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

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

'»■<"■■■"-;■■. ■■■■■■■ "■>■■■■

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

PLAN

LEVEL

WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY (STREAM MILES)

EXCELLENT 0.00

2.90

0.00

GOOD 0.00

114.75

117.65

116.00

37.65

5.15

5.70

FAIR 20.65

3.75

60.70

35.70

111.60

POOR 84.25

6.15

7.80

29.20

72.55

10.25

UNKNOWN 22.65

0.00

14.15

0.00

TOTAL 127.55

127.55

WATER QUALITY (SURFACE ACRES)

EXCELLENT

1351

GOOD 45

3090

4441

1301

876

825

FAIR 4001

3140

3560

411

POOR 445

3255

TOTAL 4491

4491

FOREST MANAGEMENT

TIMBER BASE
ACRES

8605

4868

8263

7722

8700

9291

DECADAL HARVEST
(MMBF)

6.02

3.41

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

FAIR

42853

17553

28362

POOR

TOTAL

79631

XXII

I • ■

Table S2. Comparison

of the Alternatives (continued)

BASELINE

ALT. A

ALT. B

ALT. C

PROPOSED

ALT. D

ALT.E

PROGRAM

LEVEL

PLAN

LEVEL

KIGER

GOOD

12985

22693

15225

FAIR

23831

14123

21591

POOR

TOTAL

36816

RIDDLE MTN.

GOOD

6000

7223

FAIR

22021

20797

POOR

TOTAL

28021

28020

WARM SPRINGS

GOOD

133064

138064

225525

195525

225525

FAIR

199926

195926

137465

POOR

123824

122824

93824

123824

1 23824

93824

TOTAL

456814

PALOMINO BUTTES

GOOD

22068

30068

45368

50368

45368

50368

FAIR

35300

39981

12000

POOR

12681

7681

12681

7681

TOTAL

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

611371

610000

564784

472257

90592

90000

137179

229706

701963

700000

701963

245631

245000

234211

9920

10000

21340

255551

255000

255551

127680

130000

105380

20800

20000

43100

148480

150000

148480

XXIII

^^^^^^H

Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued)

BASELINE

ALT. A

ALT. B

ALT.C

PROPOSED

ALT. D

ALT. E

PROGRAM

LEVEL

PLAN

LEVEL

STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN HABITAT (ACRES)

GOOD

116.7

515.0

118.8

515.0

FAIR

255.8

37.0

234.2

37.0

POOR

207.5

28.0

227.0

28.0

UNKNOWN

102.0

TOTAL

682.0

AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITION (STREAM MILES)

EXCELLENT

0.00

0.60

0.00

GOOD

8.10

73.90

74.50

73.50

14.75

12.90

FAIR

26.40

6.95

7.45

47.90

67.75

POOR

41.70

2.20

2.70

21.00

3.00

UNKNOWN

7.45

0.00

TOTAL

83.65

WETLAND HABITAT (ACRES)

GOOD

956

FAIR

911

395

POOR

390

UNCONTROLLABLE

3140

TOTAL

4491

EXPANSION

200

670

300

490

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

63600

67724

1180114

1184230

1709918

1180114

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

17656

16656

16696

1570994

1556825

1592633

1599764

1584384

124834

143003

113205

100064

115444

14090

10090

4080

10090

1709918

XXIV

Table S2. Comparison of the Alternatives (continued)

BASELINE

ALT. A

ALT. B

ALT. C

PROPOSED

ALT. D

ALT.E

PROGRAM

LEVEL

PLAN

LEVEL

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

DESIGNATIONS (STREAM h

IILES)

WILD

0.0

5.4

0.0

5.4

0.0

SCENIC

0.0

5.4

0.0

TOTAL

0.0

5.4

0.0

DESIGNATIONS (ACRES)

WILD

1730

1804

SCENIC

1730

TOTAL

1730

1804

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACRES)

DIAMOND CRATERS ONA/ACEC 1 6656

17136

17056

16656

SOUTH NARROWS ACEC

160

SILVER CR. RNA/ACEC

640

SILVER CR. EXT. RNA/ACEC

960

1280

FOSTER FLAT RNA/ACEC

1870

720

2690

DRY MTN. EXT. RNA/ACEC

2240

2084

KIGER MUSTANG ACEC

66244

36619

64639

BISCUITROOT ACEC

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

2290

8610

8580

131131

126581

139535

120621

122061

419550

421770

419431

425600

424190

1150657

1152987

1148662

1155087

CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

371

214

572

214

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

1709919

CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS
LINEAR MILES

123

185

123

185

EXCLUSION/ AVOIDANCE AREAS (ACRES)

