rivers DRMP/DEIS. These areas were 
identified based on stand structure and their potential value to 
other resources. Removing these stands from the timber base 
will result in an approximate 5 percent reduction in the annual 
sale volume harvested (approximately 33 MBF). 

Primary factors from outside the forestry program which have 
an impact on the program include the decision made to restrict 
vegetation manipulation within variable widths of all perennial 
streams, springs, seeps and associated meadows to improve 
water quality. Variable widths are dependent on percent side 
slope and range from 1 00 feet to 1 65 feet on each bank. This 
decision results in an approximate 3 percent reduction of 
annual harvest (approximately 20 MBF), which is in addition to 
the current standard buffering practice discussed above. 

Maintaining 30 to 60-acre blocks of big game thermal/hiding 
cover, protecting raptor nest trees and providing for raptor 
perch trees results in a very slight negative impact on annual 



3-3 



Table 3.1. Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality From 
Implementation of the Selected Alternative 



Stream Condition 
Class 


Existing Condition 
(stream miles) 


Short-Term Condition 
(stream miles) 


Long-Term Condition 
(stream miles) 


Poor 

Fair 

Good 

Excellent 

Unknown 


84.25 

20.65 

0.00 

0.00 

22.65 


77.10 

32.60 

2.30 

0.00 

17.85 


29.20 

60.70 

37.65 

0.00 

0.00 



Lake/Reservoir 

Condition 

Class 



Existing Condition 
(acres) 



Short-Term Condition 
(acres) 



Long-Term Condition 
(acres) 



Poor 

Fair 

Good 

Excellent 

Unknown 



445.00 

4,001.00 

45.00 

0.00 

0.00 



55.00 

3,605.00 

831.00 

0.00 

0.00 



50.00 

3,140.00 

1,301.00 

0.00 

0.00 



■BiHBHniBaMi^Bn 



Table 3.2. Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Water Quality Condition Trend from 
Implementation of the Proposed Plan 



Condition and 
Trend 


Existing Stream 
Condition/Trend 
(stream miles) 


Long-Term Stream 
Condition/Trend 
(stream miles) 


Existing Lake 
Condition/Trend 
(acres) 


Long-Term Lake 
Condition/Trend 
(acres) 


Poor 

Improving 
Declining 
Static 


7.45 
65.05 
11.75 




20.00 
2.40 
6.80 




390.00 

5.00 

50.00 


0.00 

0.00 

50.00 


Fair 

Improving 
Declining 
Static 


3.60 

10.20 

6.85 




55.05 
1.90 
3.75 




786.00 

0.00 

3,215.00 


0.00 

0.00 

3,140.00 


Good 

Improving 
Declining 
Static 


0.00 
0.00 
0.00 




22.70 

0.00 

14.95 




0.00 

0.00 

45.00 


0.00 

0.00 

1,301.00 


Excellent 
Static 


0.00 




0.00 




0.00 


0.00 


Unknown 


22.65 




0.00 




0.00 


0.00 



production levels. These restrictions would primarily affect sale 
block layout activities and harvest timing, thus complicating 
sale administration. 

Prohibiting the harvest of juniper foliage, fuelwood, posts and 
poles from the big game winter range south of Highway 20 and 
west of Highway 205 results in a very minor negative impact 
within the currently low intensity woodlands program. 



The existing annual harvest level of 621 MBF on 8,873 com- 
mercial forestland acres would be reduced to 545 MBF on 
7,722 commercial forestland acres. The resulting 1 1 percent 
reduction appears to be significant within the immediate For- 
estry program. However, when this program is looked at as one 
segment of the Forestry program in the Three Rivers geo- 
graphical area, this program produces lessthanl percent of the 
annual timber volume produced. Therefore, the .1 percent 



3-4 



reduction of the 1 percent oftheoveralltimbervolumebecomes 
very minor for the current well-being of the local geographical 
area. The net benefits to other resources such as water quality, 
wildlife and fisheries, outweigh the slight long-term negative 
impacts to the Forestry program. 

Since the RA issues a relatively small amount of juniper product 
sales, the impact of prohibiting activities south of Highway 20 
and west of Highway 205 would be slight for the short term. 



Grazing Management 

Under current grazing management practices and stocking 
levels, there are approximately 38,400 acres in excellent range 
condition, 562,600 acres in good, 823,700 acres infair, 251 ,500 
acres in poor range condition and 33,700 acres which are 
unclassified (see Table 3.3). Active preference is currently 
shown at 1 50,472 AUMs with a total estimated carrying capac- 
ity of 155,200 AUMs available for all forage demands (see 
Table 3.4). 

Implementation of the Grazing Management management 
actions of the Proposed Plan would have a substantial impact 
on current grazing management practices. The primary changes 
in the grazing program would be: 

- The implementation of grazing systems to meet multiple- 
use objectives. 

- The adjustment of strategic seasons of use and stocking 
levels. 

- The potential development of management facilities or 
vegetation manipulation. Specifically, the potential to in- 
crease forage production by approximately 8,870 AUMs by 
vegetation manipulation on approximately 68,900 acres. 
(Note: This figure derived from previously approved plan- 
ning and is used for analysis purposes only. All vegetation 
conversions will be subject to the design requirements that 
the treatments sustain or enhance overall multiple-use 
values within the project area and that the overall diversity 
of plant species or communities not be adversely affected.) 

Implementation of other program management actions would 
also affect current grazing management practices. The primary 
influences on the grazing management program from the other 
management actions would be: 

- The removal of livestock for 5 years from streams in poor 
condition. 

- The implementation of grazing systems on streams in fair or 
good condition. 

- The exclusion of livestockfrom approximately 1 2 reservoirs, 
lakes, springs or ponds. 

- The restriction that prescribed fire within 1 mile of perennial 
water be restricted to less than 20 percent of the subbasin 
in any one year. 

- The initial allocation of 5,808 AUMs to wild horses. 

- The adjustment of grazing practices so that no more than 10 
percent of RA is in early serai and at least 40 percent is in late 
serai to Potential Natural Community (PNC). 

- The designation of RNA/ACECs to meet Oregon Natural 
Heritage Plan (ONHP)cell needs. 

- The protection of special status species and their habitat. 

- Prohibit domestic sheep in the Bartlett Mountain/Upton 
Mountain area. 



- Continue existing livestock exclusion on 4 miles of Malheur 
mottled sculpin or redband trout habitat. 

- The prohibition of sagebrush removal within 2 miles of sage 
grouse strutting grounds if determined to be detrimental. 

- Implement grazing systems to improve or enhance special 
status species habitat. 

- Implement rotation or deferred grazing systems in big game 
ranges. 

- Continuation of the individual juniper tree burning or cutting 
program. 

- Allocate 2,622 AUMs to big game. 

- ThedesignationoftheChickahominyReservoirasaSpecial 
Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 

The degree of short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on 
grazing management is primarily dependent on the implemen- 
tation of grazing management fences and to a lesser extent on 
vegetation manipulation projects. 

If the streams proposed for 5 years of exclusion are fenced into 
riparian pastures, livestock use would be reduced by approxi- 
mately 2,680 AUMs. If these fences are not constructed, 
livestock would be reduced by approximately 15,172 AUMs. 

Table 3.3 shows expected impacts to range condition through 
implementation of the Proposed Plan. Table 3.4 shows the 
short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan with and without range 
improvements. 

The additional forage allocation to big game will have only a 
slight negative effect. The initial allocation of 5,808 AUMs to 
wild horses is the current situation so there will be no impact on 
livestock grazing. Any stocking level adjustments made in 
horse herd areas will be made proportionally between live- 
stock, wildlife and wild horses which will be a positive impact. 

There will be a very slight negative impact from the closing or 
restricting of livestock grazing on an additional 4,050 acres. 
There is not expected to be any significant reduction of AUMs. 

Implementing grazing systems will have a positive impact on 
grazing management. Implementation of grazing systems will 
mitigate the need for livestock AUM reductions. 

The continued implementation of the standard design features 
for range improvements will ensure that special status species 
and their habitat are protected. 

Development of range improvements will have a very positive 
impact on grazing management. Vegetative manipulation will 
increase forage production and range condition. An initial 
reduction in AUMs will occur for at least 2 years after the 
manipulation to allow establishment of vegetation. In the case 
of prescribed fire, a reduction prior may be necessary to build 
up fuel. Structural improvements will allow implementation of 
grazing systems. 

The restrictions to prescribed fire will have little impact due to 
the special nature of the areas where the restrictions will be. 

Prohibiting domestic sheep from the Bartlett Mountain/Upton 
Mountain area will have no impact to existing operations, but 
would limit future adjustments in kind of livestock in these 
allotments. 

The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan are positive. 



3-5 



Range condition will be improved by implementing grazing 
systems or, if necessary, reducing livestock AUMs. 

After 5 years, grazing systems will be implemented and live- 
stock reductions for riparian habitat recovery will begin to 
decrease. Riparian grazing systems may include continued 
rest. Other impacts are the same as for short-term impacts. 



Wild Horses and Burros 

Wild horse populations within all of the Herd Management 
Areas (HMAs) exhibit stable growth rates and are healthy. Most 
of the herds continue to increase at an average annual rate of 
at least 20 percent a year. Present estimated range conditions 
are shown on Table 3.5. The current management levels and 
forage allocations shown on Table 3.6 are maintaining healthy 
and viable populations of horses. The small herd of seven 
burros in the Warm Springs HMA has remained stable for a 
number of years. A few horses still remain outside of the active 
HMAs, numbering approximately three to five head at the 
present time. The free-roaming status of the HMAs is good on 
most of the herd areas with the exception of the Kiger HMA, 
where the horses are found throughout a total of five pastures. 
Access to water and forage has been maintained in all of the 



HMAs. However, much of the permanent live, reliable water in 
the Kiger and Stinkingwater HMAs is on private land. All of the 
HMAs are presently managed for quality horses. This program 
has worked quite well as evidenced by the high rate of adop- 
tions of horses gathered from the Three Rivers RA. Each area 
is further managed for horses exhibiting unique conformation or 
color characteristics as shown on Table 2.7. 

The proposed Kiger Mustang ACEC designation for the Kiger 
and Riddle Mountain HMAs would highlightthe unique charac- 
teristics that these horses possess. Long-term benefits of this 
designation will continue to be the high demand for these 
horsesduring adoptions, and will help to ensuretheircontinued 
existence. 

Both short and long-term benefits to the HMAs would be 
realized through the improvement in range condition. As each 
allotment and HMA is analyzed through the allotment evalua- 
tion process, use of the forage resource would be adjusted to 
help in maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance. The 
projected changes in range condition for the HMAs are shown 
on Table 3.5. These improvements in range condition would 
occur because of changes in grazing systems, seasons of use 
and/or range improvements as identified in the allotment evalu- 
ations and land use plan. 



■^BK^^^ 



Table 3.3. Impacts to Range Condition 



Range Condition (acres) 



Excellent 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Unclassified 1 

Total 



Current Condition 

38,402 
562,632 
823,683 
251,516 

33,685 

1,709,918 



Long-Term (5-10 yrs) Condition 

39,056 
651,217 
812,302 
173,658 

33,685 

1,709,918 



'The number of acres listed as unclassified remains the same due to the expected completion of the Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) in 1 992. Upon Its completion, the RA will develop objectives 
based on serai stage rather than livestock forage condition. 



Table 3.4. Impacts to Stocking Levels with and without Range Improvements 



Estimated 
Carrying Capacity 

Active Preference 

Additional Wildlife 
Allocation 1/ 

Wild Horse Allocation 1/ 

Increase from Vegetative 
Treatment 

Reduction from Removal 
from streams 

Total 



rrent Situation 


With 


Impacts 
Improvements 


Without Impro 


155,165 




155,165 




155,165 


-150,472 




-150,472 
-2,622 




-150,472 
-2,622 


-5,808 




-5,808 




-5,808 



-1,115 



+8,861 

-2,680 
+2,444 



-15,172 
-18,909 



The wildlile and wild horse allocations remain the same throughout this table for comparison only. Reductions will be proportional between livestock, wildlife and wild horses. 



3-6 



Some range improvements, especially fences, could have both 
positive and negative impacts on wild horses. Positive impacts 
would be expected where fences help achieve improved range 
condition through enhanced management of an allotment or 
pasture. Negative impacts would be expected where such 
fences interrupt traditional travel routes for the wild horses or 
burros and thereby decrease their free-roaming nature. 

Other potential range improvements that would have a positive 
effect on the horse nerds, are water holes, wells, seedings and 
spring developments. These developments would improve or 
increase forage and reliable water sources available for use by 
horses. Forage and water availability will greatly enhance the 
wild horse and burro health and viability. The impacts from 
these improvements would be realized both in the short-term 
and long-term. 

Acquisition of water sources located on private land would 
ensure the long-term viability and stability of the herds, espe- 
cially in the Warm Springs, Kiger and Stinkingwater HMAs. 
These areas are identified in Table 2.6. 

Fencing the Foster Flat ACEC in the Warm Springs HMA would 
have a negligible impact on horse movements in this HMA. This 
will not be a cross fence, and the forage lost will be minimal (less 
than 1 percent). 

The most significant potential impacttothe wild horse and burro 
resource is the issue of riparian habitat, water quality and 
aquatic habitat improvement. Approximately 15 miles of ripar- 
ian habitat are located within the Kiger, Stinkingwater and 
Warm Springs HMAs. One of the objectives of this plan is to 
have 75 percent of the stream miles in good or better condition 
by 1997. To achieve this objective bothlivestock and horse use 
would have to be controlled on, or excluded from these areas. 
The strategic use of fencing is the most likely method for such 
control; in which case, horse movements would be altered or 
possibly prohibited in some areas. Measures would be under- 
taken to ensure adequate sources of water and feed were 
maintained in the area, and that disruption of traditional travel 
routes would be minimized where possible. However, short- 
term impacts of this action would be moderate as the horses 
adjusted to new travel routes. Long-term benefits would be 
evidenced by the improved riparian habitat and water quality 
condition in these HMAs. 

Long range positive impacts to the horse and burro program will 
result from the land tenure classification of virtually all acres in 
the HMAs to Zone 1 classification. This would assure the 
viability and management of all of the wild horse and burro 

nerds in the RA. 



Vegetation 



Knowledge of the current condition of this resource is limited by 
lack of baseline data on ecological sites, their species compo- 
sition and the serai status. Completion of the ESI will establish 
this baseline data. Table 3.7 shows the general vegetation 
types of the RA. 

The primary factors within the program which will affect vegeta- 
tion diversity are weed control, requirements for vegetation 
diversity mitigation measures and the required adjustments to 
grazing practices to meet the ecological status objectives for 
the RA. 

Outside factors which have an impact on the diversity of 
vegetation within the RA are: 

- livestock and wild horse grazing; 

- adjustments in grazing practices such as implementation of 
grazing systems and removal and/or exclusion of livestock 
and wild horses from certain areas; 

- livestock and wildlife habitat improvements such as wet- 



lands enhancement, brush control, seeding and juniper 
control; 

fire including wildfires, prescribed fires, suppression 
activities and lack of fires; 

- recreational use, particularly ORV utilization; 

- timber harvest and other woodland management activities; 

energy and minerals development; 

- designation of ACECs; and, 

- retention of ponderosa pine old growth forest areas. 

Most of the impacts of the Proposed Plan on vegetation 
diversity will occur over a long-term timeframe. Positive im- 
pacts on the vegetation diversity of the RA which will occur 
within 5 years of the implementation of the Proposed Plan 
include: 

- The retention of two ACECs, the Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 
(640 acres) and the South Narrows ACEC (1 60 acres); and 
the designation of three additional RNA/ACECs (6,054 
acres). 

- Retention of 482 acres of mature ponderosa pine habitats as 
old growth management areas will have a positive effect on 
the vegetation diversity of the RA. 

Positive impacts to the vegetation diversity which will begin to 
occur within 5 years of the beginning of implementation of 
the Proposed Plan but which will primarily be of a long term 
benefit include: 

- Analyzing impacts to the vegetation diversity of the RA in 
NEPA documents will have a positive impact by requiring 
mitigation to prevent the loss of any significant portion of a 
single community type or individual plant species within the 
RA. 

- Intensive management and protection of aquatic, riparian, 
wetlands and playa habitats. 

- Implementation of grazing systems and exclusion of live- 
stock and wild horses from certain areas. 

When they occur, other actions which could affect the vegeta- 
tion diversity of the RA either positively or negatively include the 
following: 

- Noxious weed control would have a slight positive effect on 
vegetation diversity by helping to maintain the integrity of 
native plant communities. 

- Negative effects to vegetation diversity (primarily big sage- 
brush or juniper/big sagebrush communities) could result 
from as much as 68,900 acres. (Note: This figure derived 
from previously approved planning and is used for analysis 
purposes only.) However, all vegetation conversions will be 
subject to design requirements that they sustain or enhance 
overall multiple-use values within the project area and that 
the overall diversity of plant species or communities not be 
adversely affected. 

- The potential seeding of 46,960 acres would negatively 
affect the vegetation diversity of the RA in those areas where 
non-native species are established. 

- Juniper removal by single tree juniper burning or cutting or 
sale of posts, poles or firewood would reduce the amount of 
juniper cover in the RA. This would be a negative impact for 
this plant species. Other native plant species may be posi- 
tively impacted through the reduction in competition at these 
sites and overall species diversity in the RA may be posi- 
tively impacted. 

- Timber harvest of mature softwoods on the 7,722 acres of 
commercial forestland would negatively impact these plant 
species and the associated plant communities by removal of 
the trees, disturbance of the understory and alteration of the 
successional processes. 

3-7 



Table 3.5. Impacts to Range Condition in Herd Management Areas 



Current 

Range Condition 

Acres) 



Projected 
Range Condition 
(Acres) 



Expected 

Change 

(Acres) 



Stinkingwater 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Kiger 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Riddle Mountain 



36,778 

42,853 





12,985 

23,633 





51,269 

28,362 





14,943 

21,591 





14,491 

-14,491 





+1,958 

-1,958 





Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Warm Springs 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Palomino Buttes 



6,000 

22,021 





133,064 
199,967 
123,824 



7,223 

20,797 





195,296 
137,465 
123,824 



+1,223 

-1,223 





+62,232 
-62,232 





Good 

Fair 

Poor 



22,068 
35,300 
14,176 



50,368 

12,000 

9,176 



+28,300 

-23,300 

-5,000 



Table 3.6. Wild Horse and Burro Management Levels and Forage Allocations 



HMA 



Minimum 
Herd Size 



Maximum 
Herd Size 



Alloted AUMs 



Kiger 

Palomino Buttes 
Stinkingwater 
Riddle Mountain 
Warm Springs v 



51 
32 
40 
33 
111 



82 
64 
30 
56 
202 



984 
768 
960 
672 
2,424 



Total 



267 



484 



5,808 



Allows tor 1 5 to 24 burros 



Minerals activity has the potential for negative impacts to the 
vegetation resource on a site-specific basis. 

Wildfire and wildfire suppression activities would initially 
have a negative impactto vegetation diversity becausethey 
result in the removal of vegetation and disturbance of the 
surface. In the long run, communities in which fire was 
historically a component of the community, would be posi- 
tively benefited by wildfires through the reinitiation of the 
successional cycle. 



Long-term wildfire suppression may have a negative impact 
on vegetation diversity in communities where fire was his- 
torically a successional force by altering the successional 
cycle. The application of prescribed fire to these communi- 
ties may compensate for this potential negative impact. 

Closure of 2,570 acres to all off-road vehicle utilization and 
limiting ORV use on an additional 83,874 acres would 
positively affect vegetation diversity in those areas by pre- 
venting disturbance of the surface from this vehicle activity 
and the resultant potential for loss of native vegetation, 
increase in soil erosion, and invasion by noxious weeds. In 



3-8 



areas which remain open to casual use by ORVs, vegetation 
diversity could be negatively affected by such use. 

Special Status Species 

The current listing of the RA Special Status Species is pre- 
sented in Table 2.1 1 and shown on Map SS-1 . 

Primary within program factors affecting the Special Status 
Species program include development and implementation of 
HMPs, recovery plans or other activity plans. 

Outside factors which influence special status species include 
vegetation manipulation, timber harvest, livestock and wild 
horse grazing, mineral and energy development, recreational 
uses such as ORV use, land tenure changes and fire manage- 
ment practices. 

Table 3.8 shows the expected type and degree of impacts to 
special status species by the Proposed Plan. 

Impacts to special status species which will occur within 5 years 
of implementation of the Proposed Plan include the following: 

- Implementation of BLM actions within the Planning Area, as 
listed in the Pacific Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and 
Malheur Wirelettuce Recovery Plans, would improve the 
habitat of these species. 

- Allocating the Bartlett Mountain/Upton Mountain areaforthe 
long-term enhancement of California bighorn sheep habitat 
would result in a positive impact to that species. 

- Removing livestock for 5 years from riparian zones which 
have Malheur mottled sculpin or redband trout habitat will 
have a positive impact on these species. Implementation of 
grazing systems which arefavorablefor riparian and aquatic 
habitat would also have a positive impact to these species 
for those stream stretches which contain habitat for these 
species. 

Impacts to special status species which will begin to occur 
within 5 years but which will continue to occur over a long-term 
timeframe as the actions in the Proposed Plan are implemented 
include the following: 

- Preparation and implementation of HMPs for special status 
species would aid in the protection, restoration and en- 
hancement of these species and their habitat. 