EXCLUSION AREAS 114710

AVOIDANCE AREAS

TOTAL 114710

20385

17885

20385

79525

64475

95530

99910

84860

113415

20385

XXVI

Chapter 1
Purpose and Need

1-1

Portland

▼ Sale

▼ 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

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

Air Quality

2-3

Water Quality

2-4

Soils

2-15

Forestry and Woodlands

2-21

Grazing Management

2-33

WHB

Wild Horses and Burros

2-43

Vegetation

2-51

SSS

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

ACEC

ACECs

2-137

VRM

Visual Resources

2-148

Cultural Resources

2-152

Energy and Minerals

2-156

Lands and Realty

2-177

Hazardous Materials

2-199

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

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

0.25

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Silvies River

Silvies

0.20

Poor

Static

Poor

Static

Upstream Impacts

Silvies River

1.50

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Silvies Meadow

0.50

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Silvies Canyon

2.25

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Landing Creek

Silvies Meadow

0.25

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

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

East Silvies

0.75

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

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

Landing Creek

3.00

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

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

Hay Creek

2.00

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Logging

Silver Creek

Packsaddle

1.10

Poor

Static

Good

Static

Silt, Large Bedload, Upstream Impacts Forest

Claw Creek

2.00

Poor

Declining

Fair

Declining

Silt, Livestock

0.45

Poor

Improving

Poor

Improving

Temp, Silt, Excluded 1 987

Dry Lake

1.50

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Upper Valley

1.10

Poor

Declining

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Claw Creek

Upper Valley

0.25

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Claw Creek

2.30

Poor

Declining

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Wickiup Creek

Packsaddle

0.25

Poor

Static

Poor

Improving

Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest

1.00

Fair

Improving

Fair

Improving

Temp, Silt, Grazing System Working

Mineral Canyon

Packsaddle

0.60

Poor

Static

Poor

Static

Silt, Temp, Past Logging

Dairy Creek

Claw Creek

1.20

Poor

Declining

Fair

Declining

Silt, Livestock, Upstream Impacts

Sawmill Creek

Upper Valley

0.75

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Rough Creek

Claw Creek

0.25

Poor

Static

Poor

Static

Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987

0.75

Poor

Improving

Poor

Improving

Silt, Temp, Livestock, Excluded in 1987

Nicoll Creek

Dry Lake

0.75

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Silt, Temp, Watershed Impacts from
Logging and Grazing

Skull Creek

Hotchkiss

0.50

Fair

Declining

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Skull Creek

3.50

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Yellow Jacket Cr.

Hay Creek

0.40

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest

Beaver Dam Cr.

Sawtooth (MNF)

0.30

Fair

Improving

Fair

Improving

Silt, Temp, Upstream Impacts from Forest

Emigrant Creek

0.50

Fair

Declining

Good

Declining

Silt, Upstream Impacts from Cattle and
Logging

Hay Creek

1.00

Sawtooth(MNR)

0.20

Spring Creek

0.50

r^> Varien Creek

Varien Canyon

0.40

:£ Alder Creek

Alder Creek

4.80

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

l\5

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

Stream Name

Allotment

Cat.

Miles

Condition

Trend

Condition

Trend

Comments

Bluebucket Creek

Moffet Table

1'.60

Poor

Declining

Fair

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock

1.30

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock, Logging

Coleman Creek

Alder Creek

3.35

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

2.35

Fair

Declining

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Coleman Creek

0.25

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Cottonwood Creek

0.50

Poor

Improving

Poor

Improving

Temp, Silt, Livestock, Excluded

1.35

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Lee Creek

Moffet Table

0.30

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

M.F. Malheur R.

River

0.80

Poor

Improving

Fair

Improving

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

Moffet Table

2.30

Fair

Static

Fair

Declining

Drains Essentially Roadless Area

Paul Creek

Riddle Mountain

0.60

Fair

Improving

Fair

Improving

Temp, Silt, Excluded in 1981

0.30

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Deep Creek

1.30

Poor

Static

Good

Static

High in Drainage, Poor Cattle Access

S.F. Malheur R.