- Western sage grouse habitat would be protected by not 
allowing removal of sagebrush within 2 miles of strutting 
grounds, if that removal would be detrimental to sage grouse 
nesting habitat. Implementing grazing systems which would 
improve forb availability would have a positive effect on sage 
grouse habitat. Providing meadow habitat at spring devel- 
opments would also benefit this species. 

- Correcting habitat deficiencies of the ferruginous hawk 
within 2 miles of nest sites would result in a positive impact 
to this species and its habitat. 

- Inventory, monitoring and evaluation of special status spe- 
cies would benefit the species by refining knowledge of the 
species' range and determining its biological requirements, 
detecting trend in species and alerting any need for man- 
agement action to conserve the species. Acquiring or retain- 
ing Federal ownership of parcels having sensitive species 
will benefit these species by having them protected and 
conserved by law and policy. 

- Establishing grazing systems on long-billed curlew nesting 
habitat to allow at least one-third of the habitat to be 



undisturbed through the critical nesting period will be a 
positive impact to this species. 

Protecting special status species from impact by BLM- 
authorized actions by conducting a site examination at the 
appropriate season and application of appropriate mitiga- 
tion measures prior to project implementation will be a 
positive impact for all special status species. 

The potential 68,855 acres of brush control and prescribed 
burning in big sagebrush communities would have the 
potential to negatively affect sage grouse wintering habitat. 
However, potential treatment areas are not within known 
sage grouse winter habitat. 

Potential brush control (burning, spraying, chaining) of as 
much as 68,855 acres in big sagebrush and juniper domi- 
nated communities and as much as 46,960 acres of seeding 
could negatively affect the habitat of some sensitive plant 
species. (Note: These figures derived from previously ap- 
proved planning and are used for analysis purposes only. All 
vegetation conversions will be subject to design require- 
ments that they sustain or enhance overall multiple-use 
values within the project area and that the overall diversity 
of plant species or communities not be adversely affected.) 
Areas of known or newly discovered populations will be 
avoided but potential habitat may be altered. 

Timber harvest on 7,722 acres will have the potential to 
negatively affect special status species. However, site ex- 
aminations would be conducted prior to harvest and appro- 
priate mitigation measures implemented. 

Energy and mineral activity has the potential for negative 
impacts to special status species in any areas where such 
development occurs. 

The impact on special status plant species of fire and long- 
term fire suppression may be positive or negative depending 
on the species and the role of fire in determining its occur- 
rence and distribution. Specific information is not available 
for any of the special status plant species. 

Casual use by ORVs and the attendant noise, activity levels 
and surface disturbance would negatively affect special 
status species in those areas which remain open to such 
use. 



Wildlife Habitat 

Big Game 

The current conditions of big game habitat are listed in Table 
3.9. The primary change agents from within the program 
affecting big game habitat include: 

The allocation of an additional 2,622 AUMs, for atotal 
of 7,836 AUMs, of competitive forage to big game. 

Implementation of grazing systems on all allotments 
in big game ranges, with priority given to I and M allotments. 

Individual juniper tree removal in 1 00-acre or smaller 
units. 

Aggressive suppression of wildfires in deer and elk 
winter ranges. 

Timber harvest designed to maintain 30 to 60-acre 
units of big game cover so that 40 percent of the treatment 
area remains in suitable big game thermal and hiding cover. 



3-9 



Table 3.7. Vegetation Types in the Three Rivers RA 



Vegetation 
Types 



Public Land Acres 
Drewsey Riley 



Silvies Valley Total 



% of Common Assoc. 
RA Plant Species 



Big Sagebrush 



Juniper 



Low Sagebrush 



Stiff Sagebrush 



325,679 



33,441 



Crested Wheatgrass 81,120 

Grease wood 8,099 

Ponderosa Pine 6,337 

Silver Sagebrush 

Desert Shrub 

Riparian 658 



757,740 13,231 



93,633 130,222 



90,283 



130,550 


220,833 


12.5 




33,441 


1.91 


25,419 


106,539 


6.07 


12,800 


20,899 


1.19 


9,801 4,240 


20,378 


1.16 


12,810 


12,810 


0.73 


1,400 


1,400 


0.08 


504 


1,162 


0.07 



Diamond Craters 



16,896 



1 ,096,650 62.49 big sagebrush, rabbit brush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg's 

bluegrass, cheatgrass, wild buckwheat, bottlebrush squirreltail, needlegrass, 
aster, lupine, phlox, squawapple, bitterbrush 

223,855 12.76 western juniper, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, Idaho fescue, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, curlleaf mountain mahogany, bitterbrush 

low sagebrush, Sandberg's bluegrass, Thurber's needlegrass, Idaho fescue, 
bluebunch wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, lupine, balsamroot, phlox 

stiff sagebrush, Sandberg's bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, bighead clover, 
Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, onion, wild buckwheat, 
biscuit root 

crested wheatgrass, sweetclover 

greasewood, basin wildrye, saltgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail 

ponderosa pine, big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, bitter- 
brush, Douglas fir, yarrow 

silver sagebrush, Nevada bluegrass, creeping wildrye 

spiny hopsage, shadscale 

willow, alder, rose, rush, Kentucky bluegrass, sedge, smooth brome, quaking 
aspen, mat muhly, knotweed, cottonwood 

0.96 big sagebrush, phlox, moss 



16,896 



656,146 



1,081,246 17,471 



1,754,863 



100.0 



Table 3.8. Degree of Impacts to Special 
Status Species of the Proposed Plan 



Species 



Impacts 



Bald Eagle 
Peregrine Falcon 
California Bighorn Sheep 
White-faced Ibis 
Ferruginous Hawk 
Western Sage Grouse 
Western Snowy Plover 
Long-billed Curlew 
Redband Trout 
Malheur Mottled Sculpin 
Malheur Wirelettuce 
Cusick's Buckwheat 
Biddle's Lupine 
Cusick's Lupine 
Columbia Cress 
Leiberg's Clover 



High positive 
High positive 
High positive 
Medium positive 
Medium positive 
Medium positive 
Low positive 
Medium positive 
High positive 
High positive 
High positive 
Medium positive 
Medium positive 
Medium positive 
Medium positive 
Medium positive 



- Installation of at least eight guzzlers in areas that are 
currently water deficient. 

- Maintenance of 85 percent of the browse that currently 
occurs on deer and elk winter ranges. 

- Fence construction to standards which afford movement to 
the big game animals present. 

- Prohibit harvest of juniper foliage in the area west of High- 
way 205 which is south of Highway 20. 

Primary external change agents affecting big game habitat 

include: 

- Approximately 1 3,800 acres of potential brush control within 
deer winter range. 

- Approximately 9,500 acres of potential seeding within deer 
winter range. 

- Potential and current minerals activities. 

The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on big game 
habitat would be positive. An improvement in deer and elk 
summer ranges would result from improved vigor on some sites 
from juniper control and prescribed burning. These ranges 
would also improve from added availability of water and main- 
tenance of cover areas. 

Deer and elk winter ranges would improve due to added vigor 
of browse and maintenance of 85 percent of the current browse 
areas. 

Antelope habitat would improve from the increased abundance 
and availability of forbs within their ranges. 

All big game species habitat would be improved due to the 
availability of forage for benchmark numbers, and movement 
between ranges would be ensured through fence construction 
standards. 



Predicted big game habitat conditions over the short-term are 
listed on Table 3.9. 

The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on big game 
habitat would be very positive. These impacts would be the 
same as the short-term impacts. However, the degree of 
improvement would be much greater. Long-term predicted 
habitat conditions for big game are listed on Table 3.9. 

Raptors 

The current conditions of raptor habitat are largely unknown. 
Predicted impacts of the Proposed Plan are relative to the 
current condition and are a measure of the degree of improve- 
ment expected from actions in the plan. 

The primary change agents from within the program affecting 
raptor habitat include: 

- Protection of nest sites and providing for perch sites within 
660 feet of nest sites. 

- Require that all poles and transformers on public lands have 
design features to prevent raptor electrocution. 

- Prohibit application of pesticides for rodent control on public 
land within 2 miles of active raptor nests. 

- Identification of component deficient raptor habitat and 
correction of the deficiencies. 

The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on raptor habitat 
would be positive. The degree of these impacts would be low 
as compared to the current condition. Preventing loss of nest 
sites and death of birds from electrocution or poisoning would 
result in these impacts. 

The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on raptor habitat 
would be positive. The degree of these impacts would be 
moderate as compared to the current condition. Impacts would 
be the same as in the short-term and identification of habitat 
deficiencies and correction of those deficiencies would add to 
the degree of the positive impacts. 



Riparian Habitat 



The current conditions of streamside riparian habitat are listed 
in Table 3.10. 

The primary change agents from within the program affecting 
riparian habitat include: 

- Exclusion of livestock from particular stream segments for 5 
years, then grazing with utilization levels orgrazing systems 
that will allow for continued riparian improvement. 

- Implementation of livestock grazing systems on particular 
stream segments which will provide improvement of fair or 
maintenance of good quality riparian. 

- Establishment of stream buffer strips and meeting guide- 
lines for stream protection in logging operations. 

- Give priority to land acquisitions which increase the acreage 
or improve the manageability of riparian habitat. 

- Construction of any roads in riparian areas will be to BLM 
standards. 

The primary external change agents affecting riparian habitat 
include: 

- Rehabilitation of areas burned by wildfire within 1 mile of 
perennial water. 



3-11 



- Restricting mechanical or prescribed fire treatment of any 
area within 1 mile of perennial water to 20 percent of any 
subbasin in any one year. 

- Implementation of streambank stabilization projects. 

The short-term impact of the Proposed Plan on riparian habitat 
would be positive. Table 3.1 lists the predicted conditions of 
riparian habitat. These improvements would be due, in large 
part, to the livestock exclusions and implementation of grazing 
systems designed to meet the riparian objectives. 

The long-term impacts to riparian habitat would be positive. 
Table 3.10 lists the predicted conditions of riparian habitat. 
These figures reflect the continued improvement expected 
from grazing system implementation and protection from deg- 
radation by construction or commercial logging activities. 

Wetland/Playa/Meadow Habitat 

The current condition of wetland habitat is listed on Table 3.1 1 . 
Current playa and meadow habitat conditions are unknown. 

The primary change agents from within the program affecting 
wetland, playa and meadow habitat include: 

- Implementation of the Three Rivers portion of the Burns 
District Wetlands HMP by 1997. 

- Fencing spring head boxes and overflow areas. 

- The collection of baseline data on playa lakebeds and 
implementing needed management changes. 

- Give priority to land exchanges and acquisitions which 
would increase the acreage or improve the manageability of 
public wetlands. 

The primary external change agents affecting wetland, playa 
and meadow habitat include: 

- Designate and protect the Foster Flat area as an RNA/ 
ACEC. 

- Implement grazing systems in I and M category allotments 
which are currently seasonlong grazing. 

The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on wetland, playa 
and meadow habitat would be positive. Table 3.11 lists the 
predicted condition of wetland habitat over the short-term. 
Playa and meadow habitat has not been inventoried and 
conditions are unknown. However, management actions which 
would be expected to provide improvement of these areas are 
in the Proposed Plan. Also, inventory of these areas is expected 
in the short-term. 

The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on wetland, playa 
and meadow habitat would be positive. Table 3.1 1 lists the 
predicted condition of wetland habitat. As playa and meadow 
habitat conditions become known, management actions for 
improvement will be developed and implemented, where 
needed, via the activity planning process. 

Nongame Animals and Upland Game 
Birds 

The current conditions of habitat for this large group of animals 
is highly variable and dependent upon the particular species in 
question. Very little direct data has been developed in the 
planning area. Virtually all actions would have the potential to 
impact, either positively or negatively, one or more species. An 
attempt has been made throughout the planning process to 
ensure that all habitat types currently existing in the area will 
remain in sufficient quantity over the long-term to provide the 
habitat needs of this diverse group. 

3-12 



Aquatic Habitat 



Aquatic habitat within the Three Rivers RA includes approxi- 
mately 84 miles of perennial and intermittent streams, and 
4,006 surface acres of flat-water. Currently, these aquatic 
systems support a variety of game and non-game fish species, 
as well as recreational and commercial consumptive uses of 
water. 

Presently, 68 miles of streams and 3,906 acres of reservoirs are 
in poor or fair condition (see Table 3.12). Livestock will be 
temporarily removed from streams with aquatic habitats in poor 
condition due to BLM-administered management, until those 
conditions improve to fair, or 5 years have elapsed. Grazing 
systems would be designed to limit livestock utilization and to 
promote speedy riparian vegetation recovery once aquatic 
habitats attain fair or good conditions or 5 years have elapsed. 

Implementation of the Proposed Plan would require that all 
future timber harvest on BLM lands meet the General Best 
Forest Management Practices (Appendix 1, Table 1), and 
Summary of Recommended Practices for Stream Protection 
(Appendix 1 , Table 2); with the addition of no-cut buffer strips 
along each side of any affected streams, springs or seeps. 
Additionally, any newly-constructed permanent roads on BLM- 
administered lands will require compliance with Oregon Forest 
Practices Standards. 

Fish habitat and streambank stabilization projects would im- 
prove and expand aquatic habitats within the Planning Area. 
These projects would reduce streambank erosion, assist with 
revegetation of streambanks, and ultimately increase late 
season streamflow. 

Of the 83.65 miles of aquatic habitat in the Planning Area, 73.50 
miles or 87.9 percent, would improve to or be maintained in 
good condition over the life of the plan. Only 2.7 miles, or 3.2 
percent, would remain or decline to poor condition. Under this 
plan, streams in I category allotments would receivefirst priority 
for funding, followed by M category allotments, with C allot- 
ments continuing under existing management. 

Similar improvements to flat-water aquatic habitat would be 
realized with plan implementation. The exclusion of livestock 
from specific reservoirs, lakes, springs and ponds would re- 
duce siltation and turbidity. Increased vegetative cover around 
the shoreline of these waters would reduce erosion from wave 
action and filter overland flows. Livestock water would continue 
to be provided from these water bodies. Fish habitat projects 
would expand and/or improve fisheries and aquatic habitats in 
targeted reservoirs. New reservoir construction, suitable for 
warmwater game fish production, would expand that habitat. 

Flat-water aquatic habitat would improve overthe life of the plan 
with 898 acres, or 22.4 percent, improving to good or maintain- 
ing good condition (see Table 3.13). Eighteen acres would 
reach excellent condition relative to the species persent 
(warmwater). 

Effectiveness of these management actions, conservation 
practices and improvement projects will be evaluated primarily 
through water quality monitoring, photo-trend analysis, 
macroinvertebrate analysis and use utilization monitoring. 

No specific actions have been identified that would adversely 
affect aquatic ecosystems with plan implementation. 

Implementation of the Proposed Plan would reduce streambank 
and overland erosion and improve stream shading. These 
management practices would result in reduced sediment loads, 
lower maximum water temperatures and increase late season 
streamflows. Subsequent changes in management of range, 
forestlands and riparian and aquatic habitats would bring the 
BLM into compliance with DEQ standards for nonpoint sources 
of water pollution, and fulfill BLM mandates to improve water 
quality and riparian habitat to good condition by the year 2000. 



Table 3.9. Impacts to Big Game Habitat Conditions (acres) 



Current 
Sat. Unsat. 



Short-Term 
Sat. Unsat. 



Deer Winter 
Range 


335,000 


195,000 


Deer Summer 
Range 


375,000 


325,000 


Elk Winter 
Range 


235,000 


20,000 


Elk Summer 
Range 


105,000 


45,000 



410,000 120,000 

530,000 170,000 

240,000 15,000 

115,000 30,000 



Good 

Fair 

Poor 

'Unknown 

Total 



17.6 


116.7 


43.65 


255.8 


32.95 


207.5 


25.85 


102.5 


120.05 


685.5 



58.4 


366.5 


26.05 


155.5 


9.75 


58 


25.85 


102.5 


120.05 


682.5 



Long-Term 
Sat. Unsat. 



485,000 50,000 

610,000 90,000 

245,000 10,000 

130,000 20,000 





Table 3.10. Impacts to Riparian Habitat Conditions 




Condition Current Conditions Short-Term 

Mi. Ac. Mi. Ac. 


Long-Term 
Mi. Ac. 



81.6 


515 


6.6 


37 


3. 1 


28 


25.85 


102.5 


120.05 


682.5 



Inventory of stream segments with unknown conditions is expected within 5 years. For predictions the numbers have remained 
constant but appropriate totals will change as data becomes available. 



Table 3.11. Impacts to Wetland Habitat Condition 



Condition Class 



Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Uncontrollable 2 

Subtotal 

Potential Expansion 

Total 



Current 

Conditions 1 

(acres) 



Short-Term 

Impacts 

(acres) 



50 

911 

390 

3,140 

4,491 

200 

4,691 



'Acreage includes water surface acres at capacity plus associated vegetation. 

2 Due to large water level fluctuations on Warm Springs, Moon and Chickahominy Reservoirs. 



505 

651 

195 

3,140 

4,491 

490 

4,981 



Long-Term 

Impacts 

(acres) 



956 

395 



3,140 

4,491 

490 

4,981 



3-13 



Table 3.12. Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Condition and Trend 



Condition 
Trend 


Current 

Stream 

Condition (miles) 


Stream 

Condition 

(miles) 


Current 

Lake 

Condition (acres) 


Lake 

Condition 

(acres) 


Poor 

Improving 
Declining 
Static 


15.15 

22.90 

3.65 


0.00 
0.50 
2.20 


7.00 
5.00 
0.00 


0.00 
0.00 
0.00 


Fair 

Improving 
Declining 
Static 


5.90 

13.70 

6.80 


1.60 
0.00 
5.85 


24.00 

0.00 

3,870.00 


0.00 

0.00 

3,090.00 


Good 

Improving 
Declining 
Static 


0.00 
0.50 
7.60 


19.10 

0.00 

54.40 


0.00 

0.00 

100.00 


0.00 

0.00 

898.00 


Excellent 
Static 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


18.00 


Unknown 


7.45 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


Total 


83.65 


83.65 


4,006.00 


4,006.00 



Table 3.13. Short- and Long-Term Impacts to Stream and Lake/Reservoir Aquatic Habitat 



Condition 



Current 
Stream 
Condition 
(miles) 



Stream Condition 

Short-Term Impacts 

(miles) 



Stream Condition 

Long-Term Impacts 

(miles) 



Poor 

Fair 

Good 

Excellent 

Unknown 



41.70 
26.40 

8.10 



7.45 



13.95 
48.55 
13.70 



7.45 



2.70 
7.45 
73.50 






Current Lake/ 
Reservoir Condition 



(acres) 



Lake/Reservoir 

Condition 

Short-Term Impacts 

(acres) 



Lake/Reservoir 

Condition 

Long-Term Impacts 

(acres) 



Poor 

Fair 

Good 

Excellent 

Unknown 



12.00 
3,894.00 
100.00 






5.00 
3,877.00 
124.00 





3,090.00 
898.00 
18.00 




3-14 



Fire Management 



Currently, all wildfires occurring on public lands are initial 
attacked with a full suppression effort following a preplanned 
dispatch system. Suppression efforts on fires occurring within 
WSAs or RNA are dictated by Interim Management Policy 
(IMP) as well as the Field Guide for Management Actions in 
WSAs. 

Currently, the only exception to full suppression of all wildfires 
occurs under a multiple fire situation where the number of 
ignitions exceed the initial attack and/or extended attack capa- 
bilities. At that point, priorities are established based on threat 
to life, property and resource values, respectively. 

Prescribed burning is done only with approved Burn Plans in 
place and qualified personnel actually preforming the ignition 
process. 

The primary changes in the Fire Management Program through 
the Proposed Plan are related to the establishment of 1) 
462,080 acres identified under a conditional suppression zone, 

2) the addition of the Foster Flat ACEC at 2,690 acres and the 
possible increase of 1 ,280 acres in the Silver Creek ACEC, and 

3) improved accessibility into recreation areas. 

- The establishment of the conditional fire use zone would, 
under the preestablished conditions, assist the RA and Fire 
Management Programs in meeting land management ob- 
jectives through the use of natural ignition prescribed fire. 
Activity level planning would be required to establish guide- 
lines under which natural prescribed fire may occur. 

- The establishment of the Foster Flat ACEC and the possible 
increase of 1 ,280 acres in the Silver Creek ACEC poses an 
increased fire potential. These areas may, dependent on 
yearly weather conditions, build heavy beds of highly flam- 
mable fine fuels. Ignitions occurring within these areas will 
have the potential to spread rapidly. The Silver Creek ACEC 
bordering U.S. Forest Service (USDA-FS) lands on its west 
and north sides is of more concern. 

- Improved accessibility into recreational areas will increase 
visitor use days and, in turn, increase the potential of human- 
caused fire starts. 

The primary possible external change agent in the prescribed 
fire program, is the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan. 
Current restrictions are expected to be increased over the next 
5 to 1 years. 

Both short and long-term benefits should be realized through 
the establishment of the conditional fire use zone. 

Keeping current access roads to public lands open and main- 
tained will be of benefit to the overall fire suppression program 
efforts. 

Treatments of juniper stands will assist in breaking fuel concen- 
trations in those areas and provide fire breaks that might be 
usable as control lines forfuture suppression efforts. Designing 
site-specific slash treatments, with Fire Management input, for 
all thinning and timber sale contracts will ensure that Fire 
Management concerns are addressed prior to contract issu- 
ance. 



Recreation 

Recreation activities in the Three Rivers RA are predominantly 
of an unstructured, extensive nature associated with hunting, 
fishing, rockhounding, camping, sightseeing, wildlife viewing 
and driving for pleasure. Areawide there are estimated to be 



around 95,000 recreation visits per year resulting in approxi- 
mately 594,000 visitor hours of recreation use, according to 
information in the Burns District Recreation Management Infor- 
mation System (RMIS) for Fiscal Year 1989. 

Table 3.1 4 shows both low and moderate projected visitor use 
for the 1 1 -year period from 1 990 to 2000 utilizing 1 989 visits for 
extensive (dispersed) recreation activities. Chickahominy Rec- 
reation Site has also been included in these projections since 
it is an intensive use area. Table 3.1 5 is specific to this site and 
indicates the projected use for the same period of time. 

The area currently has three moderate to high intensity use 
areas (see Map R-1). Chickahominy Reservoir provides out- 
standing trout fishing opportunities and is managed coopera- 
tively with Harney County, ODFW, the Oregon State Marine 
Board and BLM. A small recreation site at Chickahominy is 
managed by the BLM. A second reservoir area, Warm Springs 
Reservoir, is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation and 
provides fishing and boating opportunities. The BLM services 
county sanitation facilities provided for the public at Warm 
Springs. The Diamond ONA/ACEC was designated for its 
outstanding volcanicfeatures and scientific values. It is the only 
designated SRMA in the RA. Table 3.16 shows the low and 
moderate projected visitor use from 1 990 to 2000 utilizing 1 989 
visits for intensive, site-specific recreation activities i n this area. 

In addition to the RMIS which is updated annually to show 
recreation use on BLM-administered lands, the publication, 
The Pacific Northwest Outdoor Recreation Consumption Pro- 
jection Study: Oregon Project (NORPS), Oregon State Univer- 
sity, January, 1 989, was also utilized to project recreation use 
through the year 201 0. The method and calculations used to 
develop the information in the narrative are indicated in Tables 
1 8 and 1 9 of Appendix 1 . 

Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use 

ORV use in the area is primarily associated with hunting, fishing 
and driving for pleasure. There are no extensive high use ORV 
areas in the RA. One 240-acre intensive use area near Hines 
(see Map R-2), receives concentrated all-terrain vehicle (ATV), 
motorcycle and 4-wheel drive use in the warmer months and 
sledding and tubing use in the winter months because of its 
immediate accessibility to the population centers of Burns and 
Hines. 

All BLM-administered lands in the RA have been designated for 
ORV management as required in Executive Order 1 1 644: Use 
of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands. A notice in the Federal 
Register of February 20, 1987, designated BLM-administered 
lands in the Burns District for management of motorized vehicle 
use. Both documents are presented in Appendix 1, Table 17. 
Currently, there are approximately 1 0,000 acres of public lands 
closed to ORV use and approximately 50,000 acres where 
ORV use is limited to existing roads and trails (see Map R-2 and 
Table 3.1 7). The remainder is designated open for ORV use. 
Table 3.18 also summarizes the restrictions placed on ORV 
use through implementation of the Proposed Plan. 

Primary change agents within the program which affect recre- 
ation resources are 1) Management ofSRMAs, 2) utilization of 
hunting opportunities, and 3) ORV use, both intensive and 
dispersed. The increasing recreational use of Diamond Craters 
ONA and Chickahominy Reservoir indicates a need to provide 
new or additional developments for interpretation and en- 
hancement of visitor experiences as well as provide protection 
of natural resources. The BLM is focusing on these particular 
areas to provide funding and personnel to achieve manage- 
ment goals specific to the areas. 

Dispersed hunting opportunities continue to be utilized at a high 
level. People wanting to provide guiding services as well as 
local private landowners wanting to lease hunting rights on their 



3-15 



lands is becoming evident and often involves public lands. For 
some big game and waterfowl species, demand outstrips 
availability. This creates competition and conflicts between the 
hunting publics. 

ORV use continues to be an activity associated mainly with 
other activities as a means of transportation. However, an area 
near Radar Hill above the towns of Burns and Hines receives 
high use by local citizens, particularly the youth. Management 
of the area to limit the spread of intensive ORV use and 
accompanying impacts to the natural resources is recom- 
mended, including the establishment of boundaries, signing 
and fencing. 

Primary external change agents are livestock land treatments; 
fire management, including prescribed burning; special area 
designations; energy transportation corridors; mining; timber 
harvesting; and, wildlife and fisheries enhancement projects. 
Proposed actions may have a positive effect on one or part of 
a recreation resource but produce a negative effect for another. 

Actions to reach a balance between commodity production and 
enhancement of natural values would provide a positive effect 
on both motorized recreation activities and nonmotorized ac- 
tivities and aesthetics. Positive actions for motorized recreation 
uses are keeping areas open to ORVs, except where unaccept- 
able resource impacts would result, and developing usable 
intensive ORV areas and cross-country routes. Positive ac- 
tions for nonmotorized recreation activities and aesthetics 
include removal of livestock for various time periods from 
certain reaches of stream with implementation of grazing 
systems in aquatic habitat; closing and rehabilitation of unau- 
thorized mineral material sites; protection and enhancement of 
deer, elk and antelope ranges; pursuing land exchanges to 
enhance wetlands; designation/protection of special manage- 
ment areas; stream bank stabilization and instream fish habitat 
projects; and, prescribed fire. 

Actions such as closing or limiting ORV use in special designa- 
tion areas, closing and rehabilitating roads not needed for 
administration and fire protection, and protecting specific wild- 
life habitats have a negative effect on ORV use and motorized 
recreation activities. Natural values and aesthetics are nega- 
tively impacted by implementing brush control and seedings to 
increase livestock forage, providing or improving access for 
commodity values such as mining, powerline construction and 
fire management, allowing intensive ORV use near population 
centers and timber harvesting on small, scattered stands of 
trees. 

Short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on recreation re- 
sources are associated with scars and other changes that can 
be rehabilitated and healed within 5 years such as construction 
of recreation sites, wildlife guzzlers, instream fisheries habitat 
projects, and spring and well developments. Other examples 
are impacts from livestock trailing, the effects of wildfires and 
prescribed burns and their control, and the use of routes for 
point-to-point recreation events such as ORV and horse endur- 
ance races. 

Long-term impacts are those which change the recreation use 
of the land through developments or initiating new manage- 
ment objectives to create a lasting effect on the recreation 
resources. An example of such impacts are new access roads 
for harvesting timber, mining, fire control and development of 
energy transmission lines (Pacificorp 500 kV line) which open 
areas to vehicle use which previously had limited or no access 
for this type of use. Other examples are special area designa- 
tions (Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC), wildlife and fisheries en- 
hancement projects (Middle Fork Malheur River boulderplace- 
ments), developing intensive use recreation sites and ORV use 
areas (Chickahominy and Radar Hilh, riparian and waterquality 
enhancement projects (streambank stabilization), and large 
scale seeding, brush control and mining projects. 



The Proposed Plan would provide protection to natural aes- 
thetic values and enhance nonmotorized and and 
nonconsumptive uses, while also accommodating ORV and 
motorized recreation use (see Table 3.19, Impacts to Recre- 
ation). 



Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by 
Congress (Public Law 90-542) to preserve selected rivers in 
natural, free-flowing conditions. There are no river segments in 
the RA that were fcientified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 
the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan's Riv- 
ers Inventory or the State Scenic Waterways Designations. 
However, a Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory for possible 
inclusion as components of the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System was completed for Three Rivers RA (see Map 
WSR-1 and Table 2.17). Tables 2.1 8, 2.1 9, 2.20 and 2.21 give 
more detailed results of the assessment process. 

The Middle Fork Malheur River, which flows through the 
Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA (see Map WSR-1), 
possesses characteristics which make the stream a worthy 
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (see 
Table 2.20). It would be found suitable for designation as a Wild 
River and managed according to objectives and standards as 
noted in Table 2.21 . 

BLM has not previously proposed this river segment because 
lessthan3milesflowthrougnBLM-administered lands andthis 
has not been considered sufficient to provide adequate man- 
agement. However, 1 3.7 contiguous upstream milesof the river 
in the Malheur National Forest have been designated Wild or 
Scenic in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 
1 988. This would make management of the BLM-administered 
segment practical as part of a larger system. In addition, 1.4 
miles of a tributary, Bluebucket Creek, has also been included 
as part of the river segment in the BLM recommendation. 
Another 1 .3 miles of the Middle Fork Malheur River, on private 
land between the USDA-FS and BLM managed lands is also 
included in the analysis, bringing the total river study (Segment 
A) mileage to 5.4 miles. 

The DRMP/DEIS indicated designation of approximately 1 ,730 
acres (1 ,275 acres BLM, 355 private and 1 00 USDA-FS) within 
one-quarter mile of the river segment. It is now recommended 
that the boundaries extend to the rims of the canyon whether or 
not they are more or less than the one-quarter mile established 
on either side of the mean high water level of the river and creek 
during the inventory process. The recommended boundaries 
are shown on Map WSR-2. The recommended acreage totals 
1 ,840 acres (1 ,425 acres BLM, 400 acres private and 1 5 acres 
State) and is noted in Table 2.20 Suitability Determination. The 
USDA-FS acreage noted as part of the total acres for designa- 
tion in the DRMP/DEIS have already been included in the reach 
of river designated in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act or 1 988. Therefore, these acres are not included in 
the proposal in the PRMP/FEIS. 

The boundary following the rims provides protection and en- 
compasses all of the outstandingly remarkable visual resources 
and areas with biological diversity. Expansion of the boundary 
onto the plateau would not increase protection of the river 
corridor and its associated values. 

The primary change agent within the program affecting the 
resource is the proposed Wild River designation itself. This 
includes the designation and management of the upper portion 
of the Middle Fork of the Malheur River by the USDA-FS which 
would be managed in coordination with the BLM's proposed 
reach of the river. 



3-16 



Primary external change agents are a fisheries enhancement 
project, waterquality enhancement projects and recommended 
nonwildernessdesignationfor Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek 
WSA. 

Actions to designate approximately 1,840 acres associated 
with 5.4 miles of the Middle Fork Malheur River and Bluebucket 
Creek as Wild (classification) and actions in other programs to 
enhance and protect water quality and fisheries would create a 
positive effect on Wild River reaches. Examples of such other 
actions are removal of livestock for various periods of time from 
certain reaches of streams with implementation of grazing 
systems in aquatic habitat, prohibiting timber harvest in stream 
corridors with designation of certain parcels as remnants of 
ancient forests and not allowing new road construction in areas 
influencing stream drainages. An established Visual Resource 
Management (VRM) Class I area within a WSA would continue 
to have a positive effect if classified Wild by Congress as would 
the current ORV closure with proposed changes. 

The proposed fisheries habitat enhancement project to de- 
velop more pools in the Middle Fork of the Malheur River would 
have a positive effect for this resource, but could produce a 
negative impact on scenic and wilderness values if the charac- 
teristic landscape is modified too much. 

The contiguous 13.7 miles of river reach within the Malheur 
National Forest have been designated as Wild in the Omnibus 
Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1 988. The proposed 5.4 
miles of river (including a portion of Bluebucket Creek) below 
the forest boundary will also be designated Wild and the total 
1 9.1 miles would be cooperatively managed by both agencies. 

Full (unmodified) fire suppression would be limited to prevent 
negative effects by allowing no permanent human-caused 
changes (i.e., mechanized tracks, trails, fire lines, cut timber) to 
become evident. 

If classified Wild by Congress, an automatic mineral withdrawal 
would foreclose future mining claims and development on 
public lands within the designated river corridor. The area 
would be designated as Category 4, No Leasing, for leasable 
minerals. 

Approximately 22 acres of commercial forest would be re- 
moved from the available base acreage which would reduce 
the potential harvest by approximately 1 .5 MBF per year. 

Linear rights-of-way would be excluded. 

Short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on Wild and Scenic 
River resources involve development of instream fisheries 
habitat improvement where heavy equipment such as back- 
hoes used to place large boulders or logs would use the river 
bed for access and travel to various locations. Other short-term 
impacts would be the construction of low standard develop- 
ments such as a trailhead above Bluebucket Creek, atrail down 
the creek and along the river to connect with the trail already 
along the river on USDA-FS lands and signing (information, 
boundary and ORV) to enhance visitor use. These develop- 
ments would be completed under cooperative management 
with the USDA-FS on the entire length of the designated Wild 
River. 

Long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan would involve devel- 
opment of instream fisheries improvement where blasting 
would expose new rock surfaces or introduction of rock or 
structures from outside the area would change the character- 
istic landscape. Other long-term impacts of the low standard 
recreation developments could be increased visitor use and 
associated management needs. Continued vehicle access to 
private lands on the river utilizing a low standard road through 
the NW1 /4 of Section 22 (see Map WSR-2) would be allowed. 
The designations to provide long-term resource protection 
(ORV closure and ancient forests) would enhance the pro- 
posed Wild River designation. 



The overall changes as compared to current conditions, are not 
considered to be significant. In comparison with the de facto 
protection of the wild and scenic character of the Middle Fork 
Malheur River and Bluebucket Creek currently provided under 
Wilderness IMP, designation as a Wild River would not provide 
a significant managerial change. 



ACEC 

The RA currently has three ACECs and the current acreage of 
ACEC designation is 17,546 acres. 

External factors which could affect the ACECs in the RA are 
mineral and energy development and, in the Dry Mountain 
RNA/ACEC, livestock grazing. 

The primary short-term impact of the Proposed Plan on the 
ACEC program is to increase the number of ACECs from three 
to seven and the amount of acreage in ACEC designation by 
77,543 acres to a total of 95,049 acres. 

No significant negative impacts to designated areas would be 
expected. 

Positive impacts would accrue to the Silver Creek RNA/ACEC 
proposed addition and the Foster Flat RNA/ACEC when perim- 
eter boundary fencing to exclude livestock and wild horse 
grazing is constructed. 

A slight positive effect of designation will result from the 
requirement for a Plan of Operations for any beatable mineral 
development scenarios, although this benefit is not particularly 
significant as mines have been successfully developed, within 
ACECs, with Plans of Operation. 

Energy and mineral development would have a negative im- 
pact on ACECs where such development and the values for 
which the ACEC was established are mutually exclusive. 

Any development outside or adjacent to an ACEC which alters 
the hydrologic regime, produces excess dust or otherwise 
alters the environment within or adjacent to the ACEC would 
have a negative impact on the ACEC. 

Long-term wildfire suppression may have a negative impact on 
specific ACECs if the values for which a particular ACEC was 
established are dependent on occasional wildfires to be sus- 
tained. The application of prescribed fire to these communities 
may compensate for this potential negative impact. 



Visual Resources 

Visual resources are categorized in a two phase process. They 
are first assessed through an inventory process which consid- 
ers scenic quality (key factors include landform, vegetation, 
water, color adjacent scenery, scarcity, and existing cultural 
modifications), sensitivity (key factors include type of user, 
amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special 
areas), and distance zones (key factors include foreground- 
middleground distance zones, background distance zone and 
seldom-seen areas). Inventory classes are assigned based on 
the combination of scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance 
zones. However, they do not by themselves establish manage- 
ment direction. VRM classes are assigned through the planning 
process. All actions that would result in surface disturbance 
must consider the importance of visual values. Existing man- 
agement classes (see Glossary for VRM Classes 1 -IV) estab- 
lished through previous planning include Class 1 - 8,61 acres, 
Class 11-1 20,621 acres, Class III - 425,600 acres, and Class IV 
- 1 ,155,087 acres. A more detailed description of the acreage 
classifications is presented in Table 3.20, Current VRM Classi- 
fication. Map VRM-1 depicts areas of high visual sensitivity in 
the RA. 

3-17 



Table 3.14. Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 


- Three Rivers 


Resource Area 
















Av. Annual 


Low Growth 


Av. Annual 


Mod. Growth 




1989 


Growth - Low 


Projected Visits 


Growth - Mod. 


Projected Visits 


RMIS Categories 


Visits (1) 


Projection 


Year 2000 


Projection 


Year 2000 


1 ORV Travel 


5300 


1 .23% 


6017 


2.27% 


6623 


2 Other Motorized 


7650 


0.81% 


8332 


1 .78% 


9148 


3 Nonmotorized 


120 


1 .48% 


140 


3.77% 


170 


4 Camping Visits 


33700 


1.19% 


38111 


2.61% 


43375 


5 Hunting Visits 


6200 


0.19% 


6330 


0.55% 


6575 


6 Other Land-Based 


8600 


1 .35% 


9877 


2.83% 


11277 


7 Fishing Visits 


16300 


0.81% 


17752 


2.31% 


20442 


8 Boating Visits 


1890 


0.63% 


2021 


2.31% 


2370 


9 Other Water Based 


1010 


0.36% 


1050 


0.83% 


1102 


10 Winter Sports 


1700 


0.97% 


1881 


2.04% 


2081 


11 Snowmobiling Visits 


1300 


0.86% 


1423 


1 .50% 


1515 


Totals 


83770 




92934 




104679 





Table 3.15. Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Chickahominy Res. 



RMIS Categories 



1989 
Visits (1) 



Av. Annual 

Growth - Low 

Projection 



Low Growth 

Projected Visits 

Year 2000 



Av. Annual 

Growth - Mod. 

Projection 



Mod. Growth 

Projected Visits 

Year 2000 



Camping 
Fishing 
Boating Visits 
Picnicking 
Site Based 

Totals 



Other 



14040 


1.17% 


15847 


2.60% 


18055 


9180 


0.81% 


9998 


2.33% 


11533 


1890 


0.16% 


1923 


0.37% 


1967 


540 


0.56% 


573 


1 .00% 


599 


1350 


1 .35% 


1550 


2.84% 


1772 



27000 



29891 



33926 



Table 3.16. Projected Extensive Recreation Visitor Use to the Year 2000 - Diamond Craters 



Non-Motorized 
RMIS Categories 



1989 
Visits (1) 



Av. Annual 

Growth - Low 

Projection 



Low Growth 

Projected Visits 

Year 2000 



Av. Annual 

Growth - Mod. 

Projection 



Mod. Growth 

Projected Visits 

Year 2000 



Non-Motorized 


2000 


1 .48% 


2326 


3.77% 


2829 


Camping 


400 


1.19% 


452 


2.61% 


515 


Hunting 


50 


0.19% 


51 


0.55% 


53 


Site Based -Other 


10000 


1 .35% 


11485 


2.83% 


13113 


Totals 


12450 




14314 




16510 



3-18 



3.17. Impacts to Off-Road Vehicle Designations 



Open 



Existing 
(acres) 



1,649,416 



Proposed 
(acres) 



Total Change 
(acres) 



1 ,592,652 
(includes 20,850 formerly 
limited around Warm Springs 
Reservoir) 



-56,783 



Closed 

Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA 

Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek 

Wild River designation 

Hat Butte 

Windy Point 

Devine Canyon 

South Narrows ACEC 

Squaw Lake (part of Stonehouse WSA) 

Burns Butte Public Shooting Range 

Total 



2,080 



30 

280 

1,040 

160 

6,500* 

10,090 



2,040 

250 

30 

280 

1,040 

160 



280 

4,080 



-40 

+250 









-6,500 

+280 

-6,010 



Limited (existing roads and ways) 

Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 1 6,656 

Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA 3,480 

Stonehouse WSA (remainder in RA) 5,825* 

Warm Springs Reservoir 23,81 1 

Silver Creek RNA 640 

Squaw Lake (part of Stonehouse WSA) 

Foster Flat RNA 

Dry Mountain RNA Addition 

Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 

Kiger Mustang ACEC 

Chickahominy Reservoir 

Total 50,412 



9,000 limited acres are in Andrews RA. 





17,056 


+400 




3,270 


-210 




5,825* 







2,961 


-20,850 




1,280 


+640 




6,500* 


+6,500 




2,690 


+2,690 




2,084 


+2,084 




6,500 


+6,500 




64,639 


+64,639 




400 


+400 




113,205 


+62,793 



3-19 



Table 3.18. Proposed Off-Road Vehicle 
Designations Areas and Acres 



Open 

(includes 20,850 acres formerly 

limited around Warm Springs Reservoir) 

Closed 

Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA and 

Wild River designation 

Hat Butte 

Windy Point 

Devine Canyon 

South Narrows ACEC 

Burns Butte Public Shooting Range 

Total 



Limited (existing roads and ways) 

Malheur River/Bluebucket Creek WSA 

Squaw Lake (part of Stonehouse WSA) 

Stonehouse WSA (remainder in RA) 

Silver Creek RNA 

Diamond Craters ONA/ACEC 

Foster Flat RNA 

Dry Mountain RNA Addition 

Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC 

Kiger Mustang ACEC 

Warm Springs Reservoir 

Chickahominy Reservoir 



1,592,652 acres 



2,290 acres 

30 acres 

280 acres 

1 ,040 acres 
1 60 acres 
280 acres 

4,080 acres 



3,270 acres 

6,500 acres* 

5,825 acres* 

1 ,280 acres 

17,056 acres 

2,690 acres 

2,084 acres 

6,500 acres 

64,639 acres 

2,961 acres 

400 acres 



There are no change agents within the program affecting the 
resource. However, external change agents continually affect 
visual resources, particularly those which propose on-the- 
ground developments or some measure of management pro- 
tection of specific areas. 

Primary external change agents are livestock land treatments, 
fire management, including prescribed burning, and special 
area designation proposed by the wilderness, wildlife, recre- 
ation and cultural programs, fable 3.21 shows the areas and 
acreages to be managed under each VRM class. 

Actions having a positive effect on the visual character would 
include those which enhance water quality, protect riparian 
areas and wildlife habitat and maintain the natural qualities of 
the landscape. Examples of such actions are removing live- 
stock for various time periods from certain streams with imple- 
mentation of grazing systems after such times, maintaining 
existing exclosures on certain streams and reservoirs, restrict- 
ing vegetative conversion, designating special areas, closing 
open ORV areas susceptible to damage, closing and rehabili- 
tating unauthorized material sites, closing and rehabilitating 
roads not needed for administration or fire protection purposes 
and retention, addition and enhancement of wetlands. 