Venator

1.25

Poor

Static

Poor

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural

Stockade

1.35

Poor

Static

Poor

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock, Natural

Rattlesnake Creek

Camp Harney

1.00

Poor

Static

Fair

Improving

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

1.70

Fair

Improving

Fair

Improving

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

Stinkingwater Cr.

Dawson Butte

0.75

Poor

Improving

Fair

Improving

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

0.50

Poor

Declining

Poor

Improving

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

Stinkingwater

1.25

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Mountain

0.50

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

1.00

Fair

Declining

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

0.60

Fair

Declining

Good

Static

Silt, Livestock (Upstream Watershed)

Smyth Creek

2.30

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

1.50

Poor

Declining

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock,
Partial Livestock Exclusion

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

3.00

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Texaco Basin

ivi

1.00

Poor

Declining

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Coyote Creek

Riddle Mountain

2.00

Poor

Improving

Poor

Improving

Temp, Silt, Livestock, Riparian

Riddle Coyote

2.20

Poor

Improving

Pasture 1988

Coffeepot Creek

Camp Harney

0.75

Fair

Static

Fair

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock,
Upstream Impacts from Forest

Newell Creek

Lamb Ranch FFR

3.50

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Little Pine Creek

Pine Creek

3.50

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Warm Springs Creek

Mill Gulch

1.25

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Mule Creek

2.00

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

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

Stream Name

Allotment

Cat.

Miles

Condition

Trend

Condition

Trend

Comments

Crane Creek

Alder Creek

5.25

Fair

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Buzzard Creek

W. Warm Springs

1.50

Poor

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock

0.50

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Flat Creek

Silvies

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

0.25

Poor

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock,

Natural

Poison Creek

0.25

Poor

Static

Temp, Silt, Livestock,

Natural

East Creek

East Cr-Pine Hill

0.75

Poor

Declining

Temp, Silt, Livestock

Dog Creek

Silvies

fvl

0.75

Mill Creek

Camp Harney

fvl

2.50

Cow Creek

0.50

Little Muddy Cr,

Little Muddy Cr.

1.50

Mahon Creek

ivl

1.50

Swamp Creek

Kiger

0.50

Smyth Creek

1.50

Riddle Creek

Unallotted

0.50

Riddle Mountain

1.20

Poor

Static

Good

Static

Rip. pasture 1988

Happy Valley

2.00

Poor

Declining

Fair

Declining

Riddle Coyote

3.30

Fair

Static

Hamilton Ind.

2.50

Dry Lake

0.75

Prather Creek

1.50

Devine

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

<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:

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:

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'. ,

g- \\\ , ■ ■-, — ■■■

^ ) \£

■ "?i - '. - —

/*!>

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.

v_ J. . ;V

LEGEND

Proposed Dry
Mountain RNA/ACEC

////A Proposed Old Growth
////A 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-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

LEGEND

Proposed Malheur River -
Bluebucket Creek Wild River

Proposed Old Growth
Forest Stand

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

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

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.

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

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

14-16 hands

8-10 hands

14-16 hands

750-1 ,000 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

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

N/A

2. Emigrant Creek

230

N/A

3. Craft Point

126

270

N/A

4. Bluebucket Crk

106

N/A

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

R P

2. Emigrant Creek

NSO

O P

3. Craft Point

NSO

O P

4. Bluebucket Crk

NSO

O P

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

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

LE&S

C&S

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

B
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&s

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

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.

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.

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).

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:

- 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:

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-

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

5102

Prather Creek

5103

Lime Kiln/Sec. 30

5104

Soldier Creek

5105

Camp Harney •

5106

Cow Creek

5107

Manning Field

5109

Purdy FFR

5110

Reed FFR

5111

Temple FFR

5112

Smith FFR

5113

Rattlesnake FFR

5201

Coleman Creek

5202

Hunter

5203

Catterson

5204

S locum

5205

Venator

5206

Stockade FFR

5207

Coyote Creek

5208

Emmerson

5209

Crane

5211

Beckley Home

5212

Mahon Ranch

5213

Beaver Creek

5214

Hamilton

5215

Davies

5216

Quier FFR

5217

Thompson FFR

5218

Bennett FFR

5219

Hamilton FFR

5301

Princeton

5302

Big Bird

5303

Dry Lake

5305

Crow's Nest

5306

Rocky Ford

5307

Smyth Creek

5308

Kiger

5309

Happy Valley

5310

Riddle Mountain

5311

Virginia Valley FFR

5313

Burnt Flat

152

5316

Virginia Valley

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

73
17

17
17
17

207

340

146

143

139

123

981

263

462

113

1
1
1

2
1

3
2
3
3

3
3

5
4
5

4
4
5
2
4
6
1
15
8

8
4
15
71
8
2

9
10
3
3
3

5
17
5
3
3
9
2
2

6
3

177

83
20

125

104

170

117

188

371

162

2-83

Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued)

Total Public Land Needs 1

Proposed Allocations of Competitive Forage 2

Allotment

Antelope

Deer

Elk

Antelope

Deer

Elk

Wildlife

Number

Name

(AUMs)

Total

5501

East Cow Creek

5502

Rock Creek

5503

Pine Creek

466

8-1

159

5504

State Field

5505

Little Muddy Creek

490

128

5506

Muddy Creek

210

5507

Wolf Creek

112

5508

Baker-Knowles

5509

Williams' Dripp Spr.

5510

Jones Dripp Spring

5511

Moffet Table

1,120

241

202

172

377

5512

Clark's River

5513

Shelley

5514

Coal Mine Creek

5515

Mule Creek

116

5516

Birch Creek

182

5517

Otis Mountain

101

100

172

5518

Newell Field

5519

Big Upson Field

5520

Little Upson

5521

Rocky Basin

5522

Cottonwood Creek

231

5523

Tub Springs/Hart

5524

Dawson Butte

5525

Mill Gulch

5526

Chalk Hills

301

5527

Riverside FFR

5528

Cooler

5529

House Butte

595

107

113

5530

River

187

5531

Stinkingwater

132

126

5532

Mountain

921

493

166

352

528

5533

Buchanan

5534

Mahon Creek

125

5535

Miller Canyon

280

5536

Alder Creek

132

1,246

274

225

196

434

5537

Buck Mountain

200

139

230

164

209

5538

Riverside

108

5539

W & C Blaylock FFR

5540

Luce Field

5541

Home Ranch Exclosure

5542

Marshall FFR

5543

Devine Flat Field

5544

Brooks Field

115

5545

Sunshine Field

5546

Druitt Field & FFR

5547

Lake Field

5548

Griffin FFR

5549

Howard's FFR

5550

Jordan's FFR

5551

Lillard's FFR

5552

Miller FFR A

5553

Miller FFR B

5554

J.Fran. Miller FFR

5555

Ott FFR

5556

Pine Creek FFR

5557

J &G Kane FFR

5558

J&GFFR

5559

Sword's FFR

2-84

j^^m^BuvoBaBatE;. . -

Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued)

Total Public Land Needs 1

Proposed Allocations of

Competitive Forage 2

Allotment

Antelope

Deer

Elk

Antelope

Deer

Elk

Wildlife

Number

Name

(AUMs)

Total

5560

Vicker's FFR

5561

Wilber FFR

5562

Williams' FFR

5563

Arnold's FFR

5564

Wheeler Basin

5565

Upton Mountain

5566

Texaco Basin

100

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

179

7002

West Warm Springs

380

644

116

154

7003

East Wagontire

477

7004

West Wagontire

420

7005

Glass Butte

7006

Rim rock Lake

139

7007

Hat Butte

153

7008

Sheep Lake - Shields

225

7009

Dry Lake

411

107

7010

Claw Creek

886

134

160

259

7011

Upper Valley

7012

Packsaddle

7013

Zoglmann

7014

Badger Spring

379

129

160

7015

Second Flat

104

249

7016

Juniper Ridge

193

7017

Cluster

7018

Silver Lake

7019

Palomino Butte

280

1,465

264

292

7020

Sand Hollow

182

7021

Weaver Lake

168

374

7022

Dog Mountain

146

7023

West Sagehen

351

103

7024

East Sagehen

582

105

131

7025

Gouldin

243

7026

Horton Mill

7027

Emigrant Creek

7028

Stinger Creek

7029

Spring Creek

7030

Skull Creek

1,962

354

386

7031

Hay Creek

155

7032

Hotchkiss

7033

Silvies River

7034

Scat Field

7035

Silvies Meadows

7036

Hayes

379

7037

Coal Pit Springs

157

7038

Curry Gordon

7039

Cave Gulch

168

7040

Landing Creek

243

7041

East Silvies

246

7042

Dole Smith

7043

Lone Pine

751

135

163

2-85

Table 2.13. Proposed Big Game Allocations (continued)