Actions having a negative effect include developing ORV 
intensive use areas, developing land treatments and seedings 
to produce additional livestock forage, new road construction, 
energy transmission projects in corridors, timber harvesting 
and mineral production. 

Short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on visual resources 
are associated with scars and other changes on the landscape 
that can be rehabilitated and healed within 5 years. Examples 
of such impacts are the effects of wildfires and prescribed burns 
and the associated effects of fighting or controlling these fires 
as well as the effects of recreation site developments, wildlife 
enhancement projects (such as guzzlers and streambank 
stabilization), instream habitat improvement projects and range 
improvements (such as reservoirs and spring developments). 



Table 3.19. Impacts to Recreation 



Current 
(acres) 



Projected Level 
(acres) 



Total Change 
(acres) 



SRMAs 



16,656 



17,056 



+400 



ORV Use 

a. Closed 

b. Limited 

c. Open 

Rockhounding 

a. Prohibited 

b. Restricted 

c. Open 



10,090 

50,412* 

1,649,416 



16,816 



1,693,102 



4,080 

113,205 

1 ,592,633 



17,216 



1,692,702 



-6,010 
+62,793 
-56,783 



+400 



-400 



Camping 

a. Prohibited 

b. Restricted 

c. Open 





18,846 

1,691,072 



280 

31,155 

1 ,678,483 



+280 
+12,309 
-12,589 



• Initial acres for limited ORV use was originally 1 00,064 as noted in the Federal Register, February 20, 1987. Since that time, management of the John Day RA was transferred from Burns District 
to Prineville District and 49,652 limited acres were also transferred from the Burns District. 



3-20 



Long-term impacts involve contrasts created by changes to the 
four basic elements of landscape character (form, line, color 
and texture). They cannot be rehabilitated within 5 years and as 
a matter of course are considered permanent features on the 
landscape. Examples of such impacts are large vegetative 
conversion areas, above ground energy transmission struc- 
tures such as the Pacificorp 500 kV powerline, mining opera- 
tions such as Eagle Picher Mines, timber sales and the various 
access and haul roads, pipelines and other features that 
accompany large scale developments. 

The overall changes, as compared to current conditions, are 
not considered to be significant. 



Cultural Resources 

The condition of currently identified sites ranges from good to 
severely impacted, with approximately 28 percent good, 51 
percent fair/somewhat impacted and 21 percent poor/severely 
impacted. Agents of deterioration include, in frequency order, 
natural erosion and weathering; livestocktrampling and trailing; 
disturbance from projects such as fences, roads, seedings, 
etc., and vandalism. The overall trend is downward due prima- 
rily to erosion and vandalism. 



Comprehensive management of cultural resources would posi- 
tively affect the condition of the resources and increase oppor- 
tunities for public and scientific uses. Enhancement of condi- 
tions and uses at important obsidian sources, increased site 
patrol and monitoring, on-site interpretation, and protection of 
Native American traditional land uses would be the primary 
agents of change within the program. 

The management proposed for riparian zones that would 
improve water quality and aquatic habitat while reducing soil 
erosion, such as timber harvest buffer zones along streams, 
restricted livestock grazing use along streams (e.g., temporary 
reductions, exclosure fencing), streambank stabilization, and 
road closures would maintain and improve archaeological site 
conditions in riparian zones. 

Recreation program elements for ORV limitations and site 
boundary signing would protect traditional Native American 
values at the Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC. Positive effects to 
those values would also come from the ACEC program desig- 
nation, the VRM Class II protective classification, land tenure 
zone designation as Z1, from the mineral program closure of 
the Pine Creek Material Site, and from protective stipulations 
for leasable energy minerals activities (i.e., no surface occu- 
pancy). Scenic Back Country Byways designations would 
provide opportunities forthe interpretation of historic properties 
along the route. 



Table 3.20. Current VRM Classification 


Area/Acres 


Class 1 


Class II 


Class III 


Class IV 


Hatt Butte 


30 










Malheur River/ 












Bluebucket Creek WSA 


2,080 




3,480 






Stonehouse WSA 


6,500 




5,825 






Diamond Craters 




' 


6,656 






Devine Canyon Scenic Area 






1,040 






Silver Creek RNA 






640 






S. Narrows ACEC 








160 




Other Areas 




92,980 


425,440 


1,155,087 


Total 

'.: : — ■- — 


8,610 


120,621 


425,600 

" "" ' — 7T~ 


1,155,087 

— , ■ • ■ : 


Table 3.21. Proposed VRM Classification 


Area/Acres 


Class I 


Class II 




Class III 


Class IV 


Hatt Butte 








30 




Malheur River/ 












Bluebucket Creek WSA and 












Wild River 


2,290 


3,270 








Stonehouse WSA 




12,325 








Diamond Craters 




17,056 








Devine Canyon Scenic Area 




1,040 








Silver Creek RNA 




640 








S. Narrows ACEC 




160 








Silver Creek Addition 




640 








Foster Flat RNA/ACEC 




2,690 








Dry Mtn. RNA/ACEC Addition 




2,084 








Biscuitroot ACEC 




6,500 








USDA-FS 41 Road (BLM acres) 




550 








Other Areas 




82,580 




419,401 


1,148,662 


Total 


2,290 


139,535 




419,431 


1,148,662 



3-21 



Archaeological sites that are not currently subject to unaccept- 
able levels of erosion or vandalism should be somewhat 
negatively affected by enhanced access for recreation uses. 
Surface-disturbing projects (e.g., range improvements, veg- 
etation conversions) and land tenure adjustments may nega- 
tively affect additional archaeological sites with lesser data 
potential; however, significant sites would be protected by 
following standard cultural compliance procedures. 

Cultural resources, including archaeological and historic sites, 
may be subject to negative effects from fire and/orfire suppres- 
sion activities. Uncontrolled fire may destroy standing historic 
structures, scorch and exfoliate prehistoric rock art, and frac- 
ture or alter artifacts. Fire suppression activities, particularly 
bulldozing to reducefuels, may alter surf ace cultural resources, 
such that previously disturbed areas (e.g., roads, existing fire 
breaks, etc.) are utilized for fire breaks whenever feasible. 

The short-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on the resource 
are expected to be positive for cultural program objectives, for 
historic property interpretation and stabilization and especially 
for preservation of traditional Native American land uses. 

The long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan on the resource 
are expected to be positive for all cultural program objectives 
including areawide site protection, significant site data recov- 
ery, increased opportunity for protection and public uses of 
obsidian sources and fossil areas, increased site interpretation, 
and systematicpreservation of specifictraditional Native Ameri- 
can land uses. 



Energy and Minerals 

Fluid Energy Minerals 

At the present there are no active oil and gas or geothermal 
production wells in the RA. Lease offers on various tracts are 
issued annually foroil and gas, but very little leasing activity has 
occurred in the last 5 to 1 years. Currently, fluid energy mineral 
leasing is managed on a lease category system. In the RA there 
are 1,328,111 acres that are open to leasing with standard 
stipulations, (Category 1 ), 787,51 7 acres open to leasing with 
special stipulations (Category 2), 98,075 acres open to leasing 
with no surface occupancy (Category 3) and 113,331 acres 
closed to leasing (Category 4). 

There would be a minor positive impact to the opportunity forthe 
development of fluid energy minerals. This results from a 
modest decrease in the acreage currently subject to Category 
1 stipulations and an increase in the acreage available for 
leading under Category 1 . There would be a slight (1 percent of 
total) increase in acreage subject to Category 3. An additional 
negative impact to the potential for fluid energy minerals would 
be the limitations on the placement of roads in order to meet 
water quality requirements. This should not affect geophysical 
exploration, but could limit potential development and produc- 
tion. Tables 3.22 and 3.23 present summaries of the acreages 
under each leasing category. A more detailed presentation of 
the resource values being protected and leasing restrictions 
can be found in Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24. Due to the low 
current and anticipated level of fluid energy mineral activity in 
the Planning Area for the foreseeable future, these impacts are 
considered to be of low significance. 

Locatable and Solid Leasable Minerals 

Several locatable or solid leasable minerals are known to occur 
in the RA. Primary among these are diatomite, with an active 
mining operation northeast of Drewsey ; mercury /cinnabar, with 
past substantial claim activity south of Drewsey and in the 
Glass Butte area; and, zeolite - a volcanic ash material - in the 



area of Harney Lake. Also present, in association with zeolite, 
are potassium (a solid leasable mineral) and feldspar. Of these 
minerals, only diatomite is currently under commercial produc- 
tion. Map M-3 displays the areas of high and moderate potential 
for occurrence of these minerals. Mining law allows for explo- 
ration, location/leasing and development of mineral resources 
on public lands unless otherwise restricted. Generally, such 
restrictions result from either land classification (see Glossary) 
or withdrawals. Table 2.26 displays a summary of the nearly 
50,000 acres in the RA which are closed (withdrawn) to the 
operation of the mining laws. 

A significant amount of gold/silver exploration and potential 
development is currently occurring in the Vale District, just to 
the east and south of the RA. The RA contains many volcanic 
structural and mineralogical characteristics which are known to 
be associated with epithermal (see Glossary) gold deposition. 
There is a moderate to high potential for the localized occur- 
rence of gold in the RA. 

The primary action in the Proposed Plan which would affect 
existing opportunities for exploration and development of locat- 
able and solid leasable minerals would be an additional 2,715 
acres which would be withdrawn from the operation of mining 
laws. Of this amount, 640 acres in the Squaw Butte Experiment 
Station block are in an area identified as having high potential 
for the occurrence of mercury/uranium/gold. The remaining 
2,075 acres fall within areas classified as having low potential 
for the occurrence of locatable minerals (refer to Map M-3). 

Restrictions on such mineral developm ent support functions as 
access road building would be likely to have a minor negative 
effect on mineral development in the Planning Area. These 
restrictions would not preclude mineraldevelopment, but would 
be likely to add to the cost of exploration and development. With 
the combination of low current mineral development activity 
and light impacts to areas identified as having high or moderate 
potential for the occurrence of locatable minerals, it is con- 
cluded that negative impacts to these minerals are of low 
significance (Appendix 1 , Table 20, provides a scenario of the 
possible impacts that could result if a substantial gold develop- 
ment were to occur in the Planning Area.) 

There would be a minorpositiveimpactto the opportunityforthe 
development of solid leasable minerals, coal, sodium and 
potassium, similar to fluid energy minerals. Due to the low 
current and anticipated level of solid leasable mineral activity in 
the Planning Area, these impacts are considered to be of low 
significance. 

Mineral Materials 

The primary impact to the potential for the development of 
mineral materials in the planning area would be the prohibition 
or restriction of mineral materials sites within ACECs, WSAs 
and scenic corridors. The acreages affected under the ACECs 
would be 95,030 acres. Acreages affected by WSAs and the 
Devine Canyon Scenic Corridor are 17,885 and 1,040 acres, 
respectively. Prohibitions or restrictions of existing authorized 
material sites would not be affected except for an existing 
county material site in the Pine Creek area which would be 
closed to meet management objectives for the potential 
Biscuitroot Cultural ACEC. This could be a moderate localized 
impact on future mineral material demands for road surfacing. 
However, optional material site locations are available in the 
vicinity, so mineral materials could be made available to satisfy 
such demands. Use of alternate sites could result in increased 
operational costs to the county through site preparation, in- 
creased haul distances, etc. On an overall basis, these impacts 
are considered to be of low significance because of the abun- 
dance of mineral materials and authorized material sites within 
the Planning Area that would remain unaffected by the prohibi- 
tions or restrictions. 



3-22 



Recreational Minerals 

The Planning Area would remain open for the collection of 
recreational minerals except for 17,056 acres in the Diamond 
Craters ON A/ACEC. The impacts of the closure are considered 
to be of low significance. 



Lands 

Currently, most lands transactions that have taken place in the 
RA have been conducted through exchanges. Very fewoutright 
sales have occurred in the past 1 years. In that time, only one 
sale has been completed, which was in an isolated 80-acre 
parcel north of Malheur Lake. 

As depicted in Table 3.24, there are currently 1 ,577,559 acres 
zoned for retention in public ownership, 121 ,559 acres zoned 
for possible exchange for lands of higher resource values, and 
1 0,800 acres zoned for exchange or outright sale. 

Table 3.24 depicts the acreages in the various land tenure 
zones of the Proposed Plan. Although less land is identified for 
retention, more opportunity exists under the Proposed Plan for 
land tenure adjustment, particularly exchanges. This is not only 
due to more acres available for exchange or sale, but also these 
lands are more widely dispersed throughout the RA. 

Some Zone 1 lands would also be available for exchange, on 
a case-by-case basis, for non-Federal lands containing special 
resource values listed in Management Action LR 1 .1 . 



Even though significantly more acreage would be available for 
sale, under the Proposed Plan, little sale activity is anticipated 
due to current Bureau policy and budget direction that empha- 
sizes exchanges. Thus, Zone 3 lands would be utilized more for 
exchange base than for outright sale. 

The primary mode of land acquisition would be through land 
exchanges, with purchases being utilized only where exchange 
is not feasible and when funding is available. Historically, 
funding has not been available for outright purchase of land in 
the Three Rivers RA. Most acquisitions will be targeted at Zone 
1 lands which contain high public resource values. 

Some activities or resources, such as cultural resources or 
special status species which might be discovered during re- 
source inventories prepared for each land tenure action, could 
further limit lands available for sale or exchange. 

The short-term impact of the Proposed Plan would be the 
immediate availability of more lands for exchange and sale. 
Specific impacts of each land tenure action cannot be predicted 
at this planning stage. The impacts of these actions will be 
analyzed through NEPA review upon development of a pro- 
posal and processing of the action. The long-term impacts of 
the Proposed Plan would be consolidation of land patterns, 
acquisition of significant public resource values, disposal of 
isolated unmanageable parcels and protecting most landsf rom 
disposalcontaining sensitive resources such as ACECs.WSAs, 
deer and elk winter range, riparian and wetland areas, as well 
as large contiguous blocks of public lands. 

The impact of the Proposed Plan on county tax bases is 
expected to be insignificant for several reasons. First, as 



Table 3.22. 


Impacts to Oil and Gas Leasing Categories 








Lease 
Category 


Low 

Potential 
(Acres) 


Moderate 
Potential 
(Acres) 


High 

Potential 

(Acres) 


Unknown 
Potential 
(Acres) 


Total 
(Acres) 


Current 
(Acres) 


Change 
(Acres) 


Category 1 
Category 2 
Category 3 
Category 4 

Total 


1,431,481 

535,419 

111,407 

18,483 

2,096,790 


67,548 

67,568 

280 

94,848 

230,244 



















ft 


1,499,029 
602,987 
111,687 
113,331 

2,327,034 


1,328,111 

787,517 

98,075 

113,331 

2,327,034 


170,918 

-184,530 

13,612 









Table 3.23 Impacts to Geothermal Leasing Categories 



Lease 
Category 



Total 



Low 

Potential 

(Acres) 



1,534,964 



Moderate High Unknown 

Potential Potential Potential Total Current Change 

(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) 



Category 1 


1,178,861 


331 ,433 


Category 2 


336,771 


254,951 


Category 3 


13,772 


97,915 


Category 4 


5,560 


107,771 



792,070 



















1,510,294 
591,722 
111,687 
113,331 

2,327,034 



1,328,111 

787,517 

98,075 

113,331 

2,327,034 



182,183 

-185,795 

13,612 





3-23 



previously stated, most acquisition of private lands would be 
through exchanges, where, as much land would be applied to 
the tax base as is taken out. Second, many exchanges involve 
significantly more acreage being conveyed into private owner- 
ship than is being lost from private ownership offsetting any 
direct purchases that may be made. Finally, any sales of public 
land that are made would additionally offset BLM acquisitions 
by purchase. Burns District records show that this situation is 
occurring in Harney County. Overthe last 1 years the acreage 
acquired into Federal ownership by the BLM Lands Program 
approximates the net acreage conveyed into private owner- 
ship. This data includes purchases by the BLM of lands on the 
Steens Mountain. 



Realty Management 

Currently, most rights-of-way and other realty related authori- 
zations are processed on a case-by-case basis as applications 
or proposals are received. Table 3.24 identifies 123 miles of 
right-of-way corridors, designated under existing planning docu- 
ments. Right-of-way corridors which were designated in these 
documents are not clear as to their location orscope. Note there 
are no avoidance and exclusion areas designated. 

The primary changes that would occur under the Proposed 
Plan would be formal designation of right-of-way corridors and 
realty related exclusion and avoidance areas as depicted on 
Map LFi-2 and Table 3.24. The Proposed Plan would also 
eliminate waste disposal on and reduce unauthorized use of 
public lands. 

Other realty related proposals and applications, not affected by 
these changes, would continue to be considered on a case-by- 
case basis. 

Management actions in the Proposed Plan which promote 
commodity producing programs such as minerals or timber, 
generally influence realty activities because they generate 
demand for rights-of-way and other land use authorizations. 
Conversely, other management actions such as improved road 
standards required for water quality, riparian and aquatic 
habitat enhancement place constraints on the number, kind 
and location of realty related authorizations. 

The short-term impacts of the management actions under this 
program would be the early notification to potential applicants 
as to the existence of areas of special resource concern within 
the RA as well as the existence of areas where projects may be 
located with limited environmental impacts (corridors). Specific 
impact analysis of each project must be deferred until a 
proposal or application is received. All new realty related 
projects will be reviewed through the NEPA process at that 
time. 

The major long-term impacts of the Proposed Plan would be the 
limitation of realty development in avoidance and exclusion 
zones. On the positive side, areas with special resource con- 
cerns would be protected from realty related development 
which might be incompatible with the purpose for which they 
were designated. On the other hand, this limitation could 
negatively affect specific projects requiring an expensive re- 
route or modification. 

This negative impact to industry is probably limited for several 
reasons. First, most of the acreage identified in Table 3.24 are 
avoidance zones which would allow some development, if 
necessary, and if compatible with the purposes of the designa- 
tion. Secondly, most of the areas identified are small, isolated 
and scattered throughout the RA, making a reroute of a project 
relatively easy or unnecessary if good project planning is 
utilized. Finally, most of the acreage identified for avoidance 
zones is made up of the Kiger Mustang ACEC (64,639 acres) 
where most development scenarios would probably be com- 
patible with the purposes of this special designation. Demand 
is also low in this area. 

3-24 



The impact of corridor designation to the industry is also 
expected to be limited. First, there is generally low demand for 
large scale right-of-way projects in the RA. Second, encourag- 
ing rather than requiring a facility be placed in a corridor allows 
some flexibility while still providing guidance for project plan- 
ning. And finally, there are several corridor options identified in 
the Proposed Plan. 

Constraints placed on waste disposal by the Proposed Plan are 
not viewed as a major negative impact. Generally, private lands 
are available for private waste disposal sites and public landfills 
are located within a reasonable distance of most rural resi- 
dences. Existing public disposal sites operated by the county 
have adequate capacity to last well into the foreseeable future. 
Should a bonafide public need arise for a new site, BLM would 
consider a sale or exchange of land for this purpose. The 
primary positive impacts of management actions related to 
waste disposal would be limiting the possibility of hazardous 
materials occurring on public land and the proliferation of small 
dump sites. 

Limitation of unauthorized uses will have the positive affect of 
reducing damage to public land by such uses and increasing 
revenue to the United States. Unauthorized users would be 
negatively impacted by the Proposed Plan. 

Access 

There is a significant amount of public land within the RA which 
lacks legal access. Existing planning identifies very few access 
needs which include those roads needed to access intensive 
recreation use areas. Generally, most landowners allow some 
access across their lands. However, as they become better 
informed as to their rights and to the value of recreation on 
public and private land, more and more access is being lost. 
Most access acquisition that has occurred in the RA has 
generally been in support of commodity production, primarily 
timber. 

Map LR-3 in the Proposed Plan identifies several key locations 
where legal access is needed. The Proposed Plan also pro- 
vides emphasis on acquiring and maintaining public access, 
particularly to areas containing high public resource values. 

Management actions in the Proposed Plan which would restrict 
road location or use would limit options available for securing 
access. 

Emphasis on acquiring and maintaining access would provide 
several positive impacts to many resource programs. It would 
serve to dilute human pressures on resource bases by dispers- 
ing this pressure to other public lands. It would limit access to 
those areas with high resource sensitivity, and provide better 
relations between landowners, the BLM and the public. Land- 
owners, who gain financially by limiting access to public and 
private lands, would be negatively impacted by implementation 
of the Proposed Plan. The negative impacts of public access 
across private land can be mitigated by including measures in 
negotiated easements or agreements to limit these impacts. 
For example, if a landowner was concerned about gates being 
left open by the public, cattleguards may be provided in these 
areas. 

Withdrawals and Classifications 

There are currently 49,652.22 acres under withdrawal or clas- 
sification in the RA (Table 3.24 and 3.27). The Proposed Plan 
identifies 2,715 acres for new withdrawals and classifications, 
and recommends 7,398.49 acres for restoration to the public 
land laws. These figures show that there will be less acreage 
withdrawn or classified after implementation of the plan than 
before. This is probably not an accurate assumption, however, 
because the bulk of the acreage recommended for restoration 



is made up of a single withdrawal covering 7,031 acres. Most 
of this withdrawal overlaps another withdrawal which would still 
remain effective. If the 7,031 -acre withdrawal is terminated, 
these overlapping withdrawals would be eliminated and not 
actually result in restoration of all of the lands to operation of the 
public land laws. Any proposal to terminate this withdrawal 
would require evaluation by the State Office Waterpower 
Specialist during the review process. 

Outside influences which affect the program include holding 
agency concurrences and requests for terminations and re- 
quests for new withdrawals not considered in the Proposed 
Plan. These would increase and decrease the acreage within 
the RA withdrawn or classified. 

The impacts of terminating withdrawals and classifications is 
both positive and negative. On the positive side, more lands 
would be open to the public land laws. Negative impacts to 
resources from commodity-producing activities such as mining 
could occur when this happens. The converse of this will occur 
when new withdrawals are implemented, i.e., lands and re- 
sources would be protected but generally not available for 
commodity production. 

Clarifying management responsibilities through MOUs, new 
withdrawals and restorations will have mostly positive effects. 
Lands and resources, which are more suitablefor management 
by one agency will be turned over to that agency resulting in 
better management efficiency. Boundary adjustments result- 
ing from these transfers would allow for cost-effective fencing 
and better boundary identification by the public. 



Economic Conditions 

The sectors of the local economy that are most likely to be 
directly or indirectly affected through implementation of the 
Proposed Plan are forestry and wood products, agriculture, 
trade and service, and mining. Impacts to these sectors would 
result from management actions affecting forestland/wood- 
lands, livestock grazing, and energy and minerals, respec- 
tively. Each of these is detailed individually below. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Within the Three Rivers RA the lumber and wood products 
industry currently employs approximately 670 persons (Or- 
egon Employment Division, 1989). The industry relies on 
harvests in Crook, Lake, Grant and Harney counties. As Table 
3.25displays, harvestsfromBLM lands in the RAandsurround- 
ing counties are not a significant portion of the total harvest. It 
is likely that BLM timber sales in the RA substitute for timber 
sales on nearby national forest lands. The benefits of this 
substitution are negligible. The Proposed Plan would have no 
measurable effect on employment or income in the wood 
products industry. 

The BLM currently meets the demand for all woodland products 
(firewood, posts and poles) with four designated cutting areas 
totaling 1,282 acres. These designated areas represent .7 
percent of woodland acres available under the Proposed Plan. 
Future demands for woodland products can be met under the 
Proposed Plan. 



Table 3.24. Impacts to Lands, Realty, Withdrawals and Classifications 



Z-1 



Land Tenure Adjustment Acres 
Z-2 



Z-3 



Current 
Proposed Plan 
Change 



1,577,559 

1 ,484,899 

-92,660 



121,559 
188,325 
+66,766 



10,800 

36,694 

+25,894 



Right-of-Way Corridors, Exclusion 
and Avoidance Areas 



Current 
Proposed Plan 
Total Change 



Right-of-Way 
Corridors (Miles) 

123 

185 

62 



Exclusion Areas 
(Acres) 


17,885 
17,885 



Avoidance Areas 
(Acres) 


95,530 
95,530 



Withdrawals, Classifications 



Acres Under Existing Withdrawals and Classifications 
Proposed Plan, Acres Recommended for Restoration 
Proposed Plan, Acres Recommended for New Withdrawals and 
Classifications 

Total Acreage, Under Full Implementation of Proposed Plan 
Total Change from Existing Situation 



49,652.22 
7,398.49 

2,715 
44,968.73 
-4,683.49 



3-25 



Table 3.25. Timber Harvest 1980-87 (Mbf - Scribner Log Scale) 



County 



Total Harvest 



BLM 



BLM 
(Percent 
of Total) 



Harney 
Crook 
Lake 
Grant 



546,717 

607,994 

1,410,800 

1,668,590 



794 

1,899 



17,021 



0.15 

0.31 



1.02 



Source: Oregon Timber Harvest Report 1 980-87 - OSDF 



Livestock Grazing 



The estimation of impacts to livestock grazing is based upon the 
assessment of changes that would be incurred on an "operator 
number" (operator) basis. Administratively, the BLM bills and 
tracks permittees by operator number. Often several permits 
can be held under a single operator number. Each operator 
number represents an independent operation to BLM. How- 
ever, in practice a single person, family, company or corpora- 
tion may be assigned several operator numbers. The size of 
each operation (represented by a single operator number) was 
determined to be the total cattle numbers currently permitted to 
use BLM allotments. For analysis purposes, impacts to the 
livestock industry were separated on the basis of scale of 
operation with operations of less than 300 head denoted as 
small and operations of 300 or more as large. In addition, 
impacts to direct and total income in the county were estimated 
using MICRO-IMPLAN (USDA, 1982) 

With implementation of the potential treatments and structures 
identified in the Proposed Plan, long-term forage availability is 
expected to increase above current levels. The Proposed Plan 
would impact 35 smaller operations and 29 larger operations. 
Two operations, one large and one small, would experience 
increases while the remaining impacts would be reductions. 
Cattle and calf sales are estimated to increase by $42,000, or 
less than 1 percent of average sales (1 985-1 989) in the county. 
Estimated impacts to personal income and employment are not 
meaningful. Implementation of the Proposed Plan without the 
potential improvements would decrease forage available to 
livestock. The same number of operations would be impacted 
as with the improvements, but to a greater degree. Six opera- 
tions, three large and three small would experience increases. 
Estimated cattle and calf sales would decline by $511,000, 
approximately 2 percent of average sales in the county. Direct 
income is estimated to decrease by $46,700, and total income 
by $139,400. An estimated nine jobs would be lost. 

With the reductions that are possible under the Proposed Plan, 
ranchers would be required to make permanent changes in 
their operations. In addition, the ability of some ranch opera- 
tions to service long-term debt would be reduced. Potential 
business responses to reductions could include: 

- Reduce herd size, absorb income loss. 

- Change seasons of use on base property. 

- Cease ranching operations, early retirement is an option for 
some. 

- Lease alternative forage on private lands. 

- Redistribute herds, capital and other factors of production 



to maintain viable operations is an option for operators with 
multiple operations. 

- Expand and diversify ranching operations with new crops 
and/or livestock types. 

- Capital expenditures on base property to increase produc- 
tive capacity. 

- Combine operations with other individuals, family mem- 
bers, companies or corporations to maintain viable size of 
operation. 

- Seek full or part-time employment in a non-agricultural 
sector. 

The exact allocation of increased forage under the Proposed 
Plan is unknown. Some operations may be able to expand. 
Financing these expansions would commit operations to long- 
term debt servicing based on the availability of the additional 
forage. 

Table 3.26 shows the potential affects of forage availability 
number of operations potentially losing specific percentages of 
forage under the Proposed Plan. Operations were grouped by 
size for information only. A given percentage adjustment in 
BLM forage made available would not necessarily change cow- 
calf or cattle production by the same percentage. Sources of 
forage used by area ranchers include USDA-FS, State, private 
and other Federal lands in addition to BLM lands. Any BLM 
reductions will increase scarcity of forage, most likely causing 
a slight increase in the costs of private forage. (BLM and USDA- 
FS prices are administratively set and do not change directly or 
proportionately with market conditions.) 

The Proposed Plan describes a specific level of range improve- 
ment and enhancement. BLM expenditures to build all such 
fences, pipelines, reservoirs, wells, and big game guzzlers and 
to provide brush control, juniper burning and seedings are 
estimated at approximately $3.9 million. 

The majorportionofthe materials used forthese improvements 
will be purchased outside the RA. Temporary labor require- 
ments and equipment rentals will likely be provided by the local 
economy. 



Mining 



Twenty-four pits are designated on BLM lands for the removal 
of mineral materials. Two are commercial pits while the remain- 
der are for use by local communities. Thirteen free use permits 
have been granted to local communities. Without free use 
permits these communities would be required to purchase 
mineral materials. This BLM program directly assists local 
communities. The value of materials removed under free-use 



3-26 



permit has not been established. No changes in these permits 
would be made under the Proposed Plan. Under the Proposed 
Plan, mining activities at the Eagle-Pitcher Diatomite mine are 

uneffected. 



Exploration and development of oil and gas, geothermal and 
gold resources in the planning area is permitted by all alterna- 
tives. The intensity of future exploration and development is 
unknown. 



Table 3.26. Impacts to Livestock Grazing Operations, Proposed Plan 



Percent change in Forage Availability 



Number of Operations Affected 
Proposed Plan 
With Improvements 
Smaller Larger 2 



Proposed Plan 

Without Improvements 
Smaller Larger 



Percent Reduction 
0-9.9 Percent Reduction 
10-24.9 Percent Reduction 
25-49.9 Percent Reduction 
50-100 Percent Reduction 
0-100 Percent Increases 
Total Number of Operations 



55 


13 


13 


14 


14 


12 


6 


2 


1 





1 


1 


90 


42 



55 


13 


3 


7 


12 


13 


7 


4 


10 


2 


3 


3 


GO 


42 



1 Less than 300 head permitted 
2 Greaterthan 300 head permitted 



3-27 



3-28 



Chapter 4 

Revisions to the 

DRMP/DEIS 



4-1 



Introduction 

As a result of internal and public review, substantial revision 
and, in some cases, correction of material presented in the 
DRMP/DEIS has occurred. In most instances, changes simply 
have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this 
document or in extensive responses to comment letters (see 
Appendix 2). The following displays the substantive changes to 
the Draftthat are not otherwise represented in the PRMP/FE1S. 
The page numbers that appear in bold print throughout this 
chapter indicate the page of the DRMP/DEIS on which the 
correction would appear if the entire Draft were being reprinted. 

Text Revisions 

Page xiii. Page numbers for maps should read: 



VRM-1 


3-46 and 47 


M-1 


3-54 and 55 


M-2 


3-58 and 59 


M-3 


3-60 and 61 


M-4 


3-62 and 63 


M-5 


3-64 and 65 


L-1 


3-68 and 69 


L-2 


3-70 and 71 



Page 3-3. Soils, third paragraph, second sentence should read : 
This method evaluates soil movement surface litter, surface 
rock, pedestalling, flow patterns, rills and gullies to assess 
erosion conditions. 

Page 3-11. Table 3.4, footnote 3 should read: The average 
productivity in this inventory unit is estimated by using a factor 
of 70 times the commercial forestland acres available for 
intensive management. Previous planning document volume 
divided by total acres in timber base (3,400,000/48,81 8 = 70). 

Page 3-11. Second column, end of first paragraph add: For 
detailed information about silvicuftural practices see BLM Manual 
5600. Also, for detailed information on how silvicultural prac- 
tices affect wildlife, see "Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests." 
USDA-FS Agricultural Handbook No. 553. September, 1979. 

Economic Conditions 

The sectors of the local economy that are most likely to be 
directly or indirectly affected through implementation of any of 
the alternatives are forestry and wood products, agriculture, 
trade and service, and mining. Impacts to these sectors would 
result from management actions affecting forestland/wood- 
lands, livestock grazing, recreation, and energy and minerals, 
respectively. Each of these is detailed individually below. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Within the Three Rivers Resource Area the lumber and wood 
products industry currently employs approximately 670 per- 
sons (Oregon Employment Division, 1 988). The industry relies 
on harvests in Crook, Lake, Grant and Harney Counties. As 
Table displays, harvests from BLM lands in the RA and 
surrounding counties are not a significant portion of the total 
harvest. It is likely that BLM timber sales in the resource area 
substitute for timber sales on nearby national forest lands. The 



benefits of this substitution are negligible. None of the alterna- 
tives would have a measurable effect on employment or 
income in the wood products industry. 

IThe BLM currently meets the demand for all woodland prod- 
ucts (firewood, posts and poles) with four designated cutting 
areas totaling 1 ,282 acres. These designated areas represent 
.7 percent of woodland acres available under Alternatives A-C 
and .5 percent of maximum available woodland acres under 
Alternatives D and E. Future demands for woodland products 
can be met under all alternatives. 

Livestock Grazing 

The estimation of impactstolivestockgrazing is based upon the 
assessment of changes that would be incurred on an "operator 
number" (operator) basis. Administratively the BLM bills and 
tracks permittees by operator number. Often several permits 
are held under a single operator number. Each operator num- 
ber represents to BLM an independent operation. However, in 
practice a single person, family, company or corporation may 
be assigned several operator numbers. The size of each 
operation (represented by a single operator number) was 
determined to be the total number of cows currently permitted 
to use BLM allotments. For analysis purposes, impacts to the 
livestock industry were separated on the basis of scale of 
operation with operations of less than 300 head denoted as 
small and operations of 300 or more as large, in addition, 
impacts to direct and total income in the county were estimated 
for each alternative using MICRO-IMPLAN (USDA, 1982) 

Under Alternative A, direct long-term reductions would be 
made to 42 operations with 300 or more head permitted on BLM 
lands. The remaining reductions would be borne by 90 smaller 
operations. With less available forage, herd sizes would be 
reduced, thus fewer calves produced. Sales of cattle and 
calves would likely fall by $2.21 million (1989 dollars). This is 
approximately 9 percent of the average value of cattle and 
calves sold in Harney County. The Three Rivers Resource Area 
is located in northern Harney County, thus, foregone sales will 
be concentrated in that area. Estimates of foregone cattle and 
calf sales are based on the average (1 985-89) prices for cattle 
and calves in Oregon. Direct income foregone at this reduced 
sale level is estimated to be $202,100 (1989 dollars). 

An estimated total of $610,600 of income will be lost within 
Harney County under Alternative A. An estimated total of 37 
local jobs will be lost under this alternative. 

Impacts under Alternative B are distributed among operations 
as in Alternative A. Foregone cattle and calf sales under 
Alternative B are estimated at $1.39 million (1989 dollars), 
approximately 6 percent of average cattle and calf sales in 
Harney County. Foregone direct income under Alternative B is 
estimated at $127,000. Total income losses of $383,800 could 
be expected. Twenty-three local job losses are estimated under 
this alternative. 

With the reductions that are possible under Alternatives A and 
B, ranchers would be required to make permanent changes in 
their operations. In addition, the ability of some ranch opera- 
tions to service long-term debt would be reduced. Potential 
business responses to the reductions could include: 

- Reduce herd size, absorb income loss. 

- Change seasons of use on base property. 

- Cease ranching operations, early retirement is an option for 
some. 



4-2 



Table 4.1. Timber Harvest 1980-1987. 



Timber Harvest 1980-1987 
(Mbf - Scribner Log Scale) 



County 



Total Harvest 



Harney 
Crook 
Lake 
Grant 



546,717 

607,994 

1,410,800 

1,668,590 



Source: Oregon State Dept. of Forestry 



BLM 



BLM 
(Percent 
of Total) 



1, 



794 
,899 

17,021 



0.15 

0.31 



1.02 



- Lease alternative forage on private lands. 

- Redistribute herds, capital and otherfactors of production to 
maintain viable operations is an option for operators with 
multiple operations. 

- Expand and diversify ranching operations with new crops 
and/or livestock types. 

- Capital expenditures on base property to increase produc- 
tive capacity. 

- Combine operations with other individuals, family members, 
companies or corporations to maintain viable size of opera- 
tion. 

- Seek full or part-time employment in a non-agricultural 
sector. 

With implementation of the potential treatments and structures 
identified in the Proposed Plan, long-term forage availability is 
expected to increase above current levels. The Proposed Plan 
would impact 35 smaller operations and 29 larger operations. 
Two operations, one large and one small, would experience 
increases while the remaining impacts would be reductions. 
Cattle and calf sales are estimated to increase by $42,000 
thousand, or less than 1 percent of average sales (1 985-1 989) 
in the county. Estimated impacts to personal income and 
employment are not meaningful. Implementation of the Pro- 
posed Plan without the potential improvements would de- 
crease forage available to livestock. The same number of 
operations would be impacted as in with the improvements, but 
to a greater degree. Sixoperations, three large and three small, 
would experience increases. Estimated cattle and calf sales 
would decline by $51 1 ,000, approximately 2 percent of average 
sales in the county. Direct income is estimated to decrease by 
$46,700, and total income by $139,400. An estimated nine jobs 
would be lost. Business responses under the Proposed Plan 
without improvements would be the same as in Alternatives A 
and B, but to a lesser degree. 

Alternative D (the Continue Present Management Alternative) 
would increase forage availability with implementation of treat- 
ments and structures. Five operations, three large and two 
small, would be positively impacted. The remaining operations 
would remain unchanged. The expected level of increase could 
increase cattle and calf sales by $279,000 (1 989 dollars). This 
represents a 1 percent increase in the average sale of cattle and 
calves in Harney County. A direct income increase of $25,500 
and total income increase of $71,900 is estimated under this 
alternative. A total employment increase of four jobs is esti- 
mated. 



Alternative Eproposes improvements that would increase BLM 
forage availability. Thirty-two operations with 300 or more cattle 
permitted on BLM lands and 41 smaller operations would be 
impacted. Fourteen operations, seven large and seven small, 
would experience increased forage availability under Alterna- 
tive E. The remaining operations would experience forage 
reductions. With the expected net increase in forage availabil- 
ity, estimated cattle and calf sales increase by $255,000. This 
is approximately 1 percent of average sales (1 985-89) of cattle 
and calves in Harney County. A direct income increase of 
$23,000 and total income increase of $65,900 is estimated for 
this alternative. An increase of four jobs could be expected. 

The exact allocation of increased forage under the Proposed 
Plan and Alternatives D and E is unknown. Some operations 
may be able to expand. Financing these expansions would 
commit operations to long-term debt servicing based on the 
availability of the additional forage. 

Table 4.50 shows the number of operations losing specific 
percentages of forage undereach alternative. Operations were 
grouped by size for information only. A given percentage 
reduction in BLM forage made available will not reduce cow-calf 
or cattle production by the same percentage. Sources of forage 
used by area ranchers include Forest Service, State, private 
and other Federal lands in addition to BLM lands. Any BLM 
reductions will increase scarcity of forage, most likely causing 
aslight increase in the costs of private forage. (BLM and USDA- 
FS prices are administratively set and do not change directly or 
proportionately with market conditions.) 

Each alternative describes a specific level of range improve- 
ment and enhancement. BLM expenditures to build fences, 
pipelines, reservoirs, wells, and big game guzzlers and to 
provide brush control, juniper burning and seedings are esti- 
mated as follows: 

Alternative A = $432,000 
Alternative B = $2.1 million 
Proposed Plan = $3.9 million 
Alternative D = $2,8 million 
Alternative E = $5.3 million 

The major portion of the materials used forthese improvements 
will be purchased outside the Resource Area. Temporary labor 
requirements and equipment rentals will likely be provided by 
the local economy. 

4-3 



Recreation 

All alternatives propose varying acreages open to ORV use, 
rockhounding and camping. Acreage available for these dis- 
persed use activities will remain plentiful under all alternatives. 
No economic effect is foreseen due to changing patterns of 
recreation use under any alternative. 

Mining 

Recreational mineral collection is one activity that makes the 
Resource Area a visitor destination. Alternatives A, B and D 
slightly reduce areas available to recreational mineral collec- 
tion. The reductions proposed in these alternatives will not 
reduce the desirability of the area to collectors. 

Numerous sites are designated on BLM lands for the removal 
of mineral materials. Two are commercial pits while the remain- 



der are for use by local communities. Thirteen free use permits 
have been granted to local communities. Without free use 
permits these communities would be required to purchase 
mineral materials. This BLM program directly assists local 
communities. The value of materials removed under free-use 
permit has not been established. No changes in these permits 
would be made under any of the proposed alternatives. Under 
all alternatives, mining activities at the Eagle-Pitcher Diatomite 
mine are uneffected. 

Exploration and development of oil and gas, geothermal and 
gold resources in the planning area is permitted by all alterna- 
tives. The intensity of future exploration and development is 
unknown. Three scenarios have been developed in conjunc- 
tion with the proposed RMP. Employment estimates in these 
scenarios range from 25-1 62 depending on the type of explo- 
ration or development hypothesized. See Appendix 1, Table 
20. 



4-4 



mm 



Table 4.2. Impacts to 


Ranching Operations by Alternative 




















Alternative A 
Smaller 1 Larger 2 


Proposed Plan 
Alternative B with Improvements 
Smaller Larger Smaller Larger 


Proposed Plan 

w/o Improvements 

Smaller Larger 


Alternative D 
Smaller Larger 


Alternative E 
Smaller Larger 


Percent Reduction 














55 


13 


55 


13 


08 


39 


49 


10 


0-9.9 Percent Reduction 














13 


14 


3 


7 








19 


19 


1 0-24.9 Percent Reduction 








2 


2 


14 


12 


12 


13 





C 


12 


5 


25-49.9 Percent Reduction 


60 


19 


79 


37 


6 


2 


7 


4 








3 


1 


50-100 Percent Reduction 


30 


23 


9 


2 


1 





1 


2 





c 








0-100 Percent Increases 











1 


1 


1 


3 


3 


2 


3 


7 


7 


Total Number of Operations 


90 


42 


90 


42 


90 


42 


90 


42 


90 


42 


90 


42 


'Less than 300 head permitted. 
'Greater than 300 head permitted. 


















mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 






. i 



en 



4-6 



Chapter 5 

Consultation and 

Distribution 




5-1 



Introduction 



State and Local Agencies 



The Three Rivers Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) has been pre- 
pared by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists from 
the BLM Burns District Office. Compilation of the DRMP/DEIS 
began in the winter of 1 988; however, a complex process that 
began in September of 1 987 preceded the writing phase. The 
DRMP/DEIS process has included consolidation of resource 
data, public participation, interagency coordination and analy- 
sis of the management situation. Consultation and coordination 
with various agencies, organizations and individuals occurred 
throughout the planning process. 