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

173

Subtotal

2,910

13,067

794

291

2,364

566

3,220

4040

Poison Creek

4096

Hi Desert

4097

Trout Creek

105

4098

East Creek-Pine Hill

4126

Abrahams Draw

4138

White

4143

Silvies

210

Subtotal

392

216

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

East Warm Springs

West Warm Springs

West Warm Springs
Si I vies

BLM
Acres 1

6
5

780

320

Condition Trend

Poor
Poor

Fair
Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Good
Good
Good

Poor
Fair

Upward
Upward

Upward
Downward

Upward

Static

Static
Static
Static

Upward
Static

Allotment
Number

7009
7030

7030
7030

5536

5303

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

7007

Sheep Lake-Shields

130

7008

Sheep Lake-Shields

150

7008

Sheep Lake-Shields

110

7008

Dry Lake

130

7009

Palomino Buttes

100

7019

Weaver Lakes

250

7021

Palomino Buttes

170

7019

East Warm Springs

400

7001

Weaver Lake

300

7021

Rimrock Lake

7006

Burnt Flat

5213

Burnt Flat

450

5313

Burnt Flat

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, seasonlong livestock use, moderate antelope use, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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:

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

28-$-4i

*J S

'■■■

ajv

I [,. SOUTH ..1^ , .'-''^^-^ ; l -' „,j"-

■-'■

'""-'• 'f

" !•'

T= «3

i-'aifH

1 u>ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drewsey

Sand and Gravel

FUP 1 /Community

Yes

T. 20 S., R. 35 E.,
sec. 26, NW1/4SW1/4.

Muller

Stone

Community

T. 20 S., R. 35 E.,
sec. 3, lot 3,
N1/2SE1/4NW1/4.

Drewsey Grange

Sand and Gravel

FUP/Community

Yes

T. 20 S„ R. 33 1/2
E.,sec. 12,
E1/2NE1/4.
T. 20 S., R. 34 E.,
sec. 6, Lots 6, 7.

Kimball Flat

Sand and Gravel

Community

Yes

T. 20 S., R. 35 E.,

sec. 7, E1/2SE1/4;
sec. 8, W1/2SW1/4.

Otis Creek

Sand and Gravel

Community

T. 20 S., R. 36 E.

sec. 7, NE1/4NE1/4.

Pine Creek

Rock

Community

No
and

T. 22 S., R. 35 E.,

sec. 7, S1/2NW1/4,

N1/2SW1/4NE1/4,

SE1/4NE1/4NW1/4

NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4.

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.

Refuge Road

Cinders

FUP/Community

Yes

T. 26 S., R. 31 E.,

sec. 31:,SE1/4SE1/4.

Barton Lake

Cinders

FUP/Community

Yes

T. 29 S., R. 33 E.,
sec. 19, E1/2SE1/4.

Saddle Butte

FUP/Community

Yes

T. 28 S., R. 31 E.,

sec. 7, Lots 2, 3,

SE1/4NW1/4,

NE1/4SW1/4,

NW1/4SE1/4and

SW1/4NE1/4.

Voltage

Gravel

FUP/Community

Yes

T. 27 S., R. 32 E.,

sec. 6, W1/2SE1/4NE1/4.

Standcliff
Creek

Stone

Community

T. 28 S., R. 34 E.,

sec. 12, SE1/4SW1/4.

Anderson
Valley

Cinders

FUP/Community

Yes

T. 28 S., R. 35 E.,

sec. 5, SW1/4NW1/4.

Double O

Stone

Community

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.

5-Mile Dam

Sand and Gravel

FUP/Community

Yes

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

Fort Curry

Sand and Gravel

FUP Yes

Sagehen

Sand and Grave!