Public Involvement 

A notice was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 52, No. 
187) on September 28, 1987, and in the local news media 
announcing the formal start of the planning process. At that 
time, a planning brochure was sent to the public requesting 
comment on planning issues, goals and objectives for the 
Three Rivers Resource Area (RA). 

In February of 1989, nearly 500 copies of an information 
brochure were mailed to interested agencies, organizations 
and individuals. This brochure presented the final planning 
issues, the alternatives to be analyzed in the DRMP/DEIS, and 
the planning criteria guiding the overall process. 

In October of 1989, a notice of document availability was 
published in the Federal Register and in local news media for 
the Draft Three Rivers Resource Management Plan/Environ- 
mental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS). The DRMP/DEIS 
was sent to a list of 528 individuals, organizations and agen- 
cies. Public meetings for the purpose of receiving oral and 
written comments were held on December 4, 1 989 in Burns and 
December 6, 1989 in Bend, Oregon. A total of 22 individuals 
attended the meetings. The initial 90-day comment period was 
to end on February 1, 1990, however, upon direction by the 
State Director the period was extended for an additional 30 
days. A total of 227 comment letters were received before the 
end of the extended comment period. 



Agencies and Organizations 
Contacted or Consulted 



The RMP/EIS team contacted or received input from the 
following agencies or organizations during the development of 
the RMP/EIS: 

Federal Agencies 

Burns Paiute Tribe 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Dr. Sarah Greene, PNW-RNA Committee 

Honorable Robert F. Smith 

USDA, Forest Service 

USDA, Soil Conservation Service 

USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs 



Harney County Court 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

Oregon Department of Water Resources 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Oregon State University 

OSU Extension Service 

Intergovernmental Relations Division 

Honorable Dale White 



Organizations 



Harney County Cowbelles 

Harney County Farm Bureau 

Harney County Sheep and Wool Growers Association 

Harney County Stockgrowers 

National Wildlife Federation 

Native Plant Society 

The Nature Conservancy 

Oregon Environmental Council 

Oregon Trout 



Agencies and organizations to 
whom copies of the Proposed 
RMP/Final EIS have been sent. 



Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council - Historic Preservation 

Burns Paiute Tribe 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Fort Baldwin Indian Community 

Fort McDermitt Shoshone-Paiute Tribe 

Dr. Sarah Greene, PNW-RNA Committee 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Nez Perce Tribe 

Small Business Administration 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

U.S. Air Force Boiling Air Force Base 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Corps of Engineers, Portland District Office 

USDA, Forest Service 

USDA, Soil Conservation Service 

Bonneville Power Administration 

U.S. Department of Energy 

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation 

USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

USDI, Bureau of Mines 

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation 

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 

USI, U.S. Geological Survey 

USDI, Minerals Management Service 



5-2 



USDI, National Park Service 
Department of Transportation 
Yakima Indian Nation 

State and Local Agencies 

Ms. Dee Swisher, Harney County Clerk 

Harney County Court 

Harney County Planning Department 

Harney County SWCD 

Ida-Ore Regional Planning and Development 

Intergovernmental Council 

Lake County SWCD 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Oregon Department of Economic Development 

Oregon Department of Energy 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

Oregon Department of Water Resources 

Oregon Division of State Lands 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Oregon State Library 

Oregon State University 

OSU Extension Service 

Intergovernmental Relations Division 

Governor Barbara Roberts 

University of Oregon 

Interest Groups and Organizations 

1 000 Friends of Oregon 

Agri-Business Council of Oregon 

The American Alpine Club 

American Fisheries Society 

American Forest Council 

American Horse Protection Association, Inc. 

American Humane Association 

American Mustang and Burro Association 

American Mustang Association 

American Rivers 

Animal Protection Institute 

Associated Oregon Industries 

Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc. 

Association of NW Steelheaders 

Association of O&C Counties 

Association of Oregon Archaeologists 

Association of Oregon Counties 

Central Oregon Audubon 

National Audubon society 

Audubon society of Portland 

Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants 

The Cultural Heritage Foundation 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Desert Trail Association 

Eastern Oregon Mining Association 

First Interstate Bank of Oregon 

Friends of Earth 

Georgia Pacific Corporation 

Grand Ronde Resource Council 

Harney County Chamber of Commerce 

Harney County Cowbelles 

Harney County Farm Bureau 



Harney County Library 

Harney County Sheep and Wool Growers Association 

Harney County Stockgrowers 

The High Desert Museum 

Idaho wildlife Federation 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Kiger Mesteno 

League of Cities 

Malheur Field Station 

Mazamas 

Mineral Exploration Coalition 

NW Federation of Mineralogical Societies 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

National Association of Revisionary Property Owners 

National Marine fisheries Service 

National Mustang Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Native Plant society 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

The Nature Conservancy 

NW Coalition for Alter, to Pesticides 

NW Environmental Defense Center 

NW Federation of Mineralogical Societies 

NW Mineral Prospectors Club 

NW Mining Association 

NW Timber Association 

NW Petroleum Association 

OPLAC - Southeast 

Oregon Cattlemen's Association 

Oregon Cattlewomen's Association 

Oregon Council of Rock and Minerals Clubs 

Oregon Environmental Council 

Oregon Equestrian Trails 

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation 

Oregon Forest Industries Council 

Oregon Horseman's Association 

Oregon Hunters Association 

Oregon League of Women Voters 

Oregon Natural Desert Association 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

Oregon Natural Resources Council 

Oregon Rivers Council 

The Oregon Rivers Council 

Oregon Sheep Growers Association, Inc. 

Oregon Small Woodlands Association 

Oregon Sportsmen and Conservationists 

Oregon Trout 

Oregon Watershed Improvement Coalition 

Oregon Wild Horse Association 

Oregon Wildlife Federation 

Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation 

Pacific Logging Congress 

Pacific NW 4-Wheel Drive Association 

Pacific Power and Light Inc. 

Pacific Wild Horse Club 

Public Lands Action Network 

Public Lands Institute 

Range Ecology Group 

Sagecountry Alliance for Good Environment 

Sheepshead Protection Group 

Sierra club 

society of American Foresters 

Southeastern Oregon Sportsmen, Inc. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 



5-3 



Consistency Review 

Prior to approval of the RMP, the State Director will submit the 
plan to the Governor of the Stateof Oregon and requestthat she 
identify any known inconsistencies with State or local plans, 
policies or programs. The Governor will have 60 days in which 
to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in 
writing to the State Director. The consistency of the plan with the 
resource related plans, programs and policies of other Federal 
agencies, State and local government and Indian tribes will be 
reevaluated in the future as part of the formal monitoring and 
periodic evaluations of the plan. 

Comments on the Proposed RMP/Final 
EIS 

If you wish to make comments for the District Manager's 
consideration in the development of the decision, please sub- 
mit your comments by October 21 , 1 991 , to: 

District Manager 

Burns BLM District Office 

HC 74-12533 

Highway 20 W. 

Hines, Oregon 97738 

Protest Procedures 

The resource management planning process includes an op- 
portunity for administrative review via a plan protest to the BLM 
Director if you believe the approval of a proposed RMP would 
beinerror. (See 43CFR 1610.5-2.) careful adherence tothese 
guidelines will assist in preparing a protest that will assure the 
greatest consideration to your point of view. 

Only those persons or organizations who participated in our 
planning process leading to this RMP may protest. If our 
records do not indicate that you had any involvement in any 
stage in the preparation of a proposed RMP or amendment, 
your protest will be dismissed without further review. 

A protesting party may raise only those issues which he or she 
submitted for the record during the planning process. New 
issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the 
Burns District of Three Rivers Area Manager for consideration 



in plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as 
otherwise appropriate. 

The period for filing a plan protest begins when the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency publishes in the Federal Register its 
Notice of Availability of the final environmental impact state- 
ment concerning the proposed RM or amendment. The protest 
period extends for 30 days. There is no provision for any 
extension of time. To be considered "timely," your protest must 
be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. 
Also, although not a requirement, we suggest that you send 
your protest by certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Protests must be filed in writing to: 

Director (760) 

Bureau of Land Management 
1849 "C" Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20240 

In order to be considered complete, your protest must contain, 
at a minimum, the following information: 

1 . The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest 
of the person filing the protest. 

2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 

3. A statement of the part or parts of the proposed RMP being 
protested. To the extent possible, this should be done by 
reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, 
maps, etc. included in the document. 

4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that 
you submitted during the planning process or a reference to the 
date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the record. 

5. A concise statement explaining why the BLM State Director's 
decision is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical part of your 
protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as 
possible, reference or cite the planning documents, environ- 
mental analysis documents, available planning records (i.e., 
meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). A 
protest which merely expresses disagreement with the Or- 
egon/Washington State Director's proposed decision, without 
any data will not provide us with the benefit of your information 
and insight. In this case, the Director's review will be based on 
the existing analysis and supporting data. 



5-4 



Chapter 6 

List of Preparers, 

Glossary, and References 




6-1 



List of Preparers. 



Although individuals have primary responsibility for preparing sections of an environmental impact statement or a resource 
management plan, the document itself is an interdisciplinary team effort. An internal review of the document was conducted at each 
stage of its preparation. Specialists at the district level and the state level of the Bureau of Land Management reviewed the analysis 
and supplied information. Contributions by individuals in the preparation of the document may be subject to revision by other BLM 
specialists and by management staff members during the internal review process. 



Name 

Craig M. Hansen 



Primary Responsibility Discipline 



Policy Guidance, Decision 
Making 



Area Manager, Three 
Rivers Resource Area 



Bill Andersen 

Liz Appelman 
Mark Armstrong 

John Barber 
Rob Burns 

Jay K. Carlson 

Doris Cooper 
Bruce Crespin 



Leslie Frewing 
Mike Hartwell 



Nancy Ketrenos 
Janis Reimers 



Skip Renchler 
Lucie Roberts 



Wild Horses and Burros 



Editorial/Word Processing 
Editorial, Nongame Species 



Soils 



Water Quality/ 
Aquatic Habitat 



Planning Team Leader 



Word Processing 



Cultural Resources, Areas 

of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

Economics 

Fire Management 



Energy and Minerals 
Vegetation, Special 
Status Species (Botany), 
ACEC 



Lands and Realty 
Word Processing 



Range Conservationist- 
Wild Horse Coordinator 
for the Three Rivers 
Resource Area 
Editorial Assistant 

Public Affairs Officer/ 
Planning and Environmental 
Coordinator 
Soil Scientist 



Fish Biologist 



Project Manager, Technical 
Coordinator, Public Affairs 



Clerk/Typist 



Archaeology/Anthropology 



Economist 

District Fire Management 

Officer, District Aviation 

Officer, District 

Prescribed Fire Manager 

Geologist 

Ecologist/Botonist 



Realty Specialist 
Clerk/Typist 



Related Professional 
Experience 

7 years, Management, BLM, 

7 years, Mineral Management Service, 
USGS Conservation Division in 
Mineral Development 

6 years, Water Resource Division 

Water Resource Monitoring/Studies, USGS 

2 years, Geology/Engineering, 

Bureau Reclamation 

2 years, Private Engineering/Oil Gas Companies 

8 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 



4 years, Editorial Assistant, BLM 
3 years, Clerk-Typist, BLM 

5 years, Public Affairs/Planning 

and Environmental Coordinator, BLM 
13 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 

3 years, Soil Scientist, BLM 

2 years, Hydrologist Coop Ed. Student, BLM 

1/2 year, Chemistry Lab Tech. Lebanon, OR 

University of Nevada, Reno 

2-1/2 years, Hydrologic Research Technician, 

1-1/2 years, Fish Biologist, BLM 

1-1/2 years, Biologist, COE 

8 years, Fish Biologist in Private Sector, 

Aquaculture 

1 year, Biological Technician, USFWS 

10 years, Planning & Environmental Coordination 

4 years, Regional Economist, BLM 

2 years, Remote Sensing, Forest Inventory, 
State of Idaho 

3 years, Clerk/Typist, BLM 
3 years, VA Medical Center, 
Secretary, Chief, Psychiatry Service 
15 years, Archaeologist, BLM 



3 years, Economist, BLM 

17 years, Fire Program-13 years in Management 

1 years, Aviation Program 



7 years, Fluid Minerals/Geology, BLM 

1 year, District Ecologist/Botanist, BLM 

3 years, Natural Resource Specialist (GIS), BLM 

5 years, Ecological Site Inventory, BLM 
1 year, Range Technician, BLM 

8 years, Realty Specialist, BLM 

3 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 

6 months, Clerk/Typist, BLM 

26 years, Various secretarial, purchasing 
and customer service positions in the private 
sector 



6-2 



Name 

Fred Taylor 



Nora Taylor 
Dave Vickstrom 



Bob Vidourek 
Ron Wiley 



Primary Responsibility 

Wildlife, Riparian, 
Wetlands, Special Status 
Species (Animals) 



Livestock Grazing 

Recreation, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, Visual 

Resource Management 

Forestry 

Water Quality/Aquatic 

Habitat 



Discipline 

Wildlife Biologist 



Range Conservationist 
Outdoor Recreation Planner 



Forester 
Water Quality 



Related Professional 
Experience 

1 2 years, Wildlife Biologist, BLM 

2 years, Biological Technician and Range 
Technician, BLM 

Related Professional 

12 years, Range Conservationist, BLM 

19 years, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM 

5 years, Outdoor Recreation Planner, National 

Park Service 

1 6 years, Forester, BLM 

8 years, Fisheries Biologist, BLM 

3 years Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USFWS 



6-3 



Glossary of Terms 

Accelerated Erosion - Erosion processes increased by the 
activities of humans. See "Erosion." 

ACEC : Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

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

Activity Planning - Site-specific planning which precedes 
actual development. This is the most detailed level of BLM 
planning. 

Actual Use - The amount of AUMs consumed by livestock 
based on the numbers of livestockand grazing dates submitted 
by the livestock operator and confirmed by periodic field checks 
by the BLM. 

Adjustments - Changes in animal numbers, periods of use, 
kinds or class of animals or management practices as war- 
ranted by specific conditions. 

Adverse Location (TPCC) - A subclass of problem sites 
which, because of its physical isolation, is difficult or impossible 
to manage for sustained yield timber production. 

Allotment - An area of land where one or more livestock 
operators graze their livestock. Allotments generally consist of 
BLM lands but may also include other federally managed, state 
owned and private lands. An allotment may include oneor more 
separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are 
specified for each allotment. 

Allotment Categorization - Grazing allotments and rangeland 
areas used for livestock grazing are assigned to an allotment 
category during resource management planning. Allotment 
categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing 
available funds and personnel during plan implementation to 
achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. 
Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar 
groups for purposes of developing multiple use prescriptions, 
analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts and determin- 
ing trade offs. 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) - A written program of 
livestock grazing management, including supportive measures 
if required, designed to attain specific management goals in a 
grazing allotment. 



AMP: 



AMS: 



Allotment Management Plan 
Analysis Of Management Situation 



Aquatic - Living or growing in or on the water. 

Archaeological Quarry Sites - Places where minerals occur 
which were a source of raw material for prehistoric/historic 
peoples. 

Archaeological Site - Geographic locale containing struc- 
tures, artifacts, material remains and/or other evidence of past 
human activity. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - Places 
within the public lands where special management attention is 
required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to impor- 
tant historical, cultural or visual values, fish and wildlife re- 
sources, other natural systems or processes or to protect life 
and safety from natural hazards. 

Assessment Species - See Special Status Species. 

ATV: All Terrain Vehicle 



AU: 
AUM: 



Animal Unit 
Animal Unit Month 



Avoidance Areas - Areas with sensitive resource values 
where rights-of-way and Section 302 permits, leases and 
easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations 
made in avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the 
purpose for which the area was designated and not be other- 
wise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. 



:-'::l •: 



Annual Work Plan 



Back Country Byways - Vehicle routes that traverse scenic 
corridors utilizing secondary or back country road systems. 
National Back Country Byways are designated by the type of 
road and vehicle needed to travel the byway. 

Best Forest Management Practices - General forest man- 
agement practices which are consistent for all timber harvest 
and treatment activities. 

Big Game Animals - Elk, mule deer, antelope and bighorn 
sheep. 



BFMP: 

BLM: 

BMPs: 



Best Forest Management Practices 
Bureau of Land Management 
Best Management Practices 



Board Feet - A unit of solid wood, one foot square and one inch 
thick. 



Animal Unit Month (AUM) - A standardized measurement of 
the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow 
unit or its equivalent for 1 month (approximately 800 pounds of 
forage). 

Anadromous - Fish which migrate from the ocean to breed in 
fresh water. Their offspring return to the ocean. 



APHIS: 



Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 



Appropriate Management Level - The optimum number of 
wild horses and burros that contributes to a thriving natural 
ecological balance on public lands and protects the range from 
deterioration. 



BOR: 
BPA: 



Bureau of Reclamation 
Bonneville Power Administration 



Browse - To browse (verb) is to graze a plant; also, browse 
(noun) is the tender shoots, twigs and leaves of trees and 
shrubs often used as food by livestock and wildlife. 

Buffer Strip - A protective area adjacent to an area of concern 
requiring special attention or protection. In contrast to riparian 
zones which are ecological units, buffer strips can be designed 
to meet varying management concerns. 



6-4 



C Category - Custodial Management (see Selective Manage- 
ment Categories). 

Camp Site - Area utilized by Native Americans for one or more 
tasks, which also shows evidence of occupation by the pres- 
ence of housepits, midden deposits and/or hearths. 

Carrying Capacity - The maximum stocking rate possible 
without damaging vegetation or related resources. 

Catchment - A structure built to collect and retain water. 

CCC - Consultation, cooperation and coordination - an interac- 
tive process for seeking advice, agreement, or interchange of 
opinions on issues, plans or management actions from other 
agencies and affected permittee(s) or lessee(s), landowners 
involved, the district grazing advisory boards where estab- 
lished, any state having lands within the area to be covered by 
an allotment management plan and other affected interests. 



CEQ: 
CFL: 
CFR: 



Council of Environmental Quality 
Commercial Forest Land 
Code of Federal Regulations 



Channel - An open conduit either naturally or artificially created 
which periodically or continuously contains moving water or 
forms a connecting link between two bodies of water. 

Channel Stability - A relative term describing erosion or 
movement of the channel walls or bottom due to waterflow. 

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

Class I Cultural Inventory - An inventory of the existing 
literature and a profile of the current data base for cultural 
resources, frequently utilized to guide field inventories. 

Class II Cultural Inventory - A sample-oriented field inventory 
which is representative of the range of cultural resources within 
a finite study area. 

Class III Cultural Inventory - An intensive field inventory 
designed to locate and record, from surface and exposed 
profile, all cultural resources within a specified area. 

Climax - The culminating stage in plant succession for a given 
site where vegetation has reached a highly stable condition. 



CMA: 



Cooperative Management Agreement 



Commercial Forestland (TPCC) - Forestland which is ca- 
pable of producing 20\cubic feet per acre of wood per year of 
commercial tree species. 

Commercial Tree Species (TPCC) - Tree species whose 
yields are reflected in the allowable cut: pines, firs, spruce, 
Douglas-fir and larch. 



Competitive Forage 

more animal species. 



■ Those forage species utilized by two or 



Conditional Suppression - Suppression actions based on 
predetermined, stringent conditions, i.e., fire location, weather 
condition, forces available and fire size. Monitoring must be 
done throughout the fire's duration and direct suppression will 
be taken if any one condition is exceeded. 

Critical Growth Period - A specified period of time in which 
plants need to develop sufficient carbohydrate reserves and 
produce seed, e.g. .approximately the months of May and June 
for bluebunch wheatgrass. 

Critical Habitat - The area of land, water and airspace required 
for the normal needs and survival of a federally listed threat- 
ened or endangered species. 



CRMP: 



CT: 



Coordinated Resource Management Plan 
Commercial Thinning 



Cultural Resources - Fragile and nonrenewable elements of 
the environment including archaeological remains (evidence of 
prehistoricor historic human activities) and sociocultural values 
traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally 
utilized raw materials, etc.). 

Cultural Site - Any location that includes prehistoric and/or 
historic evidence of human use, orthat has important sociocul- 
tural value. 



DCP: 



Development Concept Plan 



Deferment -The withholding of livestockgrazing until a certain 
stage of plant growth is reached. 

Deferred Grazing - Discontinuance of livestockgrazing on an 
area for specified period of time during the growing season to 
promote plant reproduction, establishment of new plants or 
restoration of the vigor by old plants. 

Deferred Rotation Grazing - Discontinuance of livestock 
grazing on various parts of a range in succeeding years, 
allowing each part to rest successively during the growing 
season. This permits seed production, establishment of new 
seedlings or restoration of plant vigor. Two, but more commonly 
three or more, separate pastures are required. 



DEIS: 



Draft Environmental Impact Statement 



Depth of Slash - The vertical distance from the litter surface to 
the highest slash particle in a sampling plot. A fuels inventory 
measures the fuel loading of dead and downed woody materi- 
als. 



DEQ: 



Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 



Diet Overlap - The presence of the same forage plant in the diet 
of several herbivores. 

Discretionary Closures - Areas where the BLM has deter- 
mined that energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or disposal, 
even with the most restrictive stipulations or conditions would 
not be in the public interest. 

Dispersed/Extensive Recreation - Recreation activities of an 
unstructured type which are not confined to specific locations 
such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be 
hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking and sightseeing. 



6-5 



Minimal management actions related to the Bylaws' steward- 
ship responsibilities are considered adequate in the areas 
where extensive recreation takes place and explicit recreation 
management is not required. 