Community No

Virginia
Vafley

Cinders

Community No

Whiting

Rock

Commercial/SRHA 2 Yes

Choate

Cinders/

Sand and Gravel

Commercial/SRHA Yes

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:

- 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:

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:

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:

- 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

swsw

S1/2SW, SWSE

120

S1/2NW

19S

331 /2E

SESW

NWNW

19S

34E

E1/2NW

SE1/4

160

S1/2SW

NESE.S1/2SE

120

NENW,S1/2N1/2,NESW,
N1/2SE.SESE

360

NESE

S1/2NE.S1/2

400

SWNW,W1/2SW,E1/2SE

120

19S

35E

SE1/4

160

S1/2N1/2.S1/2

480

S1/2N1/2.S1/2

480

NENE

E1/2E1/2

160

N1/2NE

NE1/4

160

19S

36E

N1/2S1/2,SWSW,SESE

240

NWNW

E1/2SW1/4

20S

30E

NESW,N1/2SE,SESE

160

NESE

SENE

S1/2NW,N1/2SW,SE1/4

320

W1/2SW,S1/2NESW,SESW,
E1/2SE,S1/2NWSE,SWSE

280

W1/2E1/2

160

20S

331 /2E

S1/2SW.SWSE

120

N1/2SW,NWSE,SESE

160

SESE

S1/2N1/2

160

20S

34E

Lots 2, 3, 4,
SENW.SWSW

201.65

Lots 3, 4,
SESW,NESE,S1/2SE

241.56

Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4,
SWSW

203.2

SENW

3"!

Lot 4, E1/2NE

159.8

20S

35E

S1/2S1/2

160

Lot 4, S1/2SW

118.9

E1/2SE

W1/2NE,E1/2NW,NESW,
W1/2SW

280

N1/2NW,SENW,NESW,
S1/2SW

240

NESE

S1/2SW

E1/2SW

160

20S

36E

Lots I-6, S1/2NE,
SENW,NESW,N1/2SE

480.49

SESW

W1/2SW

Lots 1,2, NWNE.NE,
NW

160.51

21S

30E

Lots 5-9

118.93

Lots 5, 6

48.67

Lot 9

25.86

Lots I, 2

78.01

Lots 1 , 3, 4, 9

152.93

NWNE

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)(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

Lots 5-1

180.88

Lot 8

37.05

NENE

40.0

Lots 3-5

109.69

SWSW

Lot 4

31.79

Lots I, 2

63.68

SENW.NESW

Lot 2

40.59

Lots 19,20

70.8

Lots 5, 6, 11, 12,
13, 14,20

286.18

SWSW

40.0

Lot 3, E1/2SW

108.89

Lot 6

64.9

Lot 4, SESW

80.23

SESW, S1/2SE

120

NESW

Lot1

34.44

W1/2SW

S1/2SW

Lot 4

40.63

SESW.E1/2SE

120

NE.E1/2NW

240

Lots 3, 4, S1/2NW

158.68

E1/2SE

N1/2NE,SWNW,NWSW

160

SWSW

Lots 2-4, SWNE.W1/2SE

202.68

Lot 7

44.2

NESE.S1/2SE

120

N1/2NE.W1/2SE

160

NWNW.SWSW

SESE

E1/2NW,SW

240

E1/2

320

SESW

S1/2

320

160

W1/2SE

NWNE

NENW

S1/2N1/2.S1/2

480

160

N1/2NE,SWNE,SENW
NESW.NWSE

240

E1/2SW

Lots 1 -5, 8-1 0,
SWNE,S1/2NW,SE

536.62

SWSW

All

640

Lots I, 2, E1/2NW.NE

3I7

160

N1/2NW,SWNW,NWSW

160

SWNE,N1/2NW,W1/2SE

200

NWSW

SENW.NESW

SWSW

SESE

E1/2E1/2

160

NWNW,S1/2NW,N1/2SW
NWNE

240

NENE

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)(

2-194

Table 2.28. Lands Potentially Suitable for Disposal (continued)