Disposal - Any BLM authority which transfers title out of public 
ownership. 

Distribution -The uniformity of livestock grazing over a range 
area. Distribution is affected by the availability of water, topog- 
raphy and type and palatability of vegetation as well as other 
factors. 

DM: Departmental Manual 

DOGAMI: Department of Geology and Mineral Industry 

Drainage (Internal Soil) -The property of a soil that permits the 
downward flow of excess water. Drainage is reflected in the 
number of times and in the length of time water stays in the soil. 



DRMP: 
EA: 



Draft Resource Management Plan 
Environmental Assessment 



Ecological Site Inventory - The basic inventory of present and 
potential vegetation on BLM rangelands. Ecological sites are 
differentiated on the basis of significant differences in kind, 
proportion or amount of plant species present in the plant 
community. Ecological site inventory utilizes soils, the existing 
plant community and ecological site data to determine the 
appropriate ecological site for a specific area of rangeland and 
to assign the appropriate ecological status. 

Ecological Status - Ecological status is the present state of 
vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential natural 
community forthat site. It is an expression of the relative degree 
to which the kinds, proportions and amounts of plants in a plant 
community resemble that of the potential natural plant commu- 
nity for the site. Four classes are used to express the degree to 
which the production or composition of the present plant 
community reflects that of the potential natural community 
(climax). Departures from climax can enhance or depreciate 
the value of the resultant plant community for various uses. 

Ecological Status (Serai stage) Percentage of Present 

Plant community that 
is Climax for the Range Site 



Potential Natural Community 


76-100 


Late Serai 


51-75 


Mid Serai 


26-50 


Early Serai 


0-25 



EIS: 



Environmental Impact Statement 



Endangered Species - A plant or animal species whose 
prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeop- 
ardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and as is 
further defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. 



EPA: 



Environmental Protection Agency 



Ephemeral Stream - A stream that flows only after rains or 
during snowmelt. 

Epithermal - A term applied to those ore deposits "...formed in 
and along fissures or other openings in rocks by deposition at 

6-6 



shallow depths from ascending hot solutions. They are distin- 
guished from musothermal and hypothermal lodes by the 
minerals they contain, by their textures and by the character of 
the alteration of their wall rocks." (Stokes and Varnes p. 48 1 955 
after Emmons) 

Epithermal Deposit - Deposit formed in and along fissures or 
other openings in rocks by deposition at shallow depths from 
ascending hot solutions. 

Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running 
water, wind, ice or other geological agents. 



ESI: 



Ecological Site Inventory 



Excavate - The act of removing soils and forming a recess in 
the ground, particularly in the process of looking for artifactual 
materials as in "archaeological excavation" or "test excavation." 

Exchange of Use - Grazing authorization issued to a permittee 
free of chargeforunfenced, intermingled private lands within an 
allotment. 

Exclusion Area - Areas with sensitive resource values where 
rights-of-way and 302 permits, leases and easements would 
not be authorized. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area - Areas where 
significant recreation opportunities and problems are limited 
and explicit recreation management is not required. Minimal 
management actions related to the Bureau's stewardship re- 
sponsibilities are adequate in these area. 

Federal Candidate Species - See Special Status Species 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1 976 (FLPMA) 

- Public Law 94-579. October 21 , 1 976, often referred to as the 
BLM's "Organic Act", which provides the majority of the BLM's 
legislated authority, direction, policy and basic management 
guidance. 

FFR - Fenced Federal Range - generally a small amount of 
public land fenced with a large amount of private land. 

Fire Hazard Reduction - Any management action, including 
treatment of fuels, that reduces the threat of ignition intensity 
and spread of fire. 

Fire Use Zone 

Zone A - Full Suppression Area with NO Prescribed Fire - 
Because of resource values and special considerations, all 
fires will have aggressive suppression action taken regardless 
of cause or location. No prescribed or conditional burning will be 
allowed within this zone. 

Zone B - Conditional Suppression Area - Natural ignition fires 
within this zone that occur within the predetermined conditional 
parameters would be allowed to burn but would be constantly 
monitored. All human-caused fires and fires that do not meet 
the designated conditions will be suppressed. 

Zone C - Full Suppression with Prescribed Fire - All unplanned 
fire ignitions will be aggressively suppressed. However, to 
achieve identified resource habitat treatment objectives, ap- 
proved prescribed burning projects will be allowed as need and 
funding occur. 

Flat Water - Surface water of lakes and reservoirs. 



Floodplain - The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining a 
body of standing or flowing water which has been or might be 
covered by floodwater. 

FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

Fluid Energy Minerals - Oil, gas and geothermal energy. 

Forb - A broad-leafed herb that is not grass, sedge or rush. 

Forestland - Land which is now, or is capable of being, at least 
1 percent stocked by forest trees, and is not currently devel- 
oped for nontimber use. 

Forest Treatment Area - The immediate and surrounding 
terrain of an area to be harvested, commercial thinned, 
precommercial thinned, etc. The treatment area generally 
consists of the immediate drainage within which a treatment 
occurs. 

Formation - A sequence of rock strata which are recognizable 
over a large area. 

Fossil - Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, 
especially from previously living things. 

Fragile Site (TPCC)-Asubclass of problem sites whose timber 
growing potential is easily reduced or destroyed, loss of timber 
growing potential results from soil erosion. 



FS: 

FUP: 

FY: 

GEM: 



Forest Service 

Free Use Permit 

Fiscal Year - October 1 to September 30 

Geology-Energy-Minerals 



Geomorphic - Pertaining to the form of the earth or its surface 
features. 

Grazing System - The manipulation of livestock grazing to 
accomplish a desired result. 

Ground Cover - Vegetation, mulch, litter, rock, etc. 

Groundwater - Water contained in pore spaces of consoli- 
dated and unconsolidated surface material. 



HA: 



Herd Area 



Habitat - A specific set of physical conditions that surround a 
species, group of species or a large community. In wildlife 
management, the major constituents of habitat are considered 
to be food, water, cover and living space. 

Habitat Management Plan (HMP) - A plan for management of 
habitat. 

Herd Area - The geographic area identified as having been 
used by wild horse or burro herds as their habitat in 1 971 . 

Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP) - An action plan that 
prescribes measures for the protection, management and 
control of wild horses and burros and their habitat on one or 
more herd management areas, in conformance with decisions 
made in approved management framework or resource man- 
agement plans. 



Historic- Refers to period wherein non-native cultural activities 
took place, based primarily upon European roots, having no 
origin in the traditional Native American culture(s). 



HMA: 

HMAP: 

HMP: 



Herd Management Area 
Herd Management Area Plan 
Habitat Management Plan 



Horse Wire - A single strand of wire placed about 4 feet above 
the ground at a gate opening. This wire allows the passage of 
cattle while preventing the passage of horses. 

I Category - Improve Management (see Selective Manage- 
ment Categories). 



IMP: 

IM-OR: 

IM-WO: 



(Wilderness) Interim Management Policy 
Instruction Memorandum - Oregon (BLM) 
Instruction Memorandum-Washington, D.C. (BLM) 



Intermittent Stream -Astream which flows most of thetime but 
occasionally is dry or reduced to pool stage. 

Interseeding - The practice of seeding native or introduced 
plant species into native range in combination with various 
mechanical treatments. Interseeding differs from range seed- 
ing in that only part of the native vegetation is removed to 
provide a seedbed for the seeded species. 

Issue - A subject or question of widespread public discussion 
or interest regarding Resource Area management, identified 
through public participation. 

Key Species - Major forage species on which range manage- 
ment should be based. 



kV: 



Kilo volt 



Land Classification - A process required by law for determin- 
ing the suitability of public lands for certain types of disposal or 
lease under the public land laws or for retention under multiple 
use management. 

Land Treatment - All methods of range improvement and soil 
stabilization such as reseeding, brush control (burning and 
mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water spreading, etc. 

Land Use Authorizations - Those realty related authoriza- 
tions such as leases, permits and easements authorized under 
Section 302(b) of FLPMA and the R&PP Act. 



LCDC: 

mission 



Land Conservation and Development Com- 



LCDC Goals - Oregon's statewide planning goals for the 
coordination of land use planning the the state. Administered by 

the Department of Land Conservation and Development. 

Leasable Minerals - Minerals subject to lease by the Federal 
government including oil, gas and coal. 

Lithic - A stone or rock that may be either abraded into the 
proper form for use as a tool or shaped by knocking pieces 
(flakes) off. A cluster of flakes is called a "lithic scatter." 



6-7 



Livestock Forage Condition - Based on percent of desirable 
forage in the composition for livestock and the existing erosion 
condition of a site. Condition of the range must include consid- 
eration of vegetation quality and quantity and soil erosion 
characteristics. 

Livestock Operation - The management of a ranch orfarm so 
that a significant portion of the income is derived from the 
continuing production of livestock. 

Locatable Minerals - Generally the metallic minerals subject 
to development specified in the General Mining Law of 1872. 



LWCF: 



Land and Water Conservation Funds 



M Category - Maintain Management (see Selective Manage- 
ment Categories). 

Management Situation Analysis (MSA) - A comprehensive 
display of physical resource data and an analysis of the current 
use, production, condition and trend of the resources and the 
potentials and opportunities within a planning unit, including a 
profile of ecological values. 



MBF: 



Thousand Board Feet 



Memorandum of Understanding - Any written document that 
constitutes a "handshake" agreement with others who have the 
authority to commit themselves. The purpose is to establish 
working relationships, rather than transfer money or property, 
by setting forth policy, respective or mutual responsibilities and 
the manner by which they will be carried out. 



MFP: 



Management Framework Plan 



Mineral Entry - The location of mining claims by an individual 
to protect his right to a valuable mineral. 

Mitigation Measures - Methods or procedures committed to 
by BLM forthe purpose of reducing or lessening the impacts of 
an action. 



MNF: 



MOA: 



MOU: 



MSA: 



Malheur National Forest 
Memorandum of Agreement 
Memorandum of Understanding 
Management Situation Analysis 



Multiple Use - The management of the public lands and their 
various resource values so that they are utilized in the combi- 
nation that will best meet the present and future needs of the 
American people; making the most judicious use of the land for 
some or all of these resources or related services over areas 
large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjust- 
ments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the 
use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combina- 
tion of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into 
account the long-term needs of future generations for renew- 
able and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to 
, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and 
fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and 
harmonious and coordinated management of the various re- 
sources without permanent impairment of the productivity of 
the land and the quality of the environment with consideration 
being given to the relative values of the resources and not 
necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest 
economic return or the greatest unit output. 



National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A register of 
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects, significant in 
American history, architecture, archaeology and culture, estab- 
lished by the Historic Preservation Act of 1 966 and maintained 
by the Secretary of the Interior. 

National Register Potential - Status of a cultural resource 
which is deemed qualified for the NRHP, prior to formal docu- 
mentation and consultation; managed as if it were actually 
listed. 



NEPA: 
NMFS: 



National Environmental Policy Act 
National Marine Fisheries Service 



Noncommercial Forestland (TPCC) - Forestland which is not 
capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of wood per year of 
commercial tree species. 

Noncommercial Tree Species (TPCC) -Species whoseyields 

are not reflected in the allowable cut, regardless of their 
salability. Includes all hardwoods, juniper and mountain ma- 
hogany. 

Nondiscretionary Closures - Areas specifically closed to 
energy and/or mineral leasing, entry or disposal by law, regu- 
lation, Secretarial decision or Executive Order. 

Nonoperable (TPCC) - Forestlands unsuitable for any type of 
timber harvest activity due to their 1) physical features; for 
example, extremely rocky, boulder fields, rim rocks, rock out- 
crops and unsafe for logging operations and/or 2) forestlands 
on which logging activity will result in the loss of the site's 
potential for producing commercial tree species, for example 
loss of soil through erosion, slope failure and/or the inability to 
reforest the site within acceptable time limits (usually 5 to 15 
years) even with special reforestation techniques. 

Nonproblem Site (TPCC) - A subclass of commercial forest- 
land which requires no special harvesting, reforestation or 
other restrictive measures in order to be managed on a sus- 
tained yield basis. 

Nonrestricted Forestland (TPCC) - Nonproblem sites in the 
timber base on which no special techniques are required for 
harvest, reforestation and other management practices. 

Nonuse - Available grazing capacity in AUMs which is not 
permitted during a given time period. 

NORA: Notice of Realty Action 

NORPS: (Pacific) Northwest Outdoor Recreation Con- 

sumption Projection Study 

Not Currently Available (TPCC) - Those lands which have 
been set aside due to other resource management consider- 
ations (e.g., wildlife, fisheries/riparian, bald eagles, recreation, 
etc.) 

Noxious Weed - According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act 
(PL 93-629), a weed that causes disease or has other adverse 
effects on man or his environment and, therefore, is detrimental 
to the agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the 
public health. (From: Supplement to the Northwest Area Nox- 
ious Weed Control Program from Final Environmental Impact 
Statement, March 1 987.) 



NRHP: 
NPS: 



National Register of Historic Places 
National Park Service 



6-8 



NWR: 
ODA: 
ODF: 
ODFW: 



National Wildlife Refuge 
Oregon Department of Agriculture 
Oregon Department of Forestry 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 



Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) - Any motorized vehicle capable of, 
or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water or 
other natural terrain, excluding (1) any nonamphibious regis- 
tered motorboat, (2) emergency vehicles, and (3) vehicles in 
official use. 



OFPA: 



Oregon Forest Practices Act 



Old Growth -Forested stands meeting, or with the capability to 
meet, the following criteria: 

- Be at least 40 contiguous acres. 

- Contain mature trees with at least 15 trees per acre 
greater than 20 inches in diameter. 

- Have a multilayered canopy with two or more age classes. 

- Contain snags and down woody material. 

- Contain understory plants. 



ONA: 



ONHP: 
OSR: 



Outstanding Natural Area 
Oregon Natural Heritage Plan 
Overstory Removal 



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



PCT: 



Precommercial Thinning 



Peak Discharge - The highest stage or channel flow attained 
by a flood, usually expressed as the volume of water in cubic 
feet passing a given point in a one second time period, hence, 
cubic feet per second. 

Percentage of Use - Grazing use of current vegetation growth, 
usually expressed as a percentage of volume removed. 

Perennial (Permanent) Stream - A stream that ordinarily has 
running water on a year-round basis. 

Period of Use - The time of livestock grazing on a range area 
based on type of vegetation or stage of vegetative growth. 

Permit/Leases (Grazing) - Under Section 3 of the Taylor 
Grazing Act, a permit is a document authorizing use of public 
lands within grazing districts for the purpose of grazing live- 
stock. Under Section 1 5 of the Taylor Grazing Act, a lease is a 
document authorizing livestock grazing use of public lands 
outside grazing districts. 

Permit Value - The market value of a BLM grazing permit which 
is often included in the overall market value of the ranch. 

Petroglyph - Af igure, design or indentation carved, abraded or 
pecked onto a rock. 

Pictograph - A figure or design painted onto a rock. 

PL: Public Law 

PMOA: Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

PNC: Potential Natural Community 



Potential Natural Community - The biotic community (living 
organisms) that would become established if all successional 
sequences were completed without interferences by man un- 
der the present environmental conditions. 

Prehistoric - Refers to the period wherein Native American 
cultural activities took place which were not yet influenced by 
contact with historic non-native culture(s). 

Prescribed Fire - A planned burning of live or dead vegetation 
under favorable conditions which would achieve desired man- 
agement objectives. 

Presuppression - All actions involved in the location or alloca- 
tion of suppression resources in order to be prepared to 
suppress wildland fires. 



PRIA: 



Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1 983) 



Problem Site (TPCC) - A subclass of commercial forestland 
which consists of adverse location, fragile sites and problem 
reforestation areas. This subclass of land is either withdrawn 
from the timber production base or remains in the base subject 
to restrictions which call for the application or prohibition of 
certain management practices. 

Proper Use - The degree and time of use of the current year's 
plant growth which, if continued, will either maintain or improve 
the range condition consistent with conservation of other natu- 
ral resources. 

Proper Use Factor -The degreeof use a kind of grazing animal 
will make of a particular plant when the range is properly 
grazed. 

Public Lands - Any land and interest in land (e.g. mineral 
estate) owned by the United States and administered by the 
Secretary of the Interior through the BLM. May include public 
domain or acquired lands in any combination. 



PUP: 
RA: 



R&PP: 



Pesticide Use Proposal 

Resource Area 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act 



Range Betterment Fund - A fund established by Congress in 
FLPMA comprised of 50 percent of the grazing fees collected 
by the U.S. Treasury. This fund is to be used for on-the-ground 
rehabilitation, protection, and improvement of the public lands 
that will arrest rangeland deterioration and improve forage 
conditions with resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed protec- 
tion and livestock production. 

Range Improvement - A structure, excavation, treatment or 
development to rehabilitate, protect or improve public lands to 
advance range betterment. "Range Development" is synony- 
mous with "Range Improvement." 

Range Seeding - The process of establishing vegetation by 
mechanical dissemination of seed. 

Range Trend - The direction of change in range condition and 
soil. 

Raptor - Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved 
beaks, e.g., hawks, owls, vultures, eagles. 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) - This act 
authorized the Secretary of the Interiorto lease orconvey public 
lands for recreational and public purposes under specified 



6-9 



conditions of states or their political subdivisions, and to non- 
profit corporations and associations. 

Recreational Collection (Minerals) - Rockhounding 

Recreational Opportunity - Those outdoor recreation activi- 
ties which offer satisfaction in a particular physical, social and 
management setting in the EIS areas; these activities are 
primarily hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, boat- 
ing and camping. 

Recreational River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers 
that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have 
some development along their shorelines, and that may have 
undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

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

Restricted Forestland (TPCC) - Problem sites in the timber 
base on which special techniques are required to protect the 
timber growing potential or to ensure adequate regeneration 
within a specified time (usually 5 years). 

Right-of-Way - A permit or an easement which authorizes the 
use of public landsfor certain specified purposes, commonly for 
pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, etc.; 
also, the lands covered by such an easement or permit. 

Right-of-way Corridor - A parcel of land that has been 
identified by law, Secretarial Order, through a land use plan or 
by other management decision as being the preferred location 
for existing and future right-of-way grants and suitable to 
accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more rights-of- 
way which are similar, identical or compatible. 

Riparian Habitat - Riparian habitat is defined as a specialized 
form of wetland restricted to areas along, adjacent to, or 
contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and 
streams, also, periodically, flooded lake and reservoir shore 
areas, as well as lakes with stable water levels with character- 
istic vegetation. 



RMIS: 

tern 



Recreation Management Information Sys- 



RMP: Resource Management Plan 

RNA: Research Natural Area 

Rock Art Sites - Petroglyphs or pictographs. 

Rockshelter - Naturally formed recess in a rock formation 
which provided shelter to prehistoric occupants. 



ROD: 
ROS: 



Record of Decision 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 



Runoff - The water that flows on the land surface from an area 
in response to rainfall or snowmelt. As used in this RMP/EIS, 
runoff from an area becomes streamflow when it reaches a 
channel. 



RV: 



Recreational Vehicle 



Salable Minerals - High volume, low value mineral resources 
including common varieties of rock, clay, decorative stone, 
sand and gravel. 

Salinity - A measure of the mineral substances dissolved in 
water. 



Satisfactory Big Game Habitat Condition - Big game habitat 
which does not have any habitat component deficiencies. 

Scenic Quality - The degree of harmony, contrast and variety 
within a landscape. 

Scenic Byways - Highway routes which have roadsides or 
corridors of special aesthetic, cultural or historic value. An 
essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor 
may contain outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic fea- 
tures or other natural elements. 

Scenic River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are 
free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still 
largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but ac- 
cessible in places by roads. 



SCORP: 

ation Plans 

SCS: 
SDP: 



Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recre- 



Soil Conservation Service 



Site Development Plan 



Seasonal (Season Long) Grazing - Grazing use throughout 
a specific season. 

Sediment - Soil, rock particles and organic or other debris 
carried from one place to another by wind, water or gravity. 

Selective Management Categories - Three categories broadly 
defining rangeland characteristics, potential, opportunities and 
needs. The three categories are Maintain, Improve and Custo- 
dial. The criteria for each category are: 

Maintain Category Criteria 

- Present range condition is satisfactory. 

- Allotments have moderate or high resource production 
potential, and are producing near 

their potential (or trend is moving in that direction). 

- No serious resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. 

- Opportunities may exist for positive economic return 
from public investments. 

- Present management appears satisfactory. 

- Other criteria appropriate to EIS area. 

Improve Category Criteria 

- Present range condition is unsatisfactory. 

- Allotments have moderate to high resource production 
potential and are producing at low 

to moderate levels. 

- Serious resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. 

- Opportunities exist for positive economic return from 
public investments. 

- Present management appears unsatisfactory. 

- Other criteria appropriate to EIS area. 

Custodial Category Criteria 

- Present range condition is not a factor. 

- Allotments have low resource production potential, and 
are producing near their 

potential. 

- Limited resource-use conflicts/controversy exist. 

- Opportunities for positive economic return on public 
investment do not exist or are 

constrained by technological or economic factors. 

- Present management appears satisfactory or is the only 
logical practice under existing 

resource conditions. 

- Other criteria appropriate to EIS area. 



6-10 



Serai Community - A successional plant community that 
differs in species composition from the climax or potential 
natural community. 

Serai Stage - See Ecological Status. 

SHPO: State Historical Preservation Officer 

Shrub - A low, woody plant, usually with several stems, that 
may provide food and/or cover for animals. 