Township Range

Section

Subdivision

Acres

FLPMA

Disposal

Criteria

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

31E

South of
Malheur Lake

32E

North of
Malheur Lake

8
9

10
12
13
14
15
19
20
21
22

24
27
28
30
25
35

Lots 3,4, SESW.NWSE

151

SWSW

SWNE,N1/2NW,SENW,SESE

200

Lot 1, N1/2NE.NENW

155.52

N1/2SE

SWNE,SENW,W1/2SE

160

NWSW

W1/2NE

Lots 2, 3, NWNE

91.02

NWSW

Lot 7

41.67

E1/2NE

160

SESW

E1/2E1/2

160

NENE,SWNW,W1/2SW

160

NE,NENW,N1/2SE,SESE

320

NWNE

Lots 1,2, SWNE.SENW

159.36

SESE

NENE,S1/2NE,SE

280

N1/2, N1/2S1/2

480

SWSW

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

SWNE,S1/2NW,NWSW

160

SWSW

W1/2NW.S1/2

400

N1/2NW,S1/2N1/2,S1/2

560

S1/2SE

E1/2

320

All

640

160

NWNE,SENE,SWNW,SW,

400

N1/2SE.SWSE

E1/2.E1/2W1/2

480

W1/2NE,W1/2,N1/2SE

480

N1/2NW

N1/2N1/2

160

Lots 1,2, E1/2NW

161.2

SESW,NESW,S1/2SE

160

E1/2SE

160

N1/2, SW

480

Lot 4, SESW.S1/2SE

159.65

E1/2.E1/2NW

400

N1/2SE

160

W1/2

320

160

Lots 3, 6

75.4

SWSW

S1/2SE

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

27S
27S
27S
27S

27S
27S

27S

28S

28S
29S

32E

Lot 12

11.5

South of

S1/2SW

Malhaur Lake

SESW

E1/2NE,W1/2NW,SESW,NESE,
S1/2SE

320

NW.SE

320

N1/2.SE

480

33E

Lot 1

36.96

Lots 2, 5

Lot 1 , SWSE

N1/2NE

SE1/4

160

Lots 1-4, SWNE.SENW,
E1/2SW.SWSE

343.16

W1/2E1/2

160

34E

SWSW

SESE

Lots 3, 4, S1/2NE,
SENW,E1/2SW,SWSE

295.65

NENW

NESE

W1/2

320

SWNW,W1/2SW,N1/2SE,SESE

240

Lot 4, S1/2NE.SESW,
N1/2SE

229.49

S1/2NE,SENW,NESE

160

NENE,W1/2NE,NW,N1/2SW

360

SWNE.NENW

NENE, N1/2SW

120

34E

NENE.NESE

NENE.SWNE

24E

SENE

29E

SWSE

30E

Lot 1

39.76

31E

S1/2SW,SWSE

120

E1/2SW.SW

240

N1/2,SW,N1/2SE

560

33E

SWNW.W1/2SW

240

S1/2NE.SE

240

34E

Lots 3-5, SENW

105.56

SESE

S1/2SW

SWNE,SWSW,W1 /2SE.SESE

200

N1/2NW,SENW,E1/2SE,

W1/2SE,

320

SESE

NENE

N1/2NE

N1/2NW,SENW,NESE

160

S1/2SW

N1/2NW

35E

Lots 3, 4, NESW

100.5

N1/2NE

Lots I, 2, 3,

91.83

SENE

SENE.NESE

E1/2

320

SWNW,W1/2SW,SESW

160

N1/2NE

SESW.SWSE

24E

E1/2SE

SWSW

N1/2NE.SWNE.SENW,
N1/2SW.SWSW

280

36E

N1/2NE.NESE

120

32E

SWNE

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

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

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

leasing

Continue

Terminate

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:

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:

Develop stand management guides which address the
following:

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

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

22.65

77.10

32.60

2.30

0.00

17.85

29.20

60.70

37.65

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

55.00

3,605.00

831.00

0.00

50.00

3,140.00

1,301.00

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

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

3,140.00

Good

Improving
Declining
Static

0.00
0.00
0.00

22.70

0.00

14.95

0.00

45.00

0.00

1,301.00

Excellent
Static

0.00

Unknown

22.65

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

-150,472

-150,472
-2,622

-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

0.73

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).

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

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

3. 1

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)

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

3,090.00

Good

Improving
Declining
Static

0.00
0.50
7.60

19.10

0.00

54.40

0.00

100.00

0.00

898.00

Excellent
Static

0.00

18.00

Unknown

7.45

0.00

Total

83.65

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

0.19%

0.55%

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

280

1,040

160

6,500*

10,090

2,040

250

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

0-9.9 Percent Reduction

1 0-24.9 Percent Reduction

25-49.9 Percent Reduction

50-100 Percent Reduction

0-100 Percent Increases

Total Number of Operations

'Less than 300 head permitted.
'Greater than 300 head permitted.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

. i

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

At*?*

6-16

•

<-i

T-l

CTi

U +->

<D G

> <D

•h £

a; <d

tr>

<D rC

Q
W

«5

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

8 2.

1 I

■or

2 CO
§<=

S M

<" -T-

O CQ'

3 3"

G3
C

rn
>
c

I i-

en Z

|°

3
m

D
m

TlC/>

"o O

°>

(P O

> "n

3 r-

m C

Tl X

3jJ

OT >

C)(Q

13 CO

> CO

a X