Silviculture - The science and art of producing and tending a 
forest. 

Slash - The branches, bark, tops, cull logs and broken or 
uprooted trees left on the ground after logging has been 
completed. 

Socio-Cultural Use - May be applied to any area or cultural 
resource that is perceived by a specified social and/or cultural 
group (e.g., Native Americans) as having attributes which 
contribute to maintaining the heritage or existence of that 
group, and signifies that the cultural resource or area is to be 
managed in a way that takes those attributes into account. 



SO: 



State Office (Oregon and Washington, BLM) 



Special Recreation Management Area -Areas which require 
explicit recreation management to achieve the Bureau's recre- 
ation objectives and provide specific recreation opportunities. 
Special management areas are identified in the RMP, which 
also defines the management objectives for the area. Major 
Bureau recreation investments are concentrated in these ar- 
eas. 

Special Status Species - Includes the following; 

(1) Threatened/Endangered species are those officially listed 
as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior 
underthe provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Af inal rule 
for the listing has been published in the Federal Register. 

(2) Proposed species are species that have been officially 
proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the Secre- 
tary of the Interior. A proposed rule has been published in the 
Federal Register. 

(3) Candidate species are those species designated as candi- 
dates (categories 1 and 2) for listing as threatened or endan- 
gered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine 
Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS). A list has been published 
in the Federal Register. 

(4) State listed species are those proposed for listing or listed 
by a State in a category implying potential endangerment or 
extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation. 

(5) Bureau sensitive species are those designated by a State 
Director, usually in cooperation with the State agency respon- 
sible for managing the species, as sensitive. They are those 
species that are: (1 ) under status review by the FWS/NMFS; or 
(2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that Federal listing 
may become necessary; or (3) with typically small and widely 
dispersed populations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refu- 
gia or other specialized or unique habitats. 

(6) Assessment species are species which are not presently 
eligible for official Federal or State status but are of concern in 
Oregon and may need protection or mitigation in BLM actions. 
(As defined in IM-OR-91 -57, Oregon-Washington Special Sta- 
tus Species Policy.) 



SRHA: 
SRMA: 
ST: 



Stock Raising Homestead Act 
Special Recreation Management Area 
Seed Tree 



Stocking Rate -The amount of animal units on aspecified area 
at a specific time, usually expressed in acres/AUM. 

Streambank (and Channel) Erosion - This is the removal, 
transport, deposition, recutting and bedload movement of 
material by concentrated flows. 

Suspended Nonuse - Temporary withholding of a grazing 
preference from active use. 

Sustainable Annual Harvest - The yield that a forest can 
produce continuously from a given level of management. 



SWCC: 



Soil and Water Conservation Commission 



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

Threatened Species - A plant or animal species that the 
Secretary of the Interior has determined to be likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or 
most of its range. 

Thriving Natural Ecological Balance - The condition of the 
public range that exists when management objectives have 
been achieved that will: (1 ) sustain healthy populations of wild 
horses and burros, wildlife, and livestockon public land, and (2) 
protect the desired plant community from deterioration. 

Timber Base - (TPCC) Commercial forestland judged to be 
environmentally and economically suitable and available for 
the continuous production of timber; the land from which the 
allowable cut is calculated and harvested. 

Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) -The 

process of partitioning forestland into major classes indicating 
relative suitability to produce timber on a sustained yield basis. 

Total Dissolved Solids - The dry weight of dissolved material, 
organic and inorganic, contained in water. 

Total Preference - The total number of animal unit months of 
livestock grazing on public lands, apportioned and attached to 
base property owned or controlled by a perm itteeor lessee. The 
active preference and suspended preference are combined to 
make up the total grazing preference. 



TPCC: 



Timber Production Capability Classification 



Tradition - Longstanding, socially conveyed, customary pat- 
terns of thought, cultural expression and behavior, such as 
religious beliefs and practices, social customs and land or 
resource uses (e.g. root gathering). Traditions are shared 
generally within asocial and/or cultural group and span genera- 
tions. 

Turbidity - An interference to the passage of light through 
water due to insoluble particles of soil, organics, micro-organ- 
isms and other materials. 

Unallotted Lands - Public lands open to grazing which cur- 
rently have no livestock grazing authorized. 



6-11 



Unsatisfactory Big Game Habitat Condition - Big game 
habitat which has a deficiency in one or more of the major 
habitat components. 



USC: 



United States Code 



USDA-FS: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 

USDI: U.S. Department of Interior 

USFS: U.S. Forest Service 



USFWS: 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 



Utilization - The proportion of the current year's forage produc- 
tion that is consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. This 
may refer either to a single species or to a whole vegetative 
complex. Utilization is expressed as a percent by weight, 
height, or numbers within reach of the grazing animals. 

Value-at-Risk Classes - Six value classes (1-6, low-to-high) 
derived through interdisciplinary team evaluation of resource 
values for an area. Point values given an area by individual 
disciplines are combined to determine general values-at-risk 
classification for an area. 

Vandalism - Willful or malicious destruction or defacement of 
publicor private property. As used here, this includes damages 
done for personal gain, particularly unauthorized destructive 
activities that damage archaeological sites. 

Vegetation Manipulation -Alteration of present vegetation by 
using fire, plowing or other means to manipulate natural suc- 
cessional trends. 

Visitor Day - Twelve visitor-hours, which may be aggregated 
continuously, intermittently or simultaneously by one or more 
persons. Visitor-days may occur either as recreation visitor- 
days or as nonrecreation visitor-days. 

Visual Resource(s)-The land, water, vegetation, animals and 
other features that are visible on all public lands. 

Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) - The degree 
of alteration that is acceptable within the characteristic land- 
scape. It is based upon the physical and sociological character- 
istics of any given homogenous area. 

VRM Class I areas (preservation) provide for natural ecological 
changesonly. This class includes primitive areas, some natural 
areas, some wild and scenic rivers and other similarsites where 
landscape modification activities should be restricted. 

VRM Class II (retention of the landscape character) includes 
areas where changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, 
color or texture) caused by management activity should not be 
evident in the characteristic landscape. 

VRM Class III (partial retention of the landscape character) 
includes areas where changes in the basic elements (form, line, 
color or texture) caused by management activity may be 
evident in the characteristic landscape. However, the changes 
should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the existing 
character. 



VRM Class IV (modification of the landscape character) in- 
cludes areas where changes may subordinate the original 
composition and character; however, they should reflect what 
could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic land- 
scape. 

Water Quality - The chemical, physical and biological charac- 
teristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular use. 

Watershed - All lands which are enclosed by a continuous 
hydrologic drainage divide and lie upslope from a specified 
point on a stream. 

Watershed Cover - The material (vegetation, litter, rock) 
covering the soil and providing protection from, or resistance to, 
the impact of raindrops and the energy of overland flow, and 
expressed in percent of the area covered. 

Wetlands - Permanently wet or intermittently flooded areas 
where the water table (fresh, saline or brackish) is at, near or 
above the soil surface for extended intervals, where hydric wet 
soil conditions are normally exhibited and where water depths 
generally do not exceed two meters. 

Wild River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are 
free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by 
trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 
waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive 
America. 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA) - A roadless area that has 
been inventoried and found to be wilderness in character, 
having few human developments and providing opportunities 
for solitude and primitive recreation, as described in Section 
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and 
Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Willing Buyer - Willing Seller - 

Withdrawal - Withholding of an area of Federal land from 
settlement, sale, location or entry under some or all of the 
general land laws, for the purpose of limiting those laws in order 
to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area 
for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring 
jurisdiction over an area of Federal land from one department, 
bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. 

Woodland - A forest community occupied primarily by non- 
commercial species; e.g., juniper, mountain mahogany or 
aspen groves. 



WMU: 
WSA: 
WSR: 



Wildlife Management Unit 
Wilderness Study Area 
Wild and Scenic River 



6-12 



References Cited 



Allen, J.N. 1 980. The Ecology and Behavior of the Long-Billed 
Curlew in Southeastern Washington Wildl. Monographs No. 
73. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 

Binns, N.Allen. 1982. Habitat Quality Index Procedures Manual. 
p. 209. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming. 

Blockstein, D.E. 1988. Toward a Federal Plan for Biological 
Diversity. Issues in Science and Technology S(4). pp. 63- 
67. 

Boula, K.M. and P.L. Sharp. 1 985. Distribution and Abundance 
of Small Mammals on Native and Converted Rangelands in 
Southeastern Oregon. Oregon Dep. of Fish and Wildlife. 
Final Job Rept. 40 pp. 

Bowers, Wayne, Bill Hosford, Art Oakley, and Carl Bond. 1 979. 
Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands - The Great Basin 
of Southeastern Oregon, Native Trout. USDA Forest Ser- 
vice - USDI Bur. Land Mang. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-84, 16 
P- 

Bright, Ruth McGilvra. n.d., Harney Area Cultural Resources 
Class I Inventory: A Cultural Resources Overview. Bureau 
of Land Management, Burns District, Oregon. 

Brown, R.W., and R.S. Johnston. 1976. Revegetation of an 
Alpine Mine Disturbance: Beartooth Plateau, Montana. USDA 
For. Serv. Res. Note INT-2206,2 p. Intermt. For. and Range 
Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah. 

Bryant, Mason D. 1 980. Evolution of Large Organic Debris after 
Timber Harvest: Maybeso Creek, 1949-1978. U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agricultural Forest Service, General Technical 
Report PNU-1 01. 

Bull, W.B. 1979. Threshold of critical power in streams. Geol. 
Soc. of Am. Bull, pt.1 , 90:453-464. 

Cole, Gene F. and Walder F. Megahan. 1980. South Fork 
Salmon River - Future Management. In: Symposium on 
Watershed Management, Vol. I. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., New 
York. 

Cooperrider, A. 1990. Conservation of Biological Diversity on 
Western Rangelands. Paper from 55th North American 
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. March 16-21, 
1990. 

Couture, Marilyn D. 1988. Personal Communication 

Couture, Marilyn D. 1 978. Recent and Contemporary Foraging 
Practices of the Harney Valley Paiute. Master's Thesis, 
Department of Anthropology, Portland State University. 

Couture, Marilyn D., Lucile Housley, and Mary F. Ricks. 1986. 
Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin 
Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropol- 
ogy, Volume 8, Number 2. 

Crawford, J. A. Wildlife Professor, Dep. of Fisheries and Wild- 
life, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Personal 
Communications 



Crawford, J.A. and R.S. Lutz. 1985. Sage Grouse Population 
Trends in Oregon, 1 941 -1 983. Murrelet 66:69-74. 

Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Percep- 
tions in Management. Rangelands 9:260-265. 

Enk, M.D. and B.J. Mathis. 1 977. Distribution of Cadmium, and 
Lead in a Stream Ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 52 (2-7): pp. 
153-188. 



E.0. 11644. 1971 
Public Lands. 



Richard Nixon. Use of Off-Road Vehicles on 



E.0. 1 1 989. 1 977. Jimmy Carter. Off-Road Vehicles on Public 
Lands. 

Extension Economic Information Office, Commodity Datasheet, 
Cattle. August 1 986 and August 1 990. Oregon State Univer- 
sity. 

Gifford, G.F., and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic Impact of 
Grazing on Infiltration: A Critical Review. Water Resource. 
Res. 14(2): 305-13. 

Gross, E.; Steinblums, I.; Ralston, O; Jubas, H. 1989. Emer- 
gency Watershed Treatments on Burned Lands in South- 
west Oregon USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. 

Heede, B.H. 1977. Case Study of a Watershed Rehabilitation 
Project: Alkali Creek Colorado. USDA Forest Service Re- 
search Paper RM-1 89. 

Heede, Burchard H. 1 976. Gully Development and Control:The 
Status of our Knowledge. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM- 
1 69, 42 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, 
Colorado 8052I 

Helliwell, Richard, 1988. Ecology and Management of Piaxi 
(Lewisia rediviva), Xaus (Lomatium cous), and Luks 
(Lomatium canbyi). Unpublished report. Confederated Tribes 
of Warm Springs, Warm Springs, Oregon. 

Hewlett, John; Cross and Carr. Enterprise Budget Cow-Calf, 
Lakeview Area. June 1987. Oregon State University Exten- 
sion Service. 

Jackson W.L, Janes E.B., and B.P. Van Haveren. 1985. 
Managing headwater areas for control of sediment and salt 
production from western rangelands. In: Perspectives on 
nonpoint source pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA 440/5-85-001. 

Krendel, P.A., Ed. 1 973. Heavy Metals in the Environment, In: 
Proceedings of the International Conference on Heavy 
Metals in the Aquatic Environment, Nashville, Tennessee, 
272 p., Perganon Press, New York. 

Lusby, G.C. 1979. Effects of grazing on runoff and sediment 
yield from desert rangeland at Badger Wash in Wester 
Colorado, 1953-73. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Supply 
Pap. 1532-1. 

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 1977. Wildlife Output Crite- 
ria. Unpublished Report, 45 pp. 

McKee, J.S., and H.W. Wolf. 1 971 . Water Quality Criteria. 2nd 
Ed. Publ. 3-A, 548 p., Water Res. Control Board, State of 
California. 



6-13 



McKim, J.M., and D.A. Benoit. 1976. Effects of Long Term 
Exposures to Copper on Survival, Growth, and Reproduc- 
tion of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). J. Fish. Res. 
Board Cen. 28(5): pp. 655-662. 

Meehan, W.R. and W.S. Platts. 1978. Livestock Grazing and 
the Aquatic Environment. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 33 (6): 
pp 274-278. 

Megahan, Walter F., W.S. Platts, and B. Kuleszay. 1980. 
Riverbed Improves Over Time: South Fork Salmon. In: 
Symposium on Watershed Management, Vol. I. Am. Soc. 
Civ. Eng., New York. 

Nature Conservancy. 1988. Recommendations for Proposed 
Research Natural Areas (letter). 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1987. Oregon Timber Harvest 
Report 1980-1987. Salem, OR. 

Oregon Employment Division. 1989. Oregon Resident Labor 
Force. Salem, OR. 

Oregon State University. 1989. The Pacific Northwest Outdoor 
Recreation Consumption Projection Study. Corvallis, Or- 
egon. 

Parsons, J.0. 1 960. The Effects of Acid Strip-Mine Effluents on 
the Ecology of a Stream. Arch. Hydrobiole GS: pp 25-50. 

Phillips, Willard P. 1980. Spanish Mustangs - Do They Exist. 
Unpublished Paper. BLM, Burns District, Hines, Oregon. 

Platts, W.S., S.D. Martin, and E.R.J. Primbs. 1979. Water 
Quality in an Idaho Stream Degraded by Acid Mine Wastes. 
USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech., Rep. INT-67, 19 p. Intermt. 
For. and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah. 

Platts, W.S. 1 972. The Effects of Heavy Metals on Anadromous 
Runs of Salmon and Steelhead in the Panther Creek Drain- 
age, Idaho. In: West. Proc. 52d Annual Conf. West. Assoc. 
State Game and Fish Comm., pp. 582-600. 



Public Law 90-542 as amended. 
Rivers Act. 



1968. The Wild and Scenic 



Pyle, W. Wildlife Biologist, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Hart 
Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Personal Com- 
munication. 

Rabe, F.W., and C.W. Sappington. 1 970. The Acute Toxicity of 
Zinc to Cutthroat Salmo clarki. In: Biological Productivity of 
the Coeur d'Alene River as Related to Water Quality, pp. 1 - 
16. Completion Rep. Water Resources Res. Inst., Univ. 
Idaho, Moscow. 

Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton and LC. Hulbert. 1 970. 
Relationship Between Visual Obstruction Measurements 
and Weight of Grassland Vegetation. Journal of Range 
Management 23(4); 295-297. 

Shotwell, J. Arnold. 1970. Pliocene Mammals of Southeast 
Oregon and Adjacent Idaho. University of Oregon Museum 
of Natural History, Bulletin 17. 

Skovlin, J.M. 1 984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian 
habitat: A review of our knowledge, p. 1001-1102. In: 



Developing strategies for rangeland management. Nat. 
Res. Counsel/Nat. Acad. Sci. Westview Press, Boulder, 
CO. 

Sprague, J.B. 1964. Avoidance of Copper-Zinc Solutions by 
Young Salmon in the Laboratory. J. Water Pollut. Control 
Fed. 36(8): pp. 990-1104. 

State of Oregon. 1 983. Oregon Outdoor Recreation - Statewide 
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 

State of Oregon. 1 984. Park Visitor Survey - Summary Report, 
Parks and Rec. Division, Salem, Oregon. 

State of Oregon. 1 987. Statewide boating Facilities Plan 1 987- 
1993. State Marine Board, Salem, Oregon. 

State of Oregon. 1 987. Recreational Values on Oregon Rivers, 
Parks and Rec. Division, Salem, Oregon. 

Toepel, Kathryn A., William F. Willingham, and Rick Minor. 
1 979. Cultural Resource Overview of BLM Lands in North- 
Central Oregon, Report of the Department of Anthropology, 
University of Oregon, to the Prineville and Burns Districts, 
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon. 

United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. 
1 987. Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity. Report 
OTA-F-330. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 
D.C. 

USDA-FS. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - The 
Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture 
Handbook No. 553. USDA. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. MICRO-IMPLAN 1982. Fort Collins, CO. 

USDI-BLM. 1987. Draft Brothers/LaPine Resource Manage- 
ment Plan, Environmental Impact Statement. BLM. Prinev- 
ille District. Prineville, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1978. Drewsey Management Framework Plan 
(MFP), Burns District, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1 980. Diamond Craters ONA and Protertime With- 
drawal (OR10676)/Environmental Assessment, Burns Dis- 
trict, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1 980. ACEC Plan Element, Burns District, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1980. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
Policy and Procedures Guidelines. 

USDI-BLM. 1 981 . Paleontological Sites On or Near Bureau of 
Land Management Administered Lands in Oregon: A Pre- 
liminary Catalogue. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon 
State Office, Portland, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1982. Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 173, National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines 
for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Area. 

USDI-BLM. 1985. Diamond Craters Recreation Management 
Plan, Burns District. 

USDI-BLM. 1985. Draft Oregon Wilderness Impact Statement, 
Portland, Oregon. 



6-14 



USDI-BLM. 1986. Proposed Revisions to Guidance for Identi- 
fication, Evaluation and Designation of ACECs and Changes 
to BLM Manual Section 1617. 

USDI-BLM. 1987. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines 
for Lands Under Wilderness Review. Update Document H- 
8550-1 . 

USDI-BLM. 1987. Riparian Area Management: A Selected, 
Annotated Bibliography of Riparian Area Management. 
Prepared by the Denver Service Center; Denver, Colorado. 

USDI-BLM. 1987. Supplement to Draft Oregon Wilderness 
Environmental Impact Statement, Portland, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1988. Proposed National Historic Oregon Trail 
Interpretive Center at Flagstaff Hill, Decision Record and 
Environmental Assessment. Baker, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM. 1989. Riparian Area Management: Grazing Man- 
agement in Riparian Areas. Prepared by the Denver Service 
Center; Denver, Colorado. 



USDI-BLM. Recreation Management Information System 
(RMIS), Burns District, Oregon. 

USDI-BLM; USDA-FS. 1988. Administration of the Wild Free- 
Roaming Horse and Burro Act. 7th Reportto Congress. U.S. 
Government Printing Office. 

USDI-BLM. 1989. Management Guidelines and Standards for 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Oregon/Washington. (Sum- 
marization of Joint USDI-DOA guidelines, February 3, 1 970 
and August 26, 1982). 

Vavra, M. and F. Sneva. 1978. Seasonal Diets of Five Ungu- 
lates Grazing the Cold Desert Biome. Prepared for the First 
International Rangelands Congress. 17 pp. 

Wallestad, R. and D.B. Pyrah. 1974. Movements and Nesting 
Requirements of Sage Grouse Hens in Central Montana. J. 
Widl. Manage. 38(4); 630-633. 

Yoakum, J. 1974. Pronghom Habitat Requirements for Sage- 
brush-Grasslands. Antelope States Workshop Proc. 6:16- 
25. 



6-15 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991—591-222/41,604 REGION NO. 10 



4? 



At*?* 



<? 



6-16 



tH 


C: 


• 


10 


> 


<-i 




a 


T-l 


03 


CTi 


U +-> 


Ui 


<D G 


H 


> <D 




•h £ 


m 


a; <d 


r- 


tr> 


UD 


<D rC 



Q 
W 

«5 

W 








W 

o 

E 
t, 



















QH 76.5 .07 T573 1991 v.l 

Proposed Three Rivers 
resource management plan: 
final 



6LM LIBRARY 

RS150ABLDG.50 

DENVER FEDERAL CENTER 

P.O. BOX 25047 

DENVER, CO 80225 



I I 

I i 

s = » 

-i 03 -j 
O 3 SB 

o Sj °- 
-■ a a) 

(B (D 

Ul 

8 2. 

1 I 



■or 

2 CO 
§<= 

z 

m 



CO 

m 

8 

o 



(0 



X 

o 

© — 
- en 

S M 

<" -T- 

O CQ' 

3 3" 



CO 



G3 
C 

rn 
> 
c 

O 

I i- 

g> 

en Z 

|° 

if 

m 

3 
m 



D 
m 

> 

h 

TlC/> 

ms 

H 

m 

3 

O 

J} 





CO 


00 


T3 




m 


3 


"o O 


i 


°> 


(P O 


> "n 


3 r- 


So 

m C 


OB 


Tl X 


So 


3jJ 


OT > 


C)(Q 


13 CO 




> CO 


3 


a X 


3 


> 


5* 


H 




